Ballyhoo and baloney
Category: News and Politics

Currently listening : Take Me to the Sea By Jaguar Love Release date: 2008-08-19

2:17 AM - 0 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

Increasing misery?
Category: News and Politics

The theory of World Socialist Movement is Marxist in the sense that certain of our key ideas about society, economics and politics are derived from Karl Marx. Although our case rests entirely on its own merits and not on what Marx may or may not have said, we have always been ready to defend Marx's views where we believe them to be correct against criticisms based on an ignorance of what he wrote.

It is common, for instance, to read that "Marx has been proved wrong on fundamentals; the workers far from being denied a fair share of profits and so becoming poorer, are vastly better off". Is this true? Was it fundamental to Marx's economic theory that under capitalism the workers would come to own less and less material possessions?

The short answer is, No. Marx did not believe that the amount of goods and services the workers consumed would necessarily have to decline. What he did say was that the misery of the workers would increase, but he did not equate this misery with destitution. For him, as we shall see, misery referred to the general circumstances under which workers, however well-paid, had to live and work.

Poverty can be used in two senses: absolutely, to refer to a low standard of living in terms of a given small amount of goods and services, or relatively, to refer to a low standard of living compared with that of others. There can be no doubt as to where Marx stood on this issue. In one of his earliest economic writings Wage Labour and Capital (first given as a series of lectures in 1847, and revised and republished by Engels in 1891) Marx wrote:

A house may be large or small; as long as the surrounding houses are equally small it satisfies all demands for a dwelling. But let a palace arise beside the little house, and it shrinks from a little house to a hut. The little house shows now that its owner has only very slight or no demands to make; and however high it may shoot up in the course of civilization, if the neighboring palace grows an equal or even greater extent, the occupant of the relatively small house will feel more and more uncomfortable, dissatisfied and cramped within its four walls. A noticeable increase in wages presupposes a rapid growth of productive capital. The rapid growth of productive capital brings about an equally rapid growth of wealth, luxury, social wants, social enjoyments. Thus, although the enjoyments of the worker have risen, the social satisfaction that they give has fallen in comparison with the increased enjoyments of the capitalist, which are inaccessible to the worker, in comparison with the state of development of society in general. Our desires and pleasures spring from society; we measure them, therefore, by society and not by the objects which serve for their satisfaction. Because they are of a social nature, they are of a relative nature. (Marx-Engels Selected Works, Vol. 1, pp.93-94, Moscow, 1958)

Marx understood subsistence, too, in a relative sense.

According to his theory, wages fluctuate about the subsistence level of the worker. Certain critics (and even supporters) have taken this to mean that there was a fixed amount of goods and services above which real wages could never rise. This so-called Iron Law of Wages was repudiated by Marx. He regarded the subsistence level as something which varied not only amongst workers of different skills but also from place to place, in the same place at different times and even, to a small extent, under the influence of the workers' own trade union activities.
To suggest that Marx expected wages to fall towards, and even below, some absolute poverty line is to misunderstand him completely.
Marx also writes in Wage Labour and Capital that, even though the most favorable situation for the working class under capitalism is the fastest possible growth of capital, "however much it may improve the material existence of the worker, does not remove the antagonism between his interests and … the interests of the capitalists" (p.98). Marx returned to this theme in Chapter XXV of Capital which considers "the 'influence of the growth of capital on the lot of the laboring class".

Marx's comments on the occasions when the wages of some workers have risen as a result of a temporary labour shortage again make it quite clear that high wages do not end the economic exploitation of the working class.

The more or less favorable circumstances in which the wage-working class supports and multiplies itself, in no way alters the fundamental character of capitalist production (p.613). A rise in the price of labour, as a consequence of accumulation of capital, only means, in fact, that the length and weight of the golden chain the wage-worker has already forged for himself, allow of a relaxation of the tension of it (p.618, Moscow, 1961).

Later in the same chapter just before the passage about the "accumulation of misery", Marx explicitly states that high wages do not affect the misery of workers either:

In proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the laborer, be his payment high or low, must grow worse. (p.645)

Clearly by misery Marx cannot have meant absolute poverty. For, as this passage shows, workers may be better off materially but still worse off in some other sense. This referred to the conditions under which they had to work. Marx mentions the boring drudgery workers had to perform under capitalism in place of the pleasure they could get in a Socialist society from creating useful things. He also mentions the fact that workers are employed by capitalists and deprived by them of the fruits of their labour. As he put it in 1875 in a criticism of the Iron Law of Wages:

The wage-worker has permission to work for his own subsistence, that is, to live, only insofar as he workers for a certain time gratis for the capitalist (and hence also for the latter's co-consumers of surplus value); that the whole capitalist system of production turns on the increase of this gratis labour by extending the working day or by developing the productivity, that is, increasing the intensity of labour power, etc.; that, consequently, the system of wage labour is a system of slavery, and indeed of a slavery which becomes more severe in proportion as the social productive forces of labour develop, whether the worker receives better or worse payment. ("Critique of the Gotha Program", Selected Works, Vol. II, p.29)

Currently listening : Self-Titled LP By Karp Release date: 1997-05-27

9:56 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Production for Profit
Category: News and Politics

From our website:

The motive for production under capitalism is making a profit. In order for goods to be manufactured or services to be provided, they must result in a reasonable amount of profit, otherwise they won't be produced. Even 'loss leaders' serve the goal of profit, by enticing customers into a shop.

In contrast, socialism will be based on production for use. The whole issue of profit will be meaningless in a socialist society, with no money or buying and selling. Items will be made because they are useful, because they satisfy people's needs for food, housing, transport, clothes, leisure interests, or whatever.

Now, some supporters of capitalism will argue that production for profit implies production for use. No company, for instance, will make a profit by producing goods that nobody will want to use. There is therefore, so the argument goes, a requirement for capitalist concerns to produce useful things. Many objects that were once found in people's homes (mangles, for instance) are not produced nowadays, because technological progress has meant they are no longer wanted.

There is a tiny bit of truth in this, in that people won't on the whole buy what they don't want or need. But there is far more to be said on this matter, and looking at it more closely reveals what's wrong with production for profit, and indeed with capitalism more generally.

For a start, the other side of the coin of production for profit is 'no profit, no production'. This applies not just to outdated fashions and technology, but to any good or service, no matter how badly it is needed. Take housing, for instance. In the current credit crunch, the number of new houses being built has been drastically reduced, even though there is clearly a need for more houses, given the increasing population and the amount of people homeless or living in sub-standard accommodation. But building houses is now not so profitable as it was a year or so ago, hence the cut in housebuilders' profits and decline in new housing starts. Hence too the many blocks of flats that are half-built but will not be finished because there is no prospect of selling them at a profit.

And of course it's not just housing. Whenever you hear of post offices being shut or rural bus services being axed, it's because they don't pay, not because nobody wants or needs them. About four pubs a day close; not enough people are spending money in them, but it's not that they fail to meet some need or are of no use.

We referred above to the homeless or people in bad housing. These are likely to be the very poorest, who are unable to afford a mortgage or the rent for a decent home. But under capitalism they are not part of the possible market for new houses, owing to their destitution. What they lack is not the need for a good place to live but effective demand: they can't pay so are of no interest to housebuilders. What capitalism fulfils, then, is not human need, but need that can be paid for. There is no point from a business perspective in producing goods if people, whatever their needs, cannot pay for them.

Effective demand further affects the quality of what is produced. It's no good producing only the best whatever if they are unaffordable. The size of workers' wages means there is a demand for cheap goods, though it can hardly be said that there is a need for shoddy and dangerous commodities. The current economic downturn has led to more people shopping in cheaper supermarkets, but hardly out of choice. Again, production for profit is in no way identical — or even similar — to production for use.

The same logic underlies the paradox of millions starving in a world where enough food can be produced to feed everyone. The starving in Africa and Asia barely form a market and cannot be sold to at a profit. This simple point by itself should be enough to condemn the domination of the profit motive.

And is it really the case that people only buy what they want? This view ignores the impact of advertising, which can lead people to purchase stuff to keep up with the Joneses or make their children happy or enable their teenagers to respond to peer pressure. Capitalism has to advertise its wares, both to encourage customers to buy new products and to keep them buying existing ones. In so doing, it necessarily promotes new 'needs' that are really no such thing.

Moreover, the imperative for companies to make a profit implies that they seek to lower costs, including the cost of labour power, the mental and physical energies of their workers. That's what wages are: the price of our ability to work. Profits are realised when commodities are sold, but they are arise in the course of production. Workers produce more in the value of what they output than in what they are paid. Profits, or surplus value, come from this difference.

By driving down wages, or making workers labour for longer hours on the same pay, employers can increase their profits. The drive for profit also leads them to reduce spending on health and safety, as this cuts into profits. Whenever you hear about unsafe working practices, it's a good bet that it's due not to individual carelessness but to the need for profit.

It's worth noting that, when we say socialism will be based on production for use, this does not mean that everybody will live in the lap of luxury. It does mean that there will be no squalid housing or a choice between eating and heating or children who go to bed hungry. They key criterion in production will be not 'is it profitable?' but 'is it needed?'. And the process of production will be safe as it can be, and the goods produced will also be safe rather than harmful. Due care will be taken of the impact on the environment too. Production for profit will have been confined to a barely-understandable and barbaric past.

Currently listening : Greatest Hits By Shocking Blue Release date: 2004-11-01

6:28 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Why Economic Crisis?
Category: News and Politics

The WSP has produced two leaflets (in pdf format) meant to aid working people to understand the causes of the current economic crisis:

"Booms and slumps - what causes them?" - Discusses in plain terms the causes of economic cycles and why "Ultimately, it is the economy that controls politicians and not the other way around."

"Bubble Troubles" - Deals specifically with the housing market collapse.

Please feel free to forward, e-mail, repost and/or print them widely.

Currently listening : Sonic Nurse By Sonic Youth Release date: 2004-06-08

6:24 AM - 2 Comments - 4 Kudos - Add Comment

Marxism and needs

Is the "world of abundance" traditionally advocated by socialists feasible? Not according to Claude Bitot, known as the author of a book on the future of the movement for communism (see Socialist Standard, December 1995), in his recent book Quel autre monde possible?  ("What other world is possible"?). Echoing the ideas of some Greens but denying any affinity with them as "bobos" (trendies), Bitot argues that the only viable form of communism (or socialism) today is the austere pre-industrial communism advocated by Babeuf and his followers during the French Revolution and first part of the 19th century.

His criticism of Marx – that he accepted the development of capitalism as a necessary step towards socialism –  can be traced back to the influence of a "productivist" or technological determinist reading of Marx, based on The Poverty of Philosophy and the Communist Manifesto, which the great man was considerably qualifying by the time he got round to writing the Grundrisse. According to this simplified version of Marxism – faithfully trotted out by Bitot – it is the development of the forces of production that drives history. Capitalism in the form of merchant capital develops in the pores of feudalism, notably in the towns. Over time the forces of production develop to the point where feudal relations become fetters on the possibilities of further development. Feudalism therefore disappears with the rise of the revolutionary bourgeoisie whose task it is to abolish lordly privilege so as to permit the further development of the forces of production. Eventually the enormous development of the forces of production – notably industrialisation and mass production – would enter into contradiction with the limitations placed on the restricted consumption capacity of the proletarians. The latter in their turn become the new revolutionary class capable whose "historic task" is to overthrow the capitalist class and unleash of the forces of production to meet a greatly expanded range of human needs.

To further add to the confusion, the building of what was falsely called 'communism' in Russia by the Soviet authorities popularized the idea that a long transition period – misleadingly called 'socialism' –  was required in order to bring about the communist utopia. During the transition period working class consumption would be sidelined to allow the breakneck development of the forces of production, (tractor factories, dams, electrical power plants and the like). And there was of course doctrinal justification for such a position given that Marx was absolutely clear that in underdeveloped countries like early twentieth century Russia 'communism' was not in any way feasible. Although Marx never separated the 'socialist' stage from the 'communist' one, the early enthusiasm for the Soviet experiment led to the transitional stage idea sticking. Indeed, many left-leaning thinkers became obsessed with technological development as such, with Bordiga – as Bitot conveniently points out – in the uncomfortable position of trashing the need for further technical advance in capitalist Italy whilst recommending the rapid development of the forces of production in Soviet Russia. This has created a good deal of confusion about what progress towards socialism really means.

Bitot's objection to capitalist development seems in many ways to be an attempt to overcome the legacy of these confusions in the light of what he rightly considers to be a looming ecological crisis. But he adds a few more confusions of his own. To begin with he goes back to the very origins of communism as a political movement: the agrarian communism of Buonarroti and Babeuf and he contrasts this with what he sees as the consumerist interpretations of socialism popularized during the twentieth century. As we know these pioneering communists were imprisoned and – in Babeuf's case executed – in the years following the French revolution. Bitot sees in these interpretations an anticipation of the errors which socialists would make in the second half of the twentieth century.

Incorrectly believing that the emergence of agricultural capitalism could be largely explained by the immoderate expansion of needs and taste for luxury, the agrarian communists turned their backs on the unconstrained development of industry and championed a system based on fair but austere shares for all. In this communist utopia technological development in the shape of machinery would take place simply as a need to lighten manual labour, production being oriented toward the meeting of a fixed standard of living.

The development of English commerce depended, Bitot tells us, on the sharpening of acquisitive appetites and the introduction of machinery to meet an ever-expanding sphere of consumption: the upward spiral of capitalist production. This simplified depiction of capitalist development has the advantage of wrong-footing Marx who notoriously celebrated the technical achievements of the English industrial revolution in the Communist Manifesto and castigated the narrow material basis of the agrarian communists in France (he called them "crude communists"). Indeed, since Marx was prepared to admit that industrial capitalism provided the material preconditions for communism, he had in effect became a de facto fellow-traveller in the capitalist party, albeit a pretty unruly one. The solution, according to Bitot was to have nipped the capitalist weed in the bud by a bit of revolutionary action and Bitot appreciates the fact that French agrarian communism was an extension of the revolutionary political approach adopted earlier by Robespierre, the advocate of revolutionary terror. If only, one thinks, the English had read these thinkers rather than that scoundrel Adam Smith then they would have abandoned their silly economic ideas and got us to socialism a lot earlier.

Bitot's French communists may have been poor but they were neither wage-labourers nor serfs. Subsistence with only limited participation in the monetary economy still remained a possibility and the village could still operate as a community. In this sense, the emergence of capitalism could all too easily be identified with the inability of individuals to control their own desires once faced with the temptations of the marketplace. But however admirable their thinking was on any number of issues – and they were interesting thinkers - they were nonetheless not faced with the peculiar economic system which we now call capitalism. Furthermore, even if agrarian communist communities could have resisted the advent of a world market in agricultural products it is more than likely that an ever-more powerful capitalist class would have found a way to break them up as they have always done and continue to do today.  

The problem with Bitot's interpretation of the communist tradition is that it facilitates the treatment of technological development as a force which develops in a social vacuum justified by a largely ahistorical appreciation of the development of needs. In fact, the aim of the mature Marx was always to demonstrate that the 'immutable laws' of political economy were in fact nothing more than the expression of highly specific social and historical relations. The hothouse development of technology under capitalism, for example, was simply a vector of its unremitting search for new markets and its insatiable appetite for profits. As Bitot himself concedes, Marx shows how the needs of the wage labourer under capitalism contain a historical and relative element beyond the purely physiological necessities which also have to be satisfied: in other words my wages now allow me to obtain some commodities which used to be considered as luxuries but I can still be 'poor' in the (Marxist) sense that I still have to sell my labour-power to another. Dependence on the capitalist is neither based on being starved nor reduced by the possession of a few luxuries; it resides in the fact that my access to the means of subsistence has become indirect in that it is mediated by the possession of money.

Thus, although Bitot seems to have discovered a convenient jumping off point for the criticism of capitalism, his ideas provide few clues about how to find a way out. In the terms of this critique socialists who continue to believe in the possibility of open access to the means of consumption under socialism can be too easily accused of wanting to continue the consumerist game and Bitot doesn't hesitate to tar the SPGB. with this brush. On the other hand, Bitot seems to accept that a fairly austere socialism is possible following the abolition of commodity production. But with the wants created by consumer society unconnected to the overall functioning of production, he is left with the difficulty of defining 'moderate needs' and showing how they would emerge within a society where commodity production no longer existed. After all, even if we can all agree that socialism will place more emphasis on meeting essential needs over the satisfaction of the trivial desires excited by capitalism, one still has the difficulty of defining these 'essential needs' no matter how austere one believes that socialism should be. But the problem of 'austere' or 'abundant' socialism is perhaps in the final analysis something of a quibble over words. As anyone who has argued the socialist case on a street corner will know, the 'abundance' referred to by socialists has never referred to the open-ended consumerism encouraged by the advertisers but has rather as its target a stable and more satisfying way of life in which the scramble to get things is no longer central. With material survival removed from the casino of the marketplace by the abolition of commodity production we can expect that individuals will calm down their acquisitive desires and pursue more satisfying activities.

Fortunately even though he rehearses the usual arguments against socialism brought up by conservatives, Bitot seems reluctant to abandon the revolutionary idea altogether. He remains committed to the abolition of commodity production and has adopted the notion that production under socialism needs to be co-ordinated and de-centralized. (The SPGB can tell him how to do this without the price system). On the down side, he has now taken up the Third World population problem as a factor which he claims has been totally neglected by socialists. Regardless of the charge of inconsistency he then argues that further industrial development in these countries is necessary presumably on the grounds that the Third World exists on another planet.  But capitalism is now more than ever a global system – witness the avalanche of books on the ills of globalization. The green beans in our plates come from Kenya, the knives and forks from China and the shirts on our backs from India. Subsidized crops from the advanced countries are killing peasant production in Africa. But the Third World industrial proletariat now outstrips that of the so-called First World. Bitot's argument here is clearly self-defeating: If there is already a major population problem, then socialism as a world system is not only impossible but it is getting more impossible with every day which passes. So why write a book on the subject?  Whilst there is clearly a need to deal with this problem lucidly, Bitot seems to have accepted the Malthusian legend at face value. But he gives only one statistic to prove the case about agricultural production in the Third World whilst First World production is subject to a statistical over-kill. Even Malthus, whose jeremiads have so far proved disastrously wrong, provided more substance to his arguments.

One is left with a curious diatribe against the word 'abundance' coupled to an off-centre accusation that socialists advocate a world of passive consumerism and idleness; a picture of the Third World as a boundless reservoir of illegal immigrants associated with the conviction that the abolition of commodity production is nonetheless possible.

Currently watching : Over the Edge Release date: 2005-09-20

7:24 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

We are all socialists now
Category: News and Politics

Currently listening : Quadrophenia By The Who Release date: 2001-04-17

9:49 PM - 0 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

Bail Out!
Category: News and Politics

[pdf leaflet]

So Wall Street has their cake and gets to eat it too. No surprise. And the politicians of all stripes wring their hands and make grandiloquent sound-bites of how they should be listened to.

It's just so much noise. Both Democrats and Republicans are shocked. SHOCKED! So much for the reputation of Ivy League education being excellent. Most of us could have seen it coming.

Most pathetic are the various leftist groups coming up with more and more ludicrous slogans and demands. They call themselves "socialist" but advocate for the government to administer capitalism, an option which can only fail.

We'll make no such pretense. The WSP can only speak some truths and watch as the chips fall. Or more accurately, watch as the chips are raked in.

The bail out of the US investment banking industry illustrates one of the major lies which justifies the whole of capitalism. The capitalists - stock and bond holders - deserve their money because they "take risks". What risks do they take when the government comes to their rescue? How does the "risk" of massive stock incentives and tens of millions of dollars of CEO severance packages compare to workers' losing their pensions and their homes?

Capitalists take no risk. Workers do. Workers create the wealth of society through real work. Capitalists amass wealth through legal con games. For their failings, the capitalists will receive $4750 in public wealth from each worker in the US. The money working people invested in their foreclosed houses also go to the same capitalists. As do the homes.

Capitalism is a racket, a confidence game. That's why we are socialists. Once you see how the game is rigged it's pretty simple to make new choices. As more people accept socialism, it becomes possible to create new movements to stop the capitalist game once and for all. Check it out.

Currently reading : Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. 3 (Penguin Classics) By Karl Marx

9:12 PM - 9 Comments - 18 Kudos - Add Comment

Conventional Logic
Category: News and Politics

A demagogue, H.L. Mencken once said, is someone "who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." This is a pretty good description of the US presidential candidates in action at their late-summer conventions. Although, to be fair to those who listened to the convention speeches, it was more a case of preaching idiotic ideas to people who wished those ideas were true.

The contrast between the gassy rhetoric of the politicians and the weighty problems facing workers was particularly striking at this year's conventions, highlighted further by the juxtaposition between jubilant delegates inside the convention hall and the pepper-sprayed protestors outside.

The candidates from both parties employed the same basic template for demagoguery in writing their convention speeches. We encounter the same sorts of rhetorical techniques and the logic of "pubic relations" shapes every line. The candidates are less interested in conveying ideas than manipulating them to fashion images to sell the product – in this case, the candidates themselves.

Family lies

The first chapter of Convention Speeches for Dummies, if such a book were ever to be written, would probably be entitled: "Making the Most of the Family." Each candidate, without exception, began with extravagant praise for the family – the candidate's own family, that is. The candidates informed the American people that they too have spouses who are loving and loyal, children and grandchildren they are proud of, and hardworking parents as wise as they are kind. (Perhaps this convinced the skeptics who thought that the candidates had been hatched in a secret laboratory in North Dakota.)

Behind my plastic exterior, each candidate seemed to be saying, is a real live human being, just like you. Just like us, but even better. Thanks to the "quintessentially American" values of hard work, perseverance and personal integrity that the candidates acquired as children from their saintly mothers.

In his speech, Joe Biden described his 90-year-old mother as a person "defined by her sense of honor" who "believes bravery lives in every heart" and that "it will be summoned." She taught little Joey the "dignity of work" and that "anyone can make it if they try" and emphasized that it is important to "live our faith and treasure our family." Biden said that his "mother's creed is the American creed: No one is better than you; you are everyone's equal; and everyone is equal to you." (And US Senators are more equal than most.)

McCain mentioned his mother too, saying: "I wouldn't be here tonight but for the strength of her character." Thankfully he was not as long-winded as Biden – perhaps to secure adequate time for another thrilling episode of "John McCain: War Hero" – but he did mention that his mother taught him some patriotic claptrap about how "we're all meant to use our opportunities to make ourselves useful to our country."

Obama praised his mother "who raised my sister and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree; who once turned to food stamps but was still able to send us to the best schools in the country with the help of student loans and scholarships." For good measure, Obama threw in his grandmother too, "who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle-management" and taught him "about hard work."

The mother featured in Palin's speech was Palin herself, who "was just your average hockey mom" whose political career began when she "signed up for the PTA" because she "wanted to make my kids' public education better." Palin had a small-town upbringing that encouraged "honesty, sincerity and dignity" and she thanked her parents for teaching her that, "this is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity."

It wasn't just the parents who were mobilized for the cause: children and grandchildren served as useful props too. Palin's 4-month old son, who suffers from Down Syndrome, was brought to the raucous event and passed around on stage for the photo op. Obama made use of his two daughters, who told daddy how much they love him. And Biden said that when he looked at his grandchildren, and at Obama's daughters, he realized: "I'm here for their future." Many watching this strange spectacle must hope that the candidates' love for those little ones will be enough to keep their powerful fingers away from "the button."

But, lest we feel too safe, in the next breath these politicians are talking about their sons who are headed off to war, such as Beau Biden or Jimmy McCain. Palin also got some good mileage out of her son Track, who not only is headed to Iraq but will conveniently ship out on September 11 "in the service of his country" (by securing the Starbucks in the Green Zone).

It is rather sickening to see how willing the candidates are to squeeze out whatever political advantage can be had from their children. Even the pregnancy of Palin's teenage daughter –and shotgun wedding – is good election fodder, appealing to those families who have experienced that common side-effect of "abstinence education."

We feel your pain

Once the family motif had been fully exploited, right down to the last grandchild, the candidates shared some snapshots of "less fortunate" families and individuals in the US. Luckily for them, there are literally millions of hard-luck stories to choose from!

Obama, for instance, spoke of "a woman in Ohio, on the brink of retirement [who] finds herself one illness away from disaster after a lifetime of hard work" and "a man in Indiana has to pack up the equipment he's worked on for twenty years and watch it shipped off to China, and then chokes up as he explains how he felt like a failure when he went home to tell his family the news."

Notice how careful Obama was to choose examples from crucial "swing states" (and also throw in China as a convenient scapegoat). One can easily imagine political advisors sifting through such evidence of capitalist misery to get to the political gold, weighing each situation carefully.

Biden said in his speech that he looks out at people's homes during his evening train ride home from work and "can almost hear what they're talking about at the kitchen table after they put the kids to bed," imagining the following sorts of conversations:

"Winter's coming. How we gonna pay the heating bills? Another year and no raise? Did you hear the company may be cutting our health care? Now, we owe more on the house than it's worth. How are we going to send the kids to college? How are we gonna be able to retire?"

Biden's little story (punctuated with his "gonna's") is meant to highlight his compassion and solidarity for working folk – and he is so proud that he rides a train that he had Obama mention it too! – but the image of a powerful US Senator breezing through town, as he daydreams about stick-figure citizens in between sips of coffee, only underscores the distance separating him from those kitchen-table conversations.

McCain tried his hand at this compassion stuff too, recognizing that "these are tough times for many of you." Unfortunately there was no train window separating him from a heckler (and Iraq War veteran) who proceeded to berate the candidate for his poor record on veteran's rights. After the ungrateful citizen had been dragged out of the hall, and the chants of "U.S.A! U.S.A.!" to drown out his heckling had subsided, McCain continued reading from his teleprompter: "You're worried about keeping your job or finding a new one," the monotone voice intoned, "and you're struggling to put food on the table and stay in your home." And later, McCain threw in a few swing-state stories of his own, such as "Bill and Sue Nebe from Farmington Hills, Michigan, who lost their real estate investments in the bad housing market" so that now Bill has a temporary job and "Sue works three jobs to help pay the bills."

In recounting these stories, the candidates showed no hint that their own political parties bear any responsibility, nor did they recognize any connection between such problems and our current social system. The whole point was just to show off their own compassion, which Bush Sr. tried to do on campaign trail back in 1992 when he succinctly said, "Message: I care."

Policy promises

Only around the middle of their speeches did the candidates finally begin to sketch some of the policies they plan to implement if elected. But these promises are so vague as to almost defy analysis.

For the few ideas that they did discuss in any detail – regarding taxation, education and foreign policy – the similarities between the candidates far outweighed the differences. Both McCain and Obama pledged to lower taxes for the "middle class," improve education, and somehow win the war in Afghanistan (while keeping Iran and Russian in their place).

Obama kicked off his list of policy solutions with the vow to reform the tax code so as to "cut taxes for 95% of all working families." Even setting aside the question of whether sweeping tax cuts will be possible, while waging two wars in the midst of deep recession, it is telling that Obama and the Democrats focused so much of their attention on the issue of taxation, which is not a working-class issue to begin with (as taxes ultimately come out of the surplus-value created in production). Moreover, Obama is quietly stepping back from an earlier promise to rescind Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy in recent months.

After listing many of the grave problems facing the country earlier in his speech – and harping on the need for "change" throughout his campaign – ultimately the best that Obama can come up with is to steal a page from the Republican playbook and call for tax cuts as an economic cure-all. This is change that John McCain can believe in, who also promised to cut taxes in his speech.

And the two candidates are on the same page for other issues as well. Both call for something called "energy independence" and made the usual pledge to root out corruption and eliminate corporate loopholes as a means of securing the necessary government funds.

Both also promised to improve education, although there was a difference between Obama's promise to "recruit an army of new teachers and pay them higher salaries" and McCain's vow to "shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition [and] empower parents with choice." Still, Obama is reluctant to veer off too sharply from the current administration and in his speech he threw in a line about calling for "higher standards and more accountability," which indicated his agreement with aspects of Bush's "No Child Left Behind" policy.

Perhaps the biggest policy difference concerned health care. McCain ignored the issue, except to say that he opposes "government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor," while Obama emphasized the need for improvements. Yet Obama only calls for an expansion of access to medical insurance, not a reform that would drive out the private insurance companies.

The candidates seemed a little bored by such domestic issues, but warmed up when it came to demonstrating that they are reckless and bloodthirsty enough to be "Commander-in-Chief." Both promised, repeatedly, to keep America and its people safe. Neither expressed any hesitation in sending troops to war and pledged to strengthen the armed forces. Both vowed to continue the fight against Al-Qaeda and issued threats to Iran and Russia. It seems that Obama's days as the "anti-war candidate" are long gone.

This discussion of policy, which should have made the distinction between the two candidates clear, only underscored their similarities, while again revealing the enormous gap between the severity of the problems faced – whether economic, diplomatic or environmental – and the meager "solutions" that both parties are offering.

Orchestrated response

No sooner had the candidate uttered the obligatory "God bless America" to end the convention speech than TV commentators were breathlessly informing viewers that it was a "homerun" that electrified the crowd and will energize the base of the party. It was as if the pundits were frightened that, if given a split-second for reflection, viewers might reach the alternative conclusion that the speech was rather pointless and insipid.

Both parties made every effort to generate the most favorable reaction to their candidate's speech. Even before it was delivered, there were newspaper articles revealing what the speech would discuss, with titles like: "Obama to Get Specific" or "McCain to Strike a Bipartisan Note." At first glance this custom of disclosing the content of the speech in advance seems rather bizarre, as it makes the speeches even less interesting to watch, but it gives the TV commentators an idea of how they should frame the discussion.

The entire process surrounding the convention speeches is hermetically sealed from the public and from reality itself. If the candidates manage to "hit one out of the park," as the cliché goes, it is only because US politics is a game played on a narrow field of little-league proportions.

Currently reading : Doom of Kings, The: Legacy of Dhakaan, Book 1 (Legacy of Dhakaan) By Don Bassingthwaite Release date: 2008-08-05

12:58 AM - 1 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

The Toronto Propane Explosion
Category: News and Politics

Capitalism has a nasty habit of suddenly laying a ton of grief on unsuspecting members of the working class. A typical example is when the employees of Consumers Glass in Etobicoke, Ontario, were recently told the plant was going to be shut down just two weeks after they had negotiated a union contract. But the explosion at the Sunrise Propane yard in Toronto on August 10 takes some beating. This happened at 4 am in a heavily populated residential area. 12 000 people living in a 1.6 kilometre radius were evacuated, many clad only in night clothes. A 25-year veteran of the Toronto Fire Department died fighting the blaze, and a Sunrise employee was missing presumed dead. He was reportedly last seen heading towards the fire. Considering the blast shattered windows over a wide area and flying debris damaged buildings hundreds of metres away, it was surprising casualties were not greater. Thousands forced to flee from their homes are demanding answers from the Toronto City Council as to why Sunrise Propane Industrial Gases was allowed to build a distribution plant in a long established residential area three years ago. Although the casualties were light, the residents wonder why they were not consulted when plans to move the company into this working class neighbourhood were made. "We weren't even advised they were going to be there. They just moved in." (resident's response, Toronto Star, 11 August).

The area councilor, Maria Augimeri, had to cut short her holiday in Italy to return and face the anger. Augimeri organized a meeting at the same time as the local ratepayers association had theirs. When asked why she didn't simply attend the ratepayers' meeting she told the reporter to 'shut up'.

The technical Standards and Safety Authority which is charged with monitoring the handling, transport, storage, and use of fuel products and Transport Canada that oversees the shipment of fuel were unable to provide details of their standards and regulations, including how close to residential neighbourhoods propane should be stored. This is in part the legacy of the government of neocon Mike Harris who dismantled government agencies charged with safety in industry in a massive privatization move designed to save his government money that was mostly returned to the wealthier Ontarians via tax cuts. The tainted water scandal at Walkerton was one disastrous result. This appears to be another, although the Liberals, now in their second term, have done little to correct the situation. The Propane Association of Canada did issue a statement that "incidents like this are extremely rare." The fact is, one is too many.

Acting mayor, Shelley Carroll, said the proper mechanisms were in place to ensure the explosions were sent north-south rather than east-west towards the residents. Famous last words! According to Michael Birk, head of mechanical and materials engineering at Queen's University, "Propane technology is very safe and industry standards are updated." Neither of these comments mean anything to those who have had their homes damaged or suffered personal injury. The plain fact is that it's far too dangerous to have a propane yard near any homes, let alone in the middle of a densely populated area.

Propane, the main constituent of liquid petroleum gas (LPG), widely used for home heating and barbecues, is heavier than air, meaning it will sink to the ground and stay there. Even a spark can set it off. Propane tanks, whether they be a 22 000 litre storage unit or a barbecue tank, contain 80% liquid and the remaining space for vapour. Relief valves on the tank open when the pressure exceeds the design limits. The gas that escapes rapidly expands. The 18 litres of liquid in the average barbecue tank could expand to more than 380 cubic metres of potentially explosive gas, enough to cover a parking garage 30 metres by 40 metres. The tanks involved in the fire had the capacity for 220 000 litres, more than 12 000 times as much as the back yard barbecue tank. Though fire fighters were dispatched from all over Toronto, they could only work with full equipment, including breathing apparatus, for 20 to 30minutes at a time in such intense heat. As one commented, "If there is a fire under one of these cylinders, it will warm up that cylinder and bring it to a point where it is boiling, and if there is a slight crack in that cylinder, then the likelihood is that you're going to have an explosion.

Ontario's Ministry of Environment ordered Sunrise Propane to take care of the clean- up three days after the explosion, but when it became clear they were not moving fast enough, the City of Toronto took over. Shelley Carroll informed residents that crews would be going door to door to advise them when that would be. Within four days of the blast, two law firms filed $500 million law suits on behalf of outraged residents against Sunrise Propane.

To a socialist, the fact that the company will pay compensation isn't the point. That their operations in a residential area is not in violation of the City of Toronto by-laws is very much the point. It means the politicians, who run the day-to-day business for capitalism are more focused on that aspect than on public safety. What is also very much to the point is that the yard was situated in a working class neighbourhood. Imagine the uproar if it had been proposed to locate it in the affluent Rosedale area, or in Westchester, Westmount, or near Buckingham Palace! Nor does it make sense to argue that there are countries and provinces with better environmental and safety regulations than Ontario. Within capitalism, such regulations will always be subordinate to the profit motive that is the lifeblood of the capitalist system. Along with wars, starvation, and other deprivations of our current system, that subordination will constantly lead to preventable loss of and threat to human life. Common sense dictates, and socialism would naturally include, that top priority would be given to the health and general welfare of the citizens simply because they would be the ones making the decisions in the interests of all. Dangerous chemicals, if needed, would be located away from populated areas and managed by qualified personnel.

S.Shannon

Currently listening : A Lesson in Crime By Tokyo Police Club Release date: 2007-02-20

9:10 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Is Obama a socialist?
Category: News and Politics

Currently listening : The Crusher By Amon Amarth Release date: 2001-05-08

1:17 AM - 13 Comments - 19 Kudos - Add Comment