Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts
Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ In the world we live, or exist in, certainly in the so-called western world the political system we live under is called ‘liberal democracy.’ 

It is a far cry from full, transparent democracy, and only means we get a vote every four or five years. Actually, in the 26 county Irish state constitutionally that term of office for a government can be legally as long as seven years, though this is never enacted by any incumbent. 

In Britain in real terms, and where no written constitution exists, there is a two or possibly three-party system, though in recent years more political parties have entered the race but the reality is it is still a two or three horse race. In the 26 county’s we have a system of voting called ‘the single transferable vote’ whereas in Britain the even less democratic ‘first past the post’ system of electing still exists. In real terms in Britain, it is going to be either the Labour or Conservative parties with perhaps the Liberal Democrats helping out one party or the other to form a coalition. In the 26 county’s it is usually a coalition of either Fianna Fail and perhaps Labour or Fine Gael, Labour and the Greens forming a coalition. Either way one of the ‘civil war’ (the pro and anti-treaty sides in the Irish Civil War) parties are the senior and deciding party in such a set up. 

Today a revitalised and certainly unrecognisable Sinn Fein have entered the former cosy little set up with the two old enemies, Fine Gael and Fianna Fail burying their differences and forming an unholy alliance to keep Sinn Fein out of government. Sinn Fein are promising the world, as do most of these stooges of the rich and powerful, while in opposition and, as per usual, the government parties are going all out to tell us why the policies of Sinn Fein are unrealistic and will never work. There is nothing new in this bullshit, as that is all these parliaments are, strategies and to that all I can say is, without having much faith in Sinn Fein, they have not yet been given a chance to fuck things up. 

One major promise of Sinn Fein is to introduce over a two-term period a fully ‘costed’ single tiered nationalised health service based loosely on the one operated in the United Kingdom (UK). The question is whether the real government, the rich and the powerful, will allow such a service to be introduced? I doubt it but will give Sinn Fein the benefit simply because things cannot be any worse regarding health in the 26-County’s. What perhaps Sinn Fein are not taking into account, is when the Labour government of Clement Attlee brought in the National Health Service (NHS) in 1948 they did so on the back of the Second World War and today the wealthy are slowly clawing back the NHS into their private hands.

It is very important to differentiate between politics and economics. Many think they are the same, they are not. Yes, governments have budgets to manage the fiscal purse, public money, a minority factor in any capitalist economy, as most of the money belongs to private wealthy individuals. In the 26-County state such people as Denis O’Brien, the Collinson brothers, Michael O’Leary all have larger budgets than do any incumbent government, most of which is banked outside the state. This is so these great patriots do not have to pay tax towards goods and services for the benefit of all, such things as health, housing, education and a decent standard of living for everybody. Much the same system of free market economics is the case in Britian and all ‘liberal democracies’ around the globe. Elected governments are pretty powerless to do anything about these people’s tax avoidance as this, unlike tax evasion, is perfectly legal. In Ireland the state loses up to and beyond 22% of revenue through tax avoidance by the wealthy. When the 26-County state has an open and shut case to collect tax from huge companies like Apple they simply refuse to do so. Why? Because they know these people are larger and more powerful, certainly economically, than the elected government! Or they give us some tale about these firms bringing employment, shit paid, but nevertheless employment!!

These people are often referred to as ‘the ruling-class’ and the clue is in the word, ‘ruling’. Whoever sits in government in the Dail these people will still be in charge, certainly economically and economics will always trump politics in a ‘liberal democracy’ and that has been proven in the past. For example, when in 1964 a well-meaning Harold Wilson and his Labour Party were back in government in Britain, he thought he was, as Prime Minister, to be in charge. He soon found out this was not the case. He soon found out the Governor of the Bank of England decided economic policy, in general, and he just enacted these policies on the Governors ‘advice’. On the political front, with no economic detriment Wilson had a little more success, perhaps his greatest legacy was refusing the US demand for British troops in Vietnam, but this was purely political not economics.

So, in a ‘liberal democracy’ we get the vote every four to five years and elect a party to govern the affairs of the wealthy. We can then all wonder off back to work for these very same wealthy people and absolutely nothing changes, exploitation for profit continues as do redundancies when these wealthy people have no further use for us. Never mind though, we can still bluff ourselves we are really in charge because we get the vote!!

What then is a ‘plutocracy’? A plutocracy is when the wealthy are in charge, usually unelected, as a class. They are the government. Examples of ancient such ‘plutocracies’ would be the city states of Athens, ironically credited with being the originators of democracy, Carthage and Rome. These were ancient plutocracies but what of today? Are our so-called ‘liberal democracies’ really ‘plutocracies’ disguised as democratic systems? After all, in the workplace owned by the wealthy there are no democratic structures there, only socialism would provide such structures, but I am deviating. Perhaps the only democratic principle in the workplace is the election, where applicable, of the trade union representative, or ‘shop steward’ every year, sometimes longer but never longer than five years. We do not elect the boss, or even the chargehand. Many of the wealthy owners of the means of production, having got wealthy out of the wealth created by the proletariat, tell their employees; ‘this is not a democracy’ so get back to work or collect your cards!

Are our ‘liberal democracies’ really ‘plutocracies’? I would suggest they are because irrespective of who we vote into government, the wealthy or ruling-class remain static and still rule. Even in totalitarian evil regimes like Nazi Germany the wealthy were still in power, many were members of the Nazi party. The Nazis were funded by Germany’s wealthy, Theisen, Krupps Armaments and steel producers, Siemens electronics and many others. So, once again a plutocracy, which the Nazis made no secret of, providing it was the wealthy of Germany and not Jewish business!

If the wealthy feel in any way threatened by the policies of a party in government opposition, they will first of all, as was the case with both Michael Foot and Jeremy Corbyn of the British Labour Party, discredit them via their media. If that does not work and such a person becomes Prime Minister, they will economically undermine that person’s governments policies. If that doesn’t work, as was the case in Chile, they will liquidate that person, dissolve the government, and put their own person into governmental power. Salvador Allende was shot and Augusto Pinochet put in charge. As Karl Marx said well over a century ago “the bourgeoisie force the proletariat to take dangerous, low-paying jobs, in order to survive”. This is as true today as it was in the days of Marx, Engels and, a little later, James Connolly, Jim Larkin, Richard O’Carroll and William O’Brien. Today we have had union leaders like Arthur Scargill, National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) Health and Safety officer back in the early seventies, and today Mick Lynch of the RMT speaking out against such a system. The question remains, do we live in a ‘democracy’ even a liberal one, or a ‘plutocracy’? Who holds real power, the government or the wealthy?

To briefly summarise, in a ‘liberal democracy’ we elect a party to government or, in the 26-County’s usually a coalition of parties, who all usually go back on their election pledges. Once in office they set about governing for the benefit of the wealthy, the affairs of the wealthy and a few crumbs left over for the majority of the electorate, the working-class.

A ‘plutocracy’ is government by the wealthy, for the wealthy and only the wealthy. It is they as a class who actually govern, or misgovern, and not representatives of that class as is the case in a ‘liberal democracy’. This is why many more far-sighted people see governments in ‘liberal democracies’ as “stooges” of the capitalist class, or the wealthy. The differences between the two systems are minimal to say the least! Is it worth going out to vote? Yes, it is the only democratic right we have, even if it is pretty meaningless, but nevertheless do exercise it. Finally, to quote Ken Livingstone “if voting changed anything, they’d abolish it!!!”

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

Capitalism 🔴 A Democracy or Plutocracy?

Tommy McKearney ☭ There is a German word, schadenfreude, meaning to take pleasure from another’s misfortunes.

7-November-2022

Watching the convulsions wracking the British Conservative Party, this writer is surely not alone in experiencing a large degree of that same feeling. Not since the Suez crisis of 1956 has a British government found itself in such turmoil; never before has the Tory party been subjected to such self-inflicted ridicule.

It could hardly be otherwise. Daily U-turning, Cabinet ministers sacked within weeks of taking office, the spectacle of physical-force, yes, physical-force Conservatism, employed to whip reluctant MPs through the parliamentary voting lobby—all this topped off with a prime-ministerial resignation after a mere forty-four days in Downing Street.

Yet, in spite of this uniquely English farce, what has happened in London is more than a political party drama. It is actually symptomatic of a global crisis in capitalism.

Setting aside for a moment the Westminster theatricals, the underlying cause of the Liz Truss premiership fiasco was not simply personality clashes: it was instead the consequence of a failed and indeed futile attempt by ultra-conservatives to find a British solution to the wider problems of capitalism in its neoliberal phase.

What we now identify as neoliberalism is capitalism as shaped by Milton Friedman and the University of Chicago, working on behalf of the US State Department. Worked up originally to combat the Soviet Union’s influence over the international working class and thereafter to break trade union power, it gained global recognition as the economic policy of Pinochet’s Chile. Hardly surprising, therefore, that it appealed to and was enthusiastically adopted by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

Capitalism by its very nature is “red in tooth and claw.” Neoliberalism applies this with a vengeance as it uses state power to enforce ruthless free-market policies and practices. Heavy-handed action is deliberately taken to undermine and degrade trade union strength, public services are diminished through privatisation, and savage cuts to the social wage in general do damage to any existing welfare safety net. A central element of this strategy is huge tax cuts for the rich, specifically designed to reduce the budget for social infrastructure, such as public housing, health services, and care facilities for children and the elderly.

The objective is blunt and brutal: to enhance and ensure the privilege and power of the ruling class through a conscious policy of crushing all constraints on its accumulation of wealth. The mantra is to remove all restrictions on the free market, with the obvious corollary that no steps will be taken to protect indigenous industry or to hinder the free movement of capital.

So how has the system worked out for its proponents? Well, for a number of decades all seemed to be going according to plan. Its leading practitioners, Reagan and Thatcher, had emasculated organised labour, reduced state intervention throughout society, and minimised financial regulations. Meanwhile the financial sector alone was expanding, and to such an extent that in Britain, for example, it now accounts for a quarter of annual GDP.

Inevitably, though, this led to the offshoring or outsourcing of large chunks of the economy, particularly by American and British “entrepreneurs” greedy to take advantage of lower-wage economies. Along with coal mines and steel mills, manufacturing industries in both established engineering and emerging high-tech sectors were either closed down or moved abroad.

China, with its stable government and large, well-educated population, met many of the needs of the above. Moreover, before the collapse of the USSR, offering China a reciprocal trade agreement with the G7 appeared to offer a tool for separating it from Moscow. However, as we now know, this has assisted China in developing its manufacturing and technological capacity to such a degree that its economy is on the verge of overtaking that of the United States. Ominously, from a Western ruling-class standpoint, this trajectory is disturbingly reminiscent of the economic rise of nineteenth-century Britain and twentieth-century North America.

For the hard-headed and pragmatic elements among capitalism’s ruling class, this has presented two major threats to their system’s global hegemony.

In the first instance, a reduction in living standards for so many in working-class communities as a result of deliberate neoliberal policies has caused widespread resentment against those in power. So far this discontent has largely manifested itself as an almost aimless populism, albeit often with reactionary leanings. However, more recently there is evidence that progressive organised labour is re-emerging and asserting itself. And while populism threatens stability, workers acting in concert raise an altogether different potential scenario.

Secondly, for capitalism’s strategists a huge threat is posed in the long term by the loss of manufacturing capacity, especially that involving advanced technological production. While some elements of neoliberalism believe that financial services are an adequate substitute for manufacturing, the evidence proves otherwise. China’s growing economic power and global influence testify to this fact and, incidentally, explain the real reason for Washington and its allies’ hostility towards China.

The response by Western capitalism has largely been dictated and led by the leading imperial power, the United States. This has taken the form of an economic onslaught against China, under the pretext that the People’s Republic is an authoritarian state bent on war with Taiwan and global domination thereafter. By denying China’s exports access to overseas markets, the plan is (a) to stymie its development and (b) to use its absence to encourage indigenous manufacturing in the West.

In tandem with economic sanctions is a policy of geopolitical and military encirclement of China and its allies. Hence the enormous military and material support for the war in Ukraine.

While the policy of undermining China and its allies gained widespread support within the capitalist West (including with the servile Dublin government), there was less unanimity about modifying a crucial tenet of neoliberalism, namely state intervention in the economy.

Since at least the 1930s, pragmatic free-market economists have recognised the need to occasionally intervene to save capitalism from itself. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and in Britain the Keynesian approach were based on this understanding. For some there is no questioning the need for this strategy. The French government recently intervened to nationalise the electricity company Électricité de France, while Germany nationalised its biggest gas importer, Uniper.*

However, there is no similar acceptance among the ruling class in the United States and Britain. Joe Biden’s attempt to repeat the Roosevelt strategy with his “Build Back Better” plan was sabotaged from within his own party by Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.

Which brings us back to the political crisis in Britain, the origin of which lay in the country’s floundering economy and lack of growth. Fixated on Thatcherite ideology, debate within the governing party was not about limited state intervention but rather on the speed at which to introduce a continuation of its neoliberal agenda. Liz Truss and her supporters ignored the advice of some within the Conservative Party. Throwing caution to the winds, they went for broke and, ironically, were broken by the very market forces they advocated.

Riven as the Tory party is between its bitterly divided factions, there seems little possibility now that a viable economic programme can emerge from within the current British government. This poses a threat to the British economy as sought by British capital.

Ironically, rescue may arrive for them from a different quarter. The Financial Times has taken to advocating an immediate general election. With opinion polls clearly indicating only one outcome, this means the newspaper of stockbrokers and bankers is looking to Keir Starmer to save them and their economic system.

Maybe on reflection schadenfreude was the wrong word: perhaps it’s more a case of who or what can spare us from such a prospect.

*Julia Kollewe, “Germany nationalises biggest gas importer to avert supply crisis,” Guardian (London), 21 September 2022.

Tommy McKearney is a left wing and trade union activist. 
Follow on Twitter @Tommymckearney 

Capitalism ✑ Red In Tooth And Claw

People And Nature ✒ This excerpt is reproduced with thanks from The Imperial Mode of Living by Ulrich Brand and Markus Wissen. Translation by Zachary Murphy King. It goes with a People & Nature review, here.

Defining the concept

The core idea of the concept is that everyday life in the capitalist centres is essentially made possible by shaping social relations and society–nature relations elsewhere, i.e. by means of (in principle) unlimited access to labour power, natural resources and sinks – ecosystems (such as rainforests and oceans in the case of CO2) that absorb more of a particular substance than they emit into their environment – on a global scale.[1]

The capitalist centres fundamentally depend on the the way in which societies elsewhere and their relation to nature are organised so that the transfer of the products of (often cheap) labour and elements of nature from the global South to the economies of the global North is guaranteed. Conversely, the imperial mode of living in the global North structures societies in other places in a decisively hierarchical way. We choose the vague expression “elsewhere” quite consciously. Many necessary everyday items are tied to a range of activities that are invisible during their purchase, consumption and use: the origin of raw materials used in household appliances, medical devices or transport; water and energy infrastructures; the working conditions under which these materials are extracted or textiles and food are produced; and the expenditure of energy required for these. “Cultural products”, such as print or digital media, are also part of this invisible economy.

The invisibility of the social and ecological conditions is precisely what enables us to experience the buying and use of these products as a natural given. “Food from nowhere” is what the agrarian sociologist Philip McMichael has called this strategy of obscuring the origins and production of foodstuffs, in which the spatio–temporal unlimited availability of the latter is normalised.[2] Examples include grapes from Chile offered in northern cafeterias in winter, tomatoes grown and picked by undocumented migrant workers in California for the North American market or by illegalised workers in Andalusia for the Northern European market, and shrimps for the global North that are farmed by destroying Thai or Ecuadorian mangrove forests. But it also includes the disastrous environmental conditions and cheap labour power of Romanian workers in German meat factories that ensure cheap meat in Germany and neighbouring countries.

Picking tomatoes in Mozambique. Photo by
Bram Berkelmans / Wikimedia commons

The concept of the “imperial mode of living” points towards the norms of production, distribution and consumption built into the political, economic and cultural structures of everyday life for the populations of the global North.[3] And it works, increasingly, in the countries with “emerging economies” of the global South, as well. However, we mean not only material practices but also, and especially, the structural conditions and guiding social principles and discourses that make these practices possible. To put it pointedly: the standards of a “good” and “proper” life, which often consists of the imperial mode of living, are shaped by everyday life, even when they are a part of comprehensive societal relations, and especially of material and social infrastructures.[4]

In this respect, our concept of a “mode of living” stands in the tradition of Antonio Gramsci and regulation theory, as we assume that a contradictory social form such as capitalism can only reproduce itself if it is embedded in everyday practices and common sense, thereby becoming, so to speak, “natural”. With the adjective “imperial” we want to emphasise – now moving beyond Gramsci – the expanding global and ecological dimensions of this mode of living (again, also within the countries of the global North).

The imperial mode of living is an essential moment in the reproduction of capitalist societies. It establishes itself in discourses and world views, it cements itself in practices and institutions, and it is the result of social conflicts in civil society and in the state. It is based on inequality, power and domination; it sometimes relies on violence; and at the same time it also generates these forces. It is not separate from the subjects. Indeed, it shapes subjects and their common sense, normalises it and enables their capacity to act: as women and men, as individuals who maximise use and feel superior to others, as people striving for particular forms of the good life.[5]

The adoption of the hegemonic worldview coincides with the constitution of the subject. By orienting and directing myself, I subjectify myself. Integrating hegemonic views of the world into common sense is not simply a matter of being forced into it, it is a form of self-activity, precisely because hegemony is not the same as coercion and is based on consensus.[6]

This also means, however, that this mode of living is contested. There is a constant influx of alternative and subversive interpretations and practices, the integration of demands and alternative desires. In this respect, every mode of living always contains a contradictory simultaneity of subjugation and appropriation.[7]

The imperial mode of living links people’s everyday life with the partly globalising societal structures. It intends to make visible the social and ecological prerequisites of the dominant norms of production, distribution and consumption, as well as the relations of power and domination behind them. And it clarifies how domination is normalised in neocolonial North–South relations; in class, gender and racialised relations; and in the everyday practices of consumption and production, to the point where these are no longer perceived as such. The concept thus also implies the mode of production and takes into account the forms taken by capital and labour organisations in their relation to the norms of consumption.

Our concept differs from two concepts that are semantically and, to a certain extent, theoretically similar: the conduct of everyday life and lifestyle. The well-developed sociological idea of the conduct of everyday life refers to the way in which individuals integrate the many forms of everyday challenges into a reasonably coherent conception of their own lives. It “denotes an arrangement and the relationship between the different practical activities that a person carries out on a daily basis in various areas of life”.[8] What is considered important with respect to a particular pattern in the conduct of everyday life is the access to material, cultural and social resources and the actual potential for using them.[9] These resources are distributed unequally and are therefore sources of resentment and criticism. This is where the concepts of the conduct of everyday life and mode of living intersect.

At the same time, “the conduct of everyday life” leaves social conditions in the shadows: the conditions that occur largely behind the backs of the actors and as a result of strategic activity shaped by power. This is why our concept of a mode of living can better take into account the modes of production and distribution of the conditions of particular ways of conducting everyday life – in both material and cultural terms. Questions of crisis awareness and dominant or alternative mechanisms are also given greater attention. Finally, while the concept of the conduct of everyday life aims to understand how people manage the impositions of neoliberal labour processes and the pressures to consume, and how they assimilate them into a vision of their own lives, the idea of the imperial mode of living asks how the conduct of everyday life functions under neoliberal conditions just because its socially and ecologically destructive consequences can be externalised.

The point of demarcation from the concept of lifestyle occurs insofar as the latter is used in the debate over individualisation and includes a moment of freedom of choice that abstracts from class structures, gender and racialised relations, as well as from the organisation of capitalist societies as nation states.[10] By contrast, “mode of living” emphasises asymmetries embedded in social structures, without denying any freedom of choice to the individual. If the lifestyle concept is used in the tradition of Pierre Bourdieu, it comes closer to our idea of the mode of living. This is so because that tradition entails a conception of unequal social relations that are physically manifested in preferences of taste. In the fine “distinctions” of taste and the behaviours resulting from these, social inequality is reproduced, the body of the individual is embedded in it and thus becomes, so to speak, “nature”.[11] This is where we come in, albeit by emphasising the imperial preconditions of these patterns of behaviour.

Conceptual levels: everyday practices and social structure

The concept of the imperial mode of living emphasises that “everyday practices like going on holiday, driving or walking, nutrition, water or energy consumption and other areas of everyday life are shaped primarily by habits, routines and rules of daily life”.[12] In determining the acceptance or rejection of everyday practices, immediate perceptions, affects and emotions, as well as guiding themes – such as the pre-eminence of consumerism, eating meat and private car ownership – are important. The reality of these practices presents obstacles to any alternatives. To put it pointedly: unsustainability is a very practical fact that is mostly lived unconsciously.

But living “unconsciously” does not mean that the imperial mode of living is not connected to multiple intentional strategies for its continuation. There can be no doubt about that – think of the investment in automobile and animal factories or coal-based power plants, of free trade policies and marketing slogans that encourage people to shop themselves to happiness. Or think of the fact that in climate policy, complex ecosystems such as rainforests are reduced to their function as CO2 sinks; think of the construction of infrastructure projects such as ports, which first made the global trade of raw materials possible; or think of saving for the next car. But these myriad forms of intentional actions and the strategic decisions that precede them – such as government policy or business management – have a history that begins long before the moment of action and decision making, a history of which individuals do not need to be aware.

The “truth of the interaction”, as Pierre Bourdieu puts it, “is never entirely contained in the interaction”.[13] Activities and decisions are embedded in a societal context that allows them to be seen as rational or normal, a context inscribed into the subjects who carry out or make these decisions. In order to understand these interactions and the decisions behind them, we must take account of the habitus, the “class culture turned into nature, that is, embodied”, as well as the internalised social relations of the subjects themselves.[14] The activities and decisions can then be seen as acts of “recognition” and of “misrecognition”, as conscious actions that depend on a variety of unconscious preconditions.[15]

Thus purchasing a car is unquestionably a conscious action. If it is understood, however, merely as an act of rational choice that follows from an individual cost–benefit analysis, then a crucial dimension is missed, namely that the act of purchasing essentially results from infrastructural and institutional conditions as well as from dominant imaginations which have been habitually internalised.[16] A road system built to the detriment of public transport, government incentives for buying and driving personal vehicles, dominant images of masculinity and representations of individual freedom, value chains that allow for the cheap acquisition of resources and labour from elsewhere,[17] lax emission standards, the competition for social status via automobiles – all these and other factors, existing beyond the individual, and which the individual is not required to know, influence the decision to make a purchase. These conditions lend the decision its “rationality”, allow it to seem normal and erase the preconditions that justify and reproduce hegemony, including its structural and sometimes overt violence.[18]
The car as status symbol

The category of habitus, by mediating between conscious action and its unconscious preconditions, also allows the levels of everyday activity to be linked to those of societal structures. The following interrelations are important here: capitalism reaches its economic and social productivity in the centres – and increasingly in the “emerging countries” – by virtue of the fact that labour power and nature are first valorised and monetised elsewhere and values and matter are then transferred to the centres. Through this mechanism, the various living conditions are linked with one another by the global exchange of commodities – and not only in terms of end products, but also in terms of intermediary and primary products such as raw materials. “[A] tractor or railway engine would simply not be feasible were it not for the uneven ways in which human time and natural space are priced in global society.”[19] Marx had already pointed out that cheap materials were essential for capitalist development, particularly due to, on the one hand, the accompanying transfer of value to the capitalist centres and, on the other, the importance of the falling price of raw materials as a “counteracting tendency” to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.[20]

These market-mediated forms of wealth transfer are accompanied by forms of dispossession that are achieved politically, legally or by force, as in the privatisation of the commons or public property. These dispossessions crucially result from pressure applied by companies in the global North. Often, they go hand in hand with displacement, impoverishment and destruction of nature.

The designation of CO2 sinks – or rather the reduction of ecosystems to their ability to absorb CO2 – sometimes contains elements of dispossession and market-oriented exchange. When, for example, a piece of land extensively used by small farmers in the global South is declared “uncultivated land” and the established right of customary use is transformed into a formalised legal system that marginalises the previous users, then this is an act of dispossession.[21] If the same piece of land is sold to an energy company from the global North, which sets up a eucalyptus plantation for the sake of CO2 absorption, thereby fulfilling a part of its duties to reduce CO2 emissions, then it is integrated into the international emissions trading system.[22]

This is thus a market-mediated process. Land previously used by the local community is subjected to an eco-capitalist logic of exchange through a process of dispossession, privatisation and integration into the global market. The previous users are marginalised, and the ecological complexity of the land is reduced to a highly questionable form of climate protection in the interest of stabilising the global North’s ecologically destructive norms of production and consumption. The powerful metaphor of the “ecological footprint” is,[23] in a way, the expression of this ecologically unequal exchange, as the country- or social-group-specific “footprints” are extremely different from one another and make clear that some countries live at the ecological expense of others.

The appropriation of natural resources and labour power (especially in the global South), as well as the disproportionate use of sinks located predominantly in the global South, therefore take the form of market-mediated exchanges and/or legal, political and forced dispossessions. In social, economic and ecological terms, these processes are highly unequal and are shaped by power and domination. Not all people or groups can rely equally on labour power and resources “elsewhere”, particularly in other parts of the world (but also within their respective societies). Rather, this access varies according to different lines of inequality: class, gender, race, map especially closely onto lines of neocolonial North–South relations. The imperial aspect of this inequality is expressed in the monumental and generally destructive access to the labour power of other humans and nature.

□ Reproduced from The Imperial Mode of Living, pages 39-48, with thanks, with the authors’ and translator’s permission.

■ Read People & Nature’s review of The Imperial Mode of Living

■ You can buy The Imperial Mode of Living here.

[1] The concepts of “resources” and “sinks” will be raised as problems later, as they already contain, terminologically, an instrumental understanding of nature, external to humanity and for its use. Actually, of course, natural phenomena are not resources or sinks per se, but have been used as such with respect to specific, historically variable social needs. Similar reservations could be expressed regarding the concept of the labour force. The separation of a person from her or his labour power is a particularly capitalist abstraction: in contrast to feudal lords, capitalist entrepreneurs, instead of having the entire person at their disposal, only have their labour power. That having been said, we will continue to use the terms because the questions that interest us would be difficult to discuss otherwise, and because it is precisely the terms’ critical–analytical use that can show its instrumental character and the social relations (with humans and nature) in capitalism that characterise power. We could also admit a temporal component in the concept of the imperial mode of living. For the everyday reproduction of our societies postpones many problems to a future date. This is clear in the case of emissions from burning fossil fuels that will change the climate system for a long time, or in the case of nuclear waste, whose dangers remain in force for thousands of years. However, this kind of temporal extension – into the future – is not primarily meant here.

[2] Philip McMichael, “The World Food Crisis in Historical Perspective”, Monthly Review, 61(3), 2009 (monthlyreview.org).

[3] John M. Hobson and Leonard Seabroke, “Everyday International Political Economy”, in Mark Blyth, Routledge Handbook of International Political Economy (IPE): IPE as a a Global Conversation, London and New York: Routledge, 2009, pp. 290–306.

[4] Dieter Kramer, Konsumwelten des Alltags und die Krise der Wachstumsgesellschaft, Marburg: Jonas Verlag, 2016, p. 29.

[5] Antonio Gramsci, Quaderni del carcere, Vol. 2, Turin: G. Einaudi, 1977,Quaderno 11, p. 1375.

[6] Gundula Ludwig, “Hegemonie, Diskurs, Geschlecht: Gesellschaftstheorie als Subjekttheorie, Subjekttheorie als Gesellschaftstheorie”, in Iris Dzudzek, Caren Kunze and Joscha Wullweber (eds.), Diskurs und Hegemonie: Gesellschaftstheoretische Perspektiven, Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2012, p. 113; cf. Gramsci, Quaderni del carcere, Vol. 2,Quaderno 10, p. 1341.

[7] Ludwig, “Hegemonie, Diskurs, Geschlecht”, p. 114; cf. Friederike Habermann, Der Homo Oeconomicus und das Andere: Hegemonie, Identität und Emanzipation, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag, 2008.

[8] Angelika Diezinger, “Alltägliche Lebensführung: Die Eigenlogik alltäglichen Handelns”, in Ruth Becker and Beate Kortendiek (eds.), Handbuch Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung: Theorie, Methoden, Empirie, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2008, p. 204.

[9] Ibid.

[10] On the topic of lifestyle, see the comprehensive discussion in Jörg Rossel and Gunnar Otte (eds.), Lebensstilforschung: Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 51, special issue, 2011.

[11] Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.

[12] Michael Jonas, “Transition or Transformation? A Plea for the Praxeological Approach of Radical Socio-ecological Change”, in Michael Jonas and Beate Littig (eds.), Praxeological Political Analysis, London: Routledge, 2017, p. 120; cf. Michael Jonas and Beate Littig, “Sustainable Practice”, in James D. Wright (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Oxford: Elsevier, 2015, pp. 834–8.

[13] Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977, p. 81.

[14] Bourdieu, Distinction, p. 190.

[15] Ibid., p. 319.

[16] Kramer, Konsumwelten des Alltags, p. 29.

[17] See the rich empirical material in Peter Dicken, Global Shift: Mapping the Changing Contours of the World Economy, New York and London: The Guilford Press, 2015.

[18] Ruth Sonderegger, “Wie emanzipatorisch ist Habitus-Forschung? Zu Rancieres Kritik an Bourdieus Theorie des Habitus”, LiTheS: Zeitschrift für Literatur- und Theatersoziologie, 3, 2010, pp. 18–39.

[19] Alf Hornborg, “Uneven Development as a Result of the Unequal Exchange of Time and Space: Some Conceptual Issues”, Journal für Entwicklungspolitik, 26(4), 2010, p. 43.

[20] Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. 3, introduced by Ernest Mandel, London: Penguin Books, 1981, p. 339. See also an instructive reading of history around the “cheap thing” in Jason W. Moore and Raj Patel, A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things: A Guide to Capitalism, Nature, and the Future of the Planet, Oakland: University of California Press 2018.

[21] See, for example, Heuwieser’s study on Honduras: Magdalena Heuwieser, Grüner Kolonialismus in Honduras: Land Grabbing im Namen des Klimaschutzes und die Verteidigung der Commons, Vienna: Promedia Verlag, 2015.

[22] See Peter Newell and Matthew Paterson, Climate Capitalism: Global Warming and the Transformation of the Global Economy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 132–3.

[23] Mathis Wackernagel and Bert Beyers, Der Ecological Footprint: Die Welt neu vermessen, Hamburg: CEP Europäische Verlagsanstalt, 2010.

⏭ Keep up with People And Nature.  Follow People & Nature on twitter or instagram or  telegram or whatsapp. Or email peoplenature@yahoo.com, and you will be sent updates.

Defining The “Imperial Mode Of Living”

Tommy McKearney ☭ Katherine Zappone’s rejection, respectful or otherwise, of an invitation to appear before an Oireachtas committee investigating her irregular appointment was symptomatic of a wider phenomenon. 


It was an example of a sense of entitlement shared by all those in the well-to-do strata of this, our class-bound, class-divided society.

This is a self-serving conviction that the well-to-do are entitled to and indeed worthy of the privileges they enjoy. Moreover—and this is important—there are no lengths to which they will not go to protect the system that guarantees their position.

The practical manifestation of this in present-day Ireland is evidenced, north and south, within two principal, albeit overlapping and complementary, currents. In the first instance, there are those operating almost exclusively within the domestic economy—private landlords, property speculators, major retailers, large construction companies, and private medical services, to name but a few.

There is then the other sector, dominated by foreign capital, with, among other things, the enormous energy-consuming data centres, tax-favoured digital businesses, rapacious extractors of natural resources, and of course hedge funds, such as the Canadian-controlled residential property landlord IRES REIT, Ireland’s largest private landlord.¹

As a consequence, we have a section of society, or in reality a class, that sees itself as deserving to benefit—by their rack-renting of workers, through access to expensive private health, or by reaping dividends from privatised industries or the exploitation of natural resources by transnational corporations. It goes without saying that this comfortable life-style is gained at the expense of the working class.

We are witnessing here, quite simply, the working out of the class struggle in Ireland. Nor is this observation about the nature of our society unnoticed in wider circles. Professor Daire Keogh, president of DCU, recently warned in a press interview that the shortage and exorbitant cost of students’ rental accommodation would create a “class divide,” benefiting the children of wealthier families.

This is an intolerable situation and one that must be changed. However, change for the better won’t come easily. Only last month we had the unedifying spectacle of the Tánaiste, Leo Varadkar, aggressively promoting and defending ratification of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada.² If ratified, the treaty would allow, for example (as Varadkar himself admitted to Paul Murphy TD), the above-mentioned Canadian company that owns IRES REIT to sue the 26-County state in a special investor court should the Dáil introduce rent control.

This gives rise to a couple of pertinent questions. In the first place, this trade agreement is not merely a Fine Gael initiative, because it also has the support of the three coalition parties, including Eamonn Ryan’s Green Tories. Moreover, there is the fact that CETA is being equally promoted by the European Union, raising the question of who supports Ireland’s continuing membership of that neoliberal entity, and why.

Nor should we overlook the North in this examination. The Dalradian Gold company is planning to extract precious ore from the Sperrin Mountains in Co. Tyrone, against the determined opposition of the local population. Not only would such mining ravage an area of outstanding natural beauty and poison the local environment for centuries to come but profits arising would fill the coffers of Dalradian’s New York hedge fund, Orion Resource Partners. Worryingly and ominously, not one of the main parties in the Stormont Executive has actively campaigned to have this rip-off halted.

As in the Republic, the reasoning underlying the Executive’s position is a mixture of cynical self-interest and centrist social-democratic economics. Either option simply reinforces the hegemony of the privileged ruling class.

To change the balance of power away from this greedy coterie and in favour of the working class requires the active involvement of all sections of the class and especially its organised elements, those in community organisations and the trade union movement.

Two articles in the September issue of Socialist Voice are of particular relevance in relation to this matter. These are Barry Murray’s article advocating the concept of a people’s participatory democracy, and Nicola Lawlor’s very informative overview of the condition of Ireland’s trade union movement today. The two writers give an honest and realistic assessment of the present situation in both fields. At the same time they are also hearteningly positive about the potential for advances in either area.

It would appear, to this writer at least, that the best results would be obtained through agreed co-operation or combination of both strategies. We have witnessed in the recent past the effectiveness of the campaign against water tax when organised labour and grass-roots organisations combined, to powerful effect. Surely there is a lesson in this that needs teasing out and building upon. If this much can be achieved for a single-issue campaign, why not a similar policy for a system-changing initiative?

Moreover, there is now an urgency for implementing these proposals. There is growing evidence that the global economy is about to undergo significant destabilisation, something that is bound to inflict further pain on the working class. The potential crisis is partly due to Covid, partly to a realignment of global economic influences, but even more so to the inherent instability of capitalism. Early indications of this are emerging, with rapid increases in energy costs, talk of inflation, and fear of a trade war with China.

To prevent Ireland’s working class enduring still further disadvantage and pain it will be necessary to end the privileges accruing to one section of society under capitalism, to end the inequalities arising from their sense of entitlement. This can only be done by bringing the means of production, distribution and exchange under the control of working people in a workers’ republic.

Hence the need to organise for such an outcome; and, as is so often the case, we can draw upon the great James Connolly for inspiration and insight.

With Labour properly organised upon the Industrial and political field, each extension of the principle of public ownership brings us nearer to the re-conquest of Ireland by its people; it means the gradual resumption of the common ownership of all Ireland by all the Irish—the realisation of Freedom - James Connolly, The Re-Conquest of Ireland, 1915.

Tommy McKearney is a left wing and trade union activist. 
Follow on Twitter @Tommymckearney 

Ending The Privileges Of The Elite

Tommy McKearney ☭ discusses Corporate power in the wake of Teneo's problems. 



“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”—Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776)

Apologies to our readers for quoting the talisman of neoliberalism, but it seemed fitting in the light of the fall from grace of the Tipperary man Declan Kelly, chief executive of Teneo, a global company that describes itself as the world’s pre-eminent CEO advisory firm.

While always having access to the coercive arms of the state, capitalists prefer to adopt less abrasive, more PR-savvy methods when possible. This is where Kelly and the Teneos of this world come in.

The multi-million company promoted itself as a firm providing advisory and troubleshooting services to chief executives of the world’s most powerful conglomerates. It did so by its mastery of media spin-doctoring and even more so by its astonishing range of influential contacts, many employed on large retainers. This network included well-known entertainers and sports people, senior officials in worldwide NGOs, retired high-ranking military and intelligence personnel, and one-time leading politicians.

For a number of years before disagreements caused a break-up, Teneo’s most powerful connection was with the former president of the United States Bill Clinton, after whom the Clinton Foundation is named. Ostensibly designed to address global poverty and inadequate health services, the foundation held annual conferences attended by politicians and business leaders. All the while in the background was Teneo, facilitating the CEOs of vast transnational networks and striking deals while consorting with such figures as Barack Obama, George Bush, and Tony Blair.

As its relationship with the Clintons soured, Teneo cultivated a position within Global Citizenship, an organisation based in New York engaged, in its own words, in “targeting world leaders to end extreme poverty by 2030.” It’s not clear, though, what level of poverty it tolerates. However, to carry out its mission Global Citizenship stages high-profile pop concerts where big business meets powerful politicians meet mega-celebrities, all in an informal setting. Whether eliminating “extreme poverty” or promoting excessive profits is the real agenda, we trust our readers can make up their own mind.

With much happening behind the scenes, this year’s public face featured the singer Jennifer Lopez and other mega-stars. Notables endorsing the gathering included Joe Biden, with Harry Windsor and his wife, Megan, attending in person. It was at this grand bash that the career of Teneo’s CEO, Declan Kelly, imploded after allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards women present led to his resignation. As a consequence, the company’s prospects are now in doubt.

Although the difficulties faced by Teneo and its shareholders, or the troubled personal life of Declan Kelly, are not the main issue, the story nevertheless offers an insight into how the system works. Ostensibly concerned with the well-being of the world’s disadvantaged, these networks play a significant role in helping maintain capitalist hegemony. While promoting a myth that transnational corporations working with imperialism have an interest in solving global poverty, they simultaneously facilitate discreet networking between political power-brokers and avaricious global conglomerates.

Although usually played out on a global stage with the world’s most powerful people, it would be a mistake to believe that this story has little relevance for Ireland. Kelly always retained an interest in Ireland. A main sponsor of the Tipperary hurling team, he also recruited well-known Irish personalities to work for Teneo. Moreover, in 2009 Hillary Clinton appointed him US economic envoy to Northern Ireland.

While there is no direct evidence to link Teneo or Declan Kelly to economic activity in Ireland, it raises the question whether his network played a role in some of the harmful interventions by transnationals and in particular vulture funds. For example, most of the NAMA cut-price sell-off went to American speculators. And the scandal continues as the right-wing triumvirate governing the Republic recently exempted vulture funds from a 10 per cent stamp duty surcharge on the bulk buying of houses.

Of course the root cause of this evil is not, strictly speaking, Teneo and Kelly. They simply illustrate the method, as others would happily fill their shoes. At the heart of all this malpractice is capitalism and the class system sustaining it.

The answer to that problem remains, as always . . . socialism.

Tommy McKearney is a left wing and trade union activist. 
Follow on Twitter @Tommymckearney 

Political Power-Brokers And Avaricious Corporations

Susan Lari interviews Azar Majedi on Corona Virus and Capitalism: “Herd Immunity” or Social Darwinism.

SL: The extend of the spread of Corona Virus and the number of dead as a result, are very frightening and extremely alarming. It is a very sad situation. As everybody knows, Corona Virus cases have passed 300,000 around the world, and more than 13000 deaths have occurred. There may be more. It is reported that in Italy, there were 800 deaths on just one day (Saturday), and many infected and died in Iran. People are justifiably worried. Do you think the measures implemented in the world, specially in Iran, are working?

AM: As you said it is very worrying and sad both in terms of lives and the misery people are going through. The insecurity of their lives, and if they are not dying of the virus, they might die of hunger. In Iran, the authorities are hiding all the numbers, even WHO (World Health Organisation) has reported that the numbers infected and dead are 5 times more than what the Islamic regime announces. We keep seeing videos from Iran that people are just dying and are buried collectively without their families knowing where they are. This is really horrible. When it comes to governments taking the proper measures, I have to say a strong no. They are not. They have lied to people and hidden the facts. They only mentioned it once it was spread widely. Even after that, the measures are so limited. The measures in some countries are worse than other countries. 

When you talk about Iran, you are seeing a regime that has no care or responsibility towards the citizens. They are a bunch of thieves and murderers who are running the country. In the Western world where there is democracy and apparently some sort of accountability by the government, the measures are not enough. Look at Britain, Sweden, Holland or US. It is horrendous and worrying.

SL: What amazes everybody is quite obvious. The cruelty of capitalism has always been obvious, i.e. exploitation, misery, war and devastation. What has happened now is the fact that this epidemic has actually exposed the true nature of capitalism even more. Do you not think so?

AM: Exactly. In my Farsi language article for our journal (Communist), I touched on some aspects of it. I am not talking about history, something that has happened a long time ago, but just look at the past 20 years. How many people died in the Middle East and North Africa due to wars? Millions died in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Sudan etc. On top of that, many people lost their lives due to hunger and displacement. Once people decide to flee the misery and the hell they are forced to endure, they end up in the Mediterranean sea! In Libya, they are treated as slaves and sold in slave markets. People in Europe could say these people are poor, live far away somewhere else, their culture is backward, they are Muslims but we are OK. Now they can’t say that. The number of people who lost their lives to Corona Virus is nothing compared to those died because of war, hunger, lack of security and dictatorships. However, once devastation reaches Europe and you look at the universality of human being’s destiny or existence at the hands of capitalism, then capitalism is really exposed. Here in Europe they can have none of these excuses.

Look at the way governments are dealing with the situation. “Herd Immunity”! I think Boris Johnson was the first person who mentioned it. Angela Merkel mentioned it too. They are still saying it in Sweden and Netherlands. It is the government’s policy there without naming it. What is “Herd immunity”? It means weak people should die, then the whole society will become immune which is the price society has to pay! They look at people in terms of numbers because they have taken the flesh and humanity out of it, then they say OK everybody is safe! Who are these numbers? Who are these weak people who are going to die in the “Herd Immunity”? It is my mother, my father, my grandmother, my grandfather, my uncle, my aunt or my beautiful neighbour. When you put it this way, you can see the inhumanity in this philosophy or ideology. I call this social Darwinism. The survival of the fittest in evolution was something but when you apply that to the society in a social manner, you can see how fascism can come out of it. You are talking about the situation now, the fear and anxiety that people are going through and the lives that are going to be lost, and look at the society after the Corona Virus, if we allow this ideology to stick then we are looking at real fascism becoming a mainstream and not just extreme right wing as we have right now. This is most worrying. We have to think about now during Corona Virus epidemic and how to fight it; but this is not enough! We must also think of our society and what is going to happen to us after the epidemic. This is very important.

SL: When you talk about “Herd Immunity”, people who advocate it believe it would be better if certain demographic groups, such as young people who are not as badly affected by the virus are infected by the virus, in order to build immunity against it. It is total rubbish because it advocates a pick-and choose measure! It correlates with the current decision which is horrific. In certain countries especially in Italy they are prioritising people who should or should not have ventilators, who should live and who should die. It is horrendous.

AM: That is exactly what I am saying. That is social Darwinism. They actually put doctors in a position of moral judgment. They are giving directives now as to how to deal with who you should let live and who be left to die. Just imagine, if this becomes the official policy of countries we live in, the future is bleak. How do you choose? This patient is young, the other one old, this one is disabled, the other one is abled, this patient is educated with a good job, and the other is a labourer with only GCSEs. Who does the doctor choose? This scenario is scary. Already health, and I am not talking about luxury, basic health is class based. People who are affluent and have means, upper class or capitalists are getting away with it. The working class, the deprived in the society are going to suffer even more. Loss of lives and livelihood.

In Britain some measures are taken. They have taken a few steps back from “Herd Immunity” policy but there is a big section of workers on temporary or zero hour contracts and what is called “bogus self employed”. They have no means of livelihood and are not covered by these measures. It is reported that 80% of salaries are going to be paid. This does not include the self employed and the categories above. Again, the relatively well off are OK but the low wage sector lose out, not necessarily by Corona but by losing their homes and becoming homeless.

The unfairness and inhumanity of the system is completely exposed. It is up to you, me and people like us, freedom loving people to say stop! Enough is enough. We have to expose the system. We cannot just let it go away by itself. We must not allow this narrative to stick. We have to fight this narrative and replace it with our own narrative. This is capitalism, pure and simple.

SL: Capitalism is based on capital accumulation and profit and not based on needs of the society. When I said Corona Virus has exposed the nature of capitalism, one example of it is the issue of Ventilators. They are vital in the treatment of people with the Virus. There is a lack of Ventilators. When you look at places like UK where you think it is well equipped with medical provisions, it is actually short of Ventilators. Now, suddenly, out of the blue, it is possible for a car manufacturing factory to halt car manufacture and instead produce Ventilators. So, one cannot help but question why these things could not have been done before the Virus outbreak? Why could the system and society not be organised based on need rather than profit? It is exposing the true nature of capitalism. What do you think?

AM: Exactly. The drive behind the dynamism or structure of capitalism is profit and competition for more profit. That is why the needs, livelihood, safety, health and happiness of people have no place in the driving force of capitalism. Even if capitalism has to think of these things it is because workers have to have some sort of health and livelihood to be able to work and make profit for the system. And also because class struggle has pushed the states at least in democracies to take some measures.
Just look at the cuts enforced after the death of social democracy which was after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of Cold War. They heralded the post-Cold War era as the “death of Socialism!” This was not the death of socialism, but definitely the death of Social democracy. The era of social cuts, curbing the rights of the working class, privatisation and the total dominance of profit craze. Some call this Neo-liberalism. This only shows that how social, economic and political reforms are the direct results of a strong class struggle on the part of the working class. Now we are seeing the result of all the cuts they made. In France, there are only 3 IC Unit beds for every 1000 citizens, in UK 2.1 for every 1000, and in US similar to UK. It means, in situations like this, many people die because there are not enough ICU beds, or ventilators or there are simply no beds available at all in the hospitals. Or the junior doctors and nurses are not paid enough in many places. In the US, the situation is worse. Health is privatised. Health insurance premiums are very high. Just read a report that a 34 year old woman in US suspected of having Corona Virus went to A&E department. She was given a bill for over $34000 for two hospital emergency visits for Corona Virus test! The situation in US is going to be hellish because it does not have basic health care system or social benefits. In Europe you can still at least see some sort of health provisions. In that respect Europe is one step better than the US. The US congress still refuses to pass a law for sick leave benefits for all the workers. Trump is still pushing for cutting food stamps for many people even during the epidemic.

Capitalism is exposed but we should not let it take its own process. We have to push it and put it right in front of people and say this is capitalism. Capitalism is only concerned with money and profit. Capitalism is about masses of fortune for the minority, and poverty and wage slavery for the majority in the society.

SL: The other side of what is happening is the growing sense of community spirit and assistance that the general public are showing disregarding what the governments are saying. A sense of cooperation and helping your human kind everywhere. There are even singers performing opera in Italy for those who are self isolating in their homes to boost their moral, even pop stars performing music sessions online from their homes. Some in UK have produced cards that you can download, print with your name and contact number, putting it through people’s letter boxes, offering your assistance to get the shopping done for you and dropping it outside your front door. This kind of safeguarding community welfare which is not directed by any government is rising. What is your take on this development?

AM:  The Corona Virus disaster has a double edge. We can see how humanity is emerging from ordinary citizens. You mentioned measures in UK. Let me talk about the situation in Iran. Many people have died, and many are infected by the virus. There is no real help by the state. There is lack of any kind of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), like gloves, masks and other. Even what WHO or other countries like France and Germany sent to Iran to help, have all found their way to the black market by the Pasdaran or Lebanon or Iraq according to some reports. In UK people help their next door neighbour, in Iran people have actually organised committees of people who are trying to disinfect the streets, to make masks and try to help the needy and the elderly. I know some of the measures they have implemented cannot help as much, like masks must be professionally made to be protective. Sometimes the things they do or make is not professional enough but the spirit and solidarity behind it is encouraging. These committees are growing everywhere in Iran like mushrooms. I believe it is because of two years of uprising in Iran that has changed the morality and spirit of the society and the collective mental state of the society. This is beautiful.

In Europe for example, Ronaldo has given some of his hotels to be used as hospitals, Garry Neville in UK has given his hotels to be used as accommodation for NHS staff. If we do not put our narrative to it, if we do not talk about it in terms of class war, that is only charity. I don’t believe in charity. I believe in good will and humanity in people, but I do not believe in charity. Charity is a means to sort of take away the edges of what the society and capitalism do to us with religious hint to it. I am not saying people should not do that, don’t get me wrong. What I am saying is that charity is good, helping is good but open your eyes and see what is happening. This is capitalism. Governments are actually representatives or the agents of capitalism; Governments’ role and function is first and foremost to protect capitalism and the profit of capitalists. The ideology they promote is to safeguard the safety of capitalism and bourgeoisie not ordinary citizens.

You might say why do I keep saying that? Because I know if we do not do that and just say people are helping, that is fine and things will be OK, things will not be OK. After the epidemic, capitalism is already in a serious crisis. Some say it is even in a more serious crisis than in 2008. Let’s just see what happened then. They saved all the banks and bailed out big companies. What happened then? People lost their jobs, wages went down, social, health service and benefit cuts were imposed. Britain is a good example of what happened between 2008 and 2020. The same goes for other countries. This time it is even going to be worse. What we are going to see after the epidemic is going to be worse. Airlines in UK have reported that they stop working for a month or two. They have sent their employees home without wages. They have said if the employees demand wages they are going to be dismissed. Actually a member of parliament said to Richard Branson (the owner of one of the airlines) to sell his private island. But they are asking for bailout from the state! The airlines are not paying their employees, why do they want a bail out? Bail out for what? I am sure that they are going to get it because this is capitalism.

One very horrendous case that has been exposed is that two Republican senators in US sold their stocks after a government private meeting before the news of the Corona Virus hit the media. They made a lot of profit out of people’s misery. They are just going to walk around and think that they are very smart and clever. Nothing will happen to them.

SL: What recommendations has the Worker-communist Party of Iran - Hekmatist given to people in Iran?

AM: We have asked people to extend their solidarity and help to each other but be aware of safety and security. Be aware of not just going into the streets, infecting yourself or others. It is good to be helpful but has to be done wisely. The Party has issued press releases and warnings regarding what to do and what not do regarding the Corona Virus. We are encouraging the self help movement.
The other thing we are trying to do is to force the government to free prisoners. We are talking about more than 200,000 prisoners. Some prisoners (about 50,000) have been released on very high bails temporarily. The authorities have said just to give them leave, not free. The government has given guidelines but the local “sheriffs” do not let the prisoner go. The lives of a lot of political prisoners and criminals in jail are in real danger. Reports indicate that some prisoners have died of Corona Virus in prisons. There were two riots in two prisons in Iran. In one of them the Pasdaran killed 20-30 prisoners and the rest escaped. We have no news of the other.

We are pushing for stop working in factories. Workers are still going to work. The CEOs and managers are staying behind closed doors but workers are exposed. In a Steel Plant two or three days ago a worker tested positive for Corona Virus. Workers in the Plant went on strike demanding the closure of the factory. There was a one day strike in the mining industry. What should happen is that work should stop but people should be given a basic income so they can survive the hardships economically. These are some of the issues we are pushing for. However, as far as the Islamic Republic is concerned, we have seen no move to alleviate any of the hardships for the people. The regime just adds to the hardship.

The political climate in Iran is so different from that in Europe or other countries. There is a great deal of solidarity among the people. There is great deal of anger and hatred towards the state. People were in the process of uprising in the past two years, especially past few months. I am sure this regime is going to fall, one day or another. The Corona Virus epidemic is going to accelerate that day. We have to look world wide as what to do. We have to fight back capitalism, and exposing capitalism should be our international universal slogan in the face of people’s livelihood.

⏭ Asar Majedi is a Member of Hekmatist Party leadership & Chairperson of Organisation for Women’s Liberation

The Human Cost Of Corona Virus In Capitalism

Azar Majedi feels that the economic system we currently live bears primary culpability for the Covid-19 pandemic. 

They're promoting social Darwinism in this era of Corona pandemic. The dominant narrative is becoming "the survival of the fittest"! This is dangerous. This is one step away from Fascism. 

Bourgeoisie is killing two birds with one stone. By promoting this narrative, it covers up its incompetence and the irresponsible manner in which it has dealt with the spread of virus; taking care of capitalists' profit. It is also using this pandemic to get rid of the old and the weak and save money. 

This is capitalism pure and simple. 

Bourgeoise ideologues have the media and the power to spread this fascistic ideology. But we should fight back. We should call it what it is. We should expose capitalism as the murderer. We should not allow this narrative to stick. 

Our narrative is that capitalism is responsible. If it were not for all the cuts and looking after the rich and their profits we would not have been in this situation. We would not have had to chose who's worth saving and who should be left to die! This is a very dangerous precedent.

Capitalism is falling into a very deep crisis, worse than 2008. We saw how the bourgeoisie dealt with the last crisis; how ordinary people, workers became poorer; their lives more precarious; the world became less equal; and the rich amassed more money. We should not let this story repeat. The world after Corona if the same system continues would be much more unequal, much harsher, more precarious. 

We are facing a dire situation; a crossroad; Fascism or Socialism this is the choice!

⏭ Asar Majedi is a  Member of Hekmatist Party leadership & Chairperson of Organisation for Women’s Liberation

Dire Situation

Mike Craig on the need to protect workers from the virus of capitalism. 

I'm fairly sure, based on my interactions with many members of the Labour Party and others who consider themselves to be progressive, that few have looked at The Labour Theory Of Value. I believe that if they had, they would not have illusions that capitalism can be reformed. Considering this, I will attempt to apply part of this theory in the simplest of terms, in order to make my point.

The Labour Theory Of Value holds that no commodity has any value except for the amount of labour (socially useful work) instilled within it.

It may be a good idea to go and look it up (even Wiki has enough info to give you the gist).

All you have to do in the meantime, is to observe what has been happening around the World during the last few weeks.

As more and more people have had to down tools and stay away from work, in order to isolate themselves from the contagion of Covid-19, the economies of the World have been grinding down to a fraction of what they were. No labour = no commodities and no services!

Banks do not produce any value, since they do not do any socially useful work. If most of the population was wiped out by C-19 or anything else, the survivors would need shelter, food, clothing and medical treatment. These would be their only concerns, and money would be of absolutely no use to them. Banks therefore, would be the last organisations that survivors would be thinking about.

When you really think about what we need to survive in such a situation, it soon becomes obvious that money is useless.

Keeping this in mind, while taking a step backwards, and looking then at what we consider to be a normal society, it becomes much easier to see that money is only a means of measuring value, for the purpose of exchanging commodities, and is not in itself worth anything.

In a capitalist society money is used by those who do not contribute any socially useful labour, to extract value from those who do.

When a company borrows money (capital) from a bank in order to produce a commodity, the money which the bank hands over comes from interest paid to that bank from previous loans to other companies. The workers in the new company use their labour power to produce the commodity which is then sold, and part of the takings from these sales is paid to the bank in order to pay back the loan plus interest. We can see from this that the owner(s) of the new company have not been out of pocket, as it is the value produced by the workers which pays back the bank for the capital which was borrowed to start the company in the first place. It can also be seen that the bank has taken part of the value in interest even though the bank did not add any value in the process.

The money which the bank lent to the new company came from the interest it charged other companies who in turn, also extracted their value from the labour of their workers.

As we see from this, currently and historically, all of the capital which the banks hold and all of the profits (surplus value) that the shareholders obtain has been created by the socially useful labour of the workers. The situation has become a bit more complicated, especially in the last 4 decades since 'finance capitalism' has taken over the World's economies. This type of capitalism is based on debt. In this system, profits are made based on the value which will be created by workers in the future, though mortgages etc. and money itself has become a commodity, the accumulation of which has created the vast inequalities which have become visible to most people in recent times.

At the end of the day someone has to create the value behind this fictitious money - it does not just magically appear, and that someone will be the future generations of workers.

Today it has been revealed that several banks in the UK continued to pay dividends to their shareholders, despite being asked to pause this and divert this capital towards the fight against Covid-19. This shows the parasitic nature of banking.

Because of its very nature, Capitalism can not be made into a just and fair system. It is a system based on deception and exploitation. Profit is unearned income creamed off the top of the value created when our labour power is converted into a commodity and exchanged for money. Giving us a wee bit more of a share of the value that we create, as was done during the Keynesian years, still doesn't remove the profit motive and the clamour for endless growth. Neither does it change the deception that is inherent in the process.

When this pandemic is over and capitalism and its governments are crying poverty, despite having off-shored Trillions of Dollars into tax havens, they will try to impose austerity on the World's workers. They will do this by reducing our services and living standards, and they will also impose controls over our freedom of movement in order to prevent us from organising resistance to these measures.

We have already paid for anything that the governments have given us during this crisis. We have already paid for the health services, and the inadequate welfare and emergency wages, the 'mortgage holidays', etc. Why should we pay again?

If after seeing how the System, and the governments which prop it up, has explicitly put profits before lives, people remain unconvinced of the need to replace it, I believe we will be doomed.

⏩Mike Craig is a member of Left Horizons.

Why Workers Shouldn't Pay For The Economic Crisis Resulting From The Covid-19 Pandemic

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)