Murdoch grows a conscience?

Today the Times had the unfathomable gumption to run the above cartoon – under the headline ‘Priorities’ – in a brazen attempt to divert attention from the phone-hacking scandal to the issue of famine in Somalia. What an incredulous and cynical piece of posturing by the Murdoch Empire!

Every day 25,000 people die of starvation or malnutrition. Every year six million children die of hunger. How many times has this been the lead story on Sky News? Or the front page of the Sun or the Times? How many times were these issues ignored in favour of inane stories obtained through ill-gotten means? Where were Rupert Murdoch’s ‘priorities’ then? What a convenient time to grow a conscience.

Time to hold Rupert Murdoch and the government to account

There is perhaps no greater argument against unfettered free markets and unregulated media monopolies than the ongoing phone-hacking fiasco engulfing Rupert Murdoch’s News International. Free markets and open media are heralded as central tenets of liberal democracy – but in the last few weeks we have seen the most grotesque flaunting of our democratic principles. Phone hacking, the utilisation of state surveillance, bribery of police, the blurring of lines between big business and government, and the concentration of media into the hands of a narrow elite are all more commonly associated with totalitarianism than democracy.

Today’s arrest of Rebekah Brooks shows that News International is rotten to the core (if anyone was in any doubt) and demonstrates that corporations cannot be trusted to remain ethical and aboveboard without stringent regulation. Just as investment banking should be held to account for the recent financial crash, so should media moguls be held responsible for their disregard of democratic principles. Furthermore, we should champion a diverse, transparent and plural media which scrutinises – rather than fraternises with – government.

The News of the World – and along with it hundreds of jobs – was sacrificed to protect Brooks – but now the tentacles of corruption delve so deep into News International that Brooks herself – Murdoch’s protégé – has become the sacrificial lamb. Brooks must be held to account for what she has done – but the buck doesn’t stop with her. Rupert Murdoch himself must be brought to justice whilst the government – inextricably linked to the Murdoch Empire – must answer for its illegitimate corporate sycophancy.

Left teach right a lesson in union bashing‏

I was saddened to read Alice Miles' latest New Statesman column – Teachers are striking for all the wrong reasons – resorting to the same trade union bashing and reactionary rhetoric of the right-wing media. Miles concludes:

The terrible achievements of the teachers’ unions, with their apparent belief that good and bad teachers should be treated the same in the name of equity, is that, in the name of “comprehensive” education, they have allowed the school system to be captured by parent choice, which causes segregation and inequality. How sadly unintelligent it is to strike for higher pay and pensions rights, rather than addressing real deficiencies.

Miles' argument is flawed on a number of fundamental levels and she demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the roles of trade unions.

Firstly, it is not the purpose of trade unions to differentiate between "good" and "bad" teachers. Their role is to represent their members equally and fairly.

Secondly, it is not only wrong but worryingly misleading and intellectually questionable to suggest that unions "in the name of "comprehensive" education... have allowed the school system to be captured by parental choice, which causes segregation and inequality". This completely ignores the neo-liberal agenda of successive governments which has lead to the fragmentation of our inclusive comprehensive system through the promotion of free schools – all of which has been opposed by the teaching unions.

It is not the role of unions to become involved in policy decisions and the hostility to free schools by the NUT and NASUWT has been because it undermines the interests of their members. The logical conclusion of Miles' viewpoint is that free schools are a good thing because the erosion of union influence and the shedding of state control affords governors and parents the freedom to sack "bad" teachers – or teachers they simply don't like.

Finally it is deliberately misleading to suggest unions are striking "for higher pay and pensions rights, rather than addressing the real deficiencies". Again, it is not the role of trade unions to address "real deficiencies" – they are there to represent their members. Furthermore, asserting that the NUT and ATL are striking for higher pay demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the current industrial dispute.

The historical role of trade unions has been to improve the pay and working conditions of its members, but the current dispute – focusing as it does on fighting a rise in the pension age, increased contributions and an effective pay cut – represents a fundamental realignment and weakening of the role of trade unions. Trade unions are no longer concerned with improving conditions and are instead focussed on fighting the erosion of workers' rights.

Yet the powerful myth continues – perpetuated by mainstream media – that trade unions only go on strike to improve salaries. This distorted reality creates a false impression of industrial disputes and undermines public sympathy.

Popular debate should not concentrate on bringing public sector conditions down to the level of the private sector, it should seek to elevate private sector conditions to the level of the public sector. In order to achieve this we need strong and robust unions in both the public and private sectors. Furthermore, the progressive and left-wing media must not regurgitate the same right-wing bile as the mainstream media and must challenge ongoing myths and lies. For instance, why is the average public sector pension – £7,000 per annum according to the TUC – thought to be "gold plated"? Thankfully, I have the freedom to differentiate between "good" and "bad" journalism.

Marxism 2011: Britain’s Trot Talent

Is the Pope a Catholic? Do bears shit in the woods? Are the SWP calling for a General Strike?

Some questions we instinctively know the answer to and Marxism 2011 – the SWP’s annual political conference – was saturated with the familiar calls for a General Strike. Instead of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, it’s The Marxist Who Cried General Strike. And both exclamations – repeated ad infinitum without foundation – quickly lose any relevance or significance.

But this time it’s different and last Thursday – on the same day as mass strikes in the public sector – Mark Campbell – a UCU union rep and SWP member – told Marxism’s opening rally that “the call for a General Strike is no longer an abstract slogan”.

Campbell’s proclamation was met with rapturous applause and a spontaneous rendition of One Solution Revolution – but it does give a fascinating insight into SWP tactics. Were they aware that all their previous calls for a General Strike were abstract demands?

A General Strike cannot come through decree, it must evolve through the inclusion of more and more workers and the involvement of more and more struggles. If workers are going to embark on a long and bitter industrial dispute, they need to be assured in their fight and possess a heightened consciousness – they can’t simply be following orders or abstract slogans.

There are a number of concrete reasons why calling for a General Strike is a tactical error. Firstly, there is the legal issue which – because unions cannot strike in sympathy or for political reasons – means a General Strike is illegal. Secondly – and closely linked to this – is the problem with public perception. Pervasive mainstream media hostility to trade unionism has created an insidious opposition to the prospect of strike action which can only be countered incrementally from the bottom-up. Different conflicts, issues and disputes in different trade unions have to be addressed simultaneously with action being co-ordinated locally and nationally on the same days. This, in effect, would represent a General Strike but the SWP’s radical rhetoric fuels the fire of a reactionary media and serves to alienate many workers who would otherwise sympathise with the struggle.

The Marxism festival illustrates that the SWP suffers from a number of intellectual inconsistencies and, one assumes, it comes from the problematic concept of democratic centralism. On the one hand, the SWP criticise the Soviet Union and Cuba for being top-down but, on the other, the central committee issue General Strike diktats to the British labour movement. On the one hand, they criticise the post-war Labour government for bourgeois collaboration and dismiss the welfare state and state control as distractions from building revolutionary socialism but, on the other hand, they claim to lead the fight against public sector cuts and privatisation. As Maxine Bowler said at a seminar on the USSR: “capitalism will use all sorts of strategies to make sure it maintains itself”. So why defend social democracy which curbs revolutionary zeal? Surely, from an SWP perspective, the best way to achieve proletarian revolution is from the most cut-throat and ruthless capitalism?

The true beauty and fascination of Marxism, however, lies not in the inconsistencies of SWP dogmatism but in the wealth of eminently reasonable and inspiring non-SWP speakers it attracts – whether it’s Jeremy Corbyn championing the progressive governments of Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia, Richard Wilkinson with his empirical dissection of inequality or Tariq Ali denouncing the obsequious acquiescence of Ed Miliband to Tory monetarism. It’s about the myriad of left-wing eccentrics it attracts – whether it’s the International Bolshevik Tendency heralding North Korea or the Workers Revolutionary Party starting a near-brawl. If the SWP can attract thousands of activists to a festival on revolutionary socialism, just think how many more can be attracted to a broad and inclusive movement against government cuts. Now if only the Labour Party would play ball...