Eyes on Power

The Inequality of Choice

2012-03-06T18:06:00.010Z

Following the major industrial action called last year, and with further industrial action being planned to disrupt the Olympics this year, the debate over the size and continuation of public institutions has, and looks set to continue to be, at the forefront of all policies and actions of the Con-Dem coalition.

With the shift to greater forms of privatisation continuing to run ever onwards the unions are now, in the words of the New Statesman’s Mehdi Hassan, left as “the last defence for maintaining Britain’s public institutions”.

With the forming of free schools outside of Council remits and the selling off of parts of the NHS to private entities the last remaining bastions of socially democratic Britain are currently under threat. They have been targeted as a weight around the neck of the individual in an increasingly technological and individualistic society. Any form of higher taxation, lack of choice of payment or lack of choice of proprietor is seen in the same light as a lack of choice socially, a viewpoint supported by one of Britain’s self-appointed ‘New Progressives’ Nick Clegg. The two are seen as one and same when they clearly fall into two separate spheres of reason that are united by the desire for liberty.

There is no doubt that there has been a positive recent shift in Britain’s social viewpoint. The challenging of racism, sexism and homophobia is now common place in society with choice and diversity seen as the key element to the betterment of the individual. The choice to be what you want to be is paramount. These positive social changes however have occurred at a time of major economic individualism. Education, healthcare and housing to name a few, are now often seen as issues which fall to the choice of the individual without any form of collective conscience holding sway.

Thus taxes have been sold as an irritating necessity, rather than a contribution to betterment, that can be tolerated as long as they are low and offer choice with money rather than more equality without. The ‘freedom of the market’ ideal of the last thirty years encourages the idea of greater cash flow in all areas and for all services with the individual alone responsible for their actions. You pay your money you take your choice. The individual Taxpayer, rather than society, deserves value for their money.

No more is society referred to in a political sense yet one cannot escape the constant media barrage regarding issues surrounding ‘the Taxpayer’. Private companies offer and the individuals compete for their services with cash and credit; boom and bust possibilities for all. Individuals take on huge debts themselves hence private debt is now around four times higher than public debt. Each individual is morphed into a limited company of the self.

As a result, those with ideals stepped in equality, liberty and collectivism need to come up with an economically reasoned alternative to this if they wish to buck the trend of the rise in economic individualism. Highlighting how democratic public institutions in key service areas, rather than private bodies, improve the liberty and choice for all individuals - akin to the social choices they demand and enjoy today - is the key place to start. This liberty can be achieved by helping form greater power equality through democratic involvement in output which in turn creates freedom from the oppression of powerful, undemocratic economic bodies and gives individuals a greater and fairer stake in the system they work in and/or vote upon. Also, with these institutions the individual spends less on key services and thus has more hard cash to spend on goods, maintaining a healthy market economy in key areas.

Akin to how the 18^th century philosopher Thomas Paine talked of the need for individuals to be free from feudal landlords, individuals in modern society find their liberty restricted by large, undemocratic, often trans-national, corporations of which in 2002, 29 where part of the richest 100 entities in the world. As this total was found in a UN report published ten years ago one can assume the current total to be higher. Furthermore, the figures do not include non-limited companies described by writer Peter Wilby as being “equity funds that take over businesses such as MG Rover, the care home provider Southern Cross and Manchester United so that they cease to be public limited companies with shares traded on the stock exchange under strict rules. They do not...have to abide by rules of corporate governance, announce financial results or publish senior executives' remuneration”.

The fear of the big state and its control has led to the now unspoken dominance of these corporate bodies and the individuals who run them. The News International scandal allowed a small peak into the dimensions of this unrestricted power and influence that now strangles the liberty of individuals on a grand scale.

When highlighting these ideals critics of improving and increasing public institutions often stress the lie that as Britain is a developed state, and allows all the chance to try and gain a plethora of material goods, enough equality has arisen. Of course it hasn’t. Inequality of wealth in Britain is now at it’s highest since 1918 causing a glut of social problems as highlighted in Wilkinson and Pickett’s ‘The Spirit Level’ (2009).

With the rise of UK Uncut and the Occupy movement, support for the Robin Hood tax and strong vocal opposition regarding the cuts exemplified by the recent victory against the government’s workfare policy, the economic dissent at neoliberal policies is growing. Now real progressives have a chance to react to this and cement the facts into the mainstream about how economic choice espoused by neo-liberals gives powers to some individuals but also weakens the power of many individuals, as well as numerous groups, in society drastically. If an essential service sector allows all in an unequal society to do as they please in terms of choice and compete in a market environment then those with the most have the greater power to succeed as seen so chillingly in Britain’s education system of economic apartheid.

The best alternative to this is strong public institutions free and available to all where possible, supported by an extension of democracy through changes in the electoral system with greater proportional representation and greater power to councils and regions. As devolution has indicated, greater regional powers are appreciated when gained, opening up the possibility of elements of regionalisation of nationalisation and a change to the “civil-serviceised” nationalisation that was predominant during the post-war consensus.

As the unions prepare to defend public institutions they have a chance to push this new political path and speak to those in society who are outside of their remit, to those in society without any cooperative protection. Those in the corporations and companies who have no stake in the output of their labour. Those who have no power over the decisions that affect their everyday working lives. Those who need public institutions to increase their restricted liberty. Those like the one million people now working in call centre jobs, more than worked in the mining industry at its peak.

For without these public institutions, services will not exist for all but exist for the benefit of a minority - the minority with the most. Without them the poor do not benefit, society does not benefit and the individual does not benefit for society is split. The individual is alone. The indivual is economically powerless. He is without freedom. The choice of the freedom to choose is no choice at all in an unequal Britain. Society has to espouse greater economic equality to gain the freedom the individual so desires and strong public service institutions are one of the ways, if not the key way, to heightening this liberty for they help make one and all truly free.

Free-time suddenly got a lot more expensive

2012-02-29T22:29:00.000Z

It was announced yesterday that the Scottish government had awarded a £250,000 contract to First ScotRail to pilot a free Wi-Fi service on trains between Edinburgh and Glasgow. The hope is that the technology will eventually be available on trains across the country and will help stimulate economic recovery by lubricating the creaking wheels of commerce.

As someone who's spent a large proportion of the last year commuting (approx. 4.5hrs per day or 44 full days - not that I'm counting) the move promises a welcome technological luxury. More concerning, however, is that the scheme is vulnerable to corporate exploitation and is likely to further erode the thin line between 'work' and 'free-time'.

The initiative has unsurprisingly been welcomed by business leaders. According to Liz Cameron, chief executive of Scottish Chambers of Commerce:

Wi-fi connectivity is essential to doing business in the 21st Century and its introduction to our trains is vital to making public transport a productive business experience.

The question, therefore, is why do trains need to be a ‘productive business experience’? Will workers be paid for working during their commute? Will this be included as part of their normal working week and enshrined in their contract? Almost certainly not.

According to the TUC, workers gave bosses over 2 billion hours of unpaid overtime in 2011. That's roughly equivalent to one million full-time jobs and contributed £29.2bn to the economy. Staggeringly, if employees who regularly put in unpaid overtime worked all their hours at the start of the year, the first day they would get paid would be February 24.

Modern technology such as smart phones and Wi-Fi – rather than being liberating and empowering – have been hijacked by commercial interest. People are not obliged to work in their free-time – because if they were employers would be compelled to pay them – but they are expected to do so. This expectation – exacerbated by the fear of unemployment – creates a culture of anxiety and encourages people to sacrifice their free-time. It effectively means the wage you earn is worth less because you're working more hours and fits rather snugly with Marx's theory of alienation. The phenomena itself is part of an increasing capitalist monopolisation of free-time (on which I will return later).

One thing’s for certain. We now know why they call it ‘free’ time – because people end up working for nothing.

David Cameron - Master Magician

2012-02-28T22:15:00.000Z

"For my next trick, I will make your pension disappear"

An expert magician is a master of deception and misdirection. As the virtuoso conjurer distracts your gaze – and blinds you with dazzling patter – his hands work feverishly out of sight before revealing his confounding trick. The audience is left baffled and dumbfounded in a daze of shock and awe. The trick is left unexplained and irreversible. The magician is sworn never to reveal his secret.

David Cameron – with Andrew Lansley as his glamorous assistant – is a maestro of political misdirection and ideological sleight-of-hand, but the left cannot let itself fall victim to the coalition’s relentless trickery.

The proposed restructuring of the NHS has understandably caused widespread outrage. Over 100,000 people have signed an ePetition calling on the government to abandon the Health and Social Care Bill, it has met with opposition from health professionals, activists and trade unionists, and derision has come from unlikely ideologues such as Stan Collymore and Rio Ferdinand.

The mobilisation of opposition to the Health Bill is inspirational, but it is important not to see the struggle as independent or isolated from government policy elsewhere. Cameron’s retention of Andrew Lansley – whilst numerous commentators have suggested his position is untenable – represents a willingness to court controversy. Lansley could have been purged as a scapegoat in an attempt to detoxify the Health Bill, but instead he has been retained as a villainous stooge to attract vitriol and detract attention from other unsavoury policy.

The Health Bill is the apex of a creeping barrage of stealthy privatisation which seeks to auction off profitable elements of the public sector in an effort to kick-start economic recovery. The tactic is short-termist, irrevocable and will create gapping inequity.

The Conservatives cannot be allowed to use the NHS hubbub to mask the systematic dismantling of the welfare state: from the constriction of the benefit system to the rise of free schools and city academies. The education sector in the UK is worth an estimated £2bn and – since the coalition came to power – the number of academies operating outside local government control has increased by nearly 800% to 1,529. With focus trained on the NHS reforms, this has gone almost completely unnoticed. Furthermore – and unlike the Health Bill – these developments have received no opposition from the Tories’ yellow-bellied Lib Dem bed fellows.

Whether it’s concerned parents worrying about schools being taken over by big business; students agonising over the withdrawal of EMA; or cancer patients stressing over work-ready assessments – activists and campaigners will usually be interested in single issues. It therefore falls on the Labour Party to cut-through the impenetrable mystification, unite the struggles and be at the forefront of each of these conflicts. These are not independent policy decisions and the Labour Party must ensure that the synapses of struggle are connected so people can understand the ideological assault on public services.

Ed Miliband has been at his strongest when acting as a respectable insurgent fighting entrenched power – particularly against News International and bankers’ bonuses. Now is the time to intensify and unite the struggle. Miliband has the not just the opportunity, but the moral obligation, to define and shape the debate. It’s time for him to break the magician’s code and let us in on the trick.

This article was originally written for Labour List

“In no way do these changes represent a change in our goal of building socialism”

2012-02-24T15:11:00.001Z

We first heard about Cuba’s economic changes in September 2010. Headlines declared that 1 million state jobs would be cut and David Cameron exulted that “even communist Cuba has got with the programme that we need to cut the budget deficit and get spending under control”. Meanwhile the media revelled in accusations that the economic changes represented an abandonment of socialism. Continuing the theme of half a century, neo-liberal vultures circled Cuba waiting for the inevitable collapse of socialism.

The Cuban economy has suffered as a result of global financial crisis and a number of devastating hurricanes, but media analysis has instead portrayed the changes as a response to structural flaws in the Cuban model. I met Carlos Camps, Political Counsellor at the Cuban Embassy, to examine some of the most prominent new policies and find out the truth behind the media headlines.

Although areas of the Cuban economy remain unproductive – and the socialist principle of distribution has been challenged by unearned remittances – Carlos points out that the Cuban economy grew 2.7% last year whilst capitalist countries struggled to recover from recession. As Carlos observes:

We see the American model everywhere, but this is not the model for us because it is in a very profound and very deep crisis … The international press is always looking to discredit Cuba and the socialist character of our revolution, but in no way do these changes represent a change in our goal of building socialism.

Housing

For a number of years, Cuba has struggled with housing shortages and one of the new policies seeks to resolve the problem by changing the way Cubans buy and sell houses. Although Cubans have always owned their homes – with residencies passing through the family – houses could only change hands through a bureaucratic system of exchange. The new system aims to solve the housing problem by establishing a legal and open process of monetary transaction.

As Carlos notes, “it’s no secret that sometimes the old process was open to abuse. If you lived alone in a very big house, I could give you $5000 and you could move into my small place”. The new system limits the potential for corruption because it legitimises financial transactions – allowing the state to generate money through taxation – and transfers the responsibility of drafting legal documentation from the individual to the state.

“The old process took place through the housing office where individuals would present all ownership documentation,” explains Carlos. “Now everything takes place through notaries who draw up legal documentation. Any financial transaction takes place through the bank. For example, we would agree the price and you deposit the money in my account. I would then take a statement to the notary who checks it, changes the property registration and deducts a transaction tax.”

The situation is similar for the buying and selling of cars. Previously, only American cars from before the revolution could be bought and sold. Any modern cars – mostly of Soviet origin – could only be passed to your children or spouse. The new law allows transactions involving any car. As of November 2011, over 6000 had changed hands. Whereas “people will only be able to own one home and one holiday home,” Carlos explains that people will be able to own more than one car. As with the exchange of houses, all transactions go through the notary and are taxed.

The core aim of the new housing legislation is to prevent housing shortages and overcrowding. As Carlos illustrates, “if a couple have money available but don’t have a house to exchange – for example they could be living with their family – they can now buy their own house. If a family have a large house, but also another empty house registered in the name of a son, they can sell it to someone who needs it”.

A new series of grants, loans and subsidise have been introduced to support those who cannot afford to buy their own home. According to Granma, citizens are now eligible for grants of up to 80 000 Cuban pesos to help build a family home. Furthermore, loans starting at 1000 pesos are available for those interested in purchasing materials for home improvement and construction.

The new benefits are specifically targeted at those who need support most. “Up until now, the price of construction materials were determined by high earners – such as those who work in tourism or receive money from abroad,” explains Carlos. “If you had a low income, or had been affected by a hurricane, it was harder to get construction equipment. The new system ensures everyone has equal access and receives full support”.

The government has guaranteed the production of building materials to satisfy demand and has introduced various safeguards to ensure loans are used for their intended purpose and that construction is stimulated. As Carlos says, “you can only spend a credit or subsidy in the same area that you applied for. Everything is done via credit or bank note with no cash involved”.

Agriculture

Agricultural changes – including increasing the amount of land farmers can rent, extending the length of leases and allowing farmers to sell produce directly to hotels rather than through state intermediaries – dovetail with developments in housing. As Carlos explains:

Due to the success of social programmes after the revolution, many farmers’ children went to the city to study and to work. One aim is to encourage people back to the countryside and a house could attract them.

Although agricultural output increased by 2% last year, it is estimated that Cuba will import food worth $1.7bn in 2012. Building houses in rural areas – alongside increases in land to cultivate – acts as an incentive to increase agricultural production. “Why import tomatoes and potatoes when we can grow them at home?” asks Carlos. “We need to make farming attractive so people are interested in production.”

Allowing farmers to sell directly to hotels makes the process quicker and increases quality. “Tourism is a very sensitive area,” concedes Carlos “and it means the product must be of a very high standard”. The increase in quality and efficiency – although aimed at the 2.5m visitors each year – will help benefit all Cubans.

Self-employment

The rise of self-employment has been portrayed by the Western press as Cuba embracing free-market liberalism – but this conclusion does not stand up to scrutiny.

In December 2011, Cuba’s Deputy Minister of Labour and Social Security announced that the number of self-employed workers had increased by over 50% over the previous year and now exceeded 357 000. Over 100 separate occupations are now eligible for self-employment, from gardeners and barbers to pet-walkers and plumbers.

Carlos sees the expansion of self-employment as part of the “necessity to organise the whole system” and, as self-employment removes unnecessary prohibitions, it allows individuals to fill gaps where the state does not have the capacity to provide.

There will still be a close and inextricable link between the state and self-employed enterprises as many businesses will be renting government buildings and most will be buying state supplies. Both of which will help the state raise funds. As Carlos explains:

If you want to start a business you have to attend a government office and apply for a license. They tell you how much you have to pay per month. If at any point you can’t afford to pay, you can apply to defer payment.

Official Cuban figures show that 66% of self-employed workers were previously registered as unemployed. One possible explanation for this is that many of these people – now officially registered and paying tax – were previously active on the black market. Hence, new regulations serve to legitimise previously prohibited activity and, at the same time, allow the state to reinvest new money raised through taxation into the social infrastructure. Therefore, rather than representing developments as an eschewing of socialism – by involving them in civil society – it can be viewed as an extension of socialist planning.

Conclusion

As Raul Castro declared in a recent speech at the National Assembly, “corruption is currently one of the principal enemies of the revolution”. In this context, economic changes can be seen as an attempt to eliminate corruption by moving previously unofficial activity into the state-regulated – if not state-owned – economy. This allows the state to generate wealth – which can be reinvested into socially productive projects – stimulate growth and create jobs. They also address ongoing challenges including housing shortages, low agricultural production and excessive bureaucracy.

New benefits are targeted at the most vulnerable to raise living standards and reduce the gap between those with and without access to hard currency. As Carlos predicts, the probable aim is a return to a single currency “but this requires not just an increase in salaries, it also needs a decrease in prices”.

Moreover, the economic changes – rather than representing a sudden divergence from socialist principles – are consistent with Cuba’s long history of reflection, renewal and rectification. As Carlos explains:

The Cuban revolution has always been very dialectic. We have always worked on our mistakes to ensure we don’t commit them again. The process of revolution is not a fixed phenomenon, especially in a changing world. Fidel has said that the revolution is about changing everything that must be changed, but never the principles on which socialism is based.

The purpose of the changes are “to guarantee the socialist gains of our revolution and make our economy stronger. We will never renounce the principles of independence, self-determination and working-class rule,” concludes Carlos. “If you can produce more, you can live better – and that’s the final goal of socialism”.

This article recently appeared in CubaSi magazine

Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor

2012-01-25T16:25:00.008Z

Political events this week have again illustrated the stark divide between the affluent few at the top and the majority of the population who struggle to remain above water. Whilst the government seeks to create a finite universal benefit, the pay of financial executives – often underpinned by the public purse – continues to soar.

As George Monbiot said in a recent column arguing for the introduction of a maximum wage:

The income of corporate executives ... is a form of institutionalised theft, arranged by a kleptocratic class for the benefit of its members. The wealth which was once spread more evenly among the staff of a company, or distributed as lower prices or higher taxes, is now siphoned off by people who have neither earned nor generated it.

Over the past ten years, chief executives’ pay has risen nine times faster than that of the median earner. Some bosses (British Gas, Xstrata and Barclays for example) are now being paid over 1000 times the national median wage.

At the same time, companies such as Vodafone, Topshop and British Home Stores have had huge tax bills written off whilst banking chiefs have continued to pocket huge bonuses, despite many being heavily subsidised by tax payers’ money. For instance, following the bailout of RBS, the UK government owns an 84% stake in the company. Yet in 2010, the RBS CEO Stephen Hester was paid a staggering £7.7m of which £2m was a ‘bonus’. I wonder how many people on Jobseekers’ Allowance or Employment Support Allowance received a state-sponsored ‘bonus’ for Christmas.

Vince Cable’s attempt to harness executive pay – through increasing transparency and shareholder influence – represent nothing more than impotent posturing. As Monbiot notes, pay transparency could “create the perverse result that executives discover how much their rivals are getting, and use the information to demand more”.

This highlights a structural paradox between how we conceptualise the public and private sectors. Executive pay in the private sector always seeks to level-up pay and benefits to ensure that companies remain competitive and can attract the best talent. Conversely – as demonstrated by the public sector pensions dispute – the debate around the lower end of the labour force always focuses on eroding public sector pay and conditions in line with the private sector. Both arguments – consistently forwarded by business, media and politicians – are mutually exclusive.

It is frightening that political and media rhetoric – which habitually demonises benefit claimants as feckless scroungers – can be so weak when challenging the power and influence of big business. The media is all too eager to attack ‘parasitic’ benefit claimants, but is less vehement in its pursuit of private sector leeches gorging on the public purse.

One of the key reasons for the rising benefit bill – neglected by most mainstream media – has been the cost of subsidising private landlords through housing benefit. It’s time to stop bankrolling private sector sponges – from landlords to banking executives – and use the money to build affordable social housing and create real employment opportunities.

To paraphrase Slavoj Zizek, John Pilger and Noam Chomsky, it’s socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

The privileged whites are playing divide and rule again

2012-01-05T21:35:00.000Z

It has been a week of remarkable media synergy as 18 years of ongoing injustice has reached partial closure with the sentencing of Gary Dobson and David Norris for the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Newspapers from across the political spectrum – from the Morning Star and Socialist Worker to the Daily Mail and Daily Express – have rightfully rejoiced at the guilty verdict handed down to Dobson and Norris – but it is wrong to think the adjudication represents anything other than an incomplete victory. Furthermore, the fragile coalition of media consensus and sombre introspection has been blown apart by the furore surrounding Diane Abbott’s innocuous – if clumsily worded – Tweet that "White people love playing 'divide & rule'. We should not play their game"

Dobson's and Norris's sentencing is not testimony to a society which defends equality and justice, instead it indicates a society which continues to struggle with corruption, scape-goating and racism. Until systemic problems of institutional racism within the police – as identified in the Macpherson Report – have been resolved then racism will continue to blight our society. As police continue to disproportionately target black youths – in 1999 a black person was six times more likely to be stopped and searched by police; in 2006/7 it was seven times – hatred and bigotry will be reinforced.

Furthermore, as the Daily Mail has ridden the wave of public ignominy, it is wrong to view the paper which often makes Mein Kampf look moderate, as anything other than part of the problem. The xenophobic bile which the Mail gushes forth – and the moral indignation it has mustered to condemn Abbott – serves only to reinforce divisions and prejudice.

As Jyoti Bhojani argued on Labour List:

So it saddens me that in a momentous week, where whilst 18 years too late we saw Gary Dobson and David Norris convicted and sentenced for the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence, we are not talking about race relations. Instead the media are obsessing over Diane Abbott’s tweet

The media is abdicating from its core purpose to provide thorough objective analysis by resorting to crass sensationalism rather than investigating the underlying power structures which engender and perpetuate racism.

People of black and minority ethnic communities remain hugely underrepresented within parliament, the police force and business – if the vilification of Diane Abbott is anything to go by, it’s no wonder they are unable or unwilling to reach these positions. I guess it’s just a group of privileged white people playing ‘divide and rule’.

Indian democracy? What a good idea

2011-12-30T21:47:00.000Z

When asked about Western civilisation, Mahatma Gandhi sardonically replied, “I think it would be a good idea”. If he were around today to ask the same question about Indian democracy, I think his answer would be much the same. Indian democracy? What a very good idea.

The rise of the Indian economy – alongside that of China – is purportedly a threat to Western hegemony. Unlike China, however, India is ostensibly a democracy.

According to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, democracy is government “of the people, by the people and for the people” – but the definition of “people” has changed throughout time. In Ancient Greece – the bastion of direct democracy – the franchise was restricted to male landowners whilst, in the UK, women didn’t get voting equality with men until 1928.

In India, despite full suffrage, government is certainly not for the majority of the people. Testimony to its growing economic power, only the United States, China and Russia have more billionaires than India. Conversely, 80% of India’s population lives on less than $2 per day and, according to a report by the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 8 Indian states have more poor than the poorest 26 African nations combined. Nearly half of India’s children are malnourished and, following the worldwide recession, a further 100 million people were plunged into poverty. The rise of India as an economic powerhouse has been meteoric, but its growth – in terms of socio-economic groups, regions and rural/urban areas – has been uneven and has encouraged gross inequality.

India’s Undemocratic Credentials

A key indicator of Indian’s undemocratic credentials is the composition of its parliament. According to Patrick French, author of India: A Portrait, political influence in India is hereditary and “the principle of nepotism, of politics as a family business, is now more deeply entrenched than at any point since independence”.

Last year, French did a study of India’s lower house, the Lok Sabha, and discovered that the younger the politician, the more likely they were to have “inherited” their position:

Nearly half of all MPs aged 50 or under are hereditary, selected to contest a seat primarily because they are the children of senior politicians. No MP over the age of 80 is hereditary; every MP under the age of 30 is hereditary

As well as political parties becoming family fiefdoms, nearly all MPs are millionaires or billionaires. This situation creates a crisis of representation and further erodes the legitimacy of India’s democratic institutions. Politicians are drawn from an increasingly narrow economic elite and this disenfranchises the vast majority of Indians outside the political and economic aristocracy.

Indian political life is permeated with widespread corruption which further undermines confidence in the political establishment. In April this year, senior politician Suresh Kalmadi was arrested on charges of embezzling millions in the run up to last year’s Commonwealth Games whilst former communications minister Andimuthu Raja stands accused of defrauding the national treasury of $40bn. Corruption – like the prevalence of hereditary elites in parliament – is the symptom of a society where inequality reigns supreme.

Democracy and the Caste System

A key cause of ongoing inequality and its threat to democracy is the continuation of the caste system. K. M. Panikkar, in his 1933 essay Caste and Democracy, characterised the caste system as the “perpetuation of class predominance” as the priesthood sought to preserve their power by subjugating the lower castes.

Panikkar believed the caste system was underpinned by three core pillars: “inequality based on birth, gradation of professions and their inequality, and the restrictions on marriage outside one’s own sub-group”. It survived because it withstood various challenges – including the rise of Buddhism and Islam – by evolving and adapting. As Panikkar described it, “caste is social Imperialism, perfected by experience and maintained by religious sanction”.

Panikkar anticipated the withering away of caste with the advent of democracy. “Since caste and democracy are opposed in ideals, contrary in methods and fundamentally different in results, they cannot co-exist in any conceivable set of circumstances ... the caste system is bound to break in the mere attempt of the society to adjust itself to democratic ideals”

Yet the caste system and democracy continue to prevail in tandem. According to Rikke Nohrlind, Coordinator of the International Dalit Solidarity Network:

The caste system may be outlawed in India, but legislation is poorly implemented, and the country’s 200 million Dalits – formerly known as ‘untouchables’ – continue to suffer appalling forms of discrimination. Murder, rape and other crimes against them are mostly committed with impunity, while many Dalits experience forced prostitution and other forms of modern slavery

Affirmative action – including introducing quotas for government jobs, parliamentary seats and university admissions – has been employed in an attempt to uplift the social standing of Dalits and ensure they obtain proportionate access and political representation. In a society where the caste system is outlawed, however, positive discrimination can be counter-productive and further entrench group divisions whilst fostering resentment from outsiders. Moreover, whilst the underlining causes of social and economic inequality go untreated, any changes will be only cosmetic. Therefore, the adoption of affirmative action can be seen as part of a narrative of selective concessions relinquished by India’s ruling classes to perpetuate their control.

A further example of this is the myth of social mobility as a democratising and levelling tool. The example of Mayawati – leader of the Bahujan Samaj Party and chief minister of Uttar Pradesh – is often cited to demonstrate the equality of opportunity in India. Mayawati was one of nine children born into a family of Dalits in Delhi – but now she is one of the richest women in India and, according to Patrick French, “represents a grass-roots, democratic revolution”.

Although it does represent a challenge to the fatalistic philosophy of Karma embodied in the caste system, social mobility is still based on a system of winners and losers and the idea of social mobility – so loved by liberal progressives in the West – is another way of reinforcing power structures. It is a tacit acceptance of inequality and hierarchy as people can only migrate up the class system if others remain exploited and downtrodden. Furthermore, as Wilkinson and Pickett demonstrate in The Spirit Level, social mobility is stunted in countries – like India – with profound wealth inequality. Hence, the idea of social mobility – by co-opting members of the lower classes into the ruling class to create a semblance of access – further entrenches exploitation and inequality.

In his 1956 article Prospects of Democracy in India, Dalit activist B. R. Ambedkar stated that “the existence of the Caste System is a standing denial of the existence ... of democracy”. He argued that, “Stratification is stunting the growth of the individual and deliberate stunting is a deliberate denial of democracy”. Over 60 years since British colonialists left India, and the country is still riddled with deep, ingrained inequality and struggles under the yoke of elite rule. The growth of the middle-class since India became a free nation in 1947 has been spectacular – but this acts to obfuscate the real issues because, under democracy, traditional structures of exploitation have been combined or replaced with more subtle methods.

Social mobility and affirmative action create the illusion that democracy is working towards equality and the abolition of the caste system. In reality, it means the structures of oppression – because they are not overtly based on birth, marriage or occupation – are more sophisticated and therefore more powerful. The esteem in which we hold democracy creates an impression of authority and legitimacy which justifies ongoing injustice. As poverty continues to devour rural India whilst wealth and influence is concentrated in the hands of a select few, it is clear that this ‘democracy’ is still marred by brutal social imperialism.

Christmas is the time for giving

2011-12-21T20:55:00.000Z

I’ve been commuting to London from Brighton since just before last Christmas. At this time of year – as coldness descends and darkness swallows every waking hour – delays, cancellations and unforeseen train mishaps become ever more frequent. Trains break down, frost freezes tracks and – as the festive season looms on the horizon – suicides increase. The whole unfortunate rigmarole becomes tedious, repetitive and tiring.

As Christmas approaches, strange creatures dressed in bright floppy hats garnished with shiny bells encroach from the dark and begin to occupy stations up and down the country. From first thing in the morning to last thing at night, flocks of carol singers ensconce themselves by ticket barriers or by platform edge. Their tuneful wails cut through the crisp air as they huddle together for warmth. Outriders patrol the perimeter of the pack shaking giant buckets adorned with images of their charitable master: Help For Heroes, the Salvation Army, or some local church.

Carol singers can smell a fiver – hidden deep in a leathery wallet – at fifty paces. Commuters are their prey and coinage is their bounty. You pull your scarf tight round your neck as a scout lurches over wearing a fake white beard and grasping his bucket tightly – like a festive harbinger from Middle Earth. “Spare any change sir? Christmas is the time for giving”.

Ignoring the increasing commercialisation of Christmas which suggests that if Christmas is “the time for giving” it’s actually for giving money to corporations and businesses, it’s wrong to suggest there is just one time for being generous. People should be generous all year, not just when they’re made to feel guilty.

But it also ignores a more serious point, that the need for charity is a symptom of a broken system. If people are sleeping rough, it’s because the government has failed to provide for its citizens. If people are dying of starvation in the developing world, it’s because international organisations and supranational bodies have not done enough to create a fair and redistributive system of trade. It is our global system of capitalism which creates inequality and poverty, and as long as this system survives, the problems will continue – no matter how much charity there is or how Big David Cameron’s Society becomes.

Whether guilt, empathy or sympathy drives people to donate, charity can only bring temporary solutions to problems which are universal and inherent. In addition, charity – because it works within a broken system – acts to reinforce systems of control and exploitation because it creates the illusion of dealing with a problem.

This animated video of a lecture by renowned philosopher Slavoj Zizek helps illustrate the argument:

The question of charity is a sensitive issue because it represents a potent mix of emotive power relations. We will only negate the need for charity when there are fundamental changes to our system, but there can’t be fundamental change whilst systems of control – including (arguably) charity – reinforce the system of oppression. As long as this continues there will be pain and suffering.

Understandably, most people would rather give to charity and help alleviate a small amount of suffering than let the horrors continue unabated. As Zizek says, “I’m not against charity in an abstract sense because it’s better than nothing – but let’s be aware that there is an element of hypocrisy”. It’s a deeply depressing paradox – and a horrible moral dilemma – which testifies to capitalism’s incredible ability to survive. Capitalism – the cockroach of political systems.

Or maybe I need to lighten-up, stop being so curmudgeonly and get into the Christmas spirit. I eagerly await the nocturnal visitation of three spirits to show me the light...

No Way Through: If London Was Occupied by Israel

2011-12-11T19:13:00.008Z

A fascinating short film about the terrifying difficulties facing Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank. A simple story, but brilliantly produced.

Photos from the march and rally in Brighton

2011-11-30T20:12:00.000Z

Occupy Brighton camp, Victoria Gardens

Umbrellas used to stop police photographing protestors

Click here for more photos.

10 Reasons to Legalise and Regulate Drugs

2011-11-25T14:37:00.002Z

According to the United Nation’s World Drug Report, more than 180 million people worldwide take illegal drugs. This means over 3% of the global population are criminalised and stigmatised by the “War on Drugs”. A prohibitionist stance alone cannot tackle drug addiction and the associated economic and social consequences. Here a ten compelling reasons why we should legalise and regulate drugs.

Prohibition has failed

The Wars on Drugs has failed. There has been an increase in violent crime, drug-related trade, street-level dealing and international insecurity. The policy has failed to reduce the availability of drugs, significantly deter people from taking drugs or impact on the profits and activities of underground organisations involved in the illicit drug trade. Governments – whilst squandering billions on counter-productive law-enforcement strategies – have generally failed to offer meaningful treatment and assistance to users and their communities. Prohibition has served to criminalise and marginalise millions of users and this inhibits their efforts to become productive members of society or gain access to employment and housing. As the Economist has argued, “legalisation would not only drive away the gangsters; it would transform drugs from a law-and-order problem into a public-health problem”. Legalisation offers the opportunity to deal with addiction appropriately because users are not automatically criminalised.

Regulation reduces crime
Prohibition has led to an increase in violent crime by allowing the illicit drug trade to remain lucrative for dealers, traffickers and producers. The UK government estimates that over 50% of property crime is committed by drug-users – but prohibition artificially inflates prices so legalisation would reduce costs and consumers would no longer have to steal to fund their habits.

According to The Transform Drugs Policy Foundation (Transform), the legalisation and regulationof the drugs market would lead to “a dramatic reduction in crime at all levels from international organised crime to shoplifting”. Gang violence and gun crime would reduce because “the largest single profit opportunity for organised crime would be greatly diminished”. Legalisation would immediately remove a significant source of funding to gangs, criminals and corrupt regimes.

Legalisation does not increase the number of users
Evidence suggests that there is no correlation between the stringency of drugs laws and the frequency of drug-taking. According to 2001 figures, in the United States – which has harsh drug laws – over 36% of the adult population had used marijuana, whilst in the Netherlands – where cannabis is legal in licensed premises – the figure was only 17%.

Increased taxation and investment in treatment, education and social spending
In 1989, Forbes magazine listed Colombian cocaine dealer Pablo Escobar as the seventh richest man on earth. According to the United Nations, international drug trade is worth $400 - $500 billion per year. A study by the University of York estimates the total cost of Class A drugs in England and Wales – including the cost of crime and direct government spending, unemployment benefit, legal costs, health expenditure and social services – as £15.4 billion per annum. The money raised through the tax and regulation of drug trade – plus the billions saved on law-enforcement – could be used to educate people about the dangers of drug-taking, fund treatment and invest in social programmes, job creation and housing.

Dangers of inconsistent potency and adulterants
Drugs are often cut with additives such as glass, brick dust and talcum powder to increase the amount of product and maximise profit. The result is that purity and strength varies greatly making it difficult to determine a dosage. According to the National Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths, 4/5 of the 2,182 drug-related deaths in 2009 were a result of accidental overdose. Government cannot monitor the cultivation, harvesting and distribution of products which are manufactured illegally, but legalisation would allow robust regulation and quality control mechanisms to ensure the safety of the product consumed.

Lack of education and support increases risk to public health

Outside Sub-Saharan Africa, the injection of illicit drugs accounts for approximately one in three new cases of HIV. In Russia, where there are more than 1.8 million intravenous users, 37% are HIV-positive. Robust information, advice and guidance on the risk of different drugs, safe injecting technique and the proper disposal of needles – along with an increased provision of sterile equipment – could greatly reduce the cost to public safety and allows governments to steer consumers to less harmful drugs.

Low level of risk in comparison to alcohol and tobacco

Most illegal drugs are safer than alcohol and tobacco. According to the Office for National Statistics, 713 people in England and Wales died of heroin misuse in 2006. The figures for alcohol and tobacco – although a higher number of people consume these substances – were 6,627 and 86,500 respectively. Last year, Wim van den Brink, Professor of Psychiatry and Addiction at the University of Amsterdam, told the British medical journal, Lancet, “drugs that are legal cause at least as much damage, if not more, than drugs that are illicit”. Regulation – as well as controlling advertising and promotion – would increase the availability of sterile equipment and further reduce hazards.

Prohibition cannot keep pace with technological advances

New synthetic psychoactive substances – or “legal highs” – are being created at the rate of more than one a week and this – facilitated by the internet – is leading to the growth and proliferation of an unregulated recreational drugs market. A case-in-point is mephedrone which enjoyed a surge in popularity before being banned in 2010. According to a report last year by Psychonaut, an EU-funded NGO that monitors drug-use, “in 2009 there were barely a few thousand references for online shops selling mephedrone and after just a few months there are now more than 144,000”.

Transform believe that the changing dynamics of the drug market means that the government’s strategy of trying to ban each one is unsustainable. Steve Rolles of TDPF told the Guardian that “each time they ban one, another emerges. It seems to show a blindness to the basic market dynamic, effectively creating a void for backstreet chemists to create another product”.

Drug production increases instability and threatens security

In drug producer and transit countries – including Afghanistan, Jamaica, Pakistan and various Latin American countries – drug money has fuelled instability, violence and corruption. More than 34,000 people were killed in drug-related violence in Mexico in the four years preceding 2011. General Barry McCaffrey – former drug tsar under President Clinton – described the situation as a fundamental threat to US national security. Regulation is a prerequisite for a return to stability in producer countries and internationally where the illicit drug trade helps finance and foster international terrorism.

Drugs incite fear and make world’s poor suffer
Every year millions of people in the developing world suffering from cancer or AIDS are denied access to opiates for pain control due to global drug control aimed at non-medical use. According to the New York Times, in Sierra Leone, morphine can only be administered by a pharmacist or doctor – but there are only 100 doctors for every 54,000 people. As a result, six of the richest countries – the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Britain and Australia – consume nearly 80% of the world’s morphine whilst poorer countries – where 80% of the world’s people live – consume only 6%. International prohibition means doctors fear addicting patients and governments fear drug crime – but a lack of understanding encouraged by sensationalism means the world’s poor suffer in pain.

Conclusion
Legalisation should not be seen as endorsement that all drugs are safe. Instead, it is an opportunity to provide objective and profession information and guidance on drugs. Due to its association with crime, the idea of legalising drugs has become taboo – but now is the time to take a global perspective and consider policy renewal and the adoption of legalisation and regulation.

A version of this article was published in Tribune magazine

UN rejects US blockade of Cuba

2011-10-25T22:48:00.000+01:00

For the 20th consecutive year the United Nations has resoundingly rejected the United States' illegal and unjust economic, commercial and financial blockade of Cuba.

This afternoon the UN General Assembly supported resolution A/66/L4 which calls for the end of the blockade. 186 countries voted for the resolution with only two countries – America and Israel – supporting a continuation of the policy.

Countries from across the world – from China to Mexico and from Algeria to South Africa – queued up to lend their political and diplomatic support to Cuba in the debate over the non-binding resolution. The representative from Uruguay noted that “we have witnessed an increase in the restrictions on Cuba’s transactions with third countries” and the blockade is “counter to the principles of justice and human rights, hampers and delays development and seriously harms the Cuban economy”.

As the Indian representative declared, the extraterritorial application of the embargo combined with the denial of access to the US market, acts to greatly and unfairly increase the cost of Cuba’s imports.

The delegate from Bolivia – referencing President John F Kennedy’s “ich bin ein Berliner” quote – said the slogan of our time should be “I am a Cuban” as the Cuban people remain an “inspiration and example” to the rest of the world. He continued, “if we truly believe in democracy then we must listen to the countries in this room”

Venezuela sent a message of support and solidarity to the Miami 5 and appealed to the United States for their release and the return of Rene Gonzalez to his homeland.

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez said that the sanctions have caused direct economic damages of close to $1 trillion to the Cuban people and that President Obama had done little to change this.

"Despite the false image of flexibility that the current U.S. administration intends to portray, the blockade and the sanctions remain intact," Rodriguez told the assembly.

"Why doesn't President Obama's administration take care of the U.S. problems and leave us Cubans alone to solve ours in peace?"

The blockade of Cuba was imposed on 7 February 1962 and next year marks its 50th anniversary. It remains an anachronistic echo of Cold War politics which has no legal justification. It runs contrary to America's ostensible belief in the supremacy of the free market and is a purely political decision motivated by the threat of the Cuban example which prioritises people over profit and champions free healthcare, education and internationalism.

The blockade will only be defeated by solidarity and concerted political will. Anyone interested in fighting against this ongoing injustice should join the Cuba Solidarity Campaign and get involved with their End It Now campaign.

Shake Your Moneymaker, Mr Osborne

2011-10-18T21:19:00.001+01:00

"I've got the brains, you've got the looks. Let's make lots of money"

Prior to the World Cup in 1998, the England football squad famously amused themselves by dropping song titles into media interviews. Talismanic centre-half Tony Adams declared “I’m so excited” about the upcoming championship whilst Alan Shearer insisted the team were keeping their feet on the ground and not “dancing on the ceiling”. It was a bunch of rich kids playing a harmless game. And even Alan Shearer was funny.

Fast-forward 13 years and a different bunch of rich kids – the coalition government – are playing a much more dangerous game with our economy. Where Shearer and co. referenced well-known 80s tunes, we now have Osborne et al regurgitating stale references to the "economic mess" the previous Labour government left us in. And whilst England's japes earned them a few quid in bets with teammates, the coalition's financial tomfoolery is going to cost us all dearly. The only 80s throw-back being cited now is Maggie Thatcher.

Re-worded, re-packaged and repeated ad infinitum, the phrase has prefixed Conservative and Lib Dem responses to every question since the formation of the coalition:

"How many slices of toast for breakfast, George?" asks Mrs Osborne.

"Two please – although if it wasn't for the economic mess Labour left us with, I could probably afford to have three ... and make sure you serve them on our Ming Dynasty plates," replies our humble Chancellor.

We have been pummelled into merciless submission and bitter acceptance through its endless repetition. It has allowed the government to force through ruthless cuts by sidelining Labour and marginalising economic alternatives.

However – although it is a powerful political weapon to relentlessly demonise Labour's economic record – it is also a double-edged sword. It does indeed damage Labour's credibility, but it also creates a culture of gloom and cynicism that undermines consumer and business confidence. The irony is that – whilst the economy under the Con-Dems flat lines – Labour’s more interventionist policy saved us from depression and sowed the seeds of growth through positive action and investment.

According to Ernst & Young Item Club, our recovery has slowed and our economy has "stalled at a dangerous junction". The simple reason for this stagnation is that – because government economic chauvinism has engendered low confidence – banks are not lending and people are not spending. Furthermore, draconian austerity and rising unemployment further erodes confidence.

As David Blanchflower, Professor of Economics at Dartmouth College, states in an open letter to George Osborne:

It hasn't helped that you have described the economy as "bankrupt" when clearly it was not, and also compared the British economy with that of Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, which are locked in monetary union, do not have their own central bank and cannot depreciate their currency or engage in credit easing. With such unpatriotic talk, you and other coalition leaders have caused business and consumer confidence... to collapse. They are at frighteningly low levels and I suspect they will fall a lot further unless you act quickly.

Negative rhetoric is essential to force through ideological cuts to public services and welfare provision, but by constantly talking-down the economy, the government has undermined our chances of recovery. The economy requires positive language and action to flourish. From cutting VAT, payroll tax-breaks, bringing back the Future Jobs Fund, linking corporation tax to unemployment or introducing a Robin Hood Tax and Tobin Tax, there are numerous policies which would increase employment and stimulate growth.

If economics – like football – is a game of two halves, then now is the time for some inspirational half-time words and positive substitutions from the gaffer. The coalition might be committing economic suicide, but with unprecedented and irreversible public sector cuts, they’ll go down in history as hard-nosed neo-liberal martyrs.

Time for a tax on unemployment

2011-10-11T21:35:00.001+01:00

According to Karl Marx, capitalism requires a reserve army of surplus labour to squeeze working conditions and maximise profit:

Big industry constantly requires a reserve army of unemployed workers for times of overproduction. The main purpose of the bourgeois in relation to the worker is, of course, to have the commodity labour as cheaply as possible, which is only possible when the supply of this commodity is as large as possible in relation to the demand for it, i.e., when the overpopulation is the greatest.

This inevitably means a rise in unemployment and, with unemployment rising by 80,000 in the second quarter of this year, we can see how the conditions of working people are being attacked whilst financial institutions remain protected. As public sector pay is frozen, jobs are cut and trade union rights are eroded, the government’s package of quantitive easing will go straight to the banks. It’s effectively a second bail-out which banks will use to service debt rather than inject money into the economy to stimulate growth.

What we really need is full employment and a population with disposable income to spend and kick-start the economy – but the dialectic interests of the capitalist class and working people makes this impossible.

I was surprised, therefore, to read a letter today in the Morning Star by Bill Banning which offered a relatively simple solution to this diametrically opposed impasse:

Let's have a tax on unemployment, a tax to create jobs ... The unemployment or austerity tax would be linked directly to the rise and fall of the labour market and would be applied to company profits, including banks, financial institutions, multinationals, millionaires and oligarchs.

It would be based upon the cost of unemployment to the economy so that it would increase as unemployment goes up and reduce as it comes down.

This would mean that those doing well despite the recession would share the pain and at the same time provide a positive incentive for job creation.

Surely if, as we are constantly being told, we are all in this together, there could not be a fairer, more equitable system than one in which those that are suffering most from the austerity measures demanded by the need to reduce our national debt can clearly see that their sacrifice is acknowledged, and that those able to reduce their hardship by virtue of their good fortune are doing so.

Bravo Bill! A simple but effective idea to link corporation tax to unemployment. If Ed Miliband is serious about favouring ‘producers’ over ‘predators’ then this would be a good first step to re-engineer capitalism in favour of the people currently paying for the costly mistakes of financial institutions.

Suharto and the IMF – A Marriage of Convenience

2011-09-18T16:40:00.005+01:00

The New Statesman’s Sholto Byrnes is wrong to suggest that all of General Suharto’s crimes “cannot take away from Suharto that he reduced Indonesia’s inflation rate from 650 per cent in 1966 to under 20 per cent within three years”. Suharto’s crimes were indeed horrific – from anti-communist purges to the death of at least 100,000 following the Indonesian invasion of East Timor – and he did succeed in reducing hyper-inflation, but it is historically inaccurate to divorce these two issues and see them as mutually exclusive. Indeed, it was only brutal authoritarianism which allowed Suharto to force through unpopular economic reforms.

Suharto’s predecessor – President Sukarno – attracted the scorn of the US because he focused on wealth redistribution and threw the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank out of Indonesia. From the off, Suharto was the CIA’s man in Indonesia. The CIA furnished him with lists of prominent leftists and Suharto used the army to cleanse the country of communists. As Kathy Kadane, former reporter at the Washington Post, noted, this was done with the explicit support of the CIA and the US Embassy received regular reports on their progress. The army’s cruelty was echoed by state-sponsored religious groups which swept the country massacring hundreds of thousands of left-wing sympathisers.

In exchange for supporting Suharto in the liquidation of leftist opposition, the United States expected certain economic favours. Suharto surrounded himself with graduates of the University of Berkeley who supported the liberalisation of the economy. According to the Shock Doctrine:

They passed laws allowing foreign companies to own 100 percent of resources, handed out “tax holidays,” and within two years, Indonesia’s natural wealth – copper, nickel, hardwood, rubber and oil – was being divided up among the largest mining and energy companies in the world.

Suharto’s subservience to the American economic agenda ensured more favourable treatment from international bodies such as the IMF and this allowed for the reduction in inflation – but it was only achieved through the violent suppression of opposition. This model of foreign intervention – combining support for fierce repression, populating sympathetic governments with economic acolytes and using supranational bodies to promote favourable domestic policy – continues to be replicated by America across the globe. Hence, Suharto’s “crimes” were an intrinsic part of reducing hyper-inflation.

Byrnes concedes that it was not Suharto’s human rights abuses which eventually brought his regime down but “his government’s catastrophic response to the Asian financial crisis of 1997”. However this conclusion is again misleading. A more satisfying explanation is that the alliance between Suharto and the IMF fragmented. From being the first country in the region to open its doors to unregulated foreign capital, Suharto became increasingly obstinate and unwilling to comply with IMF controls. One crucial trigger was the IMF’s insistence that Suharto raise the price of gasoline – he did and the Indonesians rose up and pushed him from power. The IMF’s marriage of convenience with Suharto had been terminated in a messy divorce.

Byrnes’ article urges us to use Asia as a model for what might happen in the Arab world following the fall of Gaddafi and Mubarak. He is right to seek historical parallels with the fall of autocratic regimes in Asia, but it is wrong to equate these with principles of freedom and liberation whilst ignoring the role of supranational bodies – such as the IMF and World Bank in Asia and NATO in Libya – in enforcing their agenda. What we can learn from the Indonesian experience is that these international bodies will support governments – either democratic or autocratic – when they acquiesce to selling natural resources – such as oil reserves or mineral wealth – to foreign corporations.

Let’s not kid ourselves that the West is concerned with liberation and national sovereignty. Our history is riddled with support for despots, dictators and murderers. Gaddafi and Mubarak are two prime examples of this. The British left-wing press shouldn’t be espousing what is, at best, historically inaccurate, or, at worst, cynical historical revisionism.

When is a revolution not a revolution?

2011-09-16T21:32:00.003+01:00

Our national media has been falling over itself to congratulate the West for its role in the Libyan “revolution” and the “liberation” of the Libyan people. The Sun has spoken of “ecstatic crowds” of “freed Libyans” and the Metro has described how David Cameron was given a “heroes’ welcome” on his visit to Benghazi. It is, as the Times declared, “a revolution ... as revolutions used to be”.

Today’s newspapers were dominated with pictures of Cameron alongside fellow freedom fighter Nicolas Sarkhozy and Mustafa Abdul Jalil, Chair of the National Transitional Council, and part of the “new” Libyan leadership. Jalil – like a number of the National Transitional Council – previously served in Gaddafi’s government. Mahmoud Jibril was a keen advocate of liberalisation and privatisation during his time as head of the National Economic Development Board under Gaddafi whilst Jalil himself was Minister of Justice from 2007-2011. Numerous others were educated in Western countries such as France and America. The only difference is - where Gaddafi sought to deny external access to Libya’s natural resources and oil reserves - the Transitional Council will be far more sympathetic to Western economic interest.

And so, as racist violence sweeps Libya and corporate vultures circle Libya’s abundant natural wealth, it makes you wonder how deep and meaningful a revolution can be when key figures served as part of the overthrown administration and others were educated abroad? NATO prevented Gaddafi’s predicted genocide with a barrage of brutal airstrikes and terrors comparable to those of the Gaddafi regime. Perhaps this is a revolution that’s going full circle.

Eyes on Power's left-wing coup

2011-09-14T21:22:00.001+01:00

So it turns out EoP has been voted 17th in the left-wing category of the Total Politics Blog Awards 2011. We are obviously delighted and would like to thank everyone who voted for us - and anyone who didn't vote for us but still reads this nonsense.

Big congratulations also to our very own Dan Smith who has been voted number 9 in the top left-wing bloggers category.

Well done to all the other blogs and bloggers too!

The Miami Five – 13 Years of Unjust Imprisonment

2011-09-12T21:46:00.005+01:00

On this day 13 years ago, Gerardo Hernández, Ramón Labañino, Antonio Guerrero, Fernando González and René González were arrested by the FBI in Miami while trying to stop right-wing groups carrying out terrorist attacks against the Cuban people. The five counter-terrorists – commonly known as the Miami Five – remain unfairly incarcerated within the US; their wives and family members are denied family visitation rights and they are often held in solitary confinement.

For over 50 years, right-wing exile groups within Miami have targeted Cuba killing nearly 3,500 people in terrorist attacks against the island. This has been done with the complicit support of the US government and the CIA.

To saves lives, Cuba sent five men to infiltrate and monitor these violent dissident groups. At the request of the American government, this information was passed to the FBI in 1998 but – instead of arresting the terrorists – the Bureau used the information to identify and arrest the Miami Five on 12 September 1998.

The Miami Five were sentenced to a total of 75 years imprisonment and remain interned within the US. Compare this to the terrorist and former CIA-operative Luis Posada Carriles who – although responsible for the blowing up of a Cuban airliner in 1973 which killed 73 people – remains at liberty in America.

The arrest, trial and sentencing of the Miami Five has enraged legal opinion, NGOs and human rights campaigners from the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to Amnesty International.

In October 2010, Amnesty International released a report condemning the trial of the Miami Five and calling for a review of the case. Central to their criticism was the “underlying concern related to the fairness of holding the trial in Miami, given the pervasive hostility to the Cuban government in that area and media and other events before and during the trial . . . there was evidence to suggest that these factors made it impossible to ensure a wholly impartial jury”.

Amnesty raised serious concerns about the circumstances of the pre-trial detention of the five men which involved sporadic solitary confinement and limited access to attorneys and evidence. As the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention declared in May 2005, this “undermined the equal balance between the prosecution and the defence”.

Amnesty’s report followed a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals which, in August 2005, unanimously overturned the convictions of the Miami Five on the ground that “pervasive community prejudice in Miami against the Castro government merged with other factors to prejudice their right to a fair trial”. The decision was promptly quashed by the US government.

Furthermore, recent evidence obtained through the US Freedom of Information Act demonstrates that the American government directly funded Miami-based journalists to write and broadcast prejudicial articles and commentary before and during the trial. Despite overwhelming evidence, the Supreme Court has consistently refused to consider appeals on these grounds – even though similar cases have been granted a retrial.

Legal avenues in defence of the Miami Five have virtually been exhausted and only humanitarian intervention from President Barack Obama or the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can give justice to the five and their families. Public pressure to break the silence around this case is vital.

UK-based NGO the Cuba Solidarity Campaign and the British trade union movement have been crucial in building the broadest possible alliance in support of family visitation rights and, ultimately, the release of the Miami Five.

Any potential solution lies with the American government and the British movement in support of the Miami Five has been working closely with US unions – including the United Service Workers, the United Steel Workers and the Teamsters – to lobby key stakeholders in the Obama administration.

In a recent meeting in support of the Miami Five in Los Angeles, former Unite the Union General Secretary Tony Woodley declared, “the Miami Five enjoy a great deal of support on the international level, but that is not the case inside the United States. Solidarity is absolutely crucial in this case and the political struggle will be decisive for the return of the Miami Five to Cuba”.

America’s duplicity with regard the Miami Five is laid bare by Cuba’s ongoing inclusion on the US State Department terror blacklist alongside Iran, Sudan and Syria. As the Cuban Foreign Ministry said recently, the US government “has absolutely no moral right to judge Cuba, which has an unblemished history in the fight against terrorism and has been consistently the victim of this scourge”. This allegation is vindicated by the grotesque treatment of the Miami Five and the inexplicable harbouring of Posada Carriles.

The Cuban Foreign Ministry accused the US of the “political manipulation” of the sensitive issue of terrorism and, similarly, the handling of the Miami Five must be seen as distinctly political.

The unjust treatment of the Miami Five typifies US foreign policy towards Cuba and – when contrasted to the United States’ promotion and funding of dissident groups in Cuba – highlights American hypocrisy. The freedom of the Miami Five will only be secured through collective political action across the broadest possible campaign. Until their release, the campaign will continue.

The Forgotten 9/11

2011-09-10T17:33:00.005+01:00

“That 11 September, that lethal Tuesday morning, I awoke with dread to the sound of planes flying above my house,” wrote Ariel Dorfman in the New Statesman recently. “When, an hour later, I saw smoke billowing from the centre of the city, I knew that life had changed for me, for my country, forever”.

Dorfman – contrary to popular assumption – was not writing about New York in 2001. He was describing events 28 years earlier in Chile. Chile 1973 is the forgotten 9/11.

In April 1973, the CIA circulated a memo encouraging a military coup in Chile against Salvador Allende’s democratically elected socialist government. The memorandum called for the promotion of economic chaos, political tension and affirmed that “ideally it would succeed in inducing the military to take over the government completely”.

Five months later, the Chilean armed forces – strongly encouraged by the US – bombed the Presidential Palace and Allende shot himself. In the following days, over 13,500 people were arrested. The Pinochet dictatorship – aided and abated by the US – rolled out radical neo-liberal economic policy which required violent enforcement. In total, more than 3,200 people were disappeared or executed, 80,000 were imprisoned and 200,000 fled the country for political reasons. It was an alarming foreshadow of things to come.

The Shock Doctrine

Naomi Klein – in her monumental book The Shock Doctrine – frames modern history as the evolution of disaster capitalism. Klein debunks the myth that the rise of neo-liberal hegemony was achieved democratically and contends that free-market capitalism requires – and encourages – crises to force through a corporate agenda. In Klein’s view, this whole process started with the rise of Chicago School economics following Pinochet’s coup d’état in 1973.

The grandfather of the Chicago School, Milton Friedman, was the economic guru for both General Pinochet and President Bush. In 1982 he stated:

Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.

Friedmanite economics have been applied throughout the world in response to crises since the 1970s – instigated by Pinochet’s Chile and intensified after 11 September 2001. Free-market reform – always serving American corporate interest – has required the shock therapy of torture, war and repression to subdue popular unrest and smash opposition. America’s support and advocacy of this terror has been unrelenting.

Parallels between the two 9/11s

Pinochet’s Chile was a laboratory for Chicago School economics: privatisation, deregulation and social spending cuts. In his first two years – with government companies auctioned off at a fraction of their value – unemployment increased from 3% to 20%. Inflation rose to a staggering 375% and 74% of the average household income was spent on bread. By the end of the 1980s, 45% of Chileans lived below the poverty line whilst, in contrast, the richest 10% had seen their income increase by 83%.

Whereas Pinochet’s Chile was an experiment in neo-liberalism, the War on Terror – free from the shackles of the Cold War – was private from the start. Everything – from homeland security to combat abroad – was for sale. By 2005, the homeland security industry – economically irrelevant before 9/11 – was worth $200 billion.

The function of government itself has become one of procurement. The number of security contracts handed out by the US increased from 3,512 in 2004 to 115,000 in 2006. Fighting wars abroad has become lucrative business for a variety of franchises and contractors. Iraq is not occupied by the American military, it is occupied by McDonalds in greenzones or by private security firms. This raises serious questions of accountability and transparency – not to mention government responsibility.

The US used the mass disorientation resulting from 9/11 to subdue opposition and facilitate the spread of the free market. Just as the Falklands War reignited Thatcher’s ailing Premiership, 9/11 was a panacea for Bush’s anaemic Presidency. Rapid economic growth echoed the Dotcom bubble but, to stop it bursting, the Whitehouse needed to create perpetual fear to fuel demand.

In pursuit of ubiquitous fear, the US amplified Pinochet’s brutality by employing extraordinary rendition, enhanced interrogation techniques (ETIs), water-boarding, hooding and indefinite detention. Donald Rumsfeld ensured that prisoners captured in Afghanistan were not covered by the Geneva Convention because they were classed as “enemy combatants” rather than POWs. Furthermore, according to declassified documentation, Rumsfeld authorised a number of ETIs including “deprivation of light and auditory stimuli,” “the removal of clothing” and “using detainees’ individual phobias... to induce stress”.

President Bush declared that “freedom itself” had been attacked following al-Qaeda’s assault on the Twin Towers. He vowed to ensure that “freedom will be defended”. The tragic irony is that the defence of freedom – or the War on Terror – has more often been used to curb people’s freedom in the name of counter-terrorism. This – like the support of Pinochet’s brutal dictatorship – highlights the depraved hypocrisy of a morally corrupt superpower. This is the 9/11 that shouldn’t be forgotten.

This is an extended version of an article written for Liberal Conspiracy

From Crackpot to Despot: Top 10 Nadine Dorries Quotes

2011-09-04T16:18:00.006+01:00

Politics is a melting pot of colourful characters, oddballs and eccentrics. From the Posadists’ combination of Trotskyism and ufology to Lembit Opik’s obsession with apocalyptic Armageddon, it is the weird and the wonderful which make politics fascinating.

Problems arise, however, when the carnival of crackpots take over the asylum. The United States already has its fair share of mainstream nutters – from President George W. Bush to the horrifying Tea Party – but Britain is in hot pursuit. The current peculiar pin-up is Nadine Dorries – Sarah Palin’s bosom buddy and reactionary protégé – who has grabbed the headlines this week in her quest to restrict women’s access to abortion.

Dorries’ growing influence and exposure makes her a fearsome and frightening political beast. But don’t take my word for it; here are some of her most dubious, unfounded and reprehensible soundbites.

Dorries on God
“My faith tells me who I am. It tells me why I am here. It tells me who is with me while I am pursuing my goals. I sometimes think if I didn’t have my faith, who would I be? How would I live my life? My faith constantly gives me my reference point. I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. There is nothing I did that got me here; it is what God did... I am just a conduit for God.” (War Cry, 2 June 2007)

Dorries on Pro-Life
“The public takes little notice of those who want to abolish abortion. They are dismissed as extremists. If I were to argue that all abortions should be banned, the ethical discussions would go round in circles.... My view is that the only way forward is to argue for a reduction in the time limit... saving some lives is better than saving no lives at all. I hope pro-lifers will come to share my view that some progress is better than no progress.” (War Cry, 2 June 2007)

Dorries on Abortion
“When the operation was over, baby Samuel, at 21 weeks gestation, put his hand through the incision in the uterus and grabbed hold of the surgeon’s finger, a gesture which was apparently met with a huge amount of emotion in the operating theatre... In the UK we are aborting babies just like this and older every single day.... Little Samuel made his case from within the womb in a way which none of the shrill late abortionists will ever manage.” (The Hand of Hope, Nadine Dorries’s blog, 19 March 2008)

Dorries on All-Women Shortlists
“Sometimes I feel sorry for some of the Labour women who were selected via all-women shortlists. Everyone knows who they are. They are constantly derided.” (Conservative Home, 21 October 2009)

Dorries on Cannabis
"They startled me when they told me that the cannabis that teenagers are smoking now... is actually 50 times more potent than it was even a year ago... It only takes the teenager one 'spliff' or one 'joint' or whatever they refer to it now to smoke and they will never reach their full academic potential, because it is so dangerous..." (Any Questions, BBC Radio 4, 3 June 2011)

Dorries on Twitter
“Do you know of anyone who has Tweeted more than 35,000 times in less than six months? If so, email my office and let me know. Or, better still, if it's someone you know is on benefits, contact the Department for Work and Pensions.” (Twitter Obsession, Nadine Dorries’ blog, 30 September 2010)

Dorries (via Twitter) on Burglars’ Human Rights
“When you break into someone’s house to do harm, you leave every right you have at the door.” (Nadine Dorries’ Twitter, 31 January 2010)

Dorries on Sex Education and Child Abuse
“If a stronger ‘just say no’ message was given to children in school, there might be an impact on sex abuse. A lot of girls, when abuse takes place, don’t realise until later that that was wrong because sex is so common in society... I don’t think people realise that if we did empower this message into girls, imbued this message in school, we would probably have less sex abuse” (The Vanessa Show, 16 May 2011)

Dorries on Sarah Palin
"I think Sarah Palin is amazing. I totally admire her." (New Statesman, 30 September 2010)

Dorries on Truth
"My blog is 70% fiction and 30% fact. It is written as a tool to enable my constituents to know me better and to reassure them of my commitment to Mid Bedfordshire. I rely heavily on poetic licence and frequently replace one place name/event/fact with another." (The Guardian 21 October 2010)

So, by her own admission, Nadine Dorries is inclined to replace one fact with another. Or ‘lying’ as most people call it. 70% of what she says is fiction and 30% is fact. Judging by the quotes above, it’s also 100% bullshit. With the growing media attention she's receiving, it's also dangerous bullshit.

Book Review: Hate by Matthew Collins

2011-08-28T16:53:00.005+01:00

Hate is the captivating and witty autobiography of reformed fascist turned Searchlight mole Matthew Collins. Collins was a full-time activist and administrator for the National Front for several years at the turn of the 1990s and his experience spans the disintegration of the NF and the rise of the British National Party. It is an engrossing chronicle of confrontation between the left and right and examines Collins’ relationship with prominent fascists including Ian Anderson, Richard Edmonds, Eddie Whicker, Tony Lecomber and Combat 18 leader Charlie Sargent.

The book – crude, brutal and savagely funny – charts Collins’ involvement with the National Front in his late teens through to his work as an informant with the anti-fascist magazine Searchlight. Collins was the principle source of Andy Bell’s World In Action documentary and was forced into hiding for 10 years in Australia before returning to the UK to work full-time as an anti-fascist campaigner.

Although Collins was never a fascist leader and his flirtation with the far right was relatively brief, he does provide a fascinating insight into the tactics and psychology of British Nazism. The right’s ability to mobilise coalitions of thugs – including violent fascists, barbaric football hooligans and brutish Loyalists – is truly chilling, but Collins also demonstrates the inherent contradictions and weakness of the movement.

The awkward alliance of various groups and factions is saturated with egotism and paranoia whilst deluded ideological warhorses – such as Anderson and Edmonds – rely on the muscle and numbers provided by football hooligans to further their political ends. Hooligan firms might echo the racist bile of the NF and the BNP, but they’re not interested in building a ‘movement’ or selling papers, they just want a ruck with some Reds. Collins’ terrifying description of a number of violent encounters with the left helps illustrate this implicit conflict.

Another highlight is the fascinating story of Mr X – a former Trotskyite turned Sun journalist who becomes increasingly cosy with leading British Nazis and violent Ulster Loyalists – which illustrates the incestuous relationships between the far right of the Conservative Party and the fascist movement. Until the emergence of some embarrassing photographs, Mr X plays an increasingly pivotal role in the National Front as he offers them access to the political establishment and writes for a number of NF publications.

Unlike similar accounts – such as Ray Hill’s The Other Face of Terror – there is no epiphany or eureka moment which converts Collins to fighting fascism. Rather it is a gradual disillusionment with the increasingly well-organised and escalating violence. This gradualism mirrors Collins’ first interaction with the National Front and his hesitant and wary engagement of Searchlight.

Although the primary focus is on the National Front, as a historical document charting the rise of the BNP – detailing its violent, Nazi and anti-parliamentary origins – the book is truly significant. Much of what Collins says is hardly revelatory, but it is an important resource to demonstrate the true colours of the BNP when many of its supporters – and even members – are ignorant of the reality.

Hate does not provide a blueprint for fighting fascism, but it does show how the far right attracts working-class people damaged by the system and encourages them to express their anger at other members of society. It shows how fascists exploit some of the most vulnerable people in society – young working-class men with limited prospects – and gives them a sense of belonging, worth and comradeship. The most important lesson of Collins’ book is that as long as the mainstream political establishment continues to restrict employment opportunities and housing prospects for the inner-city youth, the far right will continue to be a frightening menace. As a first-hand account of this menace – and for anyone concerned about the rise of the far right and the emergence of the EDL – this is a must read.

Click here to buy Hate from Hope Not Hate with all proceeds going to Searchlight.

Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime

2011-08-12T16:34:00.001+01:00

Tony Blair famously promised to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but the current wave of riots and social unrest can be seen as a direct consequence of Labour’s failure to reverse Thatcherite neo-liberalism. Cameron’s draconian cuts may have triggered these events – with Mark Duggan’s shooting the catalyst – but the cuts alone are insufficient explanation for the remarkably swift spread of violence. A more robust rationalisation is Blair’s continuation of Thatcher’s legacy which crystallised social fragmentation through growing wealth inequality.

As Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett argue in the empirical masterpiece The Spirit Level – Why Equality is Better for Everyone all social problems – such as crime, obesity, mental illness, ill health, teenage pregnancy – are more prevalent in unequal societies.

Wilkinson and Pickett cite the American psychiatrist James Gilligan who argues that acts of violence “are attempts to ward off or eliminate the feeling of shame and humiliation – and replace it with its opposite, the feeling of pride”. Although Gilligan is discussing individual criminals, we can extrapolate this to whole communities. It is no surprise that violent riots have occurred in areas of poverty, mass unemployment and decimated youth services. In Tottenham, for instance, 75% of the youth services budget has been cut.

People feel alienated, shamed and humiliated because they cannot find work to provide for themselves or their families. The mob mentality – and the adrenaline-fuelled rush of consumerist ecstasy experienced through the looting of a plasma television – provides the panacea of temporary pride and purpose. The solution, therefore, is not to compound their humiliation through tabloid caterwauling and the removal of benefits.

Although the government refuse to admit it, there is strong correlation between violence and wealth inequality and, as Wilkinson and Pickett assert:

… violent behaviour comes from young men at the bottom of society, deprived of all the markers of status, who must struggle to maintain face and what little status they have, often reacting explosively when it is threatened

Seumas Milne – in a compelling Guardian article – contends that David Cameron must maintain that unrest has no cause except criminality otherwise the political establishment might be held responsible. Milne contrasts the behaviour of the rioters with bankers that:

publicly looted the country’s wealth and got away with it… it’s not hard to see why those who are locked out of the gravy train might think they were entitled to help themselves to a mobile phone.

Our society is predicated on unjust and unfair treatment which has reckless and dangerous consequences. If you dehumanise and alienate people – by cutting their services, demonising them in popular culture and undermining their quality of life – then it is no surprise that people react against it. If you treat someone like an animal then they will start behaving like one – and there’s nothing more dangerous than a wounded animal.

But the same is true of the other end of the spectrum. If you treat people – like bankers and media moguls – as though they are above the law then they start to believe they are above the law. If governments pander to their whim, then they believe they are above government and they become reckless, arrogant and aloof – as demonstrated by hackgate and the financial crisis.

This unfair treatment creates a more unequal and hierarchical society. Those at the bottom lack the social capital to achieve self-respect and status and this creates volatile and violent results. Those at the top lack restraint and ride roughshod over others. The true crime, for any Labour supporter, is that the gap between the richest and poorest increased under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. This is the key long-term factor for the recent explosion of destruction.

Of course violence is deplorable – and it is clear much of the unrest lacks political consciousness and represents nothing more than criminal opportunism – but it would be wrong to ignore the economic and socio-political context which has created this civil disobedience. As economic recovery stagnates and unemployment rises, so too will social alienation and the chance of further violence. Just like the financial crash, it is the selective blindness of the political establishment to the ills of neo-liberalism which endangers us all. The irony is that while Thatcher sought to create a stake-holder capitalism to appease working people, the vast majority of the population now has no interest in a dysfunctional and misfiring economic model.

If we don’t fully engage with the reasons behind the riots – and the government continues its naïve economic program – then we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of our past. It’s time we got tough on the causes of crime and tackled growing wealth inequality.

A manufactured dissident

2011-08-11T20:49:00.015+01:00

Part 1 of The Empire's Pawns, an episode from Cuba's Reasons (Part Two below)

It is 10 December 2010 and the damas en blanco (Ladies in White) are holding a small protest outside the Combinado del Este jail in Cuba. Laura Pollán – de facto leader of the damas en blanco – is relaying a live commentary of events to Miami-based Radio República via mobile phone:

We have arrived without any problem at El Combinado. We are right at the entrance. Many guards are running at us.

Pollán is being filmed by Carlos Serpa Maceira (right), spokesperson for various counter-revolutionary groups, reporter for Radio Marti and lynchpin of the dissident movement in Cuba. As Radio República’s listeners fear for her safety, Serpa pans to the prison’s entrance revealing the truth behind Pollán’s frightening report – there are no charging guards.

Despite this, Pollán’s words – without confirmation or verification – are reproduced ad infinitum by anti-Cuban media in Miami and the news spreads like wildfire throughout reputable Western media agencies – such as Reporters Without Borders. Within the click of a button, Pollán’s falsified account becomes uncorroborated fact. That’s how easy it is to organise a propaganda campaign against Cuba.

In Cuba’s Reasons, a fascinating five part series recently broadcast on Cuban television, however, Serpa – along with a number of other high-profile dissidents – is revealed as an undercover state operative collecting information on America’s insidious fabrication and manipulation of counter-revolutionary groups. Serpa’s secret filming at El Combinado is just one exposition of the lengths groups will go to manufacture lies to undermine the Cuban revolution. The series, Cuba’s Reasons, explores the dissident movement – sparsely populated by obsequious mercenaries – and illustrates that the United States’ strategy of subversion has evolved as the agitation for a post-Castro Cuba has been intensified.

For over fifty years, the American government has sought to undermine the Cuban revolution either overtly – through actions such as the Bay of Pigs invasion – or covertly – through the funding and co-ordination of terrorist groups and counter-revolutionary organisations. Since the 1990s, however, there has been a tactical shift in American foreign policy as work traditionally done by the CIA is now carried out by seemingly independent Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). This change was encouraged and crystallised by the Torricelli Act of 1992 but the apparently autonomous NGOs continue to receive funds from federal government.

USAID was created by President John F Kennedy as a Latin American Marshall Plan and – in close association with the US Interests Section – aims to promote the fragmentation of Cuban society, organise opposition and market a negative image of Cuba internationally.

NGOs such as the Miami Medical Team Foundation, the Pan American Development Foundation and the Atlas Economic Research Foundation – all major recipients of USAID funds – are focussed on organising a national network of people to take charge in Cuba post-Castro. On a recent visit to Cuba, I met one of the undercover agents, Professor Raul Capote of the University of Pedagogical Sciences, and he spoke of how American NGOs fund scholarships abroad in places like Mexico to train the next generation of Cuban leaders. The situation parallels the States’ training of Chileans in Chicago School economics prior to the downfall of Salvador Allende’s government. Furthermore, when Fidel Castro fell ill, Capote was invited to the US Interests Section and told about the possibility of an uprising in Havana led by Dr Darcy Ferrer. Capote was asked to write an appeal calling for the support and unity of all Cubans. As history tells us, Cuba remained united in its support for the revolution.

As explained in Cuba’s Reasons, other NGOs – such as ECHO-Cuba – disguise their subversive intentions with allegedly humanitarian aid. ECHO-Cuba – ostensibly a Christian aid agency – has close links with Caleb McCarry (below, co-ordinator of the “Bush Plan” which sought to replace Castro) and was named in American documents as an organisation that could actively participate in the island’s democratic transition. It seems somewhat hypocritical that the US government is purportedly providing funds for aid but, at the same time, maintains an illegal and cruel blockade which denies Cubans basic resources.

All of this clandestine work is done without any democratic legitimacy and typifies American foreign policy throughout Latin America. For instance, one of the undercover agents featured in the series, Jose Manuel Collera, was approached by Otto Reich to recruit influential counter-revolutionary leaders in Venezuela to undermine the Chavez government.

America’s illegitimate interference aims to promote the image of a large, vibrant and diverse opposition movement but, as Serpa’s experience shows, this impression is largely illusionary:

I am a manufactured dissident. My case is an example of how it is possible to make it appear internationally that a ‘great’ opposition exists here and a proliferation of anti-Castro groups … I’m national coordinator of the Julio Tang Texier Civic Cultural Project, I’m the director of the Ernest Hemingway independent library and also the director of the Union of Free Cuban Journalists, I’m the spokesman of the National Civic Resistance and I’m the spokesman of the National Civic Resistance and Civil Disobedience Front and a member of its board of directors.

US foreign policy is predicated on providing powerful incentives to foment counter-revolution and arrange provocations against Cuba. The damas en blanco are supposedly demanding the release of their relatives but, as Serpa contends, “they are a spearhead handled from abroad against the Cuban revolution” and receive payment from NGOs such as the Cuban-American National Foundation every time they organise a demonstration. Furthermore, European embassies – including Poland, the Netherlands, Czech Republic and Germany – have encouraged the undermining of Cuba’s sovereign government by providing resources, office supplies and internet access to dissident groups.

The situation is further complicated by the US Interest Section’s Refugee Program which offers further inducement to invent and exaggerate opposition. According to Serpa, anyone wanting to leave Cuba “has to provide evidence to the Refugee Section that they are being harassed by the Cuban government, they invent ‘arguments’ in order to obtain a visa”. As a result, wannabe economic migrants are obliged to reinvent themselves as active counter-revolutionaries and Serpa was frequently asked by members of the damas en blanco to provide evidence of their dissident activities for the Refugee Program so they could leave Cuba:

They were always chasing up photographs showing them on their demonstrations because the Program demands that of them … all the women who go there take photos … and that’s a strong testimony for the US Interest Section.

According to Moisés Rodríguez, another undercover agent, the independent journalists, human rights activists and oppositionists are not motivated by a love of Cuba but “they are all servile annexationists and mercenaries. They always have two things in mind: number one, to receive money; and number two, to leave Cuba”.

This highlights the inherent contradiction at the heart of US policy towards Cuba. On the one hand, they are urging people to emigrate to demonstrate the lack of support for the revolution but, on the other hand, they don’t want counter-revolutionaries they have created to leave because then they will be left without any protagonists with whom to execute their subversive plans.

Therefore, the domestic counter-revolution in Cuba is neither an authentic nor spontaneous phenomenon but rather the expression of the anti-Cuban policy encouraged by the United States through a network of groups, institutions and organisations. This subversive strategy seeks to create local hotbeds of tension, fabricate leaders and portray the misleading image of an organised local opposition in Cuba. The campaign seeks to isolate Cuba through the distortion of its reality, accusing the Cuban government of violating human rights and democratic freedom. In truth, it is American imperialism – through a thinly-veiled shroud of supposedly independent NGOs – which is seeking to undermine a sovereign government whilst reinforcing a barbaric and unjust blockade.

This article was originally written for CubaSi magazine

Tory Riots

2011-08-07T23:10:00.010+01:00

After watching footage of the Tottenham riot I wondered about the inevitability of rioting under a Tory government. Since riots are a result of mass action it seems an obvious task to compare this with the macro level politics of government. It's easier to do this type of comparison in the UK as both parties have had long spans in power meaning that dissatisfaction with one government is less likely to spill over into the term of another. I used this list of riots which is problematic as it fails to mention what it defines as a riot. Due to this, I omitted one result (which occurred in a festival causing no public damage) and all riots occurring in Northern Ireland due to differences in politics. Therefore, please use these results as a rough guide only.

From 1970 there have been around 30 riots in mainland Britain. Labour have been in power for 10 of these during their 18 years of power. The Tories, in their 23 years (including coalitions), have been responsible for 20. If you divide the years by the number of riots you get a rough percentage of how likely a riot is going to occur per year under each party, under Labour you are 55% likely to see a riot a year whereas under the Tories it is 89%.

If you own a shop or small business in a city then it would be a bad idea to vote Tory. If your hobby is fighting the police and fire-bombing city centres however, then the Tories are 34% more likely to make that happen.

Declaration of Co-operation with Cuba requires concrete action

2011-08-07T19:09:00.015+01:00

Last month Cuba and the United Kingdom signed a formal declaration to strengthen bilateral co-operation. The agreement champions “closer dialogue and economic, scientific, technical, educational, cultural and sporting links between the two countries” and highlights key areas for collaboration including environmental issues, biotechnology, trade and investment, regional security, child protection and disaster preparedness.

The move should be welcomed as a positive step – not just by those supporting the Cuban people – but also by those looking to expand British trade relations in Latin America. In order to make tangible change, however, the agreement must be substantiated by positive action – something which has been lacking in previous UK policy towards Cuba.

The UK is the 6th largest economy in the world and the 3rd largest economy in the European Union. It is the 7th largest importer and the 11th largest exporter in the world. In spite of this, the level of trade between Britain and Cuba is derisory. Exports to Cuba totalled an abysmal $14.4m (£8.9m) in 2009 whilst imports came to a pathetic $15.8m (£9.8m). Compare this to September 1958 when the UK government exported 25 fighter jets to General Batista’s dictatorship. The equivalent value today – at around £40m a plane – would equate to an annual UK export to Cuba of around one billion pounds.

It is tempting to explain the lack of commercial activity between our two countries as a legacy of the Cold War, however back in 1986, Cuba constituted the UK’s fifth largest market in Latin America. Furthermore, UK trade with Cuba is dwarfed by other EU countries including Spain, Italy, France and the Netherlands. Indeed, in 2008, the UK was only the 11th largest exporter of goods to Cuba from the EU.

It is therefore more appropriate to view the level of trade as a direct consequence of policy adopted by consecutive UK governments. In particular, the Blair government – as a result of closer ties with the Clinton and Bush administrations – took an increasingly aggressive and hard-line stance against the island. Blair was a keen advocate of the EU Common Position – which suppresses trade and exchange with Cuba – whilst, in 2003, the UK was instrumental in blocking Cuba’s entry into the Cotonou Agreement which gives trade preferences to former European colonies.

According to UK Trade & Investment (UKIT), “the greatest hurdle to doing business in Cuba is painfully slow decision-making which result from all investment decisions being referred to the highest levels of government”. However, as indicated in the graphs below, there are a number of other countries which manage to cut through the perceived ‘layers of bureaucracy’. It is ridiculous that UKIT blames restrictions within Cuba for the lack of trade when the main obstacle remains the UK’s unwillingness to challenge the ongoing US blockade.

In theory, the UK Protection of Trade Interests Act makes it illegal for UK companies to comply with extraterritorial US Helms Burton legislation but, in practice, the UK government replicates the pernicious and illegal blockade. Transactions cannot take place in US Dollars and payment cannot be channelled via American Banks. The risk of US sanctions creates uncertainty and banks, businesses and companies can get caught between conflicting legal requirements. For instance, in August 2010, Barclays Bank was fined $298m (£190m) by US authorities for handling transactions with banks in Cuba. The result is that the little trade that does occur often takes place through ‘third parties’ and unfairly increases Cuba’s import costs.

The blockade also restricts access to long-term credit which means Cuba is often limited to dealing in cash transactions or expensive short-term credit. This makes bilateral trade more costly for the island and significantly stifles their economic freedom. The uncertainty caused by the blockade creates a volatile market and increases the risk of liquidity problems. As the UKIT report says:

Even when there is potential demand for many products, the reality is that not all companies are in a position to ensure payment or to finance long-term payments … This is mainly due to Cuba’s lack of access to the long and middle term financial market, so relying mostly on short-term credit, and credit offered by the providers.

It is peculiar that David Cameron has spent much of his tenure attempting to expand British markets abroad – in places such as China, India and the Middle East – but Cuba’s potential remains untapped. Cuba’s geographical location – as both a Caribbean and Central American nation – represents a strategic advantage whilst the Cuban market offers various long-term benefits. Cuba has a highly educated and literate population and there is an abundance of experienced and qualified employees. Brazil has already recognised the business potential in Cuba and has invested heavily to make Mariel Port the leading freight port in the Caribbean.

The UK should be applauded for repeatedly voting against the US blockade at the United Nations, but further action is required to normalise relations with Cuba and develop real, discernible trade and co-operation between our countries.

The Cuba Solidarity Campaign and the British trade union movement have worked tirelessly to promote the normalisation of relations and it is clear that real political will does exist. Early Day Motion 1171 supporting the strengthening of ties between the UK and Cuba was signed by 248 MPs whilst over 92% of candidates in the 2010 General Election supported better relations. The examples of various EU countries – including Spain, Italy, France and the Netherlands – demonstrate that the debilitating effects of the EU Common Position can be circumvented if perceptible political will exists. It is now crucial that we harness political will within the UK to turn this ‘paper’ agreement into something more concrete.

This article originally appeared on Left Foot Forward and the Guardian's Comment is Free.

Murdoch grows a conscience?

2011-07-21T17:49:00.001+01:00

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

2011-07-17T16:39:00.001+01:00

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

2011-07-05T21:06:00.008+01:00

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

2011-07-03T16:37:00.009+01:00

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...

The Doctors' Revolution

2011-06-16T20:46:00.006+01:00

Michael Tynan, Emeritus Professor of Paediatric Cardiology, first visited Cuba in 1987 to provide expert advice to a new children's heart unit at the William Soler Hospital in Havana. Over 20 years later and Cuba is the only country in the world to offer foetal heart scanning as a standard part of pre-natal care, infant mortality is one of the lowest in the world and Michael has just finished making a documentary film – The Doctors' Revolution – charting the struggle and success of Cuba's health system.

Cuba first began to focus on pre-natal heart defects in the 1980s when infant mortality had been brought down to Western levels. Maternal obstetric care was sorted and children were no longer dying from curable diseases such as malnutrition and pneumonia. Tynan differentiates Cuba from other developing countries:

In a Third World context, infant deaths resulting from heart disease are almost irrelevant because you’re more concerned with clean water and maternal care. As far as I can interpret, Cuba realised that congenital heart defects were an increasingly important proportion of the now pretty low infant mortality.

The Doctors’ Revolution tells the story of a young boy, Felix, with a congenital narrowing of the aorta. Although it required major and potentially dangerous surgery, a relatively simple piece of equipment could have been used to open up the valve leading to Felix’s heart.

Unfortunately, due to the blockade, and aside from a complicated – and in Tynan’s view overly bureaucratic – procurement system, the hospital was unable to order the equipment internationally because it was manufactured in the United States.

Although there is scope for limited humanitarian medical exchange between the US and Cuba, Tynan explains that Cuba’s internationalism and record of offering healthcare to developing countries is seen by the US as an attempt to profiteer:

Before Felix there seemed to be a tightening of restrictions. The United States government decided that equipment being exported to Cuba was being used by children from other countries and this contravened their rules. They assumed – because this is how healthcare in the West goes – that this was being done for financial gain so they intensified the embargo and wanted details of every child that was using the equipment. What right does the US government have to demand the medical history of a patient in another country? This turn of the screw meant there were long hold-ups and difficulties in getting specific pieces of equipment.

The situation with the US government is further complicated because, if there is an irregularity, then the person liable for prosecution is the person responsible for where it originated in the States. As Tynan notes, this has resulted in medical equipment coming to Cuba from the US in very roundabout ways: “Things from America could go via France or Madagascar and, by the time they got to Cuba, they were more expensive because everybody had had their piece of the action along the way”.

Considering the intensification of the blockade, Cuba’s achievements in the field of healthcare – particularly in the areas of infant mortality, life expectancy and internationalism – are nothing short of miraculous. As far as Tynan is concerned, it is the organisation of the Cuban health system which lies at the heart of this success:

The most impressive thing about the Cuban health service is the organisation of preventative medicine through the family practitioner. If you don’t take your insulin for your diabetes then the GP wants to know why and it’s not left to you to go along and ask for a prescription. That’s the most impressive thing – even more than the high-tech medicine.

After the revolution, public healthcare was based on the Soviet model of the polyclinic and it wasn’t until the late 1970s that they moved to a family-centred model based on preventative and proactive medicine. There are still a high proportion of un-booked new born deliveries in Britain – but that’s very rare in Cuba because GPs live within the community they serve. As Tynan says:

It’s very much a patient-family-community healthcare system. The number of doctors they have – and the number of nurses who are just as important – is amazing. They have as many doctors in Cuba for 11 million people as we have in Britain for 60 million.

Cuba’s commitment to public health has been the heartbeat of their socialist programme – both domestically and internationally – since their struggle against Batista in the 1950s. Following the exodus of significant numbers of doctors after Castro’s victory, Cuba needed to train large numbers of doctors and nurses in a programme Tynan equates in size and significance to the literacy campaigns.

It was central to their ideas when they started and I think it was intensified by their experience during the revolution in the Sierra Maestra. The enemy had cannons and tanks but they had a doctor – and the people had never seen a doctor before. The basic socialist ideas were reinforced by what they saw of the peasant life in rural areas. And of course Che Guevara must have had some input because he’d been through Latin America and seen various levels of healthcare.

The diversity of the medical profession in Cuba testifies to the increased opportunities ushered in by the revolution. On Tynan’s first visit to Cuba he met a young doctor who attributed his success to the victory of the 26th July Movement:

He was the son of a garage mechanic and, although it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that the son of a garage mechanic could become a doctor in England now, it was well beyond the realm of possibility in Cuba before the revolution. The medical school in Havana was dominated by the white middle-class of Spanish decent.

Although called The Doctors’ Revolution – because Tynan himself and many of the people he interviews are doctors – Tynan recognises and praises the work of all health workers in Cuba:

Just like any healthcare system the doctors are just the head on the beer. They have the most glamorous role but plenty of people would die after surgery if they didn’t have physiotherapy. Then there are all the radiology technicians whose expertise is central and the people working in pathology departments, dieticians, dentists and nurses.

Cuba’s commitment to public health and its associated success – at home and around the world in developing countries and disaster zones – is not only remarkable considering the economic and political context in which it exists, but it stands as a shining beacon to the Western world of what is possible if you prioritise public health and international solidarity.

This article was originally written for CubaSi magazine

Dawkins’ divine intervention challenges faith in his atheist integrity

2011-06-12T17:29:00.003+01:00

The creation of the New College of the Humanities (NCoH) – a new private university in London staffed by some of the world’s leading academics and charging fees of £18,000 per year – is a frightening extension of the government’s growing thirst for free-marketisation. The increase of competition within the educational field promises to widen the gap between the richest and poorest in society and has already given birth to an increase in university tuition fees and the growth of free schools. However it is the curious involvement of Professor Richard Dawkins – the eminent biologist and renowned atheist – which seems particularly odd.

Firstly, it is important to recognise that the rise of free schools, the increase in tuition fees and the foundation of NCoH are part of the same cohesive neo-liberal project which believes free-market principles improve educational standards due to increased competition. NCoH is the logical conclusion of the rise of free schools because it comes as a result of the erosion of state authority and the idea that the market can provide for everyone’s needs. The enforced abdication of state authority creates a power vacuum which is filled by other powerful actors – such as private companies or organised religion.

The establishment of NCoH does not in itself contradict Dawkins’ disciplined atheism but – when contextualised within the narrative of educational liberalisation and marketisation – it can be seen to conflict with Dawkins’ rabid religious scepticism because the rise of free schools has fortified the influence of organised religion.

The problem with free schools

There are numerous reasons why free schools reinforce hierarchy and exacerbate social division but – in this case – the most pressing factor is the ascension of faith schools. Free schools in Britain are based on a Swedish model which has been criticised for rapidly increasing the number of religious schools, giving influence to controversial institutions such as the Church of Scientology and the Plymouth Brethren, and empowering fundamentalist Islamic organisations. Indeed, half of Michael Gove’s first round of free schools had a religious ethos.

Gove himself has acknowledged concerns that faith schools may use new legislation to push their own agenda but – unlike in Sweden – no guidance has been issued relating to free school applications. Indeed, David Cameron’s favourite think-tank, the right-wing Policy Exchange, argued in its Faith Schools We Can Believe In paper that free schools are increasingly vulnerable to extremist influences.

Many faith schools have remained within the private sector so as to not compromise their religious beliefs but, under a free school system, they can access state funding without state control. Furthermore, teachers in free schools are not required to hold recognised teaching qualifications.

Dawkins and religious education

According to The God Delusion Professor Dawkins believes:

Children are educated, again often from a very early age, with members of a religious in-group and separately from children whose families adhere to other religions. It is not an exaggeration to say that the troubles in Northern Ireland would disappear in a generation if segregated schooling was abolished.

Dawkins conceptualises religious education and the enforced endowment of religious beliefs onto children as a form of child abuse and lies at the very core of his critique of religion. One facet of this criticism is that segregation and in/out groups creates conflict. Dawkins’ association with NCoH is therefore hypocritical on two levels. Firstly, opportunity to develop the NCoH has only arisen because of the spread of free schools and the inevitable rise of faith schools – something which Dawkins, if he is to remain intellectually consistent, should be opposing. Secondly, both free schools and elitist higher education further encourages segregation on the basis of wealth and class. Dawkins criticises religion for encouraging segregation, so why doesn’t he apply the same analysis to education?

Dawkins’ involvement with the NCoH neo-liberal experiment suggests that he may be more interested in his own wealth and self-interest than academic integrity. According to the Bible, Jesus told his disciples “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”. Fortunately, for Richard Dawkins at least, there’s no such place as the kingdom of God.

This article was originally written for Left Foot Forward and can be read here.

Anger at GMB signing up to Cable

2011-06-06T21:25:00.006+01:00

The GMB's decision to invite Vince Cable to speak at their national conference today was a curious one but – considering the media attention given to Cable's appearance – it can be viewed as a tactical masterstroke.

Although Cable regurgitated familiar soundbites about the need for cuts and the economic mess left by Labour, it was the hostile reaction of the GMB delegates which grabbed the headlines. Government stooges usually speak to economic acolytes at business galas in the City to whoops of agreement and media silence, but – because Cable spoke at a trade union conference – it exposed the anger at government cuts and gave a platform to left-wing economic arguments.

I was at GMB conference for the speech and – although many delegates thought Cable shouldn't have been given the platform – his appearance helps send a message to the outside world that there is a hunger for economic alternatives. Furthermore – with palpable anger permeating the conference centre – it will galvanise the trade union movement into action. Many of the delegates were spitting blood – would they have been quite so vitriolic with a leftie keynote speaker? Hopefully their anger will be transformed into workplace organisation and community activism.

In its simplest sense, Cable's appearance acts as a warning to trade unions. It is a threat that co-ordinated strikes will result in a crack-down of anti-union legislation. But what does it matter about legislation when trade unions are too afraid to strike anyway? The sole weapon of trade unions is the power – or threat – of industrial action. Without it they are ineffective and impotent. If the labour movement allows itself to be bullied out of co-ordinated action then it is admitting defeat. Cable's rhetoric shows the government is running scared; now is not the time to concede ground. His appearance at GMB conference is not a concession to neo-liberalism; it is a catalyst for fight-back and a powerful message to the rest of the country.

May Day in Cuba

2011-05-11T20:04:00.002+01:00

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Cuban literacy brigades – in which mass literacy was brought to working people and peasants for the first time – and the Cuban victory over US-imperialism at the Bay of Pigs. For over half a century Cuba has thrived despite foreign intervention, international isolation and an illegal and pernicious blockade of the country.

In the face of ongoing adversity Cuba continues to prioritise people over profit and – with 35 000 Cuban health workers in developing countries – Cuba represents an enduring example of internationalism, solidarity and fraternity.
Each May Day the Cuban people mobilise to celebrate the achievements of the Cuban Revolution in towns and cities across the island. This year, both Pete and I had the pleasure of attending the May Day Parade in Havana. With a population of just over 11 million people, nearly 10% of the population marched through Revolution Square – not to mention other rallies across the country.
As the sun rose over Revolution Square in Havana – illuminating the permanent tributes to revolutionary heroes Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara and Camilo Cienfuegos – nearly one million proud Cubans paraded past the monument to Cuba’s Jose Marti waving flags, placards and chanting enthusiastically.
We were welcomed into the homes and communities of local Committees for the Defence of the Revolution, heard about trade unionism in Cuba and met with members of the Federation of Cuban Women.
We also had honour of meeting family members of the Miami Five – who remain unjustly incarcerated within American prisons – and their ongoing struggle for justice illustrates the continuing need for support from the international community.
Here are some photos from our trip. Viva Cuba!

Solidarity with the Hardest Hit March

2011-05-10T23:26:00.006+01:00

Tomorrow, one year on from the formation of the coalition government, thousands of disabled people, their families, supporters and charities, will march in London to protest against the government’s plans to reform (read: minimise) the welfare state.

The coalition's Welfare Reform Bill sets out some measures that will effectively cut services available to disabled people, and make it harder to claim benefits. For example, abolishing the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and replacing it with the Personal Independence Payment, which by the way, has has 20% less in its budget than the DLA. The coalition also plans to reassess everyone claiming incapacity benefit, and abolish crisis loans and community care grants. Add into the mix cuts to local services and other benefits on which they depend, its no wonder 9 out of 10 disabled people are worried about how these cuts are going to affect them.

Since the Welfare Reform Bill was announced last October, concern has been voiced by disabled people, their families and carers about how the cuts would leave people struggling to cope and avoid poverty. The Hardest Hit March tomorrow will represent a culmination of the concern voiced over the past 6 months.

Did David Cameron really say “we will always look after the needy, the disadvantaged, the elderly, the frail and the poorest of our country” last May. Really?

The Rejection of AV – Better Luck Next Time (if there is a Next Time)

2011-05-07T20:13:00.016+01:00

As a supporter of the 'Yes to AV' campaign, naturally I have been disappointed by the result of 68% of the 42 % Turnout voting to reject AV.

The reason I voted ‘Yes’ to AV wasn’t because I believe it’s the best system available, but it was the best system on offer. Proportional Representation would have been the ideal, but seeing as there was no chance of this system being put forward to the electorate, I felt compelled to support something that was a step closer to it.

I’ve read and heard plenty of reasons why people voted to reject AV and don’t want to sound like a ‘sore loser’ about this. At the end of the day, the No campaign was clearly very effective, regardless of it being patronising and bent on scaring people, having more high profile support or more wealthy individual donors.

Clearly the right-wing media have whipped up a storm over this, stating that many No voters rejected AV to spite Nick Clegg and give the Liberal Democrats a kicking. I honestly hope people weren’t so shallow about a chance to change the future of democracy in this country for the sake of ill feeling to one individual or to a political party. There was plenty of opportunity for ‘punishing’ Lib Dems in the Local Elections themselves, which has obviously resulted in massive losses for them.

In my opinion, an opportunity has definitely been missed here to push this country’s electoral system towards being fairer and more proportional. I think to reject the Alternative Vote system as, in Clegg's own words, a ‘miserable little compromise’ to Proportional Representation was a mistake. It was still a chance to make some progress. How could it be assumed that adopting AV would ever stop PR from being a possibility further down the line? “It’s a start...” is part of a comment from Rupert Read (Green Party Councillor for Norwich) on a Left Foot Forward blog post from last year. This would have been useful for people to remember at the ballot box on Thursday.

Will this resounding ‘No’ be twisted by the two main parties and used as an excuse not to offer a referendum on any other Electoral Reform? AV is clearly not going to be raised as an option again, but I fear that Electoral Reform as an issue in itself will now slip to the bottom of the political agenda, obviously for the Tories, but probably now also for Labour after their rather muted support for the Yes campaign.

So we are stuck with First Past The Post for the foreseeable future, left wondering when another chance will come to change it for a fairer voting system. My guess? Not for a generation. I sincerely hope I’m proved wrong.

AV Vote and Local Council Elections– A Referendum on the Lib-Dems?

2011-05-06T01:52:00.007+01:00

Unless you’re living under a rock or inside a hermetically-sealed chamber of some kind, you’ll know that yesterday the country went to the polls to vote in various local council elections as well as the referendum on introducing the Alternative Vote. We’ve already outlined the leftist argument against AV in a previous blog – that it could lead to people competing for the centre ground (which is now in fact located somewhere on the centre-right), creating even more bland candidates and even a potential consolidation of a right-wing, neo-liberal politics. The argument progressives and leftists in favour of AV would put is that it is a step closer to true proportional representation and that it would in fact lead to candidates attempting to stand out more rather than blend in as they would feel they had more appeal that way. As one of our commenters put it:

Do you have to be a dull generic centrist to win majority support? Is that what makes a candidate popular? Most parties used a form of AV to elect their leaders - are Ed Milliband, Nick Clegg and Caroline Lucas "dull centrists"? Are Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson who won mayoral elections under AV "dull centrists"? I think that to win high preferences you need to stand out. You need to understand problems and have creative solutions to them. It won't be enough to appeal to armchair ideology of a small faithful. More importantly, independents and smaller parties will no longer be squeezed by tactical voting. With new contenders having a fairer chance, I think that voters will have more choice.

It’s too early to call at the time of writing – the counting of the AV referendum votes doesn’t even begin until 4pm today – but the ramifications of both results will be felt for some time. If the Lib-Dems have a bad night in the local elections, which is looking very likely, the pressure on Clegg and the Lib-Dem leadership in Westminster will increase to distance themselves from their Tory bedfellows and put more strain on the coalition. Similarly, if the AV referendum returns a ‘No’ result Clegg will have failed to achieve one of his main aims in going into coalition with the Tories and risking – well, destroying is probably a better word – his party’s credibility. Conversely, if a ‘Yes’ result is returned this will bring its own strains for the Con-Dem government with the Conservatives most likely looking to put as many obstacles in the way of voting reform as they can. Whatever the results, the next few months are going to be turbulent times for the government and the country. With things in flux like this there has never been a better time for leftists of all stripes to come together and take control of the political agenda and fight back against the neo-liberal, free-marketeer dominated political landscape.

The Death of Osama bin Laden: The Closing of a Chapter?

2011-05-03T21:36:00.009+01:00

If the news that Osama bin Laden had been killed by US special forces this weekend was surprising, the media's reaction was morbidly predictable. With all major newspapers and television stations repeating the mantra that this could be 'the end of a chapter' and that 'justice has been done', coupled with the scenes of jubilant crowds chanting triumphantly outside the White House and elsewhere, you could be forgiven for thinking that America had just overthrown a modern day Hitler and not simply spent huge amounts of resources on tracking down one man.

The fact of the matter is that this is not the end of a chapter but just another sign that the US is continuing the violent imperialism it has always engaged in. Obama is being praised from most corners for this - even the 'liberal' media hasn't criticised this unilateral US action, only questioned how much the Pakistani state knew - but therein lies the danger: Obama has always played the dove while acting the hawk.

One of Obama's first acts as president was to order the bombing of villages in Afghanistan, and throughout his premiership he has not only followed in the footsteps of the Bush administration, continuing its brazen disregard for Pakistani sovereignty (which has no doubt added to its difficulties in the middle east rather than alleviated them), he has in fact escalated the number of drone attacks across the region and overseen large troop increases in Afghanistan (to little avail).

All this contradicts the image we are asked to accept of Obama - the reasonable, intelligent centre-leftist who was simply a victim of circumstance in the problems he inherited from the previous right-wing government. While very few will weep over the death of bin Laden, he was after all responsible for heinous crimes, the acts of celebrating and glorying in any killing are deeply divisive and counter-productive. Another killing, no matter who the target was, will not mark the end of a chapter, but be just another grubby footnote in the continuing saga of US imperialism.

Top of the class

2011-04-25T18:15:00.010+01:00

Mary Anne Seighart’s article in the Independent - “Cameron's betrayal of the middle class” - pushes the boundaries of neoliberal individualism far beyond the pale.

Sieghart forwards the argument that the middle classes are being educationally marginalized by modern society. She links this to 'working-class' problems such as immigration using the same ill-informed, narrow-minded reporting one would expect to find in such fear-propelling tabloids as the Daily Mail and the Daily Express. The Independent's decision to publish such an article allows the frail arguments to be challenged.

Firstly, Seighart’s views on education stem from the most elitist position possible. There is no questioning of the inequality that seeps from every pore of the education system as explained in my blog post last year.

Seighart argues that a small minority of university places may soon be taken by pupils from poorer backgrounds as “admissions officers will have to take into account the average GCSE and A-level results of the candidate's school”. This will, in her opinion, lead to a situation where “the better a school does in the league tables, the lower its chances of getting its pupils into a good university.” The assertion that the poorer the school attended by a pupil the greater chance they have of accessing higher education flies in the face of any understanding of Britain’s education system. The system rigged in many ways to favor those with more power and influence. Private, faith and grammar schools are much better at endowing pupils with a better education and thus a better future. Seighart seems to ignore the fact that a child born in a poor area is far too often left with no option but to attend a poor school with poor behaviour records and poor teachers, resulting in poor grades and a poor future.

The ‘choice’ of a better education and way of life is halted for these children on the day they are born. Yet Seighart ignores this horrendous gap in equality by worrying about positive discrimination. Surely though, dealing with real discrimination - rather than its weaker positive form - is the key to a better system? And if this poor system is now levying ever so slightly in favour of an incredibly small minority of pupils - discriminated against from birth - then it seems a relatively minor infringement to rage against.

Seighart however takes this rage one step further and espouses that “for every poor student who wins a place, a middle-class student will fail to. For parents whose chief goal for their children has always been to get them into a high-ranking university, this will be seen as catastrophic.” There is no doubt that a smidgen of parents who have funded their child's education may find their efforts thwarted, but this again only highlights the flaws of a system that allows this unhealthy tactic to prevail.

Parents are given far too much say in the quality and whereabouts of their child’s education and, because we live in an unequal society, this creates an unequal system. Those with the most power benefit. Children are born not into a democratic but a feudal education system. Yet again though, Seighart seems unaware or incapable of peering into the vast abyss of this inequality. She is more concerned about those who have more and may lose out, rather than those have have nothing and lose all the time.

The only system failure Seighart attacks are the league tables. She states “Perverse incentives driven by league tables are what have got us into this mess….and neglect the brighter ones who are going to pass anyway.” Again she forgets to state the case of pupils at the bottom of the pile. In this case neglected for not being bright enough to attain 5 A-C grades and thus left on the scrap heap alongside many of the 1 million youth unemployed. They leave schools without skills straight into unemployment. It also escapes Seighart’s notice that it is the competition created by the league table system, to allow middle-class parents greater choice, which is the problem. This paradox is all the more potent as it seems to have only gained her notice as middle-class children now face the smallest chink in their weighted educational armory. There is no mention of the problems facing poorer children.

In order to try and gain support for this apparent loss of middle-class liberty Seighart argues that “An Oxford professor was moaning to me the other day that many of the brightest Oxbridge rejects will go off to American universities.” The brain drain argument is one of the oldest anti-tax, anti-social change arguments and it seems in recent years to be back in vogue trying to spread fear about equality to those who have most to lose by its appearance.

To make matters worse, Seighart doesn’t stop at trying to spread fear among the wealthier members of society. She then tries to transform middle-class irritation at the meekest attempt at educational equality into societal bigotry and hatred of the oldest kind; hatred of immigration and foreigners.

She claims “Nothing makes people angrier than losing their position in the world to someone they feel deserves it less. We've seen the wrath of the white working classes over losing their jobs and their council flats to immigrants.” Here Seighart fails to understand how working-class ‘wrath’ over unemployment and council flats is actually a symptom of neoliberal capitalist policies, so cleverly disguised by the right to create racial bigotry and ideas of ‘indigenous’ superiority. Add that in with the assertion that Britain is somehow a meritocratcic society in which the ‘deserving’ prosper and presumably the undeserving fail and one cannot help but be staggered by the writer’s inability to view a modern Britain in which “The wealthiest 1 per cent owned approximately a fifth of the UK's marketable wealth in 2003. In contrast, half the population shared only 7 per cent of total wealth.

This dogma is then carried into racist fervor with the statement that “Barking and Dagenham will never again be white working-class suburbs where neighbours have known each other all their lives. Maybe that's inevitable, but it still hurts.” How the colour of someone’s skin can hurt or what’s to be done about a lack of jobs, housing and education is not explained. It highlights how, in order to justify any form of inequality, sweeping and unacceptable comments of the most racial nature have to be made.

These opinions seem to stem from Seighart's real fear. The fear of a loss of her middle-class power: “What it comes down to is that we're all in favor of upward mobility, but nobody likes its obverse.” It seems to Seighart that social mobility is a one way street, bottom to top, with those at the bottom trying hard to achieve more while those at the top remain unchallenged. For too many years this attitude has prevailed in the British media with a lack of support for full employment, higher wages and higher income taxation.

Our education system – one of the UK’s oldest public institutions – is under attack from an increasingly ferocious right-wing government. Sieghart – by resorting to xenophobia of the most epic proportions – confirms that neoliberalism and conservatism can only lead to greater inequality.

Stuck in the middle with you

2011-04-20T20:55:00.007+01:00

The Tory - Lib Dem coalition crystallises a monumental and frightening shift in British politics. Prior to the General Election last year there was a misplaced belief that the combined support for Labour and the Lib Dems represented a 'progressive consensus'. The acts of the government – spawned from the policies of New Labour – show that this is clearly untrue. The consensus which prevails is that of individualism, competition and marketisation. This right-wing swing means it's absolutely crucial that those on the left oppose the Alternative Vote – and the Lib Dems, by showing their true colours, are the ones to blame.

The arguments forwarded by the anti-AV brigade are largely flawed and self-defeating. Mehdi Hasan produced a terrific critique in the latest New Statesman:

The Alternative Vote isn't a foreign system. From trade unions to workplace committees, professional societies to student groups, millions of Britons already have experience of voting under AV. It doesn't require expensive voting machines, or cost £250m ... AV isn't a "confusing system" (David Cameron) or "fiendishly complicated" (Daily Mail). If the Australians can manage to rank candidates in a 1-2-3 order, so can we. AV doesn't automatically result in hung parliaments: over the past 100 years, Australia has had fewer hung parliaments under AV than the UK has had under FPTP. Meanwhile, Canada, despite using FPTP, has been beset by hung parliaments in recent years.

The arguments forwarded by the No to AV campaign are largely uninspiring because they are extolled by reactionary and conservative Westminster traditionalists. Arguments of complication and cost are largely irrelevant in terms of electoral reform and we should strive for a genuinely proportional system whatever the intellectual or financial cost. However AV is not a proportional system and – whatever the outcome of the referendum – it will delay moves to proportional representation. Furthermore – and by far the most compelling argument against AV – it will further entrench a centripetal party system which is becoming increasingly bland, centralised and uninspiring.

The key argument against AV is that – far from increasing choice – AV acts to eliminate differences between parties and, therefore, reduces choice. Parties are forced to compete for second preference votes and this, inevitably, blunts radicalism and forces parties to compete for the centre ground. The coalition has forced the shift of the political playground to the right and, as a result, Labour will have to further reconfigure their policies in line with market forces in order to win second preference votes from Tories and Lib Dems. For this reason – and to ensure Labour doesn't slip further to the right – the Alternative Vote should be opposed by socialists and progressives and we should champion a genuinely proportional system.

AV is not about increasing representation or democratisation, it is about ensuring the supremacy of liberal individualism and marketisation. We stand at a political crossroads: the expenses scandal – coupled with the Lib Dems' public sacrifice of manifesto commitments – has eroded people's faith in government; the organised labour movement – facing an unprecedented assault on public services – is reawakening from its slumber to lead the fightback. It is hoped that AV will be a political apathy panacea but, in the long term, by encouraging the convergence of party politics, the erosion of public support in government will be even greater.

Prior to the General Election, Nick Clegg described the Alternative Vote as "a miserable little compromise" (NB: he may have been describing himself). It pains me to say it but, with regards to that quote, I agree with Nick.

Scientific Progress or Animal Cruelty?

2011-04-17T22:37:00.007+01:00

What comes to mind when I say Oxford University? World-class research? Quaint historic colleges? Privately-educated posh kids? A lack of ethnic diversity?

How about animal rights protests? I wouldn’t have thought of it either, until I happened to walk down South Parks Road on a Thursday afternoon. I was quite surprised to see about ten animal rights campaigners (and a policeman) stood outside the Plant Sciences department, demonstrating against the university’s “cruelty against animals”. I was curious, so stopped to have a talk with them.

They explained the building across the road houses over 150,000 animals that are experimented on each year in the name of scientific research; that healthy primates are subjected to deep-brain stimulation amongst other intrusive and harmful experiments; that the research carried out is to satisfy scientific curiosity that does not necessarily apply to human conditions. I was given a mass of leaflets to back up these claims, including references to published research from the university. Some of it makes pretty horrific reading – e.g. healthy monkeys undergoing invasive brain surgery to intentionally cause brain damage.

The protesters also told me they are are only able to protest for 4 hours on a Thursday afternoon following a high court injunction taken out against them by the university. So why are they perceived as such a nuisance or threat?

The “building across the road” was the controversial £18m Biomedical Sciences building. Only after the protesters told me what happened inside, did I notice the deterrents over the manhole covers and CCTV outside the building. The building was designed to replace numerous animal laboratories around the city, and house all animals used for experiments in this new “world-class” facility.

The opening of the “controversial” Biomedical Sciences building attracted attention from national media outlets such as the Guardian and BBC. It’s perhaps not surprising considering the building’s history. Construction began in 2003, but halted a year later after the building contractor Walter Lilly & Co, pulled out after receiving threats from animal rights groups. Following the injunction against protesters, work resumed a year later, and was completed in late 2008.

The university claims the facility tests new treatments for cancer, leukaemia, heart disease, HIV, arthritis and diabetes. It also says that animals can be used only if experiments with cells or computer models are deemed inappropriate.

Unecessary cruelty or necessary research, the debate will continue.

If in Doubt Blame Foreigners

2011-04-15T00:10:00.007+01:00

Now that bombing foreigners in Libya has not stemmed the reaction against the cuts and NHS reforms, David Cameron seems intent on attacking them at home as well. In a speech to party members in Hampshire the Prime Minister delivered a carefully worded speech aimed at immigrants but with a subtext that blamed the welfare state.

Immigration is not really a vote winner for an incumbent. In fact, it’s a poisoned chalice. It’s difficult to attack the issue without sounding remarkably similar to extremists like the BNP. Cameron tried to avoid this label stating that he wished reduce immigration to starve the BNP of the oxygen of public anxiety that they thrive on. That’s kind of like saying that killing Jewish people is useful because it reduces Nazi party support. Well yes, if you do what another party want they lose their raison d'etre to a certain extent.

Another difficulty with the issue is that you can’t really satisfy those who are already angry without mass deportation, which is not an option. Plus there is nothing that can be done about European immigration anyway.

It’s clear that this isn’t really about immigration but an attempt to gain further justification to attack welfare. By saying that “migrants have been filling gaps in the labour market left wide open by a welfare system that for years has paid British people not to work. That is where the blames lies, at the door of our woeful welfare system” Cameron is clearly trying to find another avenue for attack.

Solidarity

2011-04-10T21:32:00.006+01:00

There has been much debate here and elsewhere about the tactics different groups are using to oppose the government. Should you condemn the destruction of property as occurred on the 26^th of March? Have UK Uncut’s actions really been successful in promoting an anti-cuts agenda? Does tackling the one issue of cuts go far enough when really you oppose the whole system that allowed this right wing administration to exist?

The aim of the left during this government’s term should be to silently support a multitude of actions attacking the right. For many reasons the left have become seen as unelectable since the 1980s. Tony Blair was elected into government with a manifesto that promised to adhere to Conservative budget planning for the first two years in power. The left has everything to win by a multilevel attack on government and everything to lose by visibly debating the best way to do it.

Lucy Annson from UK Uncut on Newsnight refused to be trapped into attacking others direct action. By stressing that young and old participate in their action she demonstrated that there are many ways to act. In the Newsnight footage they claim that the majority of the march was overshadowed which has caused many to claim it as “an own goal”. No, what happened is that the media decided to focus on the actions of a few and then claim that their focus meant the rest of the march was over looked. This point would mean that there is only a finite amount of news space dedicated to the march in general which is untrue. The people who marched created news, UK Uncut created more and those who smashed windows created even more. All this means there was a bigger impact overall surely.

Therefore, none of the above questions matter. There does not need to be a consensus or agreement on actions. Would I ever adopt black bloc tactics, mask up and throw a brick at a window? No. Do I think that the fact that every time there is a Conservative government there are violent clashes that helps the left? Yes I do.

The Bay of Pigs - The First Defeat of U.S. Imperialism

2011-04-04T18:00:00.004+01:00

Fifty years ago US-backed mercenaries invaded the Bay of Pigs (Playa Giron) but were swiftly defeated by Cuban forces in what is widely recognised as "the first defeat of U.S imperialism in America". To commemorate the victory I have written a feature on the invasion for the Morning Star which can be read here.

UK Uncut & Black Bloc – They All Look The Same To Me

2011-03-30T20:24:00.003+01:00

Since the events of last Saturday, both the mainstream media and the police have sought to blur the lines of distinction between UK Uncut and the black bloc 'anarchists' that attacked the Ritz, Santander and Starbucks. A total of 201 arrests were made following Saturday’s march. Charges have been brought against 149 people, 138 of which were charged with aggravated trespass in connection with the Fortnum & Mason protest organised by UK Uncut.

New footage from the Guardian indicates that UK Uncut was deliberately targeted by police and this attempt to demonise UK Uncut and associate them with violent disturbances has been systematically reinforced by mainstream press and social networking sites. But why would the establishment seek to portray UK Uncut as violent ‘anarchists’? And why would the police choose to ignore violent behaviour in favour of arresting peaceful activists from a growing protest movement?

Well, on the face of it, UK Uncut is an easier and more manageable target – but that analysis is far too simple. We should instead ask who represents the greatest threat to the ‘establishment’?

In purely cosmetic terms, anarchists – with their penchant for smashing up expensive hotels and discharging paint bombs over high-end shops – are a fearsome threat to society. Their behaviour is sadistically iconic but, in truth, their actions alienate more than they attract and their activity is easily managed. But, my word, do they make for a good photo opportunity!

UK Uncut, on the other hand, represents a real and fundamental threat to the established order. The movement – fluid in its organisation and fiercely tech-savvy – has grown steadily since it was formed last year. Although not dogmatically political, their activity is distinctly class-based: they target organised capital or, more precisely, the tax-dodging classes – such as Vodafone, Top Shop or Boots – and their tactics are articulate, peaceful and original. Take, for example, the occupation of banks and the impromptu organisation of pop-up libraries or stand-up performance. Their thoughtful mobilisation – coupled with the resurrection of trade union activism – has had a profound effect on the established order and prompted this vicious backlash which hopes to gut the movement of activists and starve it of public support.

UK Uncut was targeted by police in an attempt to discredit them and encourage people to confuse peaceful demonstration against legitimate targets with violent vandalism. Anarchists were not targeted in the same way because their antics serve to fragment the labour movement by alienating potential support and providing a stick with which to beat the left. Characterising UK Uncut as thuggish criminals serves to undermine their sophisticated and peaceful activism.

The repression of UK Uncut has – at its very core – the class struggle and it shows that the antagonism between labour and capital is as strong as ever. UK Uncut has steadily been able to raise awareness of tax-dodging corporations and this has had a positive effect on raising the consciousness of British workers – but there was always going to be a backlash. On Monday it was announced that parliament is to investigate corporate tax avoidance – a formidable victory for the movement. Let’s hope it’s just the start.

The Black Bloc: A Modern Guerrilla

2011-03-29T23:53:00.011+01:00

Firstly, I would like to point out that I am aware the black bloc is not a group or movement itself but a tactic used by a lose number of groups. For a good guide see Dan’s explanation. I also don’t wish to give the impression that black bloc tactics and actions have been carefully thought through and organised to achieve the effect they have.

Much has already been written about the events that transpired on Saturday’s March for the Alternative. However, what I have found lacking is an analysis of the motivations and tactics of the parties involved. The black bloc tactic sits perfectly within the modern age, making it surprisingly effective which, in turn has inevitably distracted attention from the rest of the anti-cuts movement and has damaged the effect of peaceful protest (as a result partly of police action).

Attending the march on Saturday and seeing it all play out I was shocked at the surreal nature of the interplay between the police, the media and the black bloc. The bloc tactics seemed surprising at first. By wearing full black and covering their faces from the outset the “trouble makers” were easily identifiable even before any action was taken. They were setting off bangers and smoke grenades before the first attacks on Santander and the Ritz. They were also always in groups the largest of which I saw numbered around 80 again, before any damage occurred (which is larger than most of the media footage displays largely due to the fact that they split into smaller groups later). Looking at the figures it would appear that these tactics were futile in resisting arrest. The police charged 149 people with a range of crimes due to civil disobedience on Saturday which is a significant number.

This number however includes the arrest and charging of 138 peaceful UK Uncut protesters at the Fortnum and Masons sit in. Therefore, only 11 other arrests were made. There have only been two charges of violent conduct made. The truth then is this, if you want to be involved in direct action using black bloc tactics and destroying property is less likely to get you arrested than a peaceful occupation. It’s clear that the police saw the Fortnum and Masons occupation as a honeypot of chargeable offenders that they could add to their very small arrest list.

Whilst the block bloc are clearly identifiable as outlined above they are not arrestable by police. You can’t arrest someone for wearing black. It's also difficult to arrest one person who has committed a crime after they have run back into a crowd of people identical to themselves. This exploits the media who are able to quickly spot and shoot trouble.

Look at any of the videos of damage on Saturday and you will notice that people with cameras and on lookers vastly outnumber the bloc. In the now famous “I’m a cop!” video you can’t help notice that of the 4 people in the bank 2 are journalists. Notice how many people are surrounding those pushing the bin through the front doors and how they are just standing watching and filming. Also notice how no one was arrested.

This is why they were so effective. Relatively small groups of 10-20 were free to roam independently causing damage unopposed. Once the police arrive their first priority is to stop the damage. Once this is done the group has already moved on, hit and run style. Only 11 police officers were treated for injuries on Saturday which shows the bloc’s aversion to direct contact.

The attack on the Ritz was stopped by about 6 police men just standing together even though they were vastly outnumbered. The result of these tactics is that the media gain a ton of footage and the bloc members aren't arrested and are free to go home and watch themselves on TV.

The media are already hooked on the bloc and after having run out of news are now reporting that the Royal wedding is the next target. Such an assertion fundamentally misunderstands the tactic since the Royal Wedding will be centred in a set of defendable locations surrounded by pro royal onlookers. However, the bloc could attack the same targets as on Saturday which will be completely undefended since the police will be elsewhere.

Do these attacks help further promote an anti-cuts/anti-government message? In all of the coverage I have seen on the attack on Topshop the fact that Philip Green dodged £285 million in tax is mentioned as a motive. Did the peaceful sit in by UK Uncut in that store in November get the same exposure? No. Will anyone reading an article focus on the damage of the tax dodge or the damage done to a number of buildings in London? If I was to burn down a whole hospital I would be unlikely to clock up £285 million worth of damage.

Would the march alone have gained as much coverage? Does the attention attained from this coverage help or hinder the anti-cuts movement? I am unsure. What I do know is that the bloc’s success promoted by the media and the police targeting of peaceful activists has left peaceful protesters the victims on Saturday.

Special Protest Video: March for the Alternative

2011-03-28T06:41:00.003+01:00

Special Protest Report: Inside Black Bloc

2011-03-27T18:11:00.011+01:00

As we march across Piccadilly Circus towards Piccadilly a group of about three to four-hundred anarchists peel in from the right and begin parading in parallel to the TUC march. It’s not clear where they’ve come from and it’s hard to tell how old they are. Clad in all black their faces are covered with a variety of masks, bandanas, scarfs, ski masks and gas masks. Although the majority are men, there are a number of women and – as far as you can tell from body-shape and eyes – they seem to age from around 16-25. The smell of adrenaline and purpose hangs thick in the air.
The anarchist line swoops in engulfing the wide road as we lurch to the left and hear the sound of fire-crackers behind us. With the iconic black and red flags of the CNT held aloft they stride purposefully down Piccadilly. The loud bang of fire-crackers continue to erupt behind us growing ever-closer as we parade past lines of banks interspersed with expensive shops. The beast has found its prey.
Within the blink of an eye a fire-cracker explodes just to our right as the line of anarchists turn on a six-pence and immediately start marching in the opposite direction. We turn to see them swarming round a branch of Santander. A smoke bomb spews forth a green mist and pockets of the group throw themselves at the bank’s windows. The window buckles under a tirade of fists and feet but the flexi-glass doesn’t break. A volley of colourful paint bombs splatter the walls as a stray smoke bomb bounces off the brick and ricochets back into the crowd as it spits out its vibrant haze.
The spectacle is watched by half a dozen policemen across the road. They stand there perfectly still relaying a running commentary into their radios. The anarchist group turns apace and accelerates down Piccadilly and descends on the Ritz. The offensive becomes a blur as the crowd pelts the Ritz with more paint and attempt to gain entry via a side gully. Small clusters break-off and begin throwing stuff at the police as the paparazzi –seemingly from no-where – weave in and out wearing hockey helmets for protection before returning to the hive of the group and disappearing into the sea of black.
The crowd advances down Piccadilly and by now the side roads are lined with riot police. They remain still in line gathering information and relaying updates as the anarchists surge on Starbucks before disappearing into the London streets like dissipating green smoke. We don’t encounter them again until we arrive at Hyde Park – but their kaleidoscopic calling-cards adorn all surrounding walls and virtually every street corner (or police riot van) is daubed with an anarchist ‘A’.
It’s a fascinating experience to witness first-hand the anarchist tactic of black bloc. Black bloc is not an organisation or faction, it is a tactic different anarchist groups use for security and to avoid arrest. Here’s how a website promoting the tactic describes it:

The Black Bloc is a tactic that has been used in demonstrations for years. It is used as a security and safety measure. In it's essential form, each participant of a Black Bloc wears somewhat of a uniform. The idea of wearing this uniform is that if every single person in the Bloc looks relatively alike, it is hard for the police to determine which individual did what. For instance, if a Black Bloc participant throws a brick at a store window and runs into the Bloc, she will easily blend in with everyone else. However, if a person wearing normal street clothes happens to throw a brick and run into the Bloc, chances are that she will have been filmed or photographed and later caught by the police.

The group we witnessed was more than likely a coalition of multifarious anarchist groups united by the mutually beneficial tactic of black bloc. The common uniform gives them the opportunity to blend inconspicuously into the group whilst the geography of the location – flagged as it was by numerous streets on either side – provides an ideal getaway and allows the group to divide into smaller parties and reconstitute elsewhere. With reports of numerous assaults of varying sizes across London it appears the group was an amorphous mass able to split, divide and reform without much effort. Indeed, it’s conspicuous how a number of photos in our photo album show the anarchists in constant communication via mobile phone.

Historically anarchists may seek the abolition of authority but, yesterday at least, it seems they were very well organised.

Media Watch: March for the Alternative

2011-03-27T11:09:00.008+01:00

Unsurprisingly, the photo editors of Britain’s Sunday papers have been seduced by the evocative and powerful images of anarchists “on the rampage in central London” during yesterday’s March for the Alternative.

Although most papers chose a photo depicting street violence – with the Independent on Sunday adopting a particularly powerful vista – the Observer and The Star both went with huge crowd scenes and no paper dared deny the magnitude of the march with estimates ranging from 250,000 to 500,000 protestors. Regardless of which figure you go with, a couple of hundred anarchists is but a tiny minority and hardly representative.

Both the events yesterday and the media coverage today bring into question the role of direct action in the labour movement. Of course there are times when direct action is necessary – and civil disobedience was crucial in the civil rights movement and the suffragettes – but the anti-cuts movement is a different beast and I fear what the press term ‘violent extremism’ could discourage families from protesting in the future and undermine what should be a broad movement.

It’s also important, however, to draw distinction between the peaceful and effective direct action employed by UKuncut and the more aggressive black bloc tactics used by anarchists yesterday. In many cases – such as the occupations of Topshop and Fortnum and Mason – anarchists hijacked legitimate UKuncut demonstrations. UKuncut have shown in the past they use peaceful means to occupy establishments in order to gain publicity, create a spectacle and raise consciousness. Unfortunately, anarchist activism which involves attacking rather than occupying is too divisive for a political movement in its infancy and undermines attempts to create a critical mass of opposition. A revolution has never been won on adrenaline alone – it requires developed consciousness, mass support and effective mobilisation.

The newspapers’ sensationalism, however, shouldn’t distract attention from the true story to come from yesterday’s events. It was the story of something we haven’t seen for a while and something which most people had written off as doomed or extinct. Yesterday we saw the re-awakening of the trade union movement and the forceful demonstration of a mass labour movement mobilised by sectional interest but organising collectively. Yesterday showed that half a million people on the streets of London – with many more sympathetic and unable to attend – represents the majority of public opinion.

It is the responsibility of all those who attended the demonstration yesterday to spread the story of a peaceful, united and passionate march and ensure it isn’t hijacked by the sensationalist press. The success and unprecedented scale of the march makes it easier for trade unions to organise militant action in workplaces and – with the full impact of cuts yet to come – the momentum is with us. The March for the Alternative shows that the fight-back has just begun.

Special Protest Report: March for the Alternative

2011-03-26T23:19:00.017Z

The TUC had organised the 26 March demonstration months in advance. Everyone knew it would be big, but just how many people and which groups would turn up in central London on the day? Estimates of numbers vary between sources, but it was probably around 500,000. It definitely felt comparable to the demonstration against the Iraq war in 2003.

Victoria Embankment was already full of banners and placards by the time EoP arrived at 10:30am. We were pleased to join numerous trade unions, activists, public sector workers, unemployed, disabled people, and protestors. It was interesting to see the diversity of groups extended to women’s organisations, music and theatre unions, physiotherapists, and pensioners all marching alongside revolutionary and political parties.

We started marching just after 12pm. Trade union branches from around the country were represented in their delegations and many workers – from nurses to firemen – marched in uniform against the cuts.

Walking towards Westminster, we caught up with the teaching unions NASUWT and the NUT, protesting against cuts to education.

The route took us up Whitehall and past Downing Street where you could hear the crowd’s deafening boos. The march was apparently 4 miles long, so let’s hope Cameron heard our discontent for a good few hours.

Trafalgar Square was about half way along the route. People took the chance to rest, climb statues to protest, and a large Trojan horse circled Nelson’s Column.

From Piccadilly Circus, we moved along Picadilly – the home of Fortnum & Mason, several banks, and the Ritz. On our right, a stream of about 200 anarchists joined the protest. They seemed very well organised, and we caught sight of them causing havoc at branches of Santander, Starbucks and the Ritz. This was action distinctly separate from the main, peaceful march. We’ve included a photo below, but more can be found in our Facebook photo album.

Amongst a suddenly heavy police presence we reached Hyde Park at about 3:30pm. There were hundreds of thousands of people there already. Speakers at the rally included Ed Miliband, Brendan Barber, and Mehdi Hasan, who all praised the great turnout. We were told at 4:30 that people were still arriving - and information on Twitter suggested that the march still stretched back to Whitehall.

We left Hyde Park for a well-deserved tortilla down Oxford Street. We passed Oxford Circus, and the spectacle that was Topshop’s flagship store. It’s not the first time this store has been targeted by UKUncut, but it had certainly been hit harder than any previous occasion. The paint-splattered windows implied that it had been targeted by the anarchists who had previously attacked the Ritz, de Beers Jewellers and Starbucks. A wall of police was protecting the store, and it certainly wasn’t open for business. Even passing shoppers couldn’t help but take a photo. As I write, there are still reports that police are defending the store.

We participated in the main, peaceful, family-orientated march. We also caught a glimpse of the minority’s actions against businesses and the rich. It will be interesting how the Sunday papers will report the march tomorrow. Will they focus on the 500,000 or the 500?

Click here for our full photo album

A Priceless War

2011-03-24T23:47:00.002Z

Why are you marching?

2011-03-23T23:00:00.008Z

On Saturday 26th March thousands of people will take to the streets in an act of opposition to government cuts. Cuts are coming hard and fast - from the voluntary sector to the systematic dismantling of the NHS - in an attempt to divide opposition, fragment dissent and nullify alternatives.

In anticipation of the March for the Alternative we canvassed online opinion from activists on why they are opposing government cuts. Here are some of the responses we received from ordinary folk - we hope you will share your own:

“I am not on the actual march, I am doing the armchair army march instead cos I am disabled. I am 'marching' because the govt is not chasing tax dodgers hard enough, my son and I live in poverty and he needs his EMA so he can get out of poverty and eventually find a job. I am marching for a living wage for my boyfriend who stands at a machine all night long for just above minimum wage. I am marching for people who need help in hospitals, for doctors, for nurses, for teachers, for the armed forces, fire services, other public sector workers and anyone else who is struggling under the reckless behaviour of our banks and financial institutions. I want those people who broke our laws in the financial crash brought to justice, their assets seized and returned to the people.” Clare Jordan

Chris McCabe is marching “for justice and against wars & the banksters’ coup”

“I’ve never been on a march before but I’ll be out on Saturday. I’m disgusted by the cuts to the Film Council and the effect it’ll have on the arts.” Jimmy Burns

“If there’s money in the Treasury reserve for war in Libya, why isn’t there money for public services? That’s why I’m marching.” Trev Fish

“I'm marching because I don't want my children to have to live in the same kind of miserable Tory world I had to endure when I was their age, a life with no prospects, no work and limited access to education. I am a member of the Socialist Party and Northampton Alliance to Defend Services, and was actively involved in the campaign against the Poll Tax under Thatcher when I was my daughter's age (18), and in supporting the miners when I was my son's age (10). My daughter hopes to go to University this September, the first member of my family ever to do so, yet she faces leaving education with a massive debt to cripple her early life. I am also marching for my clients. I am the manager of a Homeless Hostel and my vulnerable clients are having their access to benefits and health services slashed, and their home put at risk. I am also marching in solidarity with those in the middle east and across the world who are rising up against their capitalist oppressors.” Del Pickup

"I am marching on the 26th because I care.

I am appaulled at the current levels of unemployment, especially among young people. The Con/Dem Government's plans to cut public sector job, pay and pensions is unnecessary, cruel, and will ultimately do more harm than good. I am very angry with the absurd levels of tax avoidance, which the millionaire government deliberately turns a blind eye to.

I, along with over 100,000 people, want to show the Government and the big corporations that we will not take cuts to our essential services, privatisation, sale of publicly owned assets, rises in fees and brutal attacks on our trade unions.

I firmly believe that united, we can win against the government, and the March for the Alternative will hopefully earn the workers of Great Britain a place in the history books." Ed Stuttard.

Will you be on Saturday's march? Let us know why you will be marching below.

Anonymous

2011-03-21T21:48:00.007Z

From childish beginnings the collective known as Anonymous seems to be maturing into a politicised group. The following message was recently posted on Anonymous's news page. In calling for action they seek to bring a new era forged from debate, equality and plurality. This message is not new but what is interesting is the technological prowess that Anonymous possesses. If anyone can challenge the status quo in causing damage to those with power then it is probably them. If you don't know who they are please check out their Wikipedia page for a brief history.

Open Letter To The World

We stand at a unique time in our history, the rise of the internet and computer technology have contributed to an unparalleled rate of prosperity for the First World.

We have created for ourselves and empire unlike any other, a global network of constant trade and communication, a new age of technological advancement. We have come a long way from our humble roots in the Industrial Revolution and the days of Manifest Destiny. We are now pioneers on new digital frontiers expanding our domain from the quantum world to the far reaches of space.

And yet, the empire faces a crisis, a global recession, growing poverty, rampant violence, corruption in politics, and threats to personal freedom. As it was before in other times of crisis, the old stories have begun to repeat themselves. The half truths, this time repeated nightly on cable news and echoed through a series of tubes onto the internet: the empire is strong, change is unwise, business as usual is the answer. In times of uncertainty there are those who seek to add to the confusion, to prey on our insecurities and fears. Those who would seek to keep us divided for their own gain. The pervasive strategy takes many very convincing forms: Liberals and Conservatives, Christians and Muslims, Black and White, Saved and sinner.

But something unexpected is happening. We have begun telling each other our own stories. Sharing our lives, our hopes, our dreams, our demons. Every second, day in day out, into all hours of the night the gritty details of life on this earth are streaming around the world. As we see the lives of others played out in our living rooms we are beginning to understand the consequences of our actions and the error of the old ways. We are questioning the old assumptions that we are made to consume not to create, that the world was made for our taking, that wars are inevitable, that poverty is unavoidable. As we learn more about our global community a fundamental truth has been rediscovered: We are not so different as we may seem. Every human has strengths, weaknesses, and deep emotions. We crave love, love laughter, fear being alone and dream for a better life.

You must create a better life.

You cannot sit on the couch watching television or playing video games, waiting for a revolution. You are the revolution. Every time you decide not to exercise your rights, every time you refuse to hear another view point, every time you ignore the world around you, every time you spend a dollar at a business that doesn't pay a fair wage you are contributing to the oppression of the human body and the repression of the human mind. You have a choice, a choice to take the easy path, the familiar path, to walk willingly into your own submission. Or a choice get up, to go outside and talk to your neighbor, to come together in new forums to create lasting, meaningful change for the human race.

This is our challenge:

A peaceful revolution, a revolution of ideas, a revolution of creation. The twenty-first century enlightenment. A global movement to create a new age of tolerance and understanding, empathy and respect. An age of unfettered technological development. An age of sharing ideas and cooperation. An age of artistic and personal expression. We can choose to use new technology for radical positive change or let it be used against us. We can choose to keep the internet free, keep channels of communication open and dig new tunnels into those places where information is still guarded. Or we can let it all close in around us. As we move in to new digital worlds, we must acknowledge the need for honest information and free expression. We must fight to keep the internet open as a marketplace of ideas where all are seated as equals. We must defend our freedoms from those who would seek to control us. We must fight for those who do not yet have a voice. Keep telling your story. All must be heard.

Media Watch: Jingo All The Way

2011-03-20T16:00:00.006Z

The New Statesman columnist Peter Wilby recently implied that government foreign policy in Libya could be determined by domestic concerns:

Cameron, as cuts hit home, is likely to experience levels of public unpopularity similar to those recorded for Margaret Thatcher before Argentina invaded the Falklands. Lest we forget, approval ratings for Thatcher’s government were below 30 per cent for 18 months before the Falklands war. After victory, they stayed above 40 per cent for two years.

Starting a war worked for Thatcher, so why not her Etonian protégé? The botched SAS mission could even be viewed as an attempt to gauge public reaction to intervention in Libya.

I have to admit I was sceptical about Wilby’s assertion. Unlike in the 1980s, I thought the population too war-weary and the military too overstretched and fatigued by prolonged conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq to countenance another potentially entrenched war. But desperate needs call for desperate measures and, although military intervention in Libya might not have an immediate effect on public opinion, it certainly helps unify the tabloid press behind an increasingly unpopular government and this, in the long-term, will help shape public opinion. This could be crucial in fortifying the Conservative vote in May local elections.

The phrase “take all measures to protect civilians” means the UN Security Council Resolution amounts to much more than a no-fly zone: it allows air strikes and any military action except landing troops (for now). How anyone could believe a no-fly zone could represent anything else – when its policing would require strict military enforcement – is staggering.

Many people – of both the left and right – see military intervention as necessary in order to protect civilian lives. I’m not quite so convinced what our motivations are and think we need to be much more cautious about our response to military action.

Does this mark a watershed in British foreign policy? Will we be embracing a consistent policy of helping civilian struggles around the globe, or will we pick and choose depending on the incumbent regime and our existing trade relations? Will we abandon hypocrisy and cease arming despots and tyrants? History tells us to be sceptical and only time will tell. What is certain though is that the tabloid press love a war and - saturated in imperialist jingosim - will rally behind the government. It might just be the intervention Cameron is looking for.

Special Protest Report: The Liberal Democrat Spring Conference, Sheffield

2011-03-13T15:59:00.011Z

Yesterday, EoP attended an anti-cuts, anti-coalition protest in Sheffield city centre along with around 4000-5000 other people. The march began on Devonshire Green – a stone’s throw from the City Hall – did a circuit around some of the main streets, and ended at the heavily-fortified City Hall where the Lib Dems were hiding away to hold their spring conference. The protest was, in general, a very peaceful affair with a real mixture of people in attendance, from families to students (college and university) to older people. Placards and banners sporting a wide variety of slogans and messages were on display, ranging from Socialist Worker Party ‘Stop all the cuts, fight for every job’ messages, others demanding 'no more lies', to my personal favourite ‘Go away naughty baddies that lie’. Once at the line of steel and police blocking our approach to the conference, chants of ‘Nick Clegg, shame on you for turning blue’ and ‘Barrrrnsleyyyy’ began in earnest (the latter of which was of course a reference to the Lib Dem’s terrible result in the recent by-election where they were forced into sixth place behind even prize fools UKIP).

One thing that did surprise (but probably shouldn’t have) was the reaction of many of the Lib Dem delegates. For around 2 hours several of them stood atop the stairs of the City Hall watching and, in some cases, taunting the protesters as they pushed and swayed against the barriers. One elderly delegate even had the arrogance and general disrespect to hold aloft a picture of Nick Clegg to the crowd while laughing and smiling in a rather pitiful attempt to incite further anger. Later, another delegate who was walking to the conference outside the protective bosom of fencing, police dogs and police officers, told a protestor who was simply standing with his sign outside Barleys Bank and who couldn’t have been more than 16 to ‘try doing a hard day’s work’. This kind of attitude - which seemed to be quite pervasive – arguably shows the true nature of the Liberal Democrat Party. Not only did their leader break almost all of his pre-election promises for a chance at some form of power, but his party’s rank and file seem to have grown to resent many the people their party was actually elected by. One honourable exception to this was a delegate who responded to calls from one group of protesters using a loud-hailer to come and explain why they were supporting a government that was cutting services and giving tax-breaks to the rich.

There were, of course, several speeches at the height of the rally. Union leaders calling for a general strike were the predominant theme but Labour MP Paul Blomfield also gave a fairly well-received speech where he highlighted the narrow margin with which he scraped victory at the General Election in May – the Lib Dem candidate lost by under 200 votes. Following this there was some general rowdiness as a determined group of demonstrators hammered the fencing with placards and fists and an anti-Gadaffi protest also formed a short distance away. Some blogs have reported around 50 anti-capitalist protesters rampaging through the retail district and successfully shutting down several tax-dodging businesses but EoP did not witness anything of this kind so we can’t confirm or refute the details of this. We witnessed only one arrest and this was near the beginning of the rally outside the City Hall when a demonstrator leapt the fence holding a flare and was quickly subdued by around 5 officers.

Overall the protest seemed very successful and a turnout of 5000 people is nothing to be sniffed at, even if the media and police were floating ill-founded claims of 10,000 during the run-up to the event. What has been disappointing is the media’s reporting of yesterday’s events. While it is understandable that the media’s gaze has been firmly fixed on the tragic events in Japan and Libya, the coverage of this important protest – during one of our governing party’s conferences - has been, quite frankly, dismal. The most in-depth report of the event seems to have been a piece in the Guardian which manages to be both patronising to the thousands of protestors who turned out to exercise their democratic rights, and almost entirely misleading. Perhaps the Guardian doesn’t want to rock the boat after its pledge of allegiance to the Liberal Democrats shortly before the General Election? Or maybe the media intelligentsia (with the exception of some coverage in the Daily Mail with vastly under-reported numbers, and some in local papers) – along with the BBC, who have been equally lax in their coverage - just feel that reporting properly on such events is beneath them or even irrelevant? This may seem like a minor inconvenience – after all, we turned out and sent a message to the Lib Dems – but information, as they say, is power. If other like-minded people around the country don’t get to hear that there are large numbers of citizens protesting about the very same things that they are angry about – cuts to jobs and public services and the favouritism this government is showing to big business over average people – then they may not feel they have any chance at resisting. Or perhaps because there was very little juicy violence for them to get their teeth into the media felt it was too boring to fill air-time or column inches? Whatever the reason, we now have a task for the protest in London on 26^th March: make sure we make it so big and so loud that there’s no way anyone can ignore us.

Democracy - our gift to the world

2011-03-11T22:08:00.003Z

This week’s New Statesman editorial argued that “support... for democracy in the Arab world remains both a moral duty and an act of national self-interest” and called for a multilateral fund – similar to the Marshall Plan – to be “deployed to support economic development and civil society in the region’s nascent democracies”. The New Stateman’s assertion – mired in flawed logic – is symptomatic of the left’s struggle to find a coherent response to the unravelling revolutions in the Arab world.

The NS contends that Britain needs “an unambiguous commitment to the promotion of democracy” and criticises the coalition’s intention to withdraw all UK funding from the International Labour Organisation (ILO). The ILO, according to the NS, is “the UN agency that co-ordinated the trade union struggle against apartheid in South Africa and Stalinism in Poland”. But both the Polish and South African transitions to democracy show us that international bodies can be used to impose a particular model of liberal democracy – often counter to the interests and desires of the population – that aggravates wealth inequality and undermines the local economy in favour of international capital.

In Poland the International Monetary Fund – in cahoots with transnational corporations – exerted severe pressure on the leading trade union Solidarity to implement neo-liberal Friedmanite policy and sell off national resources such as state shipyards and factories to the private sector. Solidarity – born from the stagnation of centralised Soviet communism – craved real democratic worker ownership of the economy, but international finance – using the rhetoric of democratisation – conspired to create a ruthless market economy. Similarly, in South Africa, the strangulation of the economy by the IMF forced the ANC to abandon many of the legitimate democratic demands of the Freedom Charter – such as nationalisation of key industries, industrial control and land redistribution to indigenous peoples – and, just like in Poland, the catch-all term ‘democracy’ was used to denote something very specific: neo-liberal democracy.

Democracy is an emotive term which few people could disagree with; but ask someone to define democracy and the question becomes more troublesome. The Guardian reported today that “Britain wants to withhold £1bn in annual EU support for the region unless greater democracy is introduced” – but where was our moral compass when we were cosying up to these dictators before? The fact is – perhaps unsurprisingly – that our foreign policy is not motivated by international altruism but pragmatic self-interest and the contention that it is our “historic debt to the people of the Arab world” to promote ‘democracy’ through international organisations controlled by the Western powers is little more than cloaked (albeit skewed) imperialism.

Support for democracy is a moral imperative – but our interpretation of democracy cannot be confused with neo-liberalism and it cannot be imposed by an alien force – either militarily or economically. Neither can it prescribe an economic programme or dictate how natural resources should be organised. It needs to be a movement of the people and by the people without outside influence.

The New Statesman’s leader is imbued with a subtle tone of nationalism and colonialism that suggests we have the right – and obligation – to dictate to the Libyan people what political system they should choose. Developing nations do not seek to interfere with the domestic affairs of sovereign nations, so why should we seek to impose our model on them? Despite what some on the supposed left may believe, democracy cannot be implemented from above; it must be a demand from the mass of people below. Some people might have faith in international bodies helping to orchestrate democracy but many people – from South Africa to Poland and from Latin America to Iraq – might just disagree. I don’t know for sure though, because I don’t feel I have the right to speak for someone else.

Top 10: Women in History

2011-03-08T08:03:00.007Z

In celebration of International Women’s Day we’ve compiled a list of 10 of the greatest women in history – writers, musicians, politicians, civil rights activists and philosophers. Here they are in order of birth date – but let us know who else you think should be included...

Mary Wollstonecraft (1759 – 1797)
Wollstonecraft is seen as one of the founding mothers of the feminist movement. Her most important work was A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) in which she attacked educational restrictions that kept women in a state of “ignorance and slavish dependence” and created an artificial inequality between men and women. Wollstonecraft was a powerful advocate of gender equality and contended that society should be divested of the monarchy, the church and military hierarchies.

Sojourner Truth (1797 – 1883)
Born a slave in New York, Sojourner Truth was originally called Isabella Baumfree but gained her freedom in 1827 and later, after going to court to recover her son, became the first African American to win such a case against a white man. Truth was an abolitionist and women’s rights activist whose 1851 speech on racial inequality – Ain’t I a Woman? – gave birth to the black feminist movement.

Emmeline Pankhurst (1858 – 1928)
Pankhurst was leader of the British suffragette movement and helped win women the right to vote. She formed the Women’s Social and Political Union and employed a number of militant tactics including direct action and civil disobedience. Pankhurst was imprisoned a number of times and undertook numerous hunger strikes. During World War One, Pankhurst encouraged women to do all they could for the war effort and, in 1918, the vote was secured for women over 30.

Rosa Luxemburg (1871 – 1919)
Luxemburg was an eminent Marxists theorist, philosopher, economist and activist. A leading member of the Social Democratic Party in Germany, she opposed revisionist and reformist elements within the movement and co-founded the anti-war Spartakusbund in 1915 with Karl Liebknecht. She played a leading role in the Germany Revolution at the end of World War One but regarded the 1919 Spartacist uprising as a tactical blunder. She was murdered along with Liebknecht by right-wing paramilitary Freikorps and became a martyr for the German far-left.

Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986)
Regarded as the mother of second-wave feminism, de Beauvoir penned the term “one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman”. Her epoch-defining The Second Sex, was published in 1953, and remains a key text in western feminist thought. De Beauvoir was a socialist and existentialist, and wrote several books on politics, ethics and autobiography. De Beauvoir was the life-long companion of Jean-Paul Sartre.

Rosa Parks (1913 – 2005)
Parks was an African-American civil rights activist known as “the first lady of civil rights” and “the mother of the freedom movement”. On 1 December 1955, Parks refused to give up her bus seat to a white passenger sparking the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Parks’ defiance became a symbol of the modern civil rights movement and she became an icon of resistance to racial segregation.

Anne Frank (1929 – 1945)
Frank is one of the most renowned victims of the Holocaust and her diary – charting her family’s experience of hiding from Nazi forces in occupied Holland – has become one of the world’s most widely read books. Anne Frank’s diary is not just an important historical document; it stands as a testimony of Jewish resistance against brutal and systematic persecution.

Vilma Espín (1930 – 2007)
Espín was a revolutionary leader in Fidel Castro’s 26th of July Movement and a prominent advocate of women’s rights. The image of her and several other women shouldering rifles and wearing combat fatigues helped change attitudes about the role of women in Cuba. Espín founded the Federation of Cuban Women (FMC) in 1960 which – with over three million members – is the largest women’s organisation in Latin America. Women now occupy 64% of university places in Cuba and hold 43% of positions in parliament – ranking Cuba third in the world for female political participation.

Joan Baez (1941 - )
Baez was the most prolific female singer songwriter in the 1960s, but her folk songs were backed by political conviction. Through music and action, she promoted civil rights alongside Martin Luther King Jnr and protested against the Vietnam war. She was an early champion of Bob Dylan (documented in her song ‘Diamonds and Rust’) and they frequently performed together in the 1960s and 70s. To this day, Baez is an advocate for peace and human rights.

Aung San Suu Kyi (1945 - )
Suu Kyi was at the forefront of Burma’s democratic uprising in the 1980s. She helped form the pro-democracy party and was appointed General Secretary in 1988. Suu Kyi was detained during the 1990 elections, which was won by Suu Kyi’s party, but denied by the dictatorship. Suu Kyi spent more than 10 years under house arrest in Burma, before being freed in November 2010. Her cause was internationally recognised and won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991.

Media Watch: Dispelling the Chavez Myth‏

2011-02-25T23:53:00.006Z

This week I got in a bit of a political ding-dong with infamous blogger Guido Fawkes on Twitter. The exchange was inspired by this Tweet from Fawkes:

Time for a democratic uprising for freedom in Chavez's Venezuela, get two dictators for the price of one.

Fawkes' reactionary utterance was in reference to Libya's Colonel Gaddafi and the assertion by William Hague that Gaddafi had fled to Venezuela. Although Fawkes is a chronic sensationalist, his narrow-minded and ill-informed attitude mirrors the mainstream Western media.

On Monday Foreign Secretary William Hague told a meeting of EU foreign ministers that he had information suggesting Gaddafi was heading to Venezuela and this was parroted – as fact – by the BBC and other mainstream news outlets. The obvious implication was that Hugo Chavez may not be killing his own people, but he was willing to collude with and harbour tyrants. The bloody bastard!

It soon emerged that Hague’s declaration was completely false and that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was in fact on the phone to Gaddafi in Libya at the time Hague made his remarks. Needless to say, no apology from Hague was forthcoming and, unfortunately, this one-sided and partisan reporting on Chavez is typical within Western media.

Few international leaders are derided or demonised more than Hugo Chavez. In the last few weeks we have seen Gaddafi massacring his own population, the brutal repression of popular unrest by Mubarak in Egypt and the end of autocratic rule for President Ben Ali in Tunisia. All these figures are rightly vilified by the press - but it wasn't long ago that our dear leaders were cosying up to these tyrants. So why the vitriol towards el Presidente?

Despite winning three Presidential elections and holding numerous referenda, Chavez is the most maligned head of state in the world and is habitually characterised as a dictator in Western discourse. He is always described using negative adjectives, from the mild – such as ‘controversial’ or ‘outspoken’ – to the extreme – such as ‘t yrant’ or 'authoritarian'. This relentless barrage of ill-founded rhetoric creates a critical mass of public opinion which frames Chavez as an anti-democratic demagogue. Fawkes’ comment is just one symptom of this pervasive culture. The media has a privileged and respected position in the West but, by perpetuating these myths, it is acting irresponsibly as a tool of the elite.

Commandante Chavez has put democracy at the heart of the Bolivarian project in Venezuela. His first major act as President was to replace a constitution written by elites with one written by the people. Furthermore, by nationalizing the oil industry, Venezuela has been able to eradicate illiteracy, provide free healthcare, education, pensions and various social programs. Promoting community activism, educating your down-trodden populace and holding frequent elections is hardly the work of a totalitarian despot.

The explanation for Chavez’s demonisation lies in the fact that he is profoundly democratic and has sought to challenge the concentration of wealth in the hands of an elite. He has been an influential member of OPEC; criticised U.S foreign policy in the Middle East; denied the U.S. access to Venezuelan airspace; strengthened relations with Cuba; opposed the neo-liberal Washington Consensus; empowered the people and – perhaps most importantly – has the audacity to control the largest oil reserves outside the Middle East. In helping constitute ALBA – the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas – Venezuela is challenging neo-liberal hegemony and is providing a real alternative to international bodies such as the IMF and World Bank which seek to promote free trade.

Before accusing Chavez of being a dictator and protecting despots, the media should ask who has supported and backed these violent oligarchs in the past. Was it Hugo Chavez that sold Gaddafi weapons to slaughter his own people, or was it Britain and America? Before the media questions Chavez’s democratic legitimacy, they should look at the reality of life in Venezuela and reflect on the democratic legitimacy of the coalition government. For instance, why isn’t the media asking what mandate the government has for dismantling the welfare state? Where did that appear in the manifestos of either the Liberal Democrats or the Tories?

The West is right to view Chavez as a threat – but only as a threat to elite rule. What Chavez is showing us – and what the people of the Middle East have shown us over the past few weeks – is that another world is possible.

Politician Watch: Morning Star Newspaper and Early Day Motion 1334

2011-02-21T22:12:00.003Z

I recently blogged about the Early Day Motion 1334 in support of the Morning Star. Following a letter to my MP I received this unsatisfying response:

RE: Morning Star Newspaper and Early Day Motion (EDM) 1334

Thank you for contacting me about the above matter.

I certainly appreciate the value of a broad and independent media in the UK. This plurality plays a vital role in a vigorous democracy.

If the BBC is to remain independent, it is vital that politicians only intervene in extreme circumstances. Whilst I can understand why you might be concerned over the BBC’s position on the Morning Star, I do not feel that it would be appropriate for me to intervene in this instance.

Thanks again for taking the trouble to contact me about this important issue.

Yours sincerely

Mike Weatherley MP

It’s a shame Mike and his fellow Tories don’t feel it equally inappropriate to intervene in the NHS...

We're not out the woods yet

2011-02-17T19:32:00.004Z

This afternoon - along with half a million other internet activists - I received an email from David Babbs, Executive Director at 38 Degrees, heralding the scrapping of plans to sell-off the forests. The government back down is undoubtedly a victory for people power, but anyone who thinks this is anything but a minor - albeit significant - victory can't see the wood for the trees.

As argued recently, the government is currently administering a programme of economic shock therapy. All cuts are coming simultaneously to ensure that some (relatively minor) government u-turns weaken popular resistance by pacifying protesters and secure passage for more significant (if less emotive) 'reforms'. It's like when films include extremely shocking scenes in first edits to strengthen their bargaining position with the British Board of Film Classification. Directors never intend the extreme scenes to make it to screen, but they use their omission to ensure something slightly less outrageous makes the final cut. It remains to be seen whether the cutting of Forest Dump will ensure that Saving Private Hospitals makes it to the big screen.

The issue of forests - like animals - taps into our collective consciousness and has the power to evoke unparalleled opposition and vitriol. People care deeply about the fate of a cute puppy or their local wood, but a shroud of apathy embraces millions of starving people in the developing world. The same is true of the anti-cuts movement: opposition to the forest sell-off has been monumental, but the fight to save the NHS, protect local government and stop the spread of free schools has been much less inspiring.

The reason for this lies in liberal individualism and a deep-rooted culture of self-interest and self-preservation. Saving a cat from drowning or protecting a forest are uncontroversial issues because they don't involve other people or personal sacrifice. However asking a healthy person to pay for a National Health Service predominantly used by fat people and smokers suddenly becomes controversial because there is a human element. People feel indignant about paying higher taxes to fund health, education and social security for vulnerable people who - as far as popular culture tells them - are victims of their own laziness. Liberal individualism and consumerism therefore acts to divide and alienate the population and, as a result, serves to undermine opposition to government cuts.

As David Babbs said in his email, "we've shown that if forests are under threat, people power can come to the rescue." Now the people need to come to the rescue of everything else. This triumph cannot serve to pacify the populace and we cannot rest on our collective laurels or bask in the glory of defeating the government. It must act as a catalyst to energise and unite the anti-cuts movement. This victory - along with the student movement - is a tiny acorn from which must grow a mighty oak of resistance - sturdy and immovable with roots penetrating deep into society. The battle may be won, but the war has barely begun.

Media Watch: Our Democracy Needs the Morning Star

2011-02-13T15:02:00.008Z

For the last few weeks Early Day Motion 1334 – condemning the BBC boycott of the Morning Star – has been steadily accruing signatures in parliament. EDM 1334 notes that the Star is “the only socialist daily newspaper in the English language worldwide” and “welcomes the different light it shines on news and current affairs from that of other daily newspapers”.

Labour MP Ian Lavery states that "There is a strong view among parliamentarians of different political persuasions that the Morning Star provides news stories which other newspapers for whatever reason fail to print.” As such EDM 1334 has attracted support from Labour, Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, SNP, SDLP and the Green Party.

EDM 1334 represents an important challenge to a narrow and centralised media. North Ayrshire MP Katy Clark has called for “a far wider range of views in our national media" and has denounced “the same people arguing the same position, which is basically the position of the Establishment again and again".

The Morning Star – unlike many of its mainstream equivalents – does not serve an individual media mogul. It is owned by its readers and the management committee – because it consists of trade unionists and activists – represents millions of ordinary working people.

In order to have a fully functioning democracy, we need a plurality of views in the media. If the media is dominated by one voice or one viewpoint then our democracy is compromised. But when there is a consensus of cuts, the Morning Star’s role is more important than ever to provide detailed information from the left of the labour movement.

Maximising support for EDM 1334 is important not just in fighting the cuts and championing socialism; it is important for our democracy. In the General Election last year, it was only the Daily Mirror and Morning Star which threw their weight behind Labour. When it comes to the May local elections it will be the Star that will be campaigning for Labour victory against the Tories. Therefore, all Labour supporters should urge their MPs to support the motion.

Please email your MP and ask them to sign EDM 1334 because, regardless of what party they are in, our democracy relies on hearing a plurality of voices so citizens can make informed decisions. Please post any responses you receive below.

Forests: The first government u-turn?

2011-02-11T18:57:00.007Z

I previously blogged here about the UK government's plan to sell off Forestry Commission woodland. Well, the government has now decided to put plans on-hold, a sign that a u-turn on the issue could be looming.

I want to know what has successfully pressured the government in making this decision, and what lessons can be learnt for other campaigns:

1) The policy wasn’t staunchly ideological
Remember the Conservative vote is traditionally held in rural areas, and there’s a danger this policy could outrage their own country bumpkins. The green spaces of England are heritage for everyone, and a public consensus could be heard in the Question Time studio a few weeks back. I’ve never heard such cheering and agreement amongst the audience.

2) Reputable celebrity backers
When an issue is less ideologically sensitive, more celebrities will rally round. Fact. Judi Dench, Bill Bryson, Annie Lenox, Ranulph Fiennes, and even the Archbishop of Canterbury – Dr. Rowan Williams put their name to a letter in the Sunday Telegraph calling the proposals ill-conceived. And you know when the Telegraph is publishing sentiments against the government, there’s something brewing...

3) Successful, organised campaign and petition
We should not forget the role of 38degrees in this campaign to save the forests. They’ve clocked up over 50,000 signatories, including mine. This is a demonstration of people power, people organising over the internet. There’s been some favourable coverage of this group too, on TV shows such as ‘10 o’clock live’. The interesting thing is, this group is not just campaigning against the government’s plans for the Forestry Commission. It’s also collecting signatories against human trafficking, against political interference in BSKYB investigation, and against NHS reforms. And this leads me nicely to my last thought...

Why are people bothered about our green spaces being sold off, but less bothered about saving the NHS? Less bothered about ensuring everyone has the same right to free healthcare? Perhaps the NHS is fair-game for ideological struggles, but we could do with some celebrity backers right now for this one.