A radical, ecosocialist take on the climate change crisis and the challenges confronting humanity in the face of global warming, resource depletion, religious intolerance, media manipulation and social injustice.
Mutuals have long been advocated by many in the socialist and green movements as a key part of the solution to a free market economy based on speculation and accumulation. Formed out of mutual aid friendly societies as long as the late 18th century, British building societies have always worked on the basis of sufficiency - never lending more than came in and limiting what members could take at any one time; and, critically, not seeking profits for any purpose other than reinvesting in the business. There are no shareholders, no owners and no money taken out.
The result was that by the late 1980s, the sector was large and healthy, and at that stage still relatively diverse in spite of a trend of mergers. But the Thatcherite era saw an infusion of new possibilities for financial mutuals first of all to diversify their services and then to "go public" - become publicly listed companies making profits for shareholders. In other words, to become banks. Key to this was the 1986 Building Societies Act, as Thatcherite a piece of legislation as you could possibly find, which paved the way for the cash-grab of the bankers.
I briefly worked for the Bradford-based National & Provincial Building Society in its last days as a mutual. As its Board tilted towards de-mutualisation, scores of high paid executives were imported from the banking sector in a veritable frenzy of backslapping bonus-sharing as they strove to find ways to become a bank. In just three years, the number of Directors increased from six to over 60. Many staff in what had been a major local employer and a means of fostering modest home ownership and savings became uncomfortable about the sponsorship of a culture of greed and pie-in-the-sky notions that, in future, N&P as it became, might sell anything at all - "even hamburgers!" one over-excited director declared.
The vanishing mutual: N&P's Bradford city centre branch, long since empty..
As it was, a couple of years after I left, the first big housing recession kicked in and their plans came to nothing. Instead of sailing their way into corporate supremacy, the financial wizards had to settle for being swallowed up first by Abby National PLC before in turn vanishing into the giant Santander PLC. The headquarters, a large building in Bradford city centre that appeared to have been architecturally inspired by lego windows, was symbolically dynamited as hordes of locals looked on, uncertain how to react other than run up the hill when the dust clouds billowed out much further than anticipated.
The intervening decade and a half up to 2008 saw the bankers egotistical bubble inflate and stretch horrendously. Old shibboleths that limited lending went by the wayside. Anything could be borrowed and repaid. Buy-to-let mortgages, where people could borrow to purchase property to rent out, were introduced after decades of being illegal - causing massive inflation in the first-time buyers sector and pricing many younger people out of the housing market for good. Mortgage limits, once pegged at 80% of house value, rose to 120% and beyond as the poison of overlending reached everywhere.
The banks have failed and failed comprehensively. Nearly four years on from the crash of 2008, most remain in hoc to the Government, which in turn is punishing ordinary people through higher taxes and reduced services, grinding the whole economy to a halt. The housing market is flatter than flat, with unscrupulous private landlords the sole beneficiaries. In spite of repeated demands from the government, small businesses especially complain that it is nigh impossible to get loans for vital investment in their businesses. Stagnation results, with unemployment and low wages driving the consequent cycle ever down.
In all, with offers of a few hundred pounds in shares to members, ten building societies took the crooked path from mutuals to plcs. Read the list now, and they have virtually all vanished or, in the case of Bradford & Bingley and the pisspoor Northern Rock, were nationalised after collapsing only for their profitable sections to be sold off to the private sector once more.
The Green New Deal, proposed just before the last election by a range of green economists and politicians, including GPEW leader Caroline Lucas, argued for the hastily nationalised banks to be broken up and re-mutualised rather than sold off. In this way, the link with the need to make profits would be broken and they could focus again on building communities and local businesses and co-operatives.
But the Government is not listening. The profitable bits of RBS are being sold off to Santander, all of which will go firmly back into the private banking sector, in spite of all the signs that it has not learnt its lessons from the avaricious mess it has got itself and all the rest of us into.
CHECK OUT - THE FIFTY AMERICAN MILITARY BASES SURROUNDING IRAN @ THE ECOSOCIALIST- click HERE
BUSH: "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table." OBAMA: "“No options off the table means I’m considering all options (on Iran).”
Everything has its price - capitalism eats itself!
The last week has seen executive pay high in the headlines in Britain again as we saw first the damp squib of the Con Dem government's supposed assault on overpaid corporate bosses followed by the same Government's decision to allow a bonus of nearly £1 million to be paid to Stephen Hester, the head of struggling state-owned bank, RBS. With both their report and Hester's pay, they resorted to their faux calls for responsible capitalism and for him to "do the decent thing" and hand the money back. Needless to say, there is no sign of either on the horizon.
Repeatedly, all three main parties have taken part in a mindnumbing dance of twisting and turning on executive pay. They all condemn the huge disparities in pay awards - nearly 50% increases for directors and senior managers in the FTSE 100 this last year in spite of the same bosses insistence on pay restraint among "ordinary" employees. They rail against the soaring ratios of 500:1 and higher in the top to bottom pay in some companies - a far cry from the 10 to 1 ratio seen as the "acceptable face of capitalism" back in the 1950s, not that that face showed itself quite as often as some apologists of reformist capitalism like to fondly remember.
And yet when it comes to action, they all baulk at anything effective. The furthest the Government has gone has been to propose an exceedingly modest increase in shareholder control over executive pay; but nothing on punitive taxation of bonuses; nothing on giving workers a say on the remuneration boards of big companies; nothing on squeezing down the immoral and outrageous inequalities in pay in spite of the spiralling social misery and potential disorder this is creating. In spite of their failure to pay fair or even any tax and their track record of business failure and short-sighted greed, these people, the politicians argue, are too valuable to risk them leaving Britain.
Fortunately, the public do not agree.
An opinion poll published by ICM today shows that only 7% of the public believe any executive should be paid more than £1 million. Just 1% - one per cent - of the 2,003 people surveyed agreed that the very top executives currently earning £4 million per year are worth it. Two thirds want to see workers on remuneration committees - an option ruled out last week by Business Secretary Vince Cable on the bizarre grounds that where companies have employees working overseas, it would be too difficult for them to elect representatives to sit on these bodies. Risible to say the least.
So in spite of the clear antipathy of the public to the eye watering inequalities in pay, none of the main parties offer any political action to tackle these effectively. Meanwhile, of the parties "bubbling under" in national opinion polls, only the Green Party commits itself to taking mandatory action on pay.
So for progressives, there is a genuine option for action on pay inequality. And as "The Spirit Level" report by Wilkinson and Pickett showed, a more equal society is one where there is much less crime, better health, stronger communities and higher levels of happiness. It also paves the way to a more sustainable fostering and use of resources at a time when many of the most basic are under increasing pressure. So everyone would benefit.
Meantime, under the Old Grey Parties, Britain remains firmly set on a course towards social disintegration. Austerity and authoritarianism are the watchwords of our gradually more and more embattled elite as it seeks to suppress rather than resolve the despair of the squeezed majority. Like the ancient Spartiate nobility in its decline, terrified by the growing resentment of its helot underclass, British capitalism is teetering over the abyss between chaotic collapse and social fascism.
Another news item today, on the BBC website, highlights that in Papua New Guinea, the price of a bride is four pigs. Checking the current price of adult saddleback pigs in Britain, the monthly pay of someone on the national minimum wage is worth less than two pigs - and of course that falls to zero when compared to the cost of the greedy porkers sitting in the boardrooms of "broken Britain."
Clegg, meantime, promised to "get tough"on the abhorrent levels of executive pay back in early December. Like Cameron, he wanted shareholder power to be given legal status to ensure that company AGMs could vote down excessive pay awards (at the moment, such votes are not binding) and similarly he complained about the "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" arrangement of mutual participation on each others remuneration committees.
ZAP!: shareholders will be allowed to have a binding vote on executive pay, if they ask... POW! : shareholders may also be able to "demand more clarity"on executive pay deals... KERCHANG!: Company boards are to be "more diverse" by ensuring that two people on each board should not have been board members before... BLAM!: the views of ordinary staff should be "taken into account" if they ask for them to be..although Vince pointed out that this is already the completely ineffective and almost entirely disregarded law in large companies... WHOOOOSH!....er...er...well, that's it really...
Cable's Crusade - the mask slips....
So much for the great assault on crony capitalism. The new shareholder right to have a binding vote is not unwelcome, but given the massive logistical difficulties of anyone wanting to communicate with and organise a majority vote among the shareholders of these huge companies, it is hardly likely to set the heather on fire. On the BBC tonight, Cable admitted that "no (executives) will be quaking in their shoes over this..." And earlier in his statement he had been at pains to stress the Government has no plans to "micromanage" company pay. Indeed, he was not even willing to give his opinion on the touted seven figure bonus due to be awarded to the head of the state-owned RBS bank. Apparently, any speculation was "above my pay grade."
It is hardly surprising. In spite of all the rhetoric of the last few weeks, it would have been far more of a shock if a government of committed neo-liberals and free marketeers had done anything at all to tackle the excesses of the moneyed class. It is striking that the sole piece of legislative action - the possibility of binding votes on pay - supports the owners of companies. The Government had made noises about supporting the High Pay Commission's call for a worker's representative to be put on each remuneration committee; but Cable turned this down on the pathetically laughable grounds that, as some companies have overseas employees, it would apparently be too difficult for them to participate in electing a representative. And as for Directors on each others remuneration committees, the shocking corruption condemned so fiercely by both Clegg and Cameron? Vince the Bold says it happens so rarely that "it isn't actually a problem..." So, no need to do...anything, after all.
And so, with both government parties sympathetic to cutting income tax for higher rate tax payers - the Lib Dems have opposed it mainly during the recession; many in their party, including Clegg ally David Laws still see cutting top rate tax as a longer term aim - the chances of any genuine redistribution of income or wealth are lower than zero under the current regime.
The upward climb of the rich goes on unabated. The ever-pompous Cable, meanwhile is revealed as the Don Quixote of delusional reform; except even his windmills are imaginary. If this is responsible capitalism, only the Invisible Hand can save us now.... Erm...
When I read the other day of supermarket uberchain Tescos £5 billion collapse in its share values, I was unable to sleep...for celebrating. After initially pondering exactly just how much cheese and wine "celebrity" chef Anthony Worrall-Thompson had taken from their shelves, I reckoned that those who live by predatory capitalism will die by it too - apparently over Christmas, marketing initiatives by the other big chains, Sainsburys especially, made big inroads to Tescos customer base. And so now the shareholders are worrying about their dividends following the company issuing a profits warning - coincidentally just after their Chief operating officer sold some £200,000 of shares for "necessary family expenditure"; must be quite a family!
Really? What exactly?
Of course, given just how totally unethical Tesco has been in its rampant takeover and destruction of local high streets, reaching a point now where it has a third of the food trade in the UK and a fifth of the clothes trade - nearly one in every four pounds spent by Britons is handed over in one of its outlets - the prospect of one of the other three big chains (Asda-Walmart, Morrisons and Sainsburys) benefiting from its decline is frankly cold comfort. Between them, these four outlets supply nearly 80% of our food - a dangerously high concentration in anyone's book for a whole variety of reasons.
All the supermarkets behave in questionable ways - undercutting small local shops, hammering suppliers to produce goods at ridiculously low cost (which is passed on in the form of higher profits to shareholders, not lower prices for consumers), paying low wages to marginalised workers on insecure contracts and using production and distribution methods for their "Just-In-Time" delivery systems which are environmentally devastating.
With the focus in the last three years on the corruption and crisis in the banking and financial sector, the retail food sector and the supermarkets have quietly continued their aggressive expansion into every nook and cranny of our lives. With even corner shops and petrol stations now sucked up by the four chains, they have moved online as well with home delivery - so that you buy even more of your needs from the one capitalist supplier. Relentlessly pushing the concept of convenience, they provide everything - food is nearly a byline set next to any household good you might want, books, dvds, clothes, medicines and even banking and insurance.
The result is a super-concentrated and inherently precarious system of supply - as the petrol dispute ten years ago showed, when supermarket bosses warned they had only 3 days supply of food in their stores, any significant disruption to their national distribution arrangements could spell real crisis for ordinary people. Imagine a major dislocation of energy supplies, or severe weather, or a financial crash that bankrupted a couple of these chains - the bailout required by Governments would totally eclipse the banking crisis. With hunger a real prospect within a few days, the potential for riot and chaos predicted in the NEF publication "Nine Meals from Anarchy" would be a direct result. We could face a national emergency of unprecedented proportions.
So, ecosocialists and any others concerned about sustainable and just societies need to ensure that the food retailers and supermarkets are as much a focus of campaigns like Occupy as the banks. The damage they have done is arguably more significant than the financial sector's misdeeds and the continuing risk they pose is massive. We need to legislate to create local, community food initiatives and revive small-scale production and supply of food and other goods. It is not just good for the planet - it is safer for society too.
On BBC TV on Sunday morning, our beloved Prime Minister, David Cameron, did one of these things he does so often to endear himself with the masses - he told a lie. Shock horror!
Yet, to be fair to the blue-blooded, blue-nosed Old Etonian, it may not have been a deliberate lie. It may well just have been another example of his arrogant sloppiness in half-baked factology, first detected with his rubbish about record national debt, etc.
Mr Cameron repeated something which a surprising number of commentators, politicians and the public believe - because, thanks in part to comedians, Conservatives and the corrupt xenophobic media, most British people seem to think that Greek people retire at 55 years of age, and that this has contributed to their economic woes which have so badly rocked the Eurozone and beyond.
In fact, this is a total nonsense.
May Zeus strike them! The neolibs fibs about Hellas
The average retirement age in Greece is over 61. As in the UK, some jobs do allow early retirement at 55, but in fact 86% of workers do not enjoy such a scheme. The normal state pension age in Greece is 65 years of age - the same as at present in the UK, though it is rising in both countries over coming years.
So, yet again, the rightwing mythmakers have been at work, stigmatising an entire nation as lazy good-for-nothings. The truth, of course, is that Greece is in trouble because it is tied into the Euro and no longer has any control over its own currency - if the drachma was still in use, they could have devalued it and be well on their way to fiscal recovery. But because they are tied into strict limits set by the European Central Bank, which has appointed the unelected neoliberal technocratic Prime Minister (the inappropriately named Mr Papademos, which translates as Father of the people!), Greece is unable to print its own money - hence it is trapped in the Euro-snare where the Central Bank rather than the elected governments calls the tune.
As ever, our politicians and media ignore the huge concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny rich elite in Greece, in line with the trends in most other austerity-focused states, seduced as ever by the half-truths, lies and twisted statistics of our political-economic masters. They are myths we buy into at our own peril - because it feeds the plans of the elite to continue to grasp and command more and more of the wealth of all nations. And, as part of that, force all of our retirement ages up and up until our leaving does can be combined with our wakes.
David Cameron, George Osborne and Muppet-in-Chief Danny "Beaker" Alexander have managed to get themselves totally twisted and hoist on their own petard today over the prospect of a Scottish independence referendum. Concerned about the plans by the SNP Scottish Government to play a long game of slowly building up to a referendum in 2014, with a multiple choice of status quo, more devolution within the UK and total independence, they have decided to bring forward legislation to force the vote to be held sooner.
Citing secret discussions between Cameron and Osborne and "global business leaders", the Con Dems have warned any further delay will damage the Scottish economy and, for alleged clarity, the punters are to be given only two choices - yes or no to independence.
Beaker and Osborne - taking Britain forward to oblivion
It is testimony to the total ineptitude of the so-called unionist parties that by their actions they have completely validated the SNP's claims of central government ignoring the wishes of the Scots - who voted in large numbers for the majority SNP Government, which had made its referendum plans clear - and have almost certainly hastened the break up of the UK.
- Cameron, Osborne and Beaker thinking it is clever to deny people a third option of enhanced devolution, presumably calculating that by doing so, enough devolutionists will baulk at all-out independence and opt for the status quo. Dave Cameron's old University mate and former President of Oxford Uni Tories, BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson, obligingly spouting the latest Downing Street cheat sheet, suggested this morning that a multiple ballot wouldn't be possible because "no one would know which option had won" if none got more than 50% of the vote. Presumably the Lib Dems haven't got round to explaining AV to the Tories; oh, sorry, bad language...
- Changing the law to make any referendum result binding, unlike all the other referenda held in the UK, which have been consultative. Presumably they are gambling that the apparent finality of a binding referendum might scare some people off voting for change.
- Cameron, Osborne and Beaker saying anything at all about Scottish independence. After all, what better advert for Edinburgh breaking away from the union is there than a reminder that these smug people, with little support among Scottish voters, are still ultimately in charge?
I am a Scot, living in England. I am no nationalist of any type and no advocate of independence. But after this amateurish farrago of blatant political fixing, which these pathetic irridentists seem so blindly determined on pursuing, I can only feel that the day the Saltire is hauled above a fully independent Scottish Parliament has come much closer - and, for the first time in my life, I really wouldn't be in disagreement with a basically social democratic country that wants to cut its ties with the junta that is driving Britain to the neoliberal dogs.
OBAMA TO LAUNCH ELECTION CAMPAIGN ON THE END OF A PATRIOT MISSILE
From the Jerusalem Post: "Last week, Lt.-Gen. Frank Gorenc, commander of the US’s Third Air Force based in Germany, visited Israel to finalize plans for the upcoming drill, expected to see the deployment of several thousand American soldiers in Israel." http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=250249
But with rightwing Republicans cheered by the emergence of Rick Santorum in Iowa's primary caucuses, Obama will be wanting more than ever to appeal to the voters the surging challenger thanks God for wanting to "cling on to their guns and bibles!"
A bad new year looms in the Gulf. As ever. Arab Spring, followed by nuclear winter?
Iran's nuclear noose:
Iran's nuclear noose - its' neighbours India, Pakistan, Russia and Israel are armed with nuclear weapons, while US & UK forces based nearby in Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf, Iraq and Cyprus have ready access to atomic arsenals.
The Chartered Institute of Housing has published a report showing that, as new housing benefits rules come into effect from this month, there will be a short fall in the availability of rented housing set against the permissible housing benefit levels to be paid of some 800,000 properties, many of them family properties. In effect, millions of adults and children are to be left with stark choices - eat or have a roof over your head; or, perhaps even more tellingly about this government's real intentions, walk the streets where you are now, or move...preferably far away.
The problem is at its worst, unsurprisingly, in the better off boroughs of London, where at a stroke, tens of thousands of people in need will no longer have their housing costs met in full. The result will be a huge increase in demand in poorer areas, which are already struggling to cope, and so the anticipation is that these social outcasts will move away altogether to inhabit the dead zones of many of our decaying seaside resorts, far away from their social superiors, and also from any prospect of living in areas where there might be some reasonable chance of decent employment.
It is unsurprising that this is happening - the Government has trailed it long enough, with the Lib Dems contented support, as part of its combined strategy of deficit reduction and breaking so-called welfare dependency. The Housing Minister, Grant Shapps, has even suggested people should move onto boats - perhaps hoping these new Boat People might be conveniently washed away, out of sight of Tory voters.
Yet how is it that driving people away from areas they have lived in and may have some work, however limited or low paid, is going to break welfare dependency if they end up in some poky bed and breakfast in Southend? Or is it just another way of creating a large pool of even cheaper seasonal staff to service the well-heeled on their summer jaunts down to the coast? Someone to do retired Aunt Agatha's shopping for a few beads and nuts when she heads off to her retirement flat in Eastbourne?
Driving people out of their homes and communities - somehow, this perhaps more than anything else we have seen from the Con Dems, is the epitome of the drive back to a society that would make Victorian times look like a paean to egalitarianism. It is moving beyond gated communities to entire boroughs and counties with gates which might be invisible, but no less firm and unyielding than the iron ones that close off the cowering middle class revanchists keen to cling onto their material wealth.
It is a social cleansing that will lead only to more division, more tension and isolation between different groups in our battered society - at a cost far, far greater than any pounds or pennies saved through this most bitter turn of the screw on some of the most vulnerable people in our town and cities.
I live in a medium sized town in the north of England. One much depressed by a succession of recessions which have seen the heart slowly sucked out of the town until, in the local government ward I live in, two areas register in the most poverty stricken categories possible by EU standard measures. It is also a town that has a large population of Asian Muslims living in particular parts, with strongly white communities elsewhere - a fact that has been seized upon by the BNP who briefly flourished in the town before collapsing amid internecine bickering. Now one of the local papers publishes a weekly column that dwells on highlighting the faith divisions in the town.
The basic rhetoric draws week after week on the same story over and over along the lines of "I'm not allowed to criticise Muslims - crikey, I just have, now I'll be in trouble".
This is no isolated instance- much of the media, local and national, take a similar line. Newspapers regularly lament how in Britain we are no longer apparently allowed to say all sorts of things because of the Political Correctness Police. This is stated at the same time as saying the things they claim are not allowed to be said. Sadly, of course, some people buy into this bizarre nonsense because they still trust what they see in newspapers as conforming to some standard of accuracy.
Except schools continue to put on nativity plays, as they always have - though I have a colleague who still thinks that her grandson's school was breaking some non-existent law when it put one on. And likewise, there are no instances of Christmas trees removed at the behest of Muslim complainants - granted, there have been a truly small handful of times where oversensitive non-Muslims have stopped Christmas decorations for such reasons but they are few and far between and actually betray a dreadful ignorance of Islam and its historic relationship with Christianity - and Judaism.
These three Semitic faiths are of course deeply linked to each other - Judaism, originally a polytheistic faith, coalesced around the idea of a single god, exclusive to the Chosen People of Israel, the Jews, as short a time ago as 300 BC; Christianity claimed to be the fulfilment of the Judaistic belief in a messiah, a Saviour, and initially was a sect within Judaism, exploring beyond that racial faith almost three decades after the death of Jesus when Paul of Tarsus, a non-Jew, became its leading proponent and was responsible for formalising much Christian thinking. Ultimately, Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, the superpower of Europe and the Near East of its day and from this, its beliefs were carried through the trade routes into Arabia, where some Arabs adopted it as their faith.
In the sixth century after Jesus, however, Mohamed, an Arabian trader, began to formulate new beliefs with which he forged both a political and faith union in the Arabian peninsula - Islam - which held him to be the last Prophet of God (Allah is simply the Arabic word for God), in direct succession from the Christians Jesus (Isau in Islam), and the Jews Moses (Musa) and Abraham (Ibrahim). Given this pedigree, Islam from the outset had to identify its view in relation to its predecessor faiths and in its holy book, the Koran, Mohamed set out the need to both respect and protect the Jews and Christians as People of the (holy) Book.
Consequently, through much of its history, Islam has not only tolerated Christianity and Judaism, but for centuries Islamic states provided havens of refuge for Christians and Jews persecuted by the totalitarianism of the Catholic Church in western Europe. When the Jews were told to leave Spain or die, it was the Muslim Ottomans who sent ships to rescue them and carry them to new lives in the Middle East and the Maghreb. And even today, millions of Christians live and worship freely and generally peacefully in Muslim states which, in the West, are portrayed as brutal theocracies.
You can find more about Middle Eastern Christians in a previous blog here, but suffice to say that whether you look at Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Syria or Lebanon, or Iraq in Saddam's days or Libya under Gadaffi, you will find Christian people and Christian churches, established for centuries and respected by their Muslim neighbours. In many instances, people of all faiths mark each others festivals - even Ayatollah Khomeini issued Christmas messages to Christiansand just last week the head of the Iranian Church met the Pope - notably and discreditably to the surprise of Benedict, who amazingly confessed his ignorance of its existence, although it numbers over 100,000 people and has been in existence for nearly two millenia..
And so we return to Britain, with the bizarre and surreal situations that arise among a white community that is both socially divided between rich and poor and also effectively no longer Christian in terms of any genuine religious beliefs - indeed, there are many times more Christians at church on a Sunday morning in Pakistan than in Britain. And perhaps it is this combination that creates the divisions we face.
Because, coming back to my town, the two poverty stricken areas I mentioned at the start are split - one is predominantly white, one predominantly Asian. Their socio-economic problems are very similar and in effect both are badly let down by the system and feel isolated and neglected, with high unemployment and bad housing and all the attendant problems. In this sense, as the white community for want of a better word like people in any community don't all share the same values to begin with, then the next best thing for those seeking to foment division is to create a shared threat - hence the invention of Winterval and the attendant mythology of the subversion of a "native" culture that has never existed in any unified form in any case.
At their core though, monotheistic religions, even ones linked as intimately as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, by their exclusive theologies carry within them the seeds of conflict. If there is only One God and that god is an interventionist god with a set of revealed beliefs, it is not a big step to find believers in all of these faiths who take such thinking to its logical conclusion, which is if my God is right, then yours must be wrong. And so you can find small minorities of people in each of these faith communities who do hold destructive and even violent viewpoints towards each other and, yes, only a fantasist would suggest there is never problems or violence - but in truth most of the time most people of all faiths have actually lived in peace if not always harmony.
And so faiths are both more intertwined than popular belief and the mass media would have it; though non-faith issues and the manipulation of half-truths or the exaggeration of threat mean that there is plenty of potential for real conflict. The obvious strategy for those who wish to keep any potential socio-economic change in check, is of course to stigmatise and scapegoat one particular minority to explain away the failures and poverty of others, deflecting challenges from the real problem - the obscenely unjust distribution of wealth and resources.
This was precisely Hitler's tack in his rise to power - stigmatising the Jews and claiming that there was secret plot to subvert German society and turn it into Israel. The Winterval Myth may be small beer by comparison, but the intent of stigmatising and scapegoating a section of society with false ill-intent is just as dangerous now as it was all those decades ago and so the need to challenge and spike the falsehoods has rarely been as important as it is now.
Tomorrow, Christians will celebrate Christmas. It won't be Winterval anywhere - nor has it ever been.
For me, as a follower of the Hellenic Dodekatheon, yesterday was the end of Saturnalia, the Roman winter festival of what was originally the Hellenic Cronia (held in summer) which marked the Golden Age when humans were equal and shared the bounty of the world in harmony with nature. Many religions have a winter festival and aspects of Saturnalia were assimilated into Christmas by Christianity sixteen centuries ago.
But even there, there is a tenuous unity of sorts. For, just as the Palestinian Christians in Bethlehem, now cut off by the "security wall" erected around them by the Israeli army, will tomorrow praise God the Father by singing to Allah, I will thank the gods for my own life and the wonders of the universe by praying in thanks (not in making requests) to Zeus Pater, Father God. Unrevealed natural religions like the Hellenic religion hold that there are many paths to the divine and we each find our route in our own way; so we accept all who will accept each other; we deny and feel threatened by none. And the gods are not individuals hanging around the top of Mount Olympus plucking harps and farting thunderbolts - rather they are metaphorical aspects of the divinity of creation, the wonder of existence, that we can all find within each of us. We only have to look.
So, whatever your belief, your philosophy, your doubts or non-belief, may you have a peaceful weekend and let us hope for a year of peace, justice and progress ahead rather than the one of division and bloodshed that is drawing to a close.
The head of the HMRC meantime, has enjoyed on average of one meal per week with the owners of the very businesses he is meant to be chasing up to pay their tax. I'm sure it was always a very tense soup course. We should be thankful that the activist group UKuncut is pursuing legal action to make big business pay its taxes - though it looks like it will be in for a long haul.
So far, so tasteless, but Burley is far from the first Conservative activist to have a more than passing fascination with things Nazi and a strange desire to dress up in the clobber Hugo Boss designed and supplied (latterly using slave labour) for the Hitler Gang back in the inter-war years.
Anyone involved in student politics in the 1980s, the heyday of Thatcherite triumphalism, will recall the rumours and the real sightings of members of the Federation of Conservative Students enthusiastically sieg-heiling each other after a few beers and the (particularly) odd ones who seized any opportunity at all to don alleged "fancy dress" with some sort of Nazi theme. But this is hardly surprising when you look at the actual politics of these people.
So in spite of David Cameron's claims to have transformed the Tories from the nasty party of the past to one that represents the allegedly Christian values of the country, it seems if you scratch the surface, the putrid odour of racism, violence and repression is not far away at all.
British values? Fighting moral decay? I hope not.
2010 General Election debate in Hammersmith - the Tory candidate defends Cameron's alliance with European neo-Nazis. In the election, Hammersmith was one of only two seats where there was a swing towards the Labour Party.
"Free Market" - free for whom? (Amnesty International)
Yesterday, the British National Union of Students highlighted cases where students in England are increasingly turning to prostitution to make ends meet as their course fees and living costs rocket. The Government suitably wrung its grasping hands, claiming all sorts of measures of support are in place, but the evidence seems pretty incontrovertible. And, regardless of your views on prostitution itself, how surprising is it? In any recession in history, desperate people have turned to desperate means to survive.
The evidence of this and other research on prostitution does show that it is rarely a voluntary choice and it is a dangerous field to work in for all manner of reasons - violent clients, health risks, persecution by the police, and exploitation by pimps.
But it is the ultimate and logical outcome of free market capitalism. An economy that commodifies, prices and profits from any resource at all is hardly likely to stop at the exploitation of the human body. It very happily harvests the brainpower and physical abilities of employees in every walk of working life - capitalism rests on creaming off as large a premium on the value of employee labour over the cost of paying for it. So, if you are ready to squeeze excess value from people's brains, why would you refrain when it comes to the sex organs?
Angela Merkel's Germany, which in spite of its EU-philia remains an example to all neoliberal right wingers around the world, has taken this view of profit before people a step further.
Back in 2005, a woman sent for interview by the local Job Centre faceshas her unemployment benefit after she refused a job providing sexual services in what turned out to be a brothel - although German legislators originally considered exempting prostitution from the benefit rules, they apparently concluded that it would be too difficult to determine the difference between brothels and pubs. Similarly, women who have worked in call centres in the past are being pressured into working on sex chat lines as some twisted form of suitable alternative employment.
How far are we from this German scenario in the UK?
Not far really - as noted above, every other part of the body is used economically, so it is only the legal status and practices around prostitution that stops this scenario arising in Britain. But things often just short of or even a cover for prostitution, like the chance to be a pole dancer or an escort, are already used as evidence for people proving whether or not they are genuinely looking for work while on benefits.
Prostitution itself remains in a legal tangle which frequently leads to already victimised women being victimised even further while their clients and pimps are ignored by the authorities. But the libertarian right wing are among the most ardent proponents of legalising prostitution - for precisely the argument that sex workers should be able to use their assets - their bodies - to earn profit. In their world, any resource, service or product should be able to be exchanged for money.
What it often means in practice with prostitution is that it legitimises a sector which remains one of coercion, both physical and economic. As many surveys have shown, it is at the heart of the modern slave trade and legalising it does little if anything to protect the workers - arguably it can make their lot even worse. After all, if the Government is keen to deregulate safety laws for factories and shops, it is doubtful brothels will even get a look-in. Perhaps one answer might be some form of licencing through a body like the English Collective of Prostitutes, which would give sex workers more ability to have some small degree of control over their lives as well as safer working conditions.
The capitalist economy sees humans as just one other factor of production, bought and owned by the holders of capital, and exploited for every last copper of profit possible. Women especially, but often men too, are commodified and objectified in thousands of ways by the media and the advertising industry: whether from selling the right clothes, the right perfume, the right size, through to the blatant exploitation to be found in increasingly "hard porn" on the internet and elsewhere. So why, in capitalist thinking, would you eschew the opportunity to be had from selling sexual intercourse?
The sad tales from Germany, while shocking, are not in the least surprising. By one stream of capitalist thought, our unique personalities, our amazing skills and our hard labour make us nothing more than "Human capital" - just one other segment of the system, one more cog in the wheel. No job is too degrading, no work too demanding, no wage too low, when there's money to be made - and you, your flesh and blood, are just one more commodity to be bought and sold.
Western democracy in action - 84 year old woman pepper-sprayed by the police in Seattle protest.
Remember the London riots? A week of smashed glass and free shopping across the big cities of England (Scotland was notably free of any trouble), coupled with assaults on passersby and the looting of peoples flats and cars. The Guardian has just run a fascinating series of reports into the motives of the rioters, many of whom clearly saw themselves at least justified in their actions by a political environment that permits politicians to survive their great expenses swindle with a handful of token sacrificial lambs, and bankers to be rewarded for greed, failure and deceit. As an earlier blog asked, what separated our rulers and rioters beyond a few shards of broken glass?
Yet how did this all start? Well, you should remember the shooting dead of Mark Duggan. He was killed by police who claimed that he had fired at them from a car and they had no option but to return fire and kill him. The police failure to inform his family of his death and subsequent refusal to talk to them led to a demonstration which many see as the trigger for the riots.
We will need to see how the inquest and any further investigations pan out. But it is bizarre, though unsurprising, how this aspect of the riots has become so downplayed. Instead, the riots have passed into the myth that the rioters were all young people involved in gangs - when in truth very few were gang members; there was a wide range of age groups involved; and most who took part did not have previous convictions.
What the statistics do show is that most were from poor backgrounds, many unemployed or in low wage jobs. And as any historian will tell you, throughout history, deprive people of any hope of a genuine stake in society, add grossly excessive inequality, and while your riots will not be spearheaded by the Vanguard of the Revolution, they will be prompted and justified by the ruling class' exploitation of those around them.
We have heard a lot from the Occupy Movement about the 1% and the 99%. And it is very true that a tiny, tiny elite control the bulk of the world's wealth. But while going for the 1% is pretty attractive - after all, by default, hardly anyone is one of them! Hell, we are nearly all part of the 99%. The implication then is that it is all the fault of the 1% - everyone else is clear.
And yet- consider this: to be in the top 10% of the income bracket in the UK, you need to earn slightly over £54,000 p.a. And the top 10% - some six million people- now own twelve times more than the bottom six million,a huge disparity, and around double the ratios to be found in France and Germany, who have a more socially oriented political settlement. British inequality has doubled in the last generation. In the times of plenty under neoliberal New Labour, the rising prosperity of the average person meant that the exponential rise in the wealth of the richest went unnoticed - Peter Mandelson was able to trumpet that Labour were "supremely relaxed about people who get filthy rich" (to be fair to Mandy, he did add "..as long as they pay their taxes" - though of course, New Labour made certain they had fewer and fewer taxes to pay).
But under the neoliberal austerity economics of the Con Dems in recessionary Britain, the excessive disparities in wealth are becoming more and more evident, especially as the richest continue to award themselves massive pay increases in spite of their telling everyone else to tighten their belts. In the USA, similarly with its full-on liberal capitalist ethic, the disparities are even worse - and the response, including the widespread deployment of vicious pepper spray against perfectly peaceful protesters (see the video below and the photo above), does not bear any explanation other than that the authorities are actively suppressing dissent of even the most mildly social democratic type.
And so, without a stake in society, what impulse is there to support and obey the rules of society? And what then is left to protect the rulers but the increasingly naked brutality of a police force that is being given more and more powers to intrude and intervene in people's lives - new laws, for example, will allow them to enter peoples homes to remove political window posters deemed to be inappropriate if, for example, the leader of China is passing nearby and someone puts up a Free Tibet notice. We wouldn't want to threaten the terms of the trade, after all - the rich might be upset.
The recourse to increasingly militaristic police tactics in pseudo-democratic capitalist states around the world is deeply unwelcome and a real affront to democratic debate and freedom of speech. But, as history shows from regimes as diverse as the Shah's Iran and Imperial Russia, it is nearly always also the start of the endgame for the ruling class.
Nothing invented - the real tears of a real Palestinian, under Israeli fire.
The appalling Newt Gingrich, a hopeful for the Republican nomination for US President in next year's election, has described the Palestinians as an "invented" people with no right to a state of their own. Like many a US politician before him, Gingrich is parroting a line used frequently by Zionists to excuse the dreadful treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli state.
Gingrich tries to redesignate the millions of people in Gaza and West Bank with the generic term Arab. This would be a bit like saying there is no such thing as English people or Greek people - but rather deciding they are all Europeans! To Gingrich's ignorantly blinkered eyes of course, Arabs are all just a homogenous bunch of bearded brown guys who spend their days chomping spicy food, shouting Allah-u-akbar, and plotting against America. In truth, Arabs are tens of millions of people across the Middle east. living in diverse countries with diverse cultures and diverse religions (there are millions of Christian Arabs, as well as other faiths like the Druze). The Palestinians are as distinctive as Jordanians are from Algerians, or Libyans from Iraqis.
Palestine itself is no more or less invented than any other state - all states are on some level invented when they are created: the creation of Britain was a union, to some degree forced, between at least four distinctive ethnic groups. Germany was forged by Prussian conquest of a myriad of German city states back in 1871, while a little later Garibaldi and Vittorio Emmanuel united the state of Italy from a number of different elements. Some states are ethnically based, others emerge as an amalgam - as Britain did.
By far the most invented nationality of all, complete with the most artificially created state of all, is of course the American identity claimed by the United States. Newt did not reflect on this before his bigoted tirade - but America was created through a combination of colonisation, bribery and bloody conquest in terms of its territories and though the gradual and far from easy or completed amalgamation of scores of different ethnicities, destroying the cultural distinctiveness of its component parts far more completely than any other empire in history. And all in the last two and a bit centuries - the Palestinians, by contrast, can better that history by over a thousand years.
So, if Palestine has no right to exist, why does America have any right to exist either?
The people who calls themselves Palestinians are the same people who have lived in the area of Palestine for over fourteen centuries. For much of that time, they did not have their own state because they were part of larger empires, latterly the Ottoman Turkish Empire which collapsed at the end of the First World War. Palestine was then transferred to be a mandate of the British Empire and it was at this stage that the Balfour Declaration decided that Palestine could provide a homeland for Jewish people from other parts of the world. Many Jews had of course lived in the area for centuries alongside their Muslim and Christian neighbours, mostly in peace. But driven by the dreadful victimisation of the Nazi Holocaust, anti-semitism among Europeans, and in many cases their own religious fervour, since 1945, millions of other Jews from elsewhere in the world have emigrated to Israel, driving out Palestinian people who had lived there for centuries. And this was done on the spurious basis that their Jewish ancestors had lived there even earlier.
Quite aside from the debate about how far back in history you can go to raise grievances, there is of course a lie peddled by the West, that the blood thirsty Muslim Arabs seized Israel and drove out the Jews and that the Christian Crusaders then made common cause with the Jews to retake the Holy Lands - and that their failure to do so was only put right by the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. Many American evangelicals even send donations to Israel today in this belief.
Understanding history is vital to understand why we are where we are, but it is today that matters. The bottom line is that millions live in the huge refugee camps that are the totality of Palestinian territory. They live in some of the most difficult conditions in the world - confined in small areas; shelled and bombed by a superior Israeli army and air force; deprived of many goods; deprived of life chances; and with the highest rate of depressive illness measured anywhere in the world. These people are not invented. They are not made up or artificial. They are real, flesh and blood, like you and me. And they are where they are because they lived in Palestine and the Israeli state pushed them out forcibly; and unlike Gingrich's weasel words, they had and have nowhere to go.
The problem is real and the solution has to be found - a real one, not the dangerous fantasy with which Newt Gingrich, in his bizarre little brain, seeks to dismiss the existence of millions and so excuse the violence and degradation to which they are constantly subjected. If Americans vote for this man, with his very much invented artificial reality, they will do so at great peril to themselves and to the peace of the world.
The area of the current USA in 1830 - only the red part was American then; the rest was invented later.
In response to the failure of COP 17 the Bolivian Ambassador has said that "only a movement from below can save us now" and this speech brings that movement from below (in the form of Occupy) into Durban and toward action on climate change.
I've been struggling to find anything I wanted to post about COP 17 - The expectations were low, the outcome was in line with those expectations - But this speech 'got me', reminiscent perhaps of the young Canadian Severn Cullis-Suzuki speaking at the earth summit in Rio in 1992 - Anjali Appadurai ends by mic-checking occupy style ' Get it Done, Get it Done ' and this is the moment that for me lifts the gloom.
+pic.jpg)
