How welfare supports the 'gig economy'

Last Friday, I was sent to a jobs fair by my work coach. The fair was at another job centre a short bus ride away. There, the claimants waited patiently, and some impatiently, to speak with seated representatives of various companies and public bodies. I found long queues for the local council — offering admin jobs and other opportunities — and nonexistent queues for tutoring and personal training (I went for the former).

Apart from admin roles, tutoring and personal training, the fair had desks for construction work, retail, catering, even health and social care. Names of brands caught my eye: Westfield, Nando’s and Tesco. It got me wondering. How much of this is about what the employers want? Take a guess. Here we are, the reserve army of labour, queuing to sell our time and our skills to would-be employers. Is this really what the unemployed need?

Of course, there was a catch: if I failed to attend the jobs fair, I would face the possibility of my benefits being slashed to £10 a week for up to 90 days. This is what’s called a ‘sanction’. Once at the fair, you queue to talk to the reps, sign up in the hope of an interview and they sign you off for having applied for a job. It’s unclear how much of this is about paper-shuffling. A cynic would suspect quite a lot.

However, this is not a worry in itself. I suppose some people may find a job this way, and I might even be starting out in some temporary arrangement. But it is an example of something else. The work coaches are eager to get claimants to sign up for agency work, which will provide temporary employment and sometimes ‘self-employed’ or ‘free-lance’ contracts. I’ve worked these before. It can leave you at the beck and call of a company.

If you’re on Universal Credit and working you can keep 35p for every pound you make. That’s £35 for every £100 (in theory). I’ve yet to find out if this system works (in practice), but it sounds like it could serve as a transition back to full-time work. It’s meant to ‘wean’ the claimant off of the public teat. So you re-enter the labour market and never return. This may help reduce the official figures of unemployed too.

There is an industry in waiting for the jobless. The ‘gig economy’ — so-called for its offer of work on ‘self-employed’ contracts, such as Deliveroo andUber— is eager to gobble up cheap labour. These types of flexible contracts leave workers with their rights undermined, including the minimum wage, sick pay and holidays. It shows just how fragile these protections have become. And maybe this is why unemployment is officially falling.

At the time of writing, unemployment stands at 4.8% and, at least on paper, the UK has reached an employment level of 73%. This is the highest since records began in the early 1970s. Naturally, Tories like Toby Young love to play this up as an achievement for the right. Yet the lowest unemployment rate on record was at 3.4% in 1973. Those were the days when governments aimed for ‘full employment’.

Although employment is officially high, real wages have fallen by more than 10% in less than a decade. The TUC found that the wages have continued to stagnate, leading to a fall of 10.4% from 2007 to 2015. The UK is now alongside Greece in terms of shit pay for a hard day’s work. Even Poland has seen real wages increase by more than Britain. Meanwhile the super-rich continue to pig-out, with their salaries hitting £5.5 million.

It looks like the job centres are pushing claimants into short-term, low paid jobs — only for them to be kept on a lower rate of benefits. The government gets to say unemployment is falling, while the reasons for people falling out of work are worse than ever. As we’ve established, Universal Credit isn’t much of a cushion to land on, especially with the ‘sanctions’ regime of benefits. No wonder most people would rather be rinsed by the ‘gig economy’.

This article was originally published at Notes from the Underclass.

It's very expensive being poor!

I was meant to get my first payment of Universal Credit today. I checked my account online with some anticipation (though not much) only to find nothing there. I’ll be calling Scotland soon, listen to canned Vivaldi once again. Eventually I’ll get a dour voice telling me something. But even if I got the money, it wouldn’t be the answer.

Some have no idea what it’s like. Try paying your rent without a job. Try covering your travel costs. Try paying your Council Tax too. Try eating healthily. Try saving up for anything without disposable income. Try paying your bills. Try all of this on just £57 a week. That plus housing benefit, if you get it in time. Try it. Go on.

All of these things are hard enough when you’re working a minimum wage job. You will be lucky if you’re getting by with £100 leftover in your bank account. If you’re a recent graduate, you might be lucky enough to still have an overdraft without the charges. Feel free to dip in and go for a swim. You can sink in for days, before resurfacing at the end of the month.

That’s if you have a pay day, a monthly wage, an annual salary, with the taxes taken out by your employer. An existence as an intern or free-lancer can be highly stressful. In any case, life on what used to be called ‘the dole’ is much less simple. You can find yourself trapped financially. It’s supposed to make you “get off your arse, get on a bike and get a job”. It is true, after all the system is so shit it does give you an incentive to work.

Nevertheless, if you live on benefits — you can barely travel and eat properly. The propensity to depression is natural. You’ll soon find yourself waist-deep in despair, and sinking fast. Once you’re there, you’ll find it hard to motivate yourself to apply for jobs. Fortunately, the job centre may sanctionyou for this, so you have fear to motivate you and, I’m sure, you will apply to the best of your abilities under such intolerable conditions.

Wages have been stagnant since the 1970s. That’s why we’ve had a huge explosion of private debt — the only way to raise demand without high wages — as people relied more and more on credit cards, mortgages and loans, to stay afloat. The credit crunch and the subsequent financial crisis did not end this trend, but rather entrenched it further. We can thank ourpolitical leaders for a low-wage, low-growth economy with huge amounts of debt and unaffordable, lousy housing.

Since the credit crunch in 2007 the UK has seen wages continue to fall, in real times, putting us next to Greece. Real earnings have fallen by over 10% between 2007 and 2015 in Britain. According to the OECD, the average wage rate has risen by 6.7% in Europe — but not in Great Britain — as we find in France (11%), Germany (14%) and Poland (23%). This is what the Conservatives mean when they say they are “making work pay”.

Meanwhile the UK’s top bosses have taken home a 10% raise — on an average salary of £5.5 million a year. Wages for the average worker rose by just 2% in 2015. That’s after years of falling wages. The highest paid CEO isSir Martin Sorrell at WPP, taking home over £70 million quid last year. It may sound good for aspirational types, who stupidly imagine they could earn that much one day. The brutal truth is the poor works so these people don’t have to.

Profits are what you make when you don’t work. Except, if you’re in a dole queue — that’s scrounging! If you can digest this thought, ask yourself: How did that taste? Was it disgusting? It should be.

This article was originally written for Notes from the Underclass.

The Joy of the Job Centre

Four days into my workless life, I head to the job centre early and ask to apply for Jobseekers Allowance. They tell me I can’t speak to someone, so I should use the computer instead. The computer tells me I’m eligible for Universal Credit, but not JSA. I apply for Universal Credit. At first, it tells me I am not eligible for Universal Credit before suggesting I apply for JSA, and call the following number… So I decided to go home and try again.

This time the virtual form worked. I filled out everything for Universal Credit and the ball appeared to be rolling. Pleased with this, I went about my workless daily life. I was out drinking with a friend the next day when I got the phone call: the job centre has penciled me in for 9.15am on Friday. On the surface, the process was fairly efficient. Rolling all benefits into one may have resolved the bureaucratic logjam after all. No, not quite!

On Friday, I go back with all my papers (IDs, bank statements, passport, tenancy etc.) for my 9.15am appointment. I’ve been assigned a work coach, but he’s nowhere to be found. Let’s call him Dick for the sake of anonymity. Dick is late, and, for whatever reason, there is no one else around. So I sit around until 10 when I finally get to talk to Dick about joblessness. But he can’t find one set of forms I filled out online. Apparently, the form went ‘missing’ in transit somewhere between the internet and the job centre.

The centre itself is a long corridor of desks, which you descend into by a short set of stairs, each little unit with its own phone and computer — and a camera watching over the work coach. The decor is bland, even the brightest fabrics of blue and red have been discoloured with age. The walls carry notices for recruitment drives and adverts proclaiming the virtues of the DWP: ‘Making work pay’. One notice is from the local council and it lists the attributes of a suitable candidate: 1) professional, 2) ambitious, 3) responsible and 4) human. I wonder what life must be like for an unemployed amphibian.

The job centre would be Kafkaesque if it were more intelligent. I’m told to call a new number, and after five minutes of Vivaldi’s Four Seasons I get to talk to a dour Scotswoman — who has all the warmth of a death march. I’m given an appointment for next Friday. I might get my money in 4–5 weeks. Or, I can ask for an advance… if I can make it past the endless recording of the Four Seasons. This is why the job centre has a camera at every desk, just in case one of the claimants decides to tear a chunk out of someone’s head!

The good news is that the payments will be backdated to when I first made my claim. Unlike most benefit claimants, I have savings and enough money in my account to make it through the next few weeks. As I’ve got two years of experience as a journalist, I’m also more likely to find work again. Even still, this new project isn’t really about me — it’s about the experiences of people living on benefits long-term.

Over the coming days and weeks, I aim to compile just some of the experiences of people getting by on so-called ‘hand-outs’. The system needs unemployment and poverty. This is the so-called ‘underclass’, those who live on virtually nothing. These are the people spat on by middle-class journalists and career politicians. I hope not to do them a disservice in what I write here on Medium.

This was originally written for Notes from the Underclass.

On benefits.

There are few people I rank lower than the middle-class, overpaid, expensively educated, journalists who spend their working lives demonising people living on benefits. These people work to turn the poor against each other and to support benefit cuts. So the working-class is expected to turn a blind-eye to bald parasites like Iain Duncan Smith, a man who lied about his qualifications, who claims expenses for a £39 breakfast, and then cuts benefits to disabled people.

I was lucky to only spend a few months on benefits. What can you expect from benefits? If you're my age you're entitled to £56 a week (the most you can get is £70) plus housing benefit. You're not entitled to anything if you're on an unpaid internship and you'll have to apply for 14 jobs a week to prove you're "serious" about getting a job. Meanwhile the job centres have been given quotas to 'sanction' three people a week - cutting them off from any subsistence for weeks and sometimes months.

Once you do get a job you'll be cut off and just scrape by on whatever you've managed to save (out of the £56 a week?). Don't worry, the job centre will give you travel money, but nothing else, because you've got a wage packet coming at the end of the month. It's clear that this is not a system of free handouts to pamper hordes of 'scroungers'. As a socialist, I invite the working-class to face the people fucking them and reach for the nearest blunt object.

The Boss Needs You, You Don't Need Him!

A Comrade Lost.

I'm sad to hear of Bob Crow's death. He was one of the last strong leaders of the labour movement left in this country. Crow fought valiantly for his members and the service we all rely on in London. We need more people like him and not less. He was never held back by the right-wing media smear campaign because he understood what it means to stand up for the interests of working-class people. Solidarity is not about altruism, it is about the rational pursuit of class interests. Sacrifices may be made collectively, and individually, in order to further a common end. In that sense Crow was an old-fashioned leftist in his affection and understanding of the common people and what is at stake in the age of austerity.

Unfortunately, many will welcome his death as good news, only to moan when tube fares rise and the standard of service declines. Even when the Oyster card is abolished so many will still not understand that if we have no organisations then we have no means to resist at all. Crow was hated precisely because people like him threaten the neoliberal agenda of stripping all public services to the bone to enrich a tiny elite.The Jubilee line was only extended to raise property values and procure enormous profits for speculators in the City. The tax-payer shelled out for that and the banks gobbled up the profits. It is capitalism which asks the poor to work for the benefit of the rich. Rational self-interest doesn't even come into the picture. 

Self-Service is Disservice.

The predominance of so-called 'self-service' machines in supermarkets should worry those concerned by the depredations of the market. The 'self-service' machines turn us into unpaid employees for a Tesco, or a Morrison's, or a Sainsbury's, and even a wholesome Waitrose. The fact of the matter is that it is a service to Tesco, not ourselves, for the most part, to man the till in the place of a paid worker. It is another way in which the rinsing of people, as workers and consumers, to amass huge profits - and it means worse and worse working conditions and job prospects for vast numbers of people. With all that said, it is unavoidable given the pace at which we have to live, that we are going to avoid queuing for longer (unless we have a tobacco habit), and we can't find an exit point in waiting longer. Notice that the fetish of 'free-choice' actually offers little in the way of quality, and even less in the way of consultation.

Before we go any further I ought to do some throat-clearing: the kind of jobs available to people in supermarkets should be romanticised, they are not examples of fulfilling work by and large. Nevertheless, it has to be said that once such an area of job opportunities is closed off it will leave behind a section of people who had little other immediate option to working in a supermarket. The innovation of 'self-service' machines really allow businesses to discard labour in the endless attempt to pull in enough labour to squeeze dry, but not too much as it encumber the maximalisation of profits. Important aside: profits are by definition what is leftover after the cost of labour is taken into account, before that point its just revenue. The contradiction faced by businesses is in the need to scrap labour to save money, while at the same time drag in even more of it to keep up productivity. The workers are a burden, but at the same time they are invaluable to the economy, they are a cost to be cut, and the source of mountainous revenue.

It is not the case that the prices of food have fallen since this innovation of the marketplace. Yet the liberal accounts of technological progress would have us believe that the betterment of life overall will come out of the liberating capacities of technology. Its a convenient viewpoint, for a liberal or even a Fabian, there is no need for radical change as the evolution of technology will gradually perfect us and perfect our society. If the 'self-service' machines are to be installed then the goods should be cheaper, and if not, then the employees of the supermarket should have a higher wage. Neither is the case. Not only do they take our money for over-priced products they make extra money by not hiring the staff to man the tills. It's yet another instance of the rationality of the market really amounting to irrationality. The business can depend on human beings to act against their own interests, to work for free, to buy over-priced garbage, and ultimately to contribute to the further enrichment of those layabouts convinced of their own brilliance - the crust of wealth hoarders.

Only under particular conditions would self-service actually be conducive to social betterment. The companies could probably be cooperatised, we could each be hired and have a slice of the profits if we are to be engaged in any meaningful kind of self-service. The right to work has to be enforced if there is to be full employment and equitable standards of living enabling each person to lead fulfilling lives instead of living to fulfill the lives of a tiny few. Under conditions of universality and mutuality these machines would be of better social use. It might actually free people from a mind dulling role standing by counters, leaving them to more authentic pursuits, and not just tossing them on the wayside to rot. Otherwise the machine is a bloody con, for consumers, and for workers. In the meantime one can hope that the managers will be replaced by machine innovation sooner rather than later. Now that would be progress of a kind.

Invisible Handjobs.

Mirrors without Economics.

The chorus of "I told you so!" cannot fall on enough ears right now, not just in Whitehall but in the rest of the country. As the ears of the charlatans behind this doomed experiment - they call austerity - are notably deaf, only from below can the opposition emerge to this vandalism. It's only austerity for the people who rely on the NHS, state-schools and a benefits system to fall back should they lose their jobs. There was just word of a double-dip recession when the oik first set about on his 'slash and burn' approach to the economy. Since then we've seen growth dip, flat-line and then dip further, it doesn't seem as though the artful oik knows what he's doing. Or perhaps this is part of a fiendish plan. It remains to be seen, but what we know is that this man lacks any formal education in economics (that's not unsual) and he's surrounded by a coterie of advisers who are devoid of theory. He's far too comfortable taking risks which he won't have to suffer for and ordinary people will - the so-called 'difficult decisions'.

The message was posted and it was received with the Conservatives getting smashed at the local elections. It didn't seem to remind them they never had a mandate to begin with, they only succeeded in raising their vote by 3% against one of the most unpopular periods for the Labour Party. That says a lot that the political class don't want to hear. The last Conservative leader to win 40% of the vote was John Major and Thatcher was never as popular as the Party itself. All that really mattered to the Party was to keep hold of the London City-State, if that was lost then the whole thing could be lost. It was also a key opportunity to snuff out any sign that Galloway's victory in Bradford would have impact outside of Yorkshire. And yet the Tories entertained the delusion that Boris won because he embodies a solidly conservative set of virtues. The gap between Ken and Boris now closer than ever at 3% rather than the 6% gap in 2008. There was some truth to Ken's suggestion that he was just "hated more" than Boris.

In the midst of this the BBC seem incapable of acknowledging that the ongoing attempts to reduce the deficit will shrink the economy. They can't even articulate that the cuts to the amount of money flowing into the economy will not boost demand and growth. We're just told that the cuts to the salaries and pensions of public sector workers are a necessity. It's even assumed that there's just 'waste' to be cut and growth can still emerge from this process. Oh yes, the new mantra is deficit reduction and growth - an oxymoron of the highest order. Even if the aims of the cuts go as far as deficit reduction, it would seem that the cuts are insufficient in this aim and may actually increase the deficit as unemployment remains high. The Right will naturally prescribe another round of cuts. For a long time it seemed that the possible had become impossible, yet today most of us can see cuts aren't the way out of this recession and no one dares to reach for the alternatives.

On the Tumbril.

The pretensions of travail, famille, patrie were done away with swiftly on May 6th. The French voter took the Rat Man to the tumbril and placed the Flanby in the Élysée Palace. Well, Hollande will take office tomorrow to be exact. He won 55% of the vote on a platform calling for an end to austerity, though Hollande may have defined himself as the successor to Mitterand he had plenty of words in the right tone as he spoke about a great change across Europe. This is the first time in France for 30 years that an incumbent lost a second term - a testament to the strange times we live in. Sarkozy now joins the ranks of Berlusconi as just another establishment right-winger to be knocked out of power in the midst of the Eurocrisis. The appalling attempts to grab the frothing racist vote shocked many, it was ultimately too much for the supposed pragmatism of French politics. The major point is that the tough-love programme of tax-cuts for the rich and public service cuts for the rest of society has been rejected.

As Mark Hanna would remind us "There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money and I can't remember the second." Word has it that £40 million of funds in the Rat Man's campaign chest came from the dearly missed Colonel Gaddafi. There has since been talk of $65 million and another despot Alexander Lukashenko has claimed that the actual amount was $100 million. Whatever the case it has long been clear that Sarkozy is a creep, a wannabe de Gaulle with that trope of French chauvinism - the suspicion of the Anglo-Saxons. That went as far as claiming the economic crisis is an 'Anglo-Saxon disease' even though Sarkozy had posed as a French Thatcherite. He suggested taking a Kärcher to the neighbourhoods affected in the riots of 2005. Supposedly it was Bernard-Henri Levy persuaded him to wage war on Libya. Really, it was probably the rebel's promise to respect old oil arrangements that made it clear Gaddafi was no longer a necessity in North Africa.

On May Day Sarkozy demanded of trade unions "Put down your red flag, and serve France instead." It was an impotent call, he had to have people brought into town to be filmed in front of the Eiffel Tower. Nonetheless, this dwarf embodied the spirit of reaction in French politics coming at the end of a long line from the Thermidoreans through Pétain to d'Estaing. This may be another instance of the Europeans taking out the incumbent for the other guy, but this time it is a guy who was calling for a stop to cuts. Hollande may retreat from this to some extent, if not all together. We have yet to see. The German elections are coming up and if we see a swing to the centre-Left there could be a shift in policy which might lead to a domino effect across Europe. Naturally the European ruling-class has already seen this coming and they're prepared for a fight. Not everything is going to plan, but it'll take a bit more from the people of Europe to derail this out-of-control train.

Business as Usual.

The process we have endured over the last 40 years was the nightmare of classical economists. The fear was that the merchants and manufacturers would conspire to shape public policy in their favour, that they would do business abroad - investing abroad and importing from abroad. It would rake in enormous profits, but England would have been ruined. Adam Smith argued that the merchants and manufacturers would give priority to their own country, as if by an "invisible hand" England would be saved in this way. Since the 1970s we have witnessed de-industrialisation at home combined with off-shoring of production abroad and shifting to finance over industry. The causes of the crisis are barely discussed, we just have to look forward to the way out. We're no far from the nightmare of classical economists. But it's been pretty awful for a lot of ordinary people and it could get worse. There is no "invisible hand" in sight.

We the British tend to love business as usual. That was evident in the 1930s when we lined up to vote for Conservatives who wanted to sell-off chunks of Europe to Hitler. We don't like to recall just how compromised the Establishment really was. It may have gone as far as the Royal Family, the House of Lords and the proprietors of major newspapers. Even Churchill said in 1937 "I will not pretend that, if I had to choose between communism and Nazism, I would choose communism." When it went wrong and no amount of appeasement could hold-off the inevitable there wasn't much else to do but stand still under the bombs. The people with any means available to them would escape to the countryside. For the lot left behind there was plenty of time to rob bombed out houses and even steal from the dying. Even firemen were caught looting buildings, the fires of which they had just put out. People were crushed to death in the panics to rush into the underground for safety.

David Cameron might be more Chamberlain than Churchill, but for the most part we've managed to stir clear of the spirit of the Blitz with the exception of the riots last summer. Still, it's not really a fair comparison. Between September 1940 and May 1941 there were over 4,500 known cases of looting and juvenile crime made up almost 50% of all arrests. And yet huge gains were won for the working-class movement after the war. The only moves we're seeing to secure those gains have been the odd strike. Officially 400,000 people marched this week in London over pensions, the crowd included 20,000 coppers, and London Occupy has sprung up once again. This is the ongoing resistance to the cuts that hasn't been going on in the US. The courageous protests across the pond in Wisconsin and on Wall Street (which shouldn't be sneered at) have been blips on that vast land-mass. There are huge differences, in Europe we're seeking to protect the social democratic accomplishments of the last century while in America these victories have yet to be won.

Freedom or Death.

We have seen large-scale demonstrations across Europe, including general strikes in Portugal, Spain, Germany and France. The most heroic of resistances has been fought in Greece, which has been hit badly by the crisis to say the least. Of course, there is a lack of coordination on a continental scale, so the bursts of rage are sporadic and unpredictable. Europe still has something of an organised Left, which America barely has anymore. Perhaps history only ended, as Fukuyama suggested, in the US. The emergent SYRIZA, a coalition of leftist parties, which has been making significant gains in the recent Greek elections. The coalition is only 2% behind New Democracy, the conservatives who are closest to taking power. Even the Communist have won 8% of the vote and the Democratic Left got 6%, while PASOK has fallen to 13%. It looks unlikely that the Greek Left will be able to form a coalition government due to differences over austerity and the usual sectarianism that plagues the Left wherever it can be sniffed.

It's possible that New Democracy and PASOK will form a government, - the equivalent of Labour cutting a deal with the Tories - a capitalist bulwark to push through austerity and wait until the socialist storm passes. In retrospect, the victory in France for the established Left holds greater significance with the gains of the radical Left in Greece taken into account. The ruling-class is determined to reconstitute the status quo and get its way. The fight isn't over, though some would prefer to turn our attention to the presence of the Golden Dawn in the Hellenic Parliament. This seems to overestimate the possibilities of a return to Metaxism in Greece, given the gains that the neo-fascists have made are still dwarfed by those of the Left. We shouldn't fool ourselves that these herds could put together the Fourth Reich. The Greek Left needs to push further and be on guard against any possible attacks Golden Dawn might launch on immigrants.

The rape of Greece has opened up all kinds of possibilities, it is an unstable situation. We're told not to sympathise with this profligate nation of wasters and yet this is where some of the longest hours in the world are worked. This is the birthplace of democracy which the Germans and the French have shown nothing but disdain. The Greeks remain remarkably in favour of European integration in spite of the garbage the Franco-German reactionaries have been trying to feed them. The country has been trashed for the sake of a right-wing experiment that was rushed into after Germany reunified. There are some profiteers in this crisis, Greek workers aren't being paid and are being fired across the board. SYRIZA are sticking to their guns, calling for the nationalisation of the banks, paying of the debts owed to pensioners and an end to "structural adjustments" in the jobs market. The Greeks are right to resist of the attempt to destroy the living standards of huge swathes of the population. Recall the old slogan: freedom or death.

Womb Wars.

Since the beginning of 2012 we have heard the usual blather about welfare 'reform' (a most dodgy word in political language) with the defenders of family values reserving a particularly cold place for single-mums. The Conservative Party have pushed for a cap housing benefit at £26,000 on commonsense grounds of "fairness". Of course, this isn't nearly enough for the gutter-press which would like to see the whole benefits system scrapped followed by the swift return of workhouses. It would hit large families hardest even if they have managed to find cheap housing outside of London. There are now pushes in Newham to boot the poor out of London altogether. Clearly the London City-State is just for the ultra-rich to swan around in limousines. The next kick was to single-mothers in a bid to make them pay for trying to get child support from their former partners.

Even though it makes far more sense to cap private rents in London, at least in the short-term, as everyone knows that the rent is too damn high! Of course it isn't enough to cap rents, there needs to be serious public investment in affordable housing. And yet the Conservatives have no time for this discussion. It's just assumed that the problem is that they haven't gone far enough. But there's plenty of ink and phlegm to be wasted on calls for an end to dependency culture. There's even been time to entertain nonsense about morality legislation. We've seen Nadine Dorries, that arch-custodian of the sacred foetus, go after sex education in the wake of failure on her campaign to sledgehammer the right to choose. This is the politics of reaction at work again, it has nothing to do with any moral values. Whenever politicians talk of 'family' you should expect an attack on women to follow.

This is where class and sex converge, where feminism and leftism are conjoined at the hip. Everyone knows the word "proletariat", but not every rascal with a Marxian phrase book know that the term is derivative of the Latin for "offspring". Terry Eagleton reminds us that it referred to those who were too poor to serve the state with anything other than their wombs. Too deprived to contribute to economic life in any other way, these women produced labour power in the form of children. Society demanded reproduction, not production from these women. The proletariat was originally outside the workplace, not within it, just like the single-mother living on benefits. But the work these women endured was a lot more painful than breaking boulders. The average worker is a woman in the world today, as it was in the days of Marx and Engels when Britain was the workshop of the world.

As the workers' movement suffers in this time of regression, so do women. We can see this in America. The Georgia House has passed a 'foetal pain' bill that stipulates women must continue to carry to term a stillborn baby as pigs and cows do. The lot who think its proper that a women should die in back-alley abortion clinics to save a foetus have seen victories recently with 'Let woman die' bills. There are businesses spying on potential employees and judge them in accordance with their use of birth-control. This is the nation partly founded by Aaron Burr who hung a portrait of Mary Wollstonecraft in his office and insisted that his daughter be educated at the same standard as a man. And we expect this of women for no reward. It's not like we recognise motherhood as work, so many of us don't think the raising of children has any worth at all that we support cuts to child benefit. It's just something women do for free, like a lot of wonderful things.

We've seen people like Rick Santorum pop up, an Opus Dei Republican who believes that life begins at erection. The sort of lunatic who is opposed to abortion in cases of rape. This comes from a man with no kind of social conscience at all. He wants to legislate what consenting adults do in the bedroom. The state can intrude into that area, but not emancipate individuals from wage labour. Santorum's rotten mind fixated on the rigidity of hierarchy and the strength of authority. It is no coincidence that Santorum's politics consist of a return to theoconservative values with the state as a nanny for the rich, a bludgeon of the poor and of the foreign. It isn't coincidental, the opposition to the vital freedom, for women, over their rate of reproduction fits neatly into this platform of sadism. It's about making sin fun again for a privileged few in a way.

As noted by Peter Singer if abortion was illegal then it would be poor women who die from botched abortions in droves whereas well-off women can travel to another country in search of the treatment. Think of the number of people who travel to Switzerland in order to commit suicide. Clearly, the value of life only applies to some in the world of Nadine Dorries. The sacred foetus trumps mummy almost every time I'm afraid to say. Of course, when mummy can fly out to another country and hire a doctor to perform the procedure without a coat-hanger then a blind eye will be turned. Furthermore, as women gain greater control over their lives economically then they're less likely to get pregnant. In a society where there are greater opportunities, better education and better pay for women there will be less children born but there will be less abortions too. Primates like Mr Santorum are unable to see this, men like this have no right to claim to be "pro-life".

The Debt of Self-Made Men.

An American Mythology.

It was an interesting sight earlier this year to see Newt Gingrich rail against the "vulture capitalism" of Mitt Romney. The insinuation is that the Massachusetts moderate was in on gobbling up the profits gained out of laying-off thousands of American workers in the 1980s. It was a welcome criticism frankly. But it was also bizarre to hear this coming from a prominent conservative Republican. A Democrat could not take such a stance on a Republican opponent and be left standing without being dubbed a 'socialist'. Certainly the Republicans do not oppose such rapacious market forces that allowed Romney to enrich himself. Not just because the notion of a free-market is what flows through the veins of American conservatism. But it has to be stressed that each of the candidates for the nomination are essentially parasites. And this is actually representative of the primary constituents of the Republican Party - specifically, the filthy rich.

You have to remember that the United States of America would not exist if it weren't for a process of genocide, slavery and war which laid the groundwork for capitalism. The apologists of the free-market paint a picture of a society of self-owning individuals who earn in proportion to their own merits. So the capitalists are the people who have risen to the top of the system through their own efforts. This is a picture which conveniently excludes a lot of history. The system of private property was established through theft and violence. This is what the supposed market society of meritorious men is built upon. The legitimate right to property is predicated on an illegitimate and immoral act. No account of the exchange and accumulation of private property can justify the transformation of what was unowned into what can be owned. If the system was established through theft, rape and murder how can decent conduct justify that system later on?

The expropriation of the commons laid the ground for the accumulation of wealth. The workers are the creators of wealth which is then expropriated through the capitalist system, accumulated in far fewer hands and concentrated in property. This is the process which enriched Mitt Romney and has been defended by every Republican and Democratic administration. The average worker is effectively rinsed dry by these people over the course of a life time spent slaving away at work. It is in the workplace where they slave away to amass the revenue which will eventually compose the profits for the boss and the wages of the workers. This is exploitation at the fundamental level, the workers toil so that the bosses don't have to. You'll find this demystifies the notion of 'job creation' that politicians often talk about, really the word they're looking for is 'profits'. The worker will be lucky to hold onto something worth saving as they are rinsed further through passive consumerism.

You will know the justifications for all of this off by heart. You might tell yourself that this is just the way the world works, it's human nature. Supposedly, after thousands of years we discover our nature is best expressed in a system we've only just discovered in the last 200 years. You will tell yourself that if the poor didn't have to work then they wouldn't. If this were true, as Karl Marx would remind us, "bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work." The workers must work for a wage, so that the rich don't have to. Capitalism requires poverty then, not to make sure people work hard but to keep one class working for the gain of another class. The system is indebted to feudalism and slavery, which provided the material conditions for its prosperity. Even if the capitalists are 'self-made' the end of capitalism and class are still justified.

Kick the Glass Bollock!

Until Victory, Always!

A little over a year since the March for the Alternative, George Galloway caught everyone off guard and was rushed into office in Bradford West. The execration could soon be heard. It came howling from the open jaws of the Labour Party machine with its entitlement to squat over the post-industrial North ever ready to defecate! The liberal commentariat managed to lower itself from the heights of mud-slinging to the lows of booing and hooting at the victor. How distasteful it was that the electorate had rejected the established Left? For almost 40 years Bradford had been a 'safe seat' for Labour and Ed Miliband was embarrassingly on his way to celebrate victory. This humiliation is not something the political class will take likely. And this is more reason to think that the Establishment will want to save face in the London Mayoral. It is a perfect opportunity to send a clear message to David Cameron: Fuck You! But it is unclear where an alternative figure would come from in the Mayoral.

We face a choice between Boris Johnson, Ken Livingstone and Brian Paddick. But really we just have two choices: more Mayor BJ or a return to Red Ken. There's no point pretending that the third party matters anymore after this government. Voting may not just be a right, but a civic duty that demands of us and makes us participants. And yet it is impossible to be enthused at the prospect of the same choice we had 4 years ago. Ultimately, the London Mayoral is a test for the Coalition and victorious Boris would certainly provide a much-needed symbolic vindication for this government. If the glass testicle fell into the hands of Ken Livingstone, once again, then we might hear talk of a coming Labour administration in 2015. The rejection of a softened version of what we're getting will be interpreted as a loving embrace of what we're enduring already. Only less or more austerity are viable, no real yes or no for us to choose from on the question of cuts.

The Genital of Patronage.

There is room for protest votes, as always, the BNP and UKIP are there to soak up the rage like the miserable sponges they are. Probably the best left-wing alternative to Ken Livingstone is the Green candidate Jenny Jones. You may hear that little voice inside that inquires rhetorically "How could she ever win?" No doubt people said the same of Gorgeous George. On the other hand, it is undeniable that the Green Party lacks the same potential to unify a mass-base as RESPECT had done in Bradford. It was a populist tidal wave formed by the white working-class, the Muslim community and the student population upon which George Galloway surfed. It's difficult to see a repeat of that in London with the line-up we have. At least at the level of appearances, the possibilities opened by Galloway's victory for the Left could be slammed shut by another term of Boris.

With all of this in mind Ken Livingstone is not the worst of Labour, far from a disgraced Blairite, even if we take into account his most cynical and opportunistic moments. Putting aside the hysterical attempts by the Right to vilify Ken. He remains one of a precious handful of politicians, like Tony Benn, who understand what is at stake when social democracy is being eviscerated before our eyes. And it is the preservation of social democracy which we, as citizens, should be concerned with most at this juncture. We have to keep in mind what this country could have been had it been kept out of the hands of people like Margaret Thatcher and her loyal successors. The welfare state won't save itself and the liberals have proven incapable of defending it. This is a time for pragmatism, not a detached anti-political purity of character.

No Society, No Alternatives.

The Iron Lady.

 

In the General Election of 1979 the Conservative Party came out on top with Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister. For Thatcher any attempt to manage the economy would lead to disaster and the catastrophic crash of 1973 was caused by Heath's attempt to control the economy. Instead Thatcher decided the state should be "rolled back" and power be handed over to the markets, a wave of deregulation and privatisation followed. The idea was that the unhindered power of the free-market would reconstruct industry. Heath removed exchange controls and opened up the UK economy to the international financial markets, money could now be moved in and out of the country at will. The banks could now raise huge amounts of capital from anywhere in the world in order to finance the purchase and sale of a vast number of companies. The banks could now target a company, finance entrepreneurs to buy that company and then strip the company of its' assets. The point was to increase profits and maximise return to the shareholders.

Private Vices for Public Benefits.

We might understand Thatcherism as a combination of monetarism and rational expectations, which suggested that the changes in policy could only be managed if the public were convinced that the government would stick to it regardless of what happens. Of course, the cuts in public spending required a determination to confront and smash the labour movement. This went as far as sicking the right-wing elements inside MI5 on Arthur Scargill and the NUM. Thatcher provoked a strike with the announcement that there would be a wave of pit closures and redundancies on the grounds that it was cheaper to import coal. The Thatcher government went after one union after another in a bid to sweep away the remnants of the post-war settlement which had empowered working-class people. The country was opened up to foreign investment and competition, which further undermined the trade unions and destroyed industries like steel, cars and shipbuilding.

After the fall of the Heath administration in 1974 it was clear to the elites that the labour movement had to be broken. It was the only way to turn back the tide as the working-class made significant gains in the standards of pay and working-conditions. One of Thatcher's economic advisers Alan Budd has since conceded that in his most pessimistic moments he suspects that his ideas had been ruthlessly used. Furthermore that the ideas of monetarism served as a theoretical cover for the Thatcherite policies, which could not have been implemented otherwise. The capitalist class had simply seen in the ideas a way to instigate a crisis of capitalism which would smash the trade unions and leave the country immersed in unemployment. It would be easy to hold down wages from then on and profits could skyrocket once again. The rise of Thatcherism might then be attributed to the structural needs of the system for a much more timid working-class that could easily succumb to exploitation and domination.

The Road is Clear.

In the 1980s there was a decline in wages for working-class people and unemployment increased rapidly as the benefits system came under fire from the government. To supplement the loss in demand the need for a fast-track line of credit emerged, the debt economy was pushed to its limits as households across the country fell back on credit cards, loans and mortgages. The privatisation of social housing in Britain at first appeared as a gift to the working-class as it made it possible for them to buy an asset, at a relatively low cost, which might make them rich one day. The housing market was seized upon by speculators, eventually pushing low-income earners out to the outskirts of cities as house prices skyrocketed. The old industries were swept aside to make way for the new era, in which money would be made from money and not much else in Britain. After 11 years of Thatcherism manufacturing in the UK had been virtually destroyed, employment in manufacturing plummeted by 30%.

The deregulation of the financial colossus in London led to the currency crisis of 1984 - speculators had begun to sell pounds and buy dollars because of high exchange rates in the US - and the government just had to stand back and watch. It was the early signs of what would come in later years. In 1987 the Thatcher government retained power for a third election just as the country was hit with an economic crisis, as a wave of panic swept the stock market, as it turned out that shares which had risen in value for 4 years were over-valued. The global markets were soon infected by the contagion of fear and the governments were powerless in the face of such chaos. The rise of a rapacious financial sector had been the works for a long time, now it surfaced and went on to stumble into a devastating crash in 1992 and an even more destructive crash in 2008. As the political class had unleashed the forces of finance they had bound themselves as slaves to the financial colossus in the City of London.

The Long March, to Where?

The fall of Thatcher in 1990 came after the Poll Tax demonstrations descended into riots in Trafalgar Square converged with internal tensions in the Conservative Party. By then unemployment had reached around 7%, working-people had been by some of the biggest wage cuts in the world as inflation began to rise into double figures once again. John Major looked to reassert control over the market for the purpose of setting limits to the fluctuations of the exchange rate. Of course, it was too late for the Grey Man as the old forms of political control and planning had been obliterated as options. So under Major, Britain became a part of the Exchange Rate Mechanism and the pound was fixed to the Deutschmark in order to liberate the currency from the speculators. The currency markets then took on the British government, to force Major to devalue the currency and to abandon the Exchange Rate Mechanism. It began with the sale of billions of pounds on the foreign exchanges.

The marketisation and systematic privatisation has brought destruction to major industries and has significantly undermined the welfare state as it was in the post-war era. The workers' share of GDP in wages reached its highest points in the 70s, Thatcherism succeeded in the reversal of this trend and the policies which she first implemented in the 80s have become the orthodox for British governments. Between 1997 and 2009 wages for working-class people increased by 45% while the wages of high-earners increased by over 300%. Today we live in a society which is more unequal than it was 40 years ago, the top 10% get 31% of income, while the bottom 10% get 1.3% of income, this is the same 10% of the British population who sit on £4 trillion in wealth. On top of this, the end of the Cold War signaled the beginning of a supposedly post-political era in which only managerial politics remain and Thatcherism has taken the place of the social order it aimed to dissolve. We live in an era without ideas, where no alternatives are imaginable and where even the suggestion of 'society' is suspect. It was the collapse of the post-war settlement under the weight of its own contradictions which has left us in this state of affairs, now we need a new settlement.

The End of the Golden Age.

The Last Gasp of Liberalism.

In the late 1960s the Labour government cancelled many of its election promises and moved to cut public spending as it faced rising inflation. The government turned to raising productivity in order to drive growth, a quick way to reorganise British industry was needed. It would end up following a model pioneered by Jim Slater, who set out to strip companies of assets in order to generate a short-term profit. Slater did not profess to hold any concerns at a social level, the only concern he had was to make money and nothing more. So the government put together an industrial reorganisation corporation to supervise a radical experiment in British industry. Under the guidance of Tony Benn the state orchestrated massive takeovers and mergers in British industry, with conglomerates forged out of old companies and thousands of workers made redundant in the process. The Wilson government effectively oversaw the liquidation of industry in order to raise productivity and efficiency to new heights.

Thatcherite before it was Cool.

The Conservative government formed around Ted Heath in 1970 embarked upon a new approach to the economy. Heath rejected the suggestion that the state should or could manage the economy, instead he opted for less intervention in the economy and ultimately to leave the lame subject to the forces of the market. As Rolls Royce went bankrupt and the experiment led to the closure of numerous factories and unemployment began to rise Heath backed away from the approach. The government then went on a "dash for growth" through the liberalisation of credit and a raised public expenditure as the earlier policies seemed to not be working. For a moment it seemed to work, the British economy boomed briefly and then the phenomenon of stagflation emerged as inflation and unemployment began to rise at the same time. The Keynesian orthodoxy was left perplexed.

In 1973 the Conservative government attempted to suppress wages as inflation skyrocketed and in doing so provoked violent strikes. Whatever approach the government took it seemed that the trade unions were a significant obstacle. Ted Heath decided to slam the breaks on the economy, immediate freezes were introduced on wages, prices and even profits. It was a last ditch attempt to control the economy and the stock market panicked at the suggestion of a freeze on profits. Then came the OPEC protest against the Yom Kippur War, in which oil prices were hiked up by 400% and the consequent price shock led to rates of inflation as high as 27% by the mid 70s. The British economy fell into a catastrophic crash as a result, even though the explosion of oil profits flowed to British energy corporations and the rise in price made North Sea Oil increasingly profitable. Finally amidst industrial action, power cuts, a three-day week and out-of-control inflation the Heath government lost power in 1974. But the post-war settlement had been further undermined. The suggestion that the economy could even be managed began to breakdown.

The Science of Money.

None of the traditional methods of Keynesian economics seemed able to resolve the problems in the UK economy in the 1970s. It began to look as though any attempt to pump money into the economy for the purpose of growth was doomed to failure. The proponents of monetarism came on the scene with a theory which seemed to provide technical solutions to the bizarre situation. There was too much money chasing too few goods in the economy. To bring inflation under control it was necessary to slow down the rate of monetary growth. For Milton Friedman the economy was a predictable system governed by laws which were just as objective as the laws of science. The political project of the monetarists went as far as to further challenge the state as a planning apparatus of the economy. The beginning of the end for social democracy was set in motion a few years before as the Bretton-Woods system fell into disarray. The Nixon administration dismantled it as the system was strained by the porous boundaries to capital flows. The US government abandoned a fixed exchange rate in 1971 as gold could no longer serve as the base of international money. The US government retreated from traditional methods of control and the exchange rate was left to float.

Richard Nixon was the last liberal President of the United States, it was the Carter administration who laid the foundations for Reaganomics. Britain soon became enthralled in the same economic theory in the late 70s. Perhaps then we might deem Harold Wilson the last social democrat to stand as Prime Minister of the UK. The country was immersed by desperation as Britain seemed doomed to descend into a gray mediocrity and in 1976 Harold Wilson resigned. The resignation came after a persistent smear campaign against him by a small faction of ultra-rightist MI5 agents - who thought Wilson was a Soviet spy sent to destroy Britain. It was just one of a few plots - which were never followed the logical conclusion - within the Establishment, it went as far as plans to install Lord Mountbatten as Prime Minister and the formation of private armies to fight unions in the event of a General Strike. The resignation opened up a void in government, Tony Benn, Michael Foot and Denis Healey came forward in competition with Jim Callaghan, Anthony Crosland and Roy Jenkins. The right-wing of the Labour Party came on top with Jim Callaghan winning.

A New Game.

That same year Britain fell into the abyss and faced bankruptcy so the government turned to the IMF for  a loan, the catch was a prescription of economic reform. The nature of the economic reforms were clear at the Labour Party Conference that year when Prime Minister James Callaghan stated "We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you, in all candour that, that option no longer exists insofar as it ever did exist. It only worked on each occasion, since the War, by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy on every occasion followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step." The IMF came to the rescue later that year and Milton Friedman was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics, this demonstrated the shift in paradigm as monetarism came to the forefront of economic theory. By now there was a new leader of the Conservative Party, Margaret Thatcher had surrounded herself with monetarists such as Keith Joseph. The road was clear as the people became increasingly disillusioned with the Labour government.