Nagasaki: War is The Failure Of Humanity

Uncategorised No Comments

 

America dropped a second atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, Japan on 9th August, 1945.

This is a repost from SOYMB, 8th February, 2015, There is no good war but the Class War.

War Is The Failure Of Humanity

There are no “good” wars!


Despite what Tom Brokaw writes, there was no “greatest generation” that fought World War II. (IMO, the generation of the 60s, that protested the Vietnam War, was far more aware, and, in that sense, “greater.”)
Every war is a failure—of leadership; common sense; “policy”; concepts of “manhood” or “courage”; of “loyalty” and “patriotism; of imagination.
Despite what the court historians like Doris Kearns Goodwin and Michael Beschloss, … propagate on PBS, etc., there are no great leaders—Washington, Lincoln, Churchill, Roosevelt, Wilson—who agonize over the best ways to conduct warfare and invariably choose what’s best for their nations… and prevail.


Every war is a failure of empathy, a triumph of dehumanization: we cannot identify with our enemy. He (and, increasingly, she) is “barbaric,” “an animal,” “savage.” (“They” rape, pillage, torture, brainwash—even their kids. “We,” the techno-wizards of the centuries, would never stoop that low!) Every war represents a failure of our species to free itself from the shackles of expansionism, greed, colonization, exploitation, ignorance and violence. Every war is a failure of humanity.


There are no good wars, but there are an abundance of bad “peace treaties.” This should surprise no one since the men—mostly men—who write and sign the treaties are basically the same ones who prosecute the wars. The most infamous of “peace treaties,” perhaps, was the Versailles Treaty that ended the “Great War,” (or—take your pick—“The War to End All Wars”), raging yesterday—i.e., a mere 100 years ago. In various ways, the Versailles Treaty merely provided a brief hiatus between Great War I and Even Greater Great War II—followed by all the sputtering cataclysms we’ve “enjoyed” ever since.


Americans have been “sold” on war since our colonial days. We were happy to help our Mother Country—the British Empire—fight the French Empire during the so-called “French and Indian War” (1754-1763). We were even happier to turn on our “Mother Country” and ally with our former enemies during our so-called “War of Independence.” Most Americans know as much about our Revolutionary War as they know about the wars and “revolutions” now devastating the Middle East. (I put a lot in quotes these days to signify that things are seldom what they’re called. Defense Secretary McNamara deemed his own and his country’s confusion about the Vietnam War a result of the “fog of war.” Today, we might talk about the “fog of memes.”)


If you’re a “war-baby” or younger, you’ve grown up with a fog of memes. Coca-Cola: “It’s the real thing.” “America, the Beautiful.” “The Red Menace.” “The Yellow Peril.” “We must fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.” Madison Avenue. TV (“the guest in the living room”… who took over the living room and everything else—often with guns!). “The American Dream.” Davy Crockett—“king of the wild frontier.” The New Deal. The Fair Deal. The New Frontier. Reaganomics. The Cold War. Blah, blah, blah.


When the French and Indian War ended in 1763, the population of the 13 American colonies was 1.6 million—almost 1/3 of whom were black slaves. The figure does not include “Indians”—who were deemed “savages” in the US Declaration of Independence—only worth mentioning derogatively. By the time the “Revolution” began, some 13 years later, the population had swelled to 2.9 million—an extraordinary increase of 50 percent –the greatest percentage increase in American history! Most of these newcomers were English, some were wealthy Scotsmen, a fair number were Germans. Moravians and other strange sects came seeking religious freedom. Many sought to establish themselves in the opening western territories of the colonies—i.e., the “Indian” territories!


Most Americans don’t know the extent to which “westward expansion” played a major role in our “Revolution.” It was, in fact, a Civil War as much as a Revolution, with more liberal (expansionist) Whigs against more conservative (non-expansionist) Torries to begin with, soon replaced by “Patriots” vs. “Loyalists.”
 It was also a generational war: most of the “patriots” in Washington’s Continental Army or the various militia groups were teenage boys who were “third wheels” on unproductive farms, or could not be apprenticed in the burgeoning “cities” of the time; they had nothing better to do and they sought a pay-check (usually delayed or cancelled), food and provisions, and “adventure.” Most of the Loyalists were older men and women of some property, with established means of support. The “Indians” were caught in the middle!


“Indians” were Cherokees, Choctaw, Shawnee, Oneida, Tuscarora, Mohicans, Mohawks, Iroquois, Chickamauga and others—poetic names lost to history; hardly worth mentioning in the stories of the “great men,” the “founding fathers.” Both Loyalists and Patriots solicited the support of the Indian tribes: they bribed the chiefs; threatened, ambushed, killed, imprisoned the “braves,” the older men and women. And the various tribes took sides; allied with one group of whites or the other according to who offered the best bribes, or threatened the most. When formerly friendly tribes attacked each other at the behest of the whites, scalps were taken and a circle of vengeance was created. The biggest losers of the American Revolution were not the Loyalists and the British, but the Indians, whose tribes were scattered, whose land was confiscated despite all the “treaties” made with the manipulative, deceptive whites on one side or the other.


The names we hear now are also poetic: Sunni, Shiite, Kurds, Syrians, Palestinians, Gazans, Iranian, Persian, Iraqi, Egyptian, Ukrainian. The wars fought in North America centuries ago were proxy wars between the French and British Empires. Wars fought now are proxy wars and limited total wars between the Global Empire (US, Britain, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the EU) and those who resist its hegemony—chiefly, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Eastern Ukraine—and the tribal groups on the ground—the Islamic State (or ISIL or Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda in Iraq or Yemen or whatever the designation of the moment). What should be clear is that the supposed reasons for the conflict are strands in a complex tapestry.


Individuals rarely rise above the prejudices of their tribe, rarely perceive beyond the tribal framing. This was true in ancient Israel and it is true in contemporary America. Tribes are organized to maintain the power structure of those at the top. A pilot is burned alive by ISIL—a horrendous crime that leads to the immediate execution of prisoners in Jordan and a pledge of “revenge” from the king of Jordan.


Torture begets torture. The US sanctions torture to end the “War on Terror.” Isn’t torture, terror? Where does it end, where does it begin?
One wonders: how many civilians have been burned alive by illegal white phosphorous weapons during Israel’s recent wars in Gaza?
For that matter: how many civilians of a prostrate, eager-to-surrender Japan were burned alive when bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki—during what was surely the worst 3-day period in the history of warfare on our weeping Mother Earth? (Hundreds of thousands died immediately and in the aftermath of the years.)


So… every war is a failure of humanity—a triumph of prejudices and ignorance; the innocents caught in the vises and machinations of the more clever, the more manipulative, the more immoral; the more “savage.”
As Pete Seeger used to sing, “When will we ever learn?” 

 

by Gary Corseri from here



And the wars that are fought now have absolutely nothing to do with the interests of the vast majority of the populations of the world who have much more in common with each other than they have differences. No, they are waged in the interests of those who covet control of valuable resources and increasing arms sales for vast profits.  

The one and only war worth fighting is the war for humanity, the whole of humanity and that should be a war of words, a war of mass understanding and acceptance of our need to end the subservience to the controllers of the capitalist system – the class war.

B of E says 17.3%: Suck It Up.

Uncategorised No Comments

 

A foreign news source reports, ‘Surging inflation which has been crippling the British economy may slow but food will remain more expensive than before the cost-of-living crisis, the Bank of England’s chief economist, Huw Pill, has warned.

Official figures show that food inflation in the world’s tenth-largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP) remained stubbornly high at 17.3% in the 12 months to June.

“Unfortunately, the days of seeing food prices fall, that does seem to be something that we may not be seeing for a little while yet, if in the future at all,” Pill was quoted as saying by Sky News on Monday.

According to the leading economist, the impact on food prices in the UK has been “a little bit more long-lasting than would have been expected.”

Pill cited uncertainty over the supply chain for staples such as wheat and sunflower oil as a result of the Ukraine conflict and Western sanctions on Russia, which has increased the cost of raw materials and basic food.

British companies have responded by locking themselves into expensive contracts, Pill argued, adding that price rises will begin to slow as those contracts come to an end and food sub-processors in the UK adjust to the end of supply disruption.

Consumer price growth in Britain has remained persistently high despite government efforts to tame inflation, with officials and trade unions accusing supermarkets of “greedflation” and profiteering at the expense of consumers. Pill previously stated that British households and businesses need to accept that they are now poorer, and should stop asking for wage increases and pushing prices higher.

“Some firms decided to sort of lock in their purchases of commodities in international markets in order to reduce that uncertainty, but potentially locked in at quite high levels of prices and they’re still passing that through the system into what ultimately we’re paying for in shops,” he explained’.






A World Without Money

Uncategorised No Comments

 “Changing the world, one Bitcoin at a time” is a mantra that fits into the picture of socialism, the greatest social experiment of the 20th century. But the question is, would Karl Marx, the father of socialism, embrace Bitcoin if he were to be alive today?

Marx held as early as 1843 that mankind could only be emancipated through the abolition of money and the State.

‘Money, then, appears as this overturning power both against the individual and against the bonds of society, etc.,which claim to be essences in themselves. It transforms fidelity into infidelity, love into hate, hate into love, virtue into vice, vice into virtue, servant into master, master into servant, idiocy into intelligence and intelligence into idiocy’

The related essay below is one of 38 just posted on the Socialist Standard Past & Present blog.   They first appeared in  the special 300th issue of the World Socialist Party of the United States old journal, The Western Socialist, in 1974.

Time was, when the idea of a social system operating without a medium of exchange was held only by a relative handful of scientific socialists Today, one hears the concept kicked around a bit more on talk shows and by people who do not necessarily consider themselves revolutionary in the sense of the World Socialist concept of revolution. But one gets the impression that there is not too much understanding of the economics of the question even among many of those who favor a moneyless society. They do openly disagree with the popular notion that no social order could operate without money of some sort but they seem to believe that it is going to be a case of a government of one sort or another proclaiming the abolition of money.

In order to understand why such an act will be not only unnecessary, but impossible, it is all important to comprehend why a medium of exchange, money, is necessary within the present system. Production, under capitalism, is carried on primarily for the purpose of sale on a market with view to profit and, as a result, we have an exchange or a circulation of commodities. Now it stands to reason that if eggs, shoes, whisky, houses, automobiles and all the other commodities exchange on a market in certain proportions there has to be a medium for effecting the circulation. This medium must be, itself, a commodity and one that is universally acceptable as an equivalent of the values of all commodities. So we have the commodity gold acting as the universal equivalent behind the various nominal monies of the world. And unless some other commodity with the necessary properties and the universal acceptance of gold comes along, gold will continue to act as real money.

Besides acting as a medium of circulation, money must exist, then, as a means of payment and as a measure of the values of commodities. Much of this may even be learned in a college economics course.

But the system, today, in the whole world is one of production for sale on a market with view to profit whereas the system advocated by socialists is something quite different. In a socialist world there will be no production of commodities. Goods and services will be produced only for the purpose of satisfying the needs and wants of the population. Eggs, shoes, whiskey, houses, automobiles and whatever else is wanted by society will be produced only because these things are wanted and not to sell. There will be no buying and selling at all and in such a situation there could be no need for anything to act as money.

Two questions might immediately leap to mind. First: do socialists advocate a return to simple barter? and Secondly: when has a moneyless system ever existed, at least in recorded history. The answer to the first question is “No” and to the second. “Never!” But with a but.

Obviously, barter could not exist under socialism any more than could money exist. There is just no need to exchange goods. We produce and we consume and the only difference that would be really noticeable from what takes place today would be the absence of cash registers and private or state ownership of the means of production. Should production of a particular item be inadequate to satiety the needs of the population, production of the item would be increased. If more than enough, it would be decreased.

As for the point that money always existed throughout recorded history: Yes, but not for most of the population. In previous social systems most people never had occasion to require money. Production was mainly geared to the needs of a slave or serf population and their masters. Money appeared only among a minority of the population, in trade.

And NO! We do not advocate a return to slavery or serfdom. We urge the abolition of all slavery, the end of wage slavery, the establishment of world socialism — a system in which the need for money will vanish.

Hiroshima background

Uncategorised No Comments



Reposted from SOYMB 6 August, 2009


Hiroshima in the making
On the 6th August 1945 at 0816 local time an atom bomb was dropped over the city of Hiroshima. The 40th anniversary of this event was marked by the following essay in our journal.



The idea that the material world is composed of enormous numbers of exceedingly small entities called atoms was first propounded about 450 BC by the Greek philosopher Leucippus and his pupil Democritus. It was not until 1911, however, when Ernest (later Lord) Rutherford published a paper putting forward the nuclear model of the atom, that the proposition gained general acceptance. It may seem hard today to realise that the paper caused no commotion in the world of physics – Rutherford himself does not appear to have considered this discovery as the epoch-making event it tumed out to be. In fact, this is not surprislng since no commercial application could be envisaged for the work, unlike x-rays and radium which had obvious medical uses and were soon seen as potential sources of profit. 



Where no such profitable application appeared the research was funded largely out of universities’ private resources and co-ordination between researchers .depended largely on their own individual efforts. This situation was not to change until the stage had been reached when it began to look as though this decomposition of matter, occurring naturalIy in the radioactive materials, could be achieved artificially in a controlled manner to the extent required for a large explosion. The relevant work between the two world wars led to the discovery of the fission process and the possibility of a chain reaction. 



It would be too long a story to detail the steps by which these discoveries were made, but it is worth noting that the whole process, even jf unco-ordinated, involved a large number of scientists of many nationalities. En route the dream of the old alchemists, of transmuting one element into another, was realised although the end product was not as they had envisaged, By 1939 it had been shown that nuclear combustion, releasing a million times the energv of chemical combustion, was indeed possible. 



When war broke out the scientists involved expressed considerable scepticism about whether an atomic bomb was feasibie. The politicians were even more doubtful. – Margaret Gowring recalls that Churchill at this time was more concerned that the so-called “fifih column” might exploit fears about “a terrible new uranium explosive” to force Britain to accept a surrender! (Britain and Atomic Energy, 1939-45, Macmillan, 1964.) Many scientists were directed to other vital war work at places such as the Royal Aircraft Establishment, although some uranium research continued at a very slow pace. A change in attitude was brought about as much by the fear that Germany might get a head start as any more rational consideration. A number of scientists who had fIed from Nazi persecution gave assistance to the Allied powers and the teams competing in this grim race were truIy international both in the sense of their composition and in the debt they owed to past knowledge. 



Eventually, in early 1940, the British government set up a small sub-comrnittee under the Committee for the Scientific Survey of Air Warfare – which was to be known by its code name of the Maud Committee – to examine the available evidence and report back to the government on the chances of success. Their report, issued in July 1941, gave a positive answer and was remarkable in its prescience. Only in two respects was it deficient: it was two years early in its foreeast of when a bomb would be ready and it erred in its assessment of the prospects of plutonium as a fuel (the Nagasaki bomb used this method). 



The stage had now been reached when uranium research was no longer the exclusive concern of a few individuaIs in universities. The horrors of atomic warfare could be envisaged fairly clearly, even though practical demonstration was still some way off. The Maud Committee were able accurately to compare the devastation expected from an A-bomb with known effects of TNT and they also had a reasonable understanding of the effects of radiation. They commented: . 



“It is very difficult to estimate the extent of their [fission products] effect especially as the most important substances would be those of long life, which are the hardest to study under laboratory conditions. It does however seem certain that the area devastated by the explosion would be dangerous to life for a considerable time.”



The conclusions of the Maud Committee and similar work in America led to a decision to manufacture. After Pearl Harbour, America went onto a full war footing, and they no longer saw any need to share their secrets with the British. Already they were looking ahead to the post-war world and resurned industrial competition – an attitude which led to considerable friction within the Alliance. The American capitalists saw the chance to supplant British interests in the latter’s erstwhile colonies and Roosevelt appeared to side with Stalin against Churchill at some of the wartirne conferences. The British reluctantly had to accept a very junior role in the A-bomb project, and virtually none in the dedsions about dropping one in anger. 



Before any bombs were ready, however, Germany and Italy had surrendered and so the question was whether the weapon should be used against Japan. The politicians and militarists were still riddled with sceptidsm and it did not therefore figure prorninently in their strategy. At first the British and Americans wanted Russia to enter the war with Japan. There were obvious problems about Russian entry, as clearly Stalin wanted to strengthen Soviet influence in Manchuria and in the territories lost to Japan in the 1904-05 wars. The Chinese government of Chiang Kai-Shek was party to negotiations over these issues and any agreements reached at the Yalta conference were cLearly of an unstable nature. 



The first successful test on 16 july 1945 caused a change in the attitude to Russia, as the possibilitv of forcing Japan to surrender without help now loomed. Considerable disagreements surfaced over how Japanese resistance could best be ended. As early as September 1944, Roosevelt and Churchill agreed that “when a bomb is finalIy available it might perhaps, after mature consideration, be used against the Japanese who should be warned that this bombardrnent will be repeated unill they surrender .” (Gowring, M., op. cit., p.370). In May 1945 a brief but heated debate began in America, involving scientists as well as politicians and the arrned forces, The case for warning Japan was argued in front of President Truman himself, A “harrnless” demonstration of the bomb’s power, perhaps with Japanese observers present, was proposed but the idea foundered on two main counts: there was still no certainty that the bomb would work, or that if it did it would induce surrender.



Deep divisions still existed after the successful test and it was impossible to get a consensus view in the necessary time. This may have been the reason why Trurnan later came to exaggerate and indeed to glory in the personal part he played. When Robert Oppenheirner regretted his part in the project, saying that he felt he had “blood on his hands”, Truman told Dean Acheson. “Don’t you bring that fellow around here again. After all, all he did was to make the bomb. I’m the guy who fired it off’ (Pringle, P. & J. Spiegelman. The Nuclear Barons, Sphere 1985, p.95). 



One factor that is often understandably underplayed by official accounts was the strength of the “Peace Party” in Japan. It is quite incorrect to think of the country as completely dorninated by a military caste headed by an autocratic Emperor. Gowring reports: 



“The Peace Party had ernerged within the Japanese Cabinet as early as April 1945, but it had to move with extreme circumspection in the face of fierce opposition from the military. However in ]uly, whlle the Allied leaders were assembling at Potsdam, the Japanese Emperor himself authorised peace feelers through Russia. Japan, it was ernphasised, would never accept unconditional surrender but was anxious for discussions about a negotiated peace. Stalin gave Mr Churchill an accurate account of these approaches … “



Deterrnined efforts to encourage the Peace Party were hindered by disunity in the Allied camp, and the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan, following the conference of that name, was a solernn warning of the destruction to comeijf they did not surrender forthwith. However it did not describe the new weapon and when Trurnan, after yet more intemal debate, informed Stalin he merely said that America now had “a weapon of unusually destructive force”. The Russians and Japanese, through their intelligence networks, probably had a good idea what was meant, but they could not say so openly. The Russians had in fact already started work on their own atom bomb. 



Three days after the Potsdam Proclamation, on 29 July, the Japanese Prime Minister announced that his government would ignore it, but four days later further peace feelers were sent through Moscow with “qualilled adrnission of the Potsdam Proclamation as a basis of discussion”. This however brought no response before the Hiroshima bomb was dropped on the now infamous 6 August a further appeal for surrender followed, failing which more bombs would be dropped 



The Japanese militarists had in the past been accustomed to dictate terms to the Emperor; now however Hirohito sided with the Peace Party against the influence of the arrned forces. The Japanese cabinet was hopelessly split, and even Hiroshima did not break the deadlock. Communications had been cut and the hawks refused to believe what they had been told and had to visit the area themselves to be convinced. No agreed statement could be made. The Allies responded by advandng the date for the bombing of Nagasaki, which coincided with the entry of Russia into the war. The last stand of the armed forces was at an end. The atornic bomb which fell on Hiroshima killed 64,000 people within four months and the bomb on Nagaski 39,OOO people.In addition, 72,000 people were injuted in Hiroshima and 25,000 in Nagasaki. At Hiroshima four square miles were totally devastated and nine square miles were very badly damaged. 



It is futile to speculate on how the destruction compares with what might have occurred had non-nuclear options been adopted – all the altematives were terrible in terms of the killing and mairning of workers on both sides. Such conjecture would merely encourage the notion that saving lives was a major consideration. 



E C EDGE



Further reading:



Hiroshima and after!



Why they dropped the bombs

Hiroshima, August 1945

Uncategorised No Comments


Hiroshima, August 1945 (1985)

From the Winter 1985-6 issue of the World Socialist


Forty years ago the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima in Japan. The following poem was written by a member of the Socialist Party of Great Britain shortly after he heard the news of the bombing.

Like a blast from hell the atom bomb came,

And a city in ruins was hurled;

On wings of fear, it thundered its name,

Through a shocked and war torn world;

This atomic force with transmutable breath,

Its first warning sign we see,

Garden of plenty, or desert of death;

What is this world to be?

The challenge is vital, and urgent the hour;

When this Capitalist era must pass,

And workers control this atomic power,

So misused by the ruling class;

This nuclear power from the atom was wrought,

It evolved in the womb of time,

Born of the labour of man’s social thought,

Its baptism, Fire, blood and crime;

Dark is the future if our governments command

This scientific genie of might,

Secret diplomacy knows no remand,

From chaos and abysmal night;

The Capitalist powers are still planning our fate,

And with their lies seek to stifle our fears,

Turning worker against worker, in blind bonds of hate,

For their new orgy of blood sweat and tears;

A Socialist world, no other solution,

Presents itself to mankind;

The workers must strive for a world revolution,

And cast off those fetters that bind;

This atomic force with transmutable breath,

For good or for ill must abide,

Garden of plenty or desert of death?

The workers themselves must decide.



Walter Atkinson (Britain)


NO PIECEMEAL PATH TO PEACE

Uncategorised No Comments

 “Current nuclear arms control and nonproliferation efforts are inadequate to protect the world’s population against the threat of nuclear war by design, error, or miscalculation,” the editorial reads.

NO SHIT!


Innumerable peace treaties, pious resolutions, prayers, demonstrations have been written, passed, uttered, forgotten and staged since the dawn of capitalism. Nuclear weapons remain and cluster bombs are making a comeback. In addition to weapons of mass destruction, capitalism produces poverty, insecurity, disease, and all the vicious things that stem from those, and it gives rise to the wars for which governments are constantly preparing.


‘The increasing intensity of competition for economic markets must lead to armed conflict unless an economic settlement is found. This, however, is hardly to be hoped for. Talk about peace in a world armed to the teeth is utterly futile’ (W. M. Hughes, Prime Minister of Australia during WWI, News Chronicle, 25 July 1936). Time and time again the socialist has demonstrated that war stems from capitalist struggles for markets, trade routes, sources of raw materials, and places of strategic importance. The 99 percent based in the UK and US face the same problems as members of our class existing elsewhere. Workers have no country. If anybody can really delude themselves into believing piecemeal measures will bring everlasting peace worldwide, their gullibility can know no bounds. We have a job to do, in this century, the establishment of socialism, and while workers are pursuing reform rather than revolution, they are falling down on their historically appointed task.


‘To oppose nuclear weapons requires a fundamental change in our attitude to life. Clarity of purpose and utter opposition is the only chance to reverse the threat that hangs over all our lives. What we want to change is immense. It’s not just getting rid of nuclear weapons, it’s getting rid of the whole structure that created the possibility of nuclear weapons in the first place. If we don’t use imagination nothing will change. Without change we will destroy the planet. It’s as simple as that’ (Boon, C., Social Movements and Political Power Emerging Forms of Radicalism in the West, Temple University Press, 1986, bit.ly/3a2S6Up).

American Auto Workers seeking bit more of the cake

Uncategorised No Comments

 

The President of the American United Auto Workers (UAW) has been ‘”talking about capitalism and the nature of capitalism and how it’s really hurt workers.”’

Recently elected Fain, made a speech highlighting members’ demands for ‘a significant pay raise to make up for years of concessions by the union following the Great Recession, the rising cost of living and inflation, and to match pay increases enjoyed by the CEOs of the Big Three’.

He’s quoted as saying ,’”Big Three CEOS saw their pay spike 40% on average over the last four years,” said Fain. “We know our members are worth the same and more”.

‘Ahead of a September 14 deadline, after which the UAW could go on strike, the union is demanding an immediate 20% pay raise followed by an additional 5% raise in each year of the four-year contract’.

‘According to the union, most new workers start out making $16 per hour, but if cost-of-living increases had been maintained since the Great Recession, the starting wage would be $28.68—about $21,000 more per year’.

The union also wants ‘a return of the defined benefit pension, which would give retired workers a set amount of money each month; the right to strike if a company threatens to close a plant; more paid time off; restored cost-of-living allowance increases; and other provisions’.

The Union President ‘spoke about the potential to shift to a 32-hour work-week to allow workers to spend more time with their families’.

‘”Our members are working 60, 70, even 80 hours a week just to make ends meet—that’s not a living. We have to work longer and harder to maintain the same standard of living… That means missing Little League games and family reunions. That’s barely surviving, and it needs to stop,” he said.

Shawn Fain would seem to very well know that capitalism’s profits come from the surplus value extracted from workers: The car companies can ‘ “easily” afford to substantially increase workers’ wages. The companies have made a quarter of a trillion dollars in North American profits over the past 10 years, and reported a combined $21 billion in profits in the first half of this year. Record profits mean record contracts. They’ve been competitive on our backs and it’s time they pay up”.’

An apologist for capitalism, a former hedge fund manager, hosting a CNBC programme is apparently shocked at workers demanding even a slighter bigger slice of the cake. He has called the demands ‘“frightening” for advocating for a wage increase to reflect the record profits the companies have reported in recent years’.

The anchor has refuted ‘Fain’s suggestion that Big Three shareholders and CEOs have been “overly rewarded” and scoffed at the notion that shareholders are “fat cats.” ‘

‘”That’s class warfare and it’s very shocking to hear class warfare,” said Cramer’.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/uaw-contract

Sounds like someone should have a conversation with the World Socialist Party of the United States (WSPUS). And that includes the President and the members of the UAW too.

It’s commendable that workers should use their collective strength to improve their living standards under capitalism but it is, as best, a short term solution to the exploitation of the working class.

The real, and only, solution is the collective working toward the abolition of capitalism and its replacement with socialism.


































Idlers of the World Unite! Especially Over Fifties!

Uncategorised No Comments








From The Guardian, 3 August, 2023, ‘Over-50s looking for work should consider delivering takeaways and other flexible jobs typically occupied by younger people, the work and pensions secretary has said.



On the recently introduced digital “mid-life MOTs”, which are designed to help older workers with financial planning, health guidance and career skills, Stride said: “You really do need to sensibly stop, take where you are in life, and assess whether, for example, you’ve got enough money to get you through with the kind of lifestyle and living standards that you’re expecting.”

Since the pandemic there has been a sharp rise in the number of economically inactive people, those who are neither working nor looking for work. About 8.6 million people in the UK – equivalent to one in five working adults – are classed as economically inactive, according to the Office for National Statistics. More than 3.4 million of them are over 50 but under the retirement age’.


Below is a repost from SOYMB 16 April, 2017


Monotonous, manual work can be done by machines, freeing humans up to do creative, activities. So we’re told. The truth is there has been an explosion in what anthropologist David Graeber calls “bullshit jobs”. 



And, as individuals come under pressure to stand out from the crowd, there emerges what sociologist David Frayne calls a “culture of gratitude” where labour is given without charge in return for “profile” or imagined networking benefits. “In this hyper-competitive context,” he writes, “it has almost become a matter of bad taste to fuss about issues like contracts, payment, and working conditions. You should just be grateful to have an opportunity in the first place.”



He says, “Society is presently organised so that work is people’s main source of income, social contact, and recognition. Living without work means somehow reinventing the ways to access these things, and that is no easy task. Depending on how far people want to go, resisting work means overcoming some significant barriers. The most obvious one is our reliance on work as a source of income. If you do not have the luxury of inherited wealth or a contingent source of money, this might be overcome to some degree by consuming less. A person can spend more carefully, repair and self-produce things, privilege more inexpensive pleasures, and perhaps even discover new and alternative forms of enjoyment in the process. All of these things are also easier to do when you work less and have more free-time, but spending less is still no easy feat in a society where so many of our needs are conventionally met via commercial transactions.”



He continues,  “We must refashion society so that people can remain connected, active, and valued, even when their labour is not required by the formal economy. As automated technologies continue to replace the need for human workers, the need to do this refashioning will become increasingly urgent.”



The issue of work is one that socialists have addressed for well over a century. Karl Marx’s son-in-law wrote a pamphlet called the “Right to be Lazy.”



The majority of the population is not engaged in productive work. The greater part of the non-producers is employed in the buying and selling plus all the related occupations. Any system by which the buying and selling system is retained means the employment of vast sections of the population in unproductive work. It leaves the productive work to be done by one portion of the people whilst the other portion is spending its energies in keeping shop, banking, and all the other various developments of commerce which employ probably more than two-thirds of the people today. It is the elimination of such activities and institutions, essential though they may be to a functioning market economy but unproductive in themselves from the standpoint of producing use values or meeting human needs, that constitutes perhaps the most important productive advantage that a socialist economy would have over a capitalist economy. The elimination of this structural waste intrinsic to capitalism will free up a vast amount of labour and materials for socially useful production in socialism.

 In socialist society, productive activity would take the form of freely chosen activity undertaken by human beings with a view to producing the things they needed to live and enjoy life. The necessary productive work of society would not be done by a class of hired wage workers but by all members of society, each according to their particular skills and abilities, cooperating to produce the things required to satisfy their needs both as individuals and as communities. Work i a socialist society could only be voluntary since there would be no group or organ in a position to force people to work against their will.



“… in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.” – Karl Marx 



And it was Marx who said in communism it will be society’s free (disposable) time and no longer labour time that becomes the true measure of society’s wealth.


Work should not really be equated with employment. Employment is wage labour.  William Morris regarded work as a basic, natural human need. His main criticism of capitalism was that it denied the vast majority of humans satisfying and enjoyable work. Under capitalism work, instead of being the enjoyable activity of creating or doing something useful, became a boring and often unhealthy and dangerous burden imposed on those who were forced to get a living by selling their mental and physical energies for a wage Morris’s concept of “art”. Which he defined, not as some specialised activity engaged in by some fringe group of “artists”, but as ”the expression of a person’s joy in their work”; people who enjoyed their work would produce beautiful things. And when he realised that the nature of capitalism meant that most producers were denied any enjoyment in their work – or, put another way, that it meant the “death of art”.


In a socialist society, the distinction between work and leisure will diminish—perhaps even disappear. People will have an opportunity to use their hobbies and enthusiasms for the social good: to enjoy being useful.


Most of us want to work. What we hate is employment. We want to work for ourselves, our families and friends, our community, not for some thieving parasite employer!


  



WORLD WAR ONE – LEST WE FORGET

Uncategorised No Comments

 












Germany invades Belgium and declares war on France, beginning World War I.


The German invasion of Belgium and Luxembourg in 1914 was of military benefit but a political gamble. It enabled the German armies to flood into France by avoiding the main border defences and it allowed Belgian coal mines and factories to fall into German hands. The political gamble was whether or not this move would bring Britain into the war on the side of France….

(Read more here),



Socialist Sonnet No. 108

Uncategorised No Comments

Snap Judgements

 

Skin can confer innocence or guilt,

Scrutinized by the ever watchful eye

Of the camera, and cameras do not lie,

Even if discrimination is in-built.

Innocence can’t be presumed any longer,

Human nature, it seems, is thought so flawed

It’s far better that people are outlawed

Than rely on honesty being stronger.

After all, the profit motive requires

The committing of a legalised crime,

In the stealing of unpaid for labour time,

The difference between sellers and buyers.

However depressed, at least smile a bit,

Snap judgements need you to be photo fit.

 

D. A.

Promoted by the Socialist Party of Great Britain, 52 Clapham High Street, London, SW4 7UN.

All content on this website CC BY-ND 4.0 with additional translation permissions

MENU

Navigation