What Health Benefits?

Poor adults in Britain today are in worse health than those born in 1920, according to a study which warns of widening inequalities and a looming crisis for the NHS.





Research carried out at University College London compared the health in adulthood of 16 birth cohorts, ranging from those born between 1920-1922 up to those born between 1968-1970. It found a wider gap between rich and poor among later generations despite the arrival of free healthcare. Lifestyle factors such as higher smoking rates among poorer people born later in the century, alongside a decline in social housing provision, were also blamed. 

Dr Stephen Jivraj, who led the study, said it was also likely that the difference was down to working-class Brits who were born in 1920 having benefitted from their working lives coinciding with an era of high employment in traditional industrial occupations compared to later generations entering the workforce in the 1980s. He added that the growth in health inequalities also runs parallel to rising income inequality in Britain during the 20th century.
Dr Jivraj, an associate professor in UCL’s department of public health and epidemiology, said: “If you look at the period and what happened to people during their working lives for people born in these cohorts, income inequality is one of the major things that has changed over the period.
“It is much greater for these people born in the later 20th century than for those in the earlier part of the century. That has really driven poorer health among the poorest in society for many reasons including support for public services. I think it’s tied to de-industrialisation – people who would have been the poorest in society who were born in the 1920s would generally have found it easier to find good quality work than they would have done if they had been born in the late 1960s. They are two things that I can’t directly attribute to this difference in rich and poor, but they certainly tally. So on the one hand, you have something that doesn’t seem to tally – why hasn’t the creation of the NHS meant narrowing of health inequalities because it means free healthcare for everybody? But there’s a lot of other factors at play that increase inequalities in health.”

Prof Jivraj found evidence of deteriorating health in the poorest third of the population, while wealthiest third had improved. One in four (26%) men born in 1920-22 who were living in the poorest third of British households when they responded to the survey as adults said they had a life-limiting illness. That compared to 16% in the richest households.
For men born in 1968-70, more than a third (35%) of those living in the poorest households reported a life-limiting illness compared with only around one in 10 (11%) of those living in the richest households. 
For women, in the poorest third, 23% of those born between 1920-22 reported a life-limiting illness as adults compared to 32% of those born between 1968-1970.
For women in the richest third, however, there was little change in adulthood illness – from 13% to 12% – for those born in the early ’20s compared to those born at the end of 1960s.
The paper states: “There is a suggestion that increased income inequality is responsible for increases in poor health in Britain in the latter quarter of of the 20th Century. This could be due to the increased marginalisation of the poorest in society who have not shared equally in postwar economic growth.”
It added that lifestyle may also be at play.
“Other factors strongly related to income might explain differences in the health of people born after 1945 compared with those born before, including smoking which has increased in the poorest in society, and housing tenure, which has become increasingly polarised by social class and likely to become even more so in future through housing inheritance.”
The findings come amid concern over impact of austerity on life expectancy in the UK, which has stalled and even fallen in some parts of Scotland for the first time in decades. However, Prof Jivraj said the research comparing health outcomes for those born in 1920 to those born in 1970 points to a longer term decline in health for the poorest Brits.
“It would appear that we were looking after people better in those generations than we are today,” he said. “I think poorer people in society today are getting a much rawer deal that in the past in terms of housing provision, social security payments – I think things are tighter for those people than they were in the past.”



He said: “What this is saying is that someone who was born in 1970, who is in the poorest section of society now, the probability of them being ill at a given age is greater compared to previous generations. The consequence of that is greater demands placed on health and social care in the future, at earlier ages, which is really problematic for health ans social care sectors across the UK. We already have an ageing population, which means more older people as a share of the overall population, who will require health and social care. But if poorer people are also getting ill earlier in life – people who won’t have private health cover, or resources to pay for it themselves – it makes an even more pressing case for us to tackle this.” 

We need is a red revolution, not a green new deal

There can be no peace, no security, no freedom under capitalism. So long as capitalism continue to exist, hunger and war are inevitable. They are unavoidable in our society. Continue capitalism and we face the certain prospect of new wars and more food insecurity. World hunger is not due to the lack of technology to produce more food, but due to the capitalist system and multinational companies that control food supplies. The causes of hunger have little to do with a shortage of food. the real question is not whether starvation can be prevented, but whether it will be.



 Build socialism to give us undreamed of wonders to enrich our life. Socialism, and only socialism, will create a world without national barriers, without international rivalries, without master and servile nations and, hence, a world without war and commercial competition. A world administration will not be a government of a dominant economic class but democratic decision making bodies with the primary duty to conduct the affairs of the world with the aim of eliminating poverty, joblessness, hunger and general insecurity. Its sole criterion would be the needs of the people. Its preoccupation in socialism will be to assist and improve continually the living standards of the people, to extend their leisure time and thus make it possible to heighten the cultural level of the whole world. That is why socialism will guarantee peace, security and freedom and prevent the destruction of mankind. Socialism will end the root evil of modern society, i.e., the private ownership of the means of production, the factories, mines, mills, machinery and land, which produce the necessities of life.



With socialism, these instruments of production will become the property of society, owned in common, producing for use, for the general welfare of the people as a whole. With the abolition of the private ownership of the means of life and with it the factor of profit as the prime mover of production, the sharp divisions of society between nations and classes will disappear. Then, and only then, will society be in a position to become a social order of abundance and plenty for all, for socialism will create a new world of genuine cooperation and collaboration between the peoples of the earth.



In abolishing classes in society, socialism will replace the form and type of governments which exist today. Governments will become administrative bodies regulating production and consumption. They will not be the instruments of the capitalist class, i.e., capitalist governments whose main reason for existence is to guarantee the political as well as the economic rule of big business, their profits, their private ownership of the instruments of production, and the conduct of war in the economic and political interests of this class. In abolishing classes, elite government and war, socialism will at the same time destroy all forms of dictatorship, political as well as economic. World socialism will be the freest, most democratic society ever known, truly representing the majority of the population and subject to its recall. Socialism will assess the industrial potential of the world, determine its resources, the needs of the people and plan production with the aim of increasing the standards of living of a free people, creating abundance, increasing leisure and opportunity for cultural enjoyment.



Socialism will not concern itself with profits and war, but with providing decent housing for all the people. Socialism will provide education for all the people. Socialism will eliminate illiteracy, which is one of the hallmarks of capitalism, and cease to regard schools and colleges primarily as institutions to produce skilled labour to help operate the profit economy.



Socialism will create a system of health preservation and insurance in which the needs of the people and the improvement of the human race would be the paramount consideration. Above all, socialism will provide jobs for all. But this will be work without exploitation. For the aim of socialism is not the increased exploitation and intensification of labour, but the utilisation of machinery, technology, science and invention to diminish toil, to create time in which to permit all the people to enjoy the benefits of social progress.



The modern world contains all the pre-conditions necessary for socialism. All about us we observe enormous industrial complexes containing machinery which could produce the goods of life in abundance. Mankind has developed a marvellous technology which has not only made it more possible for humanity to control his natural and social environment to create a fruitful life of abundance, but has made it imperative. Socialism will place at the disposal of science and the scientists all the material means to help better mankind. Only socialism can place science where it properly belongs: in the service of the people. We are at a crossroads and can travel the road of capitalism, towards more chaos, war, poverty and barbarism, or we can take the socialist path toward true freedom, peace and security, the road toward a society of plenty for all which would end the exploitation of man by man for all time.





Money Towards Meat Lovers

The livestock sector is responsible for about 14.5% of total human-derived greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists have provided evidence of a link between cancer and diets involving pork, beef and lamb products.



The EU has been accused of an “indefensible” approach to human health and the climate crisis in spending tens of millions of euros each year on campaigns to reverse the decline in meat eating and trying to rebut so-called “fake news” on the mistreatment of animals bred for food.  €60m has been spent in the last three years on 21 meat marketing campaigns, including in the UK.



Sjoerd van de Wouw, a researcher at Wakker Dier foundation, said the funding policy was outdated indefensible. “We understand that you need to consider the interests of producers but not by completing ignoring the interests of consumers and the climate,” he said.



A €2.5m subsidy for an initiative aimed at Danes and Swedes. “Pork is no longer a natural part of the diet of young Scandinavians,” the commission website says. “They tend to eat less meat in general and to avoid pork in particular. The aim is to increase consumer demand and thus halt any otherwise expected fall.”



A campaign in favour of the Dutch veal sector to promote the meat of calves in the Belgian, Italian and French markets received a €6m subsidy.



“The veal market has been declining since the 2000s,” says a description of the project on the commission website. “There are various reasons for this: the economic crisis, changes in consumption behaviour and above all a lack of top-of-mind awareness. France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy are minded to fight this fall in consumption by boosting the image consumers have of European veal.”

One recent campaign entitled Pork Lovers Europe, which secured €1.4m for marketing, including a “road-show” with a pink bus painted to look like a pig, noted “that the consumption of pork meat in Europe has decreased in recent years”. 



It continued: “Therefore, it is very important to promote pork meat to restore the confidence of the consumer, which was shaken by news such as the last IARC [International Agency for Research on Cancer] report.”

Scientists at the IARC, a UN agency, reported in 2015 that the consumption of bacon, red meat and glyphosate weedkiller increased the risk of developing cancer. The Pork Lovers Europe adverts targeted consumers in the UK, Spain, Germany, France and Portugal.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/14/eu-spending-tens-of-millions-of-euros-a-year-to-promote-meat-eating

Huge Change is Possible

Striking school students have joined Valentine’s Day rallies across the world as the protest movement attempts to ratchet up pressure on governments and companies before crunch UN climate talks in Glasgow later this year.  Climate strikes were planned in 2,000 cities across the world on Friday, and that bigger actions were planned for the coming months. Friday’s action was not intended as a mega-strike like those in September, when more than 6 million people took part, but it showed how the campaign has evolved.



In London, the young demonstrators held banners proclaiming “Roses are red, violets are blue, our Earth is burning and soon we will too” and “Climate change is worse than homework” as they marched through Parliament Square on Friday to mark the first anniversary of nationwide climate strikes in the UK.



Students in Durham, Glasgow, Brighton and dozens of other cities also braved often wet and cold condition to march through the streets chanting, “What do we want? Climate justice. When do we want it? Now.”

In India on Friday, strikers turned their focus on government plans to deforest swathes of the Aravallis mountain range, which is a conservation area that provides freshwater and oxygen for Delhi and other cities. Some carried banners in English reading: “I love Aravallis”, “Our green lungs” and “Protectors are turning destroyers”.



In Sydney, climate strikers demonstrated with banners that depicted the devastating bushfires and blamed the government of Scott Morrison for the “climate chaos” that has hit Australia. In the Philippines, climate strikers organised an educational storytelling campaign to raise public awareness.



In Scotland, Holly Gillibrand, who was one of the first strikers in the UK when she started a vigil outside Lochaber high school in Fort William in the Highlands, said the growth of the movement had been incredible.



“When I began striking over a year ago, Greta Thunberg and Fridays for Future  were not well known at all and I was one of very few strikers in the UK, but since then, everything has changed. The movement has gone from one person to 7.5 million. Even if we still aren’t getting the radical action we need from governments, politicians are feeling the pressure to act and we just need to keep pushing, keep shouting, keep rebelling until they do.” Holly continued her strike on Friday, with a hot chocolate to help get her through the wet weather.



Among those striking for the first time on Friday was a group in Rwanda, where protesters tweeted images of themselves holding signs that said: “Rwanda stand for climate.”
A year ago, the size of the protests in the UK took police by surprise, as thousands defied their teachers to skip school and join the still nascent movement. The students are now backed by longer established environmental organisations, including Global Justice Now, Greenpeace and the Green party. Among those at Friday’s march in London was a trade union climate bloc.



Friends of the Earth are backing the school climate strikers, who it credits for shifting public opinion. There is still a long way to go, but with technology developments and strong policies, the group said there was cause for hope. “Huge change is possible…”

Indeed the change the Socialist Party seeks is huge.



Does it make sense to risk destroying civilisation for the sake of profit? Capitalism imposes ecological devastation on the planet. Capitalism is the problem that socialism can solve. Socialists aims to produce and distribute resources by and in the interests of the whole community. In a money-free society production can be planned properly and the world’s resources conserved instead of being wasted or damaged for the sake of making a quick profit. The risk to the world posed by the threat of dangerous industrial processes and indiscriminate waste of resources has never been greater in spite of all the efforts of reformists and ecological pressure groups. Only the abolition of capitalism and its replacement by socialism can halt the destruction. We must replace capitalism before it destroys the earth.



Against continued capitalist chaos, the Socialist Party fights for a new social system based upon the overthrow of the exploiters. Against nationalist hatreds and hostilities, the Socialist Party proclaims and practices proletarian solidarity, the unity of the workers of all lands against their capitalist exploiters. Against endless wars of conquest, the Socialist Party strives to eliminate war through a socialism.



The capitalist are trying to throw the burden of this world crisis on the working people. When capitalist production does not bring sufficient profit, the capitalist uses every means to guard himself against loss. He throws the workers pitilessly out into the street. He raises the cost of living. He beats down salaries, and for this purpose he creates lock outs and mobilises strike-breakers.



The capitalist seeks to increase the hours of work or the efficiency of labour, in case wages remain the same. Protection for the workers is made impossible. The most indispensable articles are raised in price, the production of goods which do not bring big profits is stopped. We see this best in the failure to relieve the shortage in dwellings. Housing accommodations for the lower classes are neglected. Hospitals and nurseries are closed. Invalids, pensioners, and cripples are abandoned. Through the most subtle systems of taxation a considerable part of the workman’s income is stolen. In order to carry this out more easily the capitalist buys the periodicals, the newspapers, controls literary production and employs thousands of agitators to influence the workers in a manner favourable to his own interests. The capitalist strives to demoralize and to destroy the workers’ organisations, especially the labour unions. With a subtle system of swindle and lies capitalism tries to eliminate these organisations from the struggle against it. When it does not succeed in this, it tries to destroy them by means of force.



Global warming and the environmental crisis is one of the greatest challenges facing humanity. The uncontrolled exploitation and gross waste of resources typical of capitalism, is the source of this disaster. Short-sighted hunt for profit, neglects and abuse of science under capitalism destroy the world’s environment at an accelerating speed. Science, technology and industry can be positive and beneficial to society, but private property and the priorities of the elite and the ruling class create great problems. Our answer is that the working people must organise to overthrow those who threaten the existence of the people of the world. Only a planned socialist economy has strength to remedy a future climate catastrophe. Planned economy makes social and sensible use of the resources. Production will be planned on the basis of what serves society, not what yields the most profit. The producers themselves, the workers, will decide what to produce and how – not “the market”.



20/20 Vision for 2020

Capitalism is a disaster for humanity. It promises poverty, hunger, disease and war. Our environment is fated to be destroyed by climate change and harming our food supplies which is already leading to mass migrations from rural areas. All this results directly capitalism itself. It comes from the system of wage labour, the need to produce for profit and the necessary accumulation of capital which demands continual market expansion and growth. It is the system of production for profit which is creating this catastrophe. The only way out for mankind is changing to a system of production for use and needs, ending the exchange economy, no more buying and selling. Money will cease to have a function. Borders and frontiers will be abolished as nations and the State itself disappear. Socialism is the total transformation in economic, social and political relations where working people take control of  their own lives and begin running their own communities. Only a social revolution can create society anew to replace capitalism with a system that aims to satisfy human needs.



We must be free of the ideology of the ruling class and must have a strategy which will end exploitation and oppression. We are revolutionary socialists who believe that capitalism — as a system based on capital accumulation and profit — is inherently a system of inequality, injustice, and war. Our enemy is capitalism.  Capitalism dominates our economic system. Under capitalism, a handful who own the factories, the mines, the farms, and the banks control the wealth that the majority of the people produce. Capitalism organises globally for growth and profits. Under capitalism you either eliminate the competition, or are destroyed yourself. This drive sends the corporations around the world, seeking out cheaper raw materials and corrupting local governments to insure a “friendly investment climate.” Capitalism continuously seeks cheaper labour costs. This is why we see so many factories out-sourced and moving “off-shore.” Capitalism is a system of violence. Poverty is built into its operation. The capitalist class needs to maintain its grip on the levers of power. A socialist revolution will require the unity of the working class. The capitalist class has kept the working class of divided.



The struggle for a liveable planet is now a life-and-death issue. Corporate greed has polluted our air and poisoned our water. Capitalism’s blind consumerism causes us to squander so many of the world’s resources needlessly. The environmental movement has powerful support from youth, determined not to pass on to their children a poisoned earth. This movement offers a great potential for a receptive audience to socialist ideas..



 It is this system that we are fighting. We want a social system where the wealth of the World is not in the hands of a few billionaires, but is collectively controlled by the people. We seek both economic and political democracy. Human needs cannot replace profit as the motivation of society unless the people control their communities, their neighbourhoods, their workplaces. We believe that everything possible must be done to move in the direction of building a cooperative commonwealth. Socialism is not and cannot be anything other than the self-management of production, the economy, and society by the working people. For us, socialism is impossible without democracy. Both in how we organise and in what we organise for.



Campaigns that mobilise activists like foot-soldiers with generals giving them their marching orders may appear efficient in some ways. But they also duplicate the hierarchies of a capitalist, society, hierarchies that undermine people’s belief in their own abilities and their trust in others. The job of the Socialist Party is to find ways to propose social change and democratic practices, even though we may risk being marginalised. Our own movement must be infused with democratic decision and solidarity.



In order for the society working people will create to be just equitable, it must embody socialist ideals. The fundamental change is not to preserve capitalism. Do we have a blueprint for a socialist society? Can we envision what such a society looks like? If we rely on the people, if we pool our own collective experiences we can broadly outline a socialist future. Our political compass for where we are headed should always have socialism as its destination – a world free from destitution.



Wasted Food

Reducing food waste is a key challenge in fighting climate change. Wasted and lost food accounts for almost 10% of all our greenhouse gas emissions.
Common estimates for global food waste are too low, according to Dutch researchers, who suggest every person in the world is wasting about 500 calories of food a day. Previous estimates have put global food waste at 214 calories per day per person (214 kilocalories/day/capita – a kilocalorie is another word for what’s commonly called a calorie). Without waste, we could feed five people instead of four, they said. The research did not include food lost in the production process before it gets to the consumer. The widely quoted figure of one third of all food available for human consumption lost or wasted is made up of both food lost before it reaches the consumer, which the study did not look at, and food wasted once it arrives in the kitchen.
They say behavioural change is important, such as encouraging shoppers to switch from buying in excess or hoarding to shopping for “enough”, with the thought that you can always acquire more.




Solidarity – all for one, one for all



The International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), has been hit with a union-busting $93.6 million dollar court-imposed fine for a secondary boycott deemed illegal under the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act. The plaintiff, International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI), owned by the third richest man in the Philippines, billionaire Enrique Razon Jr., operates in 27 ports worldwide, mainly in poor, developing countries. On February 14 in Portland, this capital vs labor battle may be decided by a federal court judge.



Known as the slave labor act by the organized labor movement, the Taft-Hartley Act bans solidarity actions or secondary boycotts as the government’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) refers to an action not directed against the primary employer. In 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act, was passed with support from both Democratic and Republican parties at the beginning of the McCarthy witch hunts. It banned all manner of class struggle: solidarity strikes, mass picketing, closed shops, including union hiring halls, and communists from holding union office.



But it was solidarity actions that built the labor movement. ILWU’s history shows that labor’s strength lies in union solidarity actions. West Coast maritime workers have long been in the forefront of U.S. labor struggles. 



Razon’s modus operandi for ICTSI is raw, aggressive neo-liberal capitalism, buying up public-owned ports in developing countries, busting unions, suing competitors or government agencies and making billions in the process. If ICTSI’s owner billionaire Enrique Razon is successful in his court suit, it would be a body blow to labor’s solidarity actions. 



The old IWW motto must prevail, “An injury to one is an injury to all!”



 Full article at

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/02/12/the-survival-of-the-ilwu-at-stake/

Football Capitalism

Football’s embrace of unregulated hyper-capitalism has created a growing financial disparity that is now destroying the inherent unpredictability of the sport. This is not just the big clubs often winning, as has been the case since time immemorial. It is that a small group of super-wealthy clubs are now so financially insulated that they are winning more games than ever before, by more goals than ever before, to break more records than ever before. They are stretching the game in a way that has caused the entire sport to transform and shift. The concentration of money has brought a concentration of quality and thereby success.





That is a consequence of the explosion of money in the game, which means you need a minimum amount of annual revenue (€400m in 2020, going by Deloitte’s figures) to even begin competing. On the other side, when clubs like Liverpool or Manchester City maximise that revenue through admirable intelligence, the disparity then has an amplifying effect. The gap gets even greater on the pitch. This is why we are seeing so many historic records now being broken season after season.
The last decade alone, which represents the true rise of the super-clubs alongside the huge rise in money, has seen: 





a second Spanish treble a first German treble a first Italian treble a first English domestic treble three French domestic trebles in four years a first Champions League three-in-a-row in 42 years the first ever 100-point season in Spain, Italy and England ‘Invincible’ seasons in Italy, Portugal, Scotland and seven other European leagues 13 of Europe’s 54 leagues currently seeing their longest run of titles by a single club or longest period of domination. Needless to say, they have all been achieved by the wealthiest clubs in those competitions.



Uefa president Aleksander Ceferin made the issue front and centre of his introduction to the body’s 2020 annual benchmarking report, citing the “threats” and “risks” of “globalisation-fuelled revenue polarisation”.



And it really comes to something when Deloitte’s Football Money League  warns of “a situation where on-pitch results are too heavily influenced by the financial resources available” as well as the danger to “the integrity” and “unpredictability” crucial to the long-term value of the sport.

Javier Tebas, president of La Liga, speaks in even graver terms. “If we don’t fix that problem, in a few years our industry will collapse.”



It is teetering on the brink because this core problem loads up so many other ongoing issues: the precarious financial health of clubs outside the elite; the tension between the super-clubs and the rest; the tension between leagues; the tension between Uefa and Fifa; the tension between self-interest and the collective that represents the inherent contradiction of professional sport.



Former Southampton executive chairman Nicola Cortese says. “These bigger clubs are now massive money monsters.”





Due to the sport’s very structure, its immense global popularity has actually funnelled more and more resources to an extremely narrow band of clubs, because they are the only ones with the reach to maximise this. It is not so much the 1%, as the 0.01%. And it is not that money guarantees success. It is that an awful lot of it – in 2020, around €400m – is the single most important requisite to even compete.​
The 1982 English First Division TV deal was just £5.2m and the total international rights were a mere £50,000 from Scandinavia. The wage bill of the wealthiest top-division club was less than three times the bottom club, which meant there was a period when two of the best paid players in England – Michael Robinson and Steve Foster – both played for Brighton and Hove Albion. It also meant that as many as 13 clubs could finish in the top four in England, as many as 12 in Spain, and that teams including Aston Villa, Steaua Bucharest, PSV Eindhoven and Red Star Belgrade could win the European Cup. Football, in effect, was too small an industry to feature anything like the current inequalities. There was far more mobility within the sport.
The total Premier League TV rights for the current 2019-22 cycle are now worth £8.4bn. The total Champions League prize money is now worth €2.04bn, having grown from €583m just 10 years ago. Such forces have seen Manchester United go from a turnover of £117m at the start of the millennium to £627.1m in 2018-19, the most recent figures available. The biggest clubs are no longer the financial size of local supermarkets, as was the case just two decades ago.
Money has simply led to more disparity.



Returning to wages, the ‘stretch’ from the bottom to the top in the Premier League has gone from 2.85x in that breakaway season of 1992-93 to 4.7x last year. In Spain, it has been as high as 17.2x, and in some mid-size leagues like Switzerland over 20x.
This is relevant because of how crucial wages are to the working of the sport. Repeated studies – most notably by Stefan Szymanski and Tim Kuypers – have highlighted that they condition results to a greater degree than anything else. Arguments about net transfer spend are close to irrelevant.





“Buying the most expensive players doesn’t automatically generate good sporting results,” Manchester City chief executive Ferran Soriano wrote in his book The Ball Doesn’t Go In By Chance. “What does generate those good results is having the best players in your team and paying them the salary they deserve.”
“I had the money to buy players,” Cortese says. “But not the money to keep players.”



This has been the primary issue for most Premier League clubs seeking to grow, despite the influx of TV money that has allowed high transfer fees. By the competition’s latest figures, the big six paid 51.3% of the total wages. This disparity has led to a corresponding disparity in results. And thus the unpredictability of football – the lifeblood of the sport – begins to dissolve. Absolutely every metric shows the sport across Europe is more predictable than 30, 20 or even 10 years ago.
The average points won by champions in the five major leagues has shot up. England might only show a marginal change from the 2000s to the 2010s, but the change becomes much more pronounced if you focus on the last three seasons. It then extends to 96.7 points – and that’s before you even bring in Liverpool’s current season.



Greater disparity has pushed up the requirements to win the league. That can be seen in the most ominous figures of all: the title-winning streaks. In some leagues, it is getting impossible for almost anyone else to win. Prior to this run, Bayern Munich had never won more than three Bundesliga titles in a row. They have now won seven in a row, which is by far the longest streak of league victories in Germany’s history. It is also one of eight such situations across Europe. 

There are then situations like in Croatia, where Dinamo Zagreb have won 13 of the last 14 titles, or Dundalk, who have won five of the last six Irish titles. There has never been a situation where so many of Europe’s leagues – 13 of 54 – are suffering such domination at the same time. That it extends from the very top, to mid-sized leagues like the Austrian Football Bundesliga, to the bottom and the Andorran Primera Divisió, shows the depth of the problem.
It also shows the effect of Champions League prize money, which has become one of the most profound problems in the game, as influential as anything else in creating this disparity.
The difficulty in qualifying for the competition, of course, is just another representation of that disparity.
That is emphasised by the fact more clubs finished in England’s top four in the first five years of the 1990s than in the 20 years so far of the new millennium: 11 to 10. The number for 2010 to 2019 as a whole is seven, down from 13 in the 1990s and 1980s, and 15 in the 1970s and 1960s. The other major leagues tell a similar story, and that without a defined big six.
It is not just that the wealthiest clubs are winning much more, however. It is that they are winning by much more.
So many clear victories are perhaps the clearest indication of the ‘Overton window’ effect of this: where gradual shifts over time make abnormal situations feel normal to anyone watching on. Thrashings of the scale the wealthiest clubs now dole out – Manchester City beating Watford 8-0 or Bayern Munich beating both Mainz and Werder Bremen 6-1 this season – used to be so much rarer. Even 5-0 thrashings were comparatively uncommon. Looking at England’s wealthiest four clubs – which has varied since the start of the Premier League – over a fifth of their games are now won by three goals or more. For the 90s, that was just over a tenth, at 12.6%.  Even the mighty Real Madrid did not used to win like this. Together with Barcelona, their percentage of wins by three goals or more has jumped from 20.5% in the 90s, to a staggering 37.8% now.
The game has been engulfed by capitalism, driven by the same motivation: money.
The Champions League has become so popular that its prize money is simply immense: life-changing for many clubs and game-changing for the sport as a whole. It is so drastic that it distorts football.

Merely turning up in the group stage this season earned clubs €15.25m. Getting to the Istanbul final will be worth €62.25m – and that’s before you factor in many related rewards. The near £100m Spurs earned last season was enough to launch them past Chelsea into the top 10 of the Deloitte Football Money League.

The Champions League does much more, however, than creating this huge financial capital. It also creates a football capital – and what you might call the ‘Everton problem’.
It is just another way the game is so conditioned towards the richest. The massively free player market makes it a race to the top, where the richest are able to accumulate the best in a way never seen before. Every player obviously wants to be in such a competition. This means that even if clubs like Everton have the money to pay competitive wages, they are still mostly getting cast-offs, a level of player short of the true elite. And when they do have a player who can perform at Champions League level, like Romelu Lukaku, he is quickly picked off.

It was the glamour of the Champions League, after all, that first attracted Roman Abramovich to football. That is their platform: the entire planet. The description of “global clubs” is so apt. Only a handful of clubs – Manchester United, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Liverpool, Arsenal, Juventus, Bayern Munich, AC Milan and Internazionale – are capable of truly benefiting from it. They just have a distinctive global fan base, and thereby a ready-made market, that is impossible for anyone else to replicate. 
Football has become show business. The stadiums are big TV sets, where 22 performers are performing. It’s show business, in some ways, more than sport.





75th Anniversary of the Dresden Bombing

In four raids between 13 and 15 February 1945, 722 heavy bombers of the British Royal Air Force and 527 of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city.



Kurt Vonnegut’s in Slaughterhouse-Five, who was one of some 25,000 Allied prisoners of war held in and around the city and who survived the bombing, called it “carnage unfathomable.” Some 200,000 incendiary bombs along with 500 tons of high-explosive munitions including two-ton “blockbuster” bombs were dropped during the initial raids, sparking thousands of fires that could be seen from 500 miles (800 km) away in the air. The heat generated by the inferno melted human flesh, turning many victims into piles of goop. Men, women, children, the sick, the elderly, refugees and Allied POWs and even the animals in the city zoo — all were incinerated together. The 2700º Fahrenheit (1480° C) fire-storm sucked all the oxygen from the air; many thousands suffocated to death. The following morning, a wave of more than 300 United States Army Air Force Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress bombers pounded the survivors with over 700 tons of explosives. On February 15, US warplanes bombed the city’s south-eastern suburbs.



Dresden, Germany’s seventh-largest city, was the largest urban area in the Third Reich that hadn’t yet been bombed. It had been spared from Allied attack because it was an important cultural city — known as the Jewel Box for its celebrated architecture — with relatively few significant military targets. It was a city of refuge, with 19 hospitals and more than a million refugees fleeing the horrors of the Red Army advance encamped there. But by the time it was all over, some 25,000 men, women and children were dead and nearly 90 percent of the homes in central Dresden were obliterated. 



An RAF memo to airmen the night of the attack explained that “the intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most” and “to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.” 



Churchill, not known for his compassion, was appalled by the savagery of the attack, calling it “an act of terror and wanton destruction.” After seeing photographs of the devastated city, the prime minister asked, “Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far?” In a top secret memo dated March 28, 1945, he wrote:



“It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land.”


As many as 600,000 German civilians were killed by Allied bombing over the course of the war. Many of these victims died during the war’s final months, when Germany’s defeat was certain and such slaughter served no valid military purpose.  At Dresden trains were running again within three days of the bombing. And while the Nazis may have started the air war by bombing British cities, killing 14,000 civilians during the Blitz, the destruction of Dresden was disproportionate.


From here

The Way to Go

Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?’” asks Alice.

That depends a good deal on where you want to get to, says the Cheshire Cat.



In capitalist society there are only two decisive class forces: the capitalists and the workers. The historic mission of one is to maintain the capitalist system, that of the other is to overthrow it. The working class are the ’grave-diggers of capitalism’ and the emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class itself. The working class is not the gravedigger of capitalism by virtue of any intrinsic merit it possesses as a class qualifying it for that role, but because of the objective role it plays in the production process of capitalism. Thus it can be, and indeed has always been, that the very class which alone is capable of destroying capitalism and with it all class society, is itself deeply imbued with the ideology of the ruling class it is historically destined to overthrow. The contradiction between the objective role of the working class as an agent of social revolution, and its own lack of consciousness of that role, makes necessary the education of the workers to be class conscious and aware of their role as the agent of social revolution. The revolution must be a process of mass self-emancipation. This guiding principle underlies all socialist principles. For sure, socialism from ‘above’ always has an appeal as long as we live under a system of domination, hierarchy and exploitation. When struggles are defeated or when workers are beaten back, the loss of confidence that ensues allows for organisations or individuals step in claiming to liberate the masses ‘from above’. Ideologies that tell people that they are unqualified, that others are best equipped and hold the right way, the best way — the only way — can keep people from trying to change things. If self-emancipation is the goal, it must be the means as well. To paraphrase Eugene Debs, if a saviour can lead you into the promised land, he can lead you back out again too. 



Despite all the obvious failures of capitalism, workers still hold doubt that socialism offers them anything better. Can we blame them. Movements purporting to be socialist have brought authoritarian state-capitalism or liberal welfare statism. Building another socialist movement now requires once more re-envisaging a future that articulates and incorporates those once held socialist ideals which were distorted. The Socialist Party’s mission is the the extension of democracy to the whole of society, the socialisation of private productive property and replacement of the anarchy of the market by a rational planning.



Well-supported arguments for these conclusions exist, other than these measures will lead to bureaucratic domination, general poverty and ecological disaster.



Socialism signifies a “society of free and associated producers” based on the “associated mode of production” as Marx said. He also explained that this “union of free individuals” was the crowning point of the producers’ act of self-emancipation where individuals are subject neither to personal dependence – as in pre-capitalism – nor to material dependence – as in commodity (capitalist) society – excludes, by definition, private property in the means of production, commodity form of the product of labour, wage labour and state. Here the freely associated “social individuals” are the masters of their own social movement, subjecting their social relations to their own control. Human society, when we get it, will be a free association of social individuals. It will not be a one-party workers’ state.



Socialism’s basic conceptions of universal human emancipation and of the free association of individuals are not complex. A world without private property or money is not complicated to comprehend. But it is the socialists’ unfinished task.



The wage system, in spite of all the refinements of sophistication, is the same in all ages, in all lands, and in all climes. Its victims work, propagate their species, bear all the burdens, and perish. The shackles of the slave and the scourge of the master symbolise the reign of King Capital. Not until slave and master have both disappeared forever, and the equal freedom of all has been established, can we lay any proper claim to civilisation.