Marx was right about capitalism today

Karl Marx:  hear his name socialists and tremble. It is he who laid the foundations of all the great work that has come after, from the Russian Revolution to the British welfare state. All future generations of socialists should behold the awesomeness of his works.

I have a lot of respect for Marx and his contribution to left wing politics. Although, I have always resisted the temptation to turn him into the socialist equivalent of a prophet. The above is a gentle parody of how some socialists approach the work of Karl Marx. Putting Marx on such a pedestal adds to his legend as an important, but difficult to approach, thinker.

Reading Marx is certainly not as easy as reading the journalism of today, but Marx shouldn’t be inaccessible to the majority of people on the left - like the Bible written in Latin. Marx understood some fundamental truths about capitalism, which still apply 150 years after he published them. Paul Mason, has done a great job making Marx accessible to a modern audience in his book Post-capitalism.

Capitalism changes, but the underlying ideas as understood by Marx don’t. Today’s tech companies and the gig economy are governed by the same principles as the factories of 19th century Manchester.

Revolutionary system

First of all, Marx understood that capitalism is a revolutionary system. It overthrows everything that came before it and remakes society anew. We can see that in how much industrialisation has changed China has changed during my lifetime, and I’m a Millennial.

Marx also saw that capitalism was a destructive system. Competitive firms are constantly destroying each other and some firms are destroying entire industries that came before them. You can see that in how digital publishing has destroyed the business model of print newspapers leading to the closure of local newspapers up and down the country.

Capitalism is also destructive to the environment. That was true when Marx was writing in the early days of industrialisation and it remains true today. Marx also described how capitalism creates vast inequalities. Before capitalism, there were only so many banquets a landed noble could have and only so many fine clothes he could buy, but under capitalism there is no end to the greed of the capitalists.

Alienation is one of the more difficult Marxist concepts to get your head around, but its effects can be keenly felt today. Marx said that capitalism alienates workers from what they produce as they either can’t afford it or are completely disconnected from the final product. Today we can see that in countries where smartphones are made by workers too poor to afford them or call centre workers who are entirely disconnected from any services that are being delivered. The businesses have changed since Marx’s time, but alienation remains a constant.

Overproduction of unnecessary goods

Mainly Marx knew that capitalism leads to the overproduction of goods that do not have a social value. We can see that today in the unnecessary quantities of plastics wrappings that is produced or in how much more money is poured into making viagra by big pharmaceutical companies as opposed to life saving medicine. This is misallocation of resources on a society-wide scale away from what will make people’s lives better.

Key to Marx’s writing is a fact that remains very much true today, and that is that capitalism needs to be overthrown. The capitalists who have economic power will not give it up easily so a revolution is necessary to have an economic system based not on profit motives, but on people's needs. I believe that this revolution need not be violent and when it happens it will be unlike anything that has come before it, even events that called themselves revolutions but merely changed who sat at the head of the table.

Marx understood that radical change was necessary to fix the problems of a capitalist society. That simple insight remains as relevant today as it did in Marx’s time. We lionise Marx, and his accomplishments are impressive, but the basic truth of his ideas are something we all experience everyday.

The rest of Europe should be very worried about the far right’s success in Italy

In 2016 it the far right made significant advances. Their arguments on nationalism and immigration became part of mainstream political discourse as far right backed campaigns such as Brexit and Donald Trump’s Presidential bid achieved electoral success.

In 2017 it looked like normality had reasserted itself as Emmanuel Macron defeated Marine Le Pen to become President of France, Angela Merkel held off the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and UKIP’s support collapsed in the British General Election. People all over the world worried about creeping nationalism and xenophobia breathed a sigh of relief.

We can't be complacent. A few setbacks have not defeated the emboldened far right. Social democracy as a political force is in a bad shape across Europe. Immigration and entrenched economic problems remain potent issues that the far right is using to rally support.

The far right did well in the recent Italian Elections. Former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s centre-right Forza Italia party didn’t do as well as many predicted. The Eurosceptic, populist Five Star Movement won the largest share of the vote and far right party The League (formally Lega Nord) performed much better than expected. The League, an aggressively anti-immigration party, are likely to be the main authority in a new far right/centre right government.

The success of The League is due to economic problems such as high unemployment (and especially high youth unemployment) and regional inequality (the North of Italy is much more prosperous than the South), but mainly hostility to immigration. This election campaign has been characterised by aggressive anti-immigration rhetoric; The League’s leader Matteo Salvini says he wants to deport all undocumented migrants and in Macerata a right wing extremist shot and wounded six migrants.

The centre-left’s performance was disappointing and the leader of the main centre-left party, Matteo Renzi of the Democratic Party, has resigned. Renzi was once hailed as the saviour of the European left and was thought of as the Tony Blair of Italy. He moved his party to the right to embrace the "mainstream" of economic and political thought. In 2013 The Independent wrote: “Mr Renzi has staked his claim on the centre-ground and made little secret of his opposition to the unreconstructed leftist policies held dear by large swathes of his own party.”

Now Renzi is out after failing to achieve domination of politics through occupying the centre ground that Blair did. Politics has changed since 1997 and the centre ground is a shifting mass of uncertainty, pushed and pulled by populist tremours. Renzi and his party have no counter argument to the far right’s anti-immigration rhetoric. Now the far right is closer to power in Italy than it has been for generations.

The centre left is failing across Europe. The Germany SPD is currently trailing the AfD in the polls and is about to yoked (again) to a Merkel-led centre right government. The main centre left party suffered a huge defeat in Dutcth elections last year, getting only 9% of the vote. In France the centre left candidate, Benoît Hamon, got only 6% in the first round of Presiental elections.

Interestingly, the Italian, French and Dutch centre left parties’ names all translate into English as the ‘Socialist Party’, but their policies are (to a greater or lesser extent) neoliberal. What has happened to all three parties is a common enough phenomenon that it has a name: Pasokifcation. This name comes from the Greek centre left party, Panhellenic Socialist Movement or PASOK, which was the first party to experience this. Again, note the transformation from socialist, to neoliberal, to collapse, that the party’s namesakes have followed in.

“The old project of European social democracy is over, and that what comes next will have to be radically different,” Paul Mason said in a recent post for Novara Media. It is clear that social democracy as a political movement is in crisis across Europe. Ed Miliband's 30% of the vote in 2015 appears to be a high water mark.

Immigration (of both refugees and economic migrants) is a key issue across Europe. It is fuelling the rise of the far right who are rocketing into power in a populist blast of dissatisfaction with mainstream politicians. Anti-Immigration parties are in power in Austria, Hungary, Poland and now it looks like Italy as well. The centre left has no response to this.

If the centre left cannot offer a response to the far right on the subject of immigration then it is up to the radical left to do so. We need to demand investment in communities hit hard by deindustrialisation to revitalise not only their economies, but also civic and community institutions. It is these areas of high unemployment, underfunded public services, housing shortages and high inequality where the far right are recruiting support. The left can do something about this.

The radical left also needs to vocally stand up for the rights of migrants and not be tempted to demonise them for short term political gain. The left should stand up for the most vulnerable in society, whether they are fleeing war in Syria, the collapse of Libya, poverty in Ethiopia or problems closer to home such as a lack of jobs and decent houses. By helping the poor and the vulnerable the radical left can turn the tide against the emboldened far right.

The problems of Europe are not being addresses by the centre left. This is fuelling support for the far right. We have seen too many right, anti-immigration populist parties seize power across Europe, Italy being the latest tragedy. We should be frightened for the future if the tide cannot be turned back against the far right. Only the radical left is in a position to do this.

Crowd image created by James Cridland and used under creative commons.

Labour’s history of nationalisation gives us hope for the future

I have always found the industrial nationalisations undertaken by the Clement Attlee's Labour government inspiring. It was an ambitious task to bring so much of the economy into public ownership. Few subsequent governments have had grand ambitions. The Blair government’s reforms pale in comparison.

In the 1940s Labour realised a long term socialist ambition to run industries democratically and for the benefit of all, not just a few rich owners. The nationalisations following World War 2 were widely supported. The government took control of the mines, railways, electricity, gas, iron and steel, the Bank of England, inland waterways, road haulage and Cable & Wireless Ltd.

These nationalisations were popular as they tackled big economic problems. The mining industry had been in financial trouble since the First World War and many small mines were closing, leading to unemployment. There was also a lot of concern about safety and the dire working conditions in many mines.

The railways were also in a bad state after the war. There had been heavy bombing of track and stations, and there was a shortage of locomotives. Both the railways and the mines had been successfully run by the government during the war, so it made sense that they should be nationalised.

Massive ambition

Over 800 coal mines were taken into public ownership under the National Coal Board (NCB). Conditions in the mines run by the NCB were more humane than they had been before nationalisation. The newly-nationalised British Rail also invested in new rolling stock to replace what had been destroyed in the war.

The nationalised industries were given money by the government for investment and modernisation. There was an expansion of civil aviation and of cable and wireless communications. This greater investment in energy, transport and communication was good for all businesses, not just the state-owned ones, and it contributed to postwar economic growth.

The nationalised industries could exploit economies of scale as they were much larger than the small firms they had replaced. British Rail could produce a locomotive or lay track much more efficiently than the smaller private rail companies as the steel was brought in bulk from another nationalised supplier that didn’t need to satisfy the demands of shareholders.

The main advantage of nationalisation was that the government could coordinate industries and plan across the entire economy. The vast apparatus of the state, which had so effectively prospected the war, could now be turned to creating jobs and wealth for all.

This was an impressive accomplishment. Never before had any government brought so much into public ownership. Mines, railways and other large industries were being run in the interests of ordinary people and not for the wealthy few. Decisions that affect the entire economy could be debated in the public sphere, not in shadowy boardrooms.

Selling the family silver

Of course it didn’t last. The Thatcher government privatised many of these state-owned industries in the 1980s. At the time it was described (by former Tory Prime Minister Harold Macmillan no less) as “selling off the family silver”. The comparison is apt as the revenue for the government can only be made once and then the gains of nationalisation were lost.

The Thatcher government did this because of its ideological commitment to free markets. At the core of all this was the greed of neoliberals, an economic belief that opening up markets for private companies is automatically best for everyone. Ultimately this has lead to the wealth created by these industries being captured by a few rich owners.

Today, the coal mines are almost all gone. The cost of privatised utilities are going up and up. A 2017 study by the University of Greenwich estimated that consumers in England were paying £2.3bn more year a year on their water bills than if the company was nationalised. £18.1bn was paid out in dividends, but little infrastructure investment was undertaken.

Private island

For anyone looking to learn more about this topic, James Meek’s book Private Island catalogues the errors and waste of privatisation. He traces the disastrous privatisations of the railways, the postal service and the utilities, showing that privatisation failed to achieve the increased innovation and economic dynamism that was promised.

There is some hope in the form of the current Labour opposition. Both Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell are in favour of nationalisation, and McDonnell has said that a Labour government would renationalise the railways, water companies, energy firms and the Royal Mail. The private rail franchises would not be renewed and the lines would be brought back into public ownership one by one as the franchises come up for renewal.

This gives me hope that the great accomplishments of the Attlee government aren’t lost forever. There is a future for nationalisation and the idea that it is better if industries are run openly, democratically and with the proceeds of their activity shared amongst us all.

British Rail image created by Steve Jones and used under creative commons.

What makes a good Socialist blog?

As capitalism slowly collapses, the flaws of a system that worships money and creates massive inequality are becoming apparent. This has led to a surge in popularity for the far left and many more people reading Socialist blogs.

Left wing politics has always had a healthy ecosystem of independent media, but recently there has been an explosion of new blogs, podcasts, Twitter feeds and zines exploring issues related to the far left.

With all these sources to choose from, how do you know which ones are good? What makes a quality Socialist blog? After writing this blog for seven years, below is what I think makes a good quality left wing blog.

Being against capitalism

Let's start with the basics: capitalism is the root cause of a lot of society’s current problems, from rising food bank dependence to job loss from deindustrialisation. A good Socialist blog recognises the problems of capitalism, explores these and thinks about what economic system could replace capitalism.

There is a divide on the left between those who want to abolish capitalism and those who just want to make it more humane. A good Socialist blog should be on the abolish side. There is also a divide between Socialists who want to smash capitalism or get rid of it gradually. There are strong cases either way, and this should form the substance of a Socialist blog.

Being in favour of greater equality

It's not enough just to be against capitalism, you need to be in favour of an alternative. Again there is a lot of debate about what form this alternative should take, which is what left wing blogs exist to explore. Socialists should be in favour of an economic system that delivers more equality rather than one that moves vast amounts of wealth into the pockets of a few people.

Being in favour of radical change

What separates Socialists from Liberals is a belief in radical change. This change could come quickly or slowly over time, but the end result is a radically different society. Liberals want to make small changes around the edges, not great reforms.

Some problems can be tackled by small reforms around the edge. The lack of accessible public transport in many cities can be solved by our existing political and economic systems. However, the Liberal approach comes unstuck when faced with the larger problems of society. Climate change cannot be fixed by tinkering around the edge, only by radically rethinking our society.

Recognising that power structures go beyond class and wealth

There's a stereotype of Socialists being old, bearded, white men sitting in the back rooms of community centres, drinking real ale and having rambling discussions about the relationship between capital and the proletariat in Victorian London. Although this certainly does happen, most Socialists I know have a broader interest in the many different power structures and types of inequality in our society, not just economic ones.

Material inequality is a big problem, but so is racial and gender inequality. There are a lot of different types of oppression in society and even if you're not wealthy, but are white and male, you might be less oppressed than other people. It's important to understand this. It's also important to explore not only how economic exploitation happens, but also how gender or racial exploitation happens.

Being willing to challenge your own thinking

Socialist blogs shouldn't be Bible blogs with Das Capital as the holy text. There are no thinkers or ideas that are beyond criticism. As a Socialist it is important to be open to different ideas and different people's opinion. Being a Socialist is about being constantly open to learning more about society.

Socialists and socialist ideas get attacked frequently online or in personal debates, so it can be easy to fall into a bunker mentality where everyone in the bunker is on your side and cannot be wrong. If someone disagrees with you, it doesn't make them a traitor to the cause.

Being accessible

Not everyone has read Das Capital or volumes of Gramsci’s writings. Not everyone is intimately familiar with the concept of worker alienation. Far left politics can be seem strange to people, as if we have our own language. A good Socialist blog should recognise that we all have different levels of technical or theoretical understanding. Socialism is for everyone and it should be accessible.

Many of the people I have met on the far left don't necessarily identify with theory or what is written in books. Their politics is something they feel and experience in their everyday lives. A lot of people who I have met don't haven't the technical language to explain the ideas behind what they feel, but that doesn't make them any less intelligent, thoughtful or compassionate a person and it doesn't make them any less of a Socialist.

That's what I think makes a good socialist blog. I'd be interested which blogs my readers would recommend that meets these requirements. Please post them below so that we can all find new, interesting reading material.

Red flag image used under public domain dedication.

Brexit must not distract us from poverty

At the beginning of 2017 it is clear that one issue will define the next 12 months of politics and probably a long time after that. Brexit: possibly the biggest and most complex undertaking in the history of this country. Certainly it is biggest task of government since the founding of the welfare state. It is important that we properly scrutinise the negotiations so that the government does not remove all protections for environmental and workers’ rights in their dash to take us out of the EU.

However, there are many other important issues that we must not lose sight of. While we are having a national conversation about Brexit, we have forgotten the rising level of poverty in Britain. Poverty has increased since the Tories came to power in 2010 and we cannot allow this new Tory government to wash its hands of its responsibility to the least fortunate in society. The left needs to fight to get tackling poverty higher up the agenda.

Most startling is the increase in child poverty. In the last year child poverty has risen by 200,000 children according to the latest official statistics. Frances Ryan wrote in the Guardian that: “this is the first increase in child poverty (when housing costs are included) since 2011-12." Rising child poverty is a damaging, and largely overlooked, indictment of our society.

Benefit cuts and low wage growth are behind the 3.9 million children now living in poverty. Two thirds of these children have family members in work, who are struggling to provide for their dependents because of low wages and the systematic cuts to the benefits that are a lifeline to those underemployed or in low paying jobs. The bedroom tax and other welfare reforms have hit the poorest the hardest. Cuts to housing benefit and working tax credit do not incentivise work as they are mainly claimed by those in work. They simply punish the poor for being poor. This was a political decision made by the previous Tory government. The welfare cuts of Iain Duncan Smith are directly to blame for rising child poverty. The government can do something about child poverty but it is choosing not to.

Homelessness has risen since David Cameron became Prime Minister. In 2015 in England 3,569 people slept rough on any one night according to official figures. 8,096 people slept rough in London during the 2015/16 financial year, a 6% rise on the previous year, and more than double the figure in 2009/10.

Homelessness is not just people sleeping on the streets. It is many people without a home living on friends or relatives’ sofas; it is many people with homes that are not fit for human habitation; it is many people in precarious housing situations. In the 2015/16 financial year in England, 114,790 households applied to their local authority for homelessness assistance - an 11 per cent increase on 2010/11. 57,750 households were accepted as homeless, a six per cent rise on 2014/15. All of these increases have occurred since the Tories came to power and since they started their program of welfare cuts. Research has shown that benefit cuts have led to an increase in homelessness.

Cameron's austerity program - enthusiastically supported by Theresa May - has taken a huge toll on the poorest members of society. We must not forget this. We must also not forget that the government has the power to do something about this tragedy and that it can help not hurt the least fortunate, it only lacks of the will to do so.

Just because Chancellor Philip Hammond has relaxed the deficit reduction goals does not mean he is spending more on welfare or being more generous to the poor. Hammond’s only consideration is making more money available to subsidised companies that threaten to leave the UK over Brexit. Hammond is most likely planning further cuts to public spending. Welfare, social care and other services the poorest rely on will be at the top of his list.

Remember that all this is a political choice. Leaving the single marketing to reduce immigration and thus encouraging business to leave the UK is a political choice. Bowing to pressure from large companies eager for subsidies and willing to strong-arm the government is also a political choice. So is cutting welfare or other services that the poorest members of society rely on. None of this is necessary.

Under the new government homelessness, child poverty and many other aspects of poverty will get worse. We cannot allow the Tories to get away with this. They have made child poverty and homelessness worse and they have the power to do something about it. They cannot claim to be decent, compassionate people whilst facilitating the impoverishment of huge numbers of their fellow human beings.

Another recession is still likely. The world economy has barely recovered from the last financial crisis and some areas of Britain have seen no improvement since 2008. Now we see the beginning of a fresh banking crisis brewing and Brexit makes a recession in Britain more likely. Child poverty and homelessness will get worse in a recession. Welfare and programs for the poor will be more important if the economy shrinks and they need to be expanded not cut. Under this new Tory government we are heading for harsher cuts and a worse economic climate, which will be directly the Tories’ and their Brexit policies’ fault. We cannot ignore this. We cannot allow them to get away with this.

Not only are we ignoring poverty and inequality because of Brexit, the government are likely to actively make these things worse because of Brexit. We must keep the government under pressure so that they do not throw our futures, environmental protection and workers’ rights under the bus to placate the howls of rage about immigration. We must also keep fighting for better welfare and more relief from poverty. The government created these problems and the government can solve them. We need to make it impossible to ignore these facts.

Cover image by Victoria Johnson and used under creative commons.