Are the Conservative-Lib Dem Spending Cuts in the UK Necessary?

[PoliticalNightmare]

What would be the socialist alternative to spending cuts in order to save a country in debt?

[Jolly Red Giant]

What would be the socialist alternative to spending cuts in order to save a country in debt?
put very simply - abolish capitalism.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

They aren't at all necessary. People keep coming at me with the con-dem rhetoric, but there was enough money in the bonuses handed out to bankers last year to actually cover this first wave of cuts. That's not to mention the wages of MPs, unelected lords, Trident, the war etc. The party will tell us that these cuts are necessary and that we must pay for the crisis, because they represent the business class. The same class that got us into this mess in the first place.

No, cuts aren't necessary.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I'll actually take the position that they are nessacary within the context of a capitalist economy.

Yes, of course, the rich will try and make the poor pay for their crisis, but with a country this deep in both personal and governmental, cuts will have to happen somewhere.

[ed miliband]

It's kind of a fruitless task talking about 'socialist alternatives' because 'socailist alternatives' would require a mass socialist movement which, y'know, we don't have. The Labour Party are being presented by some groups as the people who will rescue everyone from savage cuts, but if you actually listen to any Labour politicians they are only against cutting now and want to wait for a few months for the economy to grow. They'll be just as bloody savage when they want to be.

Also, saying 'abolish capitalism' or whatever is surely far too simplistic? When you debate these cuts with people they really aren't going to take you very seriously if that's the only thing you can offer.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

It's not a fruitless task at all. The poll-tax in Britain in the 80s initiated a huge wave of social action, during the 5 years of vicious spending cuts by this government we should expect and prepare for massive social action as well, and we should be there promoting socialist alternatives to the people who have been let down and disillusioned by their elected representatives. There is nothing else that we can or should be doing.

It's important for any socialist to point out alternatives, disregarding all of the main big-business parties. Or of course we could just sit at home, because we don't have a mass movement yet, thus going out and suggesting socialism as an alternative is a pointless endeavour (by your logic). I would disagree though and would say that we should be riding the waves of discontent that will be felt over the next years, under the banner of a socialist alternative.

I agree on your final point though. It is important to look at this objectively and deliver objective analysis rather than merely shouting "down with capitalism". No one will listen to that.

[Starport]

It's kind of a fruitless task talking about 'socialist alternatives' because 'socailist alternatives' would require a mass socialist movement which, y'know, we don't have. The Labour Party are being presented by some groups as the people who will rescue everyone from savage cuts, but if you actually listen to any Labour politicians they are only against cutting now and want to wait for a few months for the economy to grow. They'll be just as bloody savage when they want to be.

Also, saying 'abolish capitalism' or whatever is surely far too simplistic? When you debate these cuts with people they really aren't going to take you very seriously if that's the only thing you can offer.

Of course people aren’t going to take you very seriously if you don’t really believe that “abolishing capitalism” is the best outcome or that it is too simplistic.

What other "alternatives" are there?

[ed miliband]

You honestly think simply saying to people 'well, we have to abolish capitalism...' is a suitable answer to a question regarding immediate cuts? It's obviously important to stress the fact that such cuts are only necessary within the context of capitalism, but most people tend to want tangible answers that can be applied to the here and now: 'abolish capitalism' is not one such answer. If you're talking to a bunch of comrades it's suitable, but not if you're trying to convince people you actually know what you're talking about.

[Lulznet]

put very simply - abolish capitalism.
And put a workers controlled economy in place.

Don't forget that part. :)

[Starport]

You honestly think simply saying to people 'well, we have to abolish capitalism...' is a suitable answer to a question regarding immediate cuts? It's obviously important to stress the fact that such cuts are only necessary within the context of capitalism, but most people tend to want tangible answers that can be applied to the here and now: 'abolish capitalism' is not one such answer. If you're talking to a bunch of comrades it's suitable, but not if you're trying to convince people you actually know what you're talking about.

Ha the classic position of the 'lefts'. Say all kinds of revolutionist gibberish to each other but don't say revolution to the working class they might want you to get on with it.

There are no "tangible answers" within capitalism and pretending that there are is just misleading workers.

[ed miliband]

What? I think you've misunderstood me: the working class deserve far better than simply 'abolish capitalism'.

[Starport]

What? I think you've misunderstood me: the working class deserve far better than simply 'abolish capitalism'.

Go on then what?

[ed miliband]

Not to be fed fairly meaningless phrases like 'abolish capitalism' for one.

Surely when you've said 'abolish capitalism' (presuming you have; I have, many times) you get a whole host of questions about it's feasability, how that would be done, what to replace it with, etc. I'm not saying it's a stupid answer to questions, just that it's too simplistic for most people. That's why I said it's okay with some comrades - if you are talking with likeminded people it's fine to be simplistic - but if you are talking to a group of people unfamiliar with Marx (for example) you have to convince them you know what you are talking about.

I'm not saying 'abolish capitalism' is too revolutionary or whatever, just that I don't think it's very convinving.

[Starport]

Not to be fed fairly meaningless phrases like 'abolish capitalism' for one.

Surely when you've said 'abolish capitalism' (presuming you have; I have, many times) you get a whole host of questions about it's feasability, how that would be done, what to replace it with, etc. I'm not saying it's a stupid answer to questions, just that it's too simplistic for most people. That's why I said it's okay with some comrades - if you are talking with likeminded people it's fine to be simplistic - but if you are talking to a group of people unfamiliar with Marx (for example) you have to convince them you know what you are talking about.

I'm not saying 'abolish capitalism' is too revolutionary or whatever, just that I don't think it's very convinving.
Of course you are going to be asked "a whole host of questions" that's why its so important the start the discussion about abolishing capitalism. Why would you want to start a debate by saying 'stop the cuts', 'stop the war', 'make the bosses pay' etc,. What use have those "alternatives" and "solutions" been?

If you aren't very convincing about ending capitalism then work on that, don't change the revolutionary agenda just because you cant be as persuasive as wan't to be yet .

Has it not accrued to you that if you really understand the need for revolution, your refusal to explain it is at best patronising and at worst lying hypocricy.

[Boboulas]

What use have those "alternatives" and "solutions" been?

If they had ever been taken seriously then they would have been of great use to the people. You almost make it sound like we shouldnt bother saying 'stop the cuts', 'stop the war', 'make the bosses pay' when thats exactly what we need to be saying if we want to make any kind of change in britian, its a place to start.

People will outright ignore you when the only answer you can come up with is "abolish capitalism".

[Charles Xavier]

Nationalizing profitable industries can boost government revenues as well.

[The Red Next Door]

No, What would be necessary is cutting spending on the rich and these fucking politicians and given to the people who are the victims of their mess.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Of course you are going to be asked "a whole host of questions" that's why its so important the start the discussion about abolishing capitalism. Why would you want to start a debate by saying 'stop the cuts', 'stop the war', 'make the bosses pay' etc,. What use have those "alternatives" and "solutions" been?

If you aren't very convincing about ending capitalism then work on that, don't change the revolutionary agenda just because you cant be as persuasive as wan't to be yet .

Has it not accrued to you that if you really understand the need for revolution, your refusal to explain it is at best patronising and at worst lying hypocricy.
I don't think you understand the point. The point is not to lie to workers and deny our revolutionary standing point, no one is saying that. You need to think about it from a class perspective; who is going to listen if you stand outside a place of work shouting "down with capitalism!"? No one, that's who.

I have never read a book that was revolutionary that says no more than "abolish capitalism"; all of the best critiques of capitalism contain a huge analysis, hundreds of pages of examples and evidence that backs up the analysis. Not one revolutionary that is of any worth simply says down with capitalism without some kind of analysis behind the thought. The revolution will not come because some angry leftists stand around shouting for the end of capitalism. Take into consideration the fact that many workers have had their perception of what socialism actually is distorted, with thanks to the bourgeoisie media and the bourgeoisie in general.

Talk to workers, discuss alternatives, explain socialism - that is the way.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well, if the question is how do we end all the semi-regular busts of the capitalist economy, then the answer is that we can't within the system and so revolution and worker's power are the answer.

But that's not the question, the question is what should we say should be done right now as opposed to the propaganda we are getting from the world-wide bourgeoisie on how to deal with the crisis?

Within the context of either near-term ways that the Ruling class could alleviate this problem, the most obvious is to raise taxes on big business under a "tax the rich" slogan.

Essentially the cuts are the ruling class's way to make the working class pay for as much of the crisis as possible (by cutting wages and services). The other ideological part of the cuts is the idea that if working class wages go down enough in the US and Europe, it will "stimulate the market to invest in more production and the now cheaper labor). Of course since this is a world-wide capitalist slump, lowering wages in one country only produces a "race to the bottom".

Since the ruling class has come to a consensus that the "shock doctrine" neo-liberal approach to the crisis is what's needed rather than a Keynesian (in theory: government spending to create jobs and infrastructure that will help the capitalists later when the economy recovers) approach, really the only way the governments of the US, EU, China, Japan, and most of Latin America will not chase a "pauper the working class to pay for the ruling class' gambling habit" is if the pressure from below is too powerful to deny.

You know how in the Communist Manifesto, Marx said that class struggle was sometimes hidden, but sometimes right on the surface. We are now in one of the more "surface" phases of the class war. They are going to tell us we have to suffer (they usually call it something like "shared sacrifice") in order for the crisis to be "fixed". So the question is, will the working class fight back - score so far: US=not so far... EU=more than in the US, particularly with Greece... China=promising with the strikes that have been happening.

For a better explanation than I can give on the ruling class strategy for "fixing" the crisis:

Socialist Worker: The return of austerity (http://socialistworker.org/2010/06/17/the-return-of-austerity)

[Dimentio]

The most relevant question is why bonuses, social welfare to the nobility and the salaries of politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen always must be of greater importance than functions which the people have come to depend upon in planning for their daily life? When cuts are initiated, they are almost exclusively targeted against the weakest groups, namely the poor, immigrants, the mentally ill, etc...

[Jimmie Higgins]

The most relevant question is why bonuses, social welfare to the nobility and the salaries of politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen always must be of greater importance than functions which the people have come to depend upon in planning for their daily life? When cuts are initiated, they are almost exclusively targeted against the weakest groups, namely the poor, immigrants, the mentally ill, etc...Right. In California, there is a multi-billion dollar debt and what kinds of things are they cutting first? School lunch programs for low-income kids, and ending visitation days for prisoners... yeah, I'm sure the $300,000 they just saved by kicking the poor in the crotch is really going to "fix" the budget crisis.

But while they raised school tuition and fired teachers... they also approved a multi-million dollar new death penalty chamber.:mad:

These are their priorities.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Some interesting points in this thread. What made me think about this initially was the fact that CEO of BP's own salary is not sufficient to fix the oil spill in the US, nor the salries combined of those at the top of BP, but it will require money from all of the shareholds in the company (which would also affect pension funds, once again affecting the ordinary working class).

This made me wonder whether it would be enough to take away the bonuses from the bankers, MP's expenses/wages, etc. I mean, there have (at least), been reforms made to the MP's expenses but this doesn't seem to have softened up our country's deficit (which I have heard is close to £1 trillion) very much. And so, the conservatives continue to insist that 'tough decisions need to be made', along with the heads of the lib dems (who I used to believe in as a 'left wing' party before I became more educated about political ideologies) who also clearly have no spine or conviction in their beliefs otherwise they would have all resigned from the cabinet (but no, as always its all about holding positions of power).


In California, there is a multi-billion dollar debt and what kinds of things are they cutting first? School lunch programs for low-income kids, and ending visitation days for prisoners... yeah, I'm sure the $300,000 they just saved by kicking the poor in the crotch is really going to "fix" the budget crisis. But while they raised school tuition and fired teachers... they also approved a multi-million dollar new death penalty chamber.

That's disgusting, and I would still find it absolutely obscene even if I didn't object to capital punishment.


Take into consideration the fact that many workers have had their perception of what socialism actually is distorted, with thanks to the bourgeoisie media and the bourgeoisie in general.


What we need is a good newspaper that has a page 3 with a topless model but one that advocates socialist philosophies in their simplest versions :D (oh, and without ever actually mentioning the word 'socialism' -that word has become taboo).

[lombas]

Introduction to Economy at uni taught me governments are supposed to spend during recessions and save during peaks.

Ta-daa.

[Slavoj Zizzle]

Of course the real answer is abolish capitalism. If you want to give someone a lesser answer for some reason :confused: then you could say make the government's economic decisions more democratic. Working people paid the salaries of the corrupt businesses without having a say in the matter, and that is straight immoral. What you have to remember is that the media at the time and so called "economists" constantly screamed about the imminent collapse of the economy and how the bailouts were absolutely necessary. This is bullshit of course and anyone who trusts the corporate backed media and government to tell them the truth hopefully knows better. If people actually knew what was in the bailouts and has some democratic control, there is no way such straight up theft from the working class would have passed.

[rednordman]

Like others who have posted here, i believe that all these cuts are in essence, is just a way of allowing wealthy people to continue to live comfortable lives, while we pay for it. That is how this capitalist economy works, and is how any capitalist economy has ever worked in history. No matter what, so long as the rich are ok, than everyone could die as far as anyone else are concerned. I think that within the framework of things (the capitalist economy), there isnt any option than to make cuts, the real debate is deciding who should foot the bill, and why is it ALWAYS us?...

[Lyev]

Why public sector cuts are not inevitable
The Tories claim that massive cuts are necessary because of New Labour's excessive public spending on services and welfare. This is a giant con trick, which every capitalist party - including New Labour - is colluding in. Nothing could be further from the truth. Under New Labour, as under the Tories before them, public spending on measures that decrease poverty has fallen back and as a result inequality and - for much of New Labour's tenure - poverty, have increased.

High quality council housing, unemployment benefit or a pension that is possible to live on - these are now distant memories. Jobseekers Allowance, at £64.30 a week, is equal to just 10% of average gross earnings compared to 17% when Thatcher was in power. It is the lowest in the developed world. Even in sectors where public spending has increased, such as health, it has not been enough and has been linked to increased privatisation.

When New Labour was elected in 1997 total public spending had fallen to 37.7% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), its lowest level since the 1960s. New Labour kept it at this level for its first two years in power. By 2008 it had increased marginally to around 41%, although this remained extremely low compared with other major European countries such as Germany, and particularly France where it was still 53%.

Since then, in Britain it has jumped again to 45% (still low, this is the same level as in 1985 - when the Tories had been in power for six years!). However, the jump has nothing to do with increased spending on public services - and everything to do with the bailout of the banks. The Treasury spent £109.5 billion on the banking system in 2008/09 - an increase of 49,891% on the previous year! This vast sum of money was slightly more than the entire spending on health for the year.

Similar sums were spent bailing out banks by capitalist governments around the world, regardless of their political stripe. In the US even George Bush's ultra-neoliberal government spent a fortune propping up the banking system. If the Tories had been in power in the autumn of 2008 when the banking system was within 48 hours of total meltdown, they would have taken fundamentally the same measures as New Labour did.

The current crisis is not caused by New Labour's profligacy but by the worst crisis of capitalism in seventy years. This is a crisis of the private not the public sector. It is more fundamental than simply being the responsibility of a few greedy bankers. The severity of the economic crisis that began in 2008 is a consequence of the increasingly parasitic nature of capitalism over decades. Capitalism has always been a system based on the exploitation of the majority - the working class - for the profits of a small minority at the top.

There was a period of economic growth from around 1950 to 1973 when at least in the more economically developed countries, including Britain, working class people were able to win a few crumbs from the capitalists' table. In Britain the NHS and a mass council house building programme made a real improvement in workers' lives.
However, when capitalism went into crisis, it set about restoring its profits by driving down the share of the wealth taken by the working class. Production was moved abroad to countries with cheaper labour, wages were driven down, and spending on public services was cut back. The consequence of this was that by 2007 in the G7 countries the share of total income taken by the working class (wages plus benefits) had fallen to a post-war low of 53%.

During the last boom, profits reached an all-time record. However, the capitalists had difficulty finding profitable fields to invest in. Investment in science, technique and production remained at an historic low. Why? Because working class people lacked the means to buy the goods that could potentially be produced. This is the terrible reality of capitalism. It didn't matter that two billion people are without the basic necessities of life - they are not a 'market' because they lack the money to buy what is produced.

Gambling
Instead of investing in industry, much of the capitalist class made their profits in the last boom by gambling on the world's stock markets in a speculative frenzy. To try to increase their markets they gave us not crumbs from the table but bubbles - the working class got its own little share in the credit frenzy through cheap credit cards and mortgages. But when the bubbles burst, much of the bankers' debts were nationalised - handed to us to pay off via cuts in our public services, while our debts - the £1.5 trillion consumer debt overhang from the boom - remain like millstones round our necks.

Socialists argue that the rich should be the ones who pay for the crisis, via dramatically increased taxes for the super rich and the big corporations. For most of the 1970s the tax rate for the highest band of income was 83%. Likewise for most of the 1970s, big corporations paid 52% of their profits in tax, but that percentage has been reduced step-by-step ever since, to now being just 28%. Also, as the civil service union PCS points out, even with the existing low levels of taxation for the rich, more than £120 billion goes uncollected every year.

But while we favour taxing the rich, we also recognise that the 'markets' - the big corporations or the bond traders who are holding whole countries to ransom - will never meekly accept dramatically increased regulation and taxation.

Alternative
So what is the alternative to this market madness? The starting point is to refuse to accept the cuts. Faced with a determined working class, big business will be forced to retreat. However, in its relentless pursuit of profit, capitalism would then come back with other ways of making the working class pay for the crisis, for example by using inflation. That is one of the reasons why we need a socialist solution. For a start we call for the nationalisation of the big banking and finance companies. Compensation should be paid on the basis of proven need - without one penny going to the rich speculators who bear much responsibility for the crisis.
It would then be necessary to introduce a state monopoly on foreign trade, so that it would be a democratically elected government rather than the market that controls imports and exports, including capital.

A socialist, nationalised banking sector would be democratically run by representatives of banking workers and trade unions, the wider working class, as well as the government. Decisions would be made to meet the needs of the majority, for example offering cheap loans and mortgages for housing and for the planned development of industry and services, and ending repossessions of people's homes.

However, that would only be the start. Capitalism has led to enormous economic and environmental destruction. In Britain around 10% of wealth has already been lost as a result of the recession, due to factories and workplaces closing, resulting in over 2.5 million - and rising - unemployed. Nor is there any foreseeable prospect of a return to healthy growth.

Nationalisation
That is why a crucial step towards solving the economic crisis and developing society on a sound basis would be to take the big corporations that dominate Britain's economy into democratic public ownership. This would then allow production to be planned for need and not for profit. Even some of the representatives of capitalism have inadvertently recognised that this is the only way to solve the crisis.

Alan Greenspan, head of the US federal reserve during the boom years - once treated as a god by capitalism and now reviled as being responsible for the crisis - recently excused his role in the crisis by saying: "Unless there is a societal choice to abandon dynamic markets and leverage for some sort of central planning, I fear that preventing bubbles will in the end turn out to be unfeasible. Assuaging their aftermath seems to be the best we can hope for".

In the coming years, on the basis of their experience of capitalism, millions of workers will draw the same conclusion as Greenspan. 'Central planning' in Britain - in the sense of a democratically planned economy - would mean that building workers, for example, could be put to work building and refurbishing high quality, environmentally friendly, affordable social housing for the five million people who want it.

Huge resources could be put into the development of environmentally friendly technologies. The working week could be cut, without loss of pay. This measure, combined with an expansion of public services, could quickly eliminate unemployment. All of these, and much more, would be possible on the basis of a democratic socialist plan of production.

Of course, capitalism is an international system, and any alternative could not stop at the shores of Britain. However, if a democratically elected socialist government in any country was to begin to implement the kind of programme outlined here it would act as an enormous inspiration to workers in the rest of the world struggling against capitalism's devastation of their living standards. The ideas of genuine democratic socialism would spread like wildfire.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Why public sector cuts are not inevitable
...


Ah...you got this from the Socialist Party UK website, didn't you.

[Lyev]

Ah...you got this from the Socialist Party UK website, didn't you.Well, yeah I'm part of the organisation and I get the paper. Our coverage on defending the public-sector, anti-cuts campaigns etc. is pretty regular and consistent, but then again, every other far-left organisation in the UK will probably have some decent analysis of the whole situation.

[Starport]

I don't think you understand the point. The point is not to lie to workers and deny our revolutionary standing point, no one is saying that.

That is exactly what you are saying. Why won’t you rrrrrr-revolutionarise stutter the same things to workers outside your meetings as you say inside your meetings then? Oh ye I get it now, blame the workers for not having an advanced “class perspective” but make sure that they don’t here R word, it might give them ideas that you can’t control.


You need to think about it from a class perspective; who is going to listen if you stand outside a place of work shouting "down with capitalism!"? No one, that's who.

Well not you for a start, that’s for sure. You would be too busy telling workers what you think their “class perspectives” are, and patronisingly discussing “alternatives” and “socialism”. Please tell us what these “alternatives” actually are when you get a minute and how you are going to get from the cuts and redundancies and war devastation to “socialism” without mentioning the necessity of the total defeat and wiping out of capitalism for all time by a working class revolution which needs to get going as soon as possible to prevent even more crippling attacks (economic and military) on the working class internationally. Go on tell us at what point in your brilliant plan you are going to catch up with the increasingly popular “down with capitalism” sentiment now being expressed in many “places of work”, (as you put it) homes, pubs, sporting events etc,. Your role appears to be to prevent this growing contempt for the easily visible, easily felt rotten nature of the entire, violent, stupid and corrupt capitalist racket by steering discussion away from the only “alternative” to bankrupt system, that is, smashing capitalist states and building workers states.


Take into consideration the fact that many workers have had their perception of what socialism actually is distorted, with thanks to the bourgeoisie media and the bourgeoisie in general.

So you are just going to go along with this bourgeoisie media and the bourgeoisie propaganda in the working class without challenging it?


Talk to workers, discuss alternatives, explain socialism - that is the way.

OK then:
Friends comrades. I have been challenged to say a few words about alternatives to capitalism and explain socialism. I know that you all know a great deal about capitalism and socialism already and you have your own opinions on this capitalist crisis, its affects and possible solutions. My view in contribution to the debate is that there is only one solution to the constant capitalist crisis with its unending chaos and wars, and that is the complete destruction of capitalism by the revolutionary working class here in Britain and internationally. This is what will need to happen in order to begin the building of socialist states everywhere. The other various “alternatives” that are being proposed such as “MAKE THE BOSSES PAY” and “STOP THE WAR” are impossible unless the working class first has the power to make them happen by imposing a workers state on the capitalist class to defeat them. Without this only solution there will literally be no end to the misery and bloodshed and on an unimaginably vaster scale than anything in history.
Thanks for your attention. I’d be very happy to discuss any of this if anyone has any points or questions.

[Starport]

Why public sector cuts are not inevitable
The Tories claim that massive cuts are necessary because of New Labour's excessive public spending on services and welfare. This is a giant con trick, which every capitalist party - including New Labour - is colluding in. Nothing could be further from the truth. Under New Labour, as under the Tories before them, public spending on measures that decrease poverty has fallen back and as a result inequality and - for much of New Labour's tenure - poverty, have increased.

High quality council housing, unemployment benefit or a pension that is possible to live on - these are now distant memories. Jobseekers Allowance, at £64.30 a week, is equal to just 10% of average gross earnings compared to 17% when Thatcher was in power. It is the lowest in the developed world. Even in sectors where public spending has increased, such as health, it has not been enough and has been linked to increased privatisation.

When New Labour was elected in 1997 total public spending had fallen to 37.7% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), its lowest level since the 1960s. New Labour kept it at this level for its first two years in power. By 2008 it had increased marginally to around 41%, although this remained extremely low compared with other major European countries such as Germany, and particularly France where it was still 53%.

Since then, in Britain it has jumped again to 45% (still low, this is the same level as in 1985 - when the Tories had been in power for six years!). However, the jump has nothing to do with increased spending on public services - and everything to do with the bailout of the banks. The Treasury spent £109.5 billion on the banking system in 2008/09 - an increase of 49,891% on the previous year! This vast sum of money was slightly more than the entire spending on health for the year.

Similar sums were spent bailing out banks by capitalist governments around the world, regardless of their political stripe. In the US even George Bush's ultra-neoliberal government spent a fortune propping up the banking system. If the Tories had been in power in the autumn of 2008 when the banking system was within 48 hours of total meltdown, they would have taken fundamentally the same measures as New Labour did.

The current crisis is not caused by New Labour's profligacy but by the worst crisis of capitalism in seventy years. This is a crisis of the private not the public sector. It is more fundamental than simply being the responsibility of a few greedy bankers. The severity of the economic crisis that began in 2008 is a consequence of the increasingly parasitic nature of capitalism over decades. Capitalism has always been a system based on the exploitation of the majority - the working class - for the profits of a small minority at the top.

There was a period of economic growth from around 1950 to 1973 when at least in the more economically developed countries, including Britain, working class people were able to win a few crumbs from the capitalists' table. In Britain the NHS and a mass council house building programme made a real improvement in workers' lives.
However, when capitalism went into crisis, it set about restoring its profits by driving down the share of the wealth taken by the working class. Production was moved abroad to countries with cheaper labour, wages were driven down, and spending on public services was cut back. The consequence of this was that by 2007 in the G7 countries the share of total income taken by the working class (wages plus benefits) had fallen to a post-war low of 53%.

During the last boom, profits reached an all-time record. However, the capitalists had difficulty finding profitable fields to invest in. Investment in science, technique and production remained at an historic low. Why? Because working class people lacked the means to buy the goods that could potentially be produced. This is the terrible reality of capitalism. It didn't matter that two billion people are without the basic necessities of life - they are not a 'market' because they lack the money to buy what is produced.

Gambling
Instead of investing in industry, much of the capitalist class made their profits in the last boom by gambling on the world's stock markets in a speculative frenzy. To try to increase their markets they gave us not crumbs from the table but bubbles - the working class got its own little share in the credit frenzy through cheap credit cards and mortgages. But when the bubbles burst, much of the bankers' debts were nationalised - handed to us to pay off via cuts in our public services, while our debts - the £1.5 trillion consumer debt overhang from the boom - remain like millstones round our necks.

Socialists argue that the rich should be the ones who pay for the crisis, via dramatically increased taxes for the super rich and the big corporations. For most of the 1970s the tax rate for the highest band of income was 83%. Likewise for most of the 1970s, big corporations paid 52% of their profits in tax, but that percentage has been reduced step-by-step ever since, to now being just 28%. Also, as the civil service union PCS points out, even with the existing low levels of taxation for the rich, more than £120 billion goes uncollected every year.

But while we favour taxing the rich, we also recognise that the 'markets' - the big corporations or the bond traders who are holding whole countries to ransom - will never meekly accept dramatically increased regulation and taxation.

Alternative
So what is the alternative to this market madness? The starting point is to refuse to accept the cuts. Faced with a determined working class, big business will be forced to retreat. However, in its relentless pursuit of profit, capitalism would then come back with other ways of making the working class pay for the crisis, for example by using inflation. That is one of the reasons why we need a socialist solution. For a start we call for the nationalisation of the big banking and finance companies. Compensation should be paid on the basis of proven need - without one penny going to the rich speculators who bear much responsibility for the crisis.
It would then be necessary to introduce a state monopoly on foreign trade, so that it would be a democratically elected government rather than the market that controls imports and exports, including capital.

A socialist, nationalised banking sector would be democratically run by representatives of banking workers and trade unions, the wider working class, as well as the government. Decisions would be made to meet the needs of the majority, for example offering cheap loans and mortgages for housing and for the planned development of industry and services, and ending repossessions of people's homes.

However, that would only be the start. Capitalism has led to enormous economic and environmental destruction. In Britain around 10% of wealth has already been lost as a result of the recession, due to factories and workplaces closing, resulting in over 2.5 million - and rising - unemployed. Nor is there any foreseeable prospect of a return to healthy growth.

Nationalisation
That is why a crucial step towards solving the economic crisis and developing society on a sound basis would be to take the big corporations that dominate Britain's economy into democratic public ownership. This would then allow production to be planned for need and not for profit. Even some of the representatives of capitalism have inadvertently recognised that this is the only way to solve the crisis.

Alan Greenspan, head of the US federal reserve during the boom years - once treated as a god by capitalism and now reviled as being responsible for the crisis - recently excused his role in the crisis by saying: "Unless there is a societal choice to abandon dynamic markets and leverage for some sort of central planning, I fear that preventing bubbles will in the end turn out to be unfeasible. Assuaging their aftermath seems to be the best we can hope for".

In the coming years, on the basis of their experience of capitalism, millions of workers will draw the same conclusion as Greenspan. 'Central planning' in Britain - in the sense of a democratically planned economy - would mean that building workers, for example, could be put to work building and refurbishing high quality, environmentally friendly, affordable social housing for the five million people who want it.

Huge resources could be put into the development of environmentally friendly technologies. The working week could be cut, without loss of pay. This measure, combined with an expansion of public services, could quickly eliminate unemployment. All of these, and much more, would be possible on the basis of a democratic socialist plan of production.

Of course, capitalism is an international system, and any alternative could not stop at the shores of Britain. However, if a democratically elected socialist government in any country was to begin to implement the kind of programme outlined here it would act as an enormous inspiration to workers in the rest of the world struggling against capitalism's devastation of their living standards. The ideas of genuine democratic socialism would spread like wildfire.

What a load of reformist pie in the sky drivel.

[vyborg]

I'm not going to explain in detail why the "cuts" are not necessary. there are plenty of article on the net about it.

I woud only like to point out that the UK government saved the bank using more or less 100 billions pound. and now they state they have no money left? it is simply ridicolous

[Lyev]

What a load of reformist pie in the sky drivel.Comrade! Thanks for such a thorough and cogent analysis! I tell you what, I am going to quit the CWI straight away, because you have just informed (and rather intelligently so) that they're reformist. I better get the fuck out of the organisation. I feel ridiculous for the error in my ways, thanks for putting me on the right course. But where exactly does your qualm actually lie? The brevity of your post isn't really conducive to a substantial debate. Maybe if you would like to elaborate on why you think the article is reformist, then we can get talking. I would like to point out though, merely calling for nationalisation isn't reformist. Yes, it is a reform, but it also not an end, it is a means. As someone pointed out a minute ago in this thread, "nationalizing profitable industries can boost government revenues as well", and it is generally more conducive to a more equitable distribution of resources, at least next to deregulation of an industry. Having said this, this is all of course done within the confines of capitalism; it's clear we're not reformist. The Bolsheviks actually called for nationalisation of all landed estates and banks in 1917. I don't think they were reformists... but anyway, I'm not sure that that was exactly what you were picking up on. Would you like to actually type something substantial? Thanks.

[Matty_UK]

Nationalizing profitable industries can boost government revenues as well.

I think this is the most direct response to the OP's question. Demanding the nationalisation of certain industries as an alternative to public sector cuts would be a good, tangible start to a left-orientated political movement.

[pdcrofts]

I think this is the most direct response to the OP's question. Demanding the nationalisation of certain industries as an alternative to public sector cuts would be a good, tangible start to a left-orientated political movement.

Trying to continue on that note, how about an immediate cut to defence spending as another tangible starting point? Bin the Trident renewal, Joint Strike Fighter programme and the new aircraft carriers.

[Lyev]

Trying to continue on that note, how about an immediate cut to defence spending as another tangible starting point? Bin the Trident renewal, Joint Strike Fighter programme and the new aircraft carriers.And there's the £12 billion* that's been spent in Afghanistan, not sure of the amount for Iraq. Probably similarly astronomical.

*think that amount is right.

[Starport]

Comrade! Thanks for such a thorough and cogent analysis! I tell you what, I am going to quit the CWI straight away, because you have just informed (and rather intelligently so) that they're reformist. I better get the fuck out of the organisation. I feel ridiculous for the error in my ways, thanks for putting me on the right course. But where exactly does your qualm actually lie? The brevity of your post isn't really conducive to a substantial debate. Maybe if you would like to elaborate on why you think the article is reformist, then we can get talking. I would like to point out though, merely calling for nationalisation isn't reformist. Yes, it is a reform, but it also not an end, it is a means. As someone pointed out a minute ago in this thread, "nationalizing profitable industries can boost government revenues as well", and it is generally more conducive to a more equitable distribution of resources, at least next to deregulation of an industry. Having said this, this is all of course done within the confines of capitalism; it's clear we're not reformist. The Bolsheviks actually called for nationalisation of all landed estates and banks in 1917. I don't think they were reformists... but anyway, I'm not sure that that was exactly what you were picking up on. Would you like to actually type something substantial? Thanks.

100% reformists drivel from start to finish and slimy “environmentally friendly” and “affordable” parliamentary opportunist drivel at that. Not a revolutionary manifesto but a sly application to the ruling class for the privilege of misleading workers into parliamentary never, never land.

Capitalist state agents will be quaking in their boots- laughing at the Ealing Comedy fantasy presentation of what ‘Oh my god’ the bankers will cry, the Socialist Party wants to “dramatically increase taxes to make the rich pay and return to healthy growth on a sound basis”. “Dramatic” indeed, a pantomime of a revolutionary program in fact.

There is not one word here about the corrupt counter revolutionary essence of the ‘democratic’ parliamentary racket itself, (with its armed state thugs, spies, prisons, and mind bending propaganda TV and press ) which the ruling class has just spent untold sums attempting to give credibility to, because of working class’s contempt and correct growing refusal to sanction the festering garbage by refusing to vote for it.

“But while we favour taxing the rich, we also recognise that the 'markets' - the big corporations or the bond traders who are holding whole countries to ransom - will never meekly accept dramatically increased regulation and taxation.”

But the “Socialists argue dramatically”, we have an “Alternative”.
Waaaaaaaaaaite for it –
“refuse to accept the cuts” and “nationalisation of the big banking and finance companies” and then quote Alan Greenspan the former ‘Greedy Bag in Chief’ of US imperialism for justification for this cringing fake left economism.

As I said its reformist drivel.

[The Guy]

In summary: no.

[Starport]

In summary: no.

I'm not clear what your meaning is. Is that no, it's not reformist drivel or no, it is reformist drivel.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

That is exactly what you are saying. Why won’t you rrrrrr-revolutionarise stutter the same things to workers outside your meetings as you say inside your meetings then? Oh ye I get it now, blame the workers for not having an advanced “class perspective” but make sure that they don’t here R word, it might give them ideas that you can’t control.



Well not you for a start, that’s for sure. You would be too busy telling workers what you think their “class perspectives” are, and patronisingly discussing “alternatives” and “socialism”. Please tell us what these “alternatives” actually are when you get a minute and how you are going to get from the cuts and redundancies and war devastation to “socialism” without mentioning the necessity of the total defeat and wiping out of capitalism for all time by a working class revolution which needs to get going as soon as possible to prevent even more crippling attacks (economic and military) on the working class internationally. Go on tell us at what point in your brilliant plan you are going to catch up with the increasingly popular “down with capitalism” sentiment now being expressed in many “places of work”, (as you put it) homes, pubs, sporting events etc,. Your role appears to be to prevent this growing contempt for the easily visible, easily felt rotten nature of the entire, violent, stupid and corrupt capitalist racket by steering discussion away from the only “alternative” to bankrupt system, that is, smashing capitalist states and building workers states.



So you are just going to go along with this bourgeoisie media and the bourgeoisie propaganda in the working class without challenging it?



OK then:
Friends comrades. I have been challenged to say a few words about alternatives to capitalism and explain socialism. I know that you all know a great deal about capitalism and socialism already and you have your own opinions on this capitalist crisis, its affects and possible solutions. My view in contribution to the debate is that there is only one solution to the constant capitalist crisis with its unending chaos and wars, and that is the complete destruction of capitalism by the revolutionary working class here in Britain and internationally. This is what will need to happen in order to begin the building of socialist states everywhere. The other various “alternatives” that are being proposed such as “MAKE THE BOSSES PAY” and “STOP THE WAR” are impossible unless the working class first has the power to make them happen by imposing a workers state on the capitalist class to defeat them. Without this only solution there will literally be no end to the misery and bloodshed and on an unimaginably vaster scale than anything in history.
Thanks for your attention. I’d be very happy to discuss any of this if anyone has any points or questions.
You didn't understand my point at all. Are you active in politics? Do you speak to workers or students at all?

A socialist cannot mobilize the working class with a series of thoughtless slogans, but has to talk on a level with workers. We are not in a world that is on the literal brink of revolution, at least not where I am, so we have to discuss objectively with workers in our revolutionary campaign. Today I was speaking with students about the budget cuts in the UK, they were not clued up on socialism or even capitalism, but they felt contempt for their government and their objective conditions. For these reasons, it was important to discuss these conditions as part of trying to get them to draw their own socialist conclusions. Shouting "down with capitalism" would've done nothing but alienated these students, as it is not a context that they yet have a handle on. How are you meant to mobilize people (especially youth which is my main place of activity) unless you can speak to them at a level that they can fully understand? No one will listen if you stand around shouting "down with capitalism!"!

As for your final point; I wasn't asking you for your thoughts on what socialism is,I was summing up my thoughts on how a socialist deals with their work in mobilizing workers. For that reason, I didn't read your explanation.

[McCroskey]

The most relevant question is why bonuses, social welfare to the nobility and the salaries of politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen always must be of greater importance than functions which the people have come to depend upon in planning for their daily life? When cuts are initiated, they are almost exclusively targeted against the weakest groups, namely the poor, immigrants, the mentally ill, etc...

Because those functions and welfare services constitute a closed market. When social services are not provided by the state any more, they go to the private sector, thus creating opportunities of investment. Social security (the NHS) for example, would mean big business, because there is a constant and guaranteed demand, but capitalists cannot make any profit out of it as long as it´s free and provided by the state. They will slowly try to revert to the US private medicine system, where big money can be made. The same happens with public transport, education, etc. At the moment it´s closed to investment and is not profit-driven, so they will try, with the excuse of saving state money, to transfer it to the private sector.

In my opinion, the problem with Britain is that it lacks a consolidated leftist alternative. There are a miriad organisations working within their limited scopes, and there is a tendency of fighting among themselves for petty ideological positions and forgetting that, at the end of the day, we share a common goal. As I said in another thread, my opinion is that the capitalists are doing it pretty well: first they unite around a common goal, and only when they have achieved power, then they argue about more subtle matters, like method and technique. If people see these hundreds of small parties arguing about Stalin, the Spanish Civil War, dialectical materialism, etc, they perceive them as not being serious about the job, and they think of them in the same terms they think about mainstream politicians: more commited to their own party than to a credible alternative. Projects such as Izquierda Unida, in Spain, which unite the leftist forces, create opportunities to achieve representation and intervene in goverment, giving them a voice to spread their word and postulate political statements.
By stating "capitalism should be abolished", we are forgetting that the historical moment is the wrong one. There isn´t a mass conciousness of our role in the chain of production yet. If you tell a worker "abolish capitalism", they would reply, "oh well, and then what you do?". What do we do? Rebuild all the manufacturing and agriculture that has been destroyed in Britain in the past 30 years? The capitalists have sold and destroyed all that Britain once produced, so it relies now in the services sector and in investors basing here. If you abolish capitalism and scare those investors, the worker will then ask you "and how do we create work then? Where we get the money from to rebuild industry and plan the economy? We have to import most of the food and products, and we cannot start producing them again overnight...". In a nutshell, they will ask you about inmediate problems that threaten their existance and welfare.

Altenatives in this historical moment should focus on saving social services from transferring to the private sector, as they are trying to do with schools and as they will try to do with certain sections of the NHS. It also should involve a unification of all leftist, revolutionary, communities, unions, and social movements towards a common goal, producing a clear and straightfoward alternative that people would perceive as workable. If we limit ourselves to wear the badge of our own organisation and try to educate people, in the wrong historical moment, about their role in society, we won´t get really far. The indoctrination in the capitalist societies cannot be underestimated and cannot be "changed" in a few months. If we work for the working classes, we should listen to them.

[Starport]

You didn't understand my point at all. Are you active in politics? Do you speak to workers or students at all?

A socialist cannot mobilize the working class with a series of thoughtless slogans, but has to talk on a level with workers.


We are not in a world that is on the literal brink of revolution, at least not where I am, so we have to discuss objectively with workers in our revolutionary campaign. Today I was speaking with students about the budget cuts in the UK, they were not clued up on socialism or even capitalism, but they felt contempt for their government and their objective conditions. For these reasons, it was important to discuss these conditions as part of trying to get them to draw their own socialist conclusions. Shouting "down with capitalism" would've done nothing but alienated these students, as it is not a context that they yet have a handle on. How are you meant to mobilize people (especially youth which is my main place of activity) unless you can speak to them at a level that they can fully understand? No one will listen if you stand around shouting "down with capitalism!"!

As for your final point; I wasn't asking you for your thoughts on what socialism is,I was summing up my thoughts on how a socialist deals with their work in mobilizing workers. For that reason, I didn't read your explanation.

First off let’s get one thing clear at least. The only person in this discussion talking about shouting "down with capitalism!"! is you.

I’ve ignored this imaginary complaint of yours so far, but it seems to be clouding your thinking. Now where did you get that idea from? Have you seen anyone doing it? Have you heard about anyone doing it? And can you show anywhere in this discussion where anyone has said this is the thing to do? However if someone stood outside my workplace or anywhere else and shouted "down with capitalism!"! I for one would want to find out what such a worker or student was all about because they would certainly be the course of discussion among the people I work with.

But that’s not the point. The point of attempting to characterise anyone who says abolish capitalism as a nutcase is exactly what capitalist culture has banged into middle-class heads all their lives. Conjuring up images of a mindless zealot bent on self- destruction is what you and others here are doing, in line with your cultural training and whether it’s true or not.

What was said originally was: “Of course people aren’t going to take you very seriously if you don’t really believe that “abolishing capitalism” is the best outcome or that it is too simplistic.”


A socialist cannot mobilize the working class with a series of thoughtless slogans, but has to talk on a level with workers..

Two questions here?
1) What thoughtful slogans would you propose?
2) How do you know what level workers are on?


We are not in a world that is on the literal brink of revolution, at least not where I am, so we have to discuss objectively with workers in our revolutionary campaign.

The world I am in is the only one there is. It is the one where imperialism has been facing one economic crisis after another for decades and each one worse than the last. It is where U.S and British imperialism has been at war permanently since the last great economic depression of the 1930s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_operations

This same imperialist system now has to destroy the uncountable amounts of ‘overproduction’ (of every kind including capital and labor) and it will do that by stepping up its warmongering to. That’s what capitalism always dose but this time they have truly astronomical amounts to destroy with equally astronomical amounts of destructive power. And if you think we are “not on the literal brink of revolution” ? do you think we aught to be?

And that is why you and other lefts will not explain the necessity for revolution and ending capitalism in discussions with workers and students.

So exactly what are you telling yourselves and the working class?
You are refusing to accurately describe the world which is one of wars and revolutions – soon to be showing at a venue near you!

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

First off let’s get one thing clear at least. The only person in this discussion talking about shouting "down with capitalism!"! is you.

I’ve ignored this imaginary complaint of yours so far, but it seems to be clouding your thinking. Now where did you get that idea from? Have you seen anyone doing it? Have you heard about anyone doing it? And can you show anywhere in this discussion where anyone has said this is the thing to do? However if someone stood outside my workplace or anywhere else and shouted "down with capitalism!"! I for one would want to find out what such a worker or student was all about because they would certainly be the course of discussion among the people I work with.

This whole argument started because you disagreed with someone who said that shouting mindless slogans like "down with capitalism" was not productive. Some how you then got it in your head that people here are trying to appeal to workers etc without making reference to socialism of revolution, which no one has said.

But that’s not the point. The point of attempting to characterise anyone who says abolish capitalism as a nutcase is exactly what capitalist culture has banged into middle-class heads all their lives. Conjuring up images of a mindless zealot bent on self- destruction is what you and others here are doing, in line with your cultural training and whether it’s true or not.

This is nonsense, all that we said is that it is important to talk to workers and not putting ourselves at a low-level shouting "down with capitalism", because no one would listen. I don't understand where this argument is going as this was our initial qualm, now the argument has gone off track. Cultural training has nothing to do with it, I am a socialist, and I talk to workers and students to try and get into a proper discussion about socialism. All that we have said is that it is necessary to talk and explain things before going "hey mister worker, let us abolish capitalism! REVOLUTION!!1".

What was said originally was: “Of course people aren’t going to take you very seriously if you don’t really believe that “abolishing capitalism” is the best outcome or that it is too simplistic.”



Two questions here?
1) What thoughtful slogans would you propose?
2) How do you know what level workers are on?

1) I haven't said that I want to propose any slogans.
2) By talking to them.

The world I am in is the only one there is. It is the one where imperialism has been facing one economic crisis after another for decades and each one worse than the last. It is where U.S and British imperialism has been at war permanently since the last great economic depression of the 1930s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_operations

This same imperialist system now has to destroy the uncountable amounts of ‘overproduction’ (of every kind including capital and labor) and it will do that by stepping up its warmongering to. That’s what capitalism always dose but this time they have truly astronomical amounts to destroy with equally astronomical amounts of destructive power. And if you think we are “not on the literal brink of revolution” ? do you think we aught to be?

Yes we ought to be, but we are probably not because the working class has been put off of socialism and revolution due to media scares and the like. When the conditions are right, and workers take to the street, the revolution will decide what happens. But in the mean time, it is important to go into places of struggle and propose socialism in an analytical way.

And that is why you and other lefts will not explain the necessity for revolution and ending capitalism in discussions with workers and students.

Do you walk up to students or workers, many with no prior knowledge of socialism, and literally start a discussion with "a revolution is needed"? How far has that got you in mobilizing youth and workers?

So exactly what are you telling yourselves and the working class?
You are refusing to accurately describe the world which is one of wars and revolutions – soon to be showing at a venue near you!
We are not refusing to accurately describe the world - we are doing the opposite. We analyse and describe the world and try our best to educate and mobilize workers. We do not simply say "capitalism is bad, revolution now!". The conditions are not right for this kind of thoughtless behaviour, how many people do you see on the streets right now trying to overthrow capitalism? No where near as many as is needed (obviously), and that's because people need to be educated about socialism and revolution properly. Some of my comrades who do excellent work; it took them a long time to become revolutionized, because they associated the kind of revolution we talk about with Pol Pot etc etc. It took a lot of time of discussing with them the objective conditions that they live in, the inadequacies of capitalism, the science of Marxism and the prospect for revolution. You alienate many members of the revolutionary class by refusing to discuss and tear apart myths about socialism in the hope of mobilizing them. In Britain, we are in the beginning of the parliamentary term, workers are discussing the budget cuts - it is very important use these discussions as a platform for discussions about socialism and revolution. Bear in mind that many of these workers still have much faith in the parliamentary system and do not understand the need for revolution in the same way that we do. Many workers in Britain fell for the Conservative party as an illusion for change, are you catching my drift here?


Reply in bold.

[Starport]

Bear in mind that many of these workers still have much faith in the parliamentary system and do not understand the need for revolution in the same way that we do. Many workers in Britain fell for the Conservative party as an illusion for change, are you catching my drift here?

A tiny overall increase in turnout which pulled up the average does not change the picture, and if anything confirms it. Almost exclusively this was limited to the Tory counties and well-off suburbs and even there the vote rarely climbed over 70%.
Votes were clearly cast against New Labour rather than for anyone, excepting perhaps among a thin layer of the better-off petty bourgeois where class interest in maintaining the status quo via the “democracy” lie has been given a temporary boost.

But even such turnout increase is misleading and out of a context, since it misses the huge proportion of the population that has long since stopped bothering to register at all for the vote racket.
As always, it is part of the lie of “democracy” that the bourgeois media and government statistical information plays this down, not only failing to mention the overall voting figures but making it almost impossible to find out.
But something can be deduced. General population statistics give a figure for people of working age (over 16) as 62% of a 61 million population. So that is 37.82 million. Taking out the roughly two-fiftieths of that under 18 who can’t vote (say, 1.5 million) just over 36.3 million who would be able to vote if registered.

The total vote was 29,650,000. In other words, nearly 7 million people did not vote, about 19.2% of the population.

So the Tory vote is 36% of 80.7%, just 29% of the population, and mostly concentrated in the southern areas which benefit most from the parasitic finance and “service” industries of the City.

The long historic trend of the working class rejecting Labourism, and the parliamentary fraud, continues.

But it is still missing the crucial perspective and leadership, that which transform growing discontent into the coherent struggle to overturn capitalism and that is what you and your pals are not saying because you are pessimistic middle class who see workers as people to be patronised.

There is no other way forwards for mankind other than revolution.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

A tiny overall increase in turnout which pulled up the average does not change the picture, and if anything confirms it. Almost exclusively this was limited to the Tory counties and well-off suburbs and even there the vote rarely climbed over 70%.
Votes were clearly cast against New Labour rather than for anyone, excepting perhaps among a thin layer of the better-off petty bourgeois where class interest in maintaining the status quo via the “democracy” lie has been given a temporary boost.

But even such turnout increase is misleading and out of a context, since it misses the huge proportion of the population that has long since stopped bothering to register at all for the vote racket.
As always, it is part of the lie of “democracy” that the bourgeois media and government statistical information plays this down, not only failing to mention the overall voting figures but making it almost impossible to find out.
But something can be deduced. General population statistics give a figure for people of working age (over 16) as 62% of a 61 million population. So that is 37.82 million. Taking out the roughly two-fiftieths of that under 18 who can’t vote (say, 1.5 million) just over 36.3 million who would be able to vote if registered.

The total vote was 29,650,000. In other words, nearly 7 million people did not vote, about 19.2% of the population.

So the Tory vote is 36% of 80.7%, just 29% of the population, and mostly concentrated in the southern areas which benefit most from the parasitic finance and “service” industries of the City.

The long historic trend of the working class rejecting Labourism, and the parliamentary fraud, continues.

But it is still missing the crucial perspective and leadership, that which transform growing discontent into the coherent struggle to overturn capitalism and that is what you and your pals are not saying because you are pessimistic middle class who see workers as people to be patronised.

There is no other way forwards for mankind other than revolution.
I'd like to point out that my area had a high voting turnout and is all blue. Therefore, your statistics are meaningless to me. I'd also like to point out that I live in a very run-down area, proletarian and lumpen in urban areas and small isolated middle-class areas here and there. I'm insulted that you think that you have the right to refer to me and my "pals" as "middle-class"! We are very proud of the work that we do locally; it is a very difficult lifestyle choice, as a revolutionary in an area with an overwhelmingly backward and conservative voting base, even amongst the worst-off workers who have been laid off and all the rest of it. One of the biggest challenges we face is trying to appeal socialism to workers who believe that Thatcher was the greatest thing that happened to Britain, but our methods in getting involved in struggles and talking to workers are what will build a revolution, and this government represents a new wave of discontent towards parliamentary democracy, and our work will pay off. It's like the poll-tax situation.

You're an idiot, quite frankly. The only think that we can agree on is your final sentence - a revolution is needed. You should pull your head out of your arse and observe the conditions around you, rather than being a keyboard activist. Come and work in conservative heart land for the day, see how easy it is.

[Starport]

I'd like to point out that my area had a high voting turnout and is all blue. Therefore, your statistics are meaningless to me. I'd also like to point out that I live in a very run-down area, proletarian and lumpen in urban areas and small isolated middle-class areas here and there. I'm insulted that you think that you have the right to refer to me and my "pals" as "middle-class"! We are very proud of the work that we do locally; it is a very difficult lifestyle choice, as a revolutionary in an area with an overwhelmingly backward and conservative voting base, even amongst the worst-off workers who have been laid off and all the rest of it. One of the biggest challenges we face is trying to appeal socialism to workers who believe that Thatcher was the greatest thing that happened to Britain, but our methods in getting involved in struggles and talking to workers are what will build a revolution, and this government represents a new wave of discontent towards parliamentary democracy, and our work will pay off. It's like the poll-tax situation.

You're an idiot, quite frankly. The only think that we can agree on is your final sentence - a revolution is needed. You should pull your head out of your arse and observe the conditions around you, rather than being a keyboard activist. Come and work in conservative heart land for the day, see how easy it is.

Good luck to you and your "lifestyle choice".

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Yeah, giving up a majority of your time for socialist-activity is a lifestyle choice. Surely you would know that, seeing as you're more revolutionary than the rest of us!

[Starport]

Yeah, giving up a majority of your time for socialist-activity is a lifestyle choice. Surely you would know that, seeing as you're more revolutionary than the rest of us! Well that wouldn't be difficult now would it?

You still haven't said what it is you actually talk to workers about if it isn't about the need to urgently build a revolutionary party by saying that we need a revolutionary party to defeat capitalism and build workers states. And that this is the only solution to the capitalist attacks on wages, jobs, and social provision.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Yes I have. We clearly state the need for a new workers party, after using workers' concerns as a platform for discussions. One example would be the budget cuts; we discuss these cuts with the workers, discuss the main parties and the need for a new worker's party (http://www.cnwp.org.uk/).

All of this week I have been discussing the budget and debating with students who still buy into the government's rhetoric, and we have made recruits this week already.

As I said, I live in an area that is considered "tory-heartland". It takes a lot more than simply talking about revolution, when many do not have a concept of revolution. Using current struggles that face workers as a platform for discussion of alternatives such as the revolutionary workers' state is a good method and it has brought us success in our activity.

[Starport]

Yes I have. We clearly state the need for a new workers party, after using workers' concerns as a platform for discussions. One example would be the budget cuts; we discuss these cuts with the workers, discuss the main parties and the need for a new worker's party (http://www.cnwp.org.uk/).

All of this week I have been discussing the budget and debating with students who still buy into the government's rhetoric, and we have made recruits this week already.

As I said, I live in an area that is considered "tory-heartland". It takes a lot more than simply talking about revolution, when many do not have a concept of revolution. Using current struggles that face workers as a platform for discussion of alternatives such as the revolutionary workers' state is a good method and it has brought us success in our activity.

OK, your 'Declaration' says: However, if it is to be successful, it is crucial that a new party, and any pre-party formations, be open, democratic and welcoming to all those who want to work together against the neo-liberal onslaught on the working class. This means that all groups and individuals, provided they are in agreement with the basic aims of the party, should have the right to democratically organise and argue for their point of view.

So if a worker, student, domestic operative, (home maker) or unemployed worker agrees with your 'basic aims' (as far as they go), Would that worker/student etc, be allowed to talk to workers inside and outside the 'new formation' about the need for revolutionary transformation of society by the working class, as well as the 'basic aims'.? And could they propose that the name of the new formation be 'The New Revolutionary Workers Party'?

Edit: and would you support that name if it was proposed?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Of course they could and yes I would support that name.

[Starport]

Of course they could and yes I would support that name.

Just checking, but why has it not been proposed yet? or why do you think it has not been advanced by the existing leadership.

I am not being difficult, this is a very serious question. The 'Socialist Party'/'Communist Party' who are the core of this are very long in the tooth and they have their reasons for not advancing such a name, and more importantly, such a policy. What are the reasons?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Comrade, I would like to continue our discussion through PM, so I will send my reply in a PM if that is okay with you.

[Starport]

Comrade, I would like to continue our discussion through PM, so I will send my reply in a PM if that is okay with you.

OK

[McCroskey]

And can you show anywhere in this discussion where anyone has said this is the thing to do?

See post #2.

[Starport]

See post #2.

Exactly. and what have you got to say that improves on this? Just say it.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Exactly. and what have you got to say that improves on this? Just say it.

I know you directed this question at someone else, but I don't think the average worker knows what 'capitalism' is. And that is not just me being a patronising middle class person, in fact I consider myself working class. It is because the capitalism has made it difficult for the working class to access this education that we as a whole suffer from ignorance which is constantly used against us.

I find it amusing that this sub-discussion evolved from a comment that was probably meant ironically in a response to my somewhat naive OP. Note that he did say 'to put it simply'.

[Starport]

I know you directed this question at someone else, but I don't think the average worker knows what 'capitalism' is. And that is not just me being a patronising middle class person, in fact I consider myself working class. It is because the capitalism has made it difficult for the working class to access this education that we as a whole suffer from ignorance which is constantly used against us.

This deserves a longer answer than the one it's going to get right now but you are absolutely correct that: "It is because the capitalism has made it difficult for the working class to access this education that we as a whole suffer from ignorance which is constantly used against us." All the more reason not to obscure what the world really is. but just one simple question: what is "the average worker"?

[BAM]

To answer the question of the thread: no the spending cuts are not necessary.

It is something of a problem because Sterling could lose credibility and £50bn in interest payments per year is a massive waste, but the "best" way out is through economic growth.

Government cuts undermine the prospect of growth because we lose the "multiplier effect" government spending has during a recession. Ireland found it had to increase borrowing even after cuts.

Whether there is scope in the economy for an increase in profitability and whther capital can avoid serious devaluation, these are other matters entirely.

[Lampang]

In answer to the original question, I think this graph (from the Financial Times, of all places) says everything that needs to be said. Though if anything needed to be added, it might be that somehow money was still found for a cut in corporation tax. What a surprise.

---

Edit: not allowed to post pictures. You can see it at leninology.blogspot.com/2010/06/weak-and-nasty-government.html

[Kyrite]

I'm not clear what your meaning is. Is that no, it's not reformist drivel or no, it is reformist drivel.

I think he was referring to the OP's question...

[Starport]

I think he was referring to the OP's question...
OK ye, cheers.