Introduction

On Sunday 22 May Spanish-language Windsor/Canada-based radio program Cayapa broadcast a program discussing the social and political changes underway in Venezuela, in the context of a recent solidarity brigade to the country by activists from the English-speaking world, and the country’s growing worker control movement. This article provides an overview of the program in English, followed by a translation of my report to the program about the worker control movement in Venezuela, particularly in the Guayana region in the east of the country. You can listen to the full program here.

Discussing the Revolution

The program, hosted by freelance journalist Alex Utrera, took interviews from several members of the recent Australia Venezuela Solidarity Network (AVSN) solidarity brigade to Venezuela, which ran between 25 April to 5 May last month. The brigade comprised activists, journalists, and students, which between them represented Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Scotland, and the United States. The brigade visited various examples of Venezuela’s growing infrastructure of social services as well as examples of popular participation and commmunity organisation which form part of Venezuela’s “Bolivarion Revolution”. The brigade also visited some of the country’s new institutions such as the headquarters of ALBA (Alliance for the Bolivarian Alternative of the Americas), an international Latin America alliance founded by Cuba and Venezuela which seeks to promote regional integration and development based on alternative values to neoliberalism and ‘free trade’, and BanMujer, the government institution which provides credits and services to women in order to help them form cooperatives and achieve a greater level of independence and self-determination in Venezuelan society. Importantly, the brigade also visited the city of Puerto Ordaz in the east of Venezuela, to discover more about the worker control movement in that part of the country, both as part of “Plan Socialist Guyana” in the region’s nationalised industries, and other independent examples such as the Grafitos del Orinoco factory.

In amongst the interviews, the program also played a range of music from Venezuela and Latin America which reflect the “roch wind” of social change and revolution which have been blowing through the continent for the last decade, providing an appropriate context to the topics being discussed. The first interview was with Alejandro Rodriguez, who acted as one of the translators on the brigade, and gave an introduction to what the brigade was and what had been seen. It had been stressed during the brigade by participants that the aim was not only to see for ourselves the reality of Venezuelan society and report back our impressions as a counter to the distortions of the mass media (such as Fox news or the British BBC), but also to learn the lessons of the Venezuelan struggle for our own movements in our own countries.

The second interview was with Mexican Lulu Garcia Larque, who reported on changes to the situation for women in Venezuela. She outlined how there had been many improvements for women in Venezuela, in line with the social gains made by the general population, however she reported that women continue being a more vulnerable group in Venezuelan society. In this context she mentioned the importance of the increase in access to services such as health, and the increase in centres dealing with information and services on reproductive rights and promoting the health of mothers and babies. She also opined on the difference between the social, political and economic situation of Venezuela with other countries such as her native Mexico, stating that: “access to health, education and the right to participate doesn’t exist for many other Latin Americans, for example in Mexico, where the economy is deteriorating, government decisions are not made in order to benefit the poor, and people don’t have the same rights of expression as in Venezuela”. Finally, commenting on the social progress in general and gains for women in particular in Venezuela, Lula concluded by stating her belief that ”the next generation are going to build another world”.

The final interview was with Alexis Ardarfio, who helps organise the social and political activities of the iron extraction company Ferrominero in Guayana and is also an activist of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV). Alexis also played a key role in organising the Puerto Ordaz section of the brigade. Alexis mentioned the importance of having activists from other countries coming to see Venezuela for themselves, particularly the worker control movement in Guayana. He stated that in this movement “we are creating a new model of industrial organisation - a model of popular participation in industrial production, production of quality and effectiveness, in order to resolve societal and human problems, for example in producing resources for Gran Mision Vivienda (the Venezuelan government’s current effort to provide housing for everyone in the nation by building 2 million homes by 2017)…in this vein, the best manner of [solving humanity's problems] is with worker control.” Alexis also invited anyone interested in finding out more about Venezuela and the revolutionary process to contact him with questions. His email and articles on worker control can be found on the Aporrea website here.

Interview: Impressions of Worker Control in Venezuela

The final interview of the program was with myself, where Alex asked me to report on what the brigade had seen of the worker control movement in the Guayana region of Venezuela.

As I am in the process of preparing a fuller article on the topic, I felt it would be useful to include a translation here of my initial report and observations. For more information in english about the worker control movement in Venezuela, there are several articles available on Venezuelanalysis.com among other sources, including an article about the recent national conference of the worker control movement here.

Alex: Ewan, can you tell us what is worker control?

Ewan: Well, that is the great debate going on in Venezuela at the moment, on that question exactly. However generally, the idea is that workers should have control over the decisions in a company or workplace, and so the company, the production, and all of the decisions, are under the control of the workers…and this is a democratic idea, that all the workers have an equal role in the process of taking decisions about [the running of] a factory or workplace: that, basically, is worker control.

Alex: Ewan, you visited various factories [in the Guayana region of Venezuela], how was your experience of these factories?

Ewan: We [the brigade] had two distinct experiences. The first was of the nationalised basic insdustries that form part of the regional production plan called “Plan Socialist Guayana”, particularly SIDOR and Ferrominero, the steel production and iron ore extraction companies. In these companies, as part of Plan Socialist Guayana, they are developing a strategy to implement worker control…this process is at the stage called “sensibilizacion”, which is to say, a stage of debate and education with the participation of the workers on how to implement worker control. Thus, this is an important stage because it is with the participation of the workers, in a debate about what form worker control should take, however it is not at the stage of the actual implementation of worker control…so this experience was of a debate about how to implement worker control in factories with over 1,000 workers [SIDOR has over 10,000 workers for example].

The other example we experienced was a visit to a factory called “Grafitos del Orinico” [which produces products important for the production of steel in SIDOR, and was taken over by its workers  after an 8-month occupation and struggle against the former owners], which is a factory with 54 workers. The system in this factory is one is which every worker has a vote and an equal role, and [the decision making body] of the factory is the assembly of all the workers: all the decisions about the running of the factory, including finance (and what to pay themselves), are made in the assembly…thus this is a revolutionary and democratic idea, because it is a new model of organisation, of how to manage a factory…and so for us, this example was very, very interesting.

Alex: And can you tell us a little of what is the difference between a factory which has worker control and one that doesn’t?

Ewan: Basically, for me the difference is one between exploitation and oppression, and freedom and emancipation…in the factories with worker control, the workers have control over their lives, they can take decisions about their life in the workplace, decisions about their life, their work, and they can develop themselves as human beings…[this is because] the aim is worker control is not to make profits for the owner, but the human development of the workers and to help the community, thus the wealth created by the workers above what is needed for a dignified life goes to the community, for schools and childrens services in the area, and to help the community generally. Thus it is a different conception of how to imagine and organise production: is the aim of production to create profits for the boss, or for the wellbeing of the workers and the social development of the community and society? Therefore, this is the difference: one is a democratic model, opposed to a [heirarchical] capitalist model of oppression and exploitation, which aims not to make money for the boss but to the human and education development of the workers, and to help the community as well. Those are the most important differences in my opinion.

Thus, this is the most revolutionary idea, because it is the union of socialism and democracy…but to realise this in the entire Venezuela economy is, in my opinion, going to require a revolution within a revolution, because in order to conquer the spaces of popular power necessary for this process, you need to fight, or course, against the bosses and capitalism, but also against those sections of the revolution which are the most reformist, the bureaucracy…however there is a possibility, a possible future for humanity: worker control offers a future [path] for humanity: but it is an idea which must be struggled for, and is going to require a struggle to be realised. Thus it is possible, but it is a struggle, a struggle for humanity.

Alex: And finally Ewan, what is the impact of the implementation of this first phase of education and debate toward worker control in Venezuela: is it creating an impact on the average worker? What are the possibilities?

Ewan: In Plan Socialist Guayana in the “sensibilizacion” stage, the possibility [of full worker control] definitly exists, but something very important for this is the future of the proposition for a new Organic Law of Trabajo [an Organic Law is the highest form of law in Venezuela, and is rooted in and given the same weight as the constitution]. In this law, which is being debated and promoted by various sections of the labour movement, workers councils, the PCV (Communist Party of Venezuela) and sections of the PSUV, is a proposition for a new legal status for workers councils…another clause in the law is for paid time during the work day for the political and educational activities of workers: thus this law contains powerful proposals for workers struggling for worker’s control in all of the factories and workplaces of Venezuela, and so it is very important…and to be fair, Chavez stated during the giant May Day march in Caracas that he thought this law should be passed in the country’s National Assembly.

Aside from this, workers can still struggle to implement worker control and bring sovereignty to the workers, giving real democracy to the workplace…if workers have success with this, then yes, it is possible that there can be worker control in the factories [and workplaces] of Venezuela: thus it is important to investigate and understand the process of changes underway in Venezuela in this moment, particularly the movement toward worker control, because the examples of worker control, for example in Merida with the nationalised milk company Enlaces, with Grafitos del Orinoco, with Invepal [worker run paper factory in Maracay], and others, are important in my opinion because they offer another model to organis the workplace, along democratic lines, and thus understanding this process is important for all humans, all of humanity. Therefore in my opinion it is a good idea for all people to understand this process, what is happening at the moment, and learn the lessons the struggles in our countries as well.

Conclusion

Both the AVSN solidarity brigade, and the reportage of Cayapa radio show highlight the importance of investigating and understanding the changes underway in Venezuelan society and politics today. To date, the successes and possibilities of the country’s popular movements, and the social gains promoted by the current government, throw into sharp relief the poverty of the view that “there is no alternative” to the way humanity is organised and relates to itself, and is a counter to the demoralisation and apathy that this perspective encourges among those who would look to seek to build an alternative. Thus understanding, supporting, and learning from movements such as the worker control movement in Venezuela are important for showing us not just that “another world is possible”: but what that world could look like and how we can get there. To that end, in the coming weeks I will be publishing more of my (and other’s) investigations about the worker control movement in Venezuela, and indeed more about the social and political changes underway in Venezuelan society in general.

For any further questions or discussion about this topic, please leave a comment here or contact me on my blog.

The mass uprising in Egypt has focused the world’s attention on the discontent within many Arab socieities. In a frenzy of political and media commentary on the growing wave of protests and mass insurrections, one of the buzzwords has been “democracy”: the Egyptian people want it, “Western” commentators want it; even the Egyptian generals seem to want it.  Yet even as Egypt is declared as being in a “transition to democracy”, the continuing conflict between the protestors and the ruling order highlights an essential ambiguity over the concept itself.*

For ruling elites (political, economic and media) in the Western world, “democracy” is a tamed word: it is generally taken to mean a liberal-constitutional political system[1], with multiple parties, political/civil rights, and “free and fair elections”, embedded within a capitalist economic system. While clearly preferable to an openly authoritarian system, this “democracy” is elitist and hierarchical: ordinary people are implicitly regarded as being unable to govern themselves, and their participation in any substantive areas of decision-making, particularly economic matters, is held to be undesirable and dangerous. The people are able to periodically choose between different elites for who governs the system, although these elites themselves generally share a consensus as how to best to run public affairs. This is seen by elites as the best way to ensure efficient and “responsible” governance, and acts as an effective mechanism of mediating power among the ruling class. Importantly, this type of political system depends on a largely passive population, whose participation in the political system is restricted to voting once every four or five years for various wings of the ruling order. Mass mobilisation of the people independently of “responsible” political actors, and attempts to influence decision-making and public affairs in general, is seen as a “threat” or “abuse” of “democracy” and in serious crises may even necessitate the temporary or permanent suspension of democratic rights.

For ordinary people democracy often has a deeper and wider meaning than that of their rulers, one that is much more in line with the theory of what democracy is actually about. The core principles of democracy are political equality and popular control: [2] everyone within an organisation (whether a small group or the whole of society) should have an equal voice in decisions of that organisation, and the collectivity as a whole should have control of the functioning of that organisation, not an elite or privileged group within it. At the societal level, the implications of this can be revolutionary: what kind of society do we need for there to be any meaningful equality among us and popular control over decision-making? Clearly, the institutions and practices of liberal “democracy” are not sufficient, as a quick observation of the British political system makes clear: a monarchy with un-democratic Crown powers, an unelected House of Lords, mainstream political parties with little choice between them, an un-democratic electoral system (First-Past-the-Post), economic decision-making largely beyond the realms of public debate [3], the dominance of corporate-owned media, increasing police surveillance, widening inequalities and increasing poverty in society, and a lack of independent organisation within the working/popular classes.

In arguing for greater equality and for popular control over decision-making, this is where the struggle for genuine democracy is linked to the struggle for socialism. A radical move towards democracy means breaking the monopoly ruling elites have over governing our affairs: instead of parliament, why not have an assembly elected by proportional representation, with all delegates directly mandated and subject to recall? Why not introduce a mechanism for society-wide referenda on important issues, including war and peace? Why not widen the scope of democratic decision-making, and have popular control over how the economy is run, with the direct participation of workers, and key resources being commonly owned for the benefit of all? Why not include social and economic rights as key elements of democracy along with political and civil, guaranteeing housing, heating, transport and political, cultural and social participation and inclusion? Why not break the corporate monopoly over information, supporting grassroots community media and online forms of citizen journalism? Such changes toward both genuine democracy and socialism require an organised population: independent and democratic trade unions, organised communities, students, and others: it is something to be won, not something which will be given freely. Ultimately, in a society where a “democratic” shell masks the reality that ruling elites run our affairs in their interests, struggling to gain the collective control to shape our society means challenging the system upon which their power is based, and overcoming the exploitation and oppression of capitalism.

This is the conflict of interest being exposed within Egypt. While Obama, Cameron, and the Egyptian generals talk of a “transition” to a “democratic Egypt”, they work and hope to see the Egyptian population de-mobilised and returned to their former passivity, while also trying to isolate the issue of political reform from socio-economic demands[4]. Elections, yes, they can be allowed. However, genuine political equality and popular control cannot. That is why Tahrir Square has now been cleared, and why the generals are telling the workers to stop striking and go home[5]. Their version of democracy requires “stability”. A truly democratic Egypt would threaten “Western” interests, including control over Gulf oil [5] and Egypto-Israeli relations, and would threaten the political and economic power of the Egyptian ruling class. Genuine democracy requires a growing revolutionary f6rvour and the widespread belief among the Egyptian population that they have the collective power to influence the development of society and take control over their own lives, a sentiment encouraged by the victory against Mubarak. As David McNally has observed, “the genie of the Egyptian workers having now been awakened, it will be very hard to put it back in the bottle.” [7] That growing confidence in the power and popular capacity of the population, tied to the struggle for genuine and substantive democracy, is becoming a grave concern to both Western elites and ruling classes across the Arab world, and a source of hope and inspiration for the rest of us. Read the rest of this entry »

The flights are booked. Brilliant! In three weeks I’ll be flying off to Venezuela for a three month stay involving intensive Spanish classes, volunteering, and a trip around the country with a group of Australian solidarity activists. I’ll be blogging my thoughts, observations and activities on my trip while I’m there, both on this site, my blog, and a travel blog at Travel Pod. On my blog, I’m creating a “Venezuela Trip 2011” category, where you can follow all of my reports on my travels. 

But why Venezuela? Over the past decade and more Venezuela has witnessed an intense struggle to build a societal alternative to the “Washington Consensus” – a liberal-plural political system combined with free-market capitalism – demonstrating to the rest of us that another world is possible, that there are alternatives to the barbarity of global capital.  As such, the changes taking place in Venezuela have become an inspiration for many, as well as a source of intense and polarised debate both inside and outside of the country.

A wide range of left opinion has celebrated the changes in Venezuela, centred on the record of the Chávez-led government since its election in 1998: opposing U.S. imperialism through rejecting free-trade agreements and setting up the progressive, hemispheric alternative ALBA; supporting Latin American integration; fully nationalising the country’s petroleum industry (and using oil wealth to benefit the country’s poor);  nationalising sectors of the telecommunications, electricity and banking industries; massively increasing social spending and reducing poverty and unemployment;  and providing numerous avenues for popular empowerment through the creation and promotion of communal councils and community media to name but a few.

What has drawn even more attention to Venezuela is that since December 2005, when Chávez announced that the goal in Venezuela was to replace capitalism with “socialism of the 21^st century”, is the question of whether we are witnessing the first genuine attempt to replace capitalism with socialism in recent history. With nationalisations, the widening guarantee of social rights, rhetoric and action supporting popular power in community councils and ‘communes’, a growing movement for worker control and ‘co-management’ in industry, and a developing community media movement, Venezuela seems to be a hive of creative revolutionary ferment and activity. In important respects, capitalism is being challenged and spaces for constructing an alternative have opened. Whether el proceso is destined to create a socialist society, or indeed how far it is possible to have a transition to socialism in one country, is an open question. Certainly however, gains have been made and there are important and exciting lessons we can learn from the Venezuelan experience.

Of course, the process of change underway in Venezuela has met with stiff opposition, both from the U.S. state and from the Venezuelan right. The oligarchy who previously ran the country under the pseudo-democracy provided by the Punto-Fijo pact  have been ejected from the levers of political power. Venezuela has now become a threat, not just for what it has already achieved, but for what it represents: the threat of a good example; an alternative model of development to U.S.-dominated free-market capitalism; a source of inspiration, ideas, and a call to action. Numerous attempts to overthrow, destabilise and de-legitimise Venezuela’s political process and its president, Hugo Chávez, have occurred. These include the short-lived 2002 coup led by the Venezuelan business community, U.S. funding of anti-Chávez groups via the ‘National Endowment for Democracy’, and a campaign by the international media to demonise Venezuela (the UK Guardian’s Rory Carroll is a case in point). Against this campaign of the right-wing, the gains of Venezuela’s “Bolivarian Revolution” should be emphasised and defended.

Image: UNETE’s National March in Caracas Brought Thousands of People to the Streets, Including these Young People with Banners that Read, “Neither Bureaucracy nor Capitalism, Worker Control” and “Socialism is Won Fighting.” (Source: VA.com)

What these questions point to is that the process of change underway in Venezuela isn’t as straightforward as may first appear, as simply a story of pro-Chávez and PSUV forces vs. right-wing opposition and pro-U.S. forces. In order to learn the positive lessons that Venezuela provides, and to know where and to whom we should lend our support, a nuanced and critically-supportive understanding is necessary: uncritical and facile support of Venezuela’s political and social transformation will do all genuinely revolutionary forces a disservice. Thus, what makes Venezuela at once exciting and frustrating to study is its complexity, and the sheer multitude of ideas, movements, and activities that are driving forward the process of building a better society, ultimately one which transcends capitalism and can emancipate all people to live their lives as fully as possible.

At the root of Venezuela’s transformation however, one thing has become clear. The upsurge in activity in Venezuela is connected to a widespread popular-democratic consciousness with revolutionary implications: a mass of people in Venezuela are awakened to the need to change society, and collectively are confident in their capacity to do so.  This mass democratic empowerment, a political agency and capacity to collectively fight for a better future, is the backbone of revolutionary changes taking place in Venezuela, and the greatest threat to all those who support the established order of things. This sentiment is echoed in the words and actions of activists like Valentina Blanco, who describes her experience of getting involved with a new community radio station, Radio Libertad:[i]

“A community radio is like having access to a window that shows you how the world is – a world that we want and which we are constructing, the world we all dream of in the depths of our hearts, as inhabitants of this planet. Because we have love for our planet; for our fellow mankind; for all the men, women, girls, boys, adolescents who are part of this population. The world is united as one, regardless of music and language barriers. There are so many things to broadcast on the radio that allow you to dream, that caress the senses and lift the most diverse feelings in you – like anger, fury at the injustices – and wake up the need to change within you; to change things; to transform them. And it also awakens the need within you to change yourself, because while you are changing and overcoming these fears, you are transforming your reality, and transforming the reality around you, and this is like a spark, which burns and grows, and it is very beautiful to share with everyone. What else can I say?” 

While that sentiment remains widespread, no form of hierarchy, exploitation, or oppression can continue unchallenged in Venezuela, and the future of “the process” remains full of possibilities. 

The other thing has become clear to me from studying Venezuela is this: if I really want to get a grip on what is happening in that country, I need to get myself over there. I can’t wait!

[i] Martinez, Fox & Farrell (eds.) 2010. Venezuela Speaks! Voices From the Grassroots. PM Press: Oakland, CA, pp188-189

Are Dave’s crap politics due to his primitive brain?

It sounds like a reverse case of Social Darwinism, but this recent study at University College London has produced findings which have seriously pissed off right-wingers. The research, which scanned the brains of students of different political persuasions at UCL found a striking and surprising correlation: that people who affiliate themselves with Tory or right-wing politics have a larger amygdalas, a “primitive” part of the brain associated with emotions such as fear. Meanwhile, those of more left wing persuasions generally have a larger  ”anterior cingulate”, associated with anticipation, decision-making, and emotions such as courage and optimism. Perhaps this is why so many people keep voting Tory despite their blatant shitness, or why scaremongering the population using a propagandic “war on terror” is effective?

Tongue in cheek aside, while I would definitely argue that lefties are more empathetic, and in general have far better values and ideas than right-wingers, I don’t want to take the research too seriously. Believing in a sort of political pre-destination would lead to us concluding that some people are almost inevitably consigned to the “dark side”, to think and act like Tories or even worse from birth, and that’s just depressing.

Then again, socialists can always use their better-evolved brains to convince those poor Tories of the error in their ways!

Campaigners fighting cuts recognise the next generation are facing a tougher future than their parents

Note: A version of this article was originally published here.

We approach the new year of 2011 with a prevailing sense of doom and gloom: that things are going to get worse, rather than better. For most of us this applies to how we view world events, politics, and society. For some of us this also applies to our personal lives.

In fact we are experiencing a unique moment in modern history. Our generation, is set to be the first generation which is likely to have a worse standard of living than our parents. The signs are everywhere: poverty increasing, the super-rich getting richer, the rest of us getting poorer, unemployment rising, pensions shrinking, opportunities closing, and benefits shredded. All of the measures which gave people a measure of security in their lives within a capitalist society are under attack. Meanwhile, for those who are determined to follow their aspirations in life, and those who are simply trying to survive, life becomes an increasing struggle: we sign-on, we study, we intern, we work, we stress…we hope everything will work out  and we can have the same standard of living as our parents, or better. We allow ourselves to be exploited, underpaid, taken advantage of, in the hope of our imagined future. We have become 21st century philanthropists. Let’s hope it’s worth it.

Meanwhile, events in the wider world contribute to the pervading pessimism which grips the general mentality. ”We” occupy the second-poorest country in the world, have destroyed another, and at home are losing civil rights and subjected to increasing surveillance in the name of an illusory “War on Terror”.  As John Pilger has written, this is an Orwellian inversion of the truth: the war is terror. And behind this new imperialism is the source of the malaise, capitalism. The effects of an economic system predicated on limitless growth, the exploition of man by man, and the exploitation of nature by man, are becoming ever clearer. Among humans, the ownership of the majority of humanity’s wealth and the means by which that wealth is created, by tiny privileged elite, is creating an ever-increasing gap between the richest and the poorest, with the majority being exploited ever-greater in order to survive: from garmet workers in Export Processing Zones in Asia and Mexico, peasant farmers in Africa and South America, to cleaners and bar workers in the UK. Meanwhile the need to ever-increase profits not only necessitates the increased exploitation of human labour but also of our natural environment which we depend upon for our survival, with rainforests, habitats, and species disappearing, fossil fuels beginning to run out, and resources such as fresh water under strain. The planet and humanity cannot continue to afford such continued exploitation for the  limitless increase in consumption and profit. Yet for its supporters and beneficiaries the current crisis in capitalism allows and necessitates further attacks on the majority of humanity: in western countries leading to attacks on public services, benefits, and any notion of collectivism or a common good.

Yet, against this backdrop, I cannot help but be optimistic. This might seem like “pie in the sky” thinking in light of the rise in reactionary thinking in the UK and further afield along lines of gender, race, sexuality and class. Moreover, the absolute poverty of ideas, policies or possibilities in the “mainstream” media and political establishment [Labour, Tory, SNP, Lib-Dem] could encourage the notion that “There is No Alternative”. Are we faced with a slow (or not so slow) decline in the human species, and indeed the state of our planet? Are our ideas, creativity, and efforts at shaping our collective future for the better exhausted, leaving us with no option but to try and salvage the best for ourselves while letting the world slide into a century of barbarism? The answer must be an emphatic No.

Capitalism may be entering its final decline, but humanity is not. However, securing a viable and meaningful future for ourselves means fighting to transform the basis upon which we organise human society. The fight cannot be only individual, via deciding to “live better” or “opt-out” of the system. It has to be collective. Also, both the means and end of such a struggle necessitates democracy: equality of decisionmaking among all those affected by a given decision as far as is practicably possible. This is important both for the grassroots strength and creativity of a genuine popular movement, avoiding a movement’s co-option and loss of authenticity, and to allow for everyone’s full human development.

Ultimately, we need to end the exploitation of man by man. We need to abolish the ownership of humanity’s collective wealth and the earth’s resources by a tiny elite. We have enough food, water, housing materials, and means of providing healthcare and education for everyone on the planet. Between us, we have enough labour power to do all the necessary tasks needed for us to survive and develop with no one being unemployed and no one working for the dominant portion of their lifetime. Both of these social facts are rooted in capitalism’s need for our labour to make a profit from the capitalist who buys it from us. Rather, our resources, wealth, and labour power need to be organised in a way that allows everyone to attain their full development as human beings: a society characterised by the principles of from each according to their means, to each according to their needs and wherethe free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. A society where all forms of slavery (wage, bonded, chattel, trafficked) and oppression (of gender, culture, race, sexuality) are opposed, overcome, and abolished. A society were we end our alienation from ourselves, our labour, and our planet. In our current era, confronted with widespread pessimism and disillusionment, especially among my generation, this is time to be bold. We should not accept the TINA mantra from capitalisms’ acolytes, nor simply fight a defeatist reargaurd action to defend gains won in past struggles, with no sense of winning any victories of our own. We must proclaim ourselves as fighting for the emancipation and liberation of humanity, and the fight starts now.

The above sentiments may sound utopian. I’ve already argued that against the bleak prospects for the next generation(s) of humanity, the best defence is offense: in the form of radical, participatory, and emancipatory politics. Of course, no one can realise their own ideal version of what humanity should and could be. Many of the most advanced ideas for society may not be realisable in our lifetimes. But consider this: it is better to struggle for emancipation and liberation and have partial success, and help beat the path for movements to come, than sit back and watch our decline to barbarism. “I’ll fight for a new world, but I’m happy to start with free public transport” (not to mention the redistribution of wealth, the elimination of poverty and gross inequality, the mass expansion of education and opportunity, an increase in cultural and political activity and expression, the complete respect for all human rights, public ownership of major sectors of the economy, and the self-management of workers, to name but a few…).

In our current reality, we need a movement to fight for such a future, creating forms in the present which build bridges to the kind of society we want to live in. Such a movement, a genuine* socialist movement, is not only desirable, but necessary. Rosa Luxemburg’s choice is put to us ever more urgently: socialism or barbarism?

And for those who have their historical blinkers on, think on this: capitalism has only existed for a few hundred years, and its reign will end, as did feudalism before it. Indeed, capitalism is currently ailing and in decline. In an era of globalisation, human society is changing ever-faster, and we have the collective power to shape the trajectories and development of our societies. Even in the last few hundred years, social movements have made massive gains in democracy, human rights, equality, welfarist measures, and more in the fight for complete emancipation and liberation.

Therefore, for 2011, I raise a toast for optimism and hope: to make capitalism history, and socialism the future**. Ignore “whit the hoodies croak for doom“, roll up your sleeves, and get active. There is, as they say, no time like the present.

*Important characteristics include: grass-roots, mass-based, pluralistic, internally-democratic, eco-socialist, creative, radical and coherent.

**Or if not socialism, whatever word you prefer for the sentiments expressed in this post.

When international charities illustrate the immensity of poverty and deprivation in areas of the ‘Third World’, they often use a statistic of how many children die per minute from preventable diseases due to a lack of cleaning drinking water and sanitation. A common response to the brutal realities of capitalist production, distribution and consumption on a global scale is to externally lament the plight of far-off peoples while internally feeling glad that we live safe and secure in the developed world, the land of the ‘have’s’ and not the ‘have not’s.’

Yet, poverty and deprivation also affect our own societies profoundly. A fifth of the UK population lives in poverty , while around 4 million children live in low-income households.

Many vulnerable people, particularly the elderly, are choosing between heating and eating this winter

With Christmas approaching and one of the coldest winters in living memory gripping the country, one of the clearest examples of how deeply poverty affects our society and how brutal its effects are is this: every nine minutes last winter a pensioner died of a cold-related illness. In fact, last winter there were 25,400 cold-related deaths (i.e. deaths occuring in the winter months due to cold that are above average levels of deaths during the rest of the year) in England and Wales, which is relatively far higher than other countries with colder climates than ours.

What is disgraceful is that just as with a lack of clean drinking water in Africa, cold-related winter deaths are prevantable. They happen in the home where with adequate heating people can protect themselves from the health consequences of dangerously low temperatures. The elderly are particularly vulnerable: of the 25,400 deaths last winter mentioned above, 20,600 (81%) were people aged 75 and over. The central cause is fuel poverty: when households spend over 10% of their income just to keep warm, and extreme fuel poverty, where over 20% is spent. In Scotland, a third of Scots live in fuel poverty: 770,000 households, and the figure has been rising steadily over the previous decade: it was under 300,000 in 2002. This Christmas, vulnerable groups of the population are choosing to forego food in order to afford their heating, and many families are choosing to live in only one room of the house in order to afford their heating and keep warm. As a spokesperson of Citizens Advice Scotland recent reported in the Herald:

“One-third of Scots are now officially living in fuel poverty and that is completely unacceptable.

“Advisers across Scotland have reported to us that many people are so worried about their fuel bills that they are going without food in order to keep the heating on.

“Others are planning to spend the Christmas holiday period living more or less in one room, so they don’t have to pay to heat the whole house.

“We’re hearing of too many vulnerable people – including pensioners, sick people and families with young children – who are sitting shivering in their homes this Christmas. Many of them are suffering adverse health problems as a result.”

Four of the biggest six energy suppliers, who provide around 97% of British domestic energy, have increased their prices this winter, prompting criticism from Consumer Focus and Ofgem.

And that is the culprit driving up fuel poverty and inflicting such suffering and even death upon the most vulnerable people in our society: capitalism. Energy companies have been increasing the cost of heating, far above increases in the wholesale price of fuel, in order to make increasing profits from selling us the gas and electricity we need to keep warm. In fact, prices have increased by almost 20% between July 2008 and July 2009. When wholesale prices (the prices at which energy companies buy fuel) rise, energy companies invariably pass this onto consumers, and thus still maintain and increase their profits. When wholesale prices fall however, bills stay the same or even continue to rise, so the energy companies still make massive profits. This the logic of the profit motive, and how it utterly conflicts with human need: as winter hits and the need for heating increases (most of all from the vulnerable) energy companies increase bills to profit from the human need to stay alive through keeping warm. The result is increased profits for the companies, and increased fuel poverty, deprivation, missed meals, and winter deaths for the vulnerable.

This is where calls from socialists for a system which values “people not profit” and “human need and environmental protection, not private profit and ecological destruction” show themsevles not to be just slogans, but real demands which draw attention to the contridictions of capitalism. In the example of fuel poverty, there are two ways of dealing with the problem. One is to put a ‘human face’ on capitalism: increasing winter fuel payments to the vulnerable, one-off  ‘windfall’ taxation of company profits and using the money to subsidise heating bills and improve home efficiency. However, while massaging the logic of capital in this fashion may help to alleviate the worst effects of the problem, but it will not eradicate or solve it. This is because the privately-owned energy companies exist to make profit: without this they cannot exist. As soon as these are threatened, political moves will always be made to scrap those measures which hinder the ability to make maximum profit, including protecting the vulnerable from the negative effects of the profit logic. In many ways, this is the story of what has happened to the welfare state. Rather, in today’s political climate the impulse is for the opposite, where winter fuel support may be further reduced. In any case, such a solution is like a temporary patch on a permanent leak: it never fully deals with the problem and it always in conflict with the overall logic of the situation.

The other solution is to remove the profit motive and to run the system on the motive of serving human need instead. Such a system requires the means of energy extraction and distribution to be publicly owned, i.e. owned by and run for the whole of society, not in order to make a profit for stockholders. The result is that rather than being seen as a commodity to make a profit, energy is seen as a resource by which we are able to heat ourselves in order to stay alive, protect the vulnerable from the negative health effects of winter cold, and allow us to get on with our lives without having to choose between heating and eating. Such an energy system could operate in several ways which would have to be debated, including maximum billing (e.g. no more than 2.5% of any households income) with the rest of the cost met through taxation, to high billing of the super-rich and corporations for energy with the money used to reduce bills of the poorest, to a combination of taxation and subsidies to remove bills from either the most vulnerable or everyone altogether.

Of course, the details of such a move would need to be debated democratically and on a mass basis. The point is: this winter, both poor families in Africa, and in Scotland, indeed all over the world, will be suffering from the logic of capitalism: private profit coming before human need. In our society, fuel poverty is but one example of the structural violence capitalism inflicts upon us all. For me, the only answer for humanity is to develop an alternative that puts human need and the logic of human development at the heart of society. That is why we must debate, develop, and struggle for a socialism fit to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

For an excellent and personal article on fuel poverty in Scotland, read Aiden Kerr’s previous post on the blog here.

If it’s not already been posted on the SSY blog before, I’d recommend checking out this song:

The song was written by socialist songwriter Alun Parry (with the help of his mum). He’s a Liverpudlian legend, writing songs for all manner of socialist, trade-union and progressive causes. He describes his purpose as “to use my music where I can to support political change and others doing good things in the world”. He’s also involved with the Liverpool Socialist Singers group, which is itself a fantastic group of singers motivated by the need to express socialist ideals and aspirations through music and song, singing everything from songs about the Limerick Soviet to the need for Palestinian liberation.

Songs like ’Oh Mr Cameron’ capture the mood of the times and help us project our struggle by using humour and ridicule to lacerate the establishment. They also highlight that essential to the process of building a socialist movement and challenging the status quo is to create our own, radical culture. As the Edinburgh-born socialist James Connelly put it in 1907:

“No revolutionary movement is complete without its poetical expression. If such a movement has caught hold of the imagination of the masses, they will seek a vent in song for the aspirations, the fears and hopes, the loves and hatreds engendered by the struggle. Until the movement is marked by the joyous, defiant, singing of revolutionary songs, it lacks one of the distinctive marks of a popular revolutionary movement; it is a dogma of a few, and not the faith of the multitude”.

In our struggles today, we need singers like Alun Parry and the Liverpool Socialist Singers more than ever. In participating in the movement of resistance to cuts, along with dubstep, street drumming, and mobile sound systems, I’m still heartened by the sight of a singer with a guitar, bashing out some chords and calling for socialist revolution: so ‘mon yersel Alun!

Oh Mr Cameron: Lyrics

Oh Mr Cameron, what can I do
I never voted Tory but I ended up with you
Now we’ve got two muppets governing the land
Oh Mr Cameron I just don’t understand

CHORUS
Oh Mr Cameron please don’t think me mean
But I really think we should bring back the guillotine
For you and Clegg and Osborne and Lady Thatcher too
They’re the only kind of cuts I want to see from you

Oh Mr Cameron what can I do
I voted for one party but I’ve ended up with two
You and Nick together, he’s eating out your hand
Like a little puppy dog obeying your command

rpt chorus

Oh Mr Cameron I know what I’ll do
We’ll start a revolution -- then we’ll get rid of you
You and all your cronies banished from the land
We’ll have the workers run the show, now wouldn’t that be grand

Thursday saw mass student protests in London and militant action in Glasgow as the Con Dem government passed a law allowing universities to charge £9,000 in tuition fees, part of the continuing impetus of capitalism and its political advocates toward destroying the free provision of education and the universal, collectivist ideas that underpin it. This law and the mass, militant protests against it have been well covered on this blog and other outlets.

In Edinburgh today it was a different story. The National Union of Students (NUS) and the Edinburgh University Student’s Association (EUSA) held a “candlelit vigil” with carol singing outside the Scottish parliament. For a great account of why such a strategy is completely usless for fighting cuts, see the final paragraphs here. So short and passive a protest against what is one of the most significant hammerings to universal education provision since the creation of the welfare state, it was over before I even arrived, 45 minutes after the start time! I asked a student who was walking away afterwards what she thought of the rally and vigil: ”crap, unessesary, and stupid”. The same adjectives could be used to describe the contribution of the NUS toward the student campaign against cuts more generally.

However, there is another story of anti-cuts activity in Edinburgh today. A group of students had attempted to hang a massive banner saying “fight the cuts!” from Edinburgh castle: almost managing but ultimately thrown out by security guards as the one o’clock gun went off. They then tried to hang the same banner from North Bridge, but the weather and an ill-placed ledge prevented this. Finally, they decided to storm the Lib-Dem offices in Edinburgh: walking in and chanting, before staff members set off the alarm. After this they were followed by police (as they had been all day), jumped by officers (including plain clothes officers) and ordered to give their identities. Three of the protesters who refused to give their names were taken to police cells for questioning.

Thus, my evening was spent outside an Edinburgh police station with a group of students who were waiting for the release of their comrades: in fact we even had a “vigil” of our own. This allowed me the chance to learn about the events above, giving me some hope for the student anti-cuts movement in Edinburgh, which seems to be increasingly co-opted by their student’s association and the NUS, in contrast to the student movement in many other parts of Scotland, and indeed Britain. Eventually the three protesters were released, having been charged with “Failing to Give Name”. They are on bail and must appear in court at a date in January. Interestingly, someone informed me that in England refusing to give your name to the police is within your rights, but in Scotland it is not.

Today and tonight’s events in Edinburgh highlight two things for me. First, the NUS and various self-proclaimed “student’s representatives” are (as many of you will not be surprised) counter-productive to the creation of a militant, autonomous and united student and wider anti-cuts movement that will be necessary to defeat the cuts programme of the Con Dem government. Second, with the rise of a genuine social movement of students against the cuts, including mass protests occuring and links being made with wider anti-cuts movements, the police are stepping up their response in a number of ways. This includes increased repression of protestors at demonstrations, increased monitoring of anyone seen as a potential militant, organiser or regular participant, and scare tactics to stop people getting involved or cow those already involved. Even tonight, while walking to the police station, we were followed by police who asked us where we were going and what our purpose was, and while outside the police station, our group of about 15 was monitored by numerous officers and three badly-hidden police vans nearby.

However, today’s events in Glasgow show how the police can be left lagging behind and unable to cope with a determined, organised and militant group of protesters. In building a mass movement against cuts, we’ll need more of that in Edinburgh too.

Today I participated in a demonstration in Edinburgh with hundreds of students against the cuts to higher education funding currently being proposed by the Con-Dem government in Westminster. This was part of a wave of student action today across Scotland, from Aberdeen to Glasgow, against attacks to higher education. This article reports the march, before giving my own analysis of the wider strategies and  issues at stake and why I think defending and extending free higher education provision is so important for all of us.

“No If’s, No But’s, No Education Cuts!”

The march saw the involvement of the Edinburgh Uni Anti-Cuts Coalition, Edinburgh University Students Association, Napier University Students Association, and the National Union of Students (NUS) . The marchers assembled in Bristo Square (where coffee and tea was being provided, for which I have  great respect for the organisers), before heading down Forrest Road, the Royal Mile, and finishing outside the Scottish parliament. The chanting mainly focused on the betrayal of the Lib Dem’s promise to block the rise in tuition fees (they will now likely assist the bill for higher tuition fees through parliament tomorrow), and the need to fight against cuts to education: “Nick Clegg, we know you, you’re a fucking Tory too” and “ they say cut back, we say fight back”. Less prominent was the chanting of “workers and students, unite and fight” and “Con Dems, get out, we know what you’re all about: job cuts, job losses, more money for the bosses”. The police also carefully controlled the march, likely hoping to avoid the sit-downs which brought traffic to a halt on previous student protests in Edinburgh.

Outside the parliament, we heard from Liz Rawlings, EUSA (Edinburgh University Students Association), Robin Harper MSP, (Green Party & former rector of Edinburgh University), Sarah Boyak MSP (Labour), Mike Pringle MSP (Liberal Democrat opposed to tuition fees rise)  and Liam Burns (NUS), and a UCU representative (University and College Union). The general tone was as follows: hold Lib Dem MP’s to account over their broken promises, lobby them with thousands of letters and force them to listen, and also focus pressure on prospective Scottish MSP’s to stop them introducing fees in Scotland after the next parliamentary election. Robin Harper also drew the link between bankers causing the economic crisis through excessive financial speculation and students being made to pay the price through higher fees and government funding cuts. Rather, he argued we should more rationaly organise the economy and save money through cutting Trident.

After the speeches, the march was announced over. However, there is another rally meeting outside the Scottish parliament tomorrow at 4.30pm to continue to raise demands over fighting cuts to education.

Analysis: A Strategy To Win?

The march was positive in that hundreds of students in Edinburgh have been drawn into the struggle against cuts to higher education, and they were given a voice on the march and continue to build momentum. Also, I found many of the placards and banners inventive, amusing, and to the point. However, I do question the strategy outlined by the speakers at the end of the march as a means of defending higher education. The rational seems to be that mass letters, numbers on the streets, and lobbying of MP’s and MSP’s will be enough to prevent cuts to education and the increase/introduction of tuition fees. However, the conduct of many Labour MP’s over Iraq, and both the Lib Dem’s presently and Labour previously over the issue of fees, demonstrate how once the limited democratic input of an election has passed, “representatives” can ignore lobbying and represent other interests (party whips, business, or other) without too much trouble: after all, it is years before they will have to risk losing their post in another election, and in politics four or five years is a long time.

Rather, I believe the incessant focus on lobbying MP’s with letters and peaceful, ‘responsible’ demonstrations is an ultimately unrealistic and potentially de-mobilising strategy for defeating cuts. Where do we go once our “representatives” ignore such protests and pass laws detrimental to our interests and views of education? The answer, I feel, has been shown by far more militant student anti-cuts organisations in London.* They are not only protesting against cuts to education, but against all cuts. They are linking with campus based unions such as UCU and Unison, and joining in fights with other unions and community campaigns against local councils who have already started passing brutal cuts budgets. They are holding demonstrations designed to cause maximum disruption and force the political classes to listen to their demands. I believe  they are engaging in the wider task of building a united social movement of students, young people, pensioners, trade unions and community campaigns, the like of which has not been seen in this country since the poll tax rebellion twenty years ago.

Of course, many of these trends are present within the Edinburgh movement against cuts to higher education. My point here is that these trends need to be encouraged and begin to set the agenda on how the student anti-cuts movement in this city is organised and sets its goals and demands. At the march today, the most prominent chants and speeches did not represent the militant, united and autonomous strategy which will be necessary to build a mass movement capable of defeating the government’s cuts agenda. For this current to emerge, it is important to have a clear understanding of both what government plans will mean for higher education in terms of jobs, courses, and places, and along with defending these, articulating why winning the battle against cuts is so important for all of us.

The issue: “Education for the masses, not just for the ruling classes!”

So what is at stake here, and what are the wider issues? The planned cuts to higher education by the Con-Dem government include proposing to raise tuition fees in English universities to £9,000 per year, a move which will add pressure to the Scottish funding system and strengthen the hand of those who want to introduce tuition fees here. Also at stake is cutting university teaching budgets, arts and humanities research funding, and scrapping the Educational Maintenance Allowance for older teenangers from low-income backgrounds.

Those arguing against these moves have argued that forcing students to pay more for education will discourage those from lower income backgrounds from going to university, creating a more elitist system based on ability to pay, not ability to study. Also, as the ‘elite’ universities begin to charge higher fees than the rest, a two-tier higher education system is likely to be created whereby only the rich can afford to attend the top institutions. Meanwhile, cutting research and teaching funding will hammer higher education in general, with mass job losses (as the University and College Union, UCU, has shown here), courses cut, and available university places falling: again with the likelihood that it is the poor who will be squeezed out of the university system.

“You can shove your private uni’s up your arse!”

The wider issue at stake here is what role education should play in our society. Behind the Con-Dem’s proposals is a capitalist view of education as a private commodity: based on ability to purchase, and obtained for the self-benefit of the consumer as measured by how high a salary they can obtain based on what education they can afford to buy. Therefore education and research are meant to provide the means for individuals to gain a high income, and companies to make a profit: through the production of graduates with the required skills and training, and new technologies to increase efficiency and create new products. This is also why sciences and engineering funding is being protected while arts and humanities funding is being hammered.

For those who defend ‘free’ education available to all, a generally socialist or welfarist position is normally taken: education as a social right, not a private privilege. Education, rather than being primarily a means to a job, is central to our development as people and our ability to realise our full potential: as musicians, poets, scientists, teachers, thinkers, doctors, lawyers, economists, skilled tradespersons, or any other future we may wish to pursue. Along with education being key to our development, this right should be available to all: your right to learn a particular skill or study an area of knowledge should not be at the expense of my ability to develop myself. This is where I stand in the debate over the place of education in society and why education should  be provided to all with no barriers based on ability to pay: we are all different, but all of equal worth, and I’d much rather live in a humanly rich and diverse society where everyone has the equality of opportunity to develop themselves as people, rather than one where the full development of the few comes at the expense of the hopes, dreams and potential of the many.

Indeed, it is because of such views that I identify myself as a socialist and reject capitalism as a model of human development, or as a desirable way of organising society. This also leads me to conclude that if we are to win this fight against cuts, we need to develop a socialist alternative and begin to realise that it is a crisis in capitalism that is at the root of our current economic crisis and which provides the impetus for the cuts to public spending, an issue not addressed by any of the main parties. Thus, twinned with building a movement to fight against cuts, we need to continue to build a socialist movement; one that is democratic, participatory, and puts an emphasis on full human development and maximal educational opportunity for all.

*Over the next few days I will be publishing my article on the student anti-cuts orgnisation of Goldsmiths University London, including interviews with some of those involved, which I feel help point the way to what kind of strategy and demands are needed in order to build a social movement that will be capable of defeating the austerity agenda of this Con-Dem government. All articles I write will also be available on my blog.