Paper Tigers

As the Occupy movement in the United Kingdom descends into irrelevance a number of criticisms have been made. I do not wish to argue that Occupy’s ‘politics’ is a problem – no doubt that has been expressed elsewhere. Instead, I wish to demonstrate that Occupy has surrendered, at least in the United Kingdom, by shifting from action to dialogue.

The great strength of a movement like Occupy was its ability to communicate through action – not dialogue. The minimal use of language, just a simple slogan of sorts, was sufficient. It carried with it so many of the antagonisms we face today. The idea of the 99% and the 1% was by no means unproblematic, it can be criticised in many ways. But the message continued to draw people around it, especially in the Untied States where gatherings in New York brought together all sorts of peoples. Despite the sophisticated ideas of what occupying a space means, Occupy can be seen as doing something simple – making the act of occupation a form of expression. It was a simple method for people to present themselves and to let their grievances be known in a society that had rendered such things impossible by representation. Such modes of expression makes language and knowledge redundant. It does not exclude. It is by its very nature emancipatory.

The case of Bryn Phillips, a figure of Occupy’s media campaign, demonstrates how movements forms of expression can be transformed . Under the pseudoleadership of such a figure, Occupy becomes shaped by his desires. It is the perfect case of the activist performing as a politician – the man who wants to be the ideas and policy man, the link to the media, the agent who wants to happily surrender a movements great strengths for their own personal desires. The movement becomes expressed through dialogue, with figures like Maurice Glasman appearing to argue that their own reactionary politics are somehow expressed through the movement.

Another problem is how the message has, in a limited way, resonated through the political system. This is not say it’s in anyway meaningful. This was perhaps best demonstrated this week in the United States. Figures involved in the Occupy movement, such as Michael Moore, praised Obamas’s State of the Union address, for its apparent embrace of the message of Occupy. But is this anything new? Politicians, including Obama, have long said that rich should “do their part” or “pay a fair share”. An appeal to ‘fairness’ is hardly a new message. How exactly does praising Obama’s use of such rhetoric achieve anything? And of course, Obama’s inability to deliver even the slightest ‘change’ has long been raised by such figures. This is not a time for congratulation or triumph. Our attention in such cases has to turn those who espouse such nonsense. We must question their commitment to the cause they apparently promote. How else could they be so foolish?

The point of surrender occurs when activists are called up on to “offer solutions”. The lack of any solutions has been a criticism raised by many, including Paul Mason. There are a number of points that can be made. Firstly, why must we offer solutions? Our opposition has long refused to acknowledge that such problems even exist never mind analysing them or offering solutions. The solutions of government are based on nothing except their own ideals. Secondly, to enter such a debate is utter pointless. The offer of a podium is nothing more than attempt to undermine a movement. Expression shifts from action to policy. This, of course, immediately excludes many in the movement. And of course, it renders the movement defenceless in a sphere in which our opposition is always one step ahead. The most ‘reasoned’ arguments mean nothing when the State has vast amounts of information ready to manipulate and presents in defence of its own motives. Let us not forget how coverage of the wide assault on universities was directed by the government’s ability to frame it by minuscule details aimed at constructing a progressive narrative. A movement surrenders all its strength and all its momentum by expressing itself in such a sphere. It becomes nothing more than a weak and worthless platform. Occupy has disintegrated leaving only the feeble idea of ‘Responsible Capitalism’.

What was a movement like Occupy to do in such a situation? Attention should have turned to discovering a line to propagate. A line could have been drawn from a major antagonism such as housing or debt. Such a line could have been expressed through similar action. Propagating new messages through action is the only meaningful progression. Such a movement is always at its strength when this is its primary function. It is one step ahead of the opposition. It draws together all peoples around shared antagonisms regardless of one’s background. If such a movement comes to an end at least their very presentation has resonated.

Unfortunately, the same mistakes are repeated again and again. We surrender effective means of expression. We can not afford to capitulate in the same manner. Such problems relating to expression can no longer be ignored. It’s of vital importance that we seriously analyse and criticise the relationship between action and dialogue. If we do not, a similar fate is inevitable. Occupy has been extinguished.

Capitalism has saturated the Earth. The material limits of capitalism are within our sight. As economies enter permanent stagnation the planet accelerates towards destruction. Yet capitalism cannot abide a restraint, no matter how small or how sacred. Capitalism will devour life itself – the very nature and fabric of our being. Its stranglehold grows tighter and tighter. Capitalism exercises its new intrusive self through three old guises – commodification, labour and brute force. Everything that exists is seen as something to be commodified. The world’s resources, what remains of welfare states and our daily and mundane social practices are all under attack. Indebted workers must subject themselves to increasingly longer and tougher labour, eating into what little remains of our social lives. Labour continues till the body is shattered and succumbs to death. And with the onset of permanent stagnation, the number of those unemployed, alienated and denied access to the means of production grows. Many of us are displaced from society. The nets that once existed to provide the most basic of human existences are savagely cut away leaving us helpless. With such barbaric acts, opposition should be a natural response, yet the sheer brute force of capitalism stands in the way of the masses. It operates through violence, both systematic and physical. Its tools are the same – fear, pain and blackmail, whether it be exercised by military, police or the system of production itself.

We not only stand by and defend Mao’s thought, we uphold it. Our politics begins with Maoism and a form of class struggle based upon the constant analysis of material conditions. Old methods and structures tell us little of the world and the onslaught we face and it is only through a politics based upon analysis of material conditions that we can form opposition and resistance. Yet we uphold that today the Party is not only unneeded, it can simply not exist given the onslaught we face. A revolutionary party can not foster in the peripheries when capital is globalised, rapid, flexible and inherently violent. What’s more, counter-revolutionary forces slowly emerge within the party – eating away at whatever emancipatory goals it may hold as well as its coherency, giving rise to selfishness and spite. Mao, who correctly detected such a force, was unable to identify it. Yet we uphold that an organisation of the masses outlined by Mao can exist. It is the duty of all on the left – all those who stand for emancipation above all else – to analyse the material conditions we find ourselves trapped within. We must correctly discover and identify the principal antagonisms within our society in a way which can be communicated between the masses. A self-propagating message will form the basis and the birth of organisation.

But this is not enough to form viable opposition. We must subject ourselves to endless self-criticism. As capitalism continues to devour social life itself, our thought is no doubt structured and shaped by its practices. Often without realising it, we give strength to reactionary sentiment – whether through our own misguided thoughts or exclusion. It is only through open discussion and engagement that we can see our faults. To have certainty in one’s own opinions and thought is to give credence to reaction. We uphold that self-criticism must be practised in all spheres. To understand one’s thoughts and social practices, to subject them to criticism, to lead oneself and another to opposition – these are the basis of self-criticism.

We uphold that the primary form of opposition and resistance must be rendered through a revolution in culture and thought. Through disengagement, those objects and practices which capitulate before the flow of capital can be abandoned. Other objects and practices may can be proletarianised and used as forms of expression. But we must not rule out destruction where it is appropriate. It is our duty to destroy the old world. Only from the act of cultural destruction can we create a society that exists in opposition to capitalism.

Liberalism no doubt remains an obstacle for opposition. Without the Party, the essence of Mao’s Combat Liberalism remains true. The time for a politics based on selfishness and spite is over. To not render oneself as opposition is to blindly bow before capitalism and let it lead us to annihilation. Liberalism primarily stems from a politics based upon ‘values’ formed before any material analysis. It is false certainty in one’s self. The liberal rejects material analysis by claiming it is too complex, that problems are too difficult to solve and understand yet, at the same time, triumphantly parading their pathetic thought as the rational height of all human knowledge. The liberal can tell us nothing of the world, thus liberalism must be rejected.

Our philosophy leads us to conclude that the instigation of resistance is born out of persistent self-criticism and constant material analysis. It is our duty to the world and to all those suffering under the onslaught of capitalism to examine, to analyse and to communicate. By doing so, the identification of the principal antagonisms of this onslaught and the discovery of its weaknesses are but an inevitability. The direction for our labours will slowly but surely appear should we smash the chains that enslave our thought. Alternative structures will materialise from our labours once self-propagation of our message amongst the masses has been achieved. A new world will be built out of the ashes of the old.

To fail in our task is to let capitalism devour the Earth and humanity. It is to surrender our very being to capital. With the crises unfolding in front of us, it represents nothing more than an acceptance of defeat, mass suffering and ultimately genocide. We must start afresh and with vigour. The relentless onslaught has already begun and the fight back will by no means be easy. Yet we choose to believe that victory will certainly go to the peoples of the world. Let us together realise liberation, democracy and socialism.

The riots in London and other parts of England have come as a surprise to many. The shooting of Mark Duggan and the failures of the police and Independent Police Complaints Commission instigated action in Tottenham. Soon this led to sporadic acts across London and later other parts of the United Kingdom. The legitimate grievances held against the police and the IPCC have been discussed elsewhere. So too has a discussion surrounding the government’s response and the method in which such action was organised. Here I wish to focus on the more overlooked structural aspects which have fuelled these conflicts in our cities. Only by analysing such aspects can we begin to think about our responses.

One of the biggest and largely overlooked aspects of these riots are the regeneration schemes in our cities over the past two three decades. I have already briefly discussed the failure to help inner city areas on this blog, but there are two vital aspects for us to observe. Firstly, the Thatcherite method of regeneration which involved the construction of ‘flagship’ retail and property developments in poorer areas. Not only was this conceived on the foolish idea that wealth would trickle down, but it also incorporated the even more ludicrous idea that wealth would trickle out from the developments across the city. Such developments were, of course, a recipe for gentrification but the many who still remained in cities would often find mediocre jobs in the retail sector or low end services serving as the paupers for the inflowing middle and upper classes. Sadly, New Labour failed to sufficiently deviate from this strategy. New Labour continued with John Major’s attempts to give neoliberal policies a human façade. The language of community, resilience, “social capital” and later sustainability were utilised in an attempt to mask the destructive nature of their policies. This was welcomed by many academics and commentators who foolishly believed that the two contradictory forces of capital and the desires of the urban poor could be resolved. The failure of these policies, masked as an alternative, gave reactionaries an easy means of opposition but also served to narrow the public’s understanding of what alternatives existed.

Today, these contradictory forces are antagonised further by two factors. The first of these are the policies of our current government and their attempts to disempower the poor through blatant but relatively uncovered attacks. To expand on this, let us take for example the cuts to housing benefit. Such a cut is an attack on many of our socially mixed communities. It is in many ways the final steps of gentrification – the forceful removal of the urban poor from the communities they have lived and grown up in. Despite this attack, the media response was immature. Eric Pickles and Grant Shapps, two Tory members of the coalition government, made the unsubstantiated claim that rents across London would fall as the market ‘normalised’. This claim remained unchallenged despite its absurdity. In private, Pickles wrote to Cameron to inform him that 40,000 families could be made homeless because of such ‘reforms’. The effect of other cuts on the poor has no doubt been covered elsewhere. The important thing to note is that such cuts have been met with similarly immature ‘debates’. Library closures, youth centre closures and cuts to local services have been met with “The Big Society will fill in”. ‘Reform’ to welfare services, such as Jobseekers Allowance and Disability Allowance, have been met with the sadistic argument that it will help the poor in the long run. Cuts to Education Maintenance Allowance, the raising of tuition fees and others attacks on the young are met with “There is no alternative”. The voice of poor AS and A Level students was never heard when EMA was cut. Not only are these debates immature but the voices of the poor are totally marginalised.

The second of these factors is the upcoming Olympic games of 2012. The Olympics antagonises these contradictions in two ways. Firstly, it empowers capital. It acts as an inflow of investment into poor areas of the city. The negative effect of the Olympic games on cities has been covered elsewhere (with much research coming out of Beijing and Vancouver), but it is important to note it follows the same basic methods of ‘regeneration’ and gentrification as previously discussed. Of course, the games were essentially sold as a means of helping the poor. The same idea of wealth trickling down and out from the event was put forward. Sadly, many can see this isn’t happening. Instead, with the economy still failing and the government enforcing cuts, it has acted as a destructive force attacking the urban poor. The second aspect to note is, yet again, the relatively immature debate in the media and political sphere. Recently, the negative aspects of the Olympics were raised on BBC Newsnight in a short segment which again ignored the voices of the poor. Will Self was left to make the substantiated argument that the Olympics were not helping the poor and were instead making life more difficult for them. He discussed the huge investments, the meagre economic and social outcomes as well as gentrification. The response from Tessa Jowell (previously Labour’s Minister for the Olympics) was quite frankly pathetic. Jowell failed to respond to Self. Instead, she argued that Olympics were helping the poor because they were celebrating diversity, helping communities and creating a legacy. None of these claims were substantiated and the host failed to challenge her. Essentially, the celebratory language of the Olympics was utilised by Jowell to mask the destructive force the event really is. It seems that nothing is allowed to blemish the spectacle.

With these antagonistic factors considered, the act of looting and property destruction seems coherent – even if one was to argue it was carried out with little thought. What is a person to desire if they are surrounded by goods and property they can never afford but must service? Goods and services which are, in fact, pushing the cost of living upwards and pushing them out of the city. The promises of politicians made with the Olympic games have become destructive forces. Such forces have found their way into every aspect of society, into our mindsets, and with no clearly visible ‘political’ defense, or means of expressing resistance, it is easy to understand why people would loot and attack property.

The response of those on the left must be assessed. Too often have we failed to properly assess these conflicts and have instead been forced to combat reactionary responses based around “criminality”, “parenting”, “gangs” and “culture” (or rather not so thinly veiled racism). Indeed, many even act as if these wholly reactionary responses are legitimate. To begin, we must listen to the poor rather than lecture and patronise. This is a flaw much of the liberal left has made in the press and on television. Words of empathy are measured with condescension. Too often the ‘socialists’ of the past have argued that today is different, somehow better, ignoring the hopelessness for the future many young people feel. I have outlined a basic argument here from my own observations and previous research, but we must listen and properly assess legitimate grievances. More important, the left must recognise the true antagonistic nature of such contradictions I have raised. No longer can we let liberals argue that a mutual resolution to such resolutions is a viable strategy. This simply serves the destructive nature of capital as can be observed behind the façade utilised by New Labour. A failure to recognise this has led to many ‘socialists’ inadvertently falling into the same traps. We must finally dispose of these depleted ideas and seek a true politics of emancipation. The time has come for us to fight back.

In recent weeks much has been made in the press of ‘Blue Labour’. It is led by Maurice Glasman, Jon Cruddas and other leading figures in the Labour party. It has presented itself as an idea placing the working class at the heart of Labour’s renewal. While such a renewal would be welcomed, Blue Labour does not even begin to do this.

Firstly we must identify where the problems of the working class have come from. Our cities have long been neglected. For too long successive governments engaged in a social pathological approach which did little to help. A move to economic solutions followed with the flagship developments of the eighties, followed by the more subtle culture led gentrification of Major and Blair. Ultimately the high unemployment, poor environment, lack of educational attainment and healthcare problems remained but the state retreated and chose not to help. Instead, New Labour became obsessed with “decent majority” and the idea of good citizens. A language which isolated and disempowered those within the working class with the enthusiasm and commitment to mitigate the damage in such areas.

Yet what did the press and media do throughout this period? It focused on visible differences: an inflow of ‘non-white’ migrants, ‘broken’ communities destroyed by hoodie wearing youths. It created a discourse which told the working class, which was searching for answers, that all the ills in society came from immigrants and ‘broken’ individuals – and of course, Labour played along with elements of this with its “Respect Agenda” and focus on anti-social behaviour.

The press and wider media have always engaged in these kind of disgusting activities. That is no doubt true. But in this case opposition to the press was too quiet and unsophisticated. There was no mention of gentrification. Nobody discussed why high unemployment was now the norm. Nobody dared to engage with the stories of ‘scroungers’ and ‘immigrants’ tearing apart the welfare state when successive governments hollowed it out. The fact immigrants were both scapegoats but also victims was never raised. Labour simply told the public that multiculturalism was a good thing as its own policies harmed the working class.

The rise of this “small-c conservatism” was never born out of racism or conservative values. It was born out a misguided and reactionary response to the ills of neoliberalism. Of course, much of the working class was able to identify this. For every small pocket of the country which witnessed a rise of the far right you can point to other parts which voted for parties they thought were more ‘progressive’ or more in touch with the working class than the Labour Party.

Glassman’s criticism of the state will not resonate with the working class. The far right may be racist but much of their support comes from a protectionist form of nationalism which presents itself as the defence of the welfare state. This is hardly a devotion to family, faith and flag. It is, in many ways, a bastardised ideology somehow related to Old Labour. The myth of the once benevolent state is widespread but the response of Labour should be to search for a method of reconfiguring that state to favour the people over capital. To de-institutionalise and play to the idea of community and localism is to ignore a vital elements of solving the problems the working class faces.

Glassman makes the common mistake of observing the success of Germany and prescribing a democratic stakeholder led society as the ideal model for corporations. Colin Leys (Market Driven Politics, 2003) argues that this kind of structure must be deeply embedded into a social structure and culture. It it based on a trust and relationship between labour and capital which must evolve over decades and perhaps even generations. Even then, is such a ‘balance’ between labour and capital what the left must strive for? Again, de-institutionalisation and attacks on the state are relatively easy compared to the regulation of capital in an economy which has embraced market forces. Simply aspiring for a stakeholder structure is not enough. Glasman also calls for a move to a form of regional development which favours private sector growth – yet this ignores the fact that lagging regions exist across the globe. Moving capital into these regions has always been the fundamental problem. It will not simply move once banks are regulated. This belief will simply lead to the abandonment of these lagging regions.

Blue Labour is ultimately a harmful manifestation. It has no interest in engaging with the working class. The voice of the working class is still suppressed. Blue Labour treats this voiceless working class as a canvas and it paints the most vulgar and derogatory caricatures upon it. From there it develops a wholly reactionary and selfish criticism of both the state and capital which will benefit nobody. A truly emancipatory idea would challenge the very discourse which gives birth to such reactionary nonsense. Blue Labour embraces it knowing that the destructive role of capital is to blame – not immigrants, ‘scroungers’ or whatever else the right wing press produces.

All those on the left must oppose Blue Labour for it is a destructive idea developed under the guise of class politics. We must strive for a truly emancipatory class politics.

I am a little shocked by the recent resurgence of Labour rightists. Quite a number of articles have arisen which range praise for the coalition’s policies or a call for a return of Blairite Third Way politics. A number of members of the Labour party are even consulting and helping this government. What has most shocked me is the absurdity of many of these arguments.  Luke Bozier, a blogger and writer at Labour list, has presented many of these arguments over recent weeks usually attempting to justify them with a very neoliberal or at least business led ethos. I thought I would offer a brief response to some of these arguments…

“Let’s get something clear firstly: the NHS is not going to be privatised. The government is not implementing a Swiss or American style private healthcare system paid for by private insurance… The difference will be behind the scenes, where private companies will be commissioned by the state on our behalf to provide certain services for us.

…

There is an irrational fear that bringing the private sector into public services is going to create some sort of wild west, where companies gamble with our lives and futures on a daily basis. This is absolute nonsense. The private sector already contributes massively to the good of public health – all of the drugs we use come from private companies who have been forced to innovate in response to market forces. That innovation leads to amazing technology being invented which helps beat cancer and prolong our lives.”

This is an argument often put forward. It ignores the nature of healthcare and why a market based approach is fundamentally flawed. Healthcare is unique as a commodity because it combines high levels of risk and uncertainty, requires asymmetric information between suppliers and consumers and it is also susceptible to a large number of external factors (transmissibility of diesease, new diseases, outbreaks etc). Many healthcare economists believe that market failure is not a risk but an inevitably. Comparing healthcare with other market driven sectors is foolish and misleading. Arguing that the private sector is dangerous in the provision of healthcare is by no means irrational. The cost of dealing with these problems typically pass on to consumers. Many of our already privatised public utilities have seen prices sky rocket along with subsidies from the taxpayer. Should this happen with healthcare will the Tories increase the NHS Budget to cover the additional costs? I very much doubt it. I suspect it will be used to argue that the NHS is not offering “value for money” and full privatisation will be mooted.

Bozier also argues that a cut in corporation tax should be welcomed by Labour because “it encourages enterprise and allows businesses small and large to keep money in-house for payroll and investment – thus creating much needed jobs”. Firstly, if we look back to the 1950s to late 1970s we find that tax incentives and cuts were not welcomed by the business men of the day – especially within lagging regions. Direct help subsidy was certainly a lot more popular and often cost effective. For example, the building of factories and premises was surprisingly cost effective and created jobs. Similarly, whether or not tax cuts help create “enterprising” activity is often a point of contention in literature. The notion of the entrepreneur always looking for the lowest tax rates, cheapest labour costs and laxest regulation is a somewhat new idea. Arguably it is true when referring international capital but behaviour varies domestically between industries. Bozier also argues that the size of the public sector under Labour is a problem in Britain by linking the size of the public sector with unemplyoment. The Office of National Statistics clearly tell us that the growth of the public sector from 1997 onwards was minimal. When Thatcher was toppled the percentage of public sectors was at 23.1%, by 1997 it stood at 19.5%. From 1997-2008 the figure ranged from between 19.3% to 20.4%. It rose in 2009 to 21% but we account this to the effects of the recession. Is this size of the public sector a real problem? Well Sweden, Denmark, Finland and France all have larger public sectors than the United Kingdom. Unemployment statistics from across the European Union suggest there is very little relationship between the size of the public sector and unemployment.

Finally, in his latest article Bozier argues many things. Firstly that “nothing this government can do will take us anywhere near the levels of suffering and deprivation Britain witnessed in the 1980s”. I would like to firstly point out that many of the problems associated with the 1980s continued with Blair. Just what level of suffering and deprivation is ‘acceptable’? 2.53 million people unemployed before the cuts have even began? Hundreds of thousands losing their homes in our cities and towns? Caps to benefits which will leave many families living in poverty? Rising youth unemployment and the risk of a lost generation who are classified as long term unemployed so early in their lives? I could go on but the point is that this assertion is foolish. There should be no acceptable level of suffering or deprivation. Bozier also argues Blair was tolerant of all parts of the Labour party and he doesn’t quite understand why members left under Blair. Again, he ignores an important point – both Smith and Blair changed the constitution of the party to make it far less democratic.

I believe that the left should broadly stand for a politics of emancipation. It should always place emancipation above any argument of economic necessity. In the case of Bozier and many of the Labour rightists they firmly place an economic fallacy before a politics of emancipation. I could have made an argument based around my own interpretation of the economic crisis (I agree with David Harvey’s analysis but I believe if a capitalist economy is to survive then Richard Koo’s work is the only possible fix) or the source of our current deficit and the best method of dealing with it. That would be time wasted. I don’t think I’ll ever join the Labour party and I would have a hard time voting for them but finding new ways to promote a politics of emancipation is a must.

The NHS ‘reforms’ proposed by the Coalition are currently facing quite fierce opposition from the public. Of course, nobody suggested such ‘reforms’ were necessary before the election. In fact, Cameron claimed that he loved the NHS and stated that he would never cut it’s budget. More specifically, he claimed it would be foolish to reorganise the NHS. It would be easy to think that such deceit would be enough to kill off these proposals. Sadly, the media has so far been quite tame with its criticism. This despite evidence clearly showing the Tories have long been planning to privatise the NHS.

Back in 2004 Oliver Letwin told a collection of construction industry representatives gathered at his home that the “NHS will not exist” after five years of a Tory government. The most peculiar part of this whole affair? The system which Letwin described – it should sound quite familiar to you by now.

The Shadow Chancellor said that the health service would instead be a “funding stream handing out money to pay people where they want to go for their healthcare”, according to a member of the audience. (The Independent)

Letwin denied every saying this despite the Tories floating the idea of a “patient passport” before the 2005 election. It’s also interesting to note that Cameron appointed Letwin to scrutinise the policies Lansley had apparently spontaneously presented after the Coalition was formed. It’s foolish to believe Cameron when he claims he was shocked by Lansley’s proposals. Eamonn Butler of the Thatcherite Adam Smith Institute claimed in an interview with Radio 4 that “It’s been twenty years in the planning”. (BBC Radio 4)

Lansley’s integrity is also up for question. One piece of news that seems to have been forgotten by the media is the fact he accepted a £21,000 donation from the head of Care UK, one of the largest private health companies in the United Kingdom. (The Telegraph) The fact the press has refused to acknowledge this since Lansley presented his proposals is nothing short of disgraceful.

And what of the Liberal Democrats? David Laws, who is expected to return to the front benches in the next reshuffle, was highly critical of the NHS in the Orange Book. He explored alternatives to the “state monopoly” on health and considered whether a “social insurance” based system was needed. Of course, all of this was in the name of “choice”. The Orange Book also contained essays on many other issues with almost all of them calling for free market solutions and the shrinking of the welfare state. It’s other contributors? Nick Clegg, Chris Huhne, Vince Cable and Susan Kramer. The overarching ideology guiding the top brass will ultimately rule over any promises Clegg has given to members.

These proposals are unpopular with both doctors and the public. They were never presented before the election despite being in the pipeline for over two decades. They are being pushed through by a party which failed to win a majority with the help of coalition partners who are acting against the interests of their members. There are serious questions about Lansley and the Tories relationship with private healthcare firms. There has been little to no evidence provided to support the proposals. We have to ask just who exactly supports these proposals? The simple answer is private healthcare providers. So far the coalition has shown no signs of abandoning the proposals. In fact, Lansley claims he will only open the bill to amendments and consider a slight change in language. (BBC) Quite frankly, the fact these proposals are even being considered is abhorrent. The Tories have once again demonstrated an ability to engage in the most undemocratic and illegitimate of practises in order to destroy the welfare state. There’s a fundamental problem with our supposed democracy when such crimes are unreported.

In the 1987 the UN’s Brundtland Commission gave us our first real sustainability agenda. Our Common Future, the final report by the commission, was certainly quite a radical document. It gave political institutions their first real definition of sustainability – “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. It examined problems on a global scale often emphasising the need for greater equity between the Global North and Global South and fairer distribution of resources across the globe. Whilst this report was particularly robust and ground-breaking it was alien to the prevailing development ethos. Debate surrounding the report continued for five years until the Earth Summit in 1992 and the creation of Agenda 21. Agenda 21 was designed to be a blueprint for change and sought to create a new framework for the sustainability agenda. Sustainability was to be bottom up, holistic and would comprise the needs of society, the environment and the economy. This was quite a step-down from the resource led intergenerational equity the Brundtland Commission had called for.

Sadly, sustainability has been stuck within this framework for too long. Sustainability was left to local actors and pressure groups. In Britain, local governments were to create Local Agenda 21 plans but these often just embedded the language of sustainability into already existing plans. Issues with local transport? “We’ll take a holistic approach”. Proposed new developments? “We’ll seek a consensus”. It’s not surprising that the Blair government had few problems scrapping LA21s and replacing them with Community Action Plans.

Increasingly private companies have also began to utilise this language particularly when expressing their ‘Corporate Social Responsibilities”. I’m sure we can all point out the problems with these but what’s more worrying is how such language is also utilised in the planning system. Take the proposed development to create an opencast mine followed by the construction of a huge new complex of houses and retail spaces in my town. The developers submitted their plans to the council but the council noted no supporting documents acknowledging possible impacts were submitted. Opposition to the development grew within local communities and the council was forced to defer the proposals to the Welsh Assembly. The Welsh Assembly’s report was scathing. It criticised the developer for paying no attention to the social, environmental or economic impacts of the proposed development. The development was outright rejected. However, this did not stop the developer who finally decided to submit his own Environmental Plan. The concerns raised by the Welsh Assembly were acknowledged as legitimate but the development would now seek a “holistic approach”, “ensure best practise” and show “respect” to the local environment. The Envrionment Plan did not outline any plans to demonstrate this new approach.

This manipulation of the language is not just a local problem. David Cameron was quick to identify the need for sustainable development and attempted to re-brand his party as one that cared about the environment. Once the coalition was formed he claimed that his government would be the “greenest ever”. Yet nothing has been done and so far we’ve seen only counterproductive proposals such as the proposal to sell off precious woodlands. Cameron has now turned his attention to the planning system. The planning system has long been criticised by many but Cameron feels that it’s obstructing business and needs to be relaxed. Should developments such as the opencast mine in my town avoid scrutiny because they make money? For Cameron the answer is yes as long as they mask their destructive proposals with PR that is green and fits with his governments so-called ‘commitment to localism’.

It’s this manipulation of sustainability by capital and its representatives which is most worrying. It means that sustainability is now being used as an offensive tool. Nuclear power is now being presented as the green and sustainable fix for the economy because it’s arguably the most energy and cost efficient proposal. According to some people we don’t need to give serious concern to reducing our energy use now. We don’t need to look at protecting ecosystems or low impact development because we’ve reduced our carbon emissions by shifting to the more sustainable and green nuclear power. Essentially, the sustainable label can be given to anything and this silences critics.

Sustainability was originally watered down so that a compromise with capital could be found. It has since been hijacked by all sorts of actors with many of them having no real commitment to those original ideas and values laid out in the Brundtland report. Unfortunately, there doesn’t appear to be any clear method for those who believe in those values to reclaim sustainability. There is no easy solution to this problem but I believe that the ideas that helped to form the Brundtland report can only be expressed legitimately through socialism. The desire for intergenerational equity and fairer distribution of capital both nationally and globally are the main drivers of both socialism and the green movement. With the world facing both a crisis of capitalism and an upcoming environmental crisis it is time to present a real alternative.

I thought I’d begin by sharing what I firmly should believe the guiding principles for anybody on the left. Whilst it’s easy enough for us all to denounce sectarianism and call for unity the problem remains that many have a confused set of principles. To begin with, I don’t believe this is simply about uniting to get rid ourselves of this current government . We should not forget the neoliberal tenancies of the Labour party over the past few decades. Nor should we remain blind to the number of rightists still in the party. Instead we should unite around what Badiou, writing in The Meaning of Sarkozky, called “practicable points”. I’ve shortened these now although I may discuss the others at a later date.

• Assume that all workers labouring here belong here, and must be treated on a basis of equality and respected accordingly – indeed honoured – especially workers of foreign origin.

There are two points to make here. Firstly that ‘workers’ never seem to feature in our political language. We have households, families, individuals, consumers and so on. To many labour is flexible and just a tool for ‘wealth creators’. No longer should we simply seek to mitigate the effects of a disrespectful treatment to workers – instead we should strive to ensure that the demands of all workers are honoured and treated with respect.

Secondly, we must treat immigrants and newcomers to this country with the same level of respect and equality. I was dismayed when I heard Labour Party leadership candidates apologising for not speaking about the ‘problems’ of immigration. Of course, the ‘problem’ is that immigrants have been used as human shields for neoliberal policies. The working class isn’t finding itself unemployed or exluded from society because of immigration. It’s finding itself under attack because of the demands for a large reserve supply of labour and demands for a cheaper labour force.

Workers of foreign origin are also the victims of these policies. Combine this with the rhetoric of the right wing press and we have got a dangerous situation. Nobody of the left should attempt to legitimise these ideas. The finger should always be pointed at neoliberal policies.

• Art as creation, whatever its epoch and nationality, is superior to culture as consumption, no matter how contemporary.

This is one of the points which New Labour too often forgot. It’s all to clear in our cities. Sure, they invested in new community art projects but the overarching force guiding urban regeneration for New Labour was a fascination with the “creative industries” which were no doubt based more around ideas of cosmopolitan consumption. Not only did these industries fuse profit with art, but they also formed the backbone of a much more harmful trend of gentrification. Those with capital flocked into the cities, bought new properties and pushed out working class residents.

We can’t just get rid of industries and I do not wish to discredit all of them. But in our future society we should champion art as creation and reclaim culture from the hands of neoliberal capitalism.

• Science, which is inherently free, is absolutely superior to technology, even and especially when the technology is profitable.

Much like our own government, Sarkozy was quick to attack universities in France. Sarkozy began by attacking those who study ancient literature. As Badiou tells us, what Sarkozky announced was that “You are free to study ancient literature if you want to but don’t ask the state to pay for the privilege. The taxpayers’ money must go to computing and economics”. Cameron and Clegg have gone much further than this with their university funding changes by effectively denouncing all those subjects which aren’t technology based or linked to an export led recovery. Students are encouraged to think about what their degree may lead them to or what the degrees market value is.

Art and science should be universally available. These are not just subjects for an elite to access and utilise. Proletarians should have access to all subjects and all scientific thought. A society where a rich elite dictates culture while everyone else works to deliver profits to private companies is truly a vile proposition.

• Any process that is intended to serve as a fragment of a politics of emancipation must be held superior to any managerial necessity.

For the past few decades we have placed the market before all else. Under the guise of ‘modernisation’ we have witnessed the privatisation of all sorts of sectors within our country. Is it any wonder that social equity has collapsed since the early 1980s? Or that the wages of all those but the very richest have stagnated? Or that we have privately owned services which many simply can’t afford?

In this era of cuts we’ve witnessed the end of any form of democratic politics. No longer do we strive for a politics of emancipation. Instead we have witnessed the ascension of market-driven politics. Regardless of ones own opinions or responses to the recent crisis of capitalism, a politics of emancipation must always be placed above the destructive nature of the market. I fear that too many of those who claim they are on the left still, perhaps unknowingly, put the market before all else.