Ed Miliband And The Jews

NOVANEWS

Image result for Ed Miliband WEARING YAMAKA PHOTO

By Gilad Atzmon 

Just a few month ago, in a speech in front of the Labour Friends Of Israel Lobby group, Ed Miliband – the Labour party’s current leader, produced one of the most embarrassing statements in the history of modern British politics:

“I want you to know”, Miliband told The Lobby, “that if I become Prime Minister in less than a year’s time, I will be proud to do so as a friend of Israel, a Jew and, most of all, someone who feels so proud to be part of the community gathered here today.” 

I guess that many British people would actually expect their Labour party candidate to be primarily a ‘proud Brit’ as well as a friend of the Kingdom. I would have loved to believe that such a clumsy statement on Miliband’s part would be enough for the Labour party to expel the man from its ranks. After all, the above statement proves that more than anything, Ed is much more ‘Blue & White’ than ‘simply Red,’ let alone a British patriot.

Surprise surprise, Labour didn’t react at all. Even the British public, known for its tolerance, was very forgiving. Funny enough, it is the Jews who actually dumped Ed Miliband, they do not believe him nor do they like him at all.

A poll published last week in the Jewish Chronicle revealed that an overwhelming majority of Jews prefer the Conservatives over Labour. 69 percent of Jews questioned said they were going to vote for David Cameron’s Tories. Only 22 percent sided with Labour and Ed Miliband.

Rather than voting for Labour under the leadership of the man who vowed ‘as a Jew’ to be a ‘friend of Israel,’ our British Jews actually want a ‘Goy’ to dwell at 10 Downing Street. How strange? Or is it…

A few analysts have tried this week to grasp this peculiar Jewish collective attitude. They wondered why are British Jews so opposed to the first Jewish candidate with a realistic chance of becoming the country’s leader?

Haaretz’ writer Anshel Pfeffer suggested that “the most obvious reason being given to this question is that while Cameron is widely regarded as ‘the most pro-Israel prime minister in British history,’ Miliband is considered indifferent at best and by many as downright hostile to the Jewish state.”

However, Pfeffer suggested correctly that Miliband is far from being an enemy of Israel. As we read above, Miliband is a staunch supporter of The Jewish State. “He [Milliband] has repeatedly said he is committed to Israel’s right to exist in security and strenuously voiced opposition to any form of anti-Israel boycott.”

Pfeffer is kind enough to provide us with a further insight into Jewish identity, psychic, and ideological attitude. “Historically, the majority of British Jews supported Labour because they saw the left wing as staunch opponents of any form of racism, of which they were so often the targets. In the last quarter of the 20th century, as they became better integrated and wealthier, they began drifting towards the Conservatives, particularly when Margaret Thatcher, who represented the north London Finchley constituency, became party leader.”

What Pfeffer is saying is pretty simple. In the old days, Jews supported Labour not because they were ‘anti racist,’ but just because they didn’t like being persecuted as Jews. But as they moved up the ladder, they actually decided to support the party that is committed to big money and the fight against Anti Semitism. With 80% of our Conservatives MPs being CFI members (Conservative Friends of Israel), the Tory party provides all Jewish needs – it is good for business but it is also united against one kind of racism, namely ‘Anti Semitism.’

Pfeffer correctly states that “the last three prime ministers, all proud Christians, have all felt very much at home with the Jewish community. Miliband came over at best as a polite but awkward stranger.” By now this is easy to explain.  The majority of British Jews prefer a ‘Sabbos Goy’ to run the country on their behalf; a politician that can be pushed and squeezed, a person that would take the country to the next Zionist global conflict without raising too many questions. A person that would support Israel when support is requested by The Lobby, a PM that would react to the imaginary fear of Anti Semitism even before the Jews themselves would sense such a fear. Only a dedicated Sabbos Goy can provide the goods. But Miliband will not be able to satisfy any of these demands. For the Jews, his Jewishness is clearly an obstacle. It only means that he will work hard to convey an image of impartiality and reason and, as we know, these two do not agree with Zion.

This Jewish attitude is far from being new, it is in fact as old as the Jews themselves. The Book Of Esther teaches Jews how to manipulate, mobilize and interfere with their rulers rather than becoming the rulers themselves. British Jews need a leader who will easily succumb to their lobby pressure. They suspect that Ed may be more resistant than any other candidate and truth must be told, they may as well be correct.

Posted in UK0 Comments

Liverpool Football Club to take action against fan who posted a photo of Muslims lifting their asses to Allah

NOVANEWS

In the stadium, calling it a ‘disgrace’

Stephen Dodd tweeted a picture of Asif Bodi and Abubakar Bhula worshipping on their knees in a stairwell of Liverpool’s Anfield ground. He added the caption: ‘Muslims praying at half-time at the match yesterday #DISGRACE.’

Muslim supremacists sticking their asses in your face at a stadium

Mr Dodd’s post, made after Liverpool took on Blackburn Rovers in the FA Cup last month, was met with widespread condemnation on social media, with users branding him a ‘bigot’ and ‘disgrace to humanity’. The tweet was reported to police, who investigated but decided no criminal offense had taken place.  They have referred the matter back to the club.

Last night, Liverpool promised to take appropriate action against the supporter. It is not known if Mr Dodd is a season ticket holder, but he could have this revoked or be banned from future matches.

2797122900000578-3040247-image-m-110_1429110781416

Yesterday Mr Bodi, 46, a solicitor from Preston, told the Daily Mail that it was not the first time he had prayed at a match. It was during half-time that we needed to pray,’ the lawyer said. ‘We have a small window in which to pray. That day, the time came for prayer and the window would have closed before the game finished so we did it at half-time.

Muslims are required to pray five times each day – between dawn and sunrise; at midday when the sun passes its highest point; in the late afternoon; just after sunset; and around nightfall. 

eurabiae1364189369271-vi1

Bodi said, ‘He should be given a talking to and made to go on an awareness course or educating.’ Mr Bhula, 37, who is also a solicitor, said he would happily meet with Mr Dodd to explain the importance of prayers in Islam. ‘I would be quite happy to meet with him to explain why we pray and when it needs to be done.’ 

In a statement, Liverpool said discrimination would not be tolerated at the club and it would ‘take appropriate action against the individual involved’. In 2013, a group of West Ham Muslims were abused by onlooking fans because they were praying behind the main stand at Upton Park during a match. Campaigners have called for football clubs to install prayer rooms so Muslim fans can pray in peace and avoid the possibility of anti-Islamic abuse.

Apparently, this disgraceful behavior happens often at stadiums:

Posted in UK0 Comments

Right Wing Facist Conservative Chamali Fernando saying: ”mentally ill people could wear wristbands”

NOVANEWS

Calls for Conservative parliamentary candidate Chamali Fernando to stand down for saying mentally ill people could wear wristbands

She said the bands could help officials identify those with illnesses

Wednesday 15 April 2015

Campaigners are calling on the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Cambridge to stand down, after she said that mental health patients could wear colour-coded wristbands to identifying their conditions.

During an event hosted by campaign Keep Our NHS Public in Cambridge, Chamali Fernando was asked how the authorities could help the police better deal with people with mental health issues.

Fernando responded that wristbands which disclose a person’s illness could help barristers, such as herself, to better aid the public.

She went on to suggest that a different coloured wristband for each mental health condition could improve the system, local political blogger Richard Taylor, who tweeted from the event, told the Cambridge Tab student newspaper.

View image on Twitter
Taylor told the newspaper: “This would immediately cause others to be prejudiced towards someone because you’ve given them a colour coding.

“If she’s coming up with a new policy like this at a hustings what she do when she’s standing in parliament?”

Posted in UK0 Comments

Racist Islamophobic Pig dumps four pigs heads in front of Mosque in Birmingham

NOVANEWS

Pig heads have been dumped outside a mosque. A plastic bag containing four pigs’ heads were left on the doorstep of an old ambulance station, which is now a community centre, in Solihull near Birmingham, West Midlands Police said.

The former ambulance station bring illegally used a a mosque where the pigs heads were dumped

The Mosque where the pigs heads were dumped

Police said CCTV footage showed a man leaving the bag containing the grisly heads on the doorstep before driving off in a light-coloured saloon car. Detectives said they were treating the incident as a hate crime.

Lodelinsart

In April last year, officials approved an application calling for the former ambulance station in Hermitage Road to be turned into a mosque.

Chief Superintendent Alex Murray, of West Midlands Police, said those responsible for dumping the pigs heads should come forward “before we come and knock on their door”. “We’ve secured good quality CCTV of the culprits and my detectives are making good progress with the investigation,” he said.

Posted in UK0 Comments

British Hypocrisy and War Crimes, Triumphalism and a “Corporate Covenant”

NOVANEWS
Global Research
Image result for British Hypocrisy CARTOON

“ … and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” (Isaiah 2:3-4.)

England’s Easter was the culmination of recent events which have brought the would-be great and good to their knees – and knee deep in hypocrisy.

Prime Minister David Cameron, after attending an Easter service near his rural Oxfordshire home said it was “shocking” that people abroad were still being “threatened, tortured – even killed” because of their faith.

There was no mention of Britain’s hand in this result of the ongoing “Crusade” to which Tony Blair committed Britain’s forces in 2003 and which generated the horrors. Cameron is on record as calling Blair his mentor – moreover, when Blair was Prime Minister, Cameron aspired to be “heir to Blair.”

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg tweeted of the: “cruel and barbaric killings that took place in Kenya.” Indeed, but it was Christian students – nearly one hundred and fifty of them – mercilessly singled out and slaughtered. Was the massacre another misconceived response to the “Crusade” – an expression which reverberated around a horrified Muslim world. The word and our deeds has resulted in violence engulfing the Middle East and North Africa with ever increasing ferocity – and ever spreading twelve decimating years on.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, referred to the Coptic Christians killed in Libya last month – a country subject of another illegal Western overthrow, assassination of the Head of State, resulting in a now ruined, failed nation.

However those who are dying are of all faiths and none, in numbers unimaginable. Tortured, crucified, beheaded, dismembered, incinerated, bombed. Their homes, countries, histories looted, destroyed, erased in unending pogroms (dictionary definition: “to destroy, wreak havoc, demolish violently”) by land, sea and air.

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu opined that Christians were at greater risk in many parts of the world because: “they follow Jesus Christ.” He ignored the reality that until the “Crusade’s” unleashing, believers of all religions had, broadly, co-existed in the affected regions for centuries. Being from Uganda he should also also know a fair amount about Western duplicity.

Ignored in all statements were the Muslims, Yazidis, Mandeans, Sabateans, Druze, Zoastrians, Shabaks and others of faith, dead and  dying in this very democratic (ie no one excluded) holocaust which has engulfed from Baghdad to Bengazi, Aleppo to Aden, Kabul to Kerbala, Helmand to Homs.

Justin Welby, in his Easter address referred to murdered Christians being: “witness, unwillingly, unjustly, wickedly … martyrs in both senses of the word.”

The sense of the loss of every single precious human life was starkly missing in the mayhem created by the most criminal of actions – wars against the peace, wars of aggression – unleashing individual tragedies on a cataclysmic scale.

Perhaps the Archbishop’s mind was still on a service he had conducted on Friday 13th March – in Western superstition an unlucky day when the 13th day of the month in the Gregorian calendar falls on a Friday, states Wiki, succinctly. He will certainly also have been aware of the Easter connection, a belief springing from the thirteen guests at the Last Supper on the 13th of Nisan, the night before Christ’s death on Good Friday.

In London’s great St Paul’s Cathedral a ceremony of thanks to the 220,000 British troops who had served in Afghanistan was held, a commemoration of the four hundred and fifty three who died and a tribute to an estimated seventy five thousand wounded, disabled, sick or psychologically damaged. (1) The last troops left Afghanistan in October 2014 – almost thirteen years to the day since they first deployed.

To an onlooker, it seemed less tribute and more triumphalism. The royal family attended in force, all the men dressed military uniform, laden with orders, decorations and medals, adorned with golden braid, tassles and chains to dazzle.

The Lord Mayor of London wore a long black velvet frock, a crimson velvet cape, trimmed with another ermine one, silk stockings, patent court shoes with steel buckles and a tricorne hat. Tradition.

No Event would be complete without an unwanted guest and Tony Blair, who as Prime Minister obeyed his Master, George W. Bush’s voice and sent troops to die and be maimed in a country posing no threat to anywhere, duly turned up. Having suffered a backlash from relatives of those who have fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, he was faced with them asking why on earth he had been invited.

Bob Wright, whose son Corporal Mark Wright was killed in a minefield in 2006 spoke for many, telling the Daily Express that Blair was: “the last person I would want to see”, calling it “cheek” he added: “He took the country to war, cost all those lives and he’s got blood on his hands.”

Gordon Brown, Blair’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, thus wrote the cheques for the carnage for six years was also there. As Prime Minister after Blair’s resignation in 2007 he did not change policy. Afghans continued to be murdered in the guise of being “freed” and British coffins and medevacs continued to be flown home.

The service included the Archbishop of Canterbury’s public thanks to those who had served. Prime Minister Cameron – with Britain on a permanent state of high alert – said the country was safer because of the efforts of the troops.

Cameron also talked of the scale of achievements in vanquishing Al Qaida. Where has he been? As USA today noted, multiple insurgencies across multiple lands have taken up its cause. It has simply morphed into new movements. (USA Today, 10th September 2010.) And apart from the trumped up 9/11 reason, were we not told that the Taliban the reason for going to Afghanistan?

Perhaps the real reason lay in Afghanistan’s untapped Trillion $ bonanza of “mineral wealth and energy resources (including natural gas)” which have been known of since the 1970s. (2) In the light of which one homily at the service was particularly ironic:

Lord we pray with one accord,

For a just and equal sharing

Of the things that earth affords

It ends: “All that kills abundant living, Let it from the earth be banned.”

A bit late for that, after the firing by the UK of forty six million bullets. Further, in just one instance, according to the Ministry of Defence, at least eighty thousand 105mm shells (costing £100 million) were fired within five seconds of support being called in. (3)

Which brings us to the most bizarre part of the service. A cross made from used shell casings, mounted on a 105mm shell case base, bearing the names of the British dead, was borne through the Cathedral by representatives of the Army, Navy and Air Force and presented at the Altar for the Archbishops’s blessing and dedication. Formerly hung in the HQ at Camp Bastion, it is now to hang at the National Memorial Arboretum, in Staffordshire in the north of England.

The cross, made from shells which had ended lives, mired in flesh and blood was dedicated:

To the greater glory of God

And in thanksgiving for lives well lived

And good examples set …

Tell that to the grieving, bereaved, orphaned, homeless of Afghanistan. Not so much swords to ploughshares, but killer casings for Crusaders. It also has to be wondered whether it is a radioactive cross. The British certainly used depleted uranium in shells the first Gulf war, whether they still are is not certain, but to have abandoned it’s use would have been a major change of policy unlikely to be missed.

The commemoration ended with a triumphal military parade and fly past, which included a Chinook helicopter and Apache attack helicopter, presumably to remind of the “special relationship” which had brought about the whole bloody mess. At least “Onward Christian soldiers” was not on the hymn sheet.

In an interview with Forces TV, Tony Blair said he had not foreseen just how long the troops would remain in Afghanistan. Clearly history is not his strong subject. In this “graveyard of empires” Britain was roundly defeated in 1812 and 1842. In 1919 in a territorial spat with Russia they decided not to return.

In a blistering assessment Will Hutton views the last twelve years as little better, writing: “The Ministry of Defence and the military establishment are revealed as over-optimistic boneheads. Everything militated against success. The amount of money that was squandered beggars belief … Too much of what was planned was driven not by military need or political calculation – but by trying to impress the US.” (4)

The ceremony’s venue was another irony. St Paul’s was the greatest of the creations of Sir Christopher Wren (1632-1723) whose passion for Islamic architecture is mirrored in his buildings. It is witnessed in the structure of the domes in the aisles and the vast one atop the Cathedral. Were it gold, one would surely be looking at a mosque.

Archbishop Welby, with Archbishop Sentamu had another military related occasion in the last weeks. They signed a “corporate covenant” with the armed forces in an: “expression of moral obligation that the government and the nation owe the Armed Forces Community.” (5)

We have come a long way from “Thou shalt not kill”, “love they neighbor” and “do unto others as you would have them do to you.” But perhaps as a former oil man, the Archbishop has a different perspective. His son, Peter, incidentally, works for Tony Blair.

Notes:

1.    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11138811/Help-for-Heroes-Up-to-75000-British-scarred-by-Iraq-and-Afghanistan.html

2.    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-war-is-worth-waging-afghanistan-s-vast-reserves-of-minerals-and-natural-gas/19769

3.    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/569070/British-Army-fired-millions-bullets-Taliban

4.     http://stopwar.org.uk/news/how-britain-spent-40bn-suffering-humiliating-defeat-in-afghanistan-while-trying-to-impress-the-us

5.    http://www.army.mod.uk/news/26906.aspx

Posted in UK0 Comments

Britons Readying and Kashmiri Protesters Blast Zio-Wahhabi War on Yemen

NOVANEWS

British protesters are scheduled to amass outside the building of Saudi Arabian embassy in London in condemnation of the Saudi-led military aggression against Yemen.
British protesters are scheduled to amass outside the building of Zio-Wahhabi embassy in London in condemnation of the I$raHell, Zio-Wahhabi-led military aggression against Yemen.
British protesters are scheduled to amass outside the building of Zio-Wahhabi embassy in London in condemnation of the Zio-Wahhabi-led military aggression against Yemen.

“(We are) getting ready to say hands off Yemen at the Zio-Wahhabi embassy” John Rees with the ‘Stop The War Coalition’ in London said in an announcement posted on his official Facebook page on Saturday.

But in Kishmir series of massive protest rallies are held across Indian-administered Kashmir to condemn the deadly Zio-Wahhabi military aggression against the Yemeni people.

A large number of protesters took part in a rally in Srinagar, the largest city of the disputed Himalayan valley, following Friday prayers, and demanded an end to the Zio-Wahhabi airstrikes on the impoverished Arab country.

Chanting anti-US and anti-I$raHeli slogans, the protesters accused the Zio-Wahhabi monarchy of pursuing an imperial agenda by attacking a sovereign nation and fueling sectarian strife among the Muslim world

Posted in Saudi Arabia, UK, Yemen0 Comments

The Alternative To Long-Term Austerity

NOVANEWS

Less Work, Higher Wages, No Mere Utopian Dream

Global Research
central-banks-economy

“A spectre is haunting the treasuries and central banks of the West – the spectre of secular stagnation. What if there is no sustainable recovery of the economic slump of 2008-2013? What if the sources of economic growth have dried up – not temporarily, but permanently?” – preeminent Keynes scholar and economic historian Robert Skidelsky, “Secular Stagnation and the Road to Full Investment,” Social Europe Journal, May 22, 2014

Both Karl Marx and J.M. Keynes concluded that the trajectory of capitalist development placed a radically emancipatory possibility on the political-economic agenda. For the first time in modern history work time could be dramatically reduced with no reduction in our standard of living. In fact, if living standards are measured not merely by money wages but also by increased leisure, i.e. increased time available to develop and exercise our broad range of gratifying capabilities, the reduction in work time would elevate our standard of living to a degree hitherto unimaginable.

In what follows we’ll see that less work with higher wages is at this historical juncture not merely economically possible, but desirable as the only practical alternative to the secular stagnation grimly forecast with much flurry by such luminaries as Paul Krugman, Larry Summers and Robert J. Gordon, and by the IMF in its April 2014 World Economic Outlook. Both Marx and Keynes saw their prescriptions as not merely a “better idea,” but as the alternative to severe ongoing crisis, understood as dramatic reductions in real production, employment and wages.

The stakes are very high; even the mainstream it pricking up its ears. Krugman recently referred to “a growing consensus among economists that much of the damage to the economy is permanent, that we’ll never get back to our old path of growth.” (“Does He Pass the Test?, The New York Review, July 10, 2014)

The secular stagnation portended is defined by Krugman as “a persistent state in which a depressed economy is the norm,with episodes of full employment few and far between.” (“A Permanent Slump?” The New York Times, November 17, 2013) Austerity hell forever.

There is an alternative, and the only one that is capable of addressing a situation in which profits and economic growth can no longer be achieved by investing in real production and hiring workers. An overripe, industrially saturated economy can be made into one that can deliver on capitalism’s false promises. All workers can be employed, but for far fewer hours, and a just living wage can be provided to all. This is the arrangement recommended by Marx and Keynes. Keynes the Enlightenment liberal imagined that this could be accomplished by rational persuasion within the framework of a democratic capitalist economy. Marx knew better. Capitalism’s property relations, along with its insatiable drive for increased profits, are incompatible with the desired prescription.

Marx understood that a genuinely free society, with both political and economic democracy, would come about only if capitalist power was overcome by mass mobilization. But he was no historical determinist. There was no guarantee that a workers’ movement aiming to replace capitalism with a workers’ democracy, democratic socialism, would materialize. It is the responsibility of the Left to contribute, through education and organization/mobilization, to the emergence of such a movement.

In case this does not happen, the alternative is a persistent state of political-economic crisis featuring declining living standards and the withering away of such democracy as exists in a social order dominated by owners of Big Wealth. The alternatives were identified by Rosa Luxemburg: socialism or barbarism.

Marx and Keynes on the Obsolescence of Standard Work Time

Marx’s observation that soaring productivity under capitalism “makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner” was echoed by Keynes in Economic Possibilities For Our Grandchildren (Collected Writings, vol. IX, 321-332). Under productively mature capitalism, “a point may soon be reached, much sooner perhaps than we all of us are aware of, when [basic economic] needs are satisfied in the sense that we prefer to devote our further energies to non-economic purposes.” (p. 326) What makes this feasible is that heightened productivity reduces the time it takes to produce the requirements of a decent and just standard of living. “In quite a few years – in our own lifetimes I mean – we may be able to perform all the operations of agriculture, mining, and manufacture with a quarter of the human effort to which we have been accustomed.” (p. 325)

That workers will be able to produce the value of living-wage goods in one quarter of the time formerly required was regarded by Keynes as “the greatest change which has ever occurred in the material environment of life for human beings in the aggregate.” (p. 331) It enables us to sieze the day by liberating workers from having to devote most of their waking hours to laboring. “[W]e shall endeavor to spread the bread thin on the butter – to make what work there is still to be done to be as widely shared as possible. Three-hour shifts or a fifteen-hour week… For three hours a day is quite enough to satisfy… most of us!” (p. 329)

It is the nature of capitalist development to expel labor from production in both the capital- and consumer-goods sectors. As Keynes put it in Economic Possibilities, “The increase in technical efficiency has been taking place faster than we can deal with the problem of labour absorption..” (p. 321) This creates “technological unemployment… due to our discovery of means of economising the use of labour outrunning the pace at which we can find new uses for labour.” (p. 325) Capital’s productive power has never been more prodigous than it is today, as the system continues to render labor increasingly superfluous to production. Productivity increases proceed apace while fewer and fewer workers are needed to bring this about.

In the face of rising productivity and unorganized labor, the interests of capital and labor are conspicuously opposed. The Marx-Keynes alternative addresses the interests of working people. What Keynes did not address was that the interests of capital call for more, not less, work in the same circumstances.

If wages can be held constant or decreased and, better still, work time increased as productivity rises, the windfall to capital will be enormous.

This is exactly what we have seen during the current crisis.

Expanding Work Hours When Productivity Rises

The Marxian-Keynesian response to capital’s tendency to render production ever more efficient -to increase the output produced per unit of labor input- is never so much as mentioned in mainstream economics. Reducing labor time is out of the question. According to respectable analysis, the principal benefit of productivity growth is to allow us to increase our material standard of living without having to work longer hours. By reducing unit labor costs increased efficiency also permits enhancing household purchasing power either by lowering prices or raising wages, or both. But monopoly pricing power precludes the former, and the effective defeat of organized labor rules out the latter. Only one alternative remains: capital’s share of total income increases absolutely and relative to labor’s share. This is the world we currently inhabit.

With productivity up 75-80 percent since 1979 and wages continuing to decline as they have since 1974, we are not surprised that the profits of financial and nonfinancial corporations to have hit record highs. And the situation is worse than it looks. The productivity gains of the past three decades are surely underestimated; they record only official work time. Glassdoor, which tracks employment time, reports that “Fear is still motivating people to not be away from the workplace.” Workers are always afraid that a pink slip can be just around the corner, and with workers almost always connected to smartphones, laptops and tablet computers, employers are exploiting these anxieties to squeeze work out of employees after work and during vacations.

Not only did workers use only half of their eligible vacation time between April 2013 and April 2014, reports Glassdoor, but “61 percent of people who take time off are working during vacation.” (“Americans only take half of their paid vacation,” Quentin Fottrell, August 22, 2014 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-only-take-half-of-their-paid-vacation-2014-04-03) Many employers require that workers be responsive to electronic alerts after work hours. This dramatic increase in unpaid work time is unacknowledged in official statistics. That productivity gains are much greater than reported surely accounts for much of the whopping gains made by the very wealthy since 1980.

The increase in unpaid work hours has been especially conspicuous since 2008, when employers were able to take advantage of workers’s insecurity during the financial crisis and the faux “recovery.” This is one of the consequences of the United States being the only industrialized country that does not guarantee, by law, 25-30 paid days off. There is thus virtually no limit to the amount of work employers can squeeze out of workers. The Economic Policy Institute reports that in 2007 the average worker worked 181 more hours than in 1979, an increase of almost 11 percent, the equivalent of each worker working 4.5 additional weeks per year. This began around the same time that the wage-productivity gap began to undo the 1949-1974 Golden Age postwar norm. (Lawrence Mishel, “Vast Majority of Wage Earners are Working Harder, and For Not Much More,” Economic Policy Institute, January 30, 2013)

At precisely that stage of capitalist development that Keynes argued would open the door to an historically unparalleled advance for workers, the drastic reduction of work time -from 40+ hours per week to fewer than 15 hours per week- workers’ fortunes in this very respect have taken a turn for the worse. Keep in mind that the secular stagnation predicted by “a growing consensus among economists” includes a continuation of this development. Permanently high levels of unemployment, stagnant or declining wages, increased debt and chronically insecure workers combine to force workers to compete for scarce work by commiting more and more of their time to what Marx and Keynes regarded as unnecessary labor.

Keynes imagined that with civilized discourse and good arguments, a public-spirited political leadership could in the end cajole business into conceding the necessity of reduced work hours with no reduction in pay. Keynes’s political naivete is remarkable. There is no recognition that political and economic power are the key determinants here. The amount and distribution of work time are not, as Keynes implied, settled under capitalism by political leaders, but by the firm. Rising productivity, displaced workers and stagnant or declining wages gives a tremendous boost to profits. Why would capitalists endorse an arrangement where workers spent virtually all of their much-shortened work time earning the wages they need for a comfortable life and practically no time creating profit for capitalists?

Marx understood that the expansion of leisure and its correlative aversion of crisis would come about only if working people make it happen through mass mobilization. Otherwise, the outcome we witness now is inevitable. Keynes was right that shorter hours at stable or rising wages would turn out to be necessary to avert crisis, but he did not grasp, as Marx did, that this outcome is politically impossible under capitalism. Similarly, faux Keynesians like Krugman bemoan the persistence of secular stagnation but do not permit themselves to consider the obvious argument that this might be a decisive demonstration of the undesirability, the practical unfeasibility, of capitalism for the working majority. It’s called capitalism, not laborism. The idea is to increase The Wealth of Nations, not the wages or even the income of nations. And ever-growing wealth is the possession of the few.

The Accuracy of Keynes’s Forecasts

Mainstream economists take no interest in Marx’s analysis, but they have addressed at length Keynes’s predictions. Eighteen distinguished economists contributed to a collection of essays titled Revisiting Keynes (The MIT Press, 2010), devoted to an assessment of Economic Possibilities For Our Grandchildren.

The economists are generally agreed that Keynes’s forecast that “the standard of life in progressive countries one hundred years hence [from 1930 to 2030] will be between four and eight times as high as it is today” is not only confirmed but has in fact beenoverachieved. (p. 28)

Keynes’s forecast implies an annual growth rate as high as 2.1 percent. In fact, the actual growth rate for the relevant grouping of countries between 1950 and 2000 was 2.9 percent; per capita GDP increased four times between 1950 and 2000, half the time forecast by Keynes. Projecting 2.9 percent over one century, we find a seventeen-fold increase in standards of living, “more than double Keynes’s upper bound.” (p, 28) We do in fact now have the material means of providing a decent standard of living for all. (We are talking here of the advanced capitalist countries. Keynes ignored the question of global distribution. While that issue is beyond the scope of this article, what has been established is that current possibilities for developed countries can be reproduced on a global scale. Neither a shortage of resources nor of labor prevents the possibilities created by the advance of globally distributed technology from being realized worldwide. What does stand in the way of universal democracy is the existing distribution of political and economic power, and the absence of a comparably global movement of resistance. And we must note that what isnot possible is that the entire world shares the American standard of living of the Golden Age, comprising as it does an enormous surfeit of redundant and wasteful production.)

The prescience of Keynes’s growth forecast is, the economists concur, counterbalanced by the failure of his prediction of increased leisure time and a shorter work week to come to pass. Keynes was right that economic growth creates the means to emancipate us from the struggle for survival and to dramatically reduce the portion of our lives devoted to “making a living,” but wrong to think that this possibility would be actualized.

Why has the liberating possibility not been actualized? On this the economists are virtually unanimous. “[I]t is hard to believe that there will come a moment when people feel that the economic problem is solved and capital accumulation comes to an end.The aspiration for improvement is always there, no matter what level of living standard has been achieved, and with it the need to save accumulate and work.” (p. 12) The key term here is ‘improvement’, and it is clear that the authors take it to connote increased consumption. This merely repeats the “unlimited wants” component of the scarcity thesis with which every economics textbook begins. We live in a world of scarcity. Resources are limited but our wants are not, so, lest we enter a Hobbesian war of each against all in a mad scramble for scarce stuff, we must channel our competitive energies through the circuitry of the market.

That human wants are unlimited is treated by the mainstream as unfalsifiable. The claim is therefore not empirical, but metaphysical. No pre-capitalist culture held the boundless wants thesis. What is plausible is that there are no limits to the possibilities of humanimprovement. There is no reason to equate improvement with increased consumption, as the contributors to Revisiting Keynesdo. Classical political economy was not blind to this point. John Stuart Mill shared Marx’s conception of human improvement as the development of satisfying and fulfilling capacities. He saw maturing capitalism as headed toward a “stationary state” much like Marx and Keynes’s industrially fleshed-out capitalism. As Mill put it inPrinciples of Political Economy, “There will be as much scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, and moral and social progress; as much room for improving the Art of Living, and much more likelihood of its being improved, when minds cease to be engrossed by the art of getting on.” (Book IV, ch. 6) These ends would be facilitated, Mill thought, through legislation redistributing property by promoting “equality of fortunes.”

Pressing moral, political and ecological considerations lead us to arrange human wants and desires on a scale of priorities. The kind of society we struggle for is one which can satisfy the most fundamental of these desires, those which any reasonable person would see as essential to human welfare under any modern political-economic arrangements, and does so because it can. On our scale, health care is not on the same level as private swimming pools. The most widely propagated critique of the recommendation to shorten work time is nicely expressed by the Berkeley economist Bradford DeLong, and illustrates the inability of mainstream analysis to take seriously the distinction between essential and luxury consumption:

“[W]hat is our long-run economic destiny? Keynes looked forward to a time, perhaps 2050, when everyone (in England, at least) would be able to have the lifestyle of a Keynes. And, because he imagined that no sane person could want more of the necessities, conveniences, and luxuries of life than a Keynes had, the economic problem would be solved. We are wiser – and perhaps sadder – than Keynes. We know that we want hip replacements and heart transplants and fertility treatment and cheap air travel and central heating and broadband Internet and exclusive beachfront access.” (http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/a-long-run-economic-destiny-of-mounting-inequality-by-j–bradford-delong)

It is bizarre to include advances in health care and “exclusive beachfront access” in a list of what “we” want. Egalitarian values lead us to ask first whether our society can provide a satisfying life for all. Do we have the human and nonhuman resources to provide every working person with a just, satisfying living wage? We do. Why, then, are the requirements of economic justice not met? Authorities as diverse as Marx, John Stuart Mill, Keynes and Thomas Piketty have demonstrated that the property arrangements definitive of capitalism preclude just outcomes. That productive capital is privately owned and put to use only to increase profits results in a distribution of wealth and income that denies the majority a guaranteeof the essentials of a good life. But can we afford it? The 400 wealthiest Americans are worth just over $2 trillion, roughly equivalent to the GDP of Russia. (Forbes, September 16, 2013)

Inequality is not the only factor denying essential benefits to the majority. The vast resources absorbed by the military, artificial product differentiation, marketing, property law, divorce law and the luxury consumption of the wealthy are more than enough to cover “hip replacements and heart transplants.”

A society run on democratic socialist principles would, as capitalism would not and cannot, produce no additional luxury goods until everyone was provided with the essentials of a good life. This is now economically practicable. The task is to make it politically possible. This cannot be done in a capitalist future. The system has reached the developmental point at which stagnation and austerity punctuated by financial bubbles are all that capitalism can promise. There are four types of demand that are candidates for restoring economic security for the majority. None can do the trick.

Why Investment Will Not Deter Austerity

There are four kinds of spending that can contribute to the growth of production and employment. These are the species of demand that generate the Gross Domestic Product. (GDP) There are investment demand, consumption demand, government spending and net (minus imports) export demand for US goods and services. Let’s look at investment.

All developed capitalist economies are overripe; they are industrially saturated. This means that these economies have the existing means to reproduce and advance their material standard of living with little or no additional (net) capital or labor input. Put differently, net investment and additional productive workers are no longer required in order to augment society’s productive potential. Detailed empirical research has established that new, productivity-enhancing investment can be and is financed from depreciation reserves set aside to replace existing equipment. (For a detailed empirical defense of this claim, see the 20-page statistical Appendix to James Livingston’s Against Thrift.) These funds are untaxed and not counted as profit. One of the key justifications of the capitalist’s need to appropriate profit, that it is necessary to fund investment and research, is now yesterday’s papers. In 1995, Paul Sweezy, the distinguished and prescient editor of Monthly Review, calculated that “[T]he big corporate enterprises of today can and do finance a large and steady stream of innovations out of depreciation funds without any net investment at all.” (“Economic Reminiscences,” May 1995)

Two considerations, one more general and inherent in capitalism, the other specific to industrially mature capitalism, are relevant here. Capital must alweays seek to lower production costs. Productive equipment, physical capital, is a cost of production, and the capital-goods-producing industry has a built-in incentive to produce cheaper and more efficient equipment. And indeed capital costs have been in secular decline since the dawn of industrialization. With the emergence of industrially overripe capitalism, the digital revolution has produced technologies requiring relatively small investments compared to those required to get the railroad, steel and automobile industries off the ground. Increasingly, existing capital equipment has been enhanced or replaced by computerized and robotized innovations. The corresponding investments come to peanuts. They are typically financed out of depreciation reserves.

A few examples are typical of very many. A company that makes the steel crossbeams supporting the bodies of tractor/trailer rigs ordered a robotic welding system and developed its own automated tooling to customize the performance of a standard robotic welding cell to its specific needs. The company invested a measly $135,000 in the robotic welding cell, and approximately another $50,000 to $60,000 to develop the automated tooling and fixturing. With this investment, productivity was improved more than 300 percent. The entire project displaced many workers, and the robots never rest, take time out, ask for a raise, require health insurance, complain of unsafe working conditions or form a union. (Robotics Industries Association http://www.robotics.org/content-detail.cfm/Industrial-Robotics-Editorials/Purchasing-Your-First-Robotic-Welding-System/content_id/663)

Robots have greatly reduced production costs in the computer electronics industry. They do nearly all the work in making the most valuable part of computers, the motherboard, housing microprocessors and memory. Workers slip in the batteries and snap on the screen. These robots cost $20,000-25,000, a pittance. A long-time analyst of the industry predicts that “[Robots} will replace most of the workers, though you will need a few people to manage the robots.” (Catherine Rampell, “When Cheap Foreign Labor Gets Less Cheap”, The New York Times, Dec. 7, 2012.) In the auto industry robots cost $28,00-50,000, a fraction of the company’s depreciation set-asides. The digital replacement of checkout clerks, travel agents, bank tellers and gas station attendants was just the tip of the iceberg.

Notable mainstream scholars have begun to broach these hitherto forbidden possibilities. Robert Skidelsky recalls that Keynes and his eminent American student Alvin Hansen forecast “that new inventions would require less capital than in the past. This has now come to pass... Kodak needed and built vastly more infrastructure than its digital successors Instagram and Facebook – and (of course) employed many more workers. The inventions of the future may well consume even less capital (and labor)” (Skidelsky, ibid.) Even Larry Summers avers that “Declines in the cost of durable goods, especially those associated with information technology, mean the same level of saving purchases more capital every year.” (“Why Stagnation Might Prove To Be The New Normal,” Financial Times, December 15, 2013)

Capital goods are like computers. Over time they become both more efficient and cheaper. Their acquisition -investment- does not require the tiniest fraction of the investment capital that brought the nation’s industrial infrastructure to maturity. The existing stock of capital equipment has yielded record profits; new privateinvestments would be money down the drain. Thus, both financial and nonfinancial corporations are presently sitting on trillions of dollars they have no incentive to lend or invest. They are using this cash to speculate in international currency markets, purchase high-yielding foreign bonds and buy back their own stocks, and they still have plenty left over.

The current crisis does not account for the origins of this development. Both private and public investment per worker dropped significantly from the Golden Age, 1947-1973 to the Age of Austerity, with its declining wages and growing inequality. During the period of relative prosperity, in the private sector capital equipment per worker grew at an average annual rate of 3.3 percent. From 1974-1990 the figure dropped to 1.9 percent. In the public economy the corresponding figures are 1.6 and 0.09 percent. (U.S. Department of Commerce, Survey of Current Business, January 1992)

The drop in private investment was due primarily to three factors, the exhaustion of the grand nationwide projects that stimulated output and employment in every major industry for thirty years after the war: the automobilization of the country, suburbanization, the construction of a system of interstate highways and roads, the buildup from scratch of the Military-Industrial Complex and the re-industrialization of Europe; the re-emergence of international competition after the restoration of Europe and Japan, which drove down profit rates at home and curtailed investment; the cheapening of the means of production resulting from technological advances in the capital goods industry. When this last element morphed into the full development of the “digital revolution,” the atrophy of net investment was greatly accelerated as computerization and robotization became increasingly ubiquitous features of the production process.

The decline of private investment is not necessarily the danger sign that many commentators take it to be. The higher productivity and lower cost of capital goods in these times simply means that productive equipment offers more bang for the buck. Huge corporate savings no longer necessary for productive investment are now potentially available to increase living standards by raising wages, and to initiate public investment in infrastructure, green energy, education and health care. Instead these funds make their way into financial speculation. That would not happen if they were socially owned and controlled.

In sum, private investment on a grand scale will not avert secular stagnation. As noted above, three possibilities remain: private consumption, government spending and export demand.

Private Consumption and Exports as Non-Starters

General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt, two years before he was appointed head of The President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, reminded the Detroit Economic Club that “We all know that the American consumer cannot lead our recovery. This economy must be driven by business investment and exports...” (http://www.reliableplant.com/Read/18494/american-renewal-immelt-addresses-detroit-econ-club) Immelt takes it as a no-brainer that wage-driven consumption is not in the cards. Wages have been in decline for 40 years, an astonishing development and politically impossible unless it is part of post-Golden-Age policy. Immelt’s remarks identify one of the key connections between low wages and official policy. Not only must the economy be “driven by...exports,” but “This country ought to be, and we can be, not just the world’s leading market, but a leading exporter as well.”

Obama expressed the same sentiments in his 2010 State of the Union address, in which he aimed at doubling the nation’s exports by 2014. Since that address the increase in exports of goods and services has been only 30.9 percent. (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis ) Obama’s goal was hopelessly unrealistic. (Will we match German quality and Chinese wage levels?) We can imagine the administration’s response: “This only shows that wages have not dropped enough.” Competitiveness in exports means price competition, and this requires low wages. The fifty percent wage decreases in the auto industry tell us the magnitude of wage reduction perceived by elites as necessary in a global neoliberal order featuring a race to the bottom on the wage front. It is abstractly conceivable that the U.S. might become a leader in world trade, but this would be founded upon having created a nation of low-wage debt peons.

Technological labor-displacing developments supplement the politics of austerity. We have seen that the same innovations that reduce the cost of capital goods and tend to render net investment obsolete also displace labor. Net job loss is the New Future. In his new study of the economics of austerity and the corresponding irrelevance of Golden-Age faux-Keynesian remedies, James Galbraith argues that “The big function of the new technologies is to save labor costs... The ratio of jobs killed to jobs created in this process is high...The plain result of the new technology is unemployment.” (The End of Normal, Simon & Schuster 2014, 133, 139, 141) Galbraith might have added “and continuing downward pressure on wages.”

Private investment, private consumption and exports will not contribute to growth in the real economy that will greatly raise employment and wages. The only remaining source of a reversal in the fortunes of working people is public investment, government spending. The financialization of both the domestic and the global economy is premised on the cardinal tenet of neoliberalism, that government spending for social purposes is taboo. This is now a defining feature of post-Keynesian financialized capitalism.

The majority of economists know that massive public investment in employment-generating projects is possible. They prefer to be in tune with capital’s current key signature, so they opt instead for the only alternative consistent with the imperatives of neoliberalism, the perpetuation of financial bubbles. Asset inflation is fine. Product-market inflation, an essential concomitant of a revived real economy, is the archenemy of banks and their chief lobyist, the Federal Reserve. Wage inflation is the worst of all. Capital has painted the rest of us into a corner. The only acceptable alternative is bubbles ad aeternam.

Summers and Krugman explain why.

The Perverse Case For Everlasting Bubbles (and Crashes)

In his 2013 speech which started the widespread discussion of secular stagnation, Summers centered his argument around the fact that a series of bubbles has been necessary to avert stagnation since the 1980s. Yet even with the excessive stimulus that bubbles provide the economy’s growth and employment rates remained sluggish. And we never saw the mild-to-moderate inflation normal in times of robust growth. Secular stagnation had become visible with runaway thrift institutions and the commercial real estate bubble during the Reagan recovery, when low growth and employment improved somewhat but remained well below peak postwar rates. The dot.com bubble of the 1990s also buoyed growth and employment from very low to low, well below peak rates while inflation remained below target levels. Writing in the Financial Times (December 15, 2013) of the biggest bubble of all, Summers reminds us that “..manifestly unsustainable bubbles and loosening of credit standards during the middle of the past decade, along with very easy money, were sufficient to drive only moderate economic growth.”

Summers concludes that “The implication of these thoughts is that the presumption that normal economic and policy conditions will return at some point cannot be maintained.” “[T]he underlying problem,” a chronic demand shortfall and secular stagnation, “may be there forever [my emphasis],” Summers forecasts. Beginning to restore healthy growth rates cannot be done “without the help of unconventional policy support.” Since bubbles have been found to be necessary to sustain even moderate growth, the lesson, Summers maintains, is clear: central bank support of admittedly unsustainable bubbles must become normal “policy support.”

The likes of Summers and Krugman are in accord that the deep-structural problem is a radical shortfall of demand. With private investment, wage-driven growth, government social spending and export demand ruled out as antidotes, the only alternative to secular stagnation envisioned by these economists is bubble-driven debt spending. Summers states, in a guarded way, that financial regulation is undesirable because it discourages the reckless borrowing and spending constitutive of bubbles. Krugman, a strong supporter of Summers’s position, states Summers’s position explicitly. “[Summers] says, a bit fuzzily but bravely all the same, that even improved financial regulation is not necessarily a good thing – that it may discourage irresponsible lending and borrowing at a time when more spending of any kind is good for the economy.” (Krugman, “Secular Stagnation, Coalmines, Bubbles, and Larry Summers,” The New York Times, November 16, 2013)

There is the bankruptcy of conventional economics writ large. We are told that “irresponsible lending and borrowing” is tolerable because it is “good for the economy”! Much as foreign policy strategists identify the “national interest” with what’s good for Big Capital, our erstwhile liberals identify what’s good for the economy with what benefits the wealthiest. The present crisis shows that what’s bad for the majority is best for elites. This implication of Summers’s and Krugman’s recommendation is cleverly masked by their claim that a good economy would benefit all. It’s just that acceptable policy measures have been unable to make the economy good. Even the huge bubbles of recent decades failed to bring about inflation, which, we are to believe, is a sign of restorative growth and would be good for the rich and the non-rich alike. But it is false that there has been no inflation, and it is false that inflation benefits all. The dot.combubble produced great asset-price inflation, as did the housing bubble. Currently, household and corporate debt are once again rapidly rising, and subprime auto loans -the rate of car repossessions jumped 70.2 percent in the second quarter- are dangerously high and rising. (Tyler Durden, ‘Car Repos Soar 70% As Auto Subprime Bubble Pops; “It’s Contained” Promises Fed’ Zero Hedge August 20, 2014)Predictably, stock prices have zoomed to record heights. It’s heaven on earth for the very wealthiest and hell for many of the rest.

Asset inflation and increasing inequality will attend each of the alternatives identified by the economists, unsustainable bubbles and long-term stagnation. Heads they win, tails we lose. Bubbles always climax in a blow to the productive economy, whose secular stagnation makes the bubbles necessary in the first place. So secular stagnation is not really an alternative to unsustainable bubbles; it is the common denominator of both “alternatives” on offer. The logic gets increasingly perverse. Krugman infers from the failure of near-zero interest rates to stimulate production and employment that “the market wants a strongly negative interest rate.” (“Secular Stagnation, Coalmines, Bubbles, and Larry Summers,” The New York Times, November 16, 2013) One way to get there, Krugman suggests, is to “pay negative interest rates on deposits.” Workers who can manage to save a bit in the face of hard times will be penalized by having their savings reduced by interest rates below the rate of inflation. Krugman anticipates the obvious objection and responds heartlessly:

“Any such suggestions are…met with outrage. How dare anyone suggest that virtuous individuals, people who are prudent and save for the future, face expropriation. How can you suggest steadily eroding their savings either through inflation or through negative interest rates? It’s tyranny! But in a liquidity trap saving [is] a social vice. And in an economy facing secular stagnation, this isn’t just a temporary state of affairs, it’s the norm. Assuring people that they can get a positive rate of return on safe assets means promising them something the market [AN: wealthy bondholders] doesn’t want to deliver…”

How many nails can these guys hammer into the coffin of the working class? Five months earlier Krugman had apparently not yet resigned himself to the grisly side of secular stagnation:

“I worry that a more or less permanent depression could end up simply becoming accepted as the way things are, that we could suffer endless, gratuitous suffering, yet the political and policy elite would feel no need to change its ways.” (“On the Political Economy of Permanent Stagnation,” Krugman’s New York Times blog, July 5, 2013) And about the “we” that would “suffer endless, gratuitous suffering” under secular stagnation, this is the same “we” that permitted Krugman to “include hedge fund managers and CEOs among the workers” when he began studying income distribution. (“Rise of the Robots,” The New York Times, December 8, 2012)

High Wages and Short Hours, or Barbarism

Technological innovations in these digital times generate ongoing efficiencies in the production of capital goods, cheapening them and leaving corporations “sitting on a huge hoard of cash” (Krugman, “Secular Stagnation, Coalmines…”) far in excess of existing and prospective investment opportunities. These same innovations promise to mechanize/automate/robotize increasing numbers of workers out of their jobs.

This is the outcome of a secular tendency of capital, to expel workers first from agriculture, then from the production of capital goods, then from the production of consumer goods and finally from the provision of services. The number of employed workers shrinks and their wages decline; labor’s share of GDP (same as Gross National Income) declines. Inequality increases and the rich become richer, absolutely and relative to the rest. Intense international competition makes export demand sufficiently great to resurrect the productive economy a pipe dream.

Industrial maturity has rendered the private productive economy unable to bring about the returns demanded by investors. What has misleadingly been called the “investment-seeking surplus” is directed into financial activity by investors who see speculation as more remunerative than widget production. Financialized capitalism is more intensely opposed to government social investment than was industrial capital, which reluctantly tolerated a modicum of “Keynesian” public spending.

Thus, neither consumption, private investment, government social spending nor exports will avert long-term stagnation.

The upshot of these combined developments is that capitalism has reached an overripe state in which workers are suffering slow-motion but inexorable obsolescence and pauperization and are forced to rely increasingly on borrowing to make ends meet, while the system is now capable of producing unparalleled private profits which cannot be profitably invested in private production, lent to cash-strapped households or entirely consumed. This surplus comes to be increasingly composed of interest payments under the financialized regime. An ever-larger portion of the national income goes to those whose contribution to material production is zilch.

We are left with a superfluity of both workers and funds representing potential purchasing power and/or investment, and a paucity of profitable investment opportunities in the private sector. This is typical of capitalist crisis, in which we have too much capital and too many workers. At the same time, the system is now capable of delivering the means of a decent and just living for all working people.

The diagnosis of the current malaise points to the only workable prescription. No one thinks that an entirely automated economic system is possible or desirable. There is always work to be done that can and should be done by people. Since there are too many workers for the work that needs to be done, if what work there is were to distributed among all workers, all workers would be employed, and at much shorter hours.

Leisure time would increase greatly. This is what Keynes cleverly called “spreading the bread thin on the butter.” Wages could under these circumstances be increased by directing to workers the revenue gains from ever-increasing productivity, and no less importantly, by turning the uninvestible trillions held by financial and nonfinancial corporations over to working people.

There you have it: full employment, less work, more leisure and higher incomes.

The economic surplus must be directed to public-investment- and (household) consumption-seeking if working people are to have the well-being that is objectively within reach. The need for large-scale government spending to create jobs for infrastructure projects, education, health care, green technologies and more, is acknowledged by just about everyone. These are not just better ideas. They appear to be the sole means of averting persistent stagnation and creating the kind of society we want to live in.

By the way, this option is unavailable under an economy organized along capitalist lines. We have here to my mind a very powerful rationale for an explicitly anti-capitalist politics. More-or-less democratic capitalism cannot deliver a workable alternative to secular stagnation. An institutional structure capable of accomodating the Marx-Keynes prescription is the order of the day.

We have real-world examples that can serve as a starting point for a working model of a democratic socialist economy. Mondragon leaps to mind. For about twenty-five years Yugoslavia under Tito had an economy in which workers leased productive facilities fron government, organized production themselves and determined the distribution of the firm’s revenues between wages and reinvestment in the firm. InAfter Capitalism (Rowman and Littlefield, 2011), David Schweickart offers a refined and realistic model of what a practicable democratic socialist economy would look like, based in part on the Yugoslav experiment. Gar Alperovitz (What Then Must We Do?, Chelsea Green, 2013) and Michael Albert (Parecon: Life After Capitalism, Verso, 2003) have also contributed to the discussion. There’s plenty of grist for our mill.

The historical determinists who thought capitalism was programmed for extinction are now rightly dismissed. There is no reason to think that capitalism’s days are limited. What we do have good reason to believe is that democraticcapitalism cannot be sustained. Keynes argued, correctly, that the labor market could reach equilibrium, with the supply of and demand for labor equal, at any level of unemployment. But what is economically possible would be politically catastrophic. Keynes offered his prescription partly as a response to his conviction that the history of the 1930s in the US, the UK and Europe demonstrated that prolonged crisis under capitalism breeds either socialist revolution or fascism. He took the one to be as bad as the other. He would not be surprised at the rise of far-Right tendencies in Europe and the US during this crisis. Were socialist movements to be in evidence, Keynes would be no less distressed. Here we depart from Keynes.

In the US, the present prospects for the revival of organized resistance in the form of socialist politics are grim. But prolonged hardship for the majority will surely breed unorganized resistance in the form of social dislocation of all kinds. The apparatus of State repression, already in full evidence, would come down like a sledgehammer. That’s barbarism. The times have never made radical activism more imperative.

Posted in Europe, UK, USA0 Comments

Communists attacked at StW Bloomsbury meeting: Trotskyite ‘Left Unity’ in action!

NOVANEWS

Stop the War Coalition

SHAME ON YOU IMPERIALIST PUPPET

 

Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem, Sr

 

nato ukraine copy

Suppression of information; why do they fear the truth?

Stop the War’s trotskyite ‘leaders’ attempted to prevent the audience at their public meeting from reading the CPGB-ML’s latest leaflet last night, with what can only be described as a crass and cowardly act of base thuggery. It marks, even for them, a new low in their attempts to destroy any semblance of a broad and unified anti-imperialist, anti-war movement in Britain.

Apparently threatened by the distribution of the CPGB-ML’s latest leaflet on the Ukraine, “Britain out of Nato; Nato out of the Donbass”,  and no doubt aware of our party’ sexcellent anti-imperialist analysis and staunch defence of the progressive anti-fascist forces defending the people’s republics of Eastern Ukraine, a Stop the War ‘steward’ was sent to eject a communist activist distributing leaflets at StW’s public meeting yesterday evening, at Bloomsbury Baptist Central Church, in Shaftsbury Avenue, Central London.

It is possible that they were still Irked by our systematic and thorough exposure of the trotskyite and revisionist’s disgraceful dereliction of duty and failure to defend the people of Libya and Syria from the imperial jackboot and their fundamentalist proxies, which led to the leadership faction of StW refusing to renew the affiliation of the CPGB-ML by a cowardly bureaucratic manoeuvre in 2011.

In any event, the CPGB-ML comrade in question was doing no more than quietly handing bundles of leaflets to people sitting by the aisles, who were then passing them down the rows, taking one each and reading them.

This apparently harmless activity, entirely supportive of the stated cause of StW’s meeting – which after all was called, however belatedly, to discuss “Nato and the crisis in the Ulkraine” – was treated by the dwindling band of counterfire ‘leaders’ as a veritable act of War. One they were also powerless to stop, however.

As Jonathan Steele, a Guardian journalist, who was billed as the warm up act for a familiar line up of trotskyites, revisionists and social democrats – the CND’s Kate Hudson, CPB’s Andrew Murray and RMT’s Alex Gordon – ponderously made his opening remarks, the leaflets were received as a welcome relief by the assembled audience, much to the ire of the ageing band of trotskyite (we think counterfire, but really, who can say for sure these days?) luminaries, who wished to enforce their ideological ownership of the event.

This heavy mob of political sergeant-majors then mobilised the sad spectacle of a young ginger-bearded private in his 30s to confront the ‘sectarian disruptor.’ Failing to give any reason for demanding that the leaflet-wielder leave the meeting, he initially looked fairly non-plussed, before beginning to raise his voice and disrupt the meeting he was supposed to be stewarding. “Get out”, he demanded. Why? the leafleteer whispered. “You’re causing a disturbance!”, shouted the Ginger Steward. “Please be quiet, I’m trying to listen” said the purveyor of the offensive literature. “Get out you’re not welcome, this is our meeting” [Ginger Steward].

At this point the steward ripped the leaflets from the hands of the distributor, screwed them up and attempted to drag the CPGB-ML activist physically from the main hall – which he found a challenge as he was somewhat smaller, although the more sectarian, un-reasonable and aggressive, and the clear initiator of physical violence.

IMG_1889

The CPGB-ML activist remained remarkably disciplined, and un-phased in the face of this provocation, but followed in order to reclaim his literature and protest the steward’s actions, whereupon he was met with a committee of 8 – 10 ageing trotskyites headed by one Lindsay German, in what was clearly an orchestrated manoeuvre:

German: Get out of our meeting you’re not welcome

CPGB-ML: It’s a public meeting called by StW of which I am a member – its as much my meeting as it is yours.

German: You’re not a member.

CPGB-ML: I am. I booked a ticket at this public meeting and you have no reason or right to eject me.

German: I don’t know you. I’ve never seen you before.

CPGB-ML: That is beside the point. I’m the public. You know – the ‘little people’ that attend public meetings when they are called.

German: This is my meeting. I am the elected convenor of StW and you are not. You are causing a disturbance and I want you to leave.

CPGB-ML: Your steward attacked me and has stolen my leaflets which I want returned. The disturbance was caused by him and you, not by me. It is shameful behaviour against which I will defend myself.

German: You’re causing a disturbance now by raising your voice [apparently without irony].

CPGB-ML: And this is how you build an anti-war movement? No wonder there’s no-one left in it.

IMG_1888

The Steward was terrified he might have his photo taken, as you can see from these photos – which we take as a tacit admission of his awareness of his transgression – and the door-keepers looked on appalled at the childish and brutish behaviour of their great leaders and event managers:

IMG_1890

Political differences underlying the Sectarian attack: 

There is nothing obviously wrong with the introductory blurb that StW put out to promote the meeting: “NATO has created and is exploiting the crisis in Ukraine in order to extend its military and geopolitical reach to the very borders of Russia. Instead of authentically supporting the cessation of hostilities and the peaceful resolution of the conflict, Western powers are pouring fuel on the flames of a brutal civil war in Ukraine and lurching towards a new, increasingly intense Cold War with Russia.”

But as the catholic church has been known to affirm: there are sins of commission, and sins of omission. The StW, and their revisionist and trotskyite ‘leadership’ faction, have failed singularly to explain the reasons that British Imperialism is compelled to fight these brutal wars, raise any movement to seriously defend Libya, Syria or the Ukrainian anti-fascist forces from the predatory onslaught of the US/UK/EU NATO warmongers.

Rather they have squandered and destroyed the momentum of the movement, at the head of which they serendipitously found themselves in 2003, by dwelling on their political differences with all the anti-imperialist forces who were actually confronting imperialism, and spending much time and effort describing the counter revolutionary jihadists, butchers and fascists as “genuine anti-authoritarian revolutionaries.” [sic!]

To this group, nothing is more important than the interests of the Labour Party, and they have insisted on creating not a vehicle to oppose imperialist war, which could serve the real needs of workers of all countries, including our own, but a vehicle to promote the interests of the imperialist labour party – and wittingly, or not, thereby suborned the movement to the needs of the warmongers themselves.

that is why these final paragraphs of our excellent leaflet sting them into exposing themselves so blatantly:

Support the resistance

When ‘protesting’ against Britain’s other wars of national oppression, neither the trade unions nor the anti-war movement have yet been prepared to advance beyond timid demands to ‘bring the troops home’, and for ‘welfare not warfare’.

Most of the cowardly ‘leaders’ of our working-class movement have never dared to raise the essential point that British workers have a duty to give active solidarity to those who are standing up against the violence being exported by British imperialism.

These leaders have refused to give full support to the forces of resistance, and refused to organise the workforce to disrupt and sabotage the war machine at home. But when we neglect these duties towards our brothers and sisters abroad, we are also weakening our own ability to fight back against capitalist austerity at home.

So it felt like a breath of fresh air when the RMT union put up a resolution in support of the anti-fascist resistance in the Donbass and got it passed at last year’s TUC conference – thus making it official TUC policy. Demonstrations and meetings in solidarity with the Donbass resistance immediately sprang up in London, Bristol and elsewhere.

For the moment, these healthy developments remain on a small scale and mostly symbolic, but they are a tiny chink in the carefully-constructed separation wall that divides workers in the imperialist homeland from their oppressed brethren abroad.

Let the unions now turn that TUC policy from a pious hope into a concrete reality by organising a campaign of total non-cooperation with the war that anglo-american imperialism is courting with Russia.

Let media workers refuse to go on churning out the endless vilification of the anti-fascist resistance and of Russia. Let workers in the armed forces refuse to go to Ukraine in support of a neo-Nazi junta. Let armaments and transport workers black all war materiel destined for the Ukraine.

In short, let workers remember the power they have, and learn to use it! The lesson is urgent.

A post-script on Trotskyism:

We cannot fail to note the counter-revolutionary role played by Trotskyism in our movement, that stems from its fundamental, entrenched and perpetuated political errors that have long since caused it to cease being a trend within the working-class movement. Rather, it plays its part as an increasingly obvious tool of the imperialists themselves, employed simply to disorganise the working class movement.

The sooner we expel these fraudulent posers from our movement entirely, the better for the cause of workers in Britain and the world over.

Posted in UK0 Comments

HSBC is ‘cast-iron certain’ to breach banking rules again, executive admits

NOVANEWS

Image result for HSBC LOGO

April 2, 2015, The Guardian (One of the UK’s leading newspapers)
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/02/hsbc-cast-iron-certain-breach...

A senior HSBC executive has privately admitted that the bank is “cast-iron certain” to have another major regulatory breach in the future. Global head of sanctions Lee Hale … was meeting with independent lawyers monitoring HSBC as part of a controversial 2012 deal with the US Department of Justice, in which the bank avoided prosecution over sanctions-busting and money-laundering in its Mexican branch in exchange for paying a $1.9bn fine and receiving additional regulatory scrutiny for a period of five years. The deferred prosecution agreement was signed by the then US attorney for the eastern district of New York, Loretta Lynch. During a long exchange about HSBC’s new policy on sanctions and internal breaches of company rules, Hale told the regulator that “given the size and scale of HSBC”, in his view “it is a cast-iron certain[ty] this will happen, at some point in the future we’re going to have some big breach, some regulatory breach”. He added: “I hope it doesn’t happen, but it is likely.” The recorded monitor discussions also touched on problems in the bank’s US compliance team. Hale said: “The internal audit team have done a US review and it’s not great in terms of what they’ve found.” The findings, according to Hale, prompted the bank to terminate the employment of one of the bank’s senior compliance executives in New York, a former sanctions official at the US Treasury. In 2012, a US Senate report noted that a high turnover of compliance staff at the bank’s US subsidiary had made reforms difficult to implement.

Note: Read lots more on HSBC’s sweetheart deal with U.S. officials in a Rolling Stonearticle by Matt Taibbi. Is it even possible to root out corruption in a bank founded to service the international drug trade? For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles about systemic cor

Posted in UK0 Comments

Child sex abuse: Judges, MPs, media entertainers

NOVANEWS

actors, police and clergy implicated in Met Police corruption probe

 

Image result for UK POLICE CARTOON
March 29, 2015, The Independent (One of the UK’s leading newspapers)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/child-sex-abuse-judges-mps-media...

The Metropolitan Police is being investigated over further allegations of corruptionin relation to child sex offences dating back to the 1970s, including the claim that evidence gathered against MPs, judges, media entertainers, police, clergy and actors was dropped due to police intervention. The fresh allegations are in addition to the 14 cases being investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), revealed earlier this month, dating from the 1970s to the 2000s. The three new investigations relate to allegations about police suppressing evidence, hindering or halting investigations, and covering up offences due to the involvement of members of parliament and police officers. One case addressed the allegation that a child abuse investigation in central London, which gathered evidence against MPs, judges, media entertainers, police, actors, clergy, and others, was dropped. It has been claimed that two months after the file had been submitted to start proceedings against those identified, an officer was called in by a senior Met officer and told to drop the case. The two further allegations relate to a child abuse investigation conducted in the 1980s, with one relating directly to police actions in the case. The IPCC said it was also assessing a further six referrals it had received from the Met relating to similar matters.

Note: Explore powerful evidence from a suppressed Discovery Channel documentary showing that child sexual abuse scandals reach to the highest levels of government. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles about sexual abuse scandals and government corruption from reliable major media sources.

Posted in UK0 Comments

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

Shoah’s pages

Join our mailing list

* = required field
April 2015
M T W T F S S
« Mar    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930