Obviously I’m somewhat excited about Saturday, as I will be launching An Anarchist FAQ in Glasgow. And about time!
But here are a few things of interest.
Obviously I’m somewhat excited about Saturday, as I will be launching An Anarchist FAQ in Glasgow. And about time!
But here are a few things of interest.
First, Paul Krugman discusses the relationship between wages and unemployment in the 1930s. As a good neo-classical Keynesian, he thinks Keynes arguments against wage cutting are only applicable in a depression (as he put it, there “have been a lot of responses to my demonstration that the usual argument about the contractionary effects of wage increases doesn’t apply in a liquidity trap.”).
This flows from the notion that Keynes’ argument was purely in response to the Great Depression. Yet he named his book The General Theory, which suggests that it has more than application in bad periods. And, indeed, his arguments in Chapter 19 are of a general nature, not related to a depression situation. The notion that his theory is only applicable for depressions comes from the attempts to combine Keynes with the neo-classical tradition which he broke with, but not sufficiently.
Second, there is this speech by a AFL-CIO person: How a Low Wage Economy with Weak Labor Laws Brought Us the Mortgage Credit Crisis. Obviously, I’m not suggesting support for the AFL-CIO but it does give a good overview of the last 30-odd years, the break of the link between wages and productivity and the importance of being in a union — even a reformist and bureaucratic one!
Third, there is an article I sent to Freedom on poverty in Scotland (and the UK). Obviously, it assumes (rightly) a relative definition of poverty (see section C.10 for more on this).
Lastly, there is another letter to the Weekly Worker. Obviously, no one has replied to my previous two letters on what, exactly, was the difference in class and social relationships under Lenin and Stalin. I’m not surprised.
Well, I’ll post my views of the AFAQ launch next week…
A third of Scots classed as breadline poor
According to Changing UK, a study conducted by Sheffield University, 32% of Scots are breadline poor. This is defined as a poverty line so low that people are excluded from participating in “the norms of society.”
In each decade since 1970, Scotland had the highest proportion of people in the breadline poor category in the UK. In 1970, 27% of the Scottish population was classed as breadline poor, with the figure dropping to 23% in 1980. After 10 years of Thatcherism, the figure for 1990 was back to its 1970 value – with 27% of Scots falling into the category. It gets worse, with the figure rising to 32% in 2000.
The proportion of people in Scotland classified as “asset wealthy” also rose, from 10% in 1980 to 11% in 1990, and up to 15% in 2000. For those in the middle (“non-poor, non-wealthy”), there were squeezed as it fell from 68% in 1980 to 54% in 2000. This means that the gap between rich and poor has widened over the 40-year period.
For the UK as a whole, the breadline poor figure rose from 23% in 1970 to 27% in 2000, while the middle category fell from 66% in 1980 to 50% in 2000. The report concludes that “areas that were already wealthy have tended to become disproportionally wealthier and areas that experienced high levels of relative poverty saw these levels increase. The country has also become steadily more socially fragmented since 1971.”
So the next time David Cameron witters on about the “broken society”, remind him who broke it – he Tories beloved Thatcher and her neo-liberal ideology.
Letter to Weekly Worker
Dear Weekly Worker
I would take James Turley’s assertions more seriously if he spelt my name correctly (“Fragile ego”, Weekly Worker no. 746). This suggests that he has not really bothered to understand my point but rather went into full-blown auto-response mode.
He claims that I seem “to be in politics for all the wrong reasons” as the “point of a campaigning organisation is to fight for its aims and – who knows? – achieve them.” Quite true, but irrelevant to the point I was making. He states that an organisation “needs a programme which is capable of fulfilling those aims.” Again, as true as it is irrelevant to my argument.
Apparently, for me, “the point of a programme is instead to massage the fragile egos of all the weird and wonderful types who happen to sign up.” I’m not sure where I implied that, as I clearly did not state it nor suggest that democracy “means anarchists being left to their anarchism, Trots to Trotskyism and so on.” This, he states, “is the most profoundly anti-democratic vision imaginable for an organisation.” Whether this is true or not is irrelevant, as it (again) totally ignores my point, namely that United Fronts should not make belief in a specific programme mandatory for joining. If Turley thinks such a group should have a “Marxist” programme then fine, but it is not a mass student organisation – it is a Leninist sect.
He goes on to state that democracy “requires majority decision-making on stuff that matters – strategy, tactics, programme – otherwise the membership have no power.” Quite, so why pre-empt that decision-making by demanding the organisation subscribe to a “Marxist” programme? But, clearly, a United Front is not desired. He pronounces that the “fact that anarchists object to a Marxist programme cannot change the fact that a Marxist programme is basically necessary for ‘another education’. If anarchists disagree, let them polemicise and put forward their own programmes.” Yet, by definition, we cannot within the afflicted group as it has been lumbered with a programme which will exclude all non-“Marxists” from it!
As I repeatedly argued, and which Turley repeatedly ignored, demanding that a United Front starts with a specific (“Marxist”) programme means that it is not that at all, it is a Leninist sect. Instead of address my real argument, he invents one for me and then runs with it. Nice for his ego, I’m sure, but it does not convince.
He ends by asserting that “the ‘leave me alone!’ attitude is ethically antithetical to working class activity.” How strange. I’m working class, yet my union does not have a “Marxist” programme. I wonder how many members we would have if it did? So, not imposing a specific ideological programme on organisations is common place in working class activity (e.g., the Soviets of 1905). Programmes should come from struggle, not imposed at the start. Ironically, he states that “we should be beating it out of people (metaphorically speaking).” I simply note that the Bolsheviks (once in power) did (literally) beat autonomous working class organisations out of people by (for example) disbanding any soviets which elected non-Bolshevik majorities in 1918.
Turley ends by stating “politics is serious business, comrade.” Yes, I agree. It is a shame that his reply failed to address the issues I raised. This suggests a lack of seriousness on his part.
Iain McKay
www.anarchistfaq.org