Firstly, for councils to set illegal budgets, there would need to be a coordinated response by a considerable number of councils to have a realistic chance of working. However, council tax provides one of the few ways for the council to increase its revenue to be able to cover essential social services – something Pickles is ignoring when he talks about ‘morality’ (means about as much as ‘morals’ does for Cameron re capitalism). I also discussed the potential use of the Tax Incremental Financing, which has been restricted by the Treasury:

Given the market, relying upon such income may prove difficult; especially given the severity of the cuts - offsetting loses through this would be difficult. Also, such borrowing is focused upon private sector investment, which is unreliable and driven by profit, not equality. It also has a hint of PFI to it. The Tax Increment Financing is about using projected future gains through taxes to fund investments, rather than a concentration on maintaining current services. Therefore, the effects this will have in the short-term is limited, especially when attempting to stop cuts to the front line, such as the cut to the Crisis Centre. This is not to undermine its potential for investing in areas, particularly deprived ones. However, there are concerns this can result in gentrification.

Essentially, the government is cleverly taking the attention and blame away from themselves and making people blame their local councils. This is especially damaging, as the divide between the North and South gets bigger (consider this breakdown of cuts to local councils, and their disproportionate effects). If the council tax is raised by more than 3.5% then it triggers a local referendum (despite concerns, regarding the ability to hold referendums, by the Electoral Commission, the government brought these proposals forward by a year); it has been mused that such an option can raise awareness to the problems and constraints being placed on the councils up and down the country.

Brighton have decided to increase council tax by 3.5% (avoiding a referendum), given that the government is cutting their budget by 33% over four years, arguing that it will equate to only 57p a week more for the average family. Given the government would only cover 2.5%, and the freeze would put up taxes in the long run given that it is a one-year ‘gimmick’ as the grant is worth £3m, so Brighton would be £5.4m worse off if they accepted the grant, Brighton’s decision is logical. Surrey County Council have also decided to raise their council tax, as they also commented on the gimmick nature of the proposal and how if they took it they would end up with a £70m funding hole. Despite this, a campaign to make council tax fairer and income based so that people with less money and resources don’t suffer through any raise, is also essential.

France’s process of decentralisation started really in 1982, with Article 1 of the Constitution amended to emphasise the importance of decentralisation stating that the “Constitution states that any transfer of jurisdiction must go hand-in-hand with the provision of resources equivalent to those previously budgeted for the performance of those particular functions.” However, despite more roles and apparent power being given to the French local government, there has been complaint against the inadequate transfer of resources for these new roles – especially given the recent three-year freeze on resource transfers between the state and local government.

UK councils face similar problems when it comes to being conferred with extra rights such as providing a watered down and cut social fund scheme, without adequate resources to cover such a move, as shown in a recent letter by many charities against the proposals:

Crisis loans and community care grants are the ultimate safety net for the most vulnerable in society. For example, they enable women and children fleeing domestic violence to clothe themselves and furnish their homes; or parents in rural areas who cannot afford a car to visit their child if they are taken into hospital unexpectedly. We are deeply concerned at the government’s proposals to abolish these elements of the social fund and pass some of the funding to local authorities, without any statutory obligation to ensure they provide emergency support to vulnerable people. With councils already experiencing large cuts to central government grants, we fear that some areas will choose to provide no, or extremely limited, support – especially given that funding for crisis loans will be almost halved from £67m in 2010-11 to £36m in 2013. The government’s own research shows some local authorities expect the extra funding will be diverted to plug gaps elsewhere.

When the councils are being criticised for wanting to increase council tax given their limited options, but then are passed more responsibilities without adequate resources alongside excessive cuts to their budgets, the government is playing the media and the public in an attempt to deflect attention away from their own failings and inadequacies. We have to make people more aware of the facts and the structural limitations for councils and encourage positive action within the limited choices available.

Both Cameron’s ‘moral capitalism’, or so-called ‘popular capitalism’, and Miliband’s ‘responsible capitalism’ are attempts to humanise the markets, focus on individual responsiblity and actions whilst taking attention away from the wider structural context and constraints. Both speeches are based on rhetoric, ignoring the endemic unfairness in a system where there are excessive cuts to social services, benefits, welfare, health care (one trust is considering bringing in the army to stop them from closing down their A&E services at night due to the cuts), to name a few; where changes are focused on tinkering around the edges. Utilising a neoliberal capitalism driven economic policy, there is no wonder they want to focus on the political elements of any economic decision rather than the economic decisions themselves. Therefore, the specific economy details such as spending and cutting are skirted over, as we are lambasted with soundbites of different forms of capitalism. This ignores the fact that capitalism needs debt, unemployment, depression and conflict to sustain itself – if we concentrated on the practical reality of capitalism then it wouldn’t be so easy to dress it up with flowery concepts such as moral, popular and responsible; all oxymorons when placed beside capitalism.

This isn’t a new thing. Everyday there are personal vicious attacks on the most vulnerable in society, as attention is taken away from the corrupt nature of a system based on profit, greed and conflict. Boris Johnson was only saying yesterday that young people in Britain lack a ‘work ethic’; that pays no consideration to the lack of jobs, when people who spend money getting into debt come out with a degree and have to work at a supermarket; that is hardly breeding a responsible working attitude. We then turn on the news and see some more rubbish about excessive bankers’ bonuses or cuts to working people and think, why? It doesn’t make people feel valued nor nurture self-respect; especially attacking those unemployed when unemployment is at its highest in 18 years.

Sadly, in the case of Labour, their pandering to the right is a product of a system where media right-wing monopolies and an international system obsessed with neoliberal cutting preside; this makes any attack upon capitalism harder. To be fair to Labour, their attack against capitalism is a lot more systematic than the Tories, and I can’t imagine Ed Miliband coming out in an all and out attack upon capitalism. But more and more people around the country are starting to connect the dots, though sadly our political system doesn’t enable a consistent mainstream representation of these views. Labour’s leadership and mass base are too disconnected. This is where local democracy and alternative political movements and dissemination of information is important; we have to remember the realities of a system that has had liberal democracy as the core philosophy for many years and the constraints upon Labour after a Blair reign.

Sometimes you may find yourselves wondering why you’re bothering. Why you’re fighting an uphill battle against a group of small manipulative people. Why you put so much energy into fighting for causes that often find you preaching to the converted, as people close, and not so close, around you sometimes don’t always get why you’re so passionate about social justice. The clever manipulation and re-branding of capitalism, an inherently unequal political, social and economic formation, is one of those battles. People think you’re being too negative, ignoring the positives of the government. Well my response is that any positives you can find are seriously undermined by all the negatives, and the day we stop fighting to make sure every ounce of injustice in the world is removed, is the day our souls die.

The internet, what the founder of the World Wide Web (WWW) – Sir Tim Berners-Lee – said is a human right, is locked in a battle with the US Congress as Senate debate the Protect Intellectual Property Act and the House of Representatives consult over the Stop Online Piracy Act. The Acts represent an attack on internet freedom. The US is a country that prides itself on democracy and human rights, but has a history of hypocrisy as they themselves battle with their own democratic deficit. If these Acts were to pass, this would have major implications for the internet as we know it, especially given the Acts are unclear in terms of their effect upon non-US sites. For instance, already “the domain of a Spanish site, rojadirecta.org, was seized in early 2011 by U.s authorities without adequate due process, notification to the site’s owners, or an option to defend themselves, despite having been declared legal by two Spanish courts”. This conflicts and arguably undermines the sovereignty of other countries’ legal decisions.

It was only within this last week that I addressed the important question of democracy and net neutrality. Essentially, an anti-net neutrality stance is undemocratic given the opportunity this provides for corporate dominance. Today has seen an online strike, as well known sites such as Wikipedia and WordPress (and even Marxist Internet Archive) protested through shutting down their services today in opposition to the two Acts. However, the House of Representatives date of voting is up in the air, with some arguing that the Act is pretty much dead until next Congress:

We celebrated Monday when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor effectively signalled the death of SOPA, the Stopping Online Piracy Act. Cantor said the Internet censorship bill would not see a vote until there was consensus on the matter. As long as Darrell Issa, Justin Amash, and Jason Chaffetz are on the case there will be no consensus on sweeping Internet censorship, so Cantor’s position basically kills SOPA this Congress.

The Senate are expected to vote on their Act by the 24th of January, hence this impressive letter by a host of human rights organisations against the Protect Intellectual Property Act. Democracy includes the right to access information and the right to respect freedom of speech – both are under threat from these Acts.

Talking about democracy and corporate dominance, Rupert Murdoch blew up at the sign of an acceptance from Obama that the critiques of these Acts have a point. Murdoch also criticised Google. However, Google haven’t been perfect themselves when it comes to net neutrality. I quote from the Net Neutrality campaign of SilenceBreakers:

Google (and Verizon)- Whilst proclaiming to be an advocate of Net Neutrality, Google have been roundly criticised by Net Neutrality campaigners for their pact with Verizon. Google and Verizon’s ‘deal’ was met by Net Neutrality protests, with a petition signed by around 300,000 people demanding Google to remember the importance of Net Neutrality given Google’s own benefits from a free accessible internet and its pledge; “Don’t Be Evil.” Amongst those critical of Google’s plans are eBay, Amazon, Skype and Facebook, specifically as the plan creates a two tier system where Net Neutrality’s principles are only applied to fixed line networks, with wireless mobile networks left alone for ‘innovation’ purposes. It is no surprise that Verizon provides wireless networks that can go on Google’s Android phones. In fact, the Huffington Post argues that “the proposal is one massive loophole that sets the stage for the corporate takeover of the Internet.” Whilst the pact was concentrating on U.S. provision, such ideas and deals can have an impact upon the internet provision in other countries, especially given the States’ hegemony around the world. Google even snubbed the first Net Neutrality debate within the UK, calling it biased because of the funders – AT&T – being accused of being antithetical to discussing Net Neutrality – Net Neutrality, as illustrated by this event, is (wrongly) largely seen as a U.S.-centred debate. Furthermore, for all Google’s talk of Net Neutrality, they are being sued by a French search engine, 1plusV, on claims that they buried 1plusV’s search results, costing the engine a lot of money.

Twitter’s response to today’s blackout was incredibly poor, trivialising the importance of the blackout claiming:

Closing a global business in reaction to single-issue national politics is foolish.

It’s not a single-issue to do with one nation, as they should know as supporters of net neutrality – what happens in countries such as the US, which are apparent advocates of democracy and freedom of speech, matters for the rest of us. As already discussed, the Acts would have implications on the legal status of sites from one country to the next. Net neutrality is a global concern, the internet is a global phenomenon, and Twitter should not be so nonchalant about it. Rather, the reasons for why Twitter’s best approach would not have been shutting down for the day should have been emphasised. Twitter could have focused on promoting tweets regarding the blackout, the importance of net neutrality and freedom of speech, rather than seemingly attacking those taking part.

Twitter is an important dissemination of information, switching it down would have been more detrimental than helpful when it comes to spreading the word about the day and the campaign. However, Twitter’s response should have been more constructive, as net neutrality advocates. Maybe they are watching their mouth, given that one of their latest high profile additions, Rupert Murdoch, is busy laying into net neutrality advocates through his Twitter account! Without net neutrality, Twitter would find it hard to exist. Twitter enhances and ensures democratic tendencies. It helped the Arab Spring, it wasn’t the cause of the uprisings, but it assisted with making sure people knew what was happening. It gave people hope, and an alternative channel to promote the truth.

Further on the question of whether this is a ‘single-issue’ for nation states, Spain have just passed anti-interent frreedom laws that have received very little coverage, especially given US’s influence on Spain’s crack down:

US pressure was in part responsible for Spain’s current tough anti-piracy stance, following a 2008 report that found it to be one of the worst countries in Europe for piracy.

As Wikipedia said, this protest is about the worldwide movement that is seemingly cracking down on the internet and freedom of speech:

We don’t think Sopa is going away, and Pipa is still quite active. Moreover, Sopa and Pipa are just indicators of a much broader problem. All around the world, we’re seeing the development of legislation intended to fight online piracy, and regulate the internet in other ways, that hurt online freedoms.

The internet is seen as a beacon of democracy, a product of globalisation, which itself faces little question in terms of the inequality and division such forces associated with the rubric term globalisation creates, but then at the same time these countries that preach the Internet’s wonders want to limit its access. This is because democracy and freedom of speech can sometimes be too powerful for systems based on wanting to keep people and certain ideas under control, and marginalised. A system that has open discussions, and where information is democratised so more people come informed challenges the basis of capitalism and key factors that keep such a system and its associated oppression tactics in tact: ignorance and misinformation. The internet is a central tool for democratisation, and challenging the factors that prevent democracy. We have to keep fighting for internet freedom and make sure people remember it is a human right. You can help by spreading any information about net neutrality alongside signing this petition against the Acts in the US.

It is true to say, however, that we are now witnessing a new attack upon liberal democracy, associated with capitalism and neoliberalism’s inadequate and unequal conception of democracy, as it largely undermines the consideration of the structural inequalities associated with our current global Westernised political economy. In the 1960s and 1970s there was a re-emergence of critique against liberal democracy by groups such as the New Left, with roots in current challenges against capitalism developing with limits to growth, feminism, civil rights campaigning and the anti-globalization movement worth while examples.

However, for many, the 1980s development of New Right Thatcherism and Reaganism was a moralist right-wing backlash to the progress and development of critiques of liberal democracy and associated capitalism. The same can be said of today’s government, which are regressing the rights of groups such as the disabled whilst attacking human rights by wanting to replace the Human Rights Act with a ‘British’ Bill of Rights and cutting at unprecedented levels as borrowing actually however goes up beyond Labour’s projected amount even though leaders continue to preach the virtues of liberal economics.

The Occupy Movement is a perfect example of the growing critique of liberal democracy and capitalism, with the promotion of participatory democracy, economic redistribution and equality alongside localised political and economic units. The global scale of the movement demonstrates the growing voice across the world against the current economic, social and political relations. It is the developing countries that are told to adopt the Westernised democratic structures, despite the fact countries such as USA had a President, President Bush, ‘elected’ for both terms through evident electoral fraud and manipulation. The flaws of a liberal democracy that often falls short of a substantive democracy, in favour of a minimalistic practice is being continually highlighted by a growing movement of ordinary people around the world.

Even world leaders are criticising debt. Cameron said a while back that reducing debt on credit cards was a means to undermining the economic crisis. Hello. Wake up. Capitalism NEEDS debt. It is based on debt. It NEEDS credit cards so that people spend countless amounts of money investing in false needs to sustain a system that only ends up screwing the many over in benefit of a few. To then blame those in personal debt and to argue that we have a debt crisis – when debt has always existed in capitalism, as the system relies upon it – is farcical, and illustrates the problems of liberal democracy and the ignorance of the capitalism crisis. Representation, liberal democracy is based upon, is often shamed as despite there being a worldwide movement against capitalism the channels for such representation, be it through media or Parliament, are restricted and barely existent. Again, this highlights the sham of mainstream politics and why more and more people are working outside mainstream channels.

It was only this week that France saw their credit rating downgraded, despite undertaking historical level cuts. The sense of parasitic agencies floating around ready to sting as soon as they get the chance is another symptom of a system unequal for the majority. Credit rating agencies do nothing but instill fear in the global economic system, despite countries doing what agencies want and cutting at disgusting rates. Greece have tried and failed to bailout alongside implementing massive cuts twice. But still, liberal democracy and neoliberal capitalism is advocated as the solution.

Aspects of liberal democracy, such as the focus on rights, is important. But what is more important is how substantive and existent these rights are. In a global capitalist system where poverty, inequality, greed and corruption are ripe, how can we say that mass ordinary systems have their democratic rights protected? What we need to do is continue to nurture the ongoing attack upon liberal democracy and the growing movement towards a different political and economic system, one where participation and co-operation are at its centre.

Ron Paul, a libertarian Republican leader candidate, is also one of the many people with this political philosophy that is essentially a critique of net neutrality (also see Ayn Rand Institute’s comments on this). Why? Basically, libertarians see net neutrality as an undermining of the market by the state. However, net neutrality isn’t about the government controlling content, it is about implementing needed regulation and safeguards to stop the internet from being controlled by corporations and money, which risks excluding mainly minority viewpoints that are often not associated and supported with the big bucks.

This relates to an important question regarding the nature and form of democracy. Democracy is a contested concept, it’s meaning differs according to country, economic and social contexts. Essentially, democracy can mean different things to different people; politicians spend a lot of time and energy fighting over the claim to democratic principles. However, for democratic claims to be made against the supporting of net neutrality plays into the hands of some corporates’ detrimental greed and profit motivated activity that curtails freedom of expression, access to information and alternative views.

SilenceBreakers, of whom I am one of the Directors for, is a progressive social enterprise that seeks to challenge the unequal provision and access that already exists regarding the internet and computers alongside recently launching a net neutrality campaign asserting the importance of fair, accessible internet access. A unique feature of SilenceBreakers’ work is its ethical focus upon reconditioning computers, often involving the participants within this process, to then help teach the participants vital social media skills alongside selling these reconditioned computers to either the participants or the local community, as the projects take place in primarily disadvantaged areas, to provide these often socially and economically excluded groups with a voice.

This unique attribute tackles an often forgotten aspect of net neutrality, something the SilenceBreakers net neutrality campaign discusses in more detail; that net neutrality is more than just internet speeds and bandwidth, it is about the actual resources and material ability to access a computer and the internet. As the government sets out to make boundary changes that will knock many poor, ethnic and disadvantaged voters off the electoral register, these same groups are often prevented from gaining access to the internet, a vital tool and – as the creator of the World Wide Web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, said – a human right.

Ron Paul cites the US Constitution as a defender of free speech and how this is ensured by limited or no state intervention; how though, in a world of increasing corporate dominance, do we ensure that those with the money and most of the resources do not prohibit those with the least from accessing tools and resources they need to get their often unrepresented voice out? That’s the key question. Capitalism is often cited as the catalyst behind democratic transitions. To an extent, you can’t deny the influence capitalism had on the forces of production as technology and transport for instance has improved and helped with more democratic forms of governance. However, capitalism isn’t inherently democratic; the wars, environmental destruction, corruption, money obsessed greed and crucially when it comes to net neutrality, the corporate dominance of things such as the internet illustrate the conflicts these social and economic relations have upon democratic currents.

Instead, new forms of governance, framed by a move away from neoliberal capitalist greed is needed. Ideally, local forms of public assemblies would ensure more freedom of expression whilst meeting key characterisers for democracy; there is a reason for why classic democracy regarding Polis institutions are essential to democratic studies and research. However, the realities of the current system require also a much needed regulatory and insurance of provisions that prohibit such undermining of internet access for certain groups of people, especially those without the money. Ron Paul’s individualism is ignorant to the reality of the power of a political and economic minority.

By the term corporation however, that’s not to stereotype and stigmatise all corporations or to say that corporations are fundamentally evil entities. SilenceBreakers is even a corporation limited by guarantee. Rather, it is to emphasise that under this current political economy, entities including some corporations can sometimes abuse their power and resources to the point that freedom of speech and equal access to information is compromised in favour of profit and sometimes political control as alternative views are excluded. SilenceBreakers works with corporations in collecting computers and equipment that they no longer need, helping with their environmental policies whilst providing SilenceBreakers with needed equipment to recycle and recondition in use of vital net neutrality promoting projects. Corporations here are playing a much needed role in assisting with access to the internet. There are corporations that are defending net neutrality principles, even if companies like Google claim they are and don’t in reality. Therefore, it’s essential not to take a simplistic viewpoint regarding corporations casting them off as all fundamentally evil things.

In sum, net neutrality is about ensuring democracy and freedom of speech. This can happen with the help of corporations, even if some have a detrimental controlling effect upon internet access – which libertarians such as Ron Paul seem to neglect in their naïve advance of laissez faire economics.

“War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it. Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” – George Orwell

Many weeks ago, I attended a lecture – Inconclusive Wars – by Mary Kaldor where she discussed the changing nature of war; essentially criticising an orthodox Clausewitzean position when discussing contemporary wars. For Kaldor, war is organised violence between two sides framed by political factors, with a focus on inconclusive, persistent progress. Kaldor emphasised the production of extreme identities due to wars and conflict. Furthermore, she highlights the economic gains of war, making people ‘trust’ in the state and its power (Bush and USA after 9/11, for instance), arguing that a war isn’t a war without a political motive.

The good work Gaddafi did in Libya for instance (which isn’t to deny the corruption), and his close relationship with the West, like Mubarak’s, is all nicely swept under the carpet when invasions and revolutions occur. That’s not to say that the USA still don’t have power, as they pretty much control the Egyptian army, who are practically a military junta clamping down and attacking protesters, whilst controlling and undermining the constitution and elections. All the USA do is announce fluffy sound bites.

Kaldor discussed the War on Terror, highlighting how the United States needed a long war to justify their own role of supposed promotion of political ‘democracy’, ensuring that dodgy self-interested military, defence and infrastructural contracts were signed and implemented (as well illustrated by Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 911). On the other hand, terrorists needed a long war to justify their terrorism; the very presence of Western forces often turns the public against what they see as colonial oppressors coming into their country to enforce their codes and customs (which is so often the case). We often end up legitimatising say the segregation of Palestine because of our own actions and responsibilities regarding the conflict and area.

Essentially, for Kaldor, war is a mutual enterprise. Consequently, Kaldor, without providing a lot of detail, advocates the creation of new political dimensions/spaces, with a focus upon international law/justice. I personally, advocate the creation of political units/space/assemblies where people are able to have real collective power and their views help form decisions. International law needs to be strengthened. We only have to look at Syria to see the abuse by Syrian officials of the Arab League and the obvious buying of time while they conduct more atrocities. Interestingly, Kaldor believed that the Arab Spring was the democratic political answer to the War on Terror.

There are reservations I have with Kaldor’s lecture, namely her desire of silencing/marginalising certain people without outlining and recognising the problems with how we choose these people, what methods we use and the retroactive, undemocratic nature of such techniques. Nevertheless, her lecture was illuminating when considering the War on Terror and the potential problems with future Iranian conflict. We badger Iran for having nuclear weapons, something they have denied, whilst we proudly have our own and host arms fairs in the middle of the Arab Spring in their backyard, place sanctions on Iran and then are surprised when they hit back.

Interestingly, it is only recently that Philip Hammond and Leon Panetta have been speaking about how the ‘debt crisis’ aka the capitalism crisis is resulting in their defence budgets being cut:

“Without strong economies and stable public finances it is impossible to build and sustain, in the long-term, the military capability required to project power and maintain defence.That is why today the debt crisis should be considered the greatest strategic threat to the future security of our nations. The fact is, in this era of austerity … not even the United States can afford the astronomical resource commitment required to deal with every threat from every source.” – Hammond.

However, really, there should be no problem with defence being cut; but it is so often the wrong things being cut as nuclear weapons and the arms trade are extended and invested in. Most expenses are purely politically motivated, and often dated say in the Cold War era (Trident for instance). However, if done properly, the idea that a cut defence budget is a security risk ignores the fact that the real risk is the idea that there is a ‘debt problem’. This ignores the reality of a capitalist system reliant upon debt. Capitalism itself is the problem.

There should be consideration of the underlying reasons for why these conflicts and dis-juncture occur – as explored briefly above. Our economic system is riddled with inequality, greed and divisions. Capitalism needs poorer and richer countries to promote its social Darwinistic economic and political policies, as exploitation where limited union, working and labour movement rights exist to produce mass cheap products for limited labour costs, alongside tax havens, corporate and military control, dumping of drugs all in the aid of profit and unsustainable greed and ‘false needs’. Wars too often intend to capitalise on these divisions for money, profit and also reinforcing the capitalist relations that rich countries rely upon.

I watched An Inconvenient Truth last night, and it reminded me of how dangerous inconclusive wars are. Developing countries produce significantly less pollution than developed countries, but the latter are exploited and invaded whilst disproportionately experiencing more of global warmings’ effects.  The evidence is all there, more carbon dioxide from heavily intensified industrial production increases the temperature, which melts ice, raising sea levels, disrupting natural weather systems, increasing the velocity of hurricanes, also creating droughts and general destruction. We have to put our energy into tackling this environmental crisis that, rather than debt, is a security threat alongside being an important moral issue that is largely again due to capitalism and its related debt – which is partly related to the destruction caused by endless politically and economically motivated wars and conflicts. This relates to the need to decommission weapons and move away from arms trading – all of which have featured as important parts of recent conflicts say with Iraq, the Arab Spring and the brewing dispute with Iran. We need to move towards localised, cooperatively produced renewable energy.

The elite promote the idea of ‘insecurity’ to attempt to justify their own political and economic goals of domination and profit; when really they create the insecurity and resulting conflict, destruction and division partly through politically and economically motivated wars. The social, political and economic capitalist relations need to be fundamentally challenged,with a focus on the causes of conflict and divisions such as intensive capitalist production and senseless out-dated, profit motivated arms deals and nuclear power.

“Capitalism is a social cancer. It has always been a social cancer. It is a disease of society. It is the malignancy of society”. – Murray Bookchin.

Whilst it puzzles me that so many Labour activists would spend so long every day lambasting their leader, rather than spending energy into criticising the coalition, there are rightful grievances, especially when it comes to Liam Byrne’s recent article regarding welfare.

Byrne utilises the Beveridge Report to focus his attack upon the unemployed, supposed ‘idleness’ whilst ignoring the realities of capitalist relations. For instance, he refers to Beveridge’s support for full employment. Full employment was associated with Keynesian economics. Under the current capitalist system, the idea of full employment is a farce. As many influential thinkers have shown, full employment is impossible in a capitalist system, as we always need some sort of reserve army of labour in order to keep the system ticking over. Whether that be called the lumpen proletariat, NEETS or the underclass, these so-called parasites of the system are actually required to keep the capitalist neoliberal system in the balance.

Think of it this way. These people keep the competition for jobs and the ability for low wages alive. If full employment was achieved, which is possible if jobs were shared out and working hours were reduced to say a 21 hour week (as the NEF recommends), then we would have a healthier economy, a living wage and more time for creative endeavour. However, the catch is that for the economy to achieve full employment, for those who can work that is, there needs to be a removal of capitalist economics such as the profit motive, competition, greed and neoliberal ‘ideals’ of productivity.

The focus on the long-term unemployed Byrne has in his article ignores the realities of capitalism in another important way, as well. This is in terms of the problems with job creation, when the economy goes through a recession alongside the falling rate of profit endemic within capitalism and the self destructive dialectical nature of the capitalist system. In other words, as capitalism tries to adapt, we see more and more workers losing their jobs, as technology is often used to replace and downsize the workforce. In consequence, the ability for employees to reduce workers’ wages is reduced, thus to increase and maintain profit they have to increase the products costs due to the increasing capital costs. But because of the decreasing job rate, more people are unable to afford the rising product cost, therefore creating an even worse economic situation.

This is related to the increasing reliance on credit. Something Cameron said was a problem in terms of the economy’s recovery. That’s right, a capitalist criticising one of the very mechanisms capitalism relies upon. As train fares, bus fares, food, heating, water and so on all rise, as more and more people lose their jobs, as the gap between the rich and the poorest goes up – the leading parties look for someone to blame. Those with the least ability to kick back, to get their views represented in the parasitic media and tackle the misleading lies and information regarding them as people, are the ones targeted – like Byrne’s attack upon welfare claimants.

What do these people think benefit claimants are doing? Do they think all of them aren’t actively looking for a job? Do they ignore the fact that only £1bn of welfare fraud occurs, and that £16bn worth of benefits goes unclaimed every year? Do they ignore the fact that so many jobs don’t pay enough to survive adequately? Do they know how it feels like to lose their job and have little hope of finding an adequate replacement, as those at the top earn ridiculous amounts of money and receive knighthoods and £850bn of taxpayers money to make sure they don’t fail after nearly collapsing the country after their excessive risk taking and profit making activities?

Whilst attempting to defend disability benefits, Byrne still advocates some level of reform to disability benefit. The details of which are ignored. Yes, let’s not forget that Labour brought in ESA, used ATOS and still haven’t turned their back on this. There’s a long way to go before we have adequate mainstream representation within parliament fighting for groups such as disabled people. Too much focus on those with the money. Corrupt and perverse. Furthermore, there is a focus upon those trying to do the ‘decent’ thing and save up money. What about those who can’t afford to save up money? Those who will have to choose out of cutting down their food or leaving their house because of the housing benefit changes?

In sum, it’s the same tireless attack upon benefit claimants, the ignorance of capitalist social and production relations and the deflection of blame and responsibility from those at the top and those in power.

I wrote at the time of the riots regarding the racism, poverty, social segregation that many people taking parts in the riots experienced. The government wanted to take a different stance, however. They promoted the line that this was a subsection of the population, a small ‘uncivilized’ group of thugs, they advanced a crack down on gangs and social media – two things that The Guardian and LSE study into the riots, Reading the Riots, have found were rather trivial in terms of the cause of the riots.

The Guardian and the LSE hosted a conference regarding the Reading the Riots part 1 publication, with Theresa May and Ed Miliband amongst the attendants. The report is the first real in-depth sociological study into the riots. Whilst Cameron was busy arguing that the riots were a result of ‘pure criminality’ and the justice system became dis-proportional with the Court of Appeal arguing that sentences had to be a lot stricter than normal sentences in order to ‘deter’ others, with the recent Sentencing Committee for England and Wales legal guidelines review becoming stricter due to the riots and the potential for curfews to be placed onto areas in case there are future riots, all illustrate the backlash and law and order response the government had/has.Rather than sitting down, talking and listening ultimately to understand why such events could occur, we had the media and politicians teaming up to stigmatise those taking part. They were placed onto a scrap heap of so-called ‘degenerates’.

This heavy law and order, punishment approach was criticised by the report. The Reading the Riots report on the other hand managed to interview 270 people involved in the riots and talk to them about their reasons, experiences – as their voice has been consistently shut out by mainstream channels. With the use of methodological triangulation (qualitative and quantitative methods), the research offers initial data on understanding, not stigmatising, the rioters. For instance, the conference highlighted that despite David Cameron’s assertions that poverty had nothing to do with the riots, the data showed substantial evidence for a casual, not correlative, relationship. Poverty and desperation for wealth given the numerous amounts of constraints and lack of opportunities within society for people not as connected are often reasons many people try their luck on X-Factor, as well.

Paul Lewis talked about the opportunism of the riots – this is something again that relates to the desperation related to X-Factor and its instant gratification culture, encouraged by a society with a ruling elite based on greed, amorality, lies and corruption. Obviously, there are those critical voices of the Daily Mail and such forth that denounce the report as “left-wing claptrap”. Well hardly a surprise. To give the people they base their factitious hyperbole headlines on a voice would produce evidence to the contra and undermine their purely sickening ideological agenda.

Theresa May’s speech was framed by the usual rhetoric of the rioters’ being ‘irrational’ and ‘thieves’. She then claims to be using the study as a way to understand the riots, but you can’t call the rioters ‘irrational’ if you are willing to try to understand their rationalisation – the point of the study. It’s a prior undermining of the study’s findings! She annoyed the audience when claiming “The riots weren’t about protests, unemployment, cuts … They were about instant gratification.” Well, as I have been trying to illustrate with the X-Factor example, instant gratification culture relates to aspects such as protests and unemployment through the sheer ideological callous nature of this government’s economic political policies that are destroying the communities, mainly of the poorest. Instant gratification has been nurtured by a world in where bankers receive excessive bonuses for screwing over the country. A culture where people spend a few months in a talent contest and receive a million pound record deal. These are therefore surface events that reflect an underlying structural deficiency in democracy, fairness and equality. In other words, by blaming instant gratification May ignores the reasons for why we have such a culture; social and economic neoliberal policies, that is.

Regarding Theresa May’s announcement of a review into Stop and Search powers, it’s hardly going to be a revelation given the amount of criticism over years the powers have received, alongside promises from various politicians that the powers will be dropped, or restricted. As has been widely reported, there was a great deal of anti-police sentiment amongst the rioters. May pretty much defended the Stop and Search powers in her poor speech. One wonders why she even bothered turning up – she could have simply submitted an earlier speech on the topic, as the findings of the study clearly mean nothing to her and her millionnaire out of touch friends. She even went against the study’s findings that gangs had NO significant effect upon the riots, arguing that we should be listening to victims not rioters (going against the entire meaning of the study) and that the government will press ahead with their anti-gang strategy, alongside supporting the court’s tough punishments. I repeat; why the hell did she even bother to go? She learnt nothing. The government learnt nothing. They don’t care. As long as they have their millionaire bubble. As Julia Urwin said, “if we say that any understanding of why people did it is only an excuse, we are really missing the point.”As the conference also pointed out; what about rioters as daily victims themselves of a political and economic agenda?

Jokingly referring to Theresa May as a ‘warm-up act’, Ed Miliband was better when it came to the content and tone of his speech alongside accepting questions at the end of it. Miliband criticised the view purported by the government that the riots were a result of ‘pure criminality. There was a lot of emphasis upon values and morality, what this means in practice is hard to tell. Furthermore, he also backed the harsh sentences of the rioters. Whilst he addressed issues such as a living wage, as expected there is a genuine inability to connect the dots across the mainstream political channels. These riots are a consequence of a system that is beset with corruption, greed, conflict and where the ruling elite perpetrate their ruling agenda and ideology to the detriment of the mass majority. The study is a good building block to illustrating these problems, and I look forward to phase two of the study.

There have been academics analysing China’s rise, with some authors predicting the collapse of China, especially as many view China’s economic liberation to be at odds with their political authority. Bruce Gilley (2006) argued, for instance, that China’s only future is a democracy through modernisation; when pushed, Gilley argues that if this doesn’t change, China will have until 2019 until it collapses! The idea being, therefore, that China will only survive if it becomes ‘like us’… Other authors have focused upon whatever happens in China having a fundamental effect upon the rest of the world. Holliday takes this position. We only have to look at the papers, nearly every day, commenting on the rise of China – Obama is clearly reaching out towards China, as are the UK.

Regarding global justice, Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a framework of norms constructed by various members of the international community to protect against abuses of sovereignty such as mass atrocities like genocide, with the last resort being international military action arguably put in practice recently with the intervention in Libya legitimised by the security council. Most debates, apart from UN discussions, regarding global justice and rights within China often take place without China, with the debate often dominated by Western discourse and terms especially given China was only relatively recently active within the UN. This relates to another paper I read the other week regarding the construction of new imperialism, as state’s justify invasions in ‘less developed’ countries because they are seen to threaten peace and stability, especially through poverty, and are therefore viewed to be a ‘security threat’.

That said, there are serious concerns regarding China and its disregard for rights (China helped water down R2P, for instance). Economic growth and business partnership comes above rights, with China being responsible for 50% of those who have moved from absolute poverty levels in the last 30 years (which arguably assists with right protection). China are sometimes critical of the conception of human rights as a discourse used by the West to intervene and impose Western values upon other countries. For instance, China’s abstention regarding the Libya intervention was largely due to African Union’s support.

When it comes to justice, Holliday argued that China are closer to communitarianism, whereas the West have a much more cosmopolitan view of justice effecting their views of global justice. The latter focuses on the transcendence of justice and how borders can fall away if justice is breached within a certain country (relates to R2P). China’s communitarianism is different to the common Western interpretation, as there is more focus upon the locality of justice and how it is kept within certain boundaries, respecting the variation of different cultures.

Nevertheless, the West and China are connected through their desire for growth and economic production. Holliday argues that we should try to blend the two approaches together, respecting the need to look at abuses of rights in different countries but also respecting the difference in culture and values. Whilst expanding business opportunities with Africa, for instance, Holliday did not believe that China will ever show real intentions of imperialism towards other counties – they place economic issues before political ones, hence their neglect of human rights.

Whilst this has been more of a report of the issues discussed within the lecture, and a brief one at that, I think it highlights some important issues regarding the rise of China and its influence and relation with other countries around the world. The Eurozone cries out for a China to help them, but China are unlikely to want to tie their economy within Westernised projects – but maybe they will if the threat to their economy becomes too great. Whatever happens, China is a rising power worth watching.

As most people know, there is an international occupy movement against the unfairness of the international response, and the greed and inequality entrenched within the political system, to the economic crisis. However, people are having their demands responded to with media rhetorical friendly patronising comments such as Francis Maude suggesting strikers on November the 30th undertake a ‘token’ 15 minute strike. Yes, you can tell he misses the point. People’s livelihoods aren’t tokens.

Then George Osborne argued that the Eurozone crisis was somehow providing evidence that the austerity measures within Britain are working and just:

Britain is impacted by what has happened. There is no doubt that growth in Britain, jobs in Britain have been hit by what is going on in the eurozone, but it is all the more reason that we in Britain weather this difficult storm by taking the difficult decisions we took – on our own terms, rather than being forced to do so by the markets, like France and Italy are – and I think it reminds everyone why we have had to take these difficult decisions, to keep Britain as protected as possible from what is going on.

Now, for one thing Britain doesn’t operate within a bubble, and whilst it appears that Osborne recognises this, he constructs the international markets naively. Most importantly, the Eurozone itself is conditioned by neoliberal constraints, so to then argue that austerity neoliberal driven policies are being shown to work by the Eurozone crisis is laudable.The global economy is meshed within a system where certain constraints and events are interconnected. The Eurozone responded the same way that Britain did, to cut and impose stringent criteria upon bailout recipients; these countries have also largely progressed under neoliberal driven policies for many years before- France is a good example. To argue that just because Britain is not in the Eurozone that it is somehow immune from the market and international system pressure is rather naive, and ignores the structural factors that influence such policies. However, obviously, ideological vendettas against the most vulnerable and poorest in society is another reason for the Tories drawing blood.

Essentially, the Eurozone suffers from the same capitalist constraints of ‘needing’ to ensure mass consumption, endless production of false needs, circulating in the falling rate of profit as capital costs increase, labour forces are deregulated and downsized and fewer people can afford to buy products. Credit rating agencies and the markets are involved in a cest pool of capitalist forces, ensuring that countries such as Greece and Italy alongside the UK are backed into a corner and forced to comply with debt and deficit reduction practices that hurt the poorest most, whilst during ‘boom’ years, countries such as France failed to comply with the Eurozone restrictions upon debt and deficit levels, themselves.

No matter if an attempted austerity led bailout fails, they try again; no matter if an international movement criticising the governmental policies around the world forms, they try to carry on with business as usual; no matter that the Eurozone is defined by neoliberal capitalist tendencies, Osborne will try to still argue that it supports the ‘wonders’ of his failing stupid illogical policy direction. Importantly, however, it isn’t just the system/structural relations that influence government directions, ideology plays an essential interdependent role too.