| Socialist Standard July
2005 To
images for this page ->
To next page ->
To contents -> To
Socialist
Party->
|
|
|
Show
Biz re-visits world poverty
“Make Poverty History” is an imaginative slogan. Who could disagree
with the idea of a society in which all people enjoy good health and
material security, with all the miseries of world poverty consigned to
the past? Sir Bob Geldof is one who believes in such a world and,
as a rock performer with credibility, is trying to mobilise millions of
like-minded people in great demonstrations aimed at bringing pressure
on the G8 governments to assist the desperately poor in the undeveloped
countries. If his plans succeed a million people will go to Edinburgh,
and added to these will be many more attending concerts in London,
Paris, Rome, Berlin and Philadelphia, all to celebrate their solidarity
and to make the point that the people of the richest countries should
spend more money to end hunger. The aim is also to persuade world
leaders to drop third world debt, reform trade laws and double aid to
the undeveloped regions.
It is not for socialists to spoil a good party. On the contrary,
we can take some heart from these popular demonstrations of care and
concern. It would be even more depressing if millions of people were
dying every year from easily preventable causes while those better off
never gave it a thought. However, this is not the case, so at least
there is something reassuring about the willingness and enthusiasm of
many people to join together to focus attention on the tragedies of
needless death in a world that could so easily provide the good things
of life for all.
However, we are bound to ask some critical questions. The staging of
pop concerts aimed at making poverty history is beginning to acquire a
history of its own. It is twenty years since the first Live Aid
Concert was staged at Wembley in 1985 and was thought to be a great
success. The aim was to make a difference but what difference did
it make?
Reality behind the hype
No doubt in a very minor way the money raised following concerts and
channelled through organisations like OXFAM has done a bit of good. But
this should be seen against the scale of the problem and whether the
actions led by Live Aid, or as it is now called Live 8, in any way
address its causes. Over the years, agencies of the United Nations such
as the Food and Agricultural Organisation have posted the numbers
suffering poverty. For example, in 1975, 435 million people were
seriously undernourished. By the year 2000 this had almost doubled to
820 million. UNICEF states that approximately 40,000 children under
five die every day from preventable causes. These figures
indicate that since the first Live Aid concert in 1985 the numbers
dying from poverty have been increasing horrendously, which leaves
little doubt that pop concerts and the charities have made no
significant impact on the problem. The grim facts are that the present
methods of the “Make Poverty History” campaign stand no chance of
ending deaths from hunger. If we are to be serious about stopping this
perpetual holocaust, the many thousands of people who support this
campaign should have a serious re-think about how best to go about it.
We don’t see much by way of analysis, but judged by its methods the
“Make Poverty History” campaign appears to think that the fault lies
with the developed countries in not cancelling third world debt, not
opening up more free trade, and not being more generous in sending
money aid to the undeveloped countries, particularly in Africa.
However, there is not a shred of evidence that any cancellation of debt
will result in improved conditions for workers in Africa. It is
claimed that the aim of loans to African states is to improve services
such as health and education and build up infrastructures such as
communications, port facilities, roads and bridges, etc. In theory
these would assist the development of trade with a prospect of raising
living standards throughout the continent. A more realistic view
is that loans enable Western governments, banks and global corporations
to maintain an economic stranglehold on the economies of countries that
are rich in resources such as oil, natural gas, gold, diamonds, iron
ore, titanium ore, bauxite, timber, rubber, copper and other vital
materials.
One example is Nigeria with a population of 135 million, GDP per capita
of $275 per annum, an external debt of $1.1 billion and producing
750 million barrels of oil per year under the control of global oil
companies such as Shell (Anglo Dutch), Exxon Mobil (US), Sasol (South
Africa), AGIP International (Italy), Chevron (US), Total (France), BP
(UK), Statoil (Norway).
Angola financed its civil war from profits from the sales of oil and
diamonds and also relies on oil-backed loans which now burden the
economy with an external debt of $10.45 billion. Average life
expectancy in Angola is 36 years. Its GDP per capita income is
$632 per year. Whilst most of its population suffers the most severe
poverty its political rulers benefit from corruption. “The IMF found
that between 1997 and 2002 some $4.22 billion went missing equivalent
to some 12 percent of GDP. Angola’s wealth is concentrated in the hands
of a small elite, who often use government positions for massive
personal enrichment” (Guardian, 1 June).
The small country of Equatorial Guinea was recently subject to an
escapade involving Sir Mark Thatcher who was accused of being part of
an intended takeover. It is immensely rich in resources with oil and
gas production expected to reach 150 million barrels a year. It carries
an external debt of $248 million. Some international companies reaping
high profits include Marathon Oil (US), Exxon Mobile (US), Energy
Africa (South Africa), Chevron (US), British Gas (UK).
Marathon Oil operates in Equatorial Guinea on very good terms which may
be associated with the benefits its politicians enjoy. “Teodoro Obiang
Nguema, the country’s president, and his wife and son, were apparently
treating themselves to planes, big houses and shopping sprees. Millions
of dollars in cash were being lugged around Washington in suitcases”
(Guardian, 2 June).
Taking the continent of Africa as a whole the (British) Prime
Minister’s Commission for Africa “estimated that the amount stolen and
now held in foreign banks is equivalent to more then half the
continent’s external debt of $300 billion” (Guardian, 3 June).
There can be little doubt that the world we are now describing is one
motivated by greed and pursued through a ruthless exploitation of
natural and human resources. The main players are governments,
multinational corporations and corrupt local politicians running
gangster regimes. It may well be that the governments of the G8 will
make a gesture that partially cancels third world debt but the
write-off of these dollars will only be a means of continuing their
grip on African countries whilst dressing their actions with the phoney
rhetoric of care and concern.
There will be no outcome that will solve the problems of the
desperately poor of Africa, and however well meaning may be their
slogans, workers in the developed countries should not become involved
in the machinations of interest groups whose basic concern is profit
and the economic strategies of ruling elites.
Weakness of mere protest
Whilst the G8 protests may demonstrate great strength of feeling they
will also demonstrate a great weakness; this is the lack of control of
those who take part and their dependence on the decisions and actions
of present power structures. Because of this, protesters can become
victims of a seductive but deadly process. The capitalist system
constantly throws up issues that demand action amongst those who are
concerned and by many people who think of themselves as socialists. As
a result, protest tends to become a demand for an “improved” kind of
capitalism which leaves the long-term reasons for protest intact. This
has been the history of protest.
In this sense, protest tends to set a stage for further protest and
further demonstrations. Though the issues may vary the message stays
the same: “We demand that governments do this, that or the other!” The
spectacle of thousands demanding that governments act on their behalf
is a most reassuring signal to those in power that their positions of
control are secure. In this way, repeated demonstrations do
little more than confirm the continuity of the system. The point is to
change society, not to appeal to the doubtful better nature of its
power structures.
With Sir Bob as its high priest, we could also think of the Live 8
concerts as homage to the god of money and the illusion that it has
powers of action on its own. But the opposite is true. Money is
part of a system that prevents us from using our real powers of
production for the benefit of all people. Geldof never stops going on
about giving more money and this feeds the illusion that without money
we have no way to provide for the things we need. This leaves us
separated from our powers of action. It ignores the fact that
productive resources are not money but labour, land, industry,
manufacture, transport and communications. The problems of world
poverty require that these should be liberated from the economic
constraints of money and the profit system.
Given that the number of people suffering and dying from the effects of
world poverty have doubled over the past 25 years and on any realistic
forecast will continue to increase, it should be obvious that we must
go far beyond mere protests, organise to abolish the profit system and
replace it with a world of common ownership, democratic control and
production solely for needs. Such a socialist world would be able to
stop people dying from hunger immediately and rapidly increase world
food production to reach a point where every person on the planet would
have free access to sufficient good quality food to maintain good
health.
Pieter Lawrence
|
|
|
Cooking
the Books 1
|
The Right
to Work All Hours
|
In 1993 the European Commission proposed that the maximum time that
employers could legally make their employees work should be limited, on
average and including overtime, to 48 hours a week.
A quick calculation will show that, for a six-day week, this is the
Eight Hour Day, a long-time trade union demand. In Capital (chapter 10
on “The Working Day”) Marx quotes a declaration from a General Congress
of Labor that met in Baltimore in August 1866 that “The first and great
necessity of the present, to free the labour of this country from
capitalistic slavery, is the passing of a law by which eight hours
shall be the normal working day in all States of the American Union”.
In fact, May Day was instituted in 1889 precisely to demonstrate for
this in all countries.
The Council of Ministers of the Member States of the European Union
(the body that makes European laws) did not accept this proposal. While
still retaining 48 hours as the maximum that employers could legally
require their workers to work, they amended the draft Working Time
Directive to allow countries to provide for individual workers to
voluntarily waive their legal right not to work more than this. This
loophole, inserted at the insistence of the UK minister, came to
be known as the “UK opt-out”. Which the then Tory government
immediately took advantage of.
Since the bargaining strength of workers and employers are by no means
equal this made the Directive virtually a dead letter in Britain, with
employers making “voluntary” agreement to work longer a condition for
being employed or promoted. As Paul Routledge explained in his column
in the Daily Mirror (13 May):
“Forty per cent of UK firms exploit the opt-out – by ‘asking’ workers
to sign away their rights. Many bosses require staff to accept
employment contracts containing an opt-out clause, even though this is
illegal. No clause, no job”.
When the Directive came up for review in May this year, the European
Parliament (which is not a real parliament, more a consultative
committee) voted to end the “UK opt-out”. Immediately a huge hue and
cry was raised by employers’ organisations in Britain. “Freedom of
choice” was at issue, said the Director General of the CBI, echoing
what employers had said in the 1840s when a timid bill to limit the
working day to ten hours had been introduced. It would undermine
“competitiveness”, said the Director General of the British Chambers of
Commerce, expressing employers’ dislike of restrictions on how long
they can get their workers to work, since any limitation could mean
they might have to take on more workers, so increasing their labour
costs and undermining their competitive position vis-à-vis
capitalist enterprises in other countries – such as China, Brazil and
India where no such restrictions apply.
And what did the newly-elected Labour government have to say on this?
Yes, yes, it would undermine competitiveness, we’ll fight to ensure
that a maximum 48-hour week is not introduced into Britain, grovelled
Industry Secretary Alan Johnston and Employment Minister Gerry
Sutcliffe (both of whom had climbed the greasy pole via the trade union
movement).
True to their word, they did and won. The Council of Ministers retained
the opt-out. Proof if any more were needed (which it isn’t) that Labour
is not even a “Labour” party.
|
|
|
|