Whenever there is an economic crisis, a country's incomings are reduced due to a shrinking of business, trade of taxable goods, numbers employed and individual wages (at least in real terms) . Consequently there is always pressure on a Government to reduce its outgoings during such a period. It must make cuts to state spending to keep its books balanced.
The current crisis, which manifested itself firstly as a global crisis of finance capital, and therefore struck the financial centres of the world first and most forcefully, was temporarily quelled by the state. Governments internationally poured astronomical sums of tax payers' money and future tax payers' money into the inefficient private banking sector, run into the ground by arrogant, greedy and incompetent bankers. And the Economist and other economic organs are recommending that Governments continue to do so and that they offer 'unlimited' funds.
Therefore, whilst on the one hand Governments are under pressure to make tremendous state cuts, they are under pressure to spend a tremendous amount too. Cuts to essential services which will adversely effect the lives of ordinary people of all ages, and the most vunerable most acutely, and spending on the reckless, incorrigable rich. The poor have too much money spent on them and the rich not enough. This is not due to any 'selfish gene' or evil personalities, but due to the demands of the capitalist system.
Therefore, society must ask itself what it has to gain by keeping the capitalist system, since its survival depends upon the destruction of the living standards of the majority, the 99%. And not just temporarily, but for an indefinite period, since governments everywhere are predicting a further reccession and most likely further bail outs, which in turn will require further cuts to public services. This in turn will lead to a further fall in demand, which will lead to a further fall in supply, and a further reccession etc. The world economy is in meltdown and will be for an indefinite period.
Whether we like it or not, in absolute terms, the living standards of the majority will plummet if Capitalism remains.
Thursday, 22 December 2011
Monday, 12 December 2011
Democracy in Russia
The collapse of the Soviet Union twenty years ago (formally on December 25th 1991) marked the end of the Cold War. The West was victorious. It claimed to have rid the Soviet bloc’s peoples of oppression. Democracy, freedom and Western ‘liberal’ ideas had triumphed over Communism. A period of economic prosperity, harmony and peace was predicted. Some went as far as claiming that history had ended. How wrong they were.
After the ‘elections’ in Russia on December 4th last week, the Russian people took to the streets, most notably in Moscow, in the biggest demonstrations in years, chanting “Russia without Putin!”, their current Prime Minister. Despite his regime’s strangle-hold on the media, limited tolerance of opposition figures and blatant vote rigging, they only won about a third of the votes to the Duma (lower parliament), about half of what they had won before. But even this was too much for the people. Again, the people are living under severe oppression and want change.
These protests are not isolated either. When Mr Putin announced his intention of running for his third term as President next March at a recent ‘congress’ of his United Russia Party, the extent of his personal power became all-too-clear. Dmitry Medvedev, the current President, long suspected of being a seat warmer, vocalized his support for Putin’s candidacy, confirming people’s worst fears. Since Putin has formally not been in the position for a term, he has the constitutional right to run again, and more directly continue his reign. This triggered widespread discontent which manifested itself in his public heckling at a martial arts event soon afterwards and his cancelling of further such events, for example.
So why is the West not waging another war against dictatorship in the ex-Soviet Bloc? Why is it mildly critical of Putin in comparison to the former Soviet leaders and the Soviet Union as a whole? Surely, Russian and Slavic people are still deserving of freedom and prosperity. What has changed?
The Soviet Union was a beacon of hope for oppressed people everywhere, despite its ruthless leaders and oppressive state, because it proved that there was an alternative to Capitalism. It was a union which, despite political power still remaining in the hands of the few, had a planned economy, free education, free healthcare and limited unemployment. It was far from perfect, but the living standards of the masses rose substantially, although the economy stagnated in the late eighties. Moreover, it had a revolutionary philosophical system, culture and history. This could not be tolerated by the Capitalist West. This was ultimately the reason for the Cold War, not a lack of democracy and freedom for the people.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union resulted in privatization of the nationalized economy which brought with it all of the evils of Capitalism: anarchy of production, economic stagnation, wage-slavery, the oppression of minorities, and the incalculable wealth of the few and poverty of the many. Importantly, it allowed foreign capital into the country to plunder its wealth and resources. It is therefore hardly surprising that there is a lack of democracy in such a country, (as there was before the Soviet Union too), since the economy is ultimately being run against the interests of the majority.
As Lenin and Trotsky explained, in a relatively under-developed country in the epoch of imperialism, democracy can only flourish in a socialist state. What the Stalinist leaders of the USSR denied was that a socialist state can only flourish with democracy.
After the ‘elections’ in Russia on December 4th last week, the Russian people took to the streets, most notably in Moscow, in the biggest demonstrations in years, chanting “Russia without Putin!”, their current Prime Minister. Despite his regime’s strangle-hold on the media, limited tolerance of opposition figures and blatant vote rigging, they only won about a third of the votes to the Duma (lower parliament), about half of what they had won before. But even this was too much for the people. Again, the people are living under severe oppression and want change.
These protests are not isolated either. When Mr Putin announced his intention of running for his third term as President next March at a recent ‘congress’ of his United Russia Party, the extent of his personal power became all-too-clear. Dmitry Medvedev, the current President, long suspected of being a seat warmer, vocalized his support for Putin’s candidacy, confirming people’s worst fears. Since Putin has formally not been in the position for a term, he has the constitutional right to run again, and more directly continue his reign. This triggered widespread discontent which manifested itself in his public heckling at a martial arts event soon afterwards and his cancelling of further such events, for example.
So why is the West not waging another war against dictatorship in the ex-Soviet Bloc? Why is it mildly critical of Putin in comparison to the former Soviet leaders and the Soviet Union as a whole? Surely, Russian and Slavic people are still deserving of freedom and prosperity. What has changed?
The Soviet Union was a beacon of hope for oppressed people everywhere, despite its ruthless leaders and oppressive state, because it proved that there was an alternative to Capitalism. It was a union which, despite political power still remaining in the hands of the few, had a planned economy, free education, free healthcare and limited unemployment. It was far from perfect, but the living standards of the masses rose substantially, although the economy stagnated in the late eighties. Moreover, it had a revolutionary philosophical system, culture and history. This could not be tolerated by the Capitalist West. This was ultimately the reason for the Cold War, not a lack of democracy and freedom for the people.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union resulted in privatization of the nationalized economy which brought with it all of the evils of Capitalism: anarchy of production, economic stagnation, wage-slavery, the oppression of minorities, and the incalculable wealth of the few and poverty of the many. Importantly, it allowed foreign capital into the country to plunder its wealth and resources. It is therefore hardly surprising that there is a lack of democracy in such a country, (as there was before the Soviet Union too), since the economy is ultimately being run against the interests of the majority.
As Lenin and Trotsky explained, in a relatively under-developed country in the epoch of imperialism, democracy can only flourish in a socialist state. What the Stalinist leaders of the USSR denied was that a socialist state can only flourish with democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)