A question or 2

I have decided to ask my local labour councilors a couple of questions via E-mail. Well actually I have sent them via e-mail to 2 of them because the other one has no e-mail address listed. Perhaps he hopes people can't be bothered to write to his home address. He thinks wrong. The questions are dropping onto his welcome mat via snail mail any time soon.

Here are the questions.

You are a member of a labour council and are our councillor and so we would like you to tell us what your thoughts are regarding these points.

1. What is your stance on the abolition of clause IV?

2. What is your stance on the notion of a society in which equal opportunity is a reality and what are you doing to help make it a reality?

3. What is your feeling about the idea of nationalisation of British Industry?

4. How do you feel about trade union membership and what do you feel the benefits of a trade union are?



5. Is the minimum wage enough?

6. How do you think the gap between rich and poor can be narrowed and what policies do you support to make this happen?

7. Are you a full time councillor or do you have another job with an income? What is your wage as a councillor and how do you manage to give all the time that is required to be a councillor if you have another job.

8. Your address is listed on the council website as Foredyke Nursery, Wawne Road, Sutton, Kingston upon Hull, HU7 5YS. Why don't you live in your constituency area?

9. The council website says you entered council in 1988. Is this an unbroken stint or have you been a councillor since 1988?

10. Why do you feel you are the right person to act on my behalf in council?



Obviously one or two of the questions were modified for each different councillor.
There are many more I would have liked to ask but I cynically believe that they probably won't answer many if any of the ones I have sent anyway.

Their answers will of course be posted just as soon as I recieve them.

The Means of Production.

After some discussion (on the previous post's comments page) with KB I decided to wikipedia class to see what it had to say.

I am pleased to see that it broadly reflected what I had to say with regard to the definition of class. KB raised many pertinent points which I believe are exactly the type of question the man on the street would ask when the problem of class is posed.

One major contribution to a person's class status which I have overlooked (Which is strange, as I am always lecturing my work mates about surplus value and commodity exchange values) is their relationship toward the means of production.

A person who owns the means of production controls all of the profit and decides how to use that profit. Usually they decide to use it to pay themselves nice fat wage slips. They decide what to pay the workers and how to invest.

In effect the owner of the means of production owns the producers (workers). This goes some way to explaining some of behaviours I describe in the "Technical hierarchical superiority does not in any way infer a social hierarchical equivalence" post.

The question is :- Why do the owners of the means of production get paid such vastly different sums to those whose labour is used to actually produce?

What if the workers owned the means of production? Why does it have to be owned by a few individuals in the corporation or by the shareholders? Think about it.

Where do these owners actually get the profit from in order to pay their own wages/dividends?? I'm glad you asked.

We will use a Liquid pharmaceutical product as an example.

First we must consider why the bourgeoisie, (to borrow a term) need to employee anybody in the first place. After all these employees are just an annoying cost that the employer constantly plots to get rid of (As we are constantly told). The answer of course is that in order to make anything we require people. Machines on their own are not enough. Machines break down. Machines need to be operated etc etc.

Now, the workers during their interaction with the machines are imparting value to that product. They must be. They take raw materials and turn them into a finished product. The product is something that people want to buy. The finished product is sold for more than the sum of the parts (This includes transport costs and labour costs etc). In other words it's sold for more than it cost to make. The raw materials don't just float into reactors or test themselves to comply with FDA, or bottle themselves and then drive themselves to the supermarket. From where does this extra value arise? Where does the cost of any product ultimately originate?

It comes from labour time. Employees are paid for their time. Labour is required to make the product, to test it, to bottle it, to deliver it. The quicker or more efficiently this can be done then the lower the labour costs (It takes less labour time). To put it simply a factory that turns out 2000 bottles an hour can sell these bottles at half the price of a factory that turns out 1000 bottles an hour when all other things are equal (labour costs, raw materials etc).

But and here is the BIG BUT.

The more efficient factory doesn't sell its product at half the price (it may sell at a reduced price for a while to force the other out of business), it pockets the difference and makes even more money.

Where does this increased efficiency come from? You can talk about stock control, cash flow manipulation, more energy efficient machines etc. until you are blue in the face. It comes from getting the workforce to add more value to the product by taking on more and more tasks, finding quicker and better (better for who?) ways to make a high quality product (Think Kaizen, lean, six sigma, kanban, self managed teams etc).

So here we are. Value is added to any product by the labourer. The faster the labourer can add value to a product the more cheaply it can be made and the greater the profit margins. Increased profit margins are great news for the Bourgeoisie and Petty Bourgeoisie. They get a nice bonus, much increased pay etc etc.

So what is profit when related to the worker?

A worker adding value to a process adds £20 of value to a product/products every hour. However, and this is the trick, the worker gets paid £10 an hour. The owners of the means of production pocket the other £10 of value. They make £10 profit per hour per worker. They do nothing but sit there and watch the money meter tick round.




A problem arises. The more efficiently a product can be made, the cheaper it becomes. If competitors are trying to beat each other then they can use price to undercut each other. But the shareholders still want their dividends and the city wants to see growth. Lower prices mean lower returns. Costs must be cut to maintain/grow the profits. Obviously job cuts are looked at as well as other cuts (departmental stationary budget etc). If a company is already running on a skeleton crew then this is difficult. One way is to reduce the amount paid to the worker or new workers that replace others through natural wastage through retirement etc. This way the difference between the value that the worker adds to the product (Still £20 hr but is now paid £8 hr) and the "cut" that the Burgiouse takes increases. Of course the product is cheaper in the shops and so returns less money but the lower wage more than covers this.

One way companies do cut wages is to employ temp staff on lower hourly rates or by employing foreigners who will work for less. This is even better for the top hats because they can get rid of temps at the flick of a hand. This means they can frighten them into accepting poor conditions and poor wages. The cut increases still further!!!

An insidious way to scrape even more profit from the workers is by getting free labour from them. That's right, by making workers work breaks or lunch that they are not paid for. The worker is adding that self same value to the process but is getting nothing !!!! in return. The cut increases even more!!. No wonder the board members of a certain phama company have grins tattooed to their faces.


What does the man who actually creates this value and increased profit actually get?

He gets an end of year performance review. This is dressed up as a way to reward those that are doing a good job. What actually happens is that those who contribute to increased efficiency get a inflationary pay rise (Or no pay rise at all really because its in line with inflation) while the owners of the means of production get increased profits and nicely inflated wages.

It is not militant to demand your breaks if your not paid for them.

It is not wrong to work to contract. What is the point of a contract otherwise?

Unions are not a menace or outdated romantic idea.

All the rights you have at work today were fought for by people like you, for people like you.

To answer the question I posed earlier :- What if the workers owned the means of production?

The answer is of course that there is no cut to be taken by the Top Hats. Therefore all the value added to a product left over as profit is the workers to pocket and take home.

Many people fall into the trap of thinking that the tophats create wealth and they poo poo wealth redistribution.

Well now you can see they are wrong.

The working class lethargy

Democracy is supposed to be a system in which the majority benefit. A party which aligns itself with the needs and aspirations of the majority of the people in a country get in power and carry out their manifesto promises.

Right?

Wrong!

The majority of people in this country are working class. There is however, no real working class party. Labour joined the ranks of the middle class long ago and the rich have prospered under them. The problem is one of activism and expression of voting power.

Not enough of the working class's vote and get involved. Why would labour edge left and lose the vote of the centre right and right who do turn out. So the question becomes: Why don't the working class's vote?

The answer seems pretty simple. All parties (and politicians) are the same and none of them represent the working class.

Actually the problem lies with the working class themselves. The problem is one of identity and self recognition. Class cannot be defined easily. The boundries are blurred and the transition from one to another is graduated. Working class has become a dirty phrase. It has become the byword for the unsuccessful, the chav, the non owner occupied, the uneducated and paridoxically the unemployed!!! This attitude is prevelant among the middle class's, in a way it is understandable that they may think like this. What is not acceptable however, is the fact that a lot of the working class's themselves also believe this.

My rough definition of the working class is this:

A standard of education that is between GCSE and HND.
An occupation of unskilled, semi-skilled or skilled status.
A wage earning capacity that does not really change from 30 upwards (inflation accepted).
Generally a wage which is around the average uk wage or lower. Some may earn higher (or much higher) due to shift work, particular conditions and/or demand for a paticular skill. Money is by no means a defining characteristic on its own.
A decency and morality which escapes the unfettered ambitions of the middle and upper class's.


An unduely large proportion of the working class define themsleves as middle class or align themselves with the meretricious Tory "hard working" people policies.

Lets be clear. The Tory party member would rather step on a homeless persons face rather than walk around him. The Tory member would rather pull his big toe nail out with pliers than see his taxes go toward the unemployed (or the state pension for that matter).

So why do people that I work with (I am working class and so are those I work with) talk about voting for Cameron.

In the last 10 years people have had it relatively good. They have used cheap credit to buy consumer goods. This keeps the bank workers earning bonuses by giving big loans out, which keeps retail staff in jobs by selling fridges , kitchens etc, and makes the consumer feel middleclass by inflating the "value" of their house which enables them to buy the entry level BMW by securing it against the "value" of their home.So the working class consumer actually believes himself to be middleclass and therefor assumes Conservative party values.

Wake up. Owning a 4 bed semi bought within the last 6 years does not make one a Tory. The ipod, flat screen TV or DVD recorder does not.

Trade Unions are a must. Some of the idiots in charge of them at the minute need to "Retire" but these unions are, or should be, the true voice of the working class.

There is nothing admirable about working 60 hour weeks or doing extra hours for free in an atempt to further ones own career. People have lost jobs fighting for these basic rights. The one standout thing labour have introduced is the min. wage. It;s a start but not enough. The conservatives consistantly opposed this. That tells you something about their "working class should work untill they are dead" mentality.

More to come.

Technical heirarchal superiority does not in any way infer a social heirarchal equivalence.

Technical hierarchical superiority does not in any way infer a social hierarchical equivalence.

What does this mean?

Well I wrote it and Im not really sure myself!

Here is what I think I mean :

Everybody is part of a technical hierarchy while they are at work. Your boss has a boss, who in turn has a boss etc etc. Even the CEO and Chairman is accountable to somebody (Shareholders) and as we all know, if the PM is making a meal of it (or if the Daily Mail is telling everyone that he/she is) then we vote them out.

The basis of this hierarchy, is generally defined by competence as defined by experience and qualifications. There are some exceptions to this rule whereby people are promoted because they are friends with the boss or have family ties.

Now, nobody can really argue with the scenario that, if a line manager asks you to do something, then within certain confines (health and safety, morality, competence etc) you are compelled to carry out his/her wishes. Any reasonable person can see this.

BUT and this is a big but, you are not compelled to accept rudeness, general bad manners, patronising comments and general socially inferred superiority. Many of you will probably think that you would not and do not accept this anyway. I ask you to think again. At some point nearly everybody will have been subjected to this type of behaviour and most people will have accepted it.

The question is WHY?

Some line managers will ASK you to do something. The more intelligent among you will realise that in fact they are telling you to do something and this is the correct way to do it providing the recipient understands this and acts accordingly. Please and thank you are a must. This can be spoken or inferred through body language gesture.

Others will TELL you either through aggressive posturing and body language or through other oversive tactics. This must not be allowed or accepted. Some rationalise their acceptance by telling themselves that they are keeping their job or protecting their pay rise etc etc. Nonsense. You must never allow anybody to talk to you in a superior way just because they hold a position which is considered "above" you at work.

Thats not to say you should tell your boss to get fucked when he/she tries it on. Simply pull themtothe side and explain that they are full of shit and if they keep it up then HR would be interested to know about it. Watch them pretend not to care while sweating fucking buckets he he.

The point is to know that however much it feels like it you do not have to do what you are told, only that which you are asked.

We are all equal. It is only attitude that separates us.

As a friend of mine once said....Fuck em.

The Class System

I watched a programs over two parts aired on the BBC recently. It was called Prescott and the class system.

My only real knowledge of prescott before this program was that he was my MP and that he smacked some farmer type bloke that threw an egg in hs face in 2001.

I was surprised to learn that he was just as incensed at the inequality of this country as I am.

As we all know and accept (for reasons unknown to me) money and parental status is the difference between "success" and mediocrity.

Take two people. Both start with the same intelligence and behavioural tendencies. One obtains a PhD at 30 and the other is packing cucumbers at 30. Which one started with parents with a reasonable amount of money and lived on a nice owner occupied housing estate and which one started off with parents on benefits and lived on a council estate?

The answer to this is fairly obvious. I say fairly obvious because with exceptional drive the working class kid with unambitious parents can make it good. 99.9% of the time the doctor is the one on the owner occupied housing estate. Some would say that because of the success of some working class kids this proves that Britain is upwardly mobile. Nonsense.

With exceptional drive and ambition the middle class kid can become Prime Minister. With exceptional drive and ambition the working class kid can become middle class!!! Surely we can all see the nonsense that is going on here.

The talent that is wasted in this country through social ignorance is a tragedy.

The only way to right this is to fund state education properly. Reverse the charity status of private schools and use the tax collected to improve state schools. Lower class sizes, 1 to 1 text books and teaching according to the highest ability instead of the lowest is the answer. We also need to get rid of the teachers that came from lower middle class families and can'tdo anything but teach because they haven't got the brains. They just want the money.

More to Follow....

Tax doesn't have to be taxing (well not if you are rich anyway)

Official estimates put benefit fraud at around 600-800 million pounds a year.
Quite a figure one would have to agree.

However consider this.

A TUC commissioned report published earlier this year found that around 35 billion pounds (yes I said 35 BILLION!!) was lost to the treasury through tax avoidance and evasion. Now lets be clear.

Avoidance is not illegal. It's tax that the treasury would like to collect and intends to collect. But the big companies and wealthy individuals pay lawyers lots of money to use legal loopholes and complex money transactions to avoid the tax. Although not illegal, its clearly not in the spirit of the tax laws.

Evasion is just what it says on the tin and is illegal. Evasion accounts for around 10 billion pounds of the 35 billion.

So the big question(s) is(are) :- Why the daily attacks against benefit claimants in all the trash rags like The Daily Mail, The Express and The Sun? Where is the mention of the tax evaders? Is it possible that the groups that own these public opinion creating juggernauts have vested interests? If so then what are these interests? Do the pseudo middle class sheep enjoy bashing benefit fraudsters because it re-inforces their own ill conceived opinion (re-inforced by the trash rags), that the fraudsters are a natural extension of the working class who are too lazy to get "decent" jobs. The working class are to be looked down upon and booted as often as possible.



It is all to easy for the middle aged, middle class man to turn to page 2 of the Daily Mail, sip his wine and start talking about how he created his own luck and the scum off the nearby council estate should be bombed. As he is doing this his thoughts turn to the fact that his carpet is getting a bit worn and he's paid his accidental damage insurance for nearly a full year without claiming (last time it was the T.V, next door had got one of them flat screens so water "accidentally" got poured down the back of the old one), surely its time to spill some wine over it and claim for a new carpet, after all it's a victimless crime.

There we have part of the answer. These papers do have a vested interest because if they did not print the sanctimonious hypocritical shite then the sanctimonious middle class hypocrites would not buy it. They need to be reassured and patted on the head. "Well done chaps you've made it".

If we weigh up the lost tax revenue against benefit fraud then its obvious we should be concentrating on the tax evading criminal class's.




Could it be that there is something slightly smug and clever about hiding your cash from the tax man? Does the middle class criminal justify it to him/herself by saying "I worked for it, I'll be damned if its going to be spent on a drug rehabilitation program for people that should really be shot". Woe betide the group of youths with nothing to do who make noise a few decibels above that of a self made man shredding his incriminating invoices.

"They need to be taught a lesson, how dare they stand on my street corner" he says as he downs another glass of wine (that's only 3 bottles this week but he's got a stressful job and isn't really an alcoholic).

When one considers the history of the Daily Mail it isn't all that surprising that the self righteous middle class hold some of the views and carry out some of the "victimless" crimes that they do.



In the 30's the Daily Mail's owner was a friend of both Hitler and Mussolini (spelling??). The papers owner hoped that Hitler would become known as "Adolf the Great" in Britain and supported the invasion of western Czechoslovakia. The paper supported appeasement. It supported Oswald Moseley and the blackshirts.

The paper only changed its stance when threatened with closure by the British government.

n 2001 at the 27th G8 Summit held in Genoa, Italy; 93 peaceful anti-globalisation protesters were brutally beaten by the Italian police, falsely imprisoned and made to chant fascist slogans. Posing as a British Embassy official, a woman from the Daily Mail took pictures of some of the prisoners including journalist Mark Covell. The next day the Daily Mail ran a front page story including an entirely false report describing Covell as having helped mastermind the riots. It took 4 years for the newspaper to apologise and pay Covell damages for invasion of privacy.

The Daily Mail is quite rightly known as the Daily Heil. A stain on the memory of all those who fought and died in the second world war. Yet look through the window of a private housing estate and there he is, yep you guessed it, the middle class sheep is wearing his poppy while turning to page 4 which has the obligatory details of a family of 9 living in 2 adjoining council houses that have been knocked together(he's just read the other obligatory bit about how many "decent" British families are leaving the country).

Unfortunately middle class Britain has lost the ability to think for itself (if it ever could). It is up to all of the rest of us to tell them exactly how full of shit they are.

It is up to you to rescue them from madness.

Surplus value.

Why is it that so many people in this country work for nothing? That is to say for free. You may think I am talking about voluntary workers. No I am talking about the millions of people who work through their lunch breaks, start early and finish late and take work home with them.

There is a myth out there that this type of behaviour is what is called working hard.
The correct word for this is exploitation. Often the people that are being exploited are willing participants. This is because they do not understand what is happening to them and why. They are adding value to the process/job/shareholder etc without being paid for it. The company benefits economically but the worker does not.

Unfortunately there are also the people out there that work for free because they are afraid of losing their job or getting an even lower pay rise than they were expecting. The fact is that a lot of jobs give the rise at the rate of inflation or less. What we are actually talking about then are pay cuts not pay rises.

So why are so many people in favour of capitalism? After all this is the animal that snarls and claws at the ordinary worker. The burgeoise holds the leash but he occasionally loosens it so the animal can come within striking distance. This keeps everbody nicely in check.

Because people dare not face the beast and look it directly in the eye they prefer to make up a host of excuses as to why they allow themselves to be exploited. They choose to focus on the small number of false benefits but not on all of the very real downfalls.

I would suspect that many of those with thousands of pounds worth of savings in the bank would eulogize capitalsim and talk of indivdual responsibility over wine and cheese at dinner parties. These are the same people who are now flocking to put their savings in nationalised banks.

I can't think of many things as anti capitalist as a nationalised bank.