Saturday, July 06, 2024

FASCIST INTERNATIONALE 

Putin tells Orbán Ukraine must capitulate if it wants peace


Euractiv.com with AFP
Jul 5, 2024


Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban (L) and Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) leave after a press conference following their bilateral talks at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, 5 July 2024
. [EPA-EFE/YURI KOCHETKOV]

Russian President Vladimir Putin told Viktor Orbán on Friday (5 July) that Ukraine must effectively capitulate if it wants peace, in a visit to Moscow by the Hungarian leader that angered the EU, US and Kyiv.

Putin was hosting Orbán — the friendliest leader in the EU to Moscow — for talks at the Kremlin, described by the Russian president as a “really useful, frank conversation” on the conflict in Ukraine.

A string of EU officials blasted the Hungarian prime minister’s surprise trip, saying it threatened to undermine the 27-member bloc’s stance on the conflict and stressed that he was not representing Brussels.


Hungary’s Orbán travels to Moscow, days after Kyiv trip

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán travelled to Moscow on Thursday (4 July) to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin, only a few days after his visit to Kyiv, on a trip that earned him stern rebukes from EU officials and diplomats.

The pair “talked about the possible ways of resolving” the Ukraine conflict, Putin said in remarks after a bilateral meeting.

The Kremlin leader repeated his demand that Ukraine withdraw all its troops from regions that Moscow has annexed and said Kyiv was “not ready to drop the idea of waging war until a victorious end”.

Putin said at the start of the talks that he wanted to “discuss the nuances that have developed” over the conflict in Ukraine with Orbán, who visited Kyiv earlier this week.

Orbán in turn said he had realised “positions are far apart” between the two sides.

“The number of steps needed to end the war and bring about peace is many,” he said.

The visit came days after Hungary took over the EU’s rotating presidency and Putin told Orbán he expected him to outline “the position of European partners” on Ukraine.

The Ukrainian government lambasted the meeting, stressing they had no hand in its planning.

“The decision to make this trip was made by the Hungarian side without any agreement or coordination with Ukraine,” Kyiv’s foreign ministry said in a statement.
No EU mandate

European Union leaders lashed out at Orbán over the trip.

“Appeasement will not stop Putin,” European Commission head Ursula von der Leyen wrote on X.

“Only unity and determination will pave the path to a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine.”

EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said in a statement that Orbán’s “visit to Moscow takes place, exclusively, in the framework of the bilateral relations between Hungary and Russia”.

“Orbán has not received any mandate from the EU Council to visit Moscow,” he added.

The EU has firmly opposed Russia’s military offensive in Ukraine, imposing 14 rounds of unprecedented sanctions on Moscow.

“That position excludes official contacts between the EU and President Putin. The Hungarian Prime Minister is thus not representing the EU in any form,” Borrell said.

“It is worth recalling that President Putin has been indicted by the International Criminal Court and an arrest warrant released for his role in relation to the forced deportation of children from Ukraine to Russia.”

EU Council chief Charles Michel had earlier reiterated the common stance that “no discussions about Ukraine can take place without Ukraine”.

The White House also criticised the trip as “counterproductive” and the NATO military alliance, of which Hungary is a member, distanced itself.

Orbán’s visit “will not advance the cause of peace and is counterproductive to promoting Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said.

NATO head Jens Stoltenberg said Orbán had informed the alliance of his trip but stressed the Hungarian leader was “not representing NATO at these meetings. He’s representing his own country”.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Russian state TV the visit had been Orbán’s idea and Russian officials only heard about the trip on Wednesday — a day after Orbán had visited Kyiv.

IN EU ranks, the condemnation of Orbán wasn’t unanimous. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, who appeared in public on Friday for the first time since a May assassination attempt, backed Orbán’s visit to Moscow, saying that he would have joined his Hungarian colleague on his visit if health allowed.

Slovak PM Fico makes first public appearance since assassination attempt

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico appeared in public on Friday (5 July) for the first time since a May assassination attempt, railing in a speech against progressive ideologies and backing Hungarian leader Viktor Orbán’s visit to Moscow.

‘Disturbing news’


Hungary’s six-month EU presidency gives the central European country sway over the bloc’s agenda and priorities for the next six months.

Orbán’s visit to Moscow comes days after the right-wing nationalist made a surprise trip to Kyiv, where he urged Ukraine’s leadership to work towards a rapid ceasefire with Russia.

The Hungarian leader on Friday insisted that peace cannot be achieved without dialogue.

“If we just sit in Brussels, we won’t be able to get any closer to peace. Action must be taken,” Orbán said during his regular interview on Hungarian state radio, when asked about his visit to Ukraine on Tuesday.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk expressed disbelief at Orbán’s Moscow trip, while Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo called it “disturbing news”.

The visit is the first to Moscow by a European leader since a trip by Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer in April 2022.

Orbán and Putin last met in October 2023 in Beijing, where they discussed energy cooperation.

(Edited by Georgi Gotev)




Kyiv, allies slam Orban for Ukraine talks with Putin

Kyiv and its Western allies hit out at Hungarian leader Viktor Orban on Friday after Russian President Vladimir Putin hosted him in Moscow for talks on the Ukraine conflict.

Putin told Orban, Russia’s closest EU ally, that Ukraine must withdraw its troops from regions that Moscow has annexed if it wants peace.

But Kyiv was “not ready to drop the idea of waging war until a victorious end”, he added, calling the talks at the Kremlin a “really useful, frank conversation” on the conflict.

EU officials, the United States and NATO blasted the Hungarian prime minister’s surprise trip.

Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico offered a rare voice of support, saying he would have joined Orban had his health permitted after surviving an assassination attempt in May.

The Russian and Hungarian leaders “talked about the possible ways of resolving” the Ukraine conflict, Putin said in remarks after a bilateral meeting.

Orban, who visited Kyiv earlier this week, in turn said “positions are far apart” between the two sides with “many” steps needed to achieve peace.

The visit came days after Hungary took over the EU’s rotating presidency and Putin told Orban he expected him to outline “the position of European partners” on Ukraine.

The Ukrainian foreign ministry lambasted the meeting, stressing that the trip “was made by the Hungarian side without any agreement or coordination with Ukraine”.

– No EU mandate –

European Union leaders also lashed out at Orban over the trip. 

“Appeasement will not stop Putin,” European Commission head Ursula von der Leyen wrote on X.  

“Only unity and determination will pave the path to a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine.”

EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said in a statement that Orban’s “visit to Moscow takes place, exclusively, in the framework of the bilateral relations between Hungary and Russia”.  

“Orban has not received any mandate from the EU Council to visit Moscow,” he added. 

The EU has firmly opposed Russia’s military offensive in Ukraine, imposing 14 rounds of unprecedented sanctions on Moscow. 

“That position excludes official contacts between the EU and President Putin. The Hungarian Prime Minister is thus not representing the EU in any form,” Borrell said.

“It is worth recalling that President Putin has been indicted by the International Criminal Court and an arrest warrant released for his role in relation to the forced deportation of children from Ukraine to Russia.”

EU Council chief Charles Michel had earlier reiterated the common stance that “no discussions about Ukraine can take place without Ukraine”.

The White House also criticised the trip as “counterproductive” and the NATO military alliance, of which Hungary is a member, distanced itself.

Orban’s visit “will not advance the cause of peace and is counterproductive to promoting Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said.

NATO head Jens Stoltenberg said Orban had informed the alliance of his trip but stressed the Hungarian leader was “not representing NATO at these meetings. He’s representing his own country”.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk expressed disbelief at Orban’s Moscow trip, while Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo called it “disturbing news”.

But Slovak leader Fico, whose country has like Hungary refused to send military aid to Ukraine, expressed his “admiration” for Orban’s trips to Moscow and Kyiv.

“There are never enough peace talks and initiatives,” Fico said in his first public appearance since a May 15 assassination attempt.

– Orban demands ‘action’ –

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Russian state TV the visit had been Orban’s idea and Russian officials only heard about the trip on Wednesday — a day after Orban had visited Kyiv.

Hungary’s six-month EU presidency gives the central European country sway over the bloc’s agenda and priorities for the next six months.

Orban’s visit to Moscow comes days after the right-wing nationalist made a surprise trip to Kyiv, where he urged Ukraine’s leadership to work towards a rapid ceasefire with Russia. 

The Hungarian leader on Friday insisted that peace cannot be achieved without dialogue.

“If we just sit in Brussels, we won’t be able to get any closer to peace. Action must be taken,” Orban said during his regular interview on Hungarian state radio, when asked about his visit to Ukraine on Tuesday.

The visit is the first to Moscow by a European leader since a trip by Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer in April 2022.

Orban and Putin last met in October 2023 in Beijing, where they discussed energy cooperation.


Slovak PM says would have joined Orban on Moscow trip if healthy

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico said Friday he would have joined his Hungarian counterpart Viktor Orban on his controversial trip to Moscow if his health had permitted after he was shot in May.

Orban angered western EU and NATO allies when he travelled to Moscow on Friday to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose country invaded neighbouring Ukraine in February 2022.

Orban visited Kyiv and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky earlier this week, just after his country had taken over the rotating six-month presidency of the European Union.

“I want to express my admiration to the Hungarian premier for travelling to Kyiv and Moscow without hesitating,” Fico said in a speech.

“If my state of health allowed me to go, I would have loved to join him.”

It was his first public appearance since the assassination attempt on May 15.

Fico delivered his speech standing, though he appeared to have lost weight and his voice sounded weaker than before the attack.

Both Hungary and Slovakia have refused to provide military aid to Ukraine under Orban and Fico, who are seen as Russia’s closest allies in the European Union.

Orban said he was on a mission to help end the war as both he and Fico are advocating peace talks with Russia.

“There are never enough peace talks and initiatives,” Fico said on Friday.

The 59-year-old Fico is recovering from serious injuries he suffered when a gunman shot him four times from close range after a government meeting in central Slovakia.

The gunman, identified by Slovak media as 71-year-old poet Juraj Cintula, is being prosecuted on terrorism charges. He is in custody awaiting trial.

Fico leads a three-party governing coalition of his centrist nationalist Smer-SD party, the centrist Hlas and the far-right SNS.

He underwent two lengthy surgeries in hospital and was transferred for home treatment to the capital Bratislava on May 31.

On Friday, he made his first appearance at a ceremony marking the arrival of St Cyril and Methodius in former Great Moravia in 863 to spread Christianity among the Slavic people.

His speech at Devin castle near the capital Bratislava lasted more than 15 minutes and was greeted by a standing ovation.

Orbán’s ‘Patriots’ on track to become third force in EU Parliament with Le Pen


By Alexandra Brzozowski and Magnus Lund Nielsen | Euractiv
Alexandra Brzozowski
Global Europe & Defence Editor

Location: Brussels
Jul 5, 2024


“Every day there will be some news and our expectation is that very quickly [Patriots for Europe] is going to be the third largest party,” 
Balázs Orbán, close advisor to Viktor Orbán, told Euractiv. EPA/OLIVIER HOSLET

 Euractiv is part of the Trust Project >>>


The new Patriots for Europe group looks set to become the third largest political force in the European Parliament, joining Spain’s VOX party, which is leaving the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), and with Marine Le Pen’s party, Rassemblement National (RN), who are also likely to join too.

Since the European Elections in early June, the parliament’s groups have been scrambling to win over members of the European Parliament (MEPs) ahead of the upcoming mandate.

“Every day there will be some news, but our expectations are, that very quickly [Patriots for Europe] is going to be the third largest party,” Balázs Orbán, close advisor to Viktor Orbán, told Euractiv. His comments come after the announcement of a new group caused much commotion on the right side of the hemicycle last week.

Austria’s far-right leader, Herbert Kickl (FPÖ), Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán (Fidesz), and former Czech leader Andrej Babiš (ANO) revealed a new political alliance called ‘Patriots for Europe’, on Sunday 30 June.

Spanish party VOX, currently part of ECR, decided to leave Giorgia Meloni’s political family and join the new formation, they announced, on Friday 5 July.

With this move, the new group totals 29 MEPs from four member states, but are still missing three additional member states to form an official political group in the European Parliament.

According to people close to the negotiations, the ID group of Marine Le Pen is expected to merge with the Patriots within the coming days. This would push the combined total to as many as 86 MEPs, should all the members of the ID choose to join.

If the merger goes ahead, the new group would become the third largest force in the parliament.

It would put the Patriots ahead of both ECR, now at 78 MEPs, and the liberal Renew Europe group, currently at 76 MEPs.

“Le Pen, Orbán, and other delegations reached a deal before last Sunday that ID would cease to exist to create the new one,” a well-informed MEP confirmed to Euractiv, pointing out that the package of high-level jobs among the various delegations, was decided as part of the deal.

Following the French elections results on Sunday evening, new developments are expected on Monday 8 July, before European parliamentary leaders meet to negotiate and agree on the final leadership positions.

Asked whether he expects Le Pen to join the new grouping, Orbán said: “It’s their decision and they will make the decision after [Sunday’s] election.”

*Max Griera contributed to reporting


[Edited by Aurélie Pugnet/Rajnish Singh]
SPACE

NASA Warns Of Giant Asteroid Approaching Earth At A Speed Of Over 65,000 Kmph

The 2024 MT's size and speed have led to some serious concerns, however NASA has given assurance that there was no threat of its collision with Earth.


Asmita Ravi Shankar
Updated on: 6 July 2024 



The asteroid has been named as 2024 MT1. | Photo: Representational/Getty Images

A massive asteroid, comparable to the size of the Statue of Liberty, is approaching the Earth at a surprising speed of 65, 215 km/hr. The asteroid -- named 2024 MT1 -- measures around 60 feet in diameter.

According to NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in California's Pasadena, 2024 MT1 is likely to make the closest approach to our planet on July 8.

The US space agency's Near-Earth Object Observations Program was the first to detect asteroid 2024 MT1. This program tracks and characterises asteroids and comets that hurl towards Earth. For monitoring these objects, the program employs a network of ground telescopes and radar systems.

Given its size and speed of approach, 2024 MT has raised serious concerns, however NASA has given assurance that there was no threat of its collision with Earth.

JPL, which closely monitor's the asteroid's trajectory, also has an Asteroid Watch dashboard which gives provides real-time data on asteroid's position, speed and distance from Earth.

Notably, asteroids of the size of this 2024 MT1 are considered hazardous for the Earth due to the severe destruction that they can cause if the collide with the planet.

The major possible damage also includes tsunamis, fires, massive explosions and more. NASA's Planetary Defense Coordination Office (PDCO) is actively engaged in working towards solutions to navigate through such threats.

Reportedly, the PDCO -- in collaboration with international space agencies and research organisations -- develops technologies to deflect asteroids and prevent any devastating impact.

One of the significant technologies that is being explored currently is the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) mission, which aims to test the feasibilty of deflecting an asteroid by crashing a spacecraft into it.

Though DART does not have any direct connection with 2024 MT1, it does represent a significant step towards the efforts made for planetary defense.

Meanwhile, the discovery of 2024 MT1 has sparked massive interest among space enthusiasts and astronomers. Observatories and other such institutions are gearing up to capture images and data of the asteroid as its approach nears the Earth.

Researchers are looking to understand the composition and structure of 2024 MT1, given that it could provide insights into the early solar systems and formation of planets.


EU weather satellite agency’s SpaceX launch decision needs urgent review, lead space MEP says


By Aurélie Pugnet | Euractiv
Jul 5, 2024 

For Grudler, EUMETSAT’s decision should have taken into account the Ariane6 option, even though its board meeting date had been planned long in advance before the first launch date. [EPA-EFE/Abraham Pineda-Jacome]

 Euractiv is part of the Trust Project >>>

The European Union’s weather satellite agency should review its decision to use US launchers over the European option Ariane-6, MEP Christophe Grudler wrote in a letter sent to the organisation’s board on Thursday (4 July), seen by Euractiv.

In a letter headlined “Request to reconsider launch decision in favour of European strategic interests”, Grudler disputes the decision of EUMETSAT, the intergovernmental European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites, to choose America rather than Europe for launching its new satellite.

He argues it goes against the principle of giving preference to Europe, something the organisation denies.

“I am writing to urgently request that you reconsider the recent decision to allocate the MTG-S1 satellite launch to a non-EU launch provider, and instead await the results of the inaugural launch of Ariane-6, which was your first choice for this satellite,” the Liberal member of Parliament wrote in a letter to the board.

The organisation, headed by 30 European states, decided last week to launch the weather forecasting and climate monitoring MTG-S1 satellite with tech tycoon Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

Originally, the launch was planned on an Ariane-6, but because of delays, SpaceX was considered as Plan B. While Ariane-6 is launched next week, the board decided, ten days ahead, to stick to plan B, rather than wait and assess the European-made company Ariane-6.

Grudler’s requests are threefold: “Cancel the last Council decision regarding a specific launcher solution, Await the inaugural launch of Ariane-6 before making any final decisions for MTG-S1; Reaffirm your dedication to European strategic autonomy by supporting European launch solutions”.

EUMETSAT’s move is a blow to the struggling European space industry and the Europeans’ efforts to secure independent access to space.

It also is, to a certain extent, to the interpretation of the “Europe first clause” in EUMETSAT’s convention, at a time where the Europeans are looking at boosting their strategic industrial autonomy.

For Grudler, EUMETSAT’s decision should have taken into account the Ariane-6 option, even though its board meeting date had been planned long before the first launch date.

“The impact of this decision extends beyond strategic concerns. It directly affects the citizens of your member states by jeopardising jobs and economic stability within the European space industry,” Grudler said in the letter.

[Edited by Alexandra Brzozowski/ Alice Taylor]

 


COOKING THE BOOKS 2 – UBI NO SOLUTION

We’ll need universal basic income — AI “godfather” . The godfather in question was Professor Geoffrey Hinton, so dubbed because he was a pioneer of neural networks on which AI is modelled. He told BBC Newsnight that a scheme ‘giving fixed amounts of cash to every citizen would be needed because he was “very worried about AI taking lots of mundane jobs”. ( …) He said while he felt AI would increase productivity and wealth, the money would go to the rich “and not the people whose jobs get lost and that’s going to be very bad for society”’.

It’s a common view: AI will lead to mass unemployment with a consequent reduction in paying demand; the remedy to this is ‘the government paying all individuals a set salary regardless of their means’. This would both sustain paying demand and reduce inequality.

But it is not a new idea. The same analysis and the same proposal were made sixty years ago, but in relation to ‘cybernation’, a word that has dropped out of common use but which means ‘the control of an industrial operation or task through processing of information with a computer’. In March 1964 a group of left-wing intellectuals formed an ‘Ad Hoc Committee on the Triple Revolution’ and drew up a report for presentation to President Johnson. One of these revolutions was the ‘cybernation revolution’.

They argued that ‘the rate of productivity increase has risen with the onset of cybernation’ and that ‘an industrial economic system postulated on scarcity has been unable to distribute the abundant goods and services produced by a cybernated system or potential in it’. To remedy this, they proposed:

‘. . . it is essential to recognize that the traditional link between jobs and incomes is being broken. The economy of abundance can sustain all citizens in comfort and economic security whether or not they engage in what is commonly reckoned as work. Wealth produced by machines rather than by men is still wealth. We urge, therefore, that society, through its appropriate legal and governmental institutions, undertake an unqualified commitment to provide every individual and every family with an adequate income as a matter of right’ (tinyurl.com/3362249j).

They were in effect saying that capitalism had solved the problem of producing enough for everyone but had not solved that of distributing it. Theirs was a proposal as to how capitalism could do this. Johnson of course took no notice of their report. Cybernation continued but there was no consequential massive increase in technological unemployment. So where did they go wrong?

One reason was assuming that mechanisation (of which automation, cybernation and now AI are instances) takes place as soon as it just becomes technologically possible. Under capitalism it is only applied if it is cheaper than having the work done manually or by some already established machine. This slows down technological progress.

Nor does technological progress come in all at once but spreads only slowly. Overall productivity does increase but only at a fairly modest rate (averaging around 2 percent a year). This gives the economy time to adjust. There is some technological unemployment but new employment opportunities (though not necessarily for those displaced) open up as capital accumulation proceeds.

Paying a basic income to everyone while maintaining private ownership of machines and production for profit won’t work, because it would undermine both the profit motive and the wages system, two essential features of the capitalist system. The money to do this could only come from taxes and taxes ultimately fall on profits, reducing the incentive that drives capitalism. It would undermine the wages system by reducing the economic pressure on the excluded majority to work for an employer to get money to buy what they need to live.

Capitalism is inherently incapable of solving the problem of distributing enough for all.

SOCIALIST STANDARD   no-1439-july-2024


WHAT IS SOCIALISM?


At the beginning of the election campaign Starmer was reported as saying that he considered himself a socialist. According to Chris Mason, the BBC’s Political Editor, ‘Starmer told me today he sees himself as a socialist. For those scared of that label, he said he saw it as putting “the country at the service of working people”’ (tinyurl.com/6cfvzach 27 May 18.04).

Few can have believed that Starmer is in any sense a socialist, but it at least provoked the media into talking about ‘socialism’. In an ‘explainer’ article, the Guardian (28 May) even asked ‘What is Socialism?’ Their answer reflected dictionary definitions, which describe how a word is used rather than how it should be:

‘Like many political philosophies it means different things to different people. But broadly socialists believe all human beings are of equal worth and that society should be organised to reflect that. Fairness, equality, justice and the common good are the foundations of socialism. The wealth created by humans should be used to benefit everyone. Some socialists believe that key industries and sectors, such as utilities, transport and housing, should be owned by the state and run in the public interest rather than for private profit. Other socialists believe that all industries and sectors should be run this way’ (tinyurl.com/t4yrd4j5 ).

We have inherited a definition of socialism which we consider to be both logically and historically correct — a system of society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of living by and in the interest of the whole community. But we can go along with some of the things the Guardian says. For instance, that ‘all human beings are of equal worth and that society should be organised to reflect that’ and ‘that wealth created by humans should be used to benefit everyone’.

On the other hand, describing the foundation of socialism as fairness, equality, justice and the common good doesn’t tell us anything as different people have different opinions as to what is fair, just or in the common interest. Supporters of capitalism could — and in fact do — claim this for capitalism.

The question is: on what basis would society have to be organised to ensure everybody is of equal worth and wealth used to benefit everyone? In our view it could only be on the basis of the means of living (land, industry, transport, communications, etc) being the common property of the whole community. In other words, belonging to everybody but this is the same as belonging to nobody. A socialist society is one where no individual or group of individuals has ownership or controlling rights, in law or in fact, over the resources to produce what society needs to survive as this puts them in a privileged position vis-à-vis the rest of society.

A classless society means that everybody stands in the same relationship to the means of living as everybody else, each having the same opportunity to have a say in how society is run, through democratic procedures of one kind or another. Without the means of living being commonly owned and democratically controlled, the wealth that humans create cannot be used to benefit everyone. Only once freed from the constraints of sectional ownership and the economic forces set in motion when there is production for the market, can society be in a position to do this.

The Guardian (and dictionaries) attempt to grasp the idea of common ownership, which is indeed the basis of socialism, by equating this with ‘public/government ownership’ defined as ownership by the state. But the state is not the same as the community. The state is an institution standing above society controlled by and for a section only of the members of society. Under capitalism it is controlled by that section that owns and controls the means of living. The ‘public interest’ is their interest and ‘public ownership’ is ownership by them as a class. What government ownership amounts to is state capitalism.

Ever since our foundation in 1904 we have consistently argued that government ownership is not socialism. See, for instance, ‘Nationalisation not Socialism’, March 1908 and ‘Evolution and State Capitalism’, April 1910.

That state capitalism is the same as socialism is the most common misunderstanding as to what socialism means. It can even be described as the illusion of the epoch. It is only on the basis of this mistake that the Labour Party (at one time, a long time ago) and Russia when it was the USSR could be described as socialist.

What Starmer thought socialism is was not clear, but he did mention to Chris Mason that it meant ‘the country in the service of working people’. That’s not socialism either. In fact it’s how the Conservatives might describe conservatism and the Lib Dems liberalism. But at least it is something that a Starmer Labour government can be judged by.

The trouble for him is that a country with a capitalist economy simply cannot be made to serve the interest of ‘working people’, or the social class made up of people who, through being excluded from ownership and control of the means of living, are forced by economic necessity to sell their working skills to some employer. A society based on minority ownership and production for profit can never be made to work in their interest as making profits for capitalist enterprises ahead of satisfying people’s needs is built into it. Hence the problems that the working class face. As these arise from capitalism, they cannot be solved without getting rid of capitalism.

We confidently predict, therefore, that Starmer will fail in his endeavour to make capitalism serve the working class. Socialism, properly understood as the common ownership and democratic control of the means of living, is the only framework in which people can be social equals and production re-oriented to serve people’s needs.

ADAM BUICK

SOCIALIST STANDARD   no-1439-july-2024


 


ELECTIONS WORLDWIDE


Elections are not just happening in the UK this year: around the world there have been national elections in South Africa, Bangladesh, Mexico, Taiwan, Indonesia and Pakistan already. The United States is due to have an election in November. There have even been elections in Russia and Iran and European Parliamentary elections. There may be more, but what is certain, is that a majority of the human species will vote in national-level elections at some point in this year.

This is something worth taking on board: particularly for ourselves as socialists who maintain that a worldwide revolution is possible. It becomes conceivable that in one particular year, socialist movements could win elections not just in a preponderance of states, but with a majority of the species on the planet.

This is the first time in recorded history that so many people will be engaged in this way, and the likelihood is that such occurrences will become more common. Yet, despite the spread of democracy, we still see the overall rule by a minority. The capitalist class holds sway both within and between states. The evidence is that democracy is a form of government that supports and promotes minority rule.

The first factor to take into account is the very division of the world into nation states. Many electrons have been sacrificed in recent stories about Georgia’s new Foreign Agents law (widely seen as a pro-Russian imposition to cut out western NGOs and other bodies). Yet, the UK has recently passed a similar law which makes it an offence to work as an agent of a foreign government. As it is worded, it’s not entirely inconceivable that were a part of the World Socialist Movement to win an election anywhere in the world, it could lead to our members being proscribed (as we would be acting as part of a single worldwide organisation).

On top of that is the process that can be most easily demonstrated in Russia and Iran. In both countries, great steps are taken to restrict who is able to stand, with candidates being vetted by an electoral commission. Whilst in the abstract, this could lead to protest votes being cast for smaller parties (since there are multiple candidates in the elections) the bombardment of propaganda is one-sided so people feel there is no point to voting against the incumbent (or, in many cases, will be persuaded that he is the best candidate).

In Iran, this results in very low turn-outs, down to 40 percent. In Russia, there are suggestions that the vote is inflated by outright ballot fraud and box stuffing (there are no independent observers in Russia, so it’s hard to say).

This process still happens in the ‘open’ democracies in some ways, where the barriers to standing are financial, time availability and co-ordination. Concentration of wealth gives the capitalist class minority the head start in being able to organise around winning elections.

Counting the ballots is a vulnerable point in electoral politics, hence why Donald Trump has been able to maintain his claims of voter fraud. This technique was pioneered in Kenyan Presidential elections, and works by filling the airwaves with claims of cheating, backed up by having enough energised supporters to mean the claims cannot be easily ignored. Clearly, this approach is backed up by clever psychological studies of group behaviour. All over the world, skilled professionals are paid precisely to game any election rules to try and support one faction over another.

Even where such blatant fixes aren’t in place, the whole structure of representative elections is actually stacked towards minority rule. In practice, parliaments and legislatures only ever have one vote: who is the government? Handing power to an individual executive in practice creates an elected monarch. The so-called division of power much vaunted by liberal doctrine simply frees up the executive branch to behave as it wants, with parliaments being oversight committees on the activity of the executive.

That is not to say they have no influence. Parliaments can threaten to obstruct the executive and rob it of authority. Indeed, this is a way in which minority politics operate, since it is in the interest of parliamentarians to form minority factions which threaten the overall majority, and quietly exact policies from the executive in return for their continued loyalty.

Likewise, the existence of the executive allows for a band of courtiers who jockey for position and patronage: they have privileged access to information (especially timings of announcements) and the ability to co-ordinate easily because their numbers are small and they are personally known to one another. They can offer each other jobs and opportunities to make contacts.

Here again, the inequality of wealth rears its head. The small number of courtiers can themselves be courted, and if not outright bribed, they can be made aware of the revolving door between politics and business: comfortable sinecures await those who prove sufficiently pliant to business interests. If they all move in the same circles, they form a common way of looking at the world which means they do what is needed without even having to be asked.

Informal networks and factionalising are almost inherent to human society and cannot be eliminated, but the more open and diffuse the decision structures are, the less these traits can have an effect on the outcomes of decisions. The fact that the billions who vote are in effect insulated from the day to day decisions by the election of intermediaries in parliament simply exacerbates the opportunities for scheming and domination.

Election and delegation of defined functions would continue to be an essential part of running a society based on common ownership, as would (indeed) some representative bodies. The abolition of concentrated private wealth and the active participation of the billions in ensuring that as many decisions are taken as closely as possible to the public gaze means that we can look to transforming the current means of deception and fraud into a means of liberation and effective administration for us all.

PIK SMEET

SOCIALIST STANDARD  no-1439-july-2024



SHOPLIFT


A funny thing happened on the way to the forum, well not the forum but a supermarket store, owned by German capitalists. Sunday morning at ten and the place was busier than a Japanese commuter subway station during rush-hour.

This was an unfamiliar store. In familiar ones a yellow sticker on an item signifies that the commodity is near to, or almost past, its sell-by date, so a sharp money-saving eye is always on the lookout for such. Glimpsing such coloured things, they were not as they first appeared. Stickers on items in the various meats section turned out to be security tags. These were then found on many other different goods across the various aisles.

Socialists are generally law-abiding and tend to react as anyone would when their probity is called into question. After reciting the whole of Coleridge’s Rime of the Ancient Mariner the checkout was finally arrived at. Here something unexpected occurred. With the meagre commodities placed upon the conveyor belt the wage slave operating the till asked if the shopping bags could be checked to make sure that they were empty.

Non-plussedness caused temporary speechlessness. Light bulb time. They think there might be commodities in bags that had been appropriated without the gelt made toward the profits of the German capitalists. There’s a first time for everything and this was the first time this writer has ever been confronted with such a request.

Finally, the response was articulated. Yes, one did mind. Till person’s training kicked in as they began the spiel about how such intrusion was company policy and how much shoplifting cost the store annually. This programming of the wage slaves in such occupations means that refusals are a regular occurrence and some behavioural psychologists have worked out that an appeal of this nature would overcome any objections the customer might have. Think of the poor capitalist!

At this point words passionately overflowed regarding the iniquities of capitalism. This did not go down well. Totally misunderstanding at whom the diatribe was aimed the till person responded with ‘if you’re abusive I won’t serve you’!

The thought arose, it’s exploitative capitalism that abuses the vast majority in many different ways.

Some deluded individuals, when confronted with a situation which is an abuse of civil liberties, respond with, ‘I don’t mind, I’ve nothing to hide and neither should anyone mind if they haven’t done anything wrong’. This is an erroneous view in a surveillance society. An under-the-counter button was now being jabbed furiously.

Enter stage left the in-house security. The attitude of this member of the working class couldn’t have been more different. Unlike the cashier he behaved in a perfectly pleasant, reasonable manner. This offered an opportunity to explain the objections to having one’s bag searched.

If this tale was being retold on some confessional social media sites it would end with everyone queuing and listening, then finally bursting into cheering and applause. Followed no doubt by a mass rendition of the Internationale. One has to know when to cut one’s losses.

One glance at the faces of those in the queue behind was sufficient to show that it was time to graciously concede. Explaining that one did not want to keep anyone waiting any longer I said look into the bags if you want to. Just as graciously the security guard indicated that that would not be necessary. The bags were not examined. ‘Security’ was someone the narrator would have liked to have a long conversation with about socialism. Commodities run through till, paid for, exit narrator with mental note never to visit that particular supermarket again.

Socialists are generally very non-prejudiced men and women. Apart from in one case. Socialists are very prejudiced when it comes to capitalism. There are, of course, many people who dislike capitalism, but not all of those, even the ones who term themselves socialists, want to see its replacement by a class-free, wage-free, money-free, leader-free, nation-free society.

There’s none so blind as those who will not see. Knowing that a socialist society would provide free access to quality goods and services if only a majority of the working class understood and wanted it, makes transactions designed to further enrich capitalists hard to bear.

The reasons for shoplifting are varied: the economic necessity of doing so because particular commodities necessary for life are unaffordable or in order to profit by selling on the commodities more cheaply than are available in store. A previous shoplifting article in the Life and Times column of the Socialist Standard in October, points out that some may shoplift as an act of ‘disobedience to the authority of the private property system’. However, as that article explains, ‘it is not a particularly positive or constructive way to help do away with that system’.

Reflection upon that event by the narrator was one of sadness that the other customers and staff, in that location, were unaware that angst-ridden capitalism could be, as Life and Times correctly has it, replaced with a system ‘in which the stores of the world can be made freely available to them – and to everyone’.

DC

SOCIALIST STANDARD  no-1439-july-2024

A SOCIALIST FUTURE?


One of the many organisations standing candidates in the General Election is the newly founded Communist Future (see their no-frills website at communistfuture.com, which includes their manifesto). They are contesting just one seat, the Manchester Central constituency.

They say in their manifesto that the working class are those who have to work for a wage. Capitalism cannot achieve the potential of giving everyone a life of fulfilment, as a small minority own most of the resources needed to produce and distribute goods and services, resulting in crisis and instability. Instead of capitalism, they stand for a society with no class system: the means of production should be the shared property of everyone and be democratically managed. The communist future will be ‘a society of freedom and fulfilment for all, a setting free of human potential.’

This all sounds very promising, and is on the same sort of lines as the case of the Socialist Party, though it would be good to hear a bit more about what their future society would involve, such as implying the ending of wage labour. On the other hand, Communist Future do express support demands for reforms, such as controls on rents and reduced working hours, though accepting that these can only provide short-term gains. They also support ‘demands that promote political freedom’, including an end to the House of Lords and the monarchy. They say they are not standing in the election in order to do things for people.

So they could certainly say more about the kind of society they want, and their advocacy of reforms is a sticking point. But it is certainly encouraging to see such an organisation making its voice heard.

SOCIALIST STANDARD  no-1439-july-2024




THE MYTH OF CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY

SOCIALIST STANDARD no-1439-july-2024


In his seminal work, Stone Age Economics published in 1972, the anthropologist Marshall Sahlins controversially suggested that hunter gatherers, though conspicuously lacking in those sundry accoutrements of what we call ‘civilisation’ – like money, fast cars, an 80-inch flat- screen TV and a semi-detached terrace in the suburbs – may nevertheless have constituted what he called the ‘original affluent society’.

This was a startling claim, to say the least. It certainly challenged what we conventionally mean by the term ‘affluence’. As Sahlins noted:

‘By the common understanding, an affluent society is one in which all the people’s material wants are easily satisfied. To assert that the hunters are affluent is to deny then that the human condition is an ordained tragedy, with man the prisoner, at hard labor, of a perpetual disparity between his unlimited wants and his insufficient means. For there are two possible courses to affluence. Wants may be “easily satisfied” either by producing much or desiring little.’

‘Producing much’ is what Sahlins called the ‘Galbraithean way’ to affluence – named after the economist, J K Galbraith, who had written a book in the 1950s called The Affluent Society – although Galbraith himself was somewhat ambivalent about the whole subject of affluence.

As he saw it, the age- old problem of scarcity had been largely overcome. The emphasis on increasing productivity and output, he argued, may have been apposite in earlier times when large swathes of the population had little option but to endure grinding poverty. However, this was no longer the case in the post- war era of mass production and consumer plenty. Hence, society’s priorities needed to change – from delivering yet more affluence to dealing with the challenges that affluence threw up – such as glaring inequality and environmental destruction. Amongst other things, concluded Galbraith, this called for more Keynesian-style government regulation of the economy, more investment in the public sector and so on.

As a consumption theorist, Galbraith was very much influenced by earlier writers in that tradition – like Thorstein Veblen, author of The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899), for instance. Galbraith argued that the conventional wisdom regarding the role of consumers had become outdated – that is, the idea that the ‘consumer is king’. According to this, whatever the consumer wants, businesses obligingly provide.

For Galbraith, the boot had since transferred to the other foot: it was now the producer who was king and the consumer, the subject. The consumer was, for instance, now more of a price-taker than a price-maker, a tendency that would have been reinforced by the increasing concentration and centralisation of capital in fewer hands. In short, the increasing domination of the economy by giant corporations.

Because of their large size, these corporations were not so much constrained by market competition when it came to setting prices. Nor for that matter, by the single-minded quest to maximise profits. That might well still be the primary goal of small businesses or, indeed, the shareholders of large corporations. However, suggested Galbraith in another book entitled The New Industrial State (1964), the former were in decline while the latter had largely lost control to a specialist planning and technical elite – dubbed the ‘technostructure’ – intent upon promoting technical efficiency and expanding the corporation out of undistributed profits.

In that sense profits still mattered; the corporation would prefer, for example, to finance itself rather than depend on bank loans and this obviously required that it be profitable. But the point that Galbraith was making was simply that the pursuit of profit was not of such overriding importance as it once was and that other objectives had entered into the frame alongside profit-making. With hindsight, however, things have not turned out quite like Galbraith imagined, with ‘shareholder capitalism’ now back firmly in the driving seat.

Dependence effect
For him, all these various developments also gave rise to something that he called the ‘dependence effect’. By this he meant consumer preferences had become more dependent on, or conditioned by, the corporate imperatives of big business. These latter were to increase sales and thereby make the fullest possible use of the large-scale productive capacity they had built up and so reap the benefits of scale economies. In other words, to some extent, these imperatives were technologically driven. While the resulting price reductions might, in the short run, seem to adversely affect the revenue stream of a business and hence its profits, in the long run it enabled the business to undercut its competitors and so capture a larger slice of the market.

However, what this also meant is that more demand for these products had to be created, or stimulated, in order to justify and maintain a high level of output. Price cutting would help in that respect but, in addition, boosting demand necessitated resorting to intensive advertising and ‘salesmanship’. In short, by generally promoting a culture of emulative and acquisitive consumerism.

Strictly speaking, the aim was not so much to satisfy the wants of the consumer as such. Rather, it was to ensure that the consumer remained perpetually unsatisfied and forever in a state of wanting more. In short, it was to promote the idea of ‘consumption for the sake of consumption’ (mirroring ‘production for the sake of production’).

Galbraith argued from what he called a commonsensical premise that the more amply a person´s wants are supplied the less urgent will those wants become. However:

‘If the individual’s wants are to be urgent they must be original with himself. They cannot be urgent if they must be contrived for him. And above all they must not be contrived by the process of production by which they are satisfied. For this means that the whole case for the urgency of production, based on the urgency of wants, falls to the ground. One cannot defend production as satisfying wants if that production creates the wants.’

In other words, the institutions of modern advertising and salesmanship ‘cannot be reconciled with the notion of independently determined desires, for their central function is to create desires—to bring into being wants that previously did not exist’.

Predictably enough, Galbraith´s arguments were excoriated by hostile critics like market libertarians for whom the concept of consumer sovereignty was something sacrosanct. It was key to their model of competitive market economy that works to maximise economic welfare in strict accordance with the wants of rational actors expressed through the market. Since these are essentially both rational and sovereign it was not for anyone else to question or frown upon such wants – whatever might be the social or environmental costs of satisfying them.

Any suggestion that consumer preferences might be moulded by institutional forces emanating from outside or beyond the individual themselves was regarded as anathema, an affront to the individualistic worldview of the market libertarians. If individuals were so easily manipulated, what is to prevent them making irrational choices, perhaps leading to some or other suboptimal outcome that might tarnish the good reputation of the free market?

Rejecting the very idea of a ‘dependence effect’ thus committed these market libertarians to the view that our wants (whether urgent or not) must necessarily always be ‘original’ to the individual themselves – or, to use Galbraith’s expression, will always spring from their own inner disposition alone. Suggesting they can be conditioned or shaped by some external force or factor had one further consequence. It could potentially call into question that most sacred of dogmas upon which much mainstream economic thinking hinges – namely, that our wants are insatiable. For if we can be persuaded to buy more we can also be persuaded to want less and therefore to buy less. Clearly, that would not be in the interests of the business community.

Manipulating wants
For Galbraith, that is precisely what this community was in the business of doing – persuading consumers. As he argued, if wants were genuinely original or innate to the consumer then what would be the point in advertising at all. The consumer would seek out and find the product that might satisfy their particular want of their own accord. The fact that the product is so relentlessly publicised strongly suggests that the purpose of the advertisers is to expand the consumer´s wants or even to supply them with completely novel wants that they did not even realise they had.

Naturally, this has prompted a counterargument from Galbraith´s critics that advertising can be justified on the grounds that it is merely alerting us to the existence of useful products we might otherwise have overlooked. However, this counterargument strikes one as being somewhat disingenuous.

To begin with, there is the sheer scale of advertising to consider. It seems absolutely disproportionate to what the market libertarians claim its purpose to be. It does not seem credible, to put it mildly, to suggest that businesses, ferociously competing against each other for a bigger slice of the market, would spend such vast sums of money merely to provide a public service, as it were – of informing the consumer of the availability of these products and thereby enabling them to better satisfy their wants.

Galbraith might have been naïve if he imagined that advertising could somehow be pruned back to a bare minimum in a competitive market economy. But his critics were no less, if not considerably more, naïve in their understanding of what advertising is about. Its purpose is, very clearly, more to persuade than inform. This is evident in the very of techniques of advertising itself. These involve repetition, reinforcement and the copious use of emotional associations, fantasy, irony and downright innuendo. Such techniques are demonstrably manipulative in style, often preying on people’s vulnerabilities and sense of self-esteem.

In the early days of advertising there was, arguably, rather more in the way of factual or informational content to adverts but those days have long gone. The dark arts of the advertisers have evolved way beyond that since then. Advertising today, suggests Andrew Simms, is about mind control. Like air pollution it seeps into every nook and cranny of our lives. Indeed, it is reckoned that the average American citizen is exposed to anywhere between 4,000 and 10,000 adverts every single day:

‘Advertising works by getting under your radar, introducing new ideas without bothering your conscious mind. Extensive scientific research shows that, when exposed to advertising, people “buy into” the materialistic values and goals it encourages. Consequently, they report lower levels of personal wellbeing, experience conflict in relationships, engage in fewer positive social behaviours, and experience detrimental effects on study and work. Critically, the more that people prioritise materialistic values and goals, the less they embrace positive attitudes towards the environment – and the more likely they are to behave in damaging ways.’

More ominously, Simms goes on to refer to the findings of neuroscience on the effects of advertising on the human brain: ‘advertising goes as far as lodging itself in the brain, rewiring it by forming physical structures and causing permanent change. Brands that have been made familiar through advertising have a strong influence on the choices people make. Under MRI scans, the logos of recognisable car brands are shown to activate a single particular region in the brain in the medial prefrontal cortex. Brands and logos have also been shown to generate strong preferences between virtually identical products, such as fizzy drinks – preferences that disappear in blind tests. Researchers looking to assess the power of advertised brands concluded that “there are visual images and marketing messages that have insinuated themselves into the nervous systems of humans”’ (Guardian, 11 October 2021).

If we accept that the purpose of advertising is more to persuade than to inform then this puts our market libertarians in an essentially untenable position. It means having to concede that our wants are not necessarily those that are original to ourselves and that, consequently, we are not at all like the sovereign individuals depicted in individualist mythology, driven by impulses that arise entirely within ourselves. It means having to acknowledge that we are, indeed, social animals capable of influencing and being influenced by others.

Given the manipulative nature of advertising it follows that weakening or removing its influence would result in a situation in which consumer wants would indeed more closely approximate those of our hypothetical sovereign individual. Therein lies a delicious irony – the fact that market libertarianism through its endorsement of the practice of advertising would appear to be in league with those very forces that threaten our individual sovereignty and our ability to rationally think for ourselves.

Untenable position
Faced with the incontrovertible evidence that advertising does indeed contrive to expand our wants or introduce new ones, some market libertarians have adopted a somewhat different tack than that of outright denial. This might be described as an exercise in damage limitation.

A case in point was the prominent free market supporter, Friedrich von Hayek. Hayek contended that it was a gross exaggeration to suggest corporations could determine consumer preferences through the power of advertising alone. That is undoubtedly true although it misses the larger point. The inculcation of consumerist values in the population is not something for which any one particular agency or institution can be held solely responsible. It is woven into the very fabric of life under capitalism.

It arises from the system´s competitive dynamic and its built-in disposition to grow without limit. The relentless accumulation of capital that competition compels finds its correlate in the no less relentless drive to boost market sales by means of which the economic surpluses to finance that accumulation can be realised.

ROBIN COX