Class war in the USA?

Friday's New York Times carried an interesting opinion piece from Ron Lieber. The opening gambit: "There’s a class war coming to the world of government pensions."

Of course, the American press is - even more so than its British counterpart - biased in favour of established power. The spectrum of opinion it allows is very narrow, debate within that spectrum conforming to disagreement between elite sectors.

Hence, perhaps, this interpretation of the class divide;

The haves are retirees who were once state or municipal workers. Their seemingly guaranteed and ever-escalating monthly pension benefits are breaking budgets nationwide.

The have-nots are taxpayers who don’t have generous pensions. Their 401(k)s or individual retirement accounts have taken a real beating in recent years and are not guaranteed. And soon, many of those people will be paying higher taxes or getting fewer state services as their states put more money aside to cover those pension checks. 

Those reading this in Britain should be familiar with this rhetoric. See, for example, PCS's myth-busting on this subject, in opposition to the commonly-held view that they are "unaffordable."

In the US, too, the position against government pensions is largely dogma and bluster. Certainly, to suggest that government pensions will be responsible for higher taxes and cuts to services, after the $4.6 trillion bailout of Wall Street, is absurd.

As Dean Baker points out for Monthly Review;

We have just seen the Wall Street crew get trillions of dollars of loans and loan guarantees to protect their multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses.  The government routinely gets taken left and right by Halliburton and other defense contractors.  Doctors and drug companies use their political power to ensure that they can charge far above competitive market prices.

With all these millionaires and billionaires getting even richer at the public's expense, why would there be a class war over public pensions?  Clearly this is Mr. Lieber's desire, but so what?

Lieber does his best to whip up the hysteria -- near the beginning of the article he describes the pension shortfall: "At stake is at least $1 trillion.  That’s trillion, with a 't,' as in titanic and terrifying."  Since we're doing the alliterations with "t," how about throwing in "two" as in a shortfall that is less than 2 percent of projected state and local government spending.  Current spending is close to $2 trillion a year.  If we assume that a shortfall must be filled over a 30-year period, then this would imply a gap that is less that 2 percent of projected spending over this period.  That is not a trivial sum, but it is not obviously "titanic" or "terrifying," at least to adults who do not scare easily.

The clear aim, as Baker points out, is "to direct public anger at school teachers and custodians rather than the people who hold real power and wealth in this country."

Interesting, though, is Lieber's use of the term "class war." There is not going to be a class war between private and public sector workers. The real class war continues to simmer, below the radar of mainstream media coverage.

Take, for example, this recent press release from the IWW's Starbucks Union;

Baristas and community supporters shut down the 15th and Douglas Starbucks (SBUX) this morning demanding that management reverse all cuts to healthcare, staffing, and benefits that have been imposed during the recession. The baristas claim that executives have no justification to squeeze working families with Starbucks raking in profits of $977.2 million in the past four fiscal quarters.

“We are being squeezed, and we can't take it any more. Since the recession began, Starbucks executives have ruthlessly gutted our standard of living. They doubled the cost of our health insurance, reduced staffing levels, cut our hours, all while demanding more work from us. Starbucks is now more than profitable again. It's time for management to give back what they took from us,” said Sasha McCoy, a shift supervisor at the store.

Since the onset of the recession, Starbucks imposed a series of deep cuts on its workforce. Starting in 2008 as the economic downturn began, the coffee giant shuttered over 800 stores and slashed over 18000 jobs. The remaining skeleton crew workforce was stretched out, forced to push VIA and other promotional products while keeping the stores running with insufficient staffing levels. CEO Howard Schultz then doubled the cost of the company health insurance plan in September 2009, leaving many workers unable to afford medical treatment because of sky-high deductibles and premiums. While the cuts continue, Starbucks made a record profit of $207.9 million in the last quarter according to company figures.

The protesting baristas are members of the Starbucks Workers Union, which is an international campaign of the Industrial Workers of the World labor union. The store action makes the 15th and Douglas location the first Starbucks in Nebraska to have a public union presence. The workers decided to move to unionize after watching their standard of living be whittled away while top executives chose to reward investors with dividends.

This is what real class war is.

It doesn't matter that one segment of the working class happens to have the state as their employer. They still have to sell their labour to survive, and to face cuts in their standard of living to prop up their bosses.

That they may not have it quite as bad as their private sector counterparts in some instances does not justify a race to the bottom. The only people who benefit from that kind of inter-class antagonism are the bosses, who are waging the real class war.

That goes in the US as in Britain, or anywhere else in the world. The real enemy in the class war isn't slightly more privileged workers - it's those at the top whose wealth our labour creates.

Solidarity with Campsfield House hunger strikers

Migrants at the Campsfield House detention centre yesterday began a hunger strike in protest at their prolongued detention and ill treatment.

According to their statement;

147 detainees are staging a protest by refusing meals at Campsfield immigration removal centre. The protest erupted as a result of the treatment of detainees in detention centres especially for people who have been detained for a long period of time. We continue to refuse meals indefinitely for our voices to be heard.

Some of us detainees have been detained for over 3 years with no prospect of removal or any evidence of future release. There is no justification whatsoever for detaining us for such period of time. Our lives incidentally have been stalled without any hope of living a life, having a family or any future. More often than not, we are been detained even when our family (wife and children) are resident in the United Kingdom, depriving us of having a life with our family. We the detainees are also humans.

In certain cases, some of us are tortured and even face death or mental distress. On 14 April 2010, a detainee of Kenya national Eliud Nyenze died at Oakington IRC due to negligence. Mr. Nyenze, age 40, had a heart attack, requested for painkillers, repeatedly and kept crawling around the floor in pain before he died.

Detainees are currently undergoing mental stress with some of us developing mental problems on a monthly basis. We are issued removal directions without given enough time for an appeal.

It has become a habit by the UK Border Agency to use force in enforcing removal of detainees who have a pending Judicial Review without giving appropriate time or consideration to our case and forcing our removal before our cases are concluded. In some situations, we are not given enough time to appeal against the decision which breaches our rights under Article 6 of the ECHR. Our liberty and security has been taking away.

We as foreign nationals are often been criminalised for the purpose of detention and removal as the law under the European Convention of Human Rights permits the removal of foreigners who have established there lives in the United Kingdom and are a treat to national security. Foreign nationals are now been sent to prison for 12 months custodial sentence or more prompting the deportation of such individual. Removals are enforced on specially chartered flights with security personnel who abuse and torture detainees in the process. Detainees are restrained, strapped, beating and forced on the airplane.

On 26 July 2010, one of the detainee at Campsfield attempted suicide due to the level of treatment received at the detention centre.

The Amnesty International has also reported that our detention breaches the internationally recognised human rights.

On a regular basis, we are tortured, restrained, strapped like animals and beating to effect removal. This cannot be lawful given that there is provision within the ECHR convention that prohibits torture both mentally and physically.

We painfully ask that the government, the house of parliament, the house of common, the parliamentarians and all concerned to rise to our aid and address these issues that affects not only our lives and our future but the lives and future of the thousands of our families who are constantly under pain and torture.

This comes just a month after the report (PDF) by Dame Anne Owers, former chief inspector of prisons, who voiced that asylum-seekers should not be jailed.

It is also six months since the Yarls Wood hunger strike. Though those who took part are now embroiled in "a legal battle to gain official recognition that the protest even took place," as well as "to secure an inquiry into their allegations of violence and racial abuse by guards."

The refusal to acknowledge events continues. UK Border Agency deputy chief executive Jonathan Sedgwick claims the new hunger strikers "still have access to food from the on site shop and vending machines."

He goes on to assert that "staff are monitoring the situation closely and listening to the detainees' concerns. All detainees have access to legal representation and 24-hour medical care."

However, the history of hunger strikes, riots, and even a suicide cast doubt on these assertions.

As a spokesperson for Medical Justice, which has monitored detainee's health at the centre, said: "It's no surprise that detainees are on hunger strike.

"Independent doctors have visited detainees who are imprisoned despite not being accused of any crime. The damage to mental health of prolonged and indefinite immigration detention that the doctors have seen is so extensive that the only solution is to close these detention centres down."

Asbestos victims suffer the government's attacks on Health and Safety

It appears that the first victim of the new government's disdain for workers' health and safety will not be "red tape" or "bureaucracy," but the fight against one of the deadliest workplace killers - asbestos.

Today, the Mirror reported this;

Hope in the fight against asbestos-related cancer is to be dashed by the ConDems.

The coalition is dodging a pledge made by the last government to fund a £10million research centre, a key demand of the Mirror's Asbestos Timebomb Campaign.

Tory Health Minister Simon Burns refused to even mention the vital commitment when replying to a specific Commons question.

He wrote: "Future expenditure on research in asbestos-related diseases will be determined by the success of bids for funding." This would be in "open competition" with other bids on "any aspect of human health".

Labour MP Stephen Hepburn, who put Mr Burns on the spot with the question, said: "It's another kick in the teeth for workers exposed to asbestos." Diseases related to the material kill 2,000 people a year while mesothelioma - a lung cancer caused by asbestos - is the 12th most common cause of male deaths.

Mr Hepburn went on: "Mesothelioma is incurable. It's a disgrace the Government won't honour a promise to invest in research." Alan Ritchie, chief of construction union UCATT, called the move "sickening but unsurprising".

He said: "The fact sufferers are mostly working class means they are not considered a priority."

This follows from news last week that victims of asbestosis were having the compensation process weighted against them.

Again, from the Mirror;

Asbestos cancer victims waiting for urgent compensation payments have suffered a serious setback under the ConDems.

Union leaders who have been campaigning for a better deal for thousands hit by mesothelioma - an incurable form of lung cancer caused by exposure to the killer dust - have been left out of top-level talks.

Now they and MPs fear many will die before they get cash promised under the last government.

Quite clearly, justice for working class people is being sacrificed in the name of the cynical ideology driving government policy. Even as a new generation of workers are put in harms way by a government review which seeks to "use the myths and hysteria promoted by the media as a smokescreen to dismantle basic and vital protections for working people."

The new government's promised attacks on the working class have long begun. Whither the response from the organisations which claim to defend us?

Urban fox hunting, class, and a militant response to animal cruelty

Although nowhere near as fervent as the initial furore over the "fox attack twins," the media's demonisation of foxes continues unabated. And we are beginning to see the consequences.

Some of the stories that have come out about this have been truly ridiculous.

For example, one can only wonder why the woman who told the Daily Mail of "horror at being bitten by fox on two separate nights" didn't think to keep her windows closed after the first instance.

I do feel for the family whose pet dog was killed by an urban fox. However, as the owner of two cats and a dog, if a fox had previously been in my garden long enough for me to grab a camera and take pictures, I'd have made a point of deterring from coming back.

I'd also have deliberately kept my dog away from it. I certainly wouldn't have let it chase after the thing and end up "two roads away." That's active carelessness.

The latest round of nonsense follows a teenage girl being bitten whilst she camped with friends in her back garden. Or, as the Mirror would have it, "Camping girls attacked by a crazed fox." The paper tells us that the "crazed," "snarling," "bloodthirsty" animal "ripp[ed] a foot-long hole in the canvas" before "sinking its teeth into her left foot."

All of which sounds terrifying, except that despite the apparent foot-long hole in the tent, post-attack the fox couldn't get back in. "I could see its claws running down the tent door as it tried to get back in," schoolgirl Bethany Blackburn is quoted as saying.

Not only that, but it was only then that they decided to use their mobiles to call into the house. Before that, according to the account in the Daily Mail, "before it struck it had spent more than two hours clawing at the sides of the tent." However, the girls say this as "a bit of fun" and, in the tradition of badly-written pulp horror, "their amusement turned to terror" when the creature "lashed out."

Such hysterical exaggeration, more expected of the 13 year old girls than of the adult "journalists" writing about them, is nothing new. Foxes are not the first group to fall victim to media sensationalism.

But it appears that the mania over this has inspired complete lunatics to take matters into their own hands. A new blog, Urban Fox Hunters, has sprung up hoping to "co-ordinate" the efforts of this "collective" in "keeping our streets safer"[sic].

That they view gangs who catch foxes for illegal fights with pitbulls as "other people getting stuck in as well" says all that need be said of the mindset of the twats behind this. You cannot seriously claim to be all about "humanely exterminating pests that are attacking kids" when your first blogspost includes the phrase "note to self, NO BEER BEFORE HUNTING!"

At the same time as this is going on, "cubbing season" has reared its ugly head once again.

As the League Against Cruel Sports explains;

In the spring, vixens gave birth to new litters of fox cubs. These little cubs have been growing up in relative safety, learning how to survive in the wild, but now their lives are in terrible danger. Even though it’s illegal, some extremist hunters will be secretly hunting them.

Cub hunting is an activity which traditionally starts in August and continues until mid-October. Its primary purpose is to train young foxhounds to kill foxes and give them a taste for blood. This is because the hounds are not fox killers by nature and for hunts that are still hunting foxes illegally despite the ban, it is important that the hounds are trained to know which animals they are expected to chase and kill. The pack is usually taken at first light or in the evening to a small wood or ‘covert’ where a family of foxes are known to live. The hunt supporters surround the covert and any cubs that attempt to escape are driven back towards the hounds to be savaged. If any cubs remain in their earths they may be dug out and given to the hounds.

What follows are some of the most horrific acts of cruelty to animals. Cubs scatter in terror and panic, absolutely petrified as they meet their often agonising, prolonged deaths. They are sometimes literally ripped to pieces, with desperate vixens unable to save them from their fates.

The hunters who carry out these kinds of activities are nothing more than bullies who get pleasure out of seeing defenceless cubs die in immense pain and agony and we don’t believe they should be allowed to get away with this. 

Quite. If you wish to support the League with a donation, you can do so here.

What I think is obvious, however, is that eradicating such practices completely will require more than just catching out certain individuals or groups. There needs to be a complete change in the mentality which drives this kind of obscene cruelty.

Firstly, the deliberate hysteria and fear-mongering of the mainstream media needs to be seriously challenged.

On any number of topics - organised workers, health and safety, immigration, crime, etc - it is using misinformation and sensationalism to drive a reactionary agenda. It turns the working class against our own interests, generates out-group hostility which divides us as a class, and ensures that mass action or self-organisation can only materialise in the form of a derranged mob mentality.

We need to address this, both within our own communities and nationally. A concerted effort to produce alternative media for mass - rather than activist - consumption would challenge the hegemony of the mainstream media and allow more people to see beyond the propaganda model.

Secondly, we need to confront the overt classism in the reporting of animal rights issues.

The gangs who set their pitbulls on foxes, or cats, are thugs, plain and simple. There is no justification for training a dog to have a lust for blood, or getting pleasure from it tearing other creatures apart.

So why are the people who do this only called "sick thugs," and their actions "horrific," when they live on council estates and wear tracksuits? Why is doing the same thing acceptable on horseback or when you live in the countryside? Why is it then simply described as "the hunt," without epithets such as "sick" and collective nouns such as "gangs?"

Just nine hunts have been prosecuted since the hunting ban, with only three of those ending in conviction. By contrast, prosecutions and convictions for dog fighting and related cruelties are commonplace.

As long as this is treated as a class issue - i.e. just another disgraceful act from the "yobs" at the bottom of the societal scrapheap - we forget that animal cruelty is wrong. Whatever guise it takes, and whatever the economic background of the perpetrator.

For dealing with the practice of animal cruelty, we have direct action.

To many this is seen as violence and terrorism. But, as I explained in Animals in anarchy, this is not the case;

Obviously, there needs to be pressure by protesters if anything is to change, and a push towards environmentally sustainable production methods that do not harm animals. But does this justify what the authorities call “terrorism” and “animal rights extremism?”

If ecoterrorism means harming individuals, such as research scientists or factory farmers, then the answer is unequivocally no. Bringing harm against others, without the justification of self-defence, is not acceptable. The most notorious animal liberation group – the Animal Liberation Front – agree with me on this front. They stipulate that “anyone who carries out direct action according to ALF guidelines is a member of the ALF,” and these guidelines are quite explicit in the purpose of such action;

1. To liberate animals from places of abuse, i.e. fur farms, laboratories, factory farms, etc. and place them in good homes where they may live out their natural lives free from suffering.
2. To inflict economic damage to those who profit from the misery and exploitation of animals.
3. To reveal the horror and atrocities committed against animals behind locked doors by performing nonviolent direct actions and liberations.
4. To take all necessary precautions against hurting any animal, human and non-human.
5. To analyze the ramifications of any proposed action and never apply generalizations (e.g. all ‘blank’ are evil) when specific information is available.

The fourth and fifth point are important, as they are in line with the anarchist position on nearly all matters. The ALF state explicitly that “the ALF does not, in any way, condone violence against any animal, human or non-human. Any action involving violence is by its definition not an ALF action, and any person involved is not an ALF member.” As such, “in over 20 years, and thousands of actions, nobody has ever been injured or killed in an ALF action.” Under such conditions, and noting the caveats outlined above in regard to capitalist production, freedom of choice, and utilitarianism over the idea of animal “rights,” I cannot condemn direct action “ecoterrorism.”

Thus, local communities and groups opposed to practices such as fox-baiting, dog-fighting, and the like should be encouraged to physically intervene when they can to rescue the afflicted animals. Done right, this shouldn't involve assault or the initiation of violence.

However, self-defence when those involved react is entirely permissable. And I, for one, would have no qualms if any of these idiots found themselves on the receiving end of a good kicking.

The fury over Cameron's "gaffe" only distracts from the realities of empire

I honestly never thought I would find myself in agreement with Peter Hitchens. That is, until David Cameron made a "gaffe" about Britain being America's junior partner.

The part that has irked people, apart from that horrendous crime of "talking down Britain," is that he said "We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis." Telegraph blogger Tim Collard insists that we were in fact "the only game in town," and the Mirror shares the "fury" of World War II veterans.

Hitchens, one of the few right-wing columnists who avoids overt hysteria, is of a different opinion;

For those of you who say I never have a good word for David Cameron, here’s one. He’s pretty much right about 1940, even if it was by accident.

When a politician is accused of committing a ‘gaffe’, it almost always means he has told the truth.

And 1940 was in fact the year that Britain became America’s very junior partner, a sad role we have followed ever since.

I know, I know, the USA didn’t enter the war against Germany until 1941 (and then only when Hitler declared war on them).

But Franklin Roosevelt took great advantage of our desperate position in 1940.

As the Germans advanced through France in early summer that year, he offered one of the most unfair bargains in the history of diplomacy – 50 worn-out, ancient destroyers in return for nine rent-free US military bases in British colonies.

He had already insisted on hard cash for war supplies, which rapidly depleted Britain’s gold and currency reserves.

And Britain only finished paying for ‘lend-lease’ wartime aid – down to the uttermost ­farthing, plus interest charged for late payment – on December 29, 2006.

Post-war loans and Marshall Aid came at the cost of pledges to relinquish what remained of the empire, not least the bits we had just fought so hard to get back from the Japanese, and to open up colonial markets to US competition – plus unrelenting pressure to join the European Union, which still goes on.

These weren’t the acts of besotted friends, but of a hard, wise, calculating politician who wanted the best for his own country, not for ours.

He's right. Especially when he points out that "this is how great powers behave" more generally, when they are able.

This is, in fact, a point that Noam Chomsky has made numerous times before;

Well, if you look at the British diplomatic history, back in the 1940s, Britain had to make a decision. Britain had been the major world power, the United States though by far the richest country in the world, was not a major actor in the global scene, except regionally. By the Second World War it was obvious the US was going to be the dominant power, everyone knew that. Britain had to make a choice. Was it going to be part of what would ultimately be a Europe that might move towards independence, or would it be what the Foreign Office called a junior partner to the United States? Well it essentially made that choice, to be a junior partner to the United States. US, the leaders have no illusions about this. So during the Cuban missile crisis, for example, you look at the declassified record, they treated Britain with total contempt. Harold McMillan wasn't even informed of what was going on and Britain's existence was at stake. It was dangerous. One high official, probably Dean Atchers --he's not identified--, described Britain as in his words "Our lieutenant, the fashionable word is partner". Well the British would like to hear the fashionable word, but the masters use the actual word. Those are choices Britain has to make.

And that choice has defined relations between the two countries ever since;

Britain has been kicked in the face over and over again in the most disgraceful way and they sit there quietly and take it and say, “Okay, we will be the junior partner. We will bring to what’s called the coalition our experience of centuries of brutalizing and murdering foreign people. We’re good at that.” That’s the British role. It’s disgraceful.

The media, of course, will continue to paint this as a "slip up" or a "gaffe." The common line will be that he "has tried too hard to please" or that he has to "get his historical facts right."

But, ultimately, the only slip up Cameron made is that he revealed the truth. The media has whipped up a frenzy to hide the reality, but it has already been pushed into the open. And you can bet that, the power dynamic is not a revelation for Cameron, even if he let the public in on it "by accident."

Britain is the junior partner in the imperial ventures of the United States of America. It has been since 1940, and certainly since the end of World War II. This power dynamic is motivated by the control of strategic markets and resources worldwide, not freedom or democracy, and every war it undertakes is an act of imperial aggression.

That, not a rare moment of honesty about a history we don't learn about in schools, is what we need to be angry about.

More suffering for the people of Fallujah and why we can't gloss over war crimes

Doctors in Fallujah have been reporting a rise in birth defects since 2004. Alongside this, a new survey has found that cancer, leukaemia and infant mortality are all on the increase as well.

According to the report's abstract;

There have been anecdotal reports of increases in birth defects and cancer in Fallujah, Iraq blamed on the use of novel weapons (possibly including depleted uranium) in heavy fighting which occurred in that town between US led forces and local elements in 2004. In Jan/Feb 2010 the authors organised a team of researchers who visited 711 houses in Fallujah, Iraq and obtained responses to a questionnaire in Arabic on cancer, birth defects and infant mortality. The total population in the resulting sample was 4,843 persons with and overall response rate was better than 60%. Relative Risks for cancer were age-standardised and compared to rates in the Middle East Cancer Registry (MECC, Garbiah Egypt) for 1999 and rates in Jordan 1996–2001. Between Jan 2005 and the survey end date there were 62 cases of cancer malignancy reported (RR = 4.22; CI: 2.8, 6.6; p < 0.00000001) including 16 cases of childhood cancer 0-14 (RR = 12.6; CI: 4.9, 32; p < 0.00000001). Highest risks were found in all-leukaemia in the age groups 0-34 (20 cases RR = 38.5; CI: 19.2, 77; p < 0.00000001), all lymphoma 0–34 (8 cases, RR = 9.24;CI: 4.12, 20.8; p < 0.00000001), female breast cancer 0–44 (12 cases RR = 9.7;CI: 3.6, 25.6; p < 0.00000001) and brain tumours all ages (4 cases, RR = 7.4;CI: 2.4, 23.1; P < 0.004). Infant mortality was based on the mean birth rate over the 4 year period 2006–2009 with 1/6th added for cases reported in January and February 2010. There were 34 deaths in the age group 0–1 in this period giving a rate of 80 deaths per 1,000 births. This may be compared with a rate of 19.8 in Egypt (RR = 4.2 p < 0.00001) 17 in Jordan in 2008 and 9.7 in Kuwait in 2008. The mean birth sex-ratio in the recent 5-year cohort was anomalous. Normally the sex ratio in human populations is a constant with 1,050 boys born to 1,000 girls. This is disturbed if there is a genetic damage stress. The ratio of boys to 1,000 girls in the 0–4, 5–9, 10–14 and 15–19 age cohorts in the Fallujah sample were 860, 1,182, 1,108 and 1,010 respectively suggesting genetic damage to the 0–4 group (p < 0.01). Whilst the results seem to qualitatively support the existence of serious mutation-related health effects in Fallujah, owing to the structural problems associated with surveys of this kind, care should be exercised in interpreting the findings quantitatively.

Last night, BBC News covered this story in more detail. The report, though harrowing, is worth watching.

However, there is just one minor point to pick up on. Namely, the idea that "fierce fighting between US forces and Sunni insurgents" is at the root of this problem and that "the use of novel weapons (possibly including depleted uranium)" doesn't need to be overtly identified with either side.

In fact, what happened in Fallujah can only accurately be described as a war crime perpetrated by the United states military. "Balance," as ever, only obfuscates this fact.

The US Army National Ground Intelligence Centre's report on the "Battle of Fallujah I," states that it "was not simply a military action, it was a political and informational battle whose outcome was far less certain" than military victory. They were concerned that "the effects of media  coverage, enemy information operations (IO), and the fragility of the political environment conspired to force a halt to U.S. military operations."

Reading the report, it soon becomes clear why;

During the shaping operations, Regimental Combat Team-1 (RCT-1) from the First Marine Division established a cordon of traffic control points (TCPs) on major roads around Fallujah in order to isolate the city's defenders and prevent their escape. Supplies of food and medicine were allowed in, but only women, children, and old men were allowed out. Other MEF units simultaneously conducted aggressive counterinsurgency (COIN) operations in the surrounding area (Ar Ramadi, Khaldiyah, Al Kharmah, and Northern Babil) in order to interdict and prevent insurgent groups outside Fallujah from interfering. Civilians were warned to evacuate the city.

In other words, whilst the women and children were allowed to escape, the men were contained within the city walls to await their fate.

There is a strong parallel here with events in the Srebrenica Massacre during the Bosnian war. There, Serb forces separated the men and boys from the broader group of Bosniak refugees at Potočari, busing out the women and children, and slaughtering the men.

As Noam Chomsky has commented, the only major difference is that "with Fallujah, the US didn't truck out the women and children, it bombed them out."

Then, according to the NGIC report, "on 5 April 2004, Phase II kicked off;"

Two battalion task forces from RCT-1 assaulted Fallujah, about 2000 men in total, mostly light infantry supported by 10 M1A1 tanks, 24 AAVP-7 tracks, and a battery of M198 howitzers. The 2d Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment (2/1) attacked from the northwest into the Jolan district while the 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment (1/5) attacked from the southeast into the industrial district (Shuhidah). The MEF

During the campaign, at least one US battalion had "orders to shoot any male of military age on the streets after dark, armed or not." As a result, according to Iraq Body Count's analysis, "at least 572 of the roughly 800 reported deaths during the first US siege of Fallujah in April 2004 were civilians, with over 300 of these being women and children."

The US withdrew on May 1st, but went back in on November 8th. This time, the consequences would be even starker.

Dahr Jamail was the first to report that "he U.S. military has used poison gas and other non-conventional weapons against civilians in Fallujah." This was backed up by reports in the Washington Post that "some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water."

The March-April 2005 edition of Field Artillery ran a special on the assault, which stated quite candidly;

WP [white phosphorous] proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breaches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE [high-explosive]. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out. .. We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions. 

Then there was the use of depleted uranium. Deplete uranium is 1.67 times as dense as lead, giving bullets  and shells tipped with it a higher pressure at the point of impact which leads to deeper penetration.

It is also known to have adverse health effects. In 2001, it was reported that malignant diseases had increased by 200% in Kosovo since the 1998 NATO bombing campaign. It has been linked to Gulf War syndrome and the increased likelihood of veterans to have children with birth defects. At the same time, Iraqis have blamed it for the rise in cancer rates country-wide.

The latest survey from Fallujah seems to confirm that link. This makes the campaign there part of a wider tradition going back through the use of Agent Organge in Vietnam to the nuclear bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki: not only horrendous, destructive acts, but ones whose effect reaches far beyond the present.

This is what media outlets such as the BBC gloss over when they talk about "fierce fighting between US forces and Sunni insurgents" or fail to identify who is behind "the use of novel weapons."

But this needs to be pointed out, and remembered. The seige of Fallujah in 2004 was a horrendous war crime, and for the poor, wretched children being born there the horror of it is only just beginning. By glossing over who the perpetrators of this attrocity are, we are only adding insult to injury.

Why does so much of the left still cling, hopelessly, to Labour?

Unlike a great many on the left, I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in the Labour leadership election. Every time the candidates crop up in the news, I tune out. However, whilst it still goes on, there is one thing I should comment on.

At the start of the month, Alastair Darling wrote in the Mirror that "under the Tory plans 1.3 million people will lose their jobs in the next five years." The cuts "will hit the poorest and most vulnerable the hardest," and "the inevitable cost in human terms is harder to quantify." But whilst "the Tories, with Lib Dem blessing, are doing what they always wanted to do," we "should not let history repeat itself."

Today, in the same paper, Andy Burnham tells us that the new government's "White Paper is the biggest threat to the NHS in its 62-year history." Those who value the health service should "get ready for the mother of all battles" as its future comes under threat.

They're both right. There needs to be a concerted effort to challenge both the actions of the present government and the ideology behind them. The NHS will be one of the biggest battlegrounds.

However, it is a mistake to assume that Labour is on our side in this fight.

When it is pointed out that Labour, although they said it would be more graduated, promised the same cuts as the Tories are now implementing, it's often suggested that this is because the Labour in power was "New Labour," the neo-liberal creation of Tony Blair.

Ed Miliband, for example, has run a campaign to get Labour "back to its roots." Ed Balls has pledged to "rebuild party membership, strengthen our links with the trade unions and the Co-op Party and give more support to councillors and party activists across the UK so we can win again." And Dianne Abbot has been widely touted as the left's candidate of choice.

But we need to get over this naive idea of the Labour party's "roots." And, for that matter, the idea that any party can represent working class interests over those of the ruling class.

Old Labour, held up to the light with teary-eyed nostalgia by too many people, was just as keen on breaking strikes, attacking trade unions, and serving the needs of business as its "New" counterpart. Their treatment of members of Militant Tendency (themselves no favourable bunch) is just one demonstration of this.

Amongst the current leadership contenders, we can look to their voting records as an idea of their character. 

Andy Burnham supported top-up fees, replacing Trident, introducing ID cards, a tougher asylum system, and the Iraq War, as well as strongly opposing an investigation into said war. Ed Balls was moderately against measures to curb climate change, strongly in support of ID cards and Trident, and strongly against an investigation into Iraq. Ed Miliband and his brother David have similar records.

All four are actually moderate hawks in terms of the mainstream political spectrum. They do not represent genuinely left-wing views, and they don't even come close to the libertarian left.

Diane Abbot's record is better. She voted very strongly against the Iraq war , terrorism laws, and Trident, and moderately against top-up fees. But she copped-out on climate change and opposed an investigation into the illegal war. She is a hypocrite on private education. And, like all people who gain positions of power and privilege, she is corruptible.

When these neo-liberals, and their fellows, try to claim the mantle of the left and the working class, they need to be told in no uncertain terms to fuck off. When they talk of "Tory cuts," we should remember that we face the ruling class's cuts, and even if the Tories swing the axe harder it was coming at us no matter what.

The Labour Party, Old or New, offers nothing of worth to ordinary people.

We need to organise for a genuinely radical response to the attacks ahead, not simply give the axe to someone who'll be slightly more gentle with it.

How the Propaganda Model drives climate scepticism

My last post on the subject of climate change scepticism ended with the observation that "as long as we waste our time arguing with sceptics clutching at straws, we are ignoring the real debate on climate change: what on earth do we do about it?"

What I should have added is that, perhaps, this is the point.

The one issue that I have yet failed to pick up on is where the climate "debate" fits into the Propaganda Model of the corporate media. Fortunately, it is a point that David Cromwell and David Edwards have taken up with aplomb over at Medialens;

English football’s Premier League is a farce. Year in, year out, the same ‘Big Four’ super-teams - Chelsea, Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool - fight for the same top four spots they have dominated since the 1996-97 season. Even for casual consumers of football news, the truth is hard to miss: at the end of every season, the teams that have most of the money - supplied by tycoons, TV rights and participation in Europe’s even more glamorous Champions League - simply buy off the best players from the lesser teams that have been causing them trouble. And if the super-team managers fail to deliver, then the best managers and trainers are brought in to put things right.

Quality is bolstered by quantity to further reduce the risk of failure - the super-teams are actually multi-teams. If an inspired lesser team manages to compete with one of the Big Four, the latter can always bring on fresh-legged, world class substitutes with whom the lesser teams, with no superstars on the bench, are unable to compete. The reality is that, over the course of a season, super-teams compete against lesser squads with the equivalent of two, three or more squads of their own. The cards - the credit cards, cash, lucre - are totally stacked in favour of the Big Four.

Week after week, Big Four fans look on breathlessly to see if a ton of money will once again allow the big business machine they call ‘us’ to overwhelm teams with a fraction of ‘our’ resources. No one seems to notice, or care, that every match is begun on a playing field mechanically tilted by giant under-pitch cogs towards the goal of the lesser team.

Type the words ‘Premier League’, ’Big Four’, and ‘dominance/domination’ into the LexisNexis search engine, and you will find occasional, small gestures in the direction of truth in the national press. In 2007, Simon Cass wrote in the Daily Mail that fans “are increasingly frustrated that the fight for the Premiership has become a money-driven, foregone conclusion with each passing season and the rich simply getting richer”. (Cass, ‘Only the top four matter,’ Daily Mail, July 26, 2007) Predictably enough, such observations are supported by analysis that is crassly superficial, and unlikely to embarrass the powers that be.

The Rise Of Climate Scepticism

In the New York Times on May 24, Elisabeth Rosenthal pondered another of the great unsporting contests of our time: the clash between people seeking and opposing action on climate change:

“Last month hundreds of environmental activists crammed into an auditorium here [Britain] to ponder an anguished question: If the scientific consensus on climate change has not changed, why have so many people turned away from the idea that human activity is warming the planet?” (Rosenthal, ‘Climate Fears Turn to Doubts Among Britons,’ New York Times, May 24, 2010; http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/science/earth/25climate.html)

The change in public opinion, Rosenthal noted, has been most striking in Britain, which has become “a home base for a thriving group of climate skeptics who have dominated news reports in recent months, apparently convincing many that the threat of warming is vastly exaggerated”.

A BBC survey in February found that only 26 per cent of Britons believed that “climate change is happening and is now established as largely manmade,” down from 41 per cent in November 2009. A poll conducted for the German magazine Der Spiegel found that 42 per cent of Germans feared global warming, down from 62 per cent four years earlier. A Gallup poll in March found that 48 per cent of Americans believed that the seriousness of global warming was “generally exaggerated,” up from 41 per cent a year ago. (Ibid.)

Rosenthal made no mention of analysis challenging these figures. Professor Jon Krosnick of Stanford University has been surveying American views on climate change since 1995. Krosnick claims that Americans remain overwhelmingly convinced that man-made climate change is real and should be tackled:

“The media is sensationalizing these polls to make it sound like the public is backing off its belief in climate change, but it’s not so.” (http://www.thenation.com/article/climategate-claptrap-I)

According to Krosnick, Americans’ views have remained quite stable over the past ten years. In November 2009, 75 per cent of Americans believed that global temperatures were going up - a “huge number”, Krosnick notes. The number of Americans who think all scientists agree about climate change +has+ declined to 31 per cent. But as Krosnick comments: “most Americans have thought that for the entire fifteen years I’ve been polling on this issue”.

In the New York Times, Rosenthal cited newly sceptical members of the public:

“Before, I thought, ‘Oh my God, this climate change problem is just dreadful,’ said Jillian Leddra, 50, a musician who was shopping in London on a recent lunch hour. ‘But now I have my doubts, and I’m wondering if it’s been overhyped.’”

Up to this point, Rosenthal’s analysis was reasonable enough. But this was her explanation of the change in public opinion:

“Here in Britain, the change has been driven by the news media’s intensive coverage of a series of climate science controversies unearthed and highlighted by skeptics since November. These include the unauthorized release of e-mail messages from prominent British climate scientists at the University of East Anglia that skeptics cited as evidence that researchers were overstating the evidence for global warming and the discovery of errors in a United Nations climate report.”

Rosenthal’s account is so deceptive because it portrays climate scepticism, and media +enthusiasm+ for climate scepticism, as naturally occurring phenomena - they simply +are+. But this is a lie. Like Premier League football, the playing field hosting the public debate on climate is massively tilted by hidden forces in favour of the corporate interests that have long fought environmental responsibility tooth and nail. The pitch on which the game is played - the corporate media - is itself corporate! 

I would recommend that you read the whole thing. It demonstrates how the corporate media's weight on this issue doesn't just come into play in articles and editorials, but also in advertising, and even in the education system.

This is the point that's missed when climate skeptics enthusiastically point out that they're "not funded by Big Oil." The influence of "Big Oil" is only one element of the propaganda filters around this issue. As Cromwell and Edwards note, "it is not just that the pitch is tilted - the very tectonic plates underpinning modern culture are slanted against honest discussion of, and responses to, climate change."

This is what we're up against, not only in terms of public opinion, but when it comes to actually doing something about the problem. We need a way to change that.

Toronto, the EDO Decommissioners, and the case for direct action

As could be expected, the aftermath of the protests against the G8 and 20 summits in Toronto has seen criticism of "black bloc" anarchists.

The conspiracist wingnuts still can't get it into their head that black bloc is a tactic, not an organisation. Moreover, they credit this non-existent organisation with being "a police psyops group ordered to start the G20 riot."

By painting "the black block" as "undercover police operatives engaged in purposeful provocations to eclipse and invalidate legitimate G20 citizen protest by starting a riot" these idiots are perpetuating the same stereotypes as the authorities and mainstream media. That is, that those engaged in pointless acts of vandalism and/or violence are representative of the anarchist movement rather than an unhelpful minority.

Some of that minority may well be agent provocateurs. It's not unheard of. But that doesn't change the fact, which I've pointed out before, that these theories exist "to distract the masses from those truly responsible for the woes of the world and distract organised resistance to the ruling classes with outlandish strawmen."

In the mainstream press, some articles and op-eds actually acknowledged the history of anarchism with fair accuracy when they critiqued the black bloc.

For example, in Canada's National Post, Tasha Kheiriddin acknowledged the movement's "heyday in the 19th and early 20th centuries, as the labour movement swelled in response to the growth of capitalism." Unfortunately, he lists the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand - actually committed by a Yugoslav nationalist - between "toppl[ing] the Romanov Dynasty in Russia" and "nearly oust[ing] dictator Francisco Franco in Spain."

Inaccuracies aside, it's a fair attempt at balance. At least until it goes on an ad hominem attack against the "people who dress like skulking teenagers." Not to mention the tired old line of "if these anarchists had any spine, they would go to places like North Korea, Cuba and Zimbabwe to make their 'statements' against authority and its abuses."

The fact is that anarchists are critical of such tyrannies. And, twenty years after the Cold War ended, Tu quoque is still a logical fallacy.

Nonetheless, both the mainstream and the cranks will use this as a propaganda tool. Even though it is not, they have inextricably bound black bloc tactics with pointless and random acts of destruction. Thus, too, goes direct action - speak of it without derision and you're practically advocating terrorism.

As it happens, I don't think that black bloc tactics are effective. But this is because they are expected, and the authorities are fully prepared for them nowadays. More than that, they don't go far enough. Though often marred by violence, they still remain within the framework of static "protest" rather than as a push towards radical or revolutionary action.

There is too much broken glass and not enough occupied property.

But, whatever else may be said of the failure of the black bloc, it is not an argument for passive placard waving. Direct action works, as the victory of the parents who occupied Lewisham Bridge primary school and prevented its closure will testify. And today we saw yet another example.

From BBC News;

Seven anti-war activists have been cleared of plotting to damage a Brighton weapons factory after claiming to be preventing Israeli war crimes.

During their three-week trial at Hove Crown Court the activists said they were acting with "lawful excuse" during the break-in at EDO MBM in 2009.

Five Smash EDO activists were cleared on Wednesday, with the remaining two acquitted on Friday.

The defendants were from Brighton, Bristol and Islington, north London.

Extensive damage was caused to the EDO MBM Technology building in Moulsecoomb along with computer equipment and precision machinery.

EDO MBM is an approved supplier to the Ministry of Defence and governments worldwide.

The activists admitted they broke into EDO MBM in the early hours of 17 January last year and sabotaged equipment worth about £200,000.

But they said they were acting to prevent further alleged war crimes being committed by Israel against Gaza.

As Anne-Marie O'Reilly, Local Campaigns Co-ordinator for the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT), noted, "the Decommissioners' inspiring actions show that it is possible to have a direct impact on ending the arms trade in the UK. We wish them well as they celebrate their victory."

Peaceful protest can be used to great effect to engage with the public and to give an outlet to mass anger. But it does not achieve anything concrete, as the impotency of countless anti-war marches against Bush and Blair's desire to wage war on Iraq demonstrated.

Direct action, on the other hand, can yield positive results. As, globally, the working class face austerity measures to shore up the ruling class, we would do well to remember that.

Your Freedom is not a privilege to be granted or repealed by the state

"Today is the launch of Your Freedom!"

So proclaims Nick Clegg, unfortunately talking about a website rather than a society where people aren't crushed underfoot by authority. But we can get there - and offering your suggestions to a web "dialogue" moderated by HM government is apparently the way to do it.

This is "a new way of making policy," and "a new way of putting you in charge." But, of course, it's not. The new government is keen on the language of public and collective decision making, but at the end of the day this is nothing more than a focus group exercise. They know what they want, and they want to pretend that they have public assent.

After all, it is easier to get away with causing a 1.3 million rise in unemployment, and misery for the poorest - all on the basis of nothing more than ideology - if you can blame the victims.

It is exactly the same mentality as the "Spending Challenge." Clegg joined David cameron in putting his name to a letter asking civil servants to "tell us your ideas about getting more for less" and "find those savings, so we can cut public spending in a way that is fair and responsible."

They are advised to "be innovative, be radical, challenge the way things are done" - as long as they work within the basic framework that "the biggest challenge our country faces is dealing with our huge debts – and that means we have to reduce public spending." Any idea to the contrary, of course, is unthinkable.

As PCS say, "they are no doubt hoping to set workers in one part of the public sector against workers in another, and 'back office' against 'front line'." After all, if the working class are competing with one another, they don't often look up.

So it is with Your Freedom. The suggestions that fit a pre-determined agenda will be picked up and acted upon. Those that don't will be binned.

Clegg is right when he says that "it is the raucous, unscripted debates that always throw up the best ideas." But this particular debate has a tight script. After all, the advantage of the free market propaganda model over totalitarianism is that it allows debate within a set framework - creating the illusion of freedom.

If we really want to reclaim our freedoms from the jackboot of the state, then the way to do that is to organise and fight back. Direct action is the key to our shackles, whilst reform is all about making us forget that they are there.

The One Law For All campaign blotted out by the propaganda model

Last Saturday, several hundred people marched on Downing Street as part of the "One Law For All" campaign, "to demand universal rights and secularism."

Members of Islamist sect al-Muhajiroun appeared as part of a counter demonstration, and there were also several people from the EDL hanging around. Yet I missed this. Despite the event being related to a media hot-button issue, and featuring an appearence from known media hate figures, it wasn't covered by the mainstream media.

The reason why soon became clear.

In the words of One Law for All Spokesperson, Maryam Namazie;

The fight against Sharia law is a fight against Islamism not Muslims, immigrants and people living under Sharia here or elsewhere. So it is very apt for the Islamists to hold a counter-demonstration against our rally. This is where the real battleground lies.

With a few members of the far Right English Defence League also there to showcase their bigotry, it became abundantly clear to everyone why our Campaign is fast becoming the banner carrier for universal rights, equality, and one secular law for all in this country and beyond.

In other words, the campaign is not born out of jingoism, reaction, or "patriotism," as the EDL is. There wasn't a national flag in sight, the issue being entirely religious.

That is why this event got little to no coverage. The media sells copy by building up a black-and-white version of this issue, all stereotypes and no substance. A protest by those who are neither with the bearded, freedom-hating extremists nor the flag-waving, quasi-racist nationalists simply doesn't fit the script.

But then, it's not meant to. In contrast to the EDL's crusader image and desire to "represent our culturally rich, “patriotic” and nation-loving populace," One Law For All ask only that "in a civil society, people must have full citizenship rights and equality under the law."

The EDL want to "highlight the danger of appeasing those who wish us harm, those who happily take from our welfare system, yet hate our country, our people and way of life." Removing the right-wing vitriol, One Law For All assert more calmly that "rights, justice, inclusion, equality and respect are for people, not beliefs."

There are problems with the One Law For All campaign, of course.

As an anarchist, I would wish that it were not so intently focused on action by the Government and changes to the law. It should recognise that appeals to authority and legislation don't resolve the underlying issues. I would also welcome a class perspective on religious law and authoritarianism.

However, the campaign addresses the core issues well. It articulates perfectly that the issue at hand is liberty, equality, and human rights. It is about "defending the rights of everyone irrespective of religion, race, nationality." Not patriotism and waving the flag.

This is a point worth remembering as the mainstream media ignores such campaigns and instead draws the battle lines between "extremists" and "patriots."

Honest reflections on an illegal war

A hospitalised Royal Marine has become the 300th British soldier to die in Afghanistan. Thus, according to David Cameron, "it's a moment for the whole country to reflect on the incredible service and sacrifice and dedication that the armed forces give on our behalf."

Taking his advice, however, I don't think my reflections will be quite what he had in mind.

He rightly points out that "the 300th death is no more or less tragic than the 299 that came before." But it does show that, although pushed out of the headlines and public consciousness by  (amongst other things) the spectacle of the World Cup, nothing much has changed.

The war is still an illegal act of aggression, in violation of the Nuremburg Principles (Principle VI), the UN Charter (Article 2, Paragraph 4) and General Assembly Resolution 3314. The soldiers fighting it are still inadequately equipped for their own safety. The regime we're propping up is still as corrupt and repressive than the one before it. And the goal of the endeavor is still control over strategic markets and resources, not democracy.

Not to mention the Afghans. As Channel 4's Alex Thompson points out, they "are getting wiped out and injured far, far more than any foreign soldier or insurgent mujahedeen." But they also "remain resolutely ignored in what is being forced upon them and their land from the foreign occupation."

To mention this, though, is to show disrespect to "our" troops as they apparently fight in "our name" or for "our freedom."

Leaving a side the point that the only effect of the war on terror upon our freedoms has been to diminish them (or that freedoms are won by civilians fighting against the state, not soldiers fighting for it), this is quite clearly an ideological and political position. Anybody who claims otherwise is either ignorant of this or complicit in it.

Dead soldiers are being used as totems to detract from criticisms of the war. Like dead children, they are easy to exploit for the cause of subduing reason.

But, if we are to be honest when we "reflect," we must be highly critical of the military and of this illegal war. And if we genuinely want to honour the soldiers, then we need to agitate for them to be pulled out of that same reprehensible endeavour and brought home.

If you want to see scroungers look up, not down

David Cameron has, in an interview with the Times, revealed exactly what a compassionate conservatism that doesn't simply attack the poor to hold up the profits of the rich looks like;

There is no way of dealing with an 11 per cent budget deficit just by hitting either the rich of the welfare scrounger … there are three large items of spending that you can't ignore and those are public sector pay, public sector pensions and benefits.

Yes, that's right. Mention the rich once and hope people are stupid enough to think that means they'll have to pay too. But it's the public sector, working people, and the poor who really deserve to suffer - the fucking scrounging mud-bloods.

If the bitter, sweary sarcasm didn't give it away, this is something that is really beginning to piss me off.

I have already previously explained why the supposed "need" for "painful cuts" is nothing more than a thin justification for class war to preserve profit and privilege. Putting the welfare of ordinary people before the vast sums of (in-reality non-existent) money is not "unsustainable." But still, dogma must prevail, and those at the top must continue to get richer at everyone else's expense.

Behind all the sums, economic dogmatism, and waffle about markets, what it boils down to is this angry rant by "libertarian" blogger Devil's Kitchen;

Listen up, parents: I already subsidise you and your ghastly offspring through Child Benefit, Child Tax Credits, Child Trust Funds; I pay for their bloody education and I subsidise their playgrounds; I pay because you seem to think that having a child gives you special rights to waltz out of work or take extra holiday too.

So, here's a message for you: it's got to stop. Can't afford a child on your own, without raping the wallets of those who have none? Well, don't have any damn children: I am sick and tired of being rinsed to pay for your lifestyle choices.

And if you seriously cannot even afford to feed the little bastards, then I suggest that you be forced to give them up for adoption, so that parents who want children and who have the required cash to fulfill this most basic of needs can get on with doing so.

I just don't see why the hell I should be forced to pay for any of it.

According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, "a couple with two children need to earn £27,600" so that they can "afford a basic but acceptable standard of living." Between us, my fiancé and I earn that amount now, but only because we both work full time in fairly decent jobs. And even now, without children, neither of us could afford to go part-time.

Since the median household income in Britain is £24,700, DK's ideology prices over half of the population out of reproducing. Probably more if we didn't have a minimum wage.

If you can't see how callously stupid this idea is because you're a right-libertarian and lack basic human empathy and compassion, consider the economics. This would see a vast majority of the working class stop reproducing - you're advocating that the people who do the menial and low-paid jobs effectively cease to exist. Unless, of course, you want to return to that much cheaper form of state welfare known as the poorhouse.

Is there a better solution to this than state welfare? Almost certainly, and I'd say it was the kind of social organisation that we would see within anarchist communism. Whatever the case, though, it won't be the market.

In theory, delightful thing that is, it should be. As Adam Smith noted, "in order to bring up a family, the labour of the husband and wife together must, even in the lowest species of common labour, be able to earn something more than what is precisely necessary for their own maintenance." If it wasn't, then "it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation."

But, of course, one of the demands of obscene profit is extreme short-termism. In the kind of "free" market the right advocate - i.e. freedom for capital, not for people - this simply would not happen. Hence why it has never existed.

Balanced against the ideological desire to not have to maintain the poor, is the practical need to do so just enough that their labour can be siphoned off into profit by the parasites of the ruling class.

So, when the austerity budget is announced on Tuesday 22nd June, George Osborne will not be scrapping the welfare system. He will, however, be reducing it as much as he possibly can. If they could, they would no doubt see us back in the workhouse, or under the absolutist rule of the bosses that existed before workers organised and fought back.

Public services and welfare are not the key to society's ills, but they are concessions won from a corporatist system growing fat off our labour. And, until we can dismantle that system, they are necessary.

Something to bear in mind when you're asked to believe that "public sector pay, public sector pensions and benefits" are the problem.

The militant antifascist tradition tells us how to deal with Islamic wingnuts

On Tuesday, a march by the Royal Anglian Regiment was disrupted by Islamist protesters. A previously unheard of group called "Muslims Against Crusades" echoed the actions of the now-defunct Islam4UK, chanting "murderers, murderers," and "British troops go to hell."

This repeat performance was met with more resistance than last time. As the Evening Standard reports "about 100 men — wearing English Defence League T-shirts and shouting “scum”, “Muslim bombers off our streets” and “Allah, Allah, who the f***k is Allah” — surged out of the nearby Barking Dog pub and surrounded the Muslims." The clash ended when the Islamists were driven behind a steel barricade and eventually led away to the train station.

Just as happened in Luton, there has been a massive media outcry.

The Daily Mail led with "into the jaws of hate," describing the Islamists as "screaming hate and brandishing vile placards." The Daily Star insists that, despite no corroboration in other press reports, the group "spat at" the soldiers. The Sun called the protest "sick." Nile Gardiner, writing for the Telegraph, demands that "it’s about time that Muslim leaders in the U.K. actually took a stand and denounced en masse extremists like this, as well as pay tribute to the sacrifice of British forces fighting for the cause of liberty and freedom in places like Iraq and Afghanistan."

Before anything else, I must repeat the point I made after the Luton protests;

If this is a democracy, then the absolute right to protest anything and to say anything - even if it is offensive, ignorant, or wrong - should be a basic, universal benchmark. If it is not, then we cannot claim to be living in a democracy or to have freedom of speech.

This is not just a point of principle, but of practicality. Islamism doesn't exist because Muslims haven't been told sternly enough they're not allowed to be extremists.

It exists, like nationalism and fascism, because people lack an outlet for very real grievances or concerns. It is a reactionary movement which preys upon those concerns and twists them to suit a divisive and authoritarian agenda.

As with far-right groups like the BNP, censorship only gives them credibility. By playing the card as martyrs to free speech, suppressed by the current system, they are able to appeal to those disenfranchised by that same system. The more we try to deny their opinions a public airing or even ban them from existence, the more their message resonates with those who (for very different reasons) are fed up with the authorities doing the banning.
But if this conservative approach is doomed to failure, so too is the more liberal approach. Trying to reason with so-called "extremists" from the point of view of the dominant power structure is an exercise in futility.

Yet again, we have parallels with antifascism. People aren't drawn to the BNP because the conservative mainstream isn't offering a "moderate" form of fascist policies nor because middle-class liberals haven't shouted at them and called them "nasty" and "racist" loud enough. They are drawn to it because it offers an answer to the problems caused by the dominant political class. That this answer is fascist and built upon racist scapegoating is entirely irrelevant when there is nothing else to replace it with.

Likewise, Muslims don't turn to Islamism because they lack "moderate" forms of the bigotry and cultural imperialism that ideology offers. Nor do they do so because they haven't been told by flag-waving non-Muslims how "evil" it is and that they should "pay tribute to the sacrifice of British forces fighting for the cause of liberty and freedom in places like Iraq and Afghanistan."
The Sun quotes Muslims Against Crusdaes leader Abu Assadullah thus;

We are quite disgusted by the fact these murderers that raped our people are coming back and they are being honoured for doing something wrong. These people have been killing and raping and pillaging in Islamic countries and they should not be welcomed home. As Muslims, we wanted to make a stand.

The families of the soldiers are not the only ones with feelings. We also have feelings, our fellow Muslims are being butchered. Islam is not a violent religion but we will use violence if necessary to defend ourselves. Democracy is failing, that was clear as this year we had a hung parliament. Islam is the alternative.

People in this country are very patriotic. They support Britain even if the country has done something wrong. We want to show that there is an alternative. Sharia law would provide an alternative, it would provide balance in the UK.

People say ‘don’t take it out on the soldiers, they are just doing their jobs’. But how it when Osama Bin Laden blows up a plane or a building he is a terrorist. It is not that he is just doing his job – this is a double standard. They are both killing.

A large part of this argument is dominated by the rhetoric of the batshit crazy.

There is no serious argument for the idea that Osama bin Laden is "just doing his job." He is, after all, an ideological leader of the al-Qaeda network. This was almost certainly not a position offered in the jobs section of the Helmland Echo, and as heir to a vast oil fortune he could more than afford to not be involved in terrorism.

Soldiers, on the other hand, are working class. They have to sell their labour in order to feed and clothe themselves and their families, and it just so happens that their labour has been bought by the armed wing of the state. Are they culpable if, as individuals, they commit attrocities? Absolutely. And, as with the Bloody Sunday inquiry, they should be held accountable. But to say that they are responsible for the war itself, illegal though it may be, is utterly absurd.

But within this rhetoric are more reasonable points which deserve to be addressed. The idea that the military "are being honoured for doing something wrong" will resonate with everyone who has objections to the war.

Organisers and supporters claim that parades and events which honour "our" troops are non-political and separate from the question of whether we should have gone to war. But the idea that soldiers are "fighting for freedom" or are - by virtue of their very uniform - "heroes" is a political statement. Can one fight for freedom in an illegal war of aggression?

That stating the above will be met with instant fury by many "patriots" only emphasises Assadullah's statement that people "support Britain even if the country has done something wrong." This, too, is an area of concern for those alienated from the system or ostracised for being critical of the actions of the state. Organisations like Muslims Against Crusades appear because the only people articulating these concerns add that "Sharia law would provide an alternative, it would provide balance in the UK."

And, of course, this suits the ruling class fine. If those who do dissent are most often pulled into reactionary movements, this means that genuinely radical organisations cannot emerge to challenge the status quo. Moreover, the hatred and fear that such extremists (understandably) evoke fuels the aggressive patriotism that cements the position of those in power.

This is why opposition to Islamism should not come from the state or from "patriots." It should come from ordinary Muslims, not out of a demand for patriotic loyalty but with the support and solidarity of antifascists. Moreover, it has to be couched in the tradition of militant, working class self-defence.

If we are made to choose between the "patriotism" and "extremism," we should strongly reject both.