Schools Green Paper:

Schools Green Paper

Taking the Capital-Centred School System to a New Level

On September 12, the government published its green paper “Schools that work for everyone” [i], setting out initial plans for the next phase of its and its predecessors’ neo-liberal, capital-centred transformation of the school system.

The plans are a continuation down the present direction in all respects, in spite of broad and growing opposition. There are to to be more private school places, more academies and so-called free schools, a return to selection, and higher university fees. At the same time, the plans represent something more: the wholesale creation of a public-private partnership as opposed to a state-run school system.

The paper first proposes to allow the expansion of independent, i.e. private, schools. It is here that the public-private partnership concept is most evident. “Independent schools directly assisting the state-funded sector, through creating more good places, and giving more choice and control for parents,” the paper puts it. The plan is for these private schools to support, sponsor, open and have responsibility for state schools, in particular academies and free schools.

Independent schools would “sponsor academies or set up a new free school in the state sector. The capital and revenue costs of this would be met by the government, but the independent school would have responsibility for ensuring its success.” If this is not feasible, independent schools would “provide direct school-to-school support with state schools” or “provide access to facilities, sixth-form scholarships,” for example.

Academies are themselves state schools under a public-private style of arrangement. This takes things further, building up the private sector and having it become integral to the public sector. The paper even proposes that private schools should “ensure their senior leaders become directors of Multi-Academy Trusts, to give strategic steer and leadership and provide experienced staff to be governors”.

Similarly, universities, increasingly run as businesses, would play “a direct role in improving school quality and pupil attainment”. In return for the ability to charge even higher fees, they would “establish a new school in the state system, of which the capital and revenue costs will be met by the government”, or “sponsor an academy in the state system”.

The stated aim is that all have access to a “good” school. This “good” is not a neutral concept: implicit in this notion is a certain vision of education. The system is to be a conglomeration of selective, non-selective, academy, independent, and free schools. The green paper also mentions faith schools in this regard, which are themselves a kind of free school. All are supposed to play off each other. One aspect of this is the existence of a market; another is that “best practice” gets established. But the market is not free and equal. Best practice will be set within large Multi-Academy Trusts dominated by private interests, which will include representation of rich and powerful private schools.

Yet another aspect is that education becomes further tiered, the student population gets further segregated. Much coverage has been given to the plans to return to selection at age 10-11 by allowing existing grammar schools to expand, new selective schools to open and existing non-selective schools to become selective. The paper summarises this as “selective schools providing more school places, and ensuring that they are open to children from all backgrounds”. There is a sense in which this is a return to the old grammar-secondary modern division, and it is often described in this way. However, in context it is part of the same neo-liberal transformation. All new selective schools, it is proposed, will be free schools; they will therefore play a particular role in the public-private school system being instituted.

A capital-centric system requires selection: it is a machine for producing a range of school and university graduates who have the skills required by private businesses in their state of mutual competition. This does not require all-sided development of the population. It is a system designed to allocate people to a place and who know and, in the main, accept their place. Aspiration and striving for something better is reduced to personal advancement and individual competition, rather than full participation in society.

Selection gives a semblance of meritocracy and is presented in terms of fairness and opportunity. “Meritocracy” was one watchword in Theresa May’s “my vision” speech at the Conservative Party conference. This selection has nothing to do with rights. Rather, it can negate young people’s rights: being deemed elite or not is defined by means of tests or other such measures and set in at school level. This is a system that seeks to impose a definition on young people rather than seeing them in their life and in motion.

The government’s proposals to create a public-private model for the school system amount to a negation of public authority and handing control over to the most powerful private interests.

Writing for LabourList in July last year [ii], before becoming leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn said in opposition to this direction that “education is not about personal advancement but is a collective good that benefits our society and our economy. We all benefit from a more educated and skilled workforce. Earlier in the [Labour leadership] campaign I set out how we could scrap fees and restore grants, now I want to widen that vision and set out a plan to move towards a National Education Service… Fifty years on [from the establishment of the Open University in 1965], it is time to start putting the case for investment in learning from cradle to grave. A National Education Service would be every bit as vital and as free at the point of use as our NHS, and should be delivered by the end of the next Parliament… Government must play a strategic co-ordinating role in a modern economy. For too long the UK approach has been to stand back, ‘let the market decide’, then hope for the best.”

So the issue is: where is the education that educates the youth to secure the future of society and implement the public will? It is inconceivable in the present conditions where the very conception of society is under attack.

Education poses itself as a necessity for society and is related to the aims of society. A human-centric society educates people in an all-round sense to participate fully in society in every way, including decision-making. Such a society takes care of its future by defining the role for education to be to enable the youth to prepare themselves to take control of the future of society. This requires that education all-sided, from the scientific to the cultural and political. It also means that education at the highest level that society can provide should be available for everyone as of right. To fight for a change in the direction of society and the economy so as to guarantee this right therefore poses itself as the greatest necessity for the working class and people.


[i] “Schools that work for everyone”, Department for Education, September 12, 2016,

[ii] “Education is a collective good – it’s time for a National Education Service”, Jeremy Corbyn, LabourList, July 27, 2015,

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

No-Fly Zone Would Create ‘A Bigger War’

Morning Star

Peace activists condemn Mitchell’s demands for no-fly zone

PEACE campaigners voiced horror yesterday at the “dangerously irresponsible” posturing of disgraced Tory MP Andrew Mitchell, who called on the West to “confront” Russian warplanes over Syria.

The former international development secretary said that civilians in the city of Aleppo, which the Syrian government is waging a bloody struggle to wrest back from the control of al-Qaida-linked extremists, should be protected from Syrian and Russian bombing.

He urged Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson to work with Washington to implement a “no-fly zone” where Western aircraft would take on their Russian equivalents.

But the Stop the War Coalition (STWC) pointed out that “in practice no-fly zones are not humanitarian corridors but bombing runs, a fact recognised by Hillary Clinton in 2013 when she advised that ‘to have a no-fly zone you have to take out all the air defences … you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians.”

A “no-fly zone” over Libya in 2011 was used by the United States, Britain and France to bomb Libyan troops, paving the way for a takeover by radical Islamists, permanent civil war and the current emergence of Isis in the country.

STWC convener Lindsey German told the Star that Mr Mitchell had been “plugging this stuff for some time.

“He has said that because Turkey shot down a Russian jet and it didn’t lead to world war we can do it too.

“But the reality is it will attract retaliation and create a much bigger war.

“A whole number of countries are bombing Syria already, and that’s not to mention the Saudi bombing of Yemen.

“Do we want to pour more fuel on those flames?

“This summer we’ve had a series of reports — the Chilcot inquiry on Iraq and another that concluded David Cameron’s war in Libya was also disastrous, and yet we’re now hearing more warmongering from people who should know better.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Where Does the Money Come from for Social Programmes and Public Services? 

– K.C. Adams –

Many Canadians are supportive of the idea to increase investments in social programs. Suggestions abound as to how to solve the country’s many social problems such as expanding public K to 12 education to include daycare and extra-curricular programs for all ages. Two issues arise: first, the people have no political power to put their good ideas into practice; and secondly, they come up against the problem of how to find the social wealth necessary for investments.

The first problem of empowerment is an issue of organizing and fighting for democratic renewal to bring the people to political power. The second problem has more to do with how the socialized economy is viewed, analyzed and controlled. Canadians are caught in old dogmas of how value or social wealth is created, circulated, claimed and controlled. Political leaders on the left and right wings of the official political spectrum are at pains to find rational methods of raising public funds for social programs in an economic system that is increasingly anti-social and irrational.

Why Are Pro-Social Alternatives to Taxation Rarely Discussed?

Canada is commonly presented as divided into official left- and right-wing politics. This division diverts the people away from analyzing issues concretely as they present themselves. Those on the left wing of politics are considered generally as pro-people and those on the right wing as pro-corporate. The Trudeau Liberal government presents itself as centrist whose job is to balance the official left and right wings of Canadian politics. To confuse and obscure any issue and avoid any concrete analysis, Trudeau presents both an official left- and right-wing option on all issues. This forms part of an extensive disinformation campaign or PR to fool the gullible and serve the private monopoly interests his government represents. Trudeau flashes sunny rhetoric and a mailed fist on the same issues such as the environment and pipelines, relations with Indigenous peoples, health care and transfer payments, the fascist Bill C-51 and other issues related to security, labour laws, committing Canadian troops and war materiel to the U.S. imperialist striving for global hegemony, etc.

With regard to funding of social programs and taxation generally the issue predictably falls into the left/right divide, which precludes any concrete analysis.

Faced with a shortage of public revenue, the left wing argues that higher taxes are the only way to sustain social programs and public services. The right wing argues for privatization, lower taxes, and cuts to social programs and public services so as not to discourage owners of social wealth from investing in the economy.

The situation in Alberta brings into focus how irrational the discussion has become over public revenue and its source. An NDP government is now in power and the province faces a serious public revenue deficit partly because of low oil prices translating into low royalty payments from energy resources. Alberta’s annual public revenue shortage is said to be approximately $10 billion. The deficit is $2 billion greater than the total amount of annual public expenditures for the K-12 education system. The tax system in Alberta, similar in most respects to other Canadian provinces and Quebec relies on personal income taxes, corporate taxes, royalty revenue from non-renewable resources, user fees, federal transfer payments, which themselves originate mostly from taxation, and less and less revenue coming directly from public enterprises. Alberta does not have a sales tax although people must pay the federal five per cent GST.

The current Alberta corporate tax is 12 per cent of net profits accounted by the companies themselves. A one per cent increase in corporate tax would possibly raise between $125 million and $225 million per year. To cover the current $10 billion annual shortfall, which of course would just maintain the status quo and would not represent an increase in spending on social programs, the corporate tax would have to increase by 50 percentage points to 62 per cent of net profits. The official left and right wings would never agree to such a percentage arguing that it would be impossible to implement as companies and investors would rebel upon seeing their return on investment fall below a rate acceptable to themselves.

This means personal income tax and user fees would have to increase along with the introduction of a provincial sales tax, according to official politics. A five per cent Alberta sales tax would generate between $5 billion and $8 billion per year depending on the economic conditions. Both left and right wings find the sales tax acceptable with two disagreements. The left wing argues the necessity to make the tax fair by compensating low income people with rebates, and the right wing would like a provincial sales tax applied mostly on articles of consumption and not means of production.

Both the left and right wings agree with personal income taxes. The left argues for a more dynamic progressive nature by taking more from high-income earners, and the right argues for lower taxes generally as people should fend for themselves rather than rely on a nanny state of social programs. Of course for the right wing, it argues that big companies should not fend for themselves as they need to be competitive in the global market and Canada has to compete for their presence with handouts from a nanny state for the rich.

For both the right and left wing, the state needs public funds but neither wing of official politics cares to discuss whether governments should radically change the taxation system by scrapping it altogether and starting afresh. This would entail governments openly and directly assuming their modern role as significant claimants of the value workers produce. Their claims would come directly from the value produced at enterprises on par with the claims of workers and the owners of invested social wealth. This would be a direct claim rather than an indirect tax on already claimed value of the working people and owners of social wealth, or on already circulating value. Taxing the money workers claim from selling their capacity to work or when they buy something has always been irrational. Likewise, the income tax on corporate net profits is an indirect claim on the value workers produce and easily manipulated to mostly disappear. These forms of taxation are out of date and serve to obscure the origin of value and the three main claimants of the value workers produce.

Also of great importance is the refusal of official politics to discuss charging enterprises directly for the commodities they consume from the social and material infrastructure as means of production without which they could not operate. More on this later.

The left wing argues that even though no one enjoys paying taxes, the people will pay them if they receive value in social programs in return, such as free hospital care and public education for children regardless of their family’s social or economic status. At any rate they say, if the people do not agree to higher taxes then the only alternative is to reduce social programs and public services, which is not palpable to most on the left wing. This approach and way of thinking represent a refusal to view the modern socialized economy as it presents itself, as a battlefield of two main contending social classes trapped within the social relation called capital. The refusal to analyze concrete economic conditions means in practice a refusal to challenge monopoly right and the class privilege and power of the dominant class within the dialectic.

The left and right wings of official politics and discourse never question the irrationality of how government claims its revenue. Instead of straightforward government claims on the value workers produce, the government uses increasingly incoherent and complex personal income taxes to make a claim on the claims of workers, corporate income taxes to make a claim on the claims of owners of the social wealth invested in an enterprise either as equity or debt, and then applies sales taxes and user fees when commodities are exchanged to make a further indirect claim. These taxes have spawned a huge unproductive accounting industry both to collect the taxes and avoid the taxes.

What if the people rejected all this nonsense on taxes from both the left and right wings of the ruling elite as anti-consciousness and a refusal to view the socialized economy as it presents itself. The workers produce value and claim a portion in exchange for their capacity to work. The owners of the social wealth involved in an enterprise claim a portion of what workers produce according to the amount of their investment. The government claims value directly according to its requirements. Objective claims on produced-value by those three main claimants require a wholesale sector under the control of a state authority within a government of laws where prices of production are determined scientifically. The ruling elite complain that such genuine reforms would intrude on their private interests, as a state authority would know the true story of a company’s accounts and intrude on their right to secrecy. But that is the point. The modern socialized economy is not a private affair; it concerns the security and well-being of all the people and the general interests of society. Reforms have to be taken to ensure the people affected by economic and political events can exercise control and oversight over those affairs that directly affect their well-being, security and future.

To defend their social class privilege, the ruling elite block genuine reform measures from being taken. They do not want claims on the socialized economy to be made objectively according to very specific formula. Monopoly right and class privilege defend their narrow private interests through obscurantism and disinformation, by refusing to allow any official discourse of the economy as it presents itself and any intrusion into their private business, which in essence is not private but very public as it affects the entire people and society.

The obscurantism and self-serving PR and disinformation campaigns of the imperialist rich block the development of a working class movement and thinking to solve problems and move the economy and society forward. It inhibits the development of a people’s front to curtail monopoly right, to deprive monopoly right of its power to refuse to be restricted and brought under the control of the people. Without smashing through the obscurantism and disinformation of official politics and relying instead on the capacity of the working class movement to analyze concrete conditions with its own thinking and independent politics, no progress can be made in solving economic, political and social problems and opening a path forward.

Exchanging Value Workers Produce in the
Social and Material Infrastructure

The present economic system requires the realization in exchange of produced commodities. This raises the question why commodities produced in the social and material infrastructure are not properly realized in exchange with enterprises that consume their value. If such an exchange and realization (sale) took place, much of the tax money presently collected would not be necessary. Money for extended reproduction of much of the social and material infrastructure would be collected in exchange for the commodities it regularly produces.

For example, the public health care enterprises and the public education enterprises in the provinces and Quebec should collect their own revenue directly in exchange for the commodities they produce, which consist mainly of the capacity to work of educated and healthy workers. The enterprises, both private and public that buy and consume workers’ capacity to work should pay for the health care and education of the workers, which they require to perform the work of the companies. The payment should go directly to the public enterprises producing the commodity and not through government, which in the present instance is acting on behalf of the monopolies as a gatekeeper and block to the proper realization of value. Workers in the public enterprises of the social and material infrastructure are quite capable of determining how much value they produce and how much their enterprises should receive in exchange for the commodities they produce, and how much more they need to produce to meet the needs of the economy, people and society.

Canadians suffer the regular spectacle of Quebec and the provinces arguing with the federal government over how much tax money should be transferred for health care, which is totally irrational. No need exists for the federal or provincial governments to be involved in realizing and distributing the value produced in the public health care and educational enterprises in Quebec and the provinces. Those public enterprises should be responsible to ensure that the value their health care and education workers produce is properly realized in exchange with the enterprises that consume workers’ capacity to work, and not just during their working lives but pro-rated on an average life span of a worker. The issue of proper realization in exchange for commodities produced by public enterprises throughout the social and material infrastructure should be put on the table, discussed and implemented. This would remove much of the pressure for taxation and the surrounding obfuscation regarding the economy.

Also, from an objective exchange of the value produced by public enterprise, it becomes obvious that public enterprises are the best and surest way for governments to raise public revenue for increased investments in social programs, public services, the vast scope of the social and material infrastructure necessary for a modern economy and for non-productive activities such as government itself, the police and military.

A public enterprise not only makes a claim on the value it produces for reinvestment back in the public enterprise but also makes some of its produced-value available for a sizeable government claim. The more a sector is de-privatized, the more the claims from owners of social wealth are reduced leaving more value available to meet the needs of governments and the general interests of society. For example in the health care sector, the creation of public pharmaceutical and hospital supply enterprises would eliminate the enormous claims and control of owners of social wealth throughout the health care system. The same could be done in the production of roads, bridges and other commodities of the material infrastructure. This would allow enormous social wealth to be available to solve the economic, political and social problems confronting the country, not to speak of opening up space and possibilities for empowerment of the working class. In this way the actual producers can activate themselves to play their necessary role at the centre of modern life in control of their work, means of production, economy, politics and society.

(To be continued: Learning to look at the entire economy and the value workers produce as a single sheet of steel, a single whole from which claims are made by the three main claimants — workers in exchange for their capacity to work; governments to serve the general interests of society; and owners of enterprises in exchange for the use of their social property and other wealth.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Security in Retirement Is a Human Right!

– K.C. Adams –

 On October 6, Minister of Finance Bill Morneau tabled legislation to implement changes to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) with the introduction of Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act. This followed an October 4 announcement by Prime Minister Trudeau that British Columbia had agreed to accept the government’s changes to the pension plan, meaning that all nine provinces had agreed, while Quebec has its own national pension system.

Trudeau stated, “This is yet another example of how much we can accomplish for our citizens when there is close collaboration between provinces, territories and the federal government on common goals.” The changes will increase the required contributions for workers and employers beginning in 2019 and beginning the same year “increase the maximum level of pensionable earnings by 14 per cent as of 2025.” It is not clear what this will amount to when compared to inflation and other factors.

At a time when so many retirees are struggling with poverty and insecurity, these reforms are presented as a solution despite the fact that they will not assist the most vulnerable today. The ruling elite present security in retirement not as a human right but a matter of compelling individuals to “save more” or “save better.” The Liberals present their plan to increase minimum contributions to the CPP as the solution while the Conservatives had their own schemes to get people to save more via tax free savings accounts and income splitting. The changes to the CPP also come at a time when pension funds are being coveted as the next big source for investment capital, particularly in infrastructure.


Pensions are a part of the reproduced-value that workers reproduce at work to reproduce both themselves as individual workers and the entire working class.

Pensions and post-employment benefits are social reproduced-value in the sense the amounts they contain are reproduced socially in the present by the working class for the entire class to ensure its well-being and security during retirement and its constant reproduction as the productive class from generation to generation.

Wages and benefits are individual reproduced-value. Unlike social reproduced-value, individual reproduced-value includes specific individual claims on the value workers produce in the present to reproduce through work-time themselves as active workers and their immediate family.

Each working generation of workers reproduces the next generation and sustains those who no longer work for whatever reason. A portion of the value workers reproduce in the present sustains the generation that has already retired commonly called pensions.

In exchange for its capacity to work with the social force that owns and controls the material productive forces and state, the working class both individually and socially claims the reproduced-value it reproduces as the productive social class.

Within a dialectic with those who own  the means of production and control the socialized productive forces and state, workers exchange their capacity to work for a claim on the reproduced-value they reproduce during work-time. The worker makes the claim individually, although sometimes negotiated collectively at the place of work, and also socially, as a member of the working class, through a public authority and its public services and social programs, including pensions.

Workers exchange their capacity to work for reproduced-value in the present as individuals, although often through collective class struggle to obtain a certain arrangement within the social relation with the other social force that owns and controls the material productive forces and state. The exchange of workers’ capacity to work with the same social force represented by the state has a social component. The exchange must be considered over a lifetime and socially without individual considerations of unemployment, illness, injury, ability, quality etc.

For the working class to agree to exchange its capacity to work for reproduced-value, the social force buying the capacity to work must agree to a working class claim on social reproduced-value from birth to passing away by virtue of all workers being a member of the working class, the actual producers of all value. To guarantee workers are available to work, the social force buying the capacity to work must agree both to the individual claim of workers and their social claim on the reproduced-value within the new value they produce.

From the new value they produce, workers claim individual reproduced-value in wages and benefits, and social reproduced-value as public services and social programs including importantly pensions in retirement or payments when injured, sick or unemployed for whatever reason.

The social force that owns and controls the material productive forces and state buys workers’ capacity to work. In the present social conditions, no new value can be produced without the social force in control buying workers’ capacity to work and putting that capacity to work into action on the socialized productive forces.

Liberal Line of Pensions as a Policy Objective

The social force in control often refers to pensions as deferred wages or worse as a policy objective. The line of deferred wages is meant to extract concessions from the working class on its wages and benefits, the individual reproduced-value, and thus accept a lower standard of living in the present in hopes of receiving a pension upon retirement. The line of pensions as deferred wages views pensions upon retirement as a policy objective rather than a right, and a way to reduce workers’ individual reproduced-value and increase added-value as profit in the present. The Trudeau Liberal government’s first budget raises payroll taxes for the CPP for most workers, up to 11.9 per cent of “eligible earnings” for many workers. The payroll tax effectively lowers individual reproduced-value in the present while the promise of social reproduced-value upon retirement remains a policy objective subject to changes according to circumstances.

The “deferring” of wages reduces individual reproduced-value and sends the amount to the government as a claim on added-value to be put in a pension fund, and also to an individual employer if a promised pension is contracted with a company. This concession extracted from the working class not only reduces individual reproduced-value but also provides a huge fund of social wealth that the financial oligarchs control and use for their private interests and to reinforce the police powers of their state. This also strengthens the liberal line of pensions as a policy objective and opens the door for diversionary debates over the solvency of pension funds and the use of “exceptional circumstances” and bankruptcy protection and other methods to steal pension funds.

The private interests controlling the investments of the pension and other social funds of the working class annually skim off a usual 2 per cent of the combined social wealth plus 20 per cent of any profit. Executive managers of large funds routinely claim millions of dollars annually for themselves and become important propagandists and impediments to making pensions a right for all with payments coming not from funds but from a public authority claiming social reproduced-value from the economy in the present on behalf of the entire working class.

The liberal line of pensions as deferred wages, the imposition of pension payroll taxes on individual workers and the creation of pension funds stands in opposition to the affirmation of the right of all to retirement at a guaranteed established standard of living.

A public authority in charge of pensions for all should directly claim new value from the economy according to the amount needed in the present to guarantee the right of all retirees to an established standard of living. The claim for pensions on new value the working class produces in the present represents social reproduced-value. The claim on new value should go directly to retirees and not sit in a fund of social wealth under the control of the financial oligarchs to be used in a corrupt manner for private purposes by parasites and as a weapon to turn pensions into a policy objective in opposition to the right of all to retirement at an established standard of living.

Exchange of Workers’ Capacity to Work

Workers exchange their capacity to work with the social force that owns and controls the socialized means of production and state. This exchange between two social forces within a social relation and dialectic occurs both individually and socially. For the exchange to occur individually, in the particular, the two social forces must also be in existence generally.

The explicit exchange occurs between an individual worker and an employer who controls a particular socialized productive force.

The implicit exchange occurs between the working class as a whole, which sells its capacity to work as the actual producer, and the social force that owns and controls the material productive forces and state, which buys the capacity to work of the working class. For socialized industrial mass production to continue seamlessly, the exchange must result in the reproduction of both the individual worker and the social productive force as a whole, the working class, through work and its production of new value both reproduced-value and added-value.

A portion of the new value the working class produces through work is claimed by the actual producers to reproduce themselves as individuals and by a public authority to reproduce workers as a social class.

The portion of new value workers claim to reproduce themselves is called individual reproduced-value. The portion of new value workers claim through a public authority to reproduce the working class as a whole is called social reproduced-value.

Social reproduced-value reproduces the entire working class from birth to passing away in addition to and in the absence of individual reproduced-value during those instances when workers cannot work for whatever reason such as childhood, old age, injury, illness or insufficient work made available by the social force in control of the socialized productive forces and state.

Reproduced-value is new value arising from the work-time of the actual producers and is necessary for the well-being, security and perpetuation of the working class. Reproduced-value is in contradiction with added-value, which arises from the same new value the working class produces. Those who own the means of production and control the socialized productive forces and state claim the added-value workers produce as their profit. Profit is distributed amongst those who own the means of production and control the socialized productive forces and state. They claim a portion of the new value workers produce as added-value, generally called profit, according to the degree of ownership and control of the existing social wealth and property they possess in the form of equity ownership, debt ownership and land ownership or through a high position in the hierarchy of the ruling elite. The imperialist state also claims a portion of added-value to finance its police powers, bureaucracy and to pay the rich in various ways.

During the transitional period between the overthrow of feudal petty production and its autocratic rule and the complete transformation into socialized industrial mass production and democratic rule under the control of the actual producers the society requires equilibrium to avoid a catastrophic collapse. The social force that owns and controls the material productive forces and state during the transitional period must assume its social responsibility to provide employment and social programs for the working class so that it can successfully reproduce itself both individually and socially. The ruling social class must guarantee the collective and individual well-being of the people throughout their lives.

In return for employment, social programs, the recognition of its rights and to ensure equilibrium, the working class guarantees to be available to work in return for a claim for individual reproduced-value and a claim through a public authority for social reproduced-value at an agreed established standard of living. The claims of the working class for reproduced-value on the value it produces guarantee its reproduction from birth to passing away at a certain standard of living reflecting the level of the productive forces and its organized class struggle to defend its rights and well-being.

Any interruption of the guarantee of reproduced-value and recognition of rights destroys the equilibrium and throws the society into crisis. The crisis can only be overcome with a return of the guarantee or the ascension to political power of the working class in a new state that deprives the social force presently in control of the socialized productive forces and state of its control and power to disrupt the guarantee of equilibrium.

An ascension of the organized working class to political power and control of the socialized productive forces and creation of a new state resolves the contradiction of the transitional period between the working class and those who seized ownership and control of the material productive forces and state upon the overthrow of the feudal autocratic regime of petty production. The rise to political power of the organized working class and its agenda for nation-building and mass democracy ushers in a new period of equilibrium in the relations of production and society.

The organized working class itself assumes the control and direction of the socialized productive forces and new state. The organized working class guarantees that work is available for all members of the class and fashions an agenda of nation-building and mass democracy to guarantee the rights of the people, which belong to them by virtue of being human. The organized working class sets to work to complete the transformation to socialized industrial mass production and mass democracy with modern relations of production in conformity with the socialized productive forces to put an end to all the remnants of feudal autocratic rule once and for all.

With the actual producers in control of the material productive forces and new state, the organized and political new working class, now liberated from the oppressive and disruptive social relation with those who owned and controlled the socialized productive forces and state, through its work produces the new value necessary to sustain and enhance the people’s well-being and security from birth to passing away without interruption.

The control over the entire new value including both the reproduced-value and added-value allows the organized and political new working class to sustain and enhance all aspects of society. It improves itself as a class of, for and by itself through work and with the enhancement of mass democracy and constant improvements to its relations of production as it further develops the socialized productive forces. The entire people are mobilized within the nation-building project to complete the transformation from petty production and the autocratic rule of the previous era into socialized industrial mass production without economic crises where modern relations of production vest sovereignty in the people and establish mass democracy as the political norm.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

STP’s: Commons Debate:

NHS Sustainability and Transformation Plans

What Was Said

On September 14, the Opposition debate in the House of Commons took place on the NHS Sustainability and Transformation Plans (STPs). The motion was moved by Diane Abbott, Shadow Secretary of State for Health. We reproduce extracts from the debate, edited for continuity.

Diane Abbott: I beg to move,

That this House notes with concern that NHS Sustainability and Transformation Plans are expected to lead to significant cuts or changes to frontline services;

believes that the process agreed by the Government in December 2015 lacks transparency and the timeline announced by NHS England is insufficient to finalise such a major restructure of the NHS;

further believes that the timetable does not allow for adequate public or Parliamentary engagement in the formulation of the plans;

and calls on the Government to publish the Plans and to provide an adequate consultation period for the public and practitioners to respond.

I am glad to open this debate on the NHS sustainability and transformation plans. As the whole House knows, the NHS has a special place in the affections of our constituents. No other public service engages with us all when we are at our most vulnerable – in birth, death and illness – and the public and NHS staff are increasingly aware that the NHS is under severe financial pressure, a matter I will return to.

In that context of financial pressure and concern about the availability of services, the sustainability and transformation plans are arousing concern. They sound anodyne and managerial, and there is undoubtedly a case for bringing health and social care stakeholders together to improve planning and co-ordination. But the concern is that, in reality, the plans will be used to force through cuts and close hospitals, will make it harder for patients to access face-to-face consultations with their GPs, and, above all, will open the door to more privatisation. It tells the public how little the Secretary of State cares about their concerns that he is not in the Chamber to listen or respond to this debate. We know that recently he has missed all seven recent meetings of the NHS board. The public are entitled to ask how much he cares about their very real concerns.

One of the most alarming aspects of the STPs is their secrecy. England has been divided into 44 regional footprints, and it is worth noting that they are called footprints to distract from the fact that they are ad hoc regional structures – they are the exact same regional structures that the Tory health Bill was supposed to sweep away. Because they are ad hoc and non-statutory, they are wholly unaccountable. In the world of the STPs, the public have no right to know.

Initially, the STPs were discouraged from publishing their draft plans, freedom of information requests were met with blank replies, and enquirers were told that no minutes of STP board meetings existed. We are therefore bound to ask: if the plans are really in the interests of patients and the public, why has everyone been so anxious to ensure that patients and the public know as little as possible?

GP leaders in Birmingham said that it would appear that plans by the STP to transform general practice, and to transform massive amounts of secondary care work into general practice, are already far advanced. Only at this late stage have they been shared with GP provider representatives.

So when the STPs talk about efficiency, they actually mean cuts. Increasingly at the heart of these STPs are asset sales of land or buildings to cover deficits. No wonder the leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council, Stephen Cowan, has said of his local STPs that

“this is about closing hospitals and getting capital receipts”.

He went on:

“It’s a cynical rehash of earlier plans. It’s about the breaking up and the selling off of the NHS.”

The Health Select Committee’s recent report on the impact of the 2015 spending review stated:

“At present the Sustainability and Transformation Fund is being used largely to ‘sustain’

in the form of plugging provider deficits rather than in transforming the system at scale and pace. If the financial situation of trusts is not resolved or, worse, deteriorates further, it is likely that the overwhelming majority of the Fund will continue to be used to correct short-term problems rather than to support long-term solutions”.

Other aspects of the STPs that relate to cutting expenditure involve a combination of factors, including the use of new technology such as apps and Skype, patients taking more responsibility for their own health, “new pathways” for elderly care, increased reliance on volunteers and the downgrading of treatment by skills, responsibilities and pay bands. It seems to me that while some of these proposals might have some merit in themselves, it is delusional to imagine that they will deal with the financial black hole in the NHS. There is no evidence that among the patient population as a whole, increased use of apps, Skype and telemedicine can produce the efficiencies required while beds, units, departments and hospitals are being closed.

I remind Members, many of whom speak to their constituents in their advice surgeries on a weekly basis, that the truth about speaking to people face to face is that it is often towards the end of the conversation that people will come out with what really concerns them. My concern about the increased use of Skype is that many patients will not get the familiarity and comfortableness with their interlocutors to enable them to say at the end of the Skype session what it is that they are concerned about.

The STPs talk a great deal about increasing preventative medicine. That would indeed have the effect of lowering demand for acute NHS care, but it would also require a very substantial investment in public health programmes – and this Government have just cut public health funding. The elderly, the poor and patients for whom English is not their first language are the least likely to use these apps, telemedicine and Skype. It is inappropriate and unrealistic to assume that elderly patients who, I remind Members, are the biggest users of acute care and the fastest-growing demographic, will want to use Skype for any sensitive matter. “New pathways” for the elderly is sufficiently vague as an idea to raise alarm bells, given the projected rise in demand for geriatric services and continuing cuts in social care funding.

It was the NHS England director of STPs, Michael McDonnell, who said that they

“offer private sector and third sector organisations an enormous amount of opportunity”.

We know that PricewaterhouseCoopers has been heavily involved in the formulation of a large number of these plans, and we know that – as was mentioned earlier – GE Healthcare Finnamore, which was taken over by General Electric in the United States, has been heavily involved in the formulation of plans in the south-west and possibly more widely. The strong suspicion is that a combination of cuts, the reorganisation of services on a geographical basis, and the growth of hospital “chains” will facilitate greater privatisation of the NHS.

Heidi Alexander, Labour, Lewisham East:

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. Sustainability and transformation plans – what are they, should the public be concerned, and are the plans good, bad or a mixture of both? As we have heard, over the last eight months or so STPs have been drawn up in 44 areas in England by a range of people involved in the running of the NHS and local government. As far as I can work out, they have come about because NHS England could see that in the chaos following the previous Government’s Health and Social Care Act 2012, there was no obvious body responsible for thinking about how best to organise NHS services at a regional and sub-regional level, so NHS staff and local government officials were tasked with assessing the health and care needs of their local populations, considering the quality and adequacy of the provision to meet those needs, and developing ideas about how those needs might be better met within available resources.

So far, so good, we might say, but there are three big problems. First, the current financial pressures on the NHS mean that the plans are likely to be all about sustainability, not transformation. Secondly, this is a standardised process to define and drive change, so we run the risk of good proposals being lumped in with bad ones, and of some plans simply focusing on the achievable, as opposed to the necessary and the most desirable. Thirdly, it is an inescapable fact that these plans are being developed when there is huge public cynicism about the motives of a Tory Government when it comes to change in the NHS. If the Government want to deliver change, the debate with the public needs to start in the right place – not behind closed doors, and not using jargon that no one understands. It needs to be focused on patients and their families, not on accountants and their spreadsheets.

I think most people understand that the NHS cannot be preserved in aspic. They understand that compared with the 1950s, we now use the NHS in a very different way. At the moment, they simply see an NHS under enormous pressure. They are waiting longer for an ambulance, to see a GP, to be treated in A&E and for operations. They see staff who are stressed out and who are on the streets in protest. When Ministers and NHS leaders talk about sustainability and transformation, the public are therefore dubious. For sustainability, they read cuts, and in some cases they will be right – it will mean cutting staff, closing services and restricting access to treatment. No matter good the plan, how thorough the analysis or how innovative the solution, we cannot escape the basic problem of inadequate funding for the NHS and social care.

As a country, we have a growing and ageing population. The reality is that in the last 10 years, the number of people living beyond the age of 80 has increased by half a million, and the NHS and social care are buckling under the strain. Although we should never give up on trying to organise the NHS in the most efficient and effective way possible, we have a choice. Do we want to cut services to match the funding available, or do we want to pay more to ensure that our grandparents and our mums and dads get the sort of care that we would want for them? If the NHS is to provide decent care for older people we need not only to fund social care adequately, but to find better ways of organising services to keep people out of hospital for as long as possible.

That leads me to the next problem. STPs are being used as a catch-all process to bring about change in the NHS, but many run the risk of focusing on the wrong things. They are being used as a vehicle to do different things in different places, and although some may lead to better treatment and better outcomes, the danger is that there will be knee-jerk, blanket opposition to everything. Some proposals will inevitably be controversial – the closure or downgrading of an A&E or maternity department will never be easy – but, in other cases, the plans may end up focusing on something that is not the burning issue.

Let me take my local area as example. The STP for south-east London proposes two orthopaedic elective care centres. The sites for them have yet to be decided, and the STP plan has yet to be signed off by NHS England. On the face of it, there is little wrong with the proposal to create centres of excellence so that all hip and knee replacements are done in one of two places. The problem is that when the front page of a national newspaper talks about the “secret” STP plans under which A&Es will close, my constituents fear the worst. “We’ve been here before,” they will say. They will smell a rat, even where one might not exist.

My constituents ask me these questions. What happens if Lewisham is not the site of the new centre, its elective work is shifted elsewhere and the hospital then struggles to staff the emergency department? Is orthopaedic care really the burning issue in south-east London? What about the queues of ambulances outside the Queen Elizabeth hospital? What about the homeless young man who pitches up in A&E because he has nowhere to sleep and there is no support for him in the community?

Where will the money come from physically to redesign the NHS buildings that such a care centre would entail? With £l billion taken out of capital budgets and switched to revenue last year, it seems fanciful to think that there will money lying around for such projects. The NHS is on its knees. Everyone knows that hospitals ended up £2.5 billion in deficit last year. We have all seen the reports of A&Es closing overnight because they have not got the staff. We all know that GPs are run ragged, that ambulance crews are stressed out and that nurses are demoralised, and that is before mentioning the junior doctors.

This is the main problem for the Government: if you do not fund the NHS adequately and if you do not staff it properly, do not be surprised when the public do not trust your so-called improvement plans. There is deep public cynicism when it comes to anything this Government wants to do to the NHS. People believe Ministers are trying to privatise it. They believe services are contracted out to the private sector to save money, not to improve quality, and in many cases they are right. The problem is not STPs as such, but the context in which they are being developed – inadequate funding, an inability to make the case for change, a workforce crisis that is leading to overnight closure of services and, as a result of all of these, a deep public mistrust of the Government’s intentions.

Andrew Slaughter, Labour, Hammersmith:

I hope that I am in a position to assist some of the Members who feel that they are in the dark or confused about what is in their STPs. That is not because my own sub-region, north-west London, is one of the two, I think, that have officially published their schemes – I fear that, like most NHS documents, it is written in a style and language that make it difficult for the ordinary public to understand. Rather, it is because, for north-west London, this process has not mushroomed overnight, as has been the case with STPs generally, but has been developed over four years. In the wonderful Orwellian language that is used, we have had something called “Shaping a Healthier Future” since the middle of 2012, and that has simply morphed into the STP, so I can perhaps give a little insight in the few moments that I have.

What did “Shaping a Healthier Future” mean? It meant the loss of 500 acute beds. It meant that of around nine major emergency hospitals two would, effectively, be downsized to primary care, and four A&Es would lose all their consultant services – and that, as far as I am aware, is still the plan. What has become clear with the transformation into STPs is that this is very much about money. The original language four years ago was that unless we implemented these cuts to acute services, we would “go bankrupt”. When that language did not go down very well – not surprisingly – with the 2 million people affected in west London, the language changed, and it was all about clinical care.

I am pleased that at least the honesty is now back in the system, and the proposals are now very much about money. One sees why when my own hospital trust – a very important, prestigious trust called Imperial, which runs three major hospitals – is over £50 million in deficit this year alone. The CCGs are flatlining on funding. The importance of that is that the only possible justification for these major cuts in acute care is that social care, community care and primary care funding will be increased. How that is possible with budgets that are, at best, standing still, I really do not know.

The other interesting factor is the delays that have occurred over this time. We had this proposal in the middle of 2012 and a slight revision in February 2013 – and then silence. I have lost count of the number of times I have been promised that a full business case will be published. I act as the unofficial shop steward for the 11 Labour MPs in the sub-region, and I summoned them all to a meeting and said, “You’re going to get the business plan this month.” It was going to be next Tuesday, and we were all coming in in the recess to look at it, but, guess what, it has been put off until at least after the new year.

Moreover, the plan is now thought to be so unwieldy and so difficult to achieve that it has been split in two. My own hospital – Charing Cross – was due to lose 90% of its acute beds and its consultant emergency services, and we simply do not know when the proposals will now be published, but it has already been taken outside of the STP process. In other words, it is beyond the five-year horizon, and nothing will happen until 2022. Now, in one way, of course, I am delighted that the demolition balls are not going into Charing Cross for that period, but in the meantime the lack of support the hospital is getting worries me greatly.

These STPs are a Trojan horse for cuts. They are about cuts in acute services before there are compensatory services. For that reason, Members should be extremely concerned and worried about them, and I am happy to share my pain and knowledge on the subject if any Members wish to hear about them.

Emma Lewell-Buck, Labour, South Shields:

We have all become accustomed to the Conservative party’s disdain for our NHS since the shambles of the top-down reorganisation that began in 2012. Now we have the stealth introduction of sustainability and transformation plans – secret plans that would bring yet more unjustifiable and drastic reforms to cash-starved hospitals. Instead of being given the funding they so desperately need, hospitals are being asked to make £22 billion of efficiencies to compensate for this Government’s total mismanagement of our NHS. The audacity of making hospitals themselves pay the price for that by threatening them with closure or the reduction of acute services is the final act of treachery in a tragic and deliberate play to decimate our NHS.

South Shields is part of the footprint area of Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, an arbitrarily created boundary. By 2021, the health and social care system in that footprint area is projected to be £960 million short of the funds it needs to balance its books while maintaining the same level of care for patients. Make no mistake: these plans are about cuts. They are nothing to do with transforming our NHS for the better. The NHS has been set an impossible task by the Government; the endgame is to see it in private hands.

The Government have said that the initial STP submissions to NHS England are

“for local use, and there are no plans to publish them centrally” – a nice touch to put the onus once on to our hospitals again, so that the Government themselves do not have to deal with the flak.

I was born in South Tyneside hospital. I am the local MP for the area, and I have not seen a single plan. Not even the governors at my local hospital have, let alone the people of Shields, whose vital acute and emergency services could be devastated by these changes.

I am told that the timetable for implementing these unseen plans begins this autumn, yet the first we will see of them in my area is at the end of this month – that is, in the autumn. I am extremely alarmed at the lack of accountability and transparency with which the plans are being pushed through. There is simply no time at all for consultation. I make a plea to all NHS leaders not to be complicit but to stand up for their hospitals and the communities that they serve. The Government have no mandate for such a radical reconfiguration of our NHS, one that could involve the closure of accident and emergency and acute services up and down the country.

Last week, the Prime Minister called in NHS leaders to order them to stop any hospital mergers or closures that risk causing local protests. There is already a protest in my constituency.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Communists Can Win Left’s Battle Of Ideas

Saturday 15TH
posted by Morning Star in Features

ROB GRIFFITHS argues that a strong Communist Party can help develop the policies and boost the extra-parliamentary struggle needed to strengthen the left in putting forward a powerful, coherent position in the labour movement

Three recent events have underlined the need for a stronger and more influential Communist Party in Britain today.

The first was the re-election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour Party leader and his party’s subsequent conference in Liverpool.

From the outset, Communists and the Morning Star supported Corbyn and his left-wing programme in last summer’s election, when others on the left were dismissing the battle and still urging socialists and affiliated trade unions to abandon the Labour Party.

Contrary to numerous allegations from his Labour and media opponents, the CP has supported Corbyn in both campaigns, but from outside the Labour Party — in the labour and progressive movements, not from inside.

The CP rejects the cynical, dishonest strategy and tactics of “entryism.” All our party members were explicitly directed not to participate in the leadership ballot, even when invited to do so by Labour and trade union activists.

We understood that even a single case of such participation, if exposed, would provide ammunition to those claiming that Corbyn was being aided and manipulated by sinister and “extreme” forces.

Some leftist sects, desperate for a flicker of public recognition, rushed to the media to proclaim their own entryist tactics. This, of course, was a gift gratefully received and utilised by Corbyn’s enemies.

The real Communist Party adopted a more mature, disciplined approach.

Our contribution to Corbyn’s two victories was made on two different levels.

First, we worked hard to help build the four years of extra-parliamentary struggle which preceded last year’s Labour leadership battle. Through the People’s Charter, the People’s Assembly, the trade union movement and the Morning Star, CP members helped to organise and mobilise waves of mass activity targeting the austerity, privatisation and militarist policies of successive governments.

Together with our friends and allies, we helped draw hundreds of thousands of people into political activity, many of them for the first time. Subsequently, many activists enrolled with the Labour Party to vote for the candidate — Corbyn — who has spent his political life participating in extra-parliamentary campaigning.

Second, we have proposed perspectives, strategies, tactics and policies in the labour and progressive movements that will develop people’s political understanding. In particular, we have sought to revive and popularise the values and goal of socialism.

No other political party in Britain has carried out this work on so many fronts in such a planned, strategic and non-sectarian way.

Now that Corbyn’s leadership has been consolidated a little by his re-election and a shadow cabinet reshuffle, mass campaigning, political education and the Communist Party’s contribution are needed as much as ever.

The Labour conference signalled an intensification of the battle of ideas in that party and the wider labour movement.

Left and progressive policies were agreed in such fields as public infrastructure investment, housing, renationalisation of the railways and employment and trade union rights.

But there were gaps and weaknesses that reflect Labour’s deep divisions and deficiencies.

For example, there was no clear pledge to take water, gas and electricity back into public ownership. Indeed, shadow energy secretary Lisa Nandy told delegates: “Jeremy and I don’t want to nationalise energy. We want to do something far more radical. We want to democratise it.”

Of course, many more green and municipal energy schemes would be desirable. But they are no substitute for reclaiming control over the Big Six monopolies which dominate more than 85 per cent of the energy market, including future investment in renewables, generation, storage and transmission.

Nor was there a clear commitment to a federal Britain which, combined with much more radical plans to redistribute wealth throughout the nations and regions, is the strongest platform from which to combat the SNP.

Labour’s official policy continues to support the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons system. This criminal project will waste more than £200 billion that could redeploy all munitions workers to the production of vital energy, transport and health equipment.

The claim by former shadow defence secretary Clive Lewis that Nato embodies Labour’s own values of “collectivism, internationalism and the strong defending the weak” demonstrates how deeply imperialism is ingrained in the Labour Party.

Then there was the refusal of the Labour conference to face up to the challenge of Brexit.

Corbyn has made clear his view that the EU exit vote must be implemented. He has also questioned aspects of the European Single Market.

But Labour has no clear, agreed strategy or objectives when it comes to fighting for an exit that best serves the interests of the working class — a “People’s Brexit,” as the People’s Assembly now proposes.

In fact, a significant number of fanatically pro-EU Labour MPs and lords will be doing their utmost to sabotage the democratic decision of the peoples of Britain.

On these and many other issues, it is the Communist Party which argues consistently and unapologetically for left and anti-imperialist policies — and for socialism.

The CP programme Britain’s Road to Socialism also recognises the necessity of winning the Labour Party and many more of its members, supporters and voters to similar positions. But such a transformation requires, among other things, a stronger and more influential Communist Party.

The second recent event to illustrate the role of the CP was the weekend of activities organised by the People’s Assembly around the Tory Party conference.

The big demonstration in Birmingham on October 2 highlighted the need to continue campaigning at every level to put an end to the Tory government and austerity policies.

But the preceding People’s Assembly conference also carried forward the vital work of formulating a set of altermative policies.

This combination of policy development with extra-parliamentary struggle — especially in local working-class communities — will directly assist the left in its battle of ideas in the labour movement.

Again, individually and collectively, Communists will strive to continue making a significant and strategic contribution to this work.

Third, October 9 saw the colourful march and rally to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the Battle of Cable Street.

In 1936, the Communist Party played the central role — with its Jewish, Irish and left-wing allies — in mobilising a hundred thousand protesters to prevent the British Union of Fascists marching through the East End of London.

The link between the CP of today and yesterday was embodied by two of the speakers last week: current chair of the party (and secretary of the National Assembly of Women) Liz Payne and veteran of the original battle (and later one of 12 Communists on Stepney Council) Max Levitas.

Today, Communists continue to play a part in many anti-racist and anti-fascist campaigns, not least alongside our allies in the Indian Workers’ Association and the Bangladeshi Workers’ Council.

Building the Communist Party and the Young Communist League enhances all these movements, campaigns and initiatives.

It strengthens the trade union movement and the left as a whole. Indeed, those periods when the CP has been at its most influential, in the late 1930s, early 1940s and early 1970s, have also seen the left in the Labour Party make its biggest advances.

That’s another good reason for trade unionists, socialists and internationalists to join the Communist Party of Britain and through it help to strengthen the labour and progressive movements organisationally and politically.

  • Rob Griffiths is general secretary of the Communist Party of Britain.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The First of the new national Political Forums:

Some of us Trades Unionists will be attending the first of the new national political forums in London on October 29th.

The parliamentary movement led by Jeremy Corbyn has also inspired extra parliamentary activity at the same time.The discussion about developing democracy, empowerment and decision-making and new ways of doing politics are some issues Corbyn and others have addressed.

Socialism, and what it means today are questions that need to be answered today for everyone who is in support of the new phenomenon.

This is why Political forums are and will be springing up to explore the politics of the Alternative.

The times are crying out for the working class and people to take control of the future of society. The Political Forum in London is the first of a number to take place in the coming months in cities and regions throughout Britain which will discuss the issues and what is necessary for their achievement.

All democratic forces and working people of all nationalities and from all walks of life, especially young people and those involved in the struggle for a change in direction of society, will participate and contribute to the discussion. Bringing views,questions, concerns to energise the discussion. We must all present our vision of a better future, a new direction.

The workers’ and people’s movements are affirming that the problems facing society, including the danger of war, the destruction of the manufacturing base, and the trampling on the rights of all human beings, demand resolution and that working people – youth, women, workers, the people as a whole – are the force that can bring about change.

We must work out together how to realise a modern society and take control of the future, in a situation where what is absent today is the ability, the power, of the working class and people to take control of their lives and be the decision-makers.Together we can discuss the concrete work and practical politics required to ensure the success of the pro-social movements of the people and remove the blocks to the progress of society.

This is the 21st century, and the times demand that an aim is set for society.

There is an alternative!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment