US Recession: the Greens get their wish
News of the low-level of consumer confidence in the US added to the evidence of big layoffs in the dot.com sector of an approaching recession in the US. The consumers got blamed for the slowdown both ways: for not buying enough, and for buying too much from abroad on credit. But only a few years ago the Federal Reserve concluded that the long period of growth in the US was the consequence of wages being held down by 'worker insecurity' (Federal Open Management Committee minutes, 24 September 1996). Then the Fed understood that holding down ordinary people's consumption was the key to the growth in capitalist profits.
The rise in lay-offs and slowed growth is a consequence of the failure of businesses to invest, not consumers to purchase. For perhaps the first time in history, the only opposition to capitalism is demanding a reduction in living standards and an end to expansion. Outside the Davos summit protesters were attacked, while inside leading business CEOs were lectured about the harm that they were doing to the planet. Newsweek described the way that business confidence is crumbling in the face of the ecological critique: 'when 1,000 CEOs worry about the state of the world, they're going to think about the state of their businesses first' (5 February, 2001). If the US hits zero-growth the world will get an interesting case study in the relative virtues of the static state economy proposed by environmentalists.
Welsh Corus
British politicians shed crocodile tears over the closure of the Welsh steel plant run by Anglo-Dutch firm Corus, with the loss of thousands of jobs. Welsh first minister Rodhri Morgan complained that the move was 'short-sighted', and the British cabinet protested at the lack of consultation, before Prime Minister Blair made it clear that the government had no intention of trying to buck the market. The London stock exchange celebrated the non-appearance of any opposition by boosting Corus' share value.
Social commentator and journalist Polly Toynbee objected that the steelworkers' jobs had been sacrificed to Britain's unwillingness to give up the pound and join the Euro-zone. In fact the closures are the end point of a European-wide 'rationalisation' of the steel industry that began when Euro-Commissioner the Count D'Avignon imposed emergency quotas on steel producing in the seventies. The consolidation of Dutch and British steel industries into one combine is an outcome of the 'economies of scale' facilitated by the European Union's system of 'managed competition'. The British government's refusal to support the steel industry is in line with their commitment to favour the service sector 'knowledge economy' rather than compete with a more efficient German manufacturing economy in a united Europe. The steelworkers have learned to their cost that they are surplus to New Labour's requirements.
Modern labour relations
Meanwhile Britain's teachers and tube drivers got a lesson in the character of modern labour relations. On the underground the dispute between London mayor 'red' Ken Livingstone and Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott over the best way to fund investment in the tube overshadowed the train-drivers' attempts to defend their jobs. The underground unions passed a ballot for strike action against privatization, even though London Underground had tried to divide the workforce by insisting that only the employees in the infrastructure section would come under the new 'Infaco' management. One driver explained that the unions played employees feeling of insecurity to connect to members that they mostly ignored. By calling for strike action on grounds of the threat to health and safety, the unions presented their action as so moderate that no one could object - especially in the light of recent rail crashes. These were grounds that even Livingstone could support. But now that peace has broken out between Livingstone and the government, it turns out that Livingstone never was opposed to privatization after all, and even complained that differences between the two sides were being exaggerated. Now the courts have forbidden one union from joining the strike and Aslef will find out whether their attempts to play on public fears prove a solid basis of support.
The teachers' pay review promised extra awards on the basis of 'performance related pay' and longevity of experience, drawing caustic comments from the unions that shortage of teachers would not be addressed. The historic problem between the government and teachers is less to do with pay than conditions. Successive panic-driven attempts to fix society's imagined problems by reforming education demoralized the profession. Teachers were at once expected to meet parents' anxiety- driven ambitions for their children, while their own authority was undermined. The government's performance tests are an attempt to artificially restore what was lost: teachers' pride in their work. But that could only be recreated by giving them more control over their circumstances. Making teachers' jump through hoops to prove their loyalty to the latest fads will only further demoralize the profession.
Israel at the Polls
Israel, 'the only democracy in the Middle East' goes to the polls this Tuesday, writes Nick Frayn. If voter turnout reflects that of the 1999 election, about 3.5 million Israelis will cast their ballots. In so doing these citizens will not only determine their own government, but also that of the 2 million Palestinians living in the West Bank, and another million in the Gaza Strip. Although some of these people are nominally under Palestinian Authority rule, the fact they are not allowed to leave these enclaves without Israeli permission says it all. A further 4.5 million Palestinians are scattered across the world, forced to flee from 1948 onwards, and refused the right of return by every subsequent Israeli government (Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs, www.passia.org). Tuesday's vote will renew their exiled status too. In fact the only Palestinians with any say will be the million left inside Israel (often erroneously described as 'Israeli Arabs' by the Western press). The extent of their democratic rights was demonstrated this October when Barak, for whom they had played kingmaker in 1999, turned the army on their protests killing 14.
Palestinians are unfazed at the likely change in power. Sharon is hated for his part in the infamous massacres at Shabra and Shatila during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. And, according to the critics, he was the man responsible for the latest intifada, after he strolled into the Haram Al Sharif with 1,000 armed police. But Barak is steeped in the blood of the Lebanese invasion too, having served there as a commando assassin. Contemporary pictures on the Hamas website show him shooting at the already dead corpse of Dallal Al-Maghrebi. http://www.heartfield. demon.co.uk/barak.jpg
But Barak was the Western liberals' man, endorsed most recently by former president Clinton. His 'landslide' election victory (in fact a demonstrably unstable coalition) was greeted as the dawning of a new era. As Azmi Bishara, an Arab Knesset member, commented, "they made Rabin a saint when he was killed. They made Barak a saint before he was even elected". And yet Palestinians found little changed under Barak. It was the same story of closures and harassment. Settlement activity has actually increased since 1999, as the Israelis continue to establish 'facts on the ground' to strengthen their claims to Palestinian territory. With the most recent conflict Barak has proved willing to unleash a storm of lethal force killing more than 350. Having installed a proxy police force in the form of Arafat's Palestinian Authority, it is no longer interested in directly controlling areas with dense Palestinian populations. It has simply said "Stay Back!" using helicopter gunships and tanks.
-- James Heartfield