UK Prime Minister David Cameron has ended his search for a new cabinet minister responsible for increasing British exports and attracting foreign investment. He will ennoble HSBC chair Stephen Green to ease his entry into government.
Green (who is not to be confused with Sir Philip Green, the billionaire retailer, recently appointed to oversee the Coalition’s upcoming spending review) is Cameron’s fifth choice. He failed to persuade Lord Davies to stay on. Davies, Gordon Brown’s ”favourite banker” filled the post during the final 18 months of Brown’s administration.
Sir John Rose, chief executive of Rolls-Royce, Dick Oliver, chairman of BAE Systems, as well as retailer Sir Stuart Rose, outgoing chairman of Marks and Spencer also declined the role.
No doubt there have been all kinds of influences affecting the decisions of the individuals concerned, but the pressures of history have conspired to bypass even the fraudulent electoral process and place Green in the key government role pursuing the interests of capital.
Green is well-qualified for the job and has now become - without a shadow of doubt - the personification of global capital in the 21st century.
Add it all up : head of the second richest company in the world (measured by assets held), unelected member of the House of Lords, privately educated graduate of Exeter College, University of Oxford, ordained minister in the Church of England.
It is clearly Green’s “moral” status which makes him attractive to the Coalition. He has said there was a need for the banking sector to operate on a more ethical basis – i.e. a need to at least be seen to rein in the unadulterated greed of the City and the financial sector.
But just in case anyone still thinks Green is the wrong man for this exalted post, Lib-Demo business secretary Vince Cable was at hand to assure anyone worried about the unchecked influence of corporate banking on government policy. “He is one of the few to emerge with credit from the recent financial crisis, and somebody who has set out a powerful philosophy for ethical business,” Cable purred yesterday.
And sure enough, to cleanse his Christian conscience and guide a generation of newly emerging players in the global financial casino, Green some years ago penned a tract called titled Serving God Serving Mammon.
According to one reviewer, “he explored whether you can do the Lord’s work whilst also commuting to Canary Wharf every morning to do battle in the boardroom and kick ass on the trading floor.” Green’s reply to this question was: ‘Christians can serve God in the world of finance and commerce, but it is also possible to fall into the trap of serving Mammon there,’ he wrote. ‘Yet the kingdom of God can be found in the thick of the markets.’
Arguing that the financial markets are a place where temptation could be too much, it was important that Christians should be at hand to demonstrate that honesty and integrity can be seen to work. Why, he argued, should financial markets be left to non-Christians?
Karl Marx, who wrote the definitive book on the subject of Capital in the 19th century, coined the term ‘the personification of capital’, or ‘capital personified’ to characterise people occupying a certain social role. They became and are the owners of capital and represent its interests in the processes of production, distribution and exchange.
This is the true role that Green is being called upon to play – and his Christian morality will be at hand to provide a fig-leaf for the interests of British and global capital.
Gerry Gold
Economics editor
For revolutionary solutions to create a sustainable, not-for-profit economy in place of global capital alongside a real democracy based on People’s Assemblies. Visit our web site at www.aworldtowin.net
Showing posts with label Capital. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Capital. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
In praise of Charles Darwin
The imminent 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, whose theory of evolution at a stroke revolutionised the way we see nature and our place in it, is not simply a moment for the celebration of scientific investigation. It also provides an opportunity to show how historical change takes place, both in nature and society.
Darwin’s great contribution was to analyse evidence he collected over a 20-year period about the abundant variety and difference in birds, flora and fauna and mammals. He collected fossils which showed that the earth was extremely old. This is the basis of his famous theory of the evolution of species, which he published in November 1859.
While he couldn’t provide all the proof at the time, the strength of his evidence was adequate to show that the creation of life on earth was not down to the invisible hand of God but that nature as a whole evolved in a self-related, self-moving fashion. This process of natural selection over millions of years of geological time led to new, more complex species as well as the disappearance of those that couldn’t adapt to the environment around them.
Darwin's ideas on the inheritance of traits was verified independently by Gregor Mendel's work on pea plants in far-away Moravia in the 1860s, although his work did not become well known until the 20th century. For the record, Darwin did not coin or use the phrase the "survival of the fittest" - the reactionary sociologist Herbert Spencer did.
Since Darwin’s time, further scientific developments have verified his theory of evolution. Carbon dating, based on the work of Marie Curie, can now reveal the precise age of fossils while the appearance of similar species on different continents is explained by geologists who can show that the earth was once a single big land mass, while the discovery of DNA in the early 1950s enables us to understand the transmission of inherited characteristics in humans as well as in other animals and parts of nature. Discoveries since Darwin in palaeontology reveal that Cambrian "explosion" - the seemingly sudden appearance of complex animals around 530 million years ago, was an example of "punctuated evolution" and not proof of creationism.
There were, of course, not one but two great revolutions in thinking in the mid-19th century. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels published their Communist Manifesto in 1847. This for the first time set out the evolution of society as a product of the class struggle. They showed how the contradictions within the system of production over time became untenable and gave way through revolution to another system, dominated by a new class. From this, they drew the conclusion that the working class, if it followed Communist leadership, was in a position put an end to capitalism.
Marx was impressed by Darwin’s theory because it indicated to him that society and the natural world underwent movement and change in broadly similar ways, although they were not and could not be identical. In 1873, Marx send an inscribed copy of the second edition of Capital to Darwin, who replied: “I thank you for the honour which you have done me by sending me your great work on Capital; & I heartily wish that I was more worthy to receive it, by understanding more of the deep and important subject of political Economy. Though our studies have been so different, I believe that we both earnestly desire the extension of Knowledge, & that this is in the long run sure to add to the happiness of Mankind.”
Darwin’s work is above all a refutation of scepticism about the possibility of knowledge. Marx’s contribution, in a similarly scientific way, shows the processes of change in society and the periodic interruption of apparently linear evolution through crisis, shock and revolution. We owe these great thinkers plenty at a moment in world history where an evolutionary leap is required.
Paul Feldman
AWTW communications editor
Darwin’s great contribution was to analyse evidence he collected over a 20-year period about the abundant variety and difference in birds, flora and fauna and mammals. He collected fossils which showed that the earth was extremely old. This is the basis of his famous theory of the evolution of species, which he published in November 1859.
While he couldn’t provide all the proof at the time, the strength of his evidence was adequate to show that the creation of life on earth was not down to the invisible hand of God but that nature as a whole evolved in a self-related, self-moving fashion. This process of natural selection over millions of years of geological time led to new, more complex species as well as the disappearance of those that couldn’t adapt to the environment around them.
Darwin's ideas on the inheritance of traits was verified independently by Gregor Mendel's work on pea plants in far-away Moravia in the 1860s, although his work did not become well known until the 20th century. For the record, Darwin did not coin or use the phrase the "survival of the fittest" - the reactionary sociologist Herbert Spencer did.
Since Darwin’s time, further scientific developments have verified his theory of evolution. Carbon dating, based on the work of Marie Curie, can now reveal the precise age of fossils while the appearance of similar species on different continents is explained by geologists who can show that the earth was once a single big land mass, while the discovery of DNA in the early 1950s enables us to understand the transmission of inherited characteristics in humans as well as in other animals and parts of nature. Discoveries since Darwin in palaeontology reveal that Cambrian "explosion" - the seemingly sudden appearance of complex animals around 530 million years ago, was an example of "punctuated evolution" and not proof of creationism.
There were, of course, not one but two great revolutions in thinking in the mid-19th century. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels published their Communist Manifesto in 1847. This for the first time set out the evolution of society as a product of the class struggle. They showed how the contradictions within the system of production over time became untenable and gave way through revolution to another system, dominated by a new class. From this, they drew the conclusion that the working class, if it followed Communist leadership, was in a position put an end to capitalism.
Marx was impressed by Darwin’s theory because it indicated to him that society and the natural world underwent movement and change in broadly similar ways, although they were not and could not be identical. In 1873, Marx send an inscribed copy of the second edition of Capital to Darwin, who replied: “I thank you for the honour which you have done me by sending me your great work on Capital; & I heartily wish that I was more worthy to receive it, by understanding more of the deep and important subject of political Economy. Though our studies have been so different, I believe that we both earnestly desire the extension of Knowledge, & that this is in the long run sure to add to the happiness of Mankind.”
Darwin’s work is above all a refutation of scepticism about the possibility of knowledge. Marx’s contribution, in a similarly scientific way, shows the processes of change in society and the periodic interruption of apparently linear evolution through crisis, shock and revolution. We owe these great thinkers plenty at a moment in world history where an evolutionary leap is required.
Paul Feldman
AWTW communications editor
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The spectre of Marx looms large
As Bank of England governor Mervyn King warns that UK is entering recession and the pound plunges, websites and newspapers around the world are noting that the ideas of Karl Marx have a new relevance.
Yesterday Marx’s iconic bearded face graced the front page of The Times, followed by four pages about the German refugee who eked out an impoverished existence in Soho when he arrived here on the run from the Prussian authorities. Under the headline, “He’s back”, The Times' newest leader writer and former Blair speechwriter, Philip Collins asks: “Could it be that Marx’s hour has come at last?”
The Times' idiot’s hop, skip and jump through Marx’s most famous book Capital is jaundiced and superficial, as one might expect. But at the same time, Collins is compelled to recognise that “Marx was on to something”, adding: “Capitalism wasn’t just nasty, it was doomed. It would collapse under the weight of its own internal contradictions. A bit like Lehman Brothers.”
Collins in fact ignores Marx’s core analysis of what capitalism actually is and what makes the system tick. Marx showed that capitalism is a system of commodity production for exchange, and that money (and credit) arose on the basis of the exchange of goods.
Through vast research and an epic intellectual effort, he demonstrated that things only acquire value as a result of the power of living human beings – labour. From this basis, he analysed the historic evolution of capital and how the growth of credit was central in capital’s need constantly to expand. Marx explained the fundamental contradiction between private ownership for profit and the vast, socialised nature of the productive forces as the source of capitalism’s inherent tendency to crises.
What the renewed interest in Marxist ideas proves without doubt is that the financial crisis and its effects have brought a widespread distrust combined with huge anger about the system and the governments like that of Brown. So, for the ruling classes the race is on to find pseudo-Marxists who can discredit any thoughts of a revolutionary transition to a different system.
Enter the media’s favourite “radicals”, longstanding not so ex-Stalinists Martin Jacques and Professor Eric Hobsbawm – who provided the ideological rationale for New Labour in the late1980s - closely followed by Frank Furedi, Mick Hume and Claire Fox, formerly leading lights in the dodgy Living Marxism magazine and now prominent within the so-called Institute of Ideas. Jacques, now visiting professor at Renmin University, Beijing, yearns for a return to Big Government (echoes of Stalin?) and social democracy while Fox looks forward to “a period of enforced austerity”.
Environment campaigner George Monbiot some time back outed the sinister way in which Fox and company have infiltrated the media and discussion circles. As Monbiot points out: “The LM network promote an extreme libertarian ideology - no restrictions on paedophilia, race hate etc. - and eulogise technologies like nuclear power, genetic engineering and human cloning.”
Clearly people like Fox have nothing to do with Marxist ideas and everything to do with promoting the interests of Big Oil, Big Pharma, and global agro-business. They are paraded in Murdoch’s newspapers (and on the BBC where Fox appears as an “expert” on the Moral Maze) to discredit Marxism and revolutionary ideas in general amongst students and young people looking for alternatives to the ideologies and stereotypes of the media and education system.
Corinna Lotz
Secretary, A World to Win
Yesterday Marx’s iconic bearded face graced the front page of The Times, followed by four pages about the German refugee who eked out an impoverished existence in Soho when he arrived here on the run from the Prussian authorities. Under the headline, “He’s back”, The Times' newest leader writer and former Blair speechwriter, Philip Collins asks: “Could it be that Marx’s hour has come at last?”
The Times' idiot’s hop, skip and jump through Marx’s most famous book Capital is jaundiced and superficial, as one might expect. But at the same time, Collins is compelled to recognise that “Marx was on to something”, adding: “Capitalism wasn’t just nasty, it was doomed. It would collapse under the weight of its own internal contradictions. A bit like Lehman Brothers.”
Collins in fact ignores Marx’s core analysis of what capitalism actually is and what makes the system tick. Marx showed that capitalism is a system of commodity production for exchange, and that money (and credit) arose on the basis of the exchange of goods.
Through vast research and an epic intellectual effort, he demonstrated that things only acquire value as a result of the power of living human beings – labour. From this basis, he analysed the historic evolution of capital and how the growth of credit was central in capital’s need constantly to expand. Marx explained the fundamental contradiction between private ownership for profit and the vast, socialised nature of the productive forces as the source of capitalism’s inherent tendency to crises.
What the renewed interest in Marxist ideas proves without doubt is that the financial crisis and its effects have brought a widespread distrust combined with huge anger about the system and the governments like that of Brown. So, for the ruling classes the race is on to find pseudo-Marxists who can discredit any thoughts of a revolutionary transition to a different system.
Enter the media’s favourite “radicals”, longstanding not so ex-Stalinists Martin Jacques and Professor Eric Hobsbawm – who provided the ideological rationale for New Labour in the late1980s - closely followed by Frank Furedi, Mick Hume and Claire Fox, formerly leading lights in the dodgy Living Marxism magazine and now prominent within the so-called Institute of Ideas. Jacques, now visiting professor at Renmin University, Beijing, yearns for a return to Big Government (echoes of Stalin?) and social democracy while Fox looks forward to “a period of enforced austerity”.
Environment campaigner George Monbiot some time back outed the sinister way in which Fox and company have infiltrated the media and discussion circles. As Monbiot points out: “The LM network promote an extreme libertarian ideology - no restrictions on paedophilia, race hate etc. - and eulogise technologies like nuclear power, genetic engineering and human cloning.”
Clearly people like Fox have nothing to do with Marxist ideas and everything to do with promoting the interests of Big Oil, Big Pharma, and global agro-business. They are paraded in Murdoch’s newspapers (and on the BBC where Fox appears as an “expert” on the Moral Maze) to discredit Marxism and revolutionary ideas in general amongst students and young people looking for alternatives to the ideologies and stereotypes of the media and education system.
Corinna Lotz
Secretary, A World to Win
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)