💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anarcho-tories-for-social-justice-wtf.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:46:02. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Tories for social justice? WTF?!?! Author: Anarcho Date: August 28, 2008 Language: en Topics: Tories, social justice, Britain Source: Retrieved on 28th January 2021 from https://anarchism.pageabode.com/?p=141 Notes: The Tories are trying to out-left New Labour. Not difficult to do, but it really is a joke considering their track-record and current notions.
George Osborne, the Tory shadow chancellor, decided to show how much the
Conservatives respect the intellect of the people. In “A blueprint for
fairness” (The Guardian, 20/08/08) he asserts his party are now
“developing a policy agenda that delivers fairness and social justice”!
It is hard not to laugh.
He proclaims that it is shocking that “the gap in life expectancy
between rich and poor now at its widest since the Victorian era” and
that “there is nothing progressive about growing inequality, falling
mobility and rising poverty.” Which is true, but what he failed to
mention (never mind address) is that is precisely what happened under
Thatcher and Major. So the real reason for Britain’s growing inequality
is due to the neo-liberalism Thatcher introduced in the 80s. Has Osborne
really forgotten how inequality and poverty exploded under that witch
and her bland successor? And has he failed to notice that these were
continued by New Labour? Has he forgotten how the Tories denounced New
Labour for stealing its policies?
Is Osborne really unaware of the overwhelming evidence across the globe
that neo-liberal policies lead to greater inequality? He proclaims, in
his best ex cathedra tones, that “we have established, after a long and
bitter ideological argument over two centuries, that the free market
economy is the fairest way of rewarding people for their efforts.” Yet
free market capitalism has always been marked by massive inequality. It
is not hard to see why. A free exchange between two parties will benefit
the stronger, i.e., those whose market position is stronger, those with
capital.
Then there is the claim that capitalism rewards people for their effort.
Which is why, presumably, nurses, cleaners, shop workers, and so on, all
have two homes, yachts and flashy cars while hedge fund managers,
company directors and bankers struggle to make ends meet? Moreover,
every society rewards effort and work. Even slaves received food,
clothing and housing and their owners rewarded the most productive,
probably the least rebellious, more. What he should have said was that
“a fairer society” rewards effort and work in a fair way, so suggesting
that the Tories, unsurprisingly, do not know what “a fairer society” is.
In reality, capitalism rewards people for owning things other people
use. In return for being bosses about by the owners, said owners get to
keep the product of their labour – and so make money on other people’s
effort, and so increasing inequality. It is doubtful that Osborne is now
proclaiming that old socialist demand that labour receive its full
product! And does his comment that a fair economy “rewards effort and
work” while “a fairer society means ensuring fairness between
generations” means that the Tories will increase inheritance tax to
penalise unearned wealth and hereditary inequality? His comments,
considered out of political and historical context, definitely would
suggest that, but we can safely assume the Tories intend the opposite.
Particularly as Osborne was seriously proposing flat taxes a couple of
years back, which are designed to give a massive tax rise for those on
low to middle-incomes and a massive income tax cut for the extremely
wealthy.
Does free market capitalism work best for the working class? Looking at
the Conservative’s record on the matter while they were in office, we
can conclude the opposite. Reality hardly provides a glowing endorsement
for Osborne’s platitudes. Particularly when Labour’s feeble attempts at
social welfare had a limited success: “Data from the Office for National
Statistics showed that without the redistributive measures Mr Brown has
introduced, the UK would be a far more unequal society.” (Larry Elliot,
“Inequality at same level as under Thatcher” The Guardian, 18/05/07)
And best not to mention the glaring contradiction between proclaiming
“the free market economy is the fairest way of rewarding people for
their efforts” while grudgingly admitting that “unfettered free markets
are also flawed.” Then he proclaims that the Tories will take “sensible
steps to create a robust framework for a free and fair economy.” So a
free economy is now a fair economy. What happened to the flaws? Would
that be the inequalities associated with Thatcherism and Blairism? Or
the drop in social mobility that started under Thatcher but over which
Osborne cries crocodile treats when it continued under Blair/Brown? If,
as he proclaims, “a fairer society spreads opportunity” then he is again
denouncing precisely the Thatcherite legacy he wants build upon.
Unsurprisingly, his article fails to mention any actual policies beyond
belief that the free market is the solution.
Needless to say, Osborne remains silent on all those state interventions
which benefit property and the capitalist class. Thus redistribution is
attacked, so suggesting that the only intervention in the market is on
behalf of the working class. When he proclaims that the Conservatives
“have always stood against the utopianism of controlled economies”, you
would be mistaken in thinking that he considers New Labour are
Marxist-Leninists. And as any worker will tell you, capitalism is based
on workers being controlled by their bosses. The Tories spent most of
the 1980s ensuring that control was maximised by breaking the unions. It
is doubtful that fighting the top-down control inherent wage slavery
will be at the top of the Tory’s plans.
It is somewhat ironic that the Tories are trying to benefit from New
Labour’s fall from favour by trying to promote a more extreme form of
the very policies which caused the problem in the first place while, at
the same time, wittering on about fairness and equality! But then, there
is rarely anything politicians will not say to get votes – no matter how
surreal given their previous track record. So waiting in the wings to
replace a corrupt neo-liberal government is an even more corrupt and
neo-liberal one. Anyone who thinks that the Conservatives will reverse
the positions of Labour is in for a very rude awakening. Need the 1979
Tory election campaign (“Labour is not working”) be mentioned? They were
right: but they quickly turned 1 million out of work into over 3
million.
The reason for the inequalities generated by Labour is because they have
behaved just as the Tories propose. As New Labour has messed up they
will, rightly, be held to account. Unfortunately, this will mean the
taking of office of a party which will be just as bad, if not worse.
This implies only one thing – we simply cannot rely on politicians to
act for us. We must impose from the streets and workplaces that what
politicians cannot do and that means self-organisation, direct action
and solidarity. If we do that then perhaps we will be able to be in a
position to create genuine freedom rather than tolerate a system in
which we pick one gang of politicians to run capitalism other another.