In het rapport ‘Werk maken van baan-baanmobiliteit’  adviseert de SER dat het makkelijker en normaler moet worden om vrijwillig over te stappen naar een andere baan.

Deze zogenoemde “baanmobiliteit” is volgens de SER erg belangrijk voor een gezonde arbeidsmarkt. Reden hiervoor is dat mensen dan makkelijker in een andere sector aan de slag kunnen. Dit is erg handig wanneer in de eigen branche geen werk is terwijl in een andere tak juist een tekort aan personeel is.

Om een betere baanmobiliteit te krijgen is het volgens de SER nodig dat er in Nederland een “mobiliteitscultuur” ontstaat. Als voorbeeld noemt SER voorzitter Rinnooy Kan de Verenigde Staten waar het normaal is om van baan te veranderen en voor nieuw werk te verhuizen naar een andere streek. Ook adviseert de raad om werknemers meer scholing te geven die ze voorbereid om aan de slag te gaan in een andere branche. Tot slot raadt de SER aan om de voorzieningen, die mensen helpen bij het wisselen van baan, te verbeteren.

Minister Kamp van Sociale Zaken is blij dat het rapport er is. “Dit is een nuttig advies. Straks is er de situatie dat enkele sectoren tekort aan personeel hebben. Het is dan nodig dat de arbeidsmarkt mobiel is. Dit rapport helpt daarbij.” Het rapport blijft dan ook niet op de plank liggen: “Bij de uitvoering spelen de sociale partners een belangrijke rol maar we zijn bereid tot ondersteuning.”

Tijdens het lezen van het rapport valt op, alleen al vanwege de titel, dat de “doelgroep” van het rapport zich beperkt tot mensen die al een baan hebben, met name hoger opgeleiden en werknemers in de publieke sector. In interviews leek minister Kamp zich echter vooral op de arbeidsmobiliteit van (structureel) werklozen te richten. En daar is het SER rapport niet voor geschreven.

Onder de kop “Persoonlijke situatie werknemers” signaleert de SER de volgende belemmeringen om voor een baan te verhuizen:

“Tussen de wens om van baan te wisselen en het realiseren daarvan zit een groot gat. Mensen kunnen om allerlei redenen besluiten een volgende stap in hun loopbaan toch niet te zetten, ondanks dat zij dit wel willen of dat dit vanuit loopbaanperspectief te prefereren zou zijn. Een reden daarvoor kan de gezins- of huishoudsituatie zijn. Aannemelijk is dat mensen met een verantwoordelijkheid in de thuissituatie, bijvoorbeeld het zijn van kostwinner, minder makkelijk van baan wisselen, omdat een verkeerde stap voor hen grote(re) financiële gevolgen kan hebben. Zo blijken personen zonder kinderen vaker mobiel op de arbeidsmarkt dan personen met kinderen, vooral waar het gaat om externe mobiliteit. De onderzoeksresultaten ten aanzien van de relatie mobiliteit en het hebben van kinderen, zijn echter niet eenduidig.

Eveneens moet iemand met een werkende partner rekening houden met de (werk)situatie van de partner, waardoor een baanwissel bemoeilijkt kan worden (bijvoorbeeld als deze een grotere reistijd of verhuizing als gevolg heeft). Individuen zijn in uiteenlopende mate bereid te verhuizen voor het krijgen van een andere baan. Uit een onderzoek van het Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving (PBL) komt naar voren dat gezinnen met (schoolgaande) kinderen minder vaak (willen) verhuizen dan alleenstaanden en gezinnen zonder kinderen kan er dus toe leiden dat iemand niet wil of kan verhuizen met het oog op een andere baan. Een verhuizing in die fase van het gezinsleven brengt veel regelwerk en complicaties met zich, zeker als in het gezin gebruik wordt gemaakt van een vorm van opvang voor de (schoolgaande) kinderen te verhuizen in verband met het werk beïnvloeden zijn relaties, zoals familie, vrienden en kennissen, en de binding aan de regio (onder andere door deze relaties, maar ook door bijvoorbeeld lidmaatschappen van (sport)verenigingen). Ook geslacht, leeftijd en opleidingsniveau spelen een rol.

Volgens RWI (2009) is de aanwezigheid van kinderen en/of een partner bijvoorbeeld van weinig invloed op de mate van baan-baan-mobilliteit. Een extra belemmerende factor om te verhuizen voor ander werk is het bezit van een eigen woning. Onderzoek toont aan dat eigenwoningbezitters minder vaak van baan veranderen en dat de Nederlandse huizenmarkt een belemmering vormt voor meer arbeidsmobiliteit en daarmee voor een efficiëntere allocatie van arbeid. Vooral de overdrachtsbelasting is een belangrijke hindernis voor baanmobiliteit waarvoor verhuizing (en dus het zoeken naar een nieuwe woning) noodzakelijk is.”

Het SER rapport signaleert deze problemen wel, maar biedt geen mogelijke oplossingen van deze problemen. Ook het feit dat de SER niet ingaat op de aanvullende problemen waarmee langdurig werklozen, met name de mensen die van een bijstandsuitkering moeten rondkomen, worden geconfronteerd wanneer zij voor een baan moeten verhuizen, duidt erop dat het SER-rapport zich voornamelijk richt op de beter betaalde, hoger opgeleide werknemers, die nog volop aan het arbeidsproces deelnemen of daar nog steeds de vruchten van plukken.

Werklozen die van een lage uitkering of bijstandsuitkering moeten rondkomen kunnen zich financieel geen verhuizing veroorloven, hebben geen reserves (meer) om vloerbedekking, gordijnen, etc. te kopen. Al decennia lang is het door de overheid vastgestelde minimum lager dan het reële minimum. Dat zou Kamp, als minister van Sociale Zaken, moeten weten. Hoewel het SER-rapport melding maakt van “incentives” om de arbeidsmobiliteit te stimuleren, behoort de “incentive” om werklozen die een baan in een andere regio ambiëren een redelijke vergoeding te bieden voor verhuis- en inrichtingskosten, hetgeen in de publieke sector gebruikelijk is en in een aantal CAO’s is opgenomen, en werkgevers de “incentive” te bieden om als overheid tegemoet te komen in deze kosten, kennelijk niet tot de oplossingen die de SER adviseert.

Dat minister Kamp zich onvoldoende heeft laten informeren, blijkt uit zijn ongenuanceerde uitlatingen op de televisie. Blijk gevend van ernstig decorumverlies neemt hij de arbeidsmobiliteit van Poolse werknemers die in welvarender Europese landen werken als voorbeeld. Dat zijn hardwerkende mensen die een goed salaris naar huis brengen.

Oh ja? Weet minister Kamp wel wat de gevolgen van deze Poolse arbeidsmobiliteit zijn? En zo ja, is hij van mening dat Nederlandse werkzoekenden hetzelfde lot mag wachten?

Met betrekking tot Poolse werknemers in welvarender Europese landen is er sprake van moderne slaverij en uitbuiting. Zij worden vaak erbarmelijk gehuisvest. In het thuisland komen dankzij deze arbeidsmobiliteit schrijnende toestanden voor. Vader en moeder gaan in een ander Europees land werken, de kinderen worden bij familie ondergebracht en belanden na verloop van tijd vaak in kindertehuizen. Voorzover dat niet het geval is, groeien gezinnen uit elkaar. De ”man die ‘s zondags het vlees komt snijden” is verworden tot de “man die met kerst en pasen cadeautjes brengt”.

Door de situatie van de Poolse arbeidsmigranten als acceptabel te beschouwen en deze situatie vervolgens te projecteren op Nederlandse werklozen, geeft minister Kamp er blijk van dat hij er geen enkele moeite mee heeft om de nog resterende sociale verworvenheden in één regeringsperiode compleet van de tafel te vegen.

Jaap van der Wijk, 17 december 2011

Look around you, they’re easy to spot, the bullshit artists of the world. They’re everywhere, not only in politics. Businesses need bullshit artists to sell people products and services they don’t need. Bullshit artists make you believe that you need certain products or services, and you can witness their lies day in, day out, every minute of the day, in commercials on tv.

When bullshit artists are doing a good job for the businesses that hired them, these businesses are thieving, maybe surreptitiously thieving, deceptively thieving, or under-the-table thieving, but not explicitly stealing. Yet they profit from your trust. And they know it.

An increasing part of the population are sick and tired of lying politicians and corporate greed. The bullshit artists of this world are trained to mislead people. In politics they’re called “advisers”, in the corporate world they’re called “marketers”. A whole bunch of bullshit artists in one company is called “the marketing department”. They are reversed Robin Hoods – they steal from the poor and give to the rich.

In the eyes of a businessman an employee is a good salesman if he sells something to a client, even if the client doesn’t need the product and didn’t intend to buy the product. In my opinion a person is a good salesman if he provides good services to clients, if he would say, “I’m sorry, I don’t have what you’re looking for. Go to the store across the street.” I think a salesman is really ethical if he would say, “You know, you don’t even need that… if you buy (another product, or a  cheaper product) it will work just as well.” Such a salesman I would trust, and next time I would surely visit the store he works.

We need marketers and salespersons who give the customers the solutions they want and need, instead of blindly pushing products. 

Bullshit artists are intelligent and shrude, and since not every store, not every local politician, can afford their own bullshit artists, they let commercials and political slogans do the job for them.  

Insurance companies make you believe that their products couldn’t be any cheaper, while at the same time they’re making billions of profits. Politicians make you believe that the financial crisis couldn’t have been avoided, while at the same time a very small part of the population has become extremely rich thanks to this crisis. It takes a skillful bullshit artist to come up with these terrible lies. It takes gullible people to believe this bullshit.

The Occupy movements all over the world show that people are fed up with bullshit artists, with lying politicians, with corporate greed. These movements show that the public has become more intelligent, that the public sees through the lies. If businesses and politicians want to survive, they need to embrace new paradigms, they need to start earning the trust the public puts into them.

We can surely do without bullshit artists.

(Yes John, I know I’m downgrading your profession, I know you will lose your expensive apartment in Brighton, your two cars, your free trips to the U.S., if you lose your job as a trainer of bullshit artists in a company that doesn’t do anything but improving the skills of bullshit artists. But so be it. I think it’s better for the world. Sorry mate, find yourself a decent job.)

Click here to listen to the song
(or here on YouTube)

Wall Street Occupation

Song and lyrics by Jack Vanderwyk

People need water and food and health

People want a fair share of common wealth

There ain’t no American democracy

Pure dictatorship – of the majority

Aiming at the votes of 51 percent

The rest of the people can live in tents

People are fed up with corporate greed

Honest leadership, that’s what we need

Criminals are ruling our society

Wall Street occupation is the start of something new

People of the world, the world needs you

This world is ruled by financial institutions

Raising our voices is our only weapon

Corporate billionaires, these bloody cunts

Are having a good life with our pension funds

While they on the Bahamas are enjoying life

We will have to work until we’re 75

People are fed up with corporate greed

Honest leadership, that’s what we need

Criminals are ruling our society

Wall Street occupation is the start of something new

People of the world, the world needs you

Twenty-eleven should be the year of liberation

Throughout the world the end of all occupation

The fight for freedom’s not an easy exercise

As long as money’s involved, rule of finance applies

Ethical conduct is not to be expected

When personal wealth can’t be resisted

People are fed up with corporate greed

Honest leadership, that’s what we need

Criminals are ruling our society

Wall Street occupation is the start of something new

People of the world, the world needs you. (Yeah!)

People and governments in this capitalist society need to realise that there are far less jobs than people who want jobs, and this is only getting worse. People and governments in capitalist societies need to realise that the main function of people is being consumers, very valuable consumers, because without consumers there’s no production, and without production there’s no capitalist society.

Education is only part of the solution when it comes to the possibility of getting a job.  Even with a university degree you’ll discover that there are less jobs than applicants for the jobs. Before you know it getting an education becomes something like buying an expensive lottery ticket. You might win, but there’s a huge chance you won’t.

Let’s face it: we’re consumers in the first place, and only employees if we’re lucky. As soon as governments in our capitalist society start to realise that, instead of pumping billions into artificial projects which are meant to lower unemployment figures, who are we kidding, these governments are ready to value people for what they are in the first place: consumers. Valuable consumers. And as soon as the billions of people on the dole get the feeling that they’re not useless, lazy scum, but very much needed to keep production going, and as soon as governments start to pay people on the dole and working people alike a basic allowance which enables them to pay the rent, feed the family, buy all the necessicities without having to worry too much, then there will be wealthier consumers and more production. Another effect of this system is that people who prefer to stay at home to look after the kids or just to enjoy life will be able to do so, making place for the real motivated employees. Which in turn will result in happy faces, happy people, happy voters.

Yes, there needs to be a difference between working people and people without a job, because people need to be motivated to work. It’s all about the right balance. Companies need to sell their cars, tv’s, furniture, food, drinks, etc., and people want to buy all these things, so there’s no shortage in demand, only in money, and I’m not saying that every person on the dole should be able to buy a Ferrari, but I do say that every person without a job should be able to buy the neccessities without having to worry about the end the month. Combined with an obligation to vote, this would result in more democracy, because right now the masses on the dole are numb. They feel that it doesn’t matter what they vote – democrat or republican, labour or tory - there will be no changes in their situation as long as governments don’t realise they are valuable consumers.  

So imagine the change in politics if you start appreciating the unemployed masses for the consumers they are, if you start to give every citizen a basic allowance, based on a realistic minimum, in exchange for the obligation to vote. No longer will politicians be able to ignore the billions of have-nots, because have-nots will have ceased to exist. Only a society that solves the problem of a significant, apathetic part of the population, is able to call itself a democratic society.

Our guest for the hour is MIT professor Noam Chomsky. His latest book is called 9-11: Was There an Alternative? That last question, “Was there an alternative?,” referring to the assassination of Osama bin Laden. Aaron?

AARON MATÉ:

Well, Noam, you mentioned the changes in discourse between 10 years ago and today. And actually, this issue of the reasons behind 9/11 came up last night at the Republican presidential debate. Congress Member Ron Paul of Texas drew boos from the crowd and a rebuke from other candidates on the podium when he criticized U.S. foreign policy in discussing the roots of 9/11.

REP. RON PAUL:

We’re under great threat because we occupy so many countries. We’re in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world. We’re going broke. The purpose of al-Qaeda was to attack us, invite us over there, where they can target us. And they have been doing it. They have more attacks against us and the American interests per month than occurred in all the years before 9/11. But we’re there, occupying their land. And if we think that we can do that and not have retaliation, we’re kidding ourselves. We have to be honest with ourselves. What would we do if another country, say China, did to us what we do to all those countries over there?So, this whole idea that the whole Muslim world is responsible for this and they’re attacking us because we’re free and prosperous, that is just not true. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda have been explicit. They have been explicit, and they wrote and said that we attacked—we attacked America because you had bases on our holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians a fair treatment, and you have been bombing—I didn’t say that, I’m trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing. At the same time, we had been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for 10 years. Would you be annoyed? If you’re not annoyed, then there’s some problem.

AARON MATÉ:

That was Republican Congress Member Ron Paul of Texas speaking last night at the Republican presidential debate. Noam Chomsky, your response?

NOAM CHOMSKY:

I think what he said is completely uncontroversial. You can read it in government documents. You can find it in polls. Maybe people don’t like to hear it, but, as I mentioned before, it goes back to the 1950s. Actually, right after 9/11, the Wall Street Journal, to its credit, did a study of privileged Muslims, sometimes called “monied Muslims,” people in the Muslim world who are deeply embedded in the U.S. global project—lawyers, directors of multinational corporations and so on, not the general population. And it was very much like what Eisenhower had—was concerned about, and the National Security Council, in the 1950s. There was a lot of antagonism to—a lot of antagonism to U.S. policy in the region, partly support of dictators blocking democracy and development, just as the National Security Council concluded in 1958.

Also, by then, by 2001, there were much more specific things: very much a lot of anger about the U.S. backing for the way—Israeli occupation of the Occupied Territories, settlements, the bitter oppression of the Palestinians, and also, something that isn’t discussed much here but meant a lot there—and remember, these are privileged Muslims, leaders of—those who kind of carry out, implement the general U.S. economic and social policies in the region. The other thing, besides the Israeli—support of Israeli crimes, was the sanctions against Iraq. This was 2001, remember. The sanctions against Iraq were brutal and destructive. They killed hundreds of thousands of people. Both of the international diplomats who administered the Oil-for-Food program, distinguished international diplomats—Denis Halliday, Hans von Sponeck, in sequence—both of them resigned in protest because they regarded the sanctions as genocidal. They were carrying out a kind of a mass slaughter of Iraqis. They were strengthening Saddam Hussein. They were compelling the population to rely on him just for survival. And these were major crimes of the 1990s. And privileged Muslims, monied Muslims, in the Saudi Arabia, elsewhere, were bitterly opposed to this, not because they hate our freedoms, because they don’t like murderous and brutal policies.

AARON MATÉ:

Noam, before, you were quoting a CIA analyst saying that the U.S. had actually become Osama bin Laden’s biggest ally through being drawn into so many wars abroad, and talking about how all this engagement has undermined U.S. standing. What has this decade of war meant here at home for the domestic situation and how that relates to bin Laden’s goals of bleeding the United States?

NOAM CHOMSKY:

Yeah, he was pretty explicit about that. He wanted to draw the United States into what intelligence agencies called a trap, which would lead—which would inflame and incite hostility in the Muslim world, he hoped, help mobilize people for his cause—I don’t think that happened—but also bankrupt the U.S. at home. I mean, current estimates—there was a recent estimate, a study at Brown University, estimated the cost just of the two wars at about $4 trillion. If you count in the costs of, you know, homeland security and so on, probably doubles that. That’s pretty serious. That’s the—between the wars, the housing bubble and Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, that—it creates the economic crisis that we’re now in.

AMY GOODMAN:

On Monday, President Obama sent his new jobs proposal to Congress. In a new challenge to Republicans, Obama said he would propose paying the $447 billion package by raising taxes on the wealthy. Around $400 billion would be raised by eliminating a number of deductions claimed by wealthy taxpayers. Obama discussed the bill in a White House speech.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:

On Thursday, I told Congress that I’ll be sending them a bill called the American Jobs Act. Well, here it is. This is—this is a bill that will put people back to work all across the country. This is the bill that will help our economy in a moment of national crisis. This is a bill that is based on ideas from both Democrats and Republicans. And this is the bill that Congress needs to pass. No games, no politics, no delays. I’m sending this bill to Congress today, and they ought to pass it immediately.AMY GOODMAN:

Noam Chomsky, what is your assessment of President Obama, whether we’re talking about his new jobs plan or whether we’re talking about his foreign policy?

NOAM CHOMSKY:

Well, I can’t say that I find it disappointing, because, quite frankly, I never expected anything. Actually, I wrote about it before the primaries, just based on his record on his website.

I think my—I should say, first of all, that this latest jobs plan is one of the better things he’s done. I don’t think it goes anywhere near far enough, but at least it has elements that are going in the right direction. There was, when the—during the lame-duck session, the serious question was whether—what to do with the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts were carefully designed so that, at the beginning, everyone got a little, and you had a feeling taxes were being reduced. But they were designed so that, as the 10-year period ended, it was overwhelmingly going to the very rich. Now, the population is strongly opposed to that. You take a look at polls during the lame-duck session, when this was coming up: very strong support for increasing taxes for those with incomes over, say, quarter-million dollars a year. Well, Obama didn’t push that. If he had appealed to the public, they, I think, could have overcome the opposition of the financial institutions, you know, the Republican—the new Republican congressional delegation and so on. But he didn’t even try. And that should be done.

Now, the current proposal goes partially in that direction by indirectly increasing taxes through elimination of deductions. But the tax code simply has to be revised. It’s become highly regressive. In fact, the share of GDP, you know, national income by—of taxes, is probably lower than it’s ever been, far lower than 20 or 30 years ago, particularly for the rich. All of that should be adjusted. There is a stimulus in the program, which is a good idea, but it’s much too small. And the concentration on deficit reduction, when the problem is—the serious problem is massive unemployment, I think that’s a very serious error. You can understand why the banks and insurance companies, and so on, like it, but it’s completely wrong for the—for trying to extricate ourselves from quite a serious economic crisis. The other things are unfortunately—the deficit itself, if you want to take it seriously—I don’t think it’s the major issue, by any means. In fact, I don’t even think it’s a serious issue, at least in the short term. But if you do want to take it seriously, it’s pretty easy to trace it to the roots.

Dean Baker, very good economist, has done—has pointed out, done the calculations which show that if the United States had a healthcare program similar to other industrial countries, which is not a utopian dream, not only would there be no deficit, but there’d be a surplus—that plus the huge military budget. Military budget is probably half the deficit. It’s way out of line with anything needed, certainly for any defensive purpose, but for any justifiable purpose. Ron Paul, who you heard before, was quite right about that. If the military—I mean, the U.S. is spending about as much as the rest of the world combined almost on military spending, technologically very advanced, new destructive techniques developing far beyond what any other country has. This is all—first of all, it shouldn’t be done, on principle, but it also ends up being harmful to us, essentially for the reasons that Paul mentioned. The—and very expensive, of course. That plus the hopelessly dysfunctional healthcare system, those are fundamental problems that have to be addressed.

Now, that could have been addressed. At the time of the healthcare reform, a large part of—depending on how the question was asked, either the large plurality, often a majority, of the population was in favor of some form of national healthcare, which would be incomparably more efficient and more humane. But Obama just dropped that. The public option remained as a possibility. That was supported by, I think, maybe almost two-thirds of the population. Obama just dropped it. So, everything is in the hands of the insurance companies. We continue to have roughly twice the per capita healthcare costs of comparable countries, some of the poorest outcomes. And it’s the only large, almost unregulated, privatized system. Yes, it’s highly inefficient; it’s also very inhumane—not to speak of tens of thousands of people without insurance or many more with not enough insurance. Well, that can be changed. It should be changed. If it could, the deficit issues, such as they are—I think they’re secondary—would largely disappear.

There’s a long-term debt problem. That’s a different matter. And that can be dealt with—the best way to deal—we can trace that to its roots, too. Ronald Reagan, who was fiscally totally irresponsible, tripled the U.S. debt and shifted the U.S. very quickly from the world’s leading creditor to the world’s leading debtor. George W. Bush enhanced it with his fiscal policies, including the huge tax cut for the rich, the wars. And in the long term, that’s a problem. But the way to deal with that problem, in the long term, is with economic growth, appropriate economic growth, sensible economic growth. Well, that can be done, but it’s not going to be done through deficit reduction programs or tampering with entitlements, as is on the table, unfortunately.

So there were elements—and infrastructure development is significant, and Obama mentioned it. There’s small programs. I think that those are—he talked about work sharing, which is quite an important proposal. I don’t know if anything will be done. It was done in Germany, and it cut down unemployment very sharply, led to substantial economic growth, even through the recession. Those are options that could be pursued. They’re mentioned. They should be pushed harder. They should be expanded. But at least there are elements there that could turn into a constructive program—however, not until the core issues are handled.

One is enormous unemployment. That’s the worst problem, and it’s becoming almost permanent unemployment. Another is the deterioration of manufacturing, meaning offshoring of manufacturing. The only way that can be dealt with is by cutting back on the overvalued dollar, that would improve possibilities for exports. The healthcare system, which is grotesque—it’s an international scandal; the huge military spending; the very low taxes for the rich, by comparative standards, also corporations and so on—those are problems that—those are fundamental problems that have to be dealt with if there’s going to be anything like successful economic and social development in the United States.

AARON MATÉ:

Noam, you mentioned entitlements, and obviously this is an issue that’s come up a lot in the deficit debate. Governor Rick Perry, the Republican presidential hopeful, has called it a Ponzi scheme. But even Democrats seem to buy into this narrative that it’s in crisis. Can you address that?

NOAM CHOMSKY:

Social Security is not in any crisis. I mean, the trust fund alone will fully pay benefits for, I think, another 30 years or so. And after that, taxes will give almost the same benefits. To worry about a possible problem 30 years from now, which can incidentally be fixed with little—a little bit of tampering here and there, as was done in 1983—to worry about that just makes absolutely no sense, unless you’re trying to destroy the program. It’s a very successful program. A large number people rely on it. It doesn’t pay munificently, but it at least keeps people alive, not just retired people, people with disabilities and others. Very low administrative costs, extremely efficient, and no burden on the deficit, doesn’t add to the deficit. The effort to try to present the Social Security program as if it’s a major problem, that’s just a hidden way of trying to undermine and destroy it.

Now, there has been a lot of opposition to it since—you know, since the 1930s, on the part of sectors of extreme wealth and privilege, especially financial capital. They don’t like it, for several reasons. One is the rich don’t barely—for them, it’s meaningless. Anyone with—you know, who’s had a fairly decent income, it’s a tiny addition to your retirement but doesn’t mean much. Another is, if the financial institutions and the insurance companies can get their hands on this huge financial resource—for example, if it’s privatized in some way or vouchers—I mean, that’s a huge bonanza. They’ll have trillions of dollars to play with, the banks, the investment firms and so on.

But I think, myself, that there’s a more subtle reason why they’re opposed to it, and I think it’s rather similar to the reason for the effort to pretty much dismantle the public education system. Social Security is based on a principle. It’s based on the principle that you care about other people. You care whether the widow across town, a disabled widow, is going to be able to have food to eat. And that’s a notion you have to drive out of people’s heads. The idea of solidarity, sympathy, mutual support, that’s doctrinally dangerous. The preferred doctrines are just care about yourself, don’t care about anyone else. That’s a very good way to trap and control people. And the very idea that we’re in it together, that we care about each other, that we have responsibility for one another, that’s sort of frightening to those who want a society which is dominated by power, authority, wealth, in which people are passive and obedient. And I suspect—I don’t know how to measure it exactly, but I think that that’s a considerable part of the drive on the part of small, privileged sectors to undermine a very efficient, very effective system on which a large part of the population relies, actually relies more than ever, because wealth, personal wealth, was very much tied up in the housing market. That was people’s personal wealth. Well, OK, that, quite predictably, totally collapsed. People aren’t destitute by the standards of, say, slums in India or southern Africa, but very—suffering severely. And they have nothing else to rely on, but what they—the, really, pittance that they’re getting from Social Security. To take that away would be just disastrous.

AMY GOODMAN:

We’re talking to Noam Chomsky. He has a new book out, 10 years after his book 9-11. This is called 9-11: Was There an Alternative? We’ll come back to this conversation in a minute. And if you’d like to get a copy of the full show, you can go to our website at democracynow.org. Stay with us.

MARCH & RALLY

Assemble: 12 noon at Clerkenwell Green London EC1 (nearest tube: Farringdon)

March to Trafalgar Square: 1300

LONDON MAY DAY ORGANISING COMMITTEE

www.londonmayday.org

MAY DAY 2011

The fight to save jobs & services has to intensify. The pressure must be kept up. The bankers are back on the bonus gravy train whilst we are being hit to pay for the crisis they created. We face price rises and wage cuts, pensions slashed and the most vulnerable in society under attack. Yet if the big companies and rich paid their taxes there would be no crisis. This attack is hitting workers across Europe & the world. Unity is our strength.

JOIN US ON MAY DAY – CELEBRATE INTERNATIONAL WORKERS DAY

Trafalgar Square Speakers include Tony Benn, Sarah Veale (TUC), Ken Livingstone, Chris Baugh (PCS), Matt Wrack (FBU), Clare Solomon, Eylem Ozdemir (RWCA), Les Woordward (GMB Employ), etc.

HISTORY OF MAY DAY

International Workers’ Day (also known as May Day) is a celebration of the international labour movement and left-wing movements. It commonly sees organized street demonstrations and marches by working people and their labour unions throughout most of the world. May 1 is a national holiday in more than 80 countries. It is also celebrated unofficially in many other countries.

International Workers’ Day is the commemoration of the 1886 Haymarket Massacre in Chicago, when, after an unknown person threw a dynamite bomb at police as they dispersed a public meeting, Chicago police fired on workers during a general strike for the eight hour workday, killing several demonstrators and resulting in the deaths of several police officers, largely from friendly fire. In 1889, the first congress of the Second International, meeting in Paris for the centennial of the French Revolution and the Exposition Universelle, following a proposal by Raymond Lavigne, called for international demonstrations on the 1890 anniversary of the Chicago protests. May Day was formally recognized as an annual event at the International’s second congress in 1891.

Subsequently, the May Day Riots of 1894 occured. In 1904, the International Socialist Conference meeting in Amsterdam called on “all Social Democratic Party organizations and trade unions of all countries to demonstrate energetically on May First for the legal establishment of the 8-hour day, for the class demands of the proletariat, and for universal peace.” The congress made it “mandatory upon the proletarian organizations of all countries to stop work on May 1, wherever it is possible without injury to the workers.”

In many countries, the working classes sought to make May Day an official holiday, and their efforts largely succeeded. May Day has long been a focal point for demonstrations by various socialist, communist and anarchist groups. In some circles, bonfires are lit in commemoration of the Haymarket martyrs, usually at dawn. Right-wing governments have traditionally sought to repress the message behind International Workers’ Day, with facist governments in Portugal, Italy, Germany and Spain abolishing the workers’ holiday, and the Conservative party in the UK currently attempting to abolish the UK’s annual May Day Bank Holiday.

In the United Kingdom in recent years, the anti-capitalist movement has organised a number of large protests in London, Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Doncaster. In London, these have resulted in clashes with the police. In 2000, the clashes ended with a branch of McDonalds being smashed and a statue of Winston Churchill being given a grass Mohawk hairstyle. The Cenotaph was also defaced with graffiti. In the last few years, demonstrations have been more peaceful, with marches and gatherings, particularly in central London. The current Conservative-led coalition government in March 2011 announced plans to move the May Day bank holiday to October in order to lengthen the tourist season. A London rally on May Day is organised by the London May Day Organising Committee (LMDOC).

As expected, BBC News and Sky News are completely ignoring the London rally. Instead they keep repeating that Prince William and Kate are not going on honeymoon and that Pope John Paul II has been beatificated.

Meanwhile London Metropolitan Police has prepared for  an influx into London of up to 10,000 anti-capitalist demonstrators amid fears that one of the capital’s wealthiest areas could be targeted by violent protests. They fear a hard core of up to 400 people intent on violence will adopt “guerrilla tactics”, spreading out across the capital to stretch police resources and creating numerous potential flashpoints. The biggest concern is the afternoon’s “May Day in Mayfair” mass action which will take place in the area between Oxford Street, Regent Street, Piccadilly and Park Lane.

Loosely based on the 18th century May fayre from which the area takes its name, the event will include a travelling circus and a “wake for capitalism” with demonstrators wearing skeleton masks.

This year May Day demonstrators are also planning a mass medieval football match in Oxford Street. Members of the Wombles – White Overall Movement Building Liberations through Effective Struggle – movement will be picketing at Horseferry Road magistrates court where seven of their members are on trial for alleged public order offences.

For the first time socialist umbrella group Globalise Resistance will march with trade unionists in a TUC-organised procession from Clerkenwell Green to Trafalgar Square.

The day will begin with a Critical Mass cycle ride into Grosvenor Square, central London, from Camberwell Green and Camden Town, blocking rush hour traffic. London Animal Action is launching “May Day Mayhem against the Fur Trade” in Ilford and outside Phillip Hockley Furs off Regent Street. And in the evening there will be a parade by sex workers in Soho organised by the Sexual Freedom Coalition.

All police leave has been cancelled and up to 6,000 officers are on duty.

All this is happening right now, while BBC News and Sky News keep their silence. In the mean time the polls show that 51% of the U.K. population is against Alternative Vote, which probably means that they on May 5, 2011, this Thursday, will vote in favour of the old system in which there were only two parties, in favour of an election system that has nothing to do with democracy, because the dictatorship of the majority isn’t the same as democracy.

People in London protesting against cutbacks

On March 26, 2011, The Telegraph wrote, “TUC protest march: anarchists on the rampage in London. Anarchists went on the rampage in central London as hundreds of thousands of people marched in protest at government cuts.”

Anarchists? Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. Anarchists seek to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations, but widely disagree on what additional criteria are essential to anarchism. According to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, “there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance.”

So are these people “anarchists”? And what were their “anarchist” goals?

UK Uncut writes, “It was the greed and recklessness of the banks that caused the economic crisis, yet the government is making ordinary people pay the price in the form of unprecedented cuts to public services. There are alternatives to the cuts, for example, making the banks pay for a crisis they created and stopping tax dodging by corporations and the rich. But instead the government has chosen to cut vital public services. Under the banner of UK Uncut, people from around the country have transformed banks and tax-dodging stores into schools, leisure centres and libraries to show that it’s society that’s too big to fail, not our broken banking system.”

To be honest, this doesn’t sound “anarchist” at all. This sounds like socialism in its pure form, socialism like it was in early Christianity.

The march started by the River Thames, passed the Houses of Parliament and Prime Minister David Cameron’s Downing Street residence before ending in a rally in Hyde Park addressed by opposition Labour Party leader Ed Miliband. “Our struggle is to fight to preserve, protect and defend the best of the services we cherish because they represent the best of the country we love,” Miliband told the rally. It was the largest protest in London since one million people marched against the Iraq war in February 2003.

Among the breakaway protesters were groups which painted “thieves” on HSBC bank at Cambridge Circus, smashed windows, like those of Santander bank, and chanted outside of McDonalds. One group also staged a sit-down protest outside of a bank, where they chanted ‘BHS pay your tax’. HSBC is accused of seeking a deal with the Inland Revenue to lower its tax bill by £2bn, allegedly following in the footsteps of a dispute between Vodafone and the taxman in which the mobile phone company negotiated a disputed claim down to £1.25bn. Topshop is being attacked by campaigners over the fact that its parent group, Arcadia, is itself controlled by a company with a registered head office in Jersey, while the beneficial owner – Sir Philip Green’s wife, Cristina – is based in Monaco. Boots is under fire because its new owners have moved its European headquarters to Switzerland, just as Kraft has switched its recently purchased Cadbury confectionery operation there.

Emi Summers, a spokesman for UK Uncut, claims businesses are securing “dodgy backroom deals” with the government: “These companies should be made to pay the full tax so we can save our vital public services from being slashed.”

Street protesters from UK Uncut have lit a fire under the issue of tax avoidance – or “efficiency” as the business world presents it – by contrasting it with public sector cuts. The basic argument is that thousands of redundancies would not be necessary if the corporate world paid its taxes and did not try to avoid them through the use of foreign domiciles, “offshoring” or other measures.

UK Uncut is given ballast by the Trades Union Congress (TUC), anti-poverty campaigners and even the odd tax specialist, all of whom have long argued that billions of pounds is being siphoned off by avoidance, evasion or just incompetent tax collection.

Richard Murphy, who runs his own consultancy, Tax Research UK, believes up to £120bn is lost to the Treasury in a variety of ways and argues that at least £20bn could be relatively easily collected if the government set about it in a determined way.

Protesters are right to concentrate some of their efforts on ministers, who are willingly cutting back on the very tax inspectors needed to crack down on those evading their fiscal responsibilities, he believes.

“In 2005 we had something like 100,000 working for HMRC and now we are down to 70,000,” says Murphy. “Over the next four to five years, the number is expected to fall to 56,000, not far short of a halving. And yet tax evasion is rife – particularly in small businesses that handle cash, some used deliberately for evasion.”

The unions are supportive of the protests. Nigel Stanley, head of campaigns at the TUC, says he understands why people want to make tax avoidance an issue and believes they are right to do so. “The TUC’s work on the tax gap has set much of this agenda. As the scale of the cuts becomes more obvious, people are understandably asking whether those with the broadest backs are making a proper contribution,” he says.

So why are The Telegraph and other media calling the protesters who smashed the windows of banks and stores “anarchists”, while they know exactly who these protesters are and what they are fighting for? To spread discord, and by refusing to publish the motivation of these protesters they hope that the general public will condemn these actions.  Divide and rule.

Everyone who is against the cuts should support the activists, simply because they are right: if these banks and other businesses would pay their taxes, these cutbacks wouldn’t be neccessary. It’s as simple as that. Think of that when you lose your job, when your house is repossessed, when you have to sell your car, when you can’t support your family anymore, when your children are not getting the education they’re entitled to, when your loved ones are not getting the NHS treatment they’re entitled to.

And 3. let’s not forget the journalists out there. They want to tell their stories, but can’t. Tsunami comes first.

If one country has got something, like oil, that other countries want, then these countries don’t show much concern when it comes to issues like democracy, justice, etc. Instead of refusing to deal with dictators, the leaders of so-called democratic countries like the U.K. and the U.S. befriend them, as long as they get their oil. The majority of the population of these countries are obviously agreeing with these policies, otherwise they would send their leaders home. These administrations seem to say, “As long as you give us our oil, we will leave you alone, and we won’t object to your dictatorship”.

If = oil, Then = dictatorship okay.

Some other “if-then” statements.

If so-called democratic countries like the U.K. and the U.S. refuse to buy oil from  a country with dictatorial leadership, then such a country will have a significant smaller market for its oil. If so-called democratic countries use this position to force the dictator to step down, or to facilitate democratic changes, then they are using their power in the right way. If, however, the real power in these so-called democratic countries is de facto in the hands of companies like BP, Shell, etc., instead of in the hands of the elected politicians, then these so-called democratic countries are not democratic at all, but merely capitalist autocracies.

If the U.K. and the U.S., to mention a few, are capitalist autocracies, then they feel perfectly okay in the company of dictators like Gadaffi. There’s not much difference between them, accept for the fact that the dictator doesn’t pretend that his country is a democracy, while the capitalist autocrats do.

So you may ask yourself “Who’s corrupting who?”

Place Garibaldi – the gendarmerie is ready for action

They started arriving June 30, 2010; 59 delegations and 33 heads of state for the France-Africa summit, prompting a massive security drive. The next days Nice, Villefranche, Eze, Beaulieu and St Jean Cap Ferrat were virtually under siege. Vieux Nice was “zone yellow”, which means that only pedestrians were allowed to be there. The Acropolis area was “zone red”, and you could only get there if you had a special pass.  

Place Garibaldi

 Over 4,000 police and army personnel were drafted in to ensure the summit went off without a hitch.  

Place Garibaldi

 This was Nicolas Sarkozy’s first Africa summit, three years after the French President pledged to “shake up” France’s ties with Africa, and he hoped to convince leaders that France had put an end to its notoriously murky dealings with its ex-colonies and wanted a fresh start. Among those attending were South Africa’s Jacob Zuma, Nigeria’s Goodluck Jonathan and Egypt’s long time autocrat leader Hosni Mubarak.

Place Garibaldi – Police Nationale in the shade

 Although the focus of the summit was on the role of the private sector in Africa, other topics on the agenda included the participation of African countries in international institutions, global warming and the environment, and France’s role in strengthening security in Africa.

Boulevard Jean Jaurès – Police vans instead of buses 

 For residents of the Côte capital it was a case of hunkering down and waiting till the roar of helicopters over-head has died down and the police presence on the streets is back to normal, ie Wednesday.

Station J.C. Bermont – No buses here today and tomorrow

 Among those keeping a close eye on proceedings was Human Rights Watch, a leading independent organisation dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. It called on countries represented in Nice to make a public commitment to independent national and international justice for serious human rights violations.

Gendarmerie with machine guns – Avenue Jean Jaurès

 The France-Africa summit was originally scheduled to be held in Egypt in February, but concerns over the Egyptian government’s invitation to President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan led to it being re-scheduled for end of May in Nice. The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant for Mr Bashir’s arrest in March over atrocities in Darfur, accusations he denies. France said it would carry out the ICC warrant for his arrest, whereas several African nations, including Egypt, have said they would not.

Rue Préfecture – Municipal police in their best uniforms, gendarmerie keeps it simple

 Former foreign minister Hubert Vedrine said he had difficulty believing in Sarkozy’s vision of changed ties with Africa. “It was a good thing that he reviewed our defence accords. That had to be done,” said Vedrine. “But Nicolas Sarkozy has not cleaned up our relationship with Africa.”

Place du Palais de la Justice – fences everywhere

 In marked contrast with Chirac, Sarkozy campaigned for election on a promise to shake up France’s ties with Africa, vowing to chase away “the old demons of paternalism, clientelism and hand-outs.”

To underscore that point, the first African leader invited to the Elysee palace was Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, although she was followed shortly after by Omar Bongo of Gabon, France’s long-time ally.

Place du Palais de la Justice

 On the economic front, Sarkozy wanted to counter claims of French pillaging of resources by developing “win-win” partnerships in Africa.

But the French rights group Survie International charged that Paris still defends its economic interests “at the expense of human rights and democracy” in places like Niger, a prime source of uranium for French nuclear giant Areva.

Rue Préfecture – Some cafes are open, others were forced to close

 French development minister Alain Joyandet said the two-day gathering in Nice would be “the summit of renewal, a sort of launch of a new era.”

Rue Préfecture – Gendarmerie and officials

 The Nice summit coincided with the 50th anniversary of the independence of 14 former colonies that was being celebrated in several countries, but Sarkozy has not attended any of the events.

The Elysee however did invite the leaders of the 14 ex-colonies to Paris as the special guests of the July 14 national day celebrations, and their national armies are to take part in the traditional Bastille Day parade.

Quay des Etats-Unis

 Sarkozy hosted a summit of West African leaders on July 13 at which he delivered a keynote address on the future of Africa-France relations.

It’s 32°C in the shade, and gendarmes are human too, you know…

 In a sign that France was not treating it as a Francophone “family gathering”, President Sarkozy held bilateral talks with the leaders of Nigeria and South Africa – the two heavyweight English-speaking powers on the continent, France’s Le Monde newspaper reported. 

Rue Préfecture – The waiters having a smoke before the banquet starts

Invited by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was expected to attend the summit, too. However, the Gaza flotilla massacre and the UN Security Council needed his attention more.

Security guards. These are the guys that lift Sarkozy up, so he can kiss normal size people

 Some 80 entrepreneurs from France and 150 others from Africa were invited to the summit.

Place du Palais de la Justice – Police cars

 The problems of piracy, terrorism and climate change were also on the agenda.

African countries were demanding a bigger say in the UN Security Council and the G20 forum, so there was some discussion of how that might be achieved.

These guys have a mirror on a stick with them, to be able to look under cars

 Among the issues that were of particular importance to Somalia was France’s pledge to provide three hundred million euros, in the years 2010 – 2012, for the peacekeeping force of the African Union, known as the African Standby Force. France also promised to train 12 thousand peace keeping forces for the African Union. Somalia, as a fragile State struggling to restore stability with the help of the African Union will be the foremost beneficiary of both initiatives.

Palais Sarde – palace of the Kings of Sardinia

 It is “completely abnormal” that no African country has a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council, Sarkozy said, calling for reform of the body in an address to the Africa-France summit in the Riviera city of Nice.

“It is not possible to talk about the great questions of the world without the presence of Africa,” Sarkozy said. “Our destinies are indissolubly linked. …”

“Africa is our future” and will be a principle reservoir for world economic growth in the decades to come, he said.

The Palace seen from Cours Saleya – TV cameras and live satellite connections

 Human Rights Watch commended France for its support of a United Nations inquiry after the massacre of opposition supporters by government security forces in Conakry, Guinea in September 2009, and encouraged France to promote justice similarly elsewhere in Africa where serious human rights violations occur.

“Millions of victims of atrocities in Africa are waiting for justice,” Fardeau said. “France needs to demonstrate the political will to press for accountability by helping African states to hold perpetrators accountable.”

Palais Sarde 

Economic themes will future prominently in five workshops in which Ministers in that domain will participate. The reinforcement of legal frameworks to favour business ventures, the facilitation of access of business enterprises to finances and the role of professional training will be topics of discussion in the economic workshops.

Quay des Etats-Unis – The Revolutionary Band is going to play

 The history of the France-Africa Summit stretches back to November 13, 1973 when at the initiative of the then Niger President, Hamani Diori, the first Summit took place in Paris under the chairmanship of the then French President Georges Pompidou. Cameroon hosted the 21st edition of the France-Africa Summit from January 18 to 20, 2001 in Yaoundé. The theme in Yaoundé had to do with how Africa can cope with globalisation. Over thirty four Heads of State and Government took part in the Yaoundé Summit.

Sorry, invited guests only and bags are checked for guns and cameras

 Human Rights Watch held two news conferences in Nice together with the International Federation of Human Rights, the French Human Rights League (Ligue des Droits de l’Homme) and the Western Africa Human Rights Defenders Network. One yesterday in Hotel Splendid, on Boulevard Victor Hugo, one this morning, in Restaurant 3B, Boulevard Risso.
 

These guys make sure that the cars with officials get through traffic

 On his first visit to sub-Saharan Africa after taking office in 2007, Sarkozy managed to offend African leaders and intellectuals with a speech widely seen as riddled with stereotypes and prejudices.

“The tragedy of Africa is that the African has not fully entered into history,” Sarkozy said in the speech at Dakar university. He argued that Africans had missed out on “progress”.

However: no traffic. The Promenade des Anglais is completely blocked

 Civil liberties groups said that of the 38 African heads of state invited only two could not be accused of human rights violations. 

Drivers of the Cameroun delegation, outside hotel Méditerranée

 “Unless African governments are willing to bring prosecutions for the worst human rights abuses, they will have a hard time achieving political stability and sustainable development,” said Jon Elliott, Africa advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. “Impunity leads to conflict, corruption, and lives stunted by fear and intimidation.”

 Today, 19 February 2011, the 2010 France-Africa Summit in Nice seems to be a joke. In July 2010, and in the 30 years before, our ”democratic” leaders from America, Europe, and Russia didn’t address the issue of autocratic leadership, dictatorship, and other atrocities of their African and Arab allies. However, while the people of Tunesia, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Bahrein, Yemen, Oman, Jordan, Syria, and many other states are determined to establish true democracy in their countries, our Western so-called “democratic” leaders are instrumental in snugging up to the new leaders of Africa and Arabia, which gives dictators like Khadaffi the opportunity to state that the protestors against his regime are “U.S. puppets”, which should be defeated with all means.

The Western world has let the peoples of Africa and the Middle East (except Israel) down for more than thirty years. During the reign of the dictators they didn’t give a shit about democracy; they just wanted “stability”. Please, let the revolutionary movements find their own way in forming a democracy, a secular democracy I hope. The last thing the world needs is another U.S. satellite state, let alone a continent of U.S. satellite states.