Why it is important to improve the lives of those most deprived

Thoughts at the start of an election year Why it is important to improve the lives of those most deprived. 2024 will be an election year and so there will be a focus upon the main political parties as they vie for votes. The approach taken by the Tories will be on immigration and, leading up to the election, tax cuts. Sunak has already declared that he will cut taxes by curbing welfare. Whilst worldwide there are major problems, not least the war in Ukraine and the situation in Palestine. As far as the latter is concerned, action on the streets, demonstrations, marches, vigils, will all continue as long as Israel continues its efforts to destroy life in Gaza. The issue of climate change ought to be paramount given the major weather events with storms, flooding, extremes of hot and cold weather, but it is unlikely that the main parties, with the exception of the Green Party, will make this a priority. So far climate change has not stirred up large masses of people demanding action. Those groups that have taken direct action have had a mixed response. The general population in Britain will give much closer thought to events at home. For large proportions of this population, the working class within the bottom third of the income scale, the ‘cost of living’ will be their main concern. How to cope in order to provide the essentials, food, housing, clothing. But the evidence is that this section of the community is least inclined to take an active part in the democratic process, either by voting or by demonstrating in any way. It is clear that the outgoing Tory Government will seek to build on the fears that people have in this respect by stressing the extent of immigration. Particularly the so called illegal boat people in order to deflect blame from the principles, policies and actions of the Government towards these immigrants as the cause of the suffering of those badly affected by the cost of living crisis. Given this situation, how should we, the left, respond? With regard to internal British matters, concern has been given to defending refugees, tackling racism, opposing transphobia, supporting all groups that have taken strike action whether to restore wage levels or to defend working conditions. All of this has been correct. But all of these can be classified as sectional interests. Although each can be linked to wider communal concerns they can also be considered by those involved to be personal. What is lacking is a direct, coordinated philosophy to bring them all together into a cohesive strategy that brings large sections of the community together to challenge the dominant philosophy that both major parties seem to share. There have been, and are, movements, around Black History, over climate change, against the persecution of the Palestinians, but, as indicated earlier, these movements are not drawing in large sections of the working class. Why is this so? The answer must be because these members of the working class believe themselves to be excluded from political, economic and social life. Such a feeling is not hard to understand if we look at what is happening with regard to health, education, housing, transport. Even shopping for essentials is becoming more difficult as local shopping centres seriously decline, more things are bought online, banks are closing. The need for smart phones becomes ever more important, but large sections of the community cannot afford such a luxury and lack the skills needed to use them even if they did. Sections of the community are being excluded I believe that there is a need to widen our political outlook. Marx said that the emancipation of the people is the work of the working class. Unfortunately the working class is now divided. Whilst large sections, such as nurses, teachers, doctors, are finally realising, what has always been true, that they are part of the working class and have to use the methods that have traditionally been those of the industrial trade unions, namely strike action, in other respects their standards of living are very different to the sections of the working class mentioned earlier. The contrast can be seen between platform staff and ticket office staff on the railways and train drivers; between care workers and doctors. Non of this means that we do not have to fully support those like junior doctors and train drivers, who though earning higher wages are still alienated under capitalism. What I am calling for is a unified class approach to the problems we face. As the report on democracy indicates, all political parties in this country involve and are led by what can be described as ‘middle class’ people. That is, members of the working class who, as a result of their education, choice of profession, or for some other reason, are able to earn more than those other sections mentioned. They have the semblance of job security, own or are able to buy their own home (even if living with the debt of their mortgage), have at least one car for the family, have smartphones and computers, are fully engaged in social life. They are not in danger of needing to use a food bank. In other words they do not experience the deprivation that the bottom third of the income range face. What is true, is that in every sphere of social life, the example of transport is true. The more people that own a private car means that less people use public transport. When most people used public transport the provision of public transport largely met the need. As people turn to their private car, public transport becomes less economical. Run for profit, to make it viable, prices have to go up which those who need to use public transport cannot afford. The result of all these tendencies is that public transport declines. This is what is happening. The same is true of health, the more people that can afford private health, the worse does public health provision become. The more people who use telephone banking, the more banks close. When we talk about private provision, the rights of individuals, there is a danger that we lose sight of the fact that the individual is still part of the community. As we saw under Covid, the essential workers were the low paid, those doing what were seen as menial task, but without which society could not survive. Any action by an individual has effects which go beyond that individual to affect the whole community. This is not moralism; it is a fact that we are all bound up within one human race and we stand and fall together. We cannot stand outside of society, we must each bear our responsibility for the well being of everyone. This brings us back to the statement made earlier, that Sunak is proposing tax cuts at the expense of welfare. In other words the priority of the Government is that the rich should get richer whilst those who have nothing should have even less. This should not surprise us because this is the basis of free enterprise, capitalism. That is the dominant economic system that all our leading politicians support and the one that we seek to replace. The longer term is to overturn capitalism and all its institutions with a worker led, socialist system. In the short term we have to use every means to improve the lives of people and to unite them in a common struggle to achieve these improvements and to go further in seeing that what is needed is revolutionary change. Much of what we have, quite rightly been supporting, as indicated earlier, can be described as lifestyle issues. They are very important. But they are secondary. The basic problem we face is one of class. We can go into the Marxist definition and theories of class exploitation under capitalism, but I believe that our task at this stage of the class struggle is to see that struggle in its wider context. Let us begin with food banks. There are no grounds under which we should accept food banks. The working class has always regarded charity as an offence against the dignity of people. But it is not enough to say “no food banks”, we have to ensure that we have an economic system that removes any need for charity. This means that our principle stand must be for an end to income and wealth inequality. That means no differentials. We have to support and argue for any proposal that is designed to promote common, community provision, such as public transport, a fully integrated health and social care service, fully comprehensive education, an end to all discrimination, in total a very different society than we now have. As indicated above, this is not possible under capitalism. It is only possible under communism. But it is the correct position and we should be arguing for it whilst we support those who are striking for their own pay and working conditions. Is this not what the dialectic is all about? The unity of opposites. A probably more practical argument comes in the policy regarding transport. Here we do have a clear opportunity. Climate change demands an end to the use of fossil fuels for transport. We must challenge the myth that electric cars can replace the present petrol/ diesel cars. There is not enough of the chemicals needed for batteries. Providing a supply of these chemicals is as equally damaging to the environment as fossil fuels and the need for them could well lead to international conflict. The alternative is a fully integrated public transport system. We should be supporting any initiative that moves in this direction. It means that everyone will have equal access to transport, thus moving towards a system of economic equality. We should also be pressing for scientific and technological research to add to the knowledge that we already possess to create a system of transport that gives everyone the freedom that those who now have a car enjoy. I could go on with further examples but what I believe we need to do is to look at things differently. Without losing sight of specific groups, we should turn our eyes to those who, at present, are least able to enjoy the benefits of society. These are the ones who most clearly demonstrate the meaning of capitalism, the alienation and all the other aspects. We should ask what needs to be done to improve their lives. This, as I have indicated, affects all aspects of society. This will mean sacrifice for some who are able to enjoy advantages but that is part of our socialist philosophy. We all must work for the benefit of all. We cannot change society, either by reform or revolution, with a minority of the members of society. It is the working class as a whole who can revolutionise society. We have therefore to motivate all sections of the class to see that a better world is possible and that to achieve that better world they have to want it and be prepared to act for it. We have to move from our ‘oppositional’ viewpoint of always seeming to be against things to adopt a position of being 'for things'. We are against racism, we believe in sexual and gender freedoms, but we need to go further and fight for a society in which there is economic, social and political justice. We need to show the deprived bottom third that we are fighting for them but need their support. Initially we must fight for reforms, however small, but always with the view that winning reforms is only the first step and that reforms are not enough. Capitalism and all its structures must go. We have to find a way of working with all other groups who want the same things as we do, even if they seek them in different ways. We cannot afford to keep attacking other left groups, such as members of the Labour Party and those that support them, as the enemy. We need to work with them on the things with which we agree whilst seeking to explain why the reforms we are working with them to achieve are not enough and that we need to go further. The old phrase “the working class united will never be defeated “ is still true. But we have to find a way to work together as a class, each making our own contribution without compromising our fundamental belief in the ultimate aim of a truly socialist society.