PUTNEY DEBATER
A personal blog
Capitalism And The Importance of Lying
The experience of Wikileaks has shown what has long since been known, but rarely discussed. Capitalism depends upon systematic lying. Over recent weeks we have had a succession of politicians and State bureaucrats from all the Capitalist states appear on TV, and tell us how terrible it is that their duplicity has been exposed. Of course, they have been forced to admit they have to be free to lie their heads off, both to other Capitalists and to their own people, if Capitalism is to operate smoothly. They don’t even now try to dress it up by claiming that Wikileaks exposures have been a threat to the lives of troops and agents, because that too was exposed as a lie, and also only highlighted the fact that those soldiers and agents were mostly at risk, because they had been sent by their Governments to do nasty things in other people’s countries!
But, the last week has seen that Wikileaks has now set a trend. The Daily Telegraph, no doubt emboldened by its success in building circulation from its MP’s Expenses exposes of the last year, has engaged in its own covert operations to bring into broad daylight the true views of Liberal and Tory Ministers. We find a whole series of duplicitous relations with Liberal Ministers telling us that they do not trust David Cameron and so on. The Liberals, who anyone who has been involved in politics knows have built their whole base by saying one thing to one person and something different to the next, again see nothing wrong in this. Of course, they say, we are two different parties with different policies, and different views. But, we are in a Coalition. Well, of course, that is fine, but why then do they tell us that these undercover operations have damaged the kind of relation they can have with their constituents? They say they will no longer be confident to speak openly to them, but why? If as they say they are two separate parties, and that they have different views to the Tories, should they not then feel free to vent their true views, even where they differ from the Government line, wherever, and to whoever they are speaking? Apparently, not. As usual they want it both ways. Of course, that is not surprising, because the kind of shambles that results from that was seen over the Tuition Fees, when Vince Cable found himself in the invidious position of being a Liberal Minister responsible for introducing a piece of legislation that he and his Party only months before had given a solemn pledge to oppose!!! He then found himself in the ridiculous position of considering abstaining on the vote on the legislation that he was himself recommending to Parliament!!! No wonder they find it much easier to simply lie about their real views.
But, its not just in the political arena that Capitalism relies on lying, or at least being economical with the truth. It is in reality the fundamental basis of the multi-billion pound advertising industry. And as one right-wing ideologist, Nicholas Taleb, has stated,
“Karl Marx, a visionary, figured out that you can control a slave much better by convincing him he is an employee.”
The whole basis of Capitalist exploitation, as Taleb admits here, is premised on convincing workers that their actual economic and social position is something completely different to what it actually is, and a huge State apparatus, including all of the Welfare State, is designed to imbue workers with precisely that ideology, and to shape them as a continuous supply of suitable Labour Power to meet the needs of Capital. In fact, the Capitalist State is a lie in itself – a lie that large sections of the Left have for the last 100 years or so helped perpetuate. It is portrayed as being some kind of neutral body, there to protect the nation from foreign threats, to protect all of its citizens from a range of dangers be it crime, or disease and ill-health, or unemployment or poverty. But, of course, it is nothing of the sort. Its function is to ensure the reproduction of labour power for Capital, and to protect the class interests of the ruling-class, of which the former is the prime need.
The early forms of Capitalism, more properly Mercantlism were premised on a lie of the most blatant kind. Merchant Capital makes its Profit – what Marx, following earlier Economists like Steuart calls Profit on Alienation – through buying low and selling high; what is known in the parlance as arbitrage. By its nature this means paying the seller less for a commodity than its value, and selling to a buyer a commodity for more than its value. The Merchant themselves adds no value in this process whatsoever. They are in the strictest sense mere parasites, which is why in previous centuries they were so despised, as in Shakespeare’s “Merchant of Venice”, or as Marx sets out in quoting from the works of Martin Luther, who described how they were viewed as worse than highway robbers. The bigger the lie – that is the better able the merchant to convince the seller that his product was of low value, and to convince the buyer that it was of high value – the bigger the profit he made, even though, in many cases, as in the Mediterranean City States, this actually led not just to the impoverishment of the actual producers, but the destruction of productive potential, and consequently the whole basis of making real profits, and creating real wealth.
We see the same thing today in the utterances of those such as Estate Agents, Mortgage Brokers, and Mortgage Lenders who not only were prepared to accept a lie themselves in order to lend to people who had little chance of paying them back, but who are always prepared to put a gloss on any situation in order to convince potential buyers and borrowers that house prices will continue to rise. The other day, I presented the chart below produced by Bloomberg from data collected by HBOS in its Consumer Confidence and House Price Indices.
Yet listen to any of the commentators on the news programmes, or Business TV, and few will actually indicate that house prices are way too high, or that the indications are for a major fall. Even as they begin to collapse these commentators continue to talk about a modest fall of around 5% over the coming year – even though they fell by nearly that much in the last month alone! But, like the politicians and diplomats, of course, they believe that they should be free to garnish the truth, because the system depends upon it. A collapse in house prices now, would put a huge dent in confidence, and undermine the Government, and likely send the economy itself into a tailspin. Much better to continue to lie through your teeth, and if all those ordinary punters who believed you lose a packet, well, tough luck, at least the system was kept rolling for a while longer.
One of the best examples of this is Gold. After WWII, when the Bretton Woods Agreement was established, which made the dollar the world’s reserve currency and set up the IMF, the official price of Gold was fixed at $30 an ounce. Despite the fact that the US printed lots and lots of dollar bills to pay for its wars in Vietnam and elsewhere, and to pay its overseas debts, as during the 1970’s it began to import more than it could export, and despite the fact, that the costs of discovering and mining Gold, continued to rise, as the small amounts of it in the Earth’s crust, became smaller with each year, the price of Gold remained fixed at that 1947 price of $30. It was of course, just an official lie. Increasingly, the lie could only be maintained by denying reality via legal rules. When Charles deGaulle began to insist that France be paid in Gold rather than dollars, the US declared that the dollar would no longer be convertible into Gold, and the US Government made it illegal for US citizens themselves to hold Gold. But, the truth was out there, and despite all of the attempts to maintain the lie via legal sanction, it broke through. Despite the official price for Gold being $30 an ounce, when it began to be traded on world markets as a result of a global currency crisis in the 1970’s, its actual price soared to $800 an ounce.
During the late 80’s and 90’s, when the US was able to restore its position, and to once again impose the dollar as the world’s currency, Gold once again fell out of favour. Because Gold cannot be destroyed, and, therefore, every ounce ever mined continues to exist, and because it has little application in industry, only being used for jewellery, the price of Gold fell back to a low of $250 an ounce in 1999. It was not alone, the prices of other raw materials like Oil, also fell during the period, which has been the case during every other Long Wave downturn. But, after 1999, when the Long Wave boom began, the prices of these primary products began to rise sharply as years of underinvestment caused by low prices and profits, meant that new supply could not be rapidly, and certainly not cheaply brought on stream. Gold began to rise along with them, and increasingly, as it was seen that the US, in particular, had been paying its way by continuing to print more paper dollars, which in themselves were worthless, Gold once more began to attract the attention of those who saw the need to have a store of value in a real money commodity. But, the whole global Capitalist system depends at the present time on the dollar continuing to fulfill its function as world money. Moreover, the basis of Capital flows, of lending from surplus countries to debtor countries is also premised on the purchase of interest bearing Government Bonds. Around the globe, huge sums of value were tied up in these Government Bonds, held by Banks, Financial Institutions, Sovereign Wealth Funds, and Pension Funds. The consequence of a sharp rise in the price of Gold was clear. Money would flood away from paper dollars and into real money, and more importantly it would flood out of those Government Bonds – many of them dollar denominated Bonds – decimating their value, and decimating the Balance Sheets of all those Banks and other Financial Institutions that held them. It would make the Credit Crunch look like a picnic.
From around 2000, then the Authorities began to manage the rise in the price of Gold. When prices rose to quickly, Central Banks, and the IMF, who hold thousands of tonnes of Gold, began to sell it into the market, driving down its price. Gordon Brown was heavily criticised for selling large amounts of Britain’s Gold, but the reality is that this sale was part of this globally co-ordinated policy. Yet, despite that global drive to limit the rise in the Gold Price its price has continued to rise. From the low of $250 an ounce in 1999 it has risen to over $1430 an ounce. In fact, its price has risen so much that it has created a new business with first companies advertising on TV for people to send them their Gold, and as the profits from cheating people out of its true value were significant, the establishment in every town centre of several shops similarly encouraging people to give away real money in return for scraps of paper. Yet, despite the fact that these businesses have conned large numbers of people out of their money, and melted it down into bullion, the price of Gold continues to rise. Most Gold traders expect it to reach a short term high in the next few months of around $1650 an ounce. Many believe that its longer term price will rise to anything between $3,000 to $7,500 an ounce.
Certainly, China seems to believe that its price is rising inexorably. But as this article describes, even here the importance of lying is brought out again. The Chinese official figures for its Gold Reserves stand at just over 1,000 tonnes, but its thought the real figure is higher than this. Concerned that the dollar is falling in value, and needing at some point to break the peg of the Yuan to the dollar, China is in a Catch 22 situation. Sitting on trillions of dollars in its reserves, and holding trillions of dollars of US Bonds, a fall in the rate of the dollar to the Yuan, would mean that China would make a huge Capital loss. But, selling those dollars would be guaranteed to spark a run on the dollar, and bring precisely that situation about. China has been diversifying its reserves into Euros to try to avoid that problem, and has assisted in the problems the Eurozone has faced from the Credit Crunch by buying Eurozone debt. But, as this CNBC article suggests, China is losing patience with the Eurozone’s ability to resolve its problems, and as this other Report suggests the debt ratings agencies are themselves now concerned that the European austerity measures are sending their economies into a renewed recession, and creating the very conditions under which debts and deficits will be impossible to deal with, and where then the chance of defaults will rise. A similar view that the UK’s austerity measures will drive the UK into recession next year was also expressed by Bank of England Executive Director For Markets Paul Fisher, who also sits on the MPC.
But, as the Goldsilver.com article suggests, China is having to lie about its actual Gold purchases in order not to cause a massive increase in its global price. Its little wonder that crises emerge within such a system, and that the leading participants within it, are also led to say after the event – “No one saw this coming.” One wonders whether they are able to even know the difference between the real truth and the truth they have to convey to the world.
http://boffyblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/capitalism-and-importance-of-lying.html
Confidential occupations document – april 2009
confidential occupations document – april 2009
The following leaked document had disappeared from the public domain due to the website which it was previously hosted on going down. It is a briefing for heads of university administrations on dealing with student occupations. It may assist activists in gaining some idea of the perspective of senior university officials on occupations – although some of the material is more specifically about occupations around Palestinian issue.
Sign at the occupied Middlesex Philosophy Department, 2010
Original introductory note by an ‘Education Not for Sale’ activist
What follows is a briefing published by university administrators concerning student occupations . It outlines some of the tactics used by university authorities to deal with student protest, specifically occupations. It is not clear exactly who wrote the briefing, or who received it, but since it is addressed to members of the Association for Heads of University Administration (AHUA), we can reasonably assume that it has been received by a number of vice chancellors and others in positions of authority around the country.
It was decided to publish this document at and Education Not For Sale open steering meeting on September 20th. There were no objections from the activists present.
A few activists have a hard copy of the document, and I have typed up exactly what is written on the actual document in our possession. What follows is my typed copy.
CONFIDENTIAL
Student Occupations: a briefing note for members of AHUA, April 2009
Background
Following the Israeli attack on Gaza, which commenced in December 2008, there has been a spate of student occupations throughout the UK and indeed other countries. About 30 UK HEIs experienced occupations during the first three months of 2009. This wave of student protest has a number of important characteristics and this briefing note has been prepared to inform members of AHUA.
Form of Protest
The occupations have been undertaken by a relatively small core of students expressing concern about the situation in Gaza, usually under the title ‘Gaza (or Palestine) Solidarity Campaign’ or similar. Although the form of the protests has varied, there are a number of general characteristics. Normally the occupation takes place in a lecture theatre or similar open area rather than in the administration building or library. The students have called on individual universities to take action in support of the people of Gaza (scholarships for Palestinian students, educational materials to be sent to Gaza). Sometimes there has been a link to the issue of investments by UK universities that manufacture military products and a call to support an ethical investment policy.
The students bring with them mobile phones and laptops. The link to the internet and the ability to publicise via blogs or Facebook is probably the single most important development compared to previous student direct action. The publicity generated and the mutual support offered via the web has been critical in spreading the protest around the country. For this reason, the actions taken by individual institutions in response to the occupations have consequences for others, with protestors using alleged examples of where their demands have been met to encourage action elsewhere.
Most of the actions does not appear to have been organised via any official students’ union route. Indeed, the National Union of Students in mid February called for the wave of protests to end because the level of disruption had reached unacceptable levels.
Political activists, who may or may not be current students, have played a part in organising the occupations. The Socialist Worker Party and other ‘hard left’ publications or posters have been displayed prominently. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to dismiss the spate of occupations as merely the work of activists. The students involved seem, in the main, to express genuine concern about the issues raised, even if the mode of expressing concern is disruptive.
There is a great deal of material now available on the web, for example:
http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php?option=com_newsfeeds&catid=84&itemid=230
http://communiststudents.org.uk/tag/student-occupation/
The lengths of the occupations have varied, depending on part whether the occupiers believe some or all of their demands have been met. In most cases the occupations have been peaceful, and relatively small scale. However, in a small number of cases they have caused severe problems.
Legal position on trespass
Our legal sponsors, Martineau, have prepared a note on the legal issues on trident occupations which is attached.
The legal position on trespass is complex and the following brief summary should not be regarded as a substitute for professional legal opinion. Further, the law on trespass in Scotland differs significantly from elsewhere in the UK.
In English law, trespass is a civil tort and is not normally an offence under criminal law. Students normally can enter lecture theatres or similar spaces and the university has to inform the protestors that it regards the occupation as a trespass. It is possible to seek a High Court injunction and claim for possession but the process is expensive and could reasonably be expected to take a couple of days. Under common law, a landowner (and for the avoidance of doubt, buildings are land) can physically evict a trespasser who refuses to leave provided that no more force than is reasonably required is used. In at least one case this was the action taken by an HEI to end the occupation. It is would be [sic] sensible to adopt this action only with the support of the local police who could be invited to witness the eviction. There are occasions when trespass might become aggravated trespass and the police could remove the protestors. This could occur in the event of criminal damage or if there is a threat of violence.
Difficult Issues
Regardless of the cause of the protest, HEIs will wish to minimise the disruption. Dealing with the occupation is likely to be time consuming and put particular strain on the campus security team.
Any issue relating to the Middle East is likely to raise the concerns of Jewish students and there has been a reported rise in hate crimes against the Jewish community over the past few months. The protestors have tried to make clear that they are not raising religious or race issues but the relationships are complex and not easily separated. Representatives of the Jewish community have urged individual universities not to concede to some of the demands made by protestors. Other students too have expressed frustration at the disruption caused by a very small minority, especially when there are suspicions that non-students are involved. The Universities UK media release on the situation in Gaza is a useful starting point for any university that would wish to make a public statement. It is available at:
http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/newsroom/media-releases/pages/gazastatement.aspx
However, even this has raised concerns from members of the Jewish community, specifically on the grounds of accuracy relating to the deaths in educational establishments.
Options for dealing with an occupation
- Refuse to negotiate and require those occupying to leave. This could be enforced by legal action. This option has the advantage of ensuring the university does not appear to concede to direct action. It assumes that the protest will peter out. However, it can result in the occupation becoming drawn out. A local judgement is required on the strength of the protest. It is possible to use the threat of internal disciplinary action against students. Most HEIs will have, as part of their disciplinary procedures, an offence relating to disrupting the normal work of the university or something similar. However, threat of legal or disciplinary action would be time consuming and difficult. It might not be easy to identify the students involved, who probably would not be keen to co-operate in such a process.
- Negotiate a settlement. Most universities appear to have been willing to talk to the protesters, issue a statement about the situation in Gaza and take some limited further steps. This has helped to bring individual occupations to an end relatively quickly but not before the protestors have had time to publicise their cause. Indeed, the publicity means that it is unlikely that any occupation will be ended within a brief period of time even if the university is willing to negotiate in good faith. In some cases, it appears that the original organisational energy is not sustained post occupation and the follow up actions are not pursued as rigorously by the students.
- Refuse to negotiate whilst the occupation is going on but express willingness to enter into negotiations after the direct action has ended. This course of action runs the risk of falling between stools. It is difficult to maintain the line of no negotiation whilst the occupation is in progress and some form of talks about talks are probably inevitable. Nevertheless, it does hold out the prospect of ending the occupation relatively quickly whilst preserving the HEI’s position of not conceding to the occupation itself. This, though, is a fine distinction.
Consideration should be given to the potential role of the students’ union in resolving the dispute. In some cases the officers have been rather distant, aware of their obligation to represent the broad community of students, but in others the officers have been involved as helpful intermediaries.
One important issue to consider is the access to the area being occupied. In some cases, the students concerned made clear that they would be willing to allow lectures to continue in the same room. They probably regard this as a way of minimising the threat of legal or disciplinary action. Consideration needs to be given early on to the policy the HEI will adopt on access to the area. If it allows free access, there is a risk that the occupation will lengthen, more people could join and it allows the protestors to rotate. The alternative is an attempt to control access. This raises allegations of heavy handedness by the institution. A particular issue is whether or not to allow further supplies of food into the building. Again, refusal to do so runs the risk of publicity being generated about the institution attempting to ‘starve’ the students out. It is important for the HEI to emphasise the priority of health and safety issues. Obviously, access to toilet facilities and an attempt to maintain reasonable conditions should be a priority both for the protestors and for the HEI.
Nutters on the web
It’s a curious business. You’ve got these two nutters. One of them, let’s call him Rajiv, has culled some emails from a discussion list from which he’s been excluded for assorted ravings, and sends out plaintive missives couched in terms of eastern philosophy which no-one can understand. The second nutter, we’ll him Jack, receives one of his messages, and knowing something about eastern philosophy, takes it seriously and replies. One or two others complain to the discussion list which they mistake it as coming from, to which Nutter No.2 responds in terms that people on the list find pretty offensive (and it’s not the first time his interventions on this list have caused unhappiness either).
Seems to me this incident should be understood symptomatically. Read more


