Solve the public sector pensions shortfall by...

Raise the retirement age
0% (0 votes)
Print money
25% (1 vote)
Raise taxation
50% (2 votes)
Cut costs / jobs
0% (0 votes)
Close the schemes
0% (0 votes)
All of the above
0% (0 votes)
Other (please state)
25% (1 vote)
Total votes: 4

Posted By

Lazy Riser
Mar 9 2006 21:20

Tags

Share

Attached files

Comments

Lazy Riser
Mar 9 2006 21:20

Hi

Come on then. How do you propose we solve the public sector pensions shortfall?

Love

LR

Steven.
Mar 9 2006 21:25

I'm not the government, I'm a worker, so how comes there's no working class option?

From my POV, I'd say organise with our fellow workers to defend and extend pensions, fight for wage increases + shorter hours. If successful that will break the economy, of course. That's not relevant for us.

JDMF
Mar 9 2006 21:58
Tommy Ascaso wrote:
I think people should only get pensions if they have a kid (i.e. a couple would need 2 kids to qualify). grin

yeah because there certainly isn't enough breeding going on in this country grin

Lazy Riser
Mar 9 2006 22:18

Hi

Quote:
organise with our fellow workers to defend and extend pensions, fight for wage increases + shorter hours. If successful that will break the economy, of course. That's not relevant for us.

Having a broken economy is very relevant for me. Where will the money to extend pensions, wage increases and shorten hours come from? Do you expect the Old Lady of Threadneedle street to reduce interest rates as reward for your protest? How will you stop inflation from neutralising your “increases”?

Love

LR

Lazy Riser
Mar 9 2006 22:28

Hi

Quote:
the econcomy is always broken for the working class

Alright, you've got me. So there's no solution to the public sector pensions crisis within capitalism, is that what you're trying to say?

Love

LR

Steven.
Mar 9 2006 23:08
revol68 wrote:
no, what i'm saying there is no solution that will favour the working class outside without the influence of working class struggle.

It is not our place to be inventing best case scenarios from the perspective of capital nor backing divisive solutions.

Exactly.

Breaking the economy is an important part of the working class project. If we want the full value of our labour anyhow.

jef costello
Mar 9 2006 23:12

secret option: revolution

who gives a fuck, I may be lower middle class but I'll be alright within capitalism, if I don't top myself out of boredom.

Barry Kade
Mar 9 2006 23:19

Er...there has never been more millionares than now here in Britain. Furthermore, the amount of billionares has soared even more dramatically. So, err, is ' Defend Pensions - Tax the Rich' too old fashioned a slogan for you?

Of course, the main thing that has changed is the increased global mobility of capital, so organising the working class around such a national-reformist programme has less of a credible purchase than it did before. But then were we ever national-reformists?

But the startling fact is that capitalism will no longer guarentee workers a decent retirement. The majority of the working class now face being worked untill they drop dead - this marks a massive change.

The fact also is that most workers want, and may even yet fight for a decent pension and retirement age. And they might even see it as realistic to abolish the millionaires and billionaires to pay for it. Then there are also some additional factors, like the billions they see being wasted on the current unprecendentedly unpopular wave of colonial wars, etc.

Now, if the workers fought around this programme, they may (or may not) find it takes them beyond the limits of capitalism. Oh dear! So we have a credible mass working class demand that could become a transitional (or anti-capitalist) demand. Boo hoo. Thats what being a communist is all about. Hence this website, perhaps?

Lazy Riser
Mar 10 2006 00:34

Hi

Quote:
It is not our place to be inventing best case scenarios from the perspective of capital nor backing divisive solutions.

Well I suppose it may be ill advised, but it’s hardly a question of accepting restrictions on invention. Do you refuse to proffer a solution beyond mere “struggle”?

Quote:
Breaking the economy is an important part of the working class project. If we want the full value of our labour anyhow.

Alright. Like I say, you've got me.

Quote:
is ' Defend Pensions - Tax the Rich' too old fashioned a slogan for you?

If you feel that strongly about it, vote “Raise taxation” above. I reckon that’s more likely to be used to bail out private sector pension funds and can’t be expected to finance the lavish final salary pensions of civil servants and the like.

Love

LR

Barry Kade
Mar 10 2006 01:05

I didn't vote 'raise taxation' because its not specific enough. Raise taxation on whom? Most tax increases hit the working class. The lib dems argued for such a rise in general taxation (at least they did bfore their rightward shift).

No, I specificly said 'Tax the Rich' and then pointed who I meant by 'the rich'. Not yer ' lower middle classes', but 'the rich'. Those on more than 100K, yes, sure. But more than that. Really, there are some vast accumulations of wealth happening on an unprecedented scale today. Thats what needs exposing.

'Raise taxation' is not a class demand. 'Tax the rich' is.

Steven.
Mar 10 2006 01:38
Barry Kade wrote:
No, I specificly said 'Tax the Rich' and then pointed who I meant by 'the rich'. Not yer ' lower middle classes', but 'the rich'. Those on more than 100K, yes, sure. But more than that. Really, there are some vast accumulations of wealth happening on an unprecedented scale today. Thats what needs exposing.

'Raise taxation' is not a class demand. 'Tax the rich' is.

But again you're caught in the trap of trying to manage capital in the interests of workers, this just can't be done. If some lefty government tried to do that there'd be capital flight - like when Labour tried to nationalise the shipyards.

Supporting left-wing state measures like means you're supporting fucking up the economy, capital flight, job losses and the rest.

I would offer no other solution than struggle.

Barry Kade
Mar 10 2006 02:21

Yes, thats what I just said about three posts ago!

To Quote myself:

Quote:

....[ blah blah]... "global mobility of capital, so organising the working class around such a national-reformist programme has less of a credible purchase than it did before. But then were we ever national-reformists?"

Yes, your right, John, the key thing is to organise struggle from below, not to try to pose solutions for managing the capitalist economy or nation state from above.

However, how are the mass of workers, in their present state of class consciousness and organisation, going to enter this struggle? With their eyes set on the prize of total revolution? Then why even bother talk of pensions? No, if they fight at all, they will probably start to struggle around issues such as the defence of pensions and the current retiremment age. And they are more likely to start this fight if they can see that the rich are growing immesurably, fantastically richer by the year. Then they can see a credible target, where the money can come from. Is this realisable within capitalism? Not necessarily so. Thats why I wrote:

Quote:
Now, if the workers fought around this programme, they may (or may not) find it takes them beyond the limits of capitalism. Oh dear! So we have a credible mass working class demand that could become a transitional (or anti-capitalist) demand.

Here we tread that elusive ground between the concrete moment now and the as yet unrealised future. The real, living actual working class, formed within capitalism, reaching beyond it.

So my main point is this: 'Tax the Rich' is not a programme for the management of capitalism, it is a programme for taking the class struggle beyond capitalism. It need not be realistic for the capitalist class to implement, but it must be realistic for the working class to fight for!

Steven.
Mar 10 2006 02:31
Barry Kade wrote:
Yes, thats what I just said about three posts ago!

To Quote myself:

Quote:

....[ blah blah]... "global mobility of capital, so organising the working class around such a national-reformist programme has less of a credible purchase than it did before. But then were we ever national-reformists?"

Yes, your right, John, the key thing is to organise struggle from below, not to try to pose solutions for managing the capitalist economy or nation state from above.

However, how are the mass of workers, in their present state of class consciousness and organisation, going to enter this struggle? With their eyes set on the prize of total revolution? Then why even bother talk of pensions? No, if they fight at all, they will probably start to struggle around issues such as the defence of pensions and the current retiremment age. And they are more likely to start this fight if they can see that the rich are growing immesurably, fantastically richer by the year. Then they can see a credible target, where the money can come from. Is this realisable within capitalism? Not necessarily so. Thats why I wrote:

Quote:
Now, if the workers fought around this programme, they may (or may not) find it takes them beyond the limits of capitalism. Oh dear! So we have a credible mass working class demand that could become a transitional (or anti-capitalist) demand.

Here we tread that elusive ground between the concrete moment now and the as yet unrealised future. The real, living actual working class, formed within capitalism, reaching beyond it.

So my main point is this: 'Tax the Rich' is not a programme for the management of capitalism, it is a programme for taking the class struggle beyond capitalism. It need not be realistic for the capitalist class to implement, but it must be realistic for the working class to fight for!

I think your post starts well, but then there's a leftie ideological schism between the beginning and end. Fair enough - organise to defend our current standing, and eventually demand and fight for more resources. But I don't think it's for us to decide for the managers of capital where to find them. Top-down demands I think are counter-productive, for the reasons I outlined. I don't see why "taxing the rich" is anything better to fight for than just a general reduction in the rate of exploitation (i.e. by winning wage/financial demands from employers private or public).

Ditto, why demand the rich be taxed, rather than say demand massively reduce arms/prison/PFI spending? I just think it's not our job.

Barry Kade
Mar 10 2006 02:32

P.S.

Anyone read 'Banking on Death' by Robin Blackburn? Those here who seem to be looking for realistic lefty solutions to the pension crisis that dont necessarily break the limits of capitalism might like it.