TRUTH OR CREATED TRUTH

We must learn to question the OFFICIAL VERSION OF EVERYTHING -- regardless of whether it is an "irrefutable historical fact", or whether it is written in the scripture or any religion, or whether it is spoken by a "great man", or whether it is a view upheld by famous editors and television anchors. Everything must be held up to the clear light of reason, and examined dispassionately.
In every situation of life, very powerful and influential people want you and me to believe in their version of the truth, and to refrain from ever questioning it. The version of truth that they so authoritatively speak is a manufactured truth, an "artificial truth". Usually, what leaders speak -- including religious leaders and leaders of communities -- is a partisan truth, a truth that suits their personal agendas and the agendas of their followers. There is always much that they don't want you to think about.
Such people often manufacture and own popular icons, as if they are trademarks. Such icons are held to be unquestionable -- for instance, mythical or historical figures like "Chhatrapati" Shivaji, "Babasaheb" Ambedkar, "Mahatma" Gandhi, "Shahid" Bhagatsingh, and "Prophet" Mohammad who were leaders in their times, but are now elevated to the status of unquestionable demigods. Such icons are foisted on the gullible public by people who seek unquestioned power, glory and wealth. Questioning their godly status may lead to violence or boycott.
It is our fundamental duty to question the people who foist these icons upon us and hide behind these icons. It is our duty to resist such efforts to control our behaviour and our mind. And it is our duty to refuse to be cowed down by violence -- physical or otherwise -- that is perpetrated if such historical characters are "insulted". Remember, dead persons cannot be insulted; they are dead and gone, and the works that they did -- whether great or otherwise -- is now part of our history.
We owe no debts to those who are dead and gone, irrespective of whether they were great or otherwise. If anything, we owe a debt to the weak, the meek and gullible, the indoctrinated and the oppressed who are still alive among us. We owe it to them, and to ourselves, to stand up against psychological and social bullying, and dare to understand the whole truth

THE END BEGINS

I have arrived at last to the end of this, my life. My choice...self-termination. I hardly feel responsible for
or entitled to these last words. Like, theoretically, I do not have a say. Nothing matters.
And, why write anything? For you? For me? Why, it signifies nothing, at last, because I can?
I have discovered that many people strongly oppose suicide. I do not understand that.
It is too subjective, too personal, for anyone else to judge. You might experience moments, even days of
depression & despair but have you experienced it chronically like a disease that overcomes your
being? Despair disarms you. Without Hope, there is no fight for survival.
When we are young, we wish to obtain or maintain certain qualities as we grow old. I had always hoped that age would not make me bitter, as I had seen in others.
But, how do you prevent it? An individual needs the care of others in order to offset the damage from the constant
onslaught of humanity. Not just injury to oneself but from the hatred by which humanity destroys itself.
The perpetual war, the indifference to the suffering of innocents, the complacent acceptance of unjust governments...
I could try to say that what others think of me does not or should not matter but that is not true.
I have suffered judgement. I have always wanted to see myself in the eyes of others...wanted you to admire me.
I know many of my shortcomings & my strengths. But sometimes, what I acknowledge as a strength, others see as
an annoying flaw. Like, being opinionated. I need to draw upon my intellect & courage to express myself.
It is that important to me. Yet, you do not want it, though I continue to give it, at the risk of your animosity.
I have always felt unreasonably too emotional & burdened with a sense of wrongness. The brutish inculcation
of religious & biblical hypocrisy in my childhood began to break my too-fragile being & destroy my self esteem.
Addiction took what was wrong & made it worse. It overwhelms me; owns me. Its enslavement is unbearable.
I have always felt 'unpopular' & that has saddened & disturbed me. There have been times when I enjoyed the
friendships of the right amount of the right people. Friendship meant everything to me.
Now, I have few friends. I resent the betrayal of old friends who no longer bother with me. It hurts tremendously.
For some, love might be 'unconditional' but not in my life.
I am full of mistakes. I am interesting & loyal but filled with contradictions, bossy yet insecure, shy but overly garrulous,
warm yet distant. I am too honest. I am like a wound that repulses you yet draws you. A loser with wonderful talent.
If I believed that things would get better I would continue the struggle but I cannot perceive this. It is ugly & unfair.
Many of you have been kind & good to me. This final action may not be the way to express it but you have my gratitude.
Your kindness cannot repair me...too badly broken, weak & afraid of a future that is more & more pain, relapse, loss,
anxiety, desperation...
Ironically, this is for once an action of amour propre. It is not bad or wrong. The breath of all my years is more ephemeral & of no more consequence than the fluttering of the mayfly's wing in a sandstorm. It is weird. Finally I do not feel the insidious self-loathing I have battled for more than 50 years. I acknowledge the beauty in me & I can no longer suffer.
We endure so much. Though it may seem I have all I need & more to continue with a fine life, I am too damaged, frail & afraid.
Furthermore, the world around me is so finally broken. Instead of encouraging the people who could fix it leave to do so,
humanity blindly & ignorantly continues to invest in these ugly, hopeless, damaged & damaging structures,
like privatization, to guide & support our society. To billion dollar corporations, all foremost seeking profit, we give our children, our well-being & the responsibility in turn to care about & for ourselves & our Earth...as if they can & will
transcend the glaring conflict of interest. Capital interests do not coincide or concur with humanitarian interests.
Believing that they do renders us dangerously vulnerable. At the point they conflict & diverge, capital trumps, humanity loses. People should invest in a government that invests only in people & our Earth. We are dead wrong to confuse corporations with people.
Mother, this is what you have prayed to your Lord for. You must accept that this is how your God answered your prayers.
It is his will.
Angry boy in a rage
Broken man in a cage
Little mind spin around
Little mind settle down
Grab a limb, you can not swim
All the colors are there
With the crooked part in your hair
Day or night it does not matter
Light or dark the timeless chatter
Poke your skin, the end begins.

IMPERIALIST BACKED MULTINATIONALS INTENTIONS

Multinationals backed by the US imperialist government seek to subject the world to their diktat
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

Negotiations are under way, behind closed and sealed doors, for the finalisation of two international Treaties on trade, both of them involving the US, but with different prospective trade 'partners'. The TPP is the largest-ever economic treaty, encompassing 12 nations (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam).representing more than 40 per cent of the world's GDP. If it as well as the TTIP are successfully concluded they will encompass over 60% of world GDP. Both include the US, and both exclude the US's powerful economic rivals in the up-and-coming BRICS countries.
Insufficiency of the WTO from the point of view of imperialism
The aim of these Treaties will be to dismantle all barriers to trade between the countries involved to a far greater extent than has been possible through the World Trade Organisation, where negotiations have completely stalled, largely because of the insistence of some imperialist countries on retaining measures to protect their agriculture, but also because of differences on whether or not the "Singapore issues", namely investment, competition, transparency in government procurement and trade facilitation, should be within the remit of the WTO. Most third world countries oppose their inclusion, or at very least worry about the way they would impinge on their sovereignty.
The effective collapse of the Doha round of negotiations in Seattle in 1999 spurred US imperialism to look for 'bilateral' agreements to promote the interests of its multinational monopolies in order to further their agenda of removing all government power to protect all or any class of its citizens against the ravages of free trade. The kind of thing that the multinationals consider unacceptable, for instance, was illustrated by the struggle that took place last December in Bali in reaching a partial agreement in the context of trying to revive the Doha round of WTO negotiations. No really controversial issue was comprised in the agreement reached, which was mainly about streamlining customs and removing tariffs. However, the meeting nearly failed because India refused to abandon its practice of buying up food stocks in order to regulate market prices for the benefit of its millions of poor. Only by granting India an exemption was it possible to reach agreement. The attitude of the multinationals is that with enhanced trade, millions of jobs will be created and there won't be any poor people any more.
Only statistical swindling reduces poverty under capitalism
Well, the World Trade Organisation has already reached many, many agreements to enhance trade, but this does not seem to have had any impact on world poverty. Even the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, which revised its methodology so as to show a trend of falling world poverty (see Lappé et al, 'How we count hunger matters'; Ethical and International Affairs 27, 2013, no.3, p.251), has to admit that in terms of numbers, the hungry keep increasing in many parts of the world. The FAO is able, for instance, to reduce the number of people suffering hunger by redefining a hungry person as one who does not receive sufficient calories to support a sedentary life style (which requires fewer calories), whereas before what they considered relevant was the calories to support a normal lifestyle, and also by leaving out of account people whose suffer hunger for periods of less than a year! A word of advice to the multinationals in whose interests these statistics are manipulated - poverty could be eliminated altogether by reducing its definition to those who never get anything to eat at all and are thus afflicted for over a year!!!!
The TTIP and TTP are designed to bypass those objecting to the Singapore issues. They will be cut out of the action in favour of those prepared to submit. When the cost of submission comes to be weighed up, however, most participants will undoubtedly be surprised at its extraordinarily high price. South Korea has already decided it would be unwise to take part in the TTP.
Likely impact of the proposed trade agreements
A glimpse of what it entails is already observable through considering how existing bilateral or multilateral agreements of this kind have been interpreted and enforced. For instance, the North-American Free Trade Association treaty has been used by a US oil and gas company Lone Pine Resources as the basis of a law suit against the Canadian government for having instituted a moratorium on fracking in Quebec. Ilana Solomon comments in the Huffington Post of 10 March 2013:
" It sounds impossible to believe, but it's true. NAFTA's chapter on investment gives foreign corporations the right to sue a government over laws and policies that corporations allege reduce their profits or, in Lone Pine's words, reduce the 'expectation of a stable business and legal environment.' When a new policy or regulation is put case will get heard by three private sector attorneys, behind closed doors, for taxpayer compensation. in place that a corporation doesn't like, it can bring the government to a private trade tribunal where the
Lone Pine is suing the government of Canada for $250-million, claiming that the moratorium on fracking, put in place by Quebec's provincial government, was a violation of its 'right to mine.' As if a quarter of a billion dollars wasn't enough, Lone Pine is also asking to be paid for the full costs associated with any arbitration proceedings, including all professional and legal fees and disbursements; interest at a rate to be fixed by the tribunal; and -- why not? - 'further relief as an arbitral tribunal may deem just and appropriate.' This is all so that Lone Pine can be compensated for a policy put in place to protect communities and the environment." ('No fracking way: how companies sue Canada to get more resources').
These bilateral and multilateral treaties simply open the way for multinationals to extract millions of pounds in taxpayer money from governments which seek to put any kind of protection in place either for the environment or for the well-being of their citizens if some multinational, crazed by greed, can show they would make higher profits if that measure were not in place. This could include the minimum wage, limits on working hours, health and safety regulations - anything!
Another example is provided by the case of Philip Morris v. Uruguay. Like most countries in the world, Uruguay is taking measures to reduce cigarette smoking because of the adverse effects this has on health. However, Uruguay is party to a bilateral trade agreement with, of all countries, Switzerland, which includes a freedom to invest provision just like the one envisaged for the TTIP and the TTP along with Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedures (ISDS). ISDS allows corporations to sue governments of countries party to the relevant treaty for any government action (at any level, including local government level) that limits a corporation's future profits. the corporations can sue for the loss, or 'expropriation' of its future profits. So US multinational Philip Morris, having conveniently set up an operations centre in Switzerland, at least for the duration of the litigation, is suing Uruguay for $25 million in damages for having laws which demand massive health warnings on cigarette packs and which outlaw the branding of cigarettes as safer to smoke. Uruguay is defending itself on the basis that it is complying with international treaties on tobacco controls. The result of the litigation, however, is far from a foregone conclusion and it is obviously placing a heavy burden of legal expenditure on Uruguay, whose $53 bn GDP is dwarfed by Philip Morris's annual $80bn revenues.
Taking jurisdiction away from national courts and regulatory bodies
Philip Morris tried the same tactic in Australia but was seen off by the Australian courts. Under the TTIP, however, national courts will not have jurisdiction. Instead a high-powered international tribunal is to be set up, staffed by former corporate lawyers. It can well be imagined whose side they will be on!
The case against Uruguay is, under the Switzerland-Uruguay Treaty, not to be tried in national courts either but by the World Bank's International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) - the first time a tobacco group has taken on a country in an international court.
Although all negotiations concerning the TTIP and TTP are shrouded in secrecy, Wikileaks has managed to obtain some of the secret texts and has published them online. It seems that the European Commission is proposing an EU-US Regulatory Cooperation Council be set up which would vet any regulations any of the relevant countries proposed to introduce to ensure they had no adverse impact on trade. In addition " The official language talks of 'mutual recognition' of standards or so-called reduction of non-tariff barriers. For the EU, that could mean accepting US standards in many areas, which are lower than those of the EU and for instance the eradication of Europe's 'precautionary principle' [i.e., the principle that if evidence suggests there is a good chance that a certain item may pose widespread harm to the entire population if released for public consumption then it should be held back until it has been cleared through exhaustive testing] regarding genetically modified food and the eventual flooding of GMOs onto the commercial market" (Colin Todhunter, 'The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Trojan horse. Selling out Europe to US corporate plunder', Global Research 30 September 2014).
The TPP is expected to protect Big Pharma against the issue of generic brands of medicine that have, according to the NGO Public Citizens Global Access to Medicines Program, since 2000 saved 10 million lives threatened by HIV/Aids.
The TTIP is expected to remove virtually all financial regulation. According to Dominique Vidal-Bari, in a paper presented to the annual World Socialism Conference in Beijing in October 2014, " Five years after the global financial crisis, the US and EU negotiators have agreed that regulation has had its day. The framework they want to put in place would remove all safeguards on high-risk investments and prevent government from controlling the volume, nature or origin of financial products on the market". Furthermore: " Financial services would not be the only sector deregulated. The TIPP… would open up to competition all 'invisible' and public interest sectors. Signatory states would be obliged to submit their public services to market forces, and to abandon all regulation of foreign service providers operating within their territory. This would reduce to almost nothing the room for policy manoeuvre in health, energy, education, water and transport…"
A nightmare scenario indeed!
Conclusion
Imperialist-sponsored trade agreements have only one purpose - to extend the scope of imperialist looting. The TTIP and TTP have the dual purpose of, on the one hand, killing off the public sector everywhere in order to provide opportunities for profitable investment that were previously closed in the interests of the public, and on the other hand acting as a shield for the dying imperialist powers against competition from the young and vibrant economies in the BRICS countries and elsewhere. These agreements be vehemently opposed as the death throes of a dying system. But at the same time it is essential to remember that the only real alternative is the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of economic planning. There are those who imagine that the task of socialism is to control the market - who imagine that socialist governments devoted to the interests of the masses of the people will be able to tame the irrationalities of the market. Their endeavours are as doomed to failure as were King Canute's to order the turning of the tide. The laws of economics are as immutable as the laws of nature, as was demonstrated by the collapse of the Soviet Union after 30 years of 'market' socialism. Our duty is not merely to fight against what is but also to fight for what shall be.

AN OVERVIEW -----------------------------------

After witnessing an explosive workers’ movement since 2008, with several national strikes and a wave of radical mass actions, the working class movement seems to have been interrupted by the “carnival” of bourgeois democracy. However, the euphoria surrounding this year’s LOK-SABHA election cannot be seen as separate from the political developments that brought about the recent explosions in the workers’ movement. It is indeed its wider expression discontent. It is the expression of the political and economic impasse of capitalism that is becoming deeper and more acute, especially since the 2008 financial crisis that refuses to end.


INTERNATIONAL SCENARIO : Capitalism establishes an accumulation of misery, corresponding with accumulation of capital,” and that capitalism will produce “accumulation of wealth at one pole and at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole, i.e., on the side of the class that produces its own product in the form of capital produces. In day-to-day language, as all working people will agree, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer.

A. This capitalist reality becomes more gut wrenching when the capitalists are making record profits while the workers are being asked to tighten their belts and work harder. Stock indexes have recovered to their Pre-crisis level and some have even gone beyond it, but the toiling masses are not feeling that their lives are getting any better or have recovered to the level they were at before the crisis hit them.
B. There is an atmosphere of uncertainty amongst the people, which they can feel but not – or not yet – fully understand. This feeling is a feeling of uncertainty about the future, not only amongst the poor but also increasingly amongst the “middle classes”, those layers of workers who have been enjoying a relatively better economic position. They see this uncertainty not only in the reality around them, but also in what has been happening around the world over the past decade. Social, political, and economic instability is sharpening, especially since 2008. Earth shattering events are piling up one after another and coming in waves at an increasing speed. Let us mention a few: the 2008 financial crisis, Obama’s election as the first black president with a euphoria that was immediately followed by disappointment; the 2011 Occupy movement; the 2011 Arab Revolution that spread and took down several dictatorships; civil war in Syria; chaos in Libya; EU economic bankruptcy; the breakup of Ukraine; scandals that are rocking Western countries one after another; the shutdown of the US government; the resignation of Pope Benedict, something that hasn’t happened since the 12th century; even the World Cup was not immune from political turmoil, with large demonstrations and strikes against its extravagance; etc. etc. The toiling masses might not know in detail about all these events and only get bits and pieces of news about them directly or indirectly. However their instinct rightly says that there is something different in this period, something that is rotten and the putrid smell of it is obvious to all. They do not know exactly what it is, but they are feeling it and starting to reject it. This is what is the molecular process of revolution.


The class struggle that had been sharpening over the past few years has been temporarily interrupted by recent elections. The reformist leaders of the trade unions have successfully channeled workers' political aspirations into one or other of the bourgeois camps. However, the workers will quickly learn that neither of these can fulfill their demands. This will be a political lesson for the workers, that they cannot surrender their fate to the bourgeois parties, just like they do not surrender their fate to the bosses in the industrial struggle. It is here that the call for the formation of a workers’ party becomes important, and this slogan has to be pushed forward in a consistent and determined manner. This will accelerate the political tutoring of the workers, so that they can reach the correct conclusion: only the independence of the working class can show the way forward for the workers and the whole of the oppressed masses.

Internal crisis is waiting around the corner for these trade unions when their tactics of "riding the bourgeois parties" are proved to be impotent. The workers will not just sit in silence. They will respond to the mistakes made by their leaders, and there could be changes in these trade unions. The reformist leadership will begin to be discredited and find themselves challenged by their members. There will be clashes and frictions in these unions.


 After going en masse to the election booth, the workers are once again turning to the streets. As long as the questions of wages and standards of living have not been solved, and the coming regime will not be able to solve these questions especially during this world economic crisis, then workers will return to the ABCs of class struggle. But this time they will have learned a lot, from the past few years’ experiences and from recent elections, and the coming struggle will be on a higher plane than before. The next general strike will not be a repetition of the previous ones.

THE NEW FOUND GOD

POLITICS OF HEALTH & WELL BEING

ON September 22, 2014, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) withdrew at the behest of the central government, which was bowing to the pressure from drug companies, its July 10 order capping the prices of 108 life-saving drugs. These drugs are essential for treating a whole range of diseases from diabetes to cancer, to tuberculosis, to HIV/AIDS to cardiac diseases.
                The sequence of events is as follows. The ministry of chemicals and fertilizers had issued the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO) on May 15, 2013, whose paragraph 19 empowered the government to fix the ceiling prices of Life Saving Drugs in the “public interest”. On May 30, 2013, the ministry delegated this power to the NPPA which had already been in existence since 1997. On May 16, 2014, the NPPA decided to fix the prices for a range of Life Saving drugs, and issued internal guidelines on May 29, 2014, followed by an order on July 10, 2014, where it announced ceiling prices on the basis of a certain mark-up over the unit average cost. The drug companies challenged this order and went to Bombay High Court, but even before the High Court could come to any decision on the matter, the government has decided to withdraw the order.
                The purpose of recounting this sequence of events is to underscore the fact that the Narendra Modi government’s only contribution to this entire sequence of events has been the withdrawal of the order; it was not responsible in any way for the decision to cap life-saving drug prices. Modi was sworn in as prime minister on May 26, by which time the decision to cap drug prices had already been taken, and within a mere three days of which the internal guidelines were issued by the NPPA. The Modi government was responsible neither for the DPCO, nor for entrusting the NPPA with the task of implementing the DPCO, nor with the decision of the NPPA to cap the prices of 108 life-saving drugs. But it was responsible for the withdrawal of the order by the NPPA.

LARGE INCREASE IN
PROFITS OF DRUG COMPANIES
                As a result of the withdrawal, the drug companies will get a large increase in their profits, much of which will go to the foreign drug companies. This is because the domestic firms tend to charge lower prices than the foreign MNCs, so that any capping of prices affects the latter far more than it affects the former. While drug companies put the figure for the increase in profit at Rs 640 crores per annum, independent researchers estimate that this figure will amount to thousands of crores. And if the government removes the NPPA altogether from its role of controlling drug prices, i.e., removes caps from a range of other drugs, then the drug multinationals’ additional profits will be multiplied many-fold.
According to market research firms, the gains of some of the big players in the absence of a price cap, on the assumption of the low estimates of increased gains, will be as follows: Sanofi (about Rs 139 crores), followed by Zydus Cadila (about Rs 40 crores), Ranbaxy (about Rs 38 crores), Cipla (about Rs 19 crores), Lupin (about Rs 32 crores), DRL (about Rs 14 crores) and Sun Pharma (about Rs 25 crores). Company sources suggest that out of a total market of around Rs 77,000 crores, these 108 drugs account for an estimated Rs 5,500 crores, which means that, on the basis of the low estimate of increase in profits, the average increase in the price will be around 12 percent. But not only is this average figure a gross underestimate, but, for particular drugs, the price rises are estimated to be quite astronomical. Some of the drugs whose prices will be significantly increased are the following:
PRICES WITH AND WITHOUT DECONTROL

Category	Name of Drug	Decontrolled Prices (Rs.)	Controlled Prices (Rs.)
Anti-Cancer	Tab Geftinate	11,500	5,900
	Tab Nolvadex	200	45
	Tab Veenat	11500	8,500
	Tab Glivec	1,08,000	8,500
Blood Pressure/ Heart	Tab Cardace 5mg.	128	92
	Tab Seloken XL 50	164	78
	Tab Losar 50mg.	94	67
	Tab Plavix	1,615	147
Anti-biotic	Tab Moxicip 400	399	250
	Tab Moxif	418	295
	Tab Taxim O 200	198	118
	Tab Augmentin 625	263	150
	Tab Taribid 200	173	34
Cholesterol	Tab Storvas 10	97	62
Anti-Depressant	Tab Alprax 0.5	39	31
	Tab Alprax 0.25	22	15
Eye-Drops	Xalatan	1,187	450
	Xalacon	1,348	515
Diabetes	Inj. Huamn Mixtard	169	140
	Tab Amaryl 2	208	98
Injections	Albumin 20	5,500	3,800
	Anti D	3,500	2,200
	Anti Rabies (Kamrab)	7,000	2,670
Other	Tab Decdak 2	21	10
	Tab Zyloric 100	34	21
	Tab Ocid 20	97	50
	Tab Megafreeflex	346	255
	Tab Andriol	157	115
	Tab CCM	194	177
	Tab Amdepin	47.40	31.60
T.B.Drugs	Rcinex	54	49.70

                What is particularly noteworthy is the increase in the price of the anti-cancer drug Glivec which is supposed to go up from Rs 8500 to Rs 10800! This increase is not only astronomical, but also significant for a different reason altogether, namely that Glivec has been at the centre of a controversy between the Indian government and the Swiss multinational Novartis which produces it.
                Last year, the Supreme Court had refused a patent to Novartis for Glivec because it ruled that Glivec was only a modification of an existing drug and hence could not be patented in India. This brought forth severe condemnation from the lobbying groups in the US which are opposed tooth-and-nail even to the existing Indian patent regime. They complain that, notwithstanding the amendment to the Indian Patents Act 1970 to make it “TRIPS-compatible”, the Indian patent regime still does not go as far as they would like, which is not surprising since the amendment had occurred during UPA-I when the Left had a say in its formulation.
The president of PhRMA, the leading lobbying group for the drug makers in the United States, John Castellani, called the Glivec ruling of the Indian Supreme Court, "yet another example of the deteriorating innovation environment in India", and proclaimed that "protecting intellectual property is fundamental to the discovery of new medicines." Patents, he claimed, help drug companies secure profits which provide them with the incentive for innovation of new drugs.

VACUOUS
ARGUMENT
 Castellani’s argument about patents is vacuous for several reasons: first, the bulk of the basic research for new drugs is done in universities and academic institutions, with the drug companies contributing at best only a fraction of the total expenditure needed to bring a new drug to the market. Second, by institutionalising monopoly control over technology, patents actually discourage path-breaking research, and encourage only minor modifications to existing products that perpetuate the monopoly position of the current producers, which is precisely what the Supreme Court had objected to in its Novartis ruling. Third, there is absolutely no evidence that the profits the drug multinationals were making in the less benign patent regime (of the sort that existed in India earlier and that they complain still exists to an extent in India) are inadequate for covering the costs of research and development on new drugs. And, fourth, drug companies spent huge amounts on lobbying, including giving large donations to the campaign funds of US law makers, for changing patent laws, which, if spent on R&D even within the less benign patent regime, would be quite adequate for the innovation of new drugs; and so on.
                But let us leave aside these self-seeking arguments of the drug multinationals and come to the core issue: why did the Narendra Modi government jack up to an astronomical extent the price of the very drug which the Supreme Court of India had been so concerned about that it had even refused a patent to Novartis?
                The withdrawal of the July 10 order of the NPPA took place on the eve of Narendra Modi’s departure for the US. There can be little doubt that Modi whose “make in India” is an open invitation to foreign multinationals to make India their happy hunting ground, was giving a signal to them that he would look after their interests, whatever may be the patent regime in place.
                It is estimated that India produces about 40 percent of the generic drugs sold in the United States, and much of US-funded aid to HIV/AIDS efforts in Africa and across the developing world is spent on generic drugs from India. In fact 90 percent of the 11 million people living with HIV/AIDS in developing countries are on generic drugs, most of which come from India, a country that has been rapidly acquiring the reputation of being “the pharmacy of the developing world”. In 2000, the cost of treating one person with anti-retroviral drugs was about $10,000 a year, which was a serious hurdle for treating HIV/AIDS patients. It has now dropped to $140, mainly because of the loosening of the stranglehold of the drug multinationals, a process in which India, thanks inter alia  to the intervention by the Left in the amendment of the patent regime, has played an important role. The multinationals obviously do not like this and have been pressing the Obama administration to push the Indian government into doing their bidding. Modi appears to have fallen into that trap.
What is significant is that the Modi government did not even wait for the Bombay High Court judgement before reversing the decision of the NPPA, which, given the judiciary’s inclination towards keeping life-saving drugs cheap, could have gone in favour of the NPPA; and even if it did not, the government could have taken the matter to the Supreme Court. And failing even that, it could have enacted fresh legislation to keep life-saving drug prices low. Its hasty retreat therefore can only be attributed to a desire to curry favour with the drug multinationals, and the Obama administration that acts as their mouthpiece.
 The increase in drug prices will have a particularly severe impact on the budget of a state government like Kerala that gives free life-saving drugs to needy patients. The Modi government in its eagerness to please multinational capital, is obviously hell-bent on rolling back whatever welfare programmes some state governments have introduced.
Considering the fact that, according to a former minister of poverty alleviation in the union cabinet, India has about 4.1 crore patients with diabetes, 4.7 crore with coronary heart disease, 22 lakhs with tuberculosis, 25 lakhs with HIV/ AIDS, and several lakhs (mostly unreported) with cancer, the adverse impact of the drug price increase will be quite pervasive.

CPI(M) Theory & Practice - Retrospect and Prospects

We enjoyed reading a debate on Prabhat Patnaiks piece regarding Nandigram incident which we consider an over simplification of the reality on the ground. We find it appalling that he chose to label everyone who does not subscribe to an official line, as belonging to the Camp hostile to the interests of 'the people'. Hopefully, he would not put us into his generic categories of Two Camps theory (see below, Suresh Deman's letter).
Although we do share some of Prabhat Patnaik's concerns about the role of the intellectuals from right to the far left using the Nandigram issue to grind their axes against the CPI(M) we reject his idea of two Camps theory which sounds like US President George Bushs slogan before the invasion of Afghanistan, either you are with us or your are against us. More recently similar statement was made by Mrs Sonia Gandhi to the Press in Haryana in relation Nuclear Civil Agreement, "...those who are oppose to Civil Nuclear Agreement are enemies of the people". Frankly speaking Patnaik's two Camps theory is not qualitatively different from the above statements and could easily be construed as religious prophecies rather than guide to Marxism. Further we do not consider everything written about the Nandigram issues could be considered by an independent observer (commonly defined as one who is familiar with the issues but who is not overly sensitive) as 'the revolt against the CPI(M)and hence revolt against politics'. We are also somewhat concerns about the intellectuals who take liberty to decide their role for the left movement in general and the working class in particular by themselves. Perhaps, a reading of Regis Debarys 'Revolution in the Revolution' & 'Prisons Diary' might be of some assistance in understanding the role of intellectuals.
Prabhat Patnaik also talks a lot about fight against communal fascism by the same intellectuals (enemies of the 'people') who are now expressing their critical views on Nandigram incident, a term often very loosely used by Indian intellectuals and politicians. However, recent defeat of Sonia Gandhi Congress in Gujarat and Himachal has proved that the people did not find UPA slogan of "secularism" quite appealing. We dare question, Patnaik might say the 'people' are wrong?
We are also concern why Indian Intellectuals including the Marxist look out for answers to Indian problems at Oxford-Cambridge-JNU. Is it because of lack of self-esteem or intellectual bankruptcy as if every thing that grows at the Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard (or at JNU)is intellect and rest is fruitless?
In the middle of September 2007 Suresh Deman wrote to Prakash Karat who India Today has portrayed as Full Marx as follows:
Centre for Economics, Finance & Politics P.O. Box 17517-London-SE9 2ZP, Tel & Fax: 020-265 0536, Tel. & Fax: 020 88594657 & 07877008095 E-mail: s_deman2000@yahoo.co.uk, Tribunals_racialbias@yahoo.co.uk
15 September 2007
Com. Prakash Karat General Secretary, CPI (M) A.K. Gopalan Bhawan 27-29, Bhai Vir Singh Marg New Delhi 110 001 Fax: (91-11) 23747483
Dear Comrade Prakash:
Perhaps you will recall I wrote to you when you became General Secretary of the CPI (M). I was incredibly impressed with your speech when you refer to CPI(M) was not going to be a tail of anyone. The time has come when CPI (M) should be a leader rather than a follower. I wish this should have happened sometime back. Since I wrote to you earlier a sequence of events have taken place, which prompted me to write to you again. Although I am not a Party Cadre I consider myself a sympathizer and one who has ongoing interest in the left movement, particularly when the legacies and memories of the former Soviet Union are fast fading away. I outline my concerns as follows:
1. Firstly I became concern during my visit to India in January 2006 when I came across an unnecessary controversial debate surrounding Baba Ramdeo on the ZEE TV. Although issues voiced in the debate may have had some relevance (though non-antagonistic), I was not convinced about the significance of the debate to the Party, mass movement and the people. I am also not so sure, if the debate was ever resolved, to date no one knows who were the winners and the losers? However, what I know is that the Hindu fundamentalist exploited the issue and since then Baba Ramdeos fees for personal audience to people living overseas have tremendously increased. Further Mr. Kofi Annan, a former Secretary General of the US led UN gave him official platform to become a goodwill ambassador for carrying out the message of Yoga all over the world as if that was the cure for all problems. When Baba Ram Deo returned to Delhi he appeared to have emerged an avant-garde champion of opposing discrimination on the basis of caste and religion, which has overshadowed UPA message of secularism under Mrs. Sonia Gandhi. In my view this entire issue raked up while there was no dearth of issues related to, antagonistic contractions far more vital purposes of mass mobilisation for a revolutionary transformation of society. Having said this, I am not trying to undermine Brendas positive contribution to parliamentary debate and for mass movement.
2. Second issue that concerned me is Nandigram incident regardless of who instigated it, I am told it was Naxalite led. The incident in which more than 19 people had been killed in police firing ordered by Mr. Bhuddhdeb Bhattacharya led left front government, should not have taken place under any circumstances. No Marxian theory can justify such an action and it was least expected of a Left front government, in defence of illegitimate land acquisition for SEZs to cater the needs of industrialists under the umbrella of globalisation rather than for a proletarian revolution. Ironically, the CPI (M) was already condemning somewhat similar incident in Rajasthan which led to the police firing killing a number of CPI(M) peasants and an unlawful imprisonment of Comrade Hetram Beniwal of CPI (M) by the BJP Government. While defending left front government action, one of my friends, Com. Vesudev Sharma, General Secretary, CPI (M) in Rajasthan tried to persuade me that Stalin had taken even more drastic action against the Kulaks for the sake of collectivisation than Bhuddhdeb Bhattacharya. You know as well as I do, two wrongs do not make one right. Besides, the two actions are not comparable as the former was taken for the advancement of socialism and the latter for promoting global capitalism. The Nandigram incident also reminded me the dismissal of the first Left Front government led by Namboodripad on the recommendation of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, then President of the Congress. Well, we could not save the Left Front government then but succeed this time although with the forewarning of UPA Chairperson, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi who reportedly told Com. Sita Ram Yechuri in a patronizing manner, it should not be repeated [I heard on the Zee TV]. As to Mrs. Sonia Gandhis ideological position one should not forget it was she who went to the United States to see President Clinton following her Partys defeat in general election 1999, virtually asking her to give her a chance too and she got it. In contrast, when Henry Kissinger was asked his opinion about Mrs. Gandhi when she was assassinated, his reply to ABC news was, She was an arrogant lady. Although I was one of the victims of Mrs Gandhi when she declared the state of emergency in 1975 I was happy at this generous assessment of her by an arrogant former American Ambassador & the Secretary of State, as she appeared not to have bowed down before the US hegemony even after having accepted CIA money to fight Kerala elections. In my view, although CPI (M) by now should have sidelined Buddhdeb Bhattacharya to regain public confidence, I am wiling to accept your public statement making distinction between the actions of the Government and the Partys position. However, criticism of Buddhdeb Bhattacharyas government was somewhat less visible compared to Mukherjees coalition government in West Bengal in 1967-69.
3. One of the most disturbing issues I find in the CPI (M) position is its stand on Civil Nuclear Agreement with the United States and recent joint naval exercises. As a student of Marxism I have learned that there is a dialectical connection between the domestic policy and the foreign policy. Although one can see a clear connection between UPA governments domestic policies supporting globalisation under the World Bank programs [SEZs, Multinational investment, rapid expansion of private sector through divestment of public sector, etc.] and collaboration with the imperialists in the foreign policy, I wonder how could CPI (M) not see this and continues to support the UPA government? I believe the partnership in the UPA on the basis of common minimum program [mainly secularism] is fundamentally flawed. Had the basis of the partnership been on the common minimum economic program it would have addressed twin objectives, namely, the domestic and foreign policy. The CPI (M) was in the position of strength to negotiate with the Congress a common minimum economic program rather than minimum program to join the UPA. I wonder why CPI (M) did not do so although it was then in a position of strength to negotiate. After the complete sweep by BSP in UP elections clearly the CPI (M) negotiating position appears to have been somewhat compromised.
4. In my opinion the CPI (M) can take cue from the successful experiment carried out under leadership of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela by optimally combining the task in the sphere of domestic and foreign policies to usher in a socialist revolution. In the South Latin American Countries they have successfully harnessed anti imperialist feelings of the masses to promote the cause of social transformation. The argument of holding the communal forces at bay under the pretext of secularism in defence of UPA Govt. does not hold water. It is only through an effective implementation of a radical common economic programme that a secular polity can be built and anti imperialist foreign policy course meaningfully pursued. In Venezuela Hugo Chavez [no Marxist] and Ortega in Nicaragua have effectively used anti imperialist feelings to enhance the appeal of socialism and won the elections. In fact, I recall a telecast during the elections in Venezuela when a reporter asked a layman on the street who are you going to vote for? He told him, Chavez, he will bring socialism. When the reporter asked him what is socialism? His telling reply was, I know what is socialism, freedom for poor. No reading of Marx & Lenins works could have conveyed the meaning of socialism to a common man in such simple terms. On the other hand we continue to have a honeymoon [although there are signs of it being over if one goes by media reports] with a government, which has been openly collaborating with the United Sates The only imperialist Superpower. I am disappointed to see one of the oldest and most experienced Communist Party of the World after the collapse of USSR still dragging it feet in this matter.
5. The Partys failure to pursue the anti imperialist line stands out in glaring contrast with the Venezuelan experiment. While the party was right in standing up (albeit belatedly) against US Imperialism on the ground that the nuclear deal was pushing the country into the strategic embrace of the United States helping it to proposed the name of Pranab Mukherjee as the UPA consensus candidate for the office of The President forgetting that he was the chief architect for the military cooperation agreement with the United States. This created a big credibility gap about its sincere commitment to anti imperialist course. The Party is not known to have taken up cudgel in the public against Pranab Das Speech at Carnegie Foundation a couple of years back where he had talked about, Total convergence of values and interests between the US private sector and open collaboration with the imperialists, which had not happened even during right wing Hindu fundamentalist government led A. B. Bajpai. On the hindsight what is the rational of change in the CPI (M) attitude towards Congress? One might say the character of Congress has dramatically changed since Mrs Gandhis era. However, Mrs Gandhis Congress then was also a break away group from the Old Congress although after V.V. Giris election as President the Old congress was annihilated by the New Congress.
On a positive note I am very pleased that you have taken a hard line in view of recent developments. In my view early election have become inevitable and this is the most opportune time to say goodbye to UPA. At this critical juncture it is important not to unnecessarily kick up non-antagonistic contradictions over the Ram Setu. Hopefully you will take my comments in constructive sprits.
With regards,
Suresh Deman B.Sc., MA (India), MA & ADB (US), MPhil (UK), PhD (Japan) Director of Centre for Economics, Finance & Politics & Visiting Professor at the Markfield Institute PO Box 17517, London SE9 2ZP
Although we would have very much liked to agree with Prof. Patnaik & his colleagues mild criticism on Nandigram incident since Deman wrote the above letter few other developments have taken place.
(a) Some CC members of the CPI (M) proudly claimed that over 100,000 CPI (M) militant supporters (were told some of them were armed) entered into Nandigram and got the trouble makers removed before Buddhdeb Bhattacharya could enter into Nandigram to apologies to those who were leftover [there is no notion of safeguard against what is known as oppression by the majority. Perhaps, this notion would sound like a bourgeois concept), (b)Baba RamDeo, an arch enemy of Branda Karat, if not of the CPI(M), not only came out in supported of Mrs Sonia Gandhi for signing of Nuclear Civil Agreement but he has also repeated her words that anyone who opposes the agreement is an enemy of the people [i.e., CPI(M)]. (c) Last month again Pranab Mukherjee continued with his rhetoric in support of Nuclear Civil Agreement while addressing NRI entrepreneurs with some Chief Ministers present, (d)Com. Joyti Basus statement in support of Industrialisation in West Bengal under the private ownership of means of production and opposition to the same idea in non CPI(M) states for being exploitative speaks volumes in light of collapse of Soviet model of socialism, (e)Again 5 people got killed in a recent firing resulted in a call for a Bengal Bandh.
Clearly CPI(M) once again fell into it's own let alone blaming the enemy of the 'people'. It is to be noted CPI(M)s major partner in the UPA i.e., Sonia Gandhis Congress called for a Bandh with BJP, Forward Block, Trimul Congress and others. All this flies into the face of CPI(M) for which no one could be criticised but the CPI(M)intellectuals themselves. To date no response is forthcoming any quarter of the CPI(M).

REJUVENATING THE LEFT ?

Does the CPM Cadre have any choice between the Devil & Deep Blue Sea?
Since the demise of old guards who walked out of National Council of CPI in 1964 there is little left within the CPM for an ideological debate. Despite fall of former USSR & East European communist countries most of the discussion has been cosmetics and in particular since 2004 CPM has banded backward when it supported Congress led UPA government and its chosen Presidential candidates Pranab Mukherjee who has been a chief architect of Civil Nuclear Agreement with America and who also talks about convergence of two culture US-India thought there is hardly anything in common between two nations.
Although in 2008 CPM Congress honeymoon came to end but behind the door top leaders like Sitaram Yechuri continued with flirtation! For example, rather than critically evaluating UPS's performance over the last one year Mr Yechuri decided to provide a covert VOTE of confidence in his former ally Sonia Gandhi. Even within his class politics as Mr Yechuri puts it Manmohan Singh Montek Singh economic policies led the cournty into both inflation and recetion. I wonder on what basis he says that Manmohan Singh has been successful given his class approach and policies?
Similarly, just a couple of weeks before the Parliamentary Elections, Sitaram Yechuri in a Stephen College town hall meeting organised by Burkha Dutt of NDTV openly accepted that he wanted Mrs Sonia Gandhi to be the Prime-Minster of India in 2004. One suspects once again,if he was sending a signal that CPM - Sonia honeymoon has not yet over?
For the last two decades CPM has left with no option but either ended up siding with BJP on no confidence issue against UPA or with Congress in its anti-communal rhetoric although its own record during its 35 rule in WB has not been so good. Despite Muslims being about 28% CPM has done very little to accommodate the minority in government jobs let alone accommodating them within the party!!! CPM's Central Committee and the Politburo is already dominated by the upper caste petty bourgeois former SFI leaders (mainly JNUine rather than genuine) and a further nomination of SFI leader to Rajay Sabha goes to show CPM leadership heading towards meeting the fate of former USSR and East European communist parties. In fact, in former USSR party bureaucracy has taken over after the Party took the power but in India it has taken over even before it could see the power at the Center.
Although I haven't seen the blue print yet as to how they will rejuvenate Party, it would be wise if the these easy chair speculators like Sitaram Yechuri, Brenda Karat and Prakash Karat voluntarily sideline themselves as people have already rejected their leadership! Unless there is something emerges from the grass-root to challenge the Central Committee and Politburo no worthwhile outcome can be expected. Rather than power coming from below and response from the top this petty bourgeois JNUine leadership has justified its hobnobbing with Congress and Corporate in the name of democratic centralism. In fact, CPM has become a caucus-run social democratic party which totally relies upon the bourgeois tactics and would not be an overstatement if people perceives it as Corporate Communist Party of India. In fact, bureaucracy has occupied central place in CPM even before it could takeover the Sate Power which came in CPSU after taking over the power. Rather than getting into squabbles CPM got enter into serious debate as to mainly four issues: (i) If Communist Parties are allowed to function is there any need for democratic centralism, (ii) if Party represents the tangible consciousness of a class and its Central Committee goes wrong what could be done?, (iii) Is socialism in one country still possible, (iv) A country with a huge middle class and where classes are not as homogeneous as they were in 19th Century to what extent dictatorship of working class relevant?
Hence, differences between Sitaram Yechuri and Prakash Karat are that of semantic than real to perpetuate the status quo ante to secure their place in politburo though for nonagenarian Achhutanandan (only survivor who walked out in 1964 to form CPM) was demoted for saving the CPM face in the Assembly poll.
In my opinion unless there is an upsurge from below against the rotten and intellectually defunct leadership which could Bombard the Headquarters as Mao puts it very eloquently, there is not even a remote possibility of rejuvenating the Party.

The puzzle of productive and unproductive labour

In their desperate search for profitable fields of investment, the capitalist class, especially the financial oligarchy, has presided over an explosive growth of unproductive expenditure that today threatens to undermine the very edifice of capitalism. As more and more surplus value is siphoned off into unproductive activities, the issue of “productive” and “unproductive” labor has once again resurfaced as a factor contributing to, and a reflection of, the present terminal decline of world capitalism.

“Capitalist production is not merely the production of commodities, it is, by its very essence, the production of surplus value”, explained Marx in volume one of Capital. “The worker produces not for himself, but for capital. It is no longer sufficient, therefore, for him simply to produce. He must produce surplus value. The only worker who is productive is one who produces surplus value for the capitalist…” 

Adam Smith, the classical economist, also uses a similar definition regarding “productive” and “unproductive” labor. “There is one sort of labor which adds to the value of the subject upon which it is bestowed; there is another which has no such effect. The former, as it produces a value, may be called productive; the latter, unproductive labor.” 
In their greed for profit, the capitalists have diverted more and more capital from the “productive” sectors of the economy into the “unproductive” sectors, such as finance, insurance, property dealing, currency speculation, derivatives and other unsound activities. This edifice of speculative activity serves to artificially expand the market in all kinds of ways, but at the expense of building chronic instability into the foundations of the system. The capitalist system has therefore increasingly become a house built on chickens’ legs, whose foundations are being undermined by the very contradictions of the capitalist economy.
The terms “productive” and “unproductive” work were considered of great importance to the early nineteenth century classical economists which underpinned their labor theory of value. While their understanding was far in advance of today’s bourgeois economists, who have become mere apologists for the capitalist system, it was nevertheless undeveloped and contained certain errors. It was left to Marx to correct these errors and furnish a scientific explanation of “productive” and “unproductive” labor. This was chiefly expounded in his Theories of Surplus Value, particularly the first volume, where he dealt with the definitions of Adam Smith and others. This analysis can provide valuable insights into the crisis and instability of modern-day capitalism.
In this present epoch, there has been a general shift in economic activity from industrial production to service industries and finance capital, but which are ever-reliant on the real wealth produced by industry. In the advanced capitalist countries, millions of jobs have been eliminated in steel, coal mining, shipbuilding, and car manufacturing, while the proportion employed in the service and financial sectors have grown continuously.  This has meant a general shift towards a renter economy, which was anticipated by Marx, and increasingly indicated the parasitic nature of capitalism.

Thatcherism

In Britain, Margaret Thatcher epitomised this short-sighted process by seeking to rebuild the position of British capitalism through services and banking. However, a modern economy cannot survive without a manufacturing and industrial basis. The DE-industrialisation of Britain over the last 30 years or more and its reliance on financial services, has not served to strengthen British capitalism, but weaken it. As a consequence, it was one of the hardest hit by the 2008-9 world slump.
Whereas Adam Smith once justified capitalism with the phrase “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest”, today he would need to justify the actions of the market with reference to the junk bond salesman, the fund manager and the investment banker.
He would need to explain things in terms of the clients of Goldman Sachs who bought into a sub-prime mortgage deal called Abacus 2007-AC1, which had been constructed with the input from the Paulson & Co hedge fund, which was betting that the entire thing would implode. Such are the vagaries of modern capitalism, where parasitic finance capital has become dominant.
“The ‘entrepreneurs’, i.e. the monopolies, are not interested in an extensive increase in capacity when they cannot see a future market, and when they cannot make use of already existing capacity…” explained Ted Grant almost 40 years ago. “Now they are faced with the major problem of limited markets both at home and abroad, while saddled with surplus capacity.”  This surplus capacity is only a reflection of the over-production of capital and consumer goods, which has been the common characteristic of the present stage of capitalism. “Over-production, the credit system, etc., are means by which capitalist production seeks to break through its own barriers and to produce over and above its own limits”, states Marx.  In the present epoch, it is a reflection of the limits of the capitalist system.
This has forced the capitalists to look for new, more profitable fields of investment, as opposed to industry, that guarantees them quick returns. In the end, they have developed the notion that they could make money, “a quick buck”, without recourse to long-term investments in productive industry. The capitalists, particularly the financiers, wanted to make money out of nothing, without resorting to the laborious process of commodity production. That is why they have resorted to old-fashioned medieval financial alchemy to make money. When fortunes can be made with a single phone call, why bother to risk capital by investing in costly machinery which may never make a profit?
Surplus value extracted from productive activity was formulated by Marx as M —C — M2, where M = money and C = capital, while the attempt to create money from money is simply M — M2, in which production has no role to play. This reveals the real parasitic nature of modern capitalism. “It reproduces a new financial aristocracy, a new kind of parasites in the guise of company promoters, speculators and merely nominal directors; an entire system of swindling and cheating with respect to the promotion of companies, issue of shares and share dealings”, states Marx. 
This development has been expressed in an explosion of speculation and an unprecedented increase in fictitious capital, namely capital not backed by real values. New investments were not made in productive industry but increasingly in gambling on the stock markets, bond markets, shadow banking, in derivatives, currencies, property and other financial instruments which are purely speculative in character. Increasingly, capitalists are buying back shares in their own companies to artificially push up the share price, and engage in money-making mergers, acquisitions and leverage buyouts. The capitalist class has become a barrier to the development of the productive forces of industry, technique and science, which was their historical justification. Instead, they systematically undermine and destroy these productive forces.
Today, central bankers, a real financial aristocracy, have become all-powerful and, together with some 500 monopolies, hold the economic fate of the world economy in their hands.  Never in history have the bankers, with their financial tentacles spread everywhere, become so dominant, and now apparently “too big to fail”.  Since the crisis of 2007-8, these “too big to fail” banks have become even more powerful. After the “Big Bang” of financial deregulation in the mid-1980s, they presided over the biggest orgy of financial speculation of all time. Banking and financial capital rule the roost, which reflects the real parasitic nature of the market economy. This has been accompanied by a general shift towards services, banking and finance, considered “unproductive” sectors of the economy, which are increasingly subsidized by the wealth created by the economy as a whole. This was reflected in the blunt comments of Lord Turner, the then chairman of the UK’s Financial Services Authority, who in 2009 stated that banking was a “socially useless” activity. It reflects the fact that the capitalist system is relying more and more on sectors that do not create surplus value, but act as a constant drain on the productive economy. And yet, paradoxically, they have become increasingly necessary to the capitalist system, as heroin is to a heroin addict. This speculative juggling of money, justified as “essential” activity by the powers that be, threatens to engulf the world in a new financial collapse, which in turn is preparing the way for an even bigger slump and greater depression.

Lenin’s Imperialism

Lenin had explained long ago that a key characteristic of imperialism was the domination of finance capital. “Thus, the twentieth century marks the turning-point from the old capitalism to the new, from the domination of capital in general to the domination of finance capital… The concentration of production; the monopolies arising therefrom; the merging or coalescence of the banks with industry – such is the history of the rise of finance capital.” ⁶  Lenin continues: “Finance capital, concentrated in a few hands and exercising a virtual monopoly, extracts enormous and increasing profits from the floatation of companies, issue of stock, state loans, etc., strengthens the domination of the financial oligarchy and levies tribute upon the whole of society for the benefit of monopolists.” 
“During periods of industrial boom, the profits of finance capital are immense, but during periods of depression, small and unsound businesses go out of existence, and the big banks acquire ‘holdings’ in them by buying them up for a mere song, or participate in profitable schemes for their ‘reconstruction’ and ‘reorganisation’,” a tendency that has become ubiquitous.   “Hence the extraordinary growth of a class, or rather a stratum of rentiers, i.e., people who live by ‘clipping coupons’ who take no part in any enterprise whatsoever, whose profession is idleness. The export of capital, one of the most essential economic bases of imperialism, still more completely isolates the renters from producers and sets the seal of parasitism on the whole country that lives by exploiting the labor of several overseas countries and colonies…” In quoting Schulze-Gaevernitz, Lenin explains that in Britain, which was the dominant capitalist power at that time, there was “an increase in the relative importance of income from interest and dividends, issues of securities, commissions and speculation in the whole of the national economy.” 
Since Lenin’s book on Imperialism, this domination of banking and financial oligarchy has today reached astronomical proportions. Some have claimed that this development represents a new stage in the evolution of capitalism (even inventing the new term of “financialisation”), but this is not the case. It is however undeniable that this tendency has certainly reached a new qualitative high-point and is connected with the present organic crisis of capitalism. The continuous attempts by the capitalists to overcome their contradictions simply lead to new barriers and deeper contradictions. Today, the system has reached a complete impasse and has become incapable of utilizing the productive capacity it has brought into being. In the words of the ever-relevant Communist Manifesto, the system has become a massive fetter to growth and development. “The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them,” states the Manifesto. Therefore, the impasse of the capitalist system is presently revealed in today’s over-production and economic crisis. The fact that capitalism can only use 80% of productive capacity in a boom and a mere 65% in a slump reveals its bankruptcy. The system has become burdened with over-production and “excess capacity”.
The domination of finance capital has meant that the financiers suck up a greater and greater proportion of the wealth created by the rest of the economy. As Marx explained, surplus value comes from production, but is then redistributed to other sectors of the economy. The division is characterized by Rent, Interest, and Profit, the “Holy Trinity of Capitalism”, where the surplus value extracted from the labor of the working class is divided between the industrialists’ profit, the bankers’ interest and the landlords’ rent. While banks and other financial institutions do have a necessary function under capitalism in providing loans, they are parasitic in a way that other capital is not. The share now going to the financial sector has reached colossal proportions. In the United States, during the 1950s and 1960s, an average of 13.1 per cent of domestic profits derived from the finance sector. In the fourth quarter of 2001, that grew to a peak of 45.3 per cent. At the end of 2006, finance was responsible for a third of all domestic profits. Soon afterwards the collapse in house prices took their toll on bankers’ balance sheets, but even then, in early 2009, finance still accounted for a quarter of domestic profits. 
This parasitic renter development has now reached new heights. The “unproductive” sectors are out-weighing the “productive” sectors that produce surplus value and act as a colossal drag on capitalism and its profitability. According to the economist Fred Moseley, “Commercial labor… accounted for almost two-thirds of the total increase of unproductive labor. The other two types of unproductive labor, financial labor and supervisory labor, each accounted for approximately half the remaining increase of unproductive labor.” 
“Productive” and “unproductive” labor has a special meaning for Marxism. In understanding this concept we must be careful. “Productive work” should not be confused with “socially-useful work”, while “unproductive work” should not be confused with “socially-useless work”. They have nothing whatsoever to do with these things. Incidentally, there are no equivalent terms in present-day bourgeois economics for productive and unproductive labor, as all workers are regarded as the same. However, they were extensively used by the great classical economists, such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo, to understand capitalism. People were regarded as productive or unproductive in the capitalist sense, which was the only way they could understand things. After all, the aim of capitalist production is the production of profit. Profit is the surplus value produced by the unpaid labor of the working class. Thus, according to the logic of the system, productive labor is that which creates surplus value.
“A man grows rich by employing a multitude of manufacturers; he grows poor, by maintaining a multitude of menial servant,” stated Adam Smith. The first would increase his profits, whereas the second would decrease his income. In the category of “unproductive” labor Adam Smith included a whole range of people, including domestic servants. This is hardly surprising given the large numbers of servants that existed at that time. The House of Commons report in April 1861 showed that there were more than one million domestic servants in Britain, an even greater number than factory workers. By the beginning of the 20th century, one in four workers was employed in domestic service. While these workers were undoubtedly exploited and forced to work long hours, they were deemed economically “unproductive” as they were paid wages from revenue and did not produce surplus value for the capitalist.
“What a convenient arrangement it is,”  noted Marx, “that makes a factory girl to sweat twelve hours in a factory, so that the factory proprietor, with a part of her unpaid labor, can take into his personal service her sister as maid, her brother as groom and her cousin as soldier or policeman!” 
Domestic servants were not the only people considered unproductive from the point of view of capitalism. As Adam Smith explained:

“The labor of some of the most respectable orders in society is, like that of menial servants, unproductive of any value… The sovereign, for example, with all the officers both of justice and war who serve under him, the whole army and navy, are unproductive laborers. They are the servants of the public, and are maintained by a part of the annual produce of the industry of other people… In the same class must be ranked… churchmen, lawyers, physicians, men of letters of all kinds; players, buffoons, musicians, opera-singers, opera-dancers, etc.”

Marxists use the terms “productive” and “unproductive” labour, but in a more precise manner than defined by Adam Smith. Once again, these terms are not moral judgments about the quality of a person’s job, but are definitions based upon whether or not workers produce surplus value for the capitalists. Clearly people such as doctors, nurses, and teachers are extremely “socially-useful” and essential, but nonetheless, from the point of view of capitalism, are regarded as unproductive workers. “Productive labour, in its meaning for capitalist production, is wage-labor which… produces surplus value for the capitalist… Only that wage-labor is productive which produces capital,” explained Marx.  In other words, these terms refer to what is productive for capital. Likewise, “unproductive” labor, in the capitalist sense, is therefore labor which produces no surplus value for the capitalist. As such, unproductive labor has become an ever-expanding mill-stone around the neck of capitalism which takes an ever-increasing slice of the surplus value produced by the rest of the productive economy.

Exchange-value

Marx explains that the capitalist is not interested at all in the particular use-values created in the production process. The use-value of a pair of shoes, coat or car is simply a means to an end and nothing more. The Moneybags capitalists are interested only in the exchange-value and thereby the surplus value, which they will realize once the commodity has been sold. The whole basis of capitalist production is the production of surplus value, and nothing else. The use-value that is created is neither here nor there. All the capitalist is concerned with is getting “back a greater quantity of labor-time than he has paid out in the form of wages.” Marx therefore concludes that under the profit system: “Only labor which produces capital is productive labor.” 
Whether workers produce material tangible things or not is also unimportant, as long as by their labor they produce surplus value. The workers who produce surplus value get their income by selling their labor power to the capitalist for wages. They are forced to do this out of economic necessity. Surplus value arises in production out of the unpaid labor of the working class. “A writer is a productive laborer not in so far as he produces ideas, but in so far as he enriches the publisher who publishes his works, or if he is a wage laborer for a capitalist,” explains Marx.
In other words, if a capitalist hires workers to make furniture for his personal needs, these workers produce use-values in the form of furniture. While they perform surplus labor (work over and above what they receive in wages), their labor will not take the form of value as the furniture will not be sold on the market. Therefore, as no value is produced, neither is surplus value produced. The labor of these workers is therefore “unproductive” in the capitalist sense as, while it produces use-values, it produces no surplus value.
Thus, the distinction between “productive” and “unproductive” work boils down to whether or not workers produce surplus value, irrespective of the usefulness of the things they produce. Therefore the definition of a productive worker does not come from what is produced, but from its particular social form.  Marx underlines the point by explaining that “Productive capital is here defined from the standpoint of capitalist production.”  So workers producing weapons of mass destruction, despite their abhorrent nature, are deemed “productive” if their labor creates surplus value. That is the only criteria from the point of view of capitalism. As Marx comments, “The use-value of the commodity in which the labor of a productive worker is embodied may be of the most futile kind.” What is produced is of no consequence as the key issue is whether or not it produces surplus value. While nurses and doctors working in the NHS are considered “unproductive”, as they produce no surplus value, if these very same workers were working in a private hospital or a profit-grabbing agency, then they would be deemed “productive” workers from the viewpoint of capitalism! The nature of their work is irrelevant. Everything boils down to whether it generates profit or not, the sole thing that motivates the capitalist.
Adam Smith made the mistake in believing that productive labor was labor that only produced tangible things. The product of an opera singer, stated Smith, vanishes as soon as it is performed. While this is true, he was confused about the nature of a commodity, which can be a tangible thing or a “service”. Both things can produce surplus value, and need not produce a material object. Workers employed in transport and communications, for instance, do not produce a thing, but their work in moving things around is nevertheless vital to the economy. It is irrelevant if surplus value is extracted from intellectual or manual labor. “Alongside the consumable articles existing in the form of goods [exist] a quantity of consumable articles in the form of service”, states Marx. 
The mistaken distinction of Adam Smith arose from the fact that the classical economists regarded the labour of domestic servants as unproductive. While this was correct, Smith drew incorrect conclusions from this fact. Surplus value can certainly arise from a service of some kind, depending on how it is exploited. As explained, a doctor or nurse working for a profit-making private clinic, which does not produce a thing as such, but a service, nevertheless produces surplus value. The opera singer will produce surplus value for the theater owner assuming the singer is only paid the value of their labor power. The earnings taken from ticket sales to watch the performance will be greater than the wages to the performers. In this case, the singer will be deemed “productive” by capitalism. It makes no difference whether the product lasts for a few seconds or not.
“Productive and unproductive labor is here throughout conceived from the standpoint of the possessor of money, from the standpoint of the capitalist, not from that of the workingman,” explained Marx.   Again, Marx provides us with a number of examples. “An actor, for example, or even a clown, according to this definition, is a productive laborer if he works in the service of a capitalist (an entrepreneur) to whom he returns more labor than he receives from him in the form of wages.”

Revenue

Marx then goes on to draw the distinction between those workers who produce surplus value (“productive”) and those who consume revenue (“unproductive”) from the capitalists. “While a jobbing tailor, who comes to the capitalist’s house and patches his trousers for him, produces a mere use-value for him, is an unproductive laborer... The former’s labor [the actor or clown] produces a surplus value; in the latter’s [the tailor], revenue is consumed.”  In other words, the clown produces surplus value for his employer by entertaining the paying crowds, while the tailor’s service simply consumes his money!
From the point of view of the capitalist, the issue boils down to how the money is spent: either “productively” in investing it to produce surplus value, or “unproductively” by flitting it away on pleasantries, such as wine, women and song. Of course, in this Alice-in-Wonderland way of looking at things, one capitalist’s pleasure is another capitalist’s profit. The capitalist who hires the clown to entertain people makes money, but the capitalist who actually goes to see the clown spends his money on an entrance ticket. For the producer, these services are commodities which create profits. However, for the buyer, these services are mere use-values, objects which consume a person’s hard-earned revenue!

“For example”, explains Marx, “the cooks and waiters in a public hotel are productive labourers, in so far as their labour is transformed into capital for the proprietor of the hotel. These same persons are unproductive labourers as menial servants, inasmuch as I do not make capital out of their services, but spend revenue on them. In fact, however, these same persons are also for me, the consumer, unproductive laborers in the hotel.” 

If I am a cook employed in a rich person’s home, my labor is unproductive as my labor is “exchanged directly against their revenue”. But if I work for a first-class restaurant catering for the rich, my labor is productive, as it makes a profit for the capitalist for whom I work. Marx makes the same point. “The cook in a hotel produces a commodity for the person who as a capitalist has bought her labor — the hotel proprietor; the consumer of mutton chops has to pay for her labor, and this labor replaces for the hotel proprietor (apart from profit) the fund out of which he continues to pay the cook. On the other hand if I buy the labor of a cook for her to cook meat, etc., for me, not to make use of it as labor in general but to enjoy it, to use it as that particular concrete kind of labor, then her labor is unproductive… The great difference is (the conceptual difference) however remains: the cook does not replace for me (the private person) the fund from which I pay her, because I buy her labor not as a value-creating element but purely for the sake of its use-value. Her labor as little replaces for me the fund with which I pay for it, that is, her wages, as, for example, the dinner I eat in the hotel in itself enables me to buy and eat the same dinner again a second time.” 

Big Mac

What is actually produced, or the labor that has gone into it, has nothing whatever to do with this distinction. Workers who produce “Happy Meals” at Burger King or MacDonalds are productive workers as they produce surplus value for their bosses. These workers act very much like being on an industrial conveyor belt producing “fast food”. This, however, makes no difference as to whether or not their labor is productive. The determining factor is that the “Big Mac”, even if considered a dubious use-value, is nevertheless a use-value that is sold. In doing so, these workers produce surplus value, despite being classified as “service workers” by capitalist statisticians.
Much of the financial services are unproductive as this sector merely serves to move around large amounts of fictitious capital in the form of derivatives and other financial wizardry. There is no production of surplus value in such activity, but it serves to hoover up an enormous slice of the surplus value created in the productive sector. Such financial juggling is purely parasitic in nature.
Commercial capital simply buys in order to sell, but produces no surplus value from these activities. It is indeed true that a particular capitalist often makes a profit by buying cheap and selling dear, but when this happens, it is at the expense of the capitalist from whom he buys, or to whom he sells. The source of profit is however not in exchange. He merely realizes the surplus value existing in the commodity sold to him below its value by the manufacturer, namely at a discount. In this way, the industrial capitalist will get his money back quickly and will speed his turnover of his capital. As Marx explained, “Commercial capital does not itself produce any surplus value, it is clear that the surplus value that accrues to it in the form of the average profit forms a portion of the surplus value produced by the productive capital as a whole.” 
When you apply this concept to the workplace, it becomes a bit more complicated. In fact, in practice, factories employ a mix of both productive and unproductive labor - those who produce surplus value and those who consume revenue, but are necessary to production. In a workplace, where there is a division of labor, we cannot isolate an individual’s contribution, but view the collective production as the effort of the collective labor employed. These days, many “hands” are involved in the production of commodities of every kind. Modern production is social labor. In other words, each worker has his or her function in the production process, from the cleaner on the shop floor to the production manager. The cleaner plays an indispensable role in clearing up everything, allowing production to take place unhindered, and permitting the assembly workers to carry their work without unnecessary stoppages, thereby helping to increase surplus value.

“Adam Smith naturally includes in the labour which fixes or realises itself in a vendible and exchangeable commodity all intellectual labours which are directly consumed in material production. Not only the laborer working directly with his hands or a machine, but overseer, engineer, manager, clerk, etc. —in a word, the labor of the whole personnel required in a particular sphere of material production to produce a particular commodity, whose joint labor (co-operation) is required for commodity production. In fact they add their aggregate labor to the constant capital, and increase the value of the product by this amount.” 

Marx explains that a plant manager has a day-to-day role to play in the running and organising of production, and arises out of the need to oversee and plan the production process within the workplace. The free reign of the market place is not allowed to operate here! Consequently, due to this function, the manager is entitled to the “wages of superintendence”, to use an expression of Marx. But the role of management under capitalism has a dual role, namely to plan production within the factory, but also to keep the workers in check and under control for the owners and shareholders, which cannot be considered productive labour. Of course, in a democratic workers’ state, the workers themselves will run the workplace under workers’ control and management. This means that the workers will appoint their own worker-managers, under the control of the factory committee, to help supervise production. Their role will be fundamentally different to the capitalist overseer.
Jobs can combine elements of both productive and unproductive labor. For instance, book-keepers or accountants can be productive or unproductive depending on whether they record the necessary balances and inventories for production or simply spend time manipulating the accounts made necessary by capitalism or other related tasks.
A commodity not only has to be produced, it has also to be sold if the surplus value contained within it is to be realised. The labour of those workers employed in wholesale and retail trade has to be considered likewise as an essential part of the productive process as a whole. All must be considered necessary links in the chain of capitalist production. While surplus value is made in production and not circulation, those employed in the distribution or retail sectors play an essential role in selling the commodities produced in the factories. They must serve to realize the surplus value locked-up in the commodities through their sale. Therefore the industrial capitalist sells his commodities to the capitalists in distribution and retail for less than their value. These are then sold at their full value, the difference being the source of profit for these capitalists and the wages of the workers in these spheres. “To industrial capital, the costs of circulation appear as expenses, which they are”, states Marx. “To the merchant, they appear as the source of his profit, which —on the assumption of a general rate of profit — stands in proportion to the size of these costs.”
While workers in commerce and services do not produce surplus value, their unpaid labour does “create his [the commercial capitalist] ability to appropriate surplus value, which, as far as this capital is concerned, gives exactly the same result; i.e. it is its source of profit.”  In other words, the commercial worker does not produce surplus value directly, but indirectly through its realization. Of course, the commercial capitalist will see that the wages paid to his clerical and distributive workers are as low as possible, so that as much of the surplus value as possible represented by the difference between the “factory-gate” price and the final selling price may come to him as profits.
In other words, the circulation of goods is paid from the surplus value produced in production, which makes a claim on the basis of the average rate of profit. Without this cut it would have no interest in being in business. It is nevertheless a cost to the capitalist system. The same is true of distribution. We nevertheless need to differentiate between capitalist circulation and the physical transport of commodities, which is a necessary part of the productive process. 
As a consequence, Marx includes as productive those workers involved in transport. He explains this by saying that “the use-value of things is realized only in their consumption, and their consumption may make a change of location necessary… the productive capital invested in this industry thus adds value to the products transported.”
Today, businesses employ the services of Call Centres to take care of “customer services”, which would be viewed as a necessary expenditure and “unproductive” from their point of view.  However, from the point of view of the owners of Call Centers, these workers would be views as “productive” as they produce surplus value for them!
If a capitalist uses private passenger transport (God forbid!), he spends his own money “unproductively”. The same would be true if he hired a chauffeur to drive him around. However, bus workers carrying paying passengers for a private company produce surplus value by bringing in revenue far in excess of their wages, and are therefore “productive” in a capitalist sense. As can be seen, this concept can therefore be applied to different sections of workers according to how they work for the capitalist and whether or not they produce surplus value.
 How does capitalism define workers who work for nationalised state industries? Under capitalism, the nationalised industries are run on state capitalist lines, geared to making profit for the state. Most of these industries were bankrupt under private ownership and were therefore taken over by the state, which pumped in new investment from taxation. Workers are exploited in these industries as they produce more value than they receive in wages. These state-run industries were then used to produce cheap transport and energy to subsidize the rest of the capitalist economy. They were also milked through massive over-compensation to former owners and high interest rates to banks, which served to siphon off the surplus value produced by these workers to other capitalists.
As these nationalised industries become more profitable, they are normally sold off at a knocked down price to the private sector. When privatized, the workers, who tend to be on worse terms and conditions, now produce surplus value for the new owners of capital.
State employees, no matter how their labor benefits society, are regarded as “unproductive” workers from the view of capitalism. Nurses, doctors and teachers all perform essential work, but those employed by the state are not producing surplus value for the capitalists. These publicly-funded sectors are financed through taxation, which falls heavily on the working class, and lightly on the capitalists. In other words, the labor power of these workers is not exchanged against capital, but comes from state revenues from taxation. The same applies to medical personnel and teachers in further and higher education. While their function is to help keep workers healthy and train a new generation of human labor power, and certainly play an essential role in society, they are nevertheless not “productive” workers for capitalism, because their labor power is still exchanged against revenue and not capital.
The social wage, while vital for people in general, is regarded as a necessary expense for capitalism, and does not produce surplus value. Therefore, for the capitalist class, state expenditure is regarded as a drain and burden on the productive (profit-making) sector of the economy and lies behind the capitalists’ constant drive to reduce state spending. In addition, they attempt to throw the burden of taxation from big business (which pays next to no tax) onto the shoulders of the workers mainly through indirect taxation. State institutions are also pushed to sell or outsource their services to the private sector, increasing the “markettization” of the public services, and acting as a new source of profits. “Patients” and “students” then turn into “customers” by buying their private education and health care. Increasingly, workers in the public sector are outsourced to the private sector. Once this takes place, they change from being so-called unproductive workers to productive workers for capitalism, as they produce surplus value for their private employers.
This process has also occurred in manufacturing with the drive to reduce costs and squeeze as much profit from the unpaid labour of the working class. In fact, much of the so-called service sector, which in any case is not a Marxist term, has come into being as a spin off from manufacturing. As we know, firms that once employed maintenance engineers, cleaners, research workers, computer-programming workers, and other skills in-house, now employ private “service” agencies that provide such specialized needs. Whole sectors, which were once part of manufacturing, have been hived off to drive down labor costs, namely the costs of labor power. Former manufacturing jobs have gone to service companies, whose “services” are either leased or rented back at a reduced cost as workers’ wage levels have been forced down. However, the workers are doing exactly the same work as before, only harder. The main difference is they are employed by capitalist agencies instead of the original manufacturer.

Military-industrial complex

Lastly, the increased burden of “unproductive” sectors of the economy, which whittles away at the very marrow of the system, has been exacerbated by the growth of the military-industrial complex and the colossal burden of defence expenditure on a world scale. While very profitable for the defense contractors, this wasteful expenditure draws vital resources away from the productive economy.
Whatever the position of different sectors of workers, the insane profit driven view of capitalism simply reflects the material interests of the capitalist class. What is clearly evident is the increasingly destructive and parasitic nature of the capitalist system, a reflection of its protracted death agony. The sectors that produce real wealth are contracting to the advantage of those that leech off it, serving to undermine the whole market economy. Nevertheless, the bourgeois economists are blind to this impending catastrophe. As the ancient Greek philosophers said, “those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.”
The return of mass unemployment, which takes the form of a permanent organic character, eats away at the vitals of society. This terrible waste of human labour power, together with the money spent on keeping the unemployed alive for fear of the social and political consequences, is a stark reminder of the complete impasse of the system. The malignant cancer of mass unemployment, especially hitting the youth, is a stark reflection of the diseased state of capitalism in its epoch of terminal decline. Society is now in a complete impasse - in reality a new Depression - as the productive forces are being strangled by private ownership of the means of production and the nation state. The capitalist system has now become a colossal obstacle. Partial reforms and patchwork solutions are of no use. Society needs a new Organizer. The market has utterly failed. The apologists of capital are desperately trying to hold their ground, but are faced with a sea-change of anti-capitalist opposition. More and more will come to realize that the only way out of this impasse is the complete overthrow of the system.
Abolition of private ownership of the means of production is the first prerequisite to a rationally-organized planned economy. Under democratic socialist planning, the anarchy of capitalism will be eliminated. There will be no such thing as “productive” and “unproductive” labor, as exploitation and surplus value will become a thing of the past. According to Marx, society will inscribe on its banners: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” Humanity will then be able to plan its life rationally, using the full resources and talents available to society, eventually leading to the abolition of classes and the domination of man by man.

---