Part II
“The threat today is not passivity but pseudo-activity, the urge to ‘be active’, to ‘participate’, to mask the nothingness of what goes on.” ~Slavoj Zizek
It is said that the first casualty in a war is the truth, another section of Occupy London's homage to the Chartist's six point petition, brings another list of obvious and more subtle misrepresentations.
Seeking the establishment of well defined lines of demarcation while trying to reinforce and direct generalized antipathies, the document comes across as one of many competing "anti-establishment" narratives which are all the rage these days. Selectively reporting "facts" about a negative other to substantiate a more or less explicit ideology, ie UKIP->immigrants; Conservatives->the Labour Party; the Daily Mail->poor people in general. This methodology, appropriated by the Occupy movement relies upon accusations, generalizations, false dichotomies, hyperbole, simplistic superficial slogans and mis-representations.
"The Lobby" is one of these factitious representations, what exactly is the author referring to? As with more or less all the causes the Occupy Movement concern themselves with the terminology is ambiguous, merely serving to represent a vaguely defined 'negative' polarity, against which the author asks us to base our 'positive' opposition. Whether this negative polarity is bankers, politicians, foreign nations, the 1% or in the case of UKIP; immigrants, the result is usually the same, blame leading to some form of cathartic release directed against a particular scapegoat.People power versus the lobbyThe privatisation of the NHS went through despite an enormous campaign of letter writing, petitioning and demonstrating by individuals, trade unions, national campaigning groups, and local hospital campaigns. This mass campaign had public opinion on its side, but the effort was unfortunately more than matched by the lobbying power of the health insurance industry and management consultants who stood to gain from privatisation.
There are numerous groups and organizations actively lobbying against "privatization of the NHS" and the author alludes to them above, but to identify thus recognize them for what they are, namely lobbying groups (boo, hiss)[1], would render the false dichotomy of "People power versus the lobby" worthless.
This is one of many misrepresentations, apparently intended to induce in the reader great antipathy towards the political practice of lobbying, which rather than being merely the reserve of suited businessmen, (studiously pouring over Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power or Sun Tzu's Art of War, in attempts to emulate the Wolf of Wall St on the political scene as the author suggests) is actually open to anyone willing to participate by organizing and presenting their particular interests to the relevant Politicians.
One suspects, though certainty is precluded by the vague nature of their diatribes, that this method is required to retain the main anti-parliamentarian thrust of the article, which is apparently designed to detract from the existing democratic process, justify their inaction within it and negate the proposed political responses to the problems they are writing about.
The opening sentence is just plain wrong, there has been no bill brought before Parliament titled "The Privatization of the NHS", therefore 'it' never "went through", but rather the "Health and Social Care Act 2012" was proposed and passed the House of Commons and the Lords, despite being strongly opposed particularly by the Labour Party, who have announced their own plans to introduce a new Bill which would repeal many of the more controversial aspects of the 2012 act.
Particularly returning the responsibility to provide healthcare for all citizens of the UK to the Secretary of State, which the 'de-centralization' in the Conservative reform bill in 2012 abolished.
This is an interesting theory, but is it actually an accurate diagnosis, what makes the pro-Privatization lobby more successful than the anti-Privatization lobby? I am not qualified to offer a conclusive answer to this question but I have a couple of suggestions.The vastly greater lobbying resources of corporations can make MPs immune to the democratic pressure of campaigns like the anti-privatization one.
For one the Conservative Party is ideologically disposed to favour increasing competition, removing the influence of the State in regulating the financial services industry thus empowering the markets, while denying the existence of "society" as State subsidies of various National industries were removed, was the great contribution of Margaret Thatcher, during this Parliament the Tories emulating her legacy, have encouraged the establishment of "Free Schools" which derive funding from the State but decide independently how it is allotted[2]; cut numerous Public sector jobs and services to be replaced by Private contractors running the same services merely to make a profit; liberalized the mortgage market with 95% mortgages being made available instead of investing in affordable social housing; revoked Human Rights regulations and resisted attempts by the European Union to regulate the financial markets.
As the Conservatives themselves like to point out; they "are the Party of Free Trade", the party of "big business", who favour a small State and powerful "self regulating" markets, therefore the current Government is overwhelmingly sympathetic to the privatization agenda including the NHS, contrary to the accusations of the Occupy Movement the whole Parliamentary system is not corrupted or bought by corporations, but during a Conservative dominated government it certainly appears that way.
It seems as though through advocating non-participation in the democratic process as some symbolic and meaningless protest, they will ensure the Conservatives enjoy another 5years of destroying the State from within.
Another reason is bargaining power, a question of numbers and size, the number lobbying against Privatization may be larger than that of those in favour, although if one assumes the employees of the large corporations taking over provision of NHS services support their employers participation in the process, it's by no means conclusive that the popular resistance protesting against privatization is the majority voice.
Even if they are a greater number, as the author suggests, the money therefore "lobbying resources of corporations" far outweighs that of anti-Privatization campaigners, regardless of the amount of people supporting anti-privatization campaigns, the number is still far too few and the tactics far too meaningless to affect any meaningful change in the Government's agenda.
If upwards of one million organized and decided to effect not only the Government's, but the Private contractors ability to do the business they disagree with, they could undermine both parties in the deal potentially discouraging those who currently perceive private healthcare as a safe investment, as well as those who are trying to auction public services to them, they could show that it will cost them a lot more than they stand to gain.
If as the Occupy Movement appears to suggest; money is the defining factor in the power of the corporate lobby, then surely the tactics must be to hit them where it hurts, in the wallet.
It must be to target these corporations and organize boycotts and actions which will translate into unbearable costs for those private companies, this tactic hasn't escaped them in regards to Israel's self defence earlier this year, where they cooperated with pro-Palestine activists to organize and publicize the boycott and occupation of numerous Israeli business in the UK.
The tactics of protesting, trying to appeal to the Government's sense of mercy by public gatherings, clearly has no bearing other than to demonstrate what one would expect the Parties to already know; that a small, vocal proportion of the populace will always disagree with what they do, worse than being ineffectual this tactic is counter productive.
Acting as a pressure release valve constant protest and demonstration prolongs the inaction or pseudo-actions of the masses, by offering a meaningless outlet for expressing dissatisfaction, not to mention quite contradictory: claiming Parliament and the Government is corrupt, then in the same breath saying these corrupt institutions should have monopoly control over the NHS instead of Private companies.
In contrast to their opponents, who one might say have merely capitalized on the lack of public participation in the provision of services currently being privatized, the tangible lack of any radical motive or clear objective underpinning these various expressions of frustration, betrays how little work the 'anti-privatization lobby' have put into gauging public opinion, planning then executing their campaign single-mindedly and resolutely, and obtaining through struggle and hardship the achievement of their aims.
The basis of the mass demonstration as an effective tactic exists only in a bygone age, when workers had more conviction, more honour and integrity, it was not that the people were out on the street waving signs and shouting slogans that bothered the forces they opposed, on the contrary they could have all been at the park playing stool-ball, it was the fact that these masses were not working, they were not providing the services they were paid to provide, their wages for which being threatened by the combined efforts of Financial interests and the Conservative Governments bankrolled by them, those who broke strikes, or didn't join in the first place were ostracised and labelled traitors or "scabs", nowadays only a small minority bother to go on strike in the first place, those who do are labelled "trouble makers" or childish, regardless it seems a gross overstatement to call 4 hours walkout and then 4 days of work to rule a "strike".
With such non-existent support amongst colleagues, those who are sympathetic to the 'anti-privatization' scheme, through self preservation are swayed towards non-participation, and withdraw themselves from any show of solidarity, meanwhile a few thousand young angry people, are willing to go and stand on London Bridge wearing Guy Fawkes masks in the night time, aimlessly shouting abuse and incoherent demands at the Police sent to deal with them, and Occupy London clearly having no need to book time off work; hold week long vigils on Parliament Square, where they tell people not to vote, wave Arab revolt flags and Russell Brand informs impressionable malcontent's of wondrous hypothetical, alternative spiritual-economic systems.
Perhaps rather than merely vocally opposing NHS privatization, or attempting what would be more effective; aggressively impeding it, through their participation people could quite conceivably form cooperative networks and take ownership of local NHS hospitals, it would mean amending their alienated relation to the deteriorating service, and beginning to contribute to providing it rather than merely enjoying it's availability.
However this neglects the fact that there is a great cultural lethargy towards the very things the Occupy Movement supports; participatory democracy, direct action and some abstract concept of revolution, are not at the fore in most people's minds, regardless Occupy overlook the fact that none of this is necessary; if they seriously want the revocation of the current Government's NHS Reform, they should support the election of the Labour Party in the General Election 2015 and organize with that aim in mind.
It's certainly less romantic than waving Arab Revolt flags, or screaming "Revolucion" from the lampposts, but would be a great deal more effective.
______
[1] Lobby~a group of persons who work or conduct a campaign to influence members of a legislature to vote according to the group's special interest.
[2] These Schools are still funded directly by the Secretary of State for Education who allots funds required for State Schools to their budgets, but neither the Government or local council authorities have any say in how that money is allotted.
There are also concerns about conflicts of interests among individuals with connections to both academy trusts and private companies, who may derive financial benefits when providing trusts with goods and services such as the curriculum used by these institutions, which one provider; American company "Mosaica" charged no less than £213,000 for the use of.
