Who said Obama will prolong the occupation of Iraq?

Oh, it was me... I must be come kind of genius to have known. It's all very well having hindsight. Some of us had foresight.

Now, if I could find a way of being paid for my brilliant punditry I'd be set.

Do you remember Ben Griffin? He was given a gagging order, which prevented him from speaking publicly about the British military role in Iraq and Afghanistan. His chief allegation was the British troops handed prisoners over to American jurisdiction for 'rendition'. It turns out he was telling truth.

My Word!

All that I know about Bangladesh and it's politics is that I know nothing, and yet, with this going on... we can has general strike? I imagine the mutineers will need urgent support if they are not to be massacred.

Is it me or does it feel like the world is in revolution already (except Britain, of course) but that no-one is really aware of that fact?

News everyone...

Actually it's more debate. However... There is an argument going on about whether racism has ended. It's a particularly important debate in America at the moment. It's treated a touch more frivolously here, due in part to the low calibre of Britain's political class.

Everyone starts by saying racism hasn't ended. How could they do otherwise? What many are arguing over is the existence of institutional racism. Trevor Phillips says it is no more (although he also all but claimed that the British Labour Party is racist). The hard-right press were, of course, very relieved to hear this.

Ali Desai disagrees, and well he might. He has an interesting piece in today's Graun concerning institutional racism, or as he puts it "post-modern racism".

According to him front-line policing was purged of overt racism. Canteen culture was ended (partly by closing the canteens). The police officers recruited in the last 10 years have embraced change. Racism apparently moved higher up and became more subtle. The concern apparently became to make police policy "race proof", which is not the same as colour blind.

Speaking conferences on race – often with barely a black or Asian face on the platform – gives them the credentials they need for the next promotion. They hand-pick "friendly" black and Asian staff to provide them with cover if they are accused of discrimination. "Race proofing" is the antidote to the sting of racism allegations in today's policing. Postmodern racism has maintained the very practices and procedures which Macpherson stated 10 years ago discriminate against black and ethnic minority staff.

Assessment based on "acceptability" rather than "suitability" has ensured that anti-terrorism commands, firearm teams, and management boards remain exclusive enclaves with a conspicuous absence of black and Asian officers.

Unsurprisingly:

A recent survey carried out by the BBC's Panorama found unprecedented levels of mistrust between minority staff and their line managers. Those interviewed commented that things have got worse. There is a boycott on recruitment by the Metropolitan Black Police Association, which is also considering a protest march about the treatment of its members. There are two race inquiries in progress when the ink has not yet dried on the previous two.

Institutional racism is actually a tautology. Racism, as opposed to prejudice is institutional. Racism is a practice that systematically restricts and oppresses ethnic minorities, regardless of the intentions of individuals when they interact. This is why white people do not suffer racism, their life chances are not reduced by their origin and/or colour of their skin.

The police force is a racist institution. It cannot be otherwise in this society. Taking Mr Desai at his word the concerning matter should be the effect of institutional racism (strictly speaking there can't be such a thing as post-modern racism; racism is a grand-narrative) at the top on those serving on the front line.

Senior police officers are dirigente, they are leaders and organisers. The organisation and culture they create will be recreated by those who follow their orders. Culture is important. If senior police officers want a demonstration broken up they will first incite their riot police against the demonstrators. If senior police officers want tangible results after an attempted bombing in London they will hype up their firearms officers and tell them "whatever course of action you take we will back you up".

If senior officers are concerned to continue with racist policies, such as stop and seach, whilst covering their arses, this will filter down into the actions of front line police.

Unspeakable rage

An interesting article from today's Graun, Britain faces summer of rage - police. It has a sub heading: "Middle-class anger at economic crisis could erupt into violence on streets".

This is odd because the piece chiefly talks about strikes and riots, working class prerogatives. It's like the American political nicety where no-one mentions anything to do with class struggle, that's been banished, an unhappy dream. If you don't look at it, it's not there.

The article is, basically, a warmed over press release. Some of it is historically realistic (the unemployed become footsoldiers for unrest). Some of it is typical police balls (they were there to "keep order" during the miners and printers strikes... what balls!). Some of it concerns us.

Intelligence reports suggest that "known activists" are also returning to the streets, and police claim they will foment unrest. "Those people would be good at motivating people, but they haven't had the 'footsoldiers' to actually carry out [protests]," Hartshorn said. "Obviously the downturn in the economy, unemployment, repossessions, changes that. Suddenly there is the opportunity for people to mass protest.

"It means that where we would possibly look at certain events and say, 'yes there'll be a lot of people there, there'll be a lot of banner waving, but generally it will be peaceful', [now] we have to make sure these elements don't come out and hijack that event and turn that into disorder."

Comrades, friends, expect to be arrested; even if you are innocent and what you are doing is legal expect to be arrested.

It's really very simple...

The RMT is threatening industrial action over 3,500 potential job cuts on the rails. A spokeswoman for one of the companys in question apparently said "it [the company] would do everything it could to find affected staff alternative employment". This begs the question, what, what can the company do that Gordon Brown is already not doing?

The British railway system is overcrowded and set to get worse, so these job cuts can't be anything to do with overstaffing. The system is clearly understaffed. The rail system in general has been turning good profit (interestingly Network Rail was once described as "not-for-profit", now it's described as "not-for-dividend"). The companies in question have apparently been raising prices and making good money too.

What on earth is this about? This couldn't possibly be a pre-emptive attack against strong groups of workers in a bid to make working people pay for cheques that Gordon Brown's butt can't cash?

There have been so many points recently where a group of workers could have given a lead. It is a question of time before someone takes radical action, even against their own prevailing philosophy. The question for us is, then, how many losses are we going to suffer before we reach that point, how can we minimise those losses, how can we reach break point faster?

The formula for capital

M-C-M...



or U-?-P?

Mo' Simpsons

Let’s trot through a few more Matt Groening characters.

The Simpsons as a show does a lot of things well. One of the best things it does is tackle age. It has two ways of dealing with said subject: Grandpa Simpson and Monty Burns. In terms of comedy they are profanity and anachronism.

Grandpa Simpson is Homer’s future, Homer down the line. Homer is unleashed desire. Abe is uncensored thought. One thing they share is a sprawling, unfocused, multifocused consciousness.

Homer is a baby boomer, a first child of popular culture. His thoughts are expressed synchronically, lacing tangents together, condensing pop references into short space. Abe is from the war generation, the last literate generation. He expresses diachronically, chiefly through stories that don’t go anywhere.

A side thought: when Homer is actually shown in the future he appears quite calm. In a very touching moment during the Lisa’s Wedding Episode, he fully credits his daughter for making him a better man: “you’re my greatest accomplishment and you did it all yourself”. The scene dissolves to the present. Lisa and Homer are reunited at the fayre. Lisa finds a new love and respect for her father.

Lisa and Homer’s relationship stands for a lot of things. In part they are where the American left meets the working class. Lisa is often frustrated in her political quest. It’s often only when Lisa teams up with Homer that she manages to get anything done.

Example: in Much Apu About Nothing Lisa makes little headway against Proposition 24 until she recruits her Dad to the cause. The final joke is that Proposition 24 passes with a landslide. It is a pessimistic conclusion, suited for the 90s. TV lies but the Simpsons tell the truth.

Monty Burns is a walking anachronism. His language is outmoded. His clothes are outdated. He is ridiculously old (class of 1914 old).

His position in Springfield is also ridiculously out of date. Burns is a big capitalist, but he goes to work. The true bourgeois hasn’t participated in economic life for years. His empire has grown so vast he has to employ an army of managers and executives to tend to his kingdom. Occasionally Burns resorts to 10 high priced lawyers. He sometimes uses hired goons. Generally, though, one man does his dirty work: Waylon Smithers.

Burns is an old style Robber Baron. He is the true, unashamed face of capitalism, brutal and callous. He doesn’t need PR and corporate sheen to get by.

Non-alienated listmaking

Yup, tis back. Suggested blog titles:

A Complex System of Popes
A Complex Tragedy of Mustard
A Public System of Monuments
Complex Adventures from Unrepentant Monkeys
Gorilla Lunch Box
The Sensuous Hippo
The Naked Vault
Fatwa for Ian McEwan
Speaking on Paper
Drumbo's Half-Hour
That's Not Teabagging!
Harry's Tomb
Mistakes Were Made...
Egoplasty
A Phoenix from the Shit
British Jobs for British Zombies
ARS1
How's the Snot?

Defend Jose Stalin Bermudez

Read more at Solomon's Mindfield:

Defend José Stalin Bermúdez! Victimised SOAS activist
His offence? Helping cleaners fight poverty pay

Join the solidarity protest on the 24th February!

SOAS Unison branch chair José Stalin Bermúdez has been suspended from his post and is awaiting a hearing that could see him sacked from his employment with the college.

Stalin's colleagues and other campaigners believe the move follows his role in leading a successful campaign at the University against poverty pay among cleaning staff.

Stalin, an Ecuadorian immigrant and himself a former cleaner, helped launch a campaign for the London Living Wage after Latin American SOAS cleaners approached him for support, as some of them had not been paid for 3 months by SOAS' cleaning contractor. Stalin, along with other staff and students, organised a series of protests which would see cleaners raise their wages from £5.52 to £7.45 per hour and gain trade-union recognition! This important victory has encouraged similar campaigns to be set up in other London colleges.

We believe that his suspension is groundless.

Some news

Hugo Chavez can now stand for indefinite relection as president of Venezuela.

Venezuelans yesterday voted to abolish term limits for elected officials, boosting Hugo Chávez's ambition to rule the country for decades.

Electoral authorities said 54% of voters in the referendum backed a constitutional amendment allowing indefinite re-election, with 46% rejecting it – a margin of almost 1 million voters.

Which is a problem for all those who want to paint Venezuela as a personal dictatorship. By all accounts Hugo Chavez and the PSUV wins the majority of free, fair elections and referrenda.

The latest ISJ has a state-of-the-revolution report from Mike Gonzalez. As you can imagine Venezuela is not paradise on earth. There is a battle going on between visions of change, top-down vs bottom-up. One example given is the Missions. Have they liberated people or made them dependent?

It's a cause for concern rather than condemnation. Bolivarianism is so far the 21st century's sole experiment in alternative government. But it's cause for concern when you hear how the PSUV apparently conducted its campaign.

The government's "red machine" waged a formidable campaign. Posters urging a "yes" vote saturated the country, state TV networks cheered for the "si" and civil servants were sent out to canvass.

A flyer gave 10 reasons for voting yes. Number one said: "Chávez loves us and love is repaid with love", and the second stated: "Chávez is incapable of doing us harm".

"Chávez is incapable of doing us harm"...? Eww.

Hamas - Israel - Again

A Beeb story, Hamas 'set for truce with Israel':

A long-term truce between the Palestinian militant group Hamas and Israel may be announced within days, Hamas officials said in Cairo.

Border crossings would reportedly be re-opened and a ceasefire would be called for 18 months under the Egyptian-brokered deal.

Interesting, given the recent right lurch via the Israeli elections. One of the simplest front-foot arguments during the war was pointing out that the last ceasefire held until the Israelis broke on November 4h (almost certainly in anticipation of the coming war). If rockets were the problem then the Israeli government would have respected and renewed the ceasefire.

The article does have an egregious mention (given it's nothing to do with the substance of the article) "Hamas is accused of using violence to stifle opposition in Gaza". Well, Israel is also accused of using violence to stifle opposition in Gaza. But that doesn't count.

Immediate peace between Palestine and Israel will come through normalising relations with Hamas, who want to be recognised. The trouble is the kings of Israeli politics are now Benyamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Liberman.

Completely unreasonable ultra-leftism

Hossam el-Hamalawy: statement on internet activism

Find it here. I am inclined to agree, especially with:

After months of correspondence, discussions and chats with Comrade Ady, we both found ourselves in full agreement that, unfortunately, despite the successes and growth of the IST over the past few years in some parts of the world, the movement is still lagging behind when it comes to internet activism. Let’s be frank, most, if not all, the IST groups haven’t yet absorbed or realized the implications of the internet evolution and development of Web 2.0 on organizing for a workers revolution, missing out on an ever growing potential audience for socialist propaganda and agitation, as well as consuming logisitical resources that could have been optimized using the latest internet technological innovations…

The developments in the forces and relations of production, as Marx said, lead to changes in the superstructure. Well, with a quick google search on the implications of Web 2.0 on “business”, you get tons of results–articles, postings and books. But you don’t get the same amount of literature on what these changes mean for revolutionaries. We have not tackled the subject enough, neither organizationally nor ideologically.

If all our enemies and super-reactionaries from Israel and Obama to the Vatican Pope are embracing the Web 2.0 tools and strategies, doesn’t that arouse our interest if not ring alarm bells…? They have understood the potential of social networks in terms of outreach and mobilization. Shouldn’t we counter that? Shouldn’t we come up with a strategy and aggregate our efforts instead of continuing to act on individual initiatives?

But you should read the whole of it.

A complex system of grunts and sighs

Or a tune by the Happy Mondays. Wrote For Luck:



And because I really wuv you (and because all civilisation and culture will shortly head down the pan) here's M/A/R/R/S Pump Up The Volume:

No future

Oh fuck. Oh no. Oh shit. You dumb motherhubbard, what the fuck are we gonna do now?

Britain is in a "deep recession" that could get worse if efforts to save the banking system fail, Bank of England governor Mervyn King warned today.

The economy is set to contract by as much as 4% in the first half of 2009, King said, admitting this was a sharper fall than most forecasts. Inflation is forecast to be 0.5% in two years' time.

The government have doshed out over £500 billion by most estimates. They don't actually have £500 billion. Someone's going to have to stump up. By 2011 things will be worse, you understand? I would like to put up videos of last night's excellent meeting with a Waterford Crystal factory worker. That is, of course, the way forward. But what a long way back we're starting from. Misery!

Asked about the Bank's approach to the crisis, the governor admitted: "I'm not pretending that everything worked well. It clearly didn't... What we need to do is develop a new range of instruments."

How about a length of piano wire? Poison pizza? A mace? Pitchforks? Torches?

For your consideration

The Church of England may ban clergy from becoming members of the BNP. A Complex System of Popes has already mentioned how it's standing shoulder to shoulder with the clergy (on this issue). It's a welcome move, not just good politics but sound theology. God made man in his own image. If god existed I'd hope he wasn't fat, white, middleaged and a sour bigot. Apparently:

The party's website says it "unashamedly addresses itself to the issues and concerns of the indigenous British population and... seeks to ensure that British people remain the majority population in this country".

Thanks for that, Auntie. Also, I don't suppose there's any way the second statement cancels out the first. I wouldn't want to accuse the master race of being philosophically slack.

Also, in this week's nose, the smell of chips has been analysed by scientists at Leeds University. They must have found a cure for AIDS last week. I'll check up on that.

Israel goes to the polls today. Apparently Binyamin Netanyahu and Zippy Livni are neck and neck (presumably these are Palestinian necks)... Also apparently Zippy's a "centrist" and a "dove" and there's an even worse group out there led by a chappie called Avigdor Lieberman. Crystal ball sez moar woar on the way, as does Lenin.

Finally, for your consideration, George Monbiot, up for the award Most Brilliant Rant: Just what exactly do you stand for, Hazel Blears - except election?

Carry the card - Take the pledge

I pledge to waste your time if you decide to waste mine. An excellent initiative from Mark Thomas, the kind of thing he's good at. More please!

Derivative easy reading

Futurama was originally cancelled because it turned out it was not the Simpsons in space.

The writers make some excellent jokes out of this in the fourth series (The network execubots are coming!). It was brought back as a series of DVD films. We’re reminded of the brutal cancellation through the running gag about Torgo’s Executive Powder.

The Simpsons has an obvious subversive streak. Even at its best (generally acknowledged as somewhere between seasons 3 to 8) it was spoiled more than once by cop-out resolutions and instants of sickly sentimentality. It was always a family show.

Futurama on the other hand was aimed at (and about) young adults. It was aimed at the people who appreciated the Simpsons satirical qualities.

The Simpsons had a major effect on animation. It was the first prime time animation to really reach an audience in decades. When the show was first broadcast cartoons were seen purely as children’s fare.

Chris Thomas (Planet Simpson) proposes the tremendous crossover appeal of the show lay in the fact a generation children grew up with TV programmes specifically aimed at them. They were bombarded with cartoons (often little more than elaborate toy adverts). Said children never grew out of watching cartoons. The nostalgia industry peddling Transformers and Thundercats memorabilia is one modern hangover.

As these children became teenagers and young adults their interests and tastes changed. Thanks to the Simpsons dynamite effect on primetime TV, they did not have to look elsewhere to satisfy those interests. The explosion in primetime and adult cartoons followed this trend. Don’t forget the upswing in animated films, which began with Toy Story. Without the Simpsons you probably wouldn’t have Pixar.

What’s this actually about?

Matt Groening is the creator and chief developer of both series. Creative types tend to draw on the same basic resources, however different each end product may be.

There are continuities between The Simpsons and Futurama. One of the most noticeable is the crossover between Homer Jay Simpson and Bender Bending Rodriguez.

The first thing is the both represent labour. This is a head start in gaining the audience’s sympathy. They are both manual workers. One is a nuclear safety technician, the other a bending unit. In an extra twist, as it were, Bender is a robot, which literally means “worker”.

Neither really cares about their allotted job. This could easily be turned into satire about the decline of American labour, lazy, greedy workers who allowed the Japanese to get ahead.

But our sympathy is with them. They are rightly disenchanted with their work. Work at the Springfield plant is dull and humiliating. There is a continuous raffle for Industrial Chimney Sweep of the Day. A slave rotates the cafeteria cake-stand. Homer’s boss is Mr Burns, an amalgamation of every Robber Baron and crooked politician you care to mention. On the other hand, Bender bends girders. That’s all he’s programmed to do. There’s a beautiful moment in the very first episode where Bender describes his job to Fry:

“I can bend an girder to any angle: 30 degrees, 32 degrees…” His voice breaks a little, “31”.

We root for them because in each of the shows they get to go adventures from work. Since Bender crashed into a light bulb in the first episode of Futurama he has effectively been on one long adventure from alienated labour. As the Simpsons progressed and the backstory became more and more tortuous, the writers make a bigger and bigger joke out of Homer’s absurdly rich and fulfilling life.

These characters are appealing because they cast their workaday shackles in the pursuit of desire…

It’s that id against, isn’t it?

That’s right. Both Homer and Bender represent unbridled desire. This is the point where they both flower beyond a 1-D metaphor into round characters.

Homer is made to stand for a number of things. Often he represents instant consumer culture (two minutes is two minutes too long when you’re flash frying a buffalo). Other times he is a pop-culture sponge. In his pursuit of immediate gratification he occasionally he reaches a state of Zen-rationality and multi-focal intellect.

Bender is a talking tool. His being is once used as a metaphor for race (Fear of a Bot Planet). Despite his obstructive aversion to labour his body proves endlessly useful. His inner cavity is a pressure cooker, a brewery, a microwave and a grill. It holds a jack and contains a gaydar. He has storage space for three goldfish bowls and a baby. His eyes are cameras. His arms are super-extendable. His head is a hand bell. His arse is a pepper grinder and a plug. You get the picture.

While Bender is a much more finished product, Homer took a little while to develop.

In the earliest series, when Bart was considered the star, Homer is dumb, but he’s also menacing. As far back as the Tracey Allman sketches, Homer is a tinderbox of rage. He physically takes out his frustration on his infuriating boy. There is also the hint his wife Marge may be at risk, although it’s never shown. In virtually every episode the family teeters on the brink.

Season six: Homer wakes from a coma and immediately strangles Bart after he admits shaking up a can of beer for April Fools Day. The rest of the family welcomes this as a healthy sign of normality. As the seasons progress the Simpsons become happily resigned to Homer’s antics (the only antidote to a zany scheme is an even zanier scheme). He is accepted as a breath of fresh air into their stale lives.

The show is, in a way, an ongoing Twelfth Night, where the blue-collar slob is a hero and authority figures, from Mr Burns to Seymour Skinner to Chief Wiggum, are razzed at. Homer is the ringleader of a bacchanal. He is a cross between Dionysus and Bluto Blutarsky, a gleeful anarchist.

You’d never actually want to meet him. This point is driven home stunningly by the Frank Grimes episode. The fact is, you’re glad to hear about him.

Homer Simpson is one of the greatest fictional creations of all time.

Newsparagraph

The NPA is officially launched. There are disputes heading up on the buses and in the warehouses. Farmers blockades have paralysed Greece. Millions strike in France. Interest rates in Britain are now 1%, that’s a very low percent.

Is that it?

Bureaucracy exists because the commodity producing society has found no other way of managing its complexity. Bureaucracy is parasitic. It drains off resources and skill that could go into further enriching society. Bureaucracy is self-perpetuating. It supplies the bulk of the modern middle classes, in the form of managers, foremen, military and police officers, university principals, NHS commissioners, senior civil servants and so on… varieties of middlemen. Bureaucrats have a stake (though not the deciding stake) in the capitalist system, and so form the front line in its defence.

Karl Marx identified bureaucracy as the chief obstacle to socialism. When he summed up the achievements of the short-lived Paris Commune he pointed to how it freed up the live elements of society from the dead. The commune did three simple things that radically changed the nature of the state:

(1) Anyone with a commission was elected on short terms and instantly recallable.
(2) All those with positions of responsibility were paid an average working wage.
(3) All armed minorities, such as the police, army and national guard, were dissolved into the people themselves: creating an armed majority.

As far as Marx was concerned this was all that was needed to remove the obstacles to socialist reform of society. This was the revolution.

The revolution did not get rid of hierarchy at a stroke. Division of labour was not abolished overnight. The people Paris had overthrown both the Empire and the Republic in succession. They still came from capitalist society and came with its effects. Before society could become genuinely classless and free it would have to be transformed from within.

The above features are the answer to the problem of bureaucracy. These kinds of measures must be applied as best they can in a party looking to overthrow capitalism.

But we see the problems quite quickly. A party is not a communal body. It cannot meet in permanent session. All people with responsibilities can be paid a set wage. Parties are not armed majorities. At most times they are not even majorities, at least not in terms of membership or active support.

But bureaucracy can be tempered. It is interesting to compare the action of an armed majority transforming society to the application of democratic centralism. The idea is once a course of action is settled upon all members are (at least) formally compelled to carry that action out.

If this is applied successfully it guarantees a party of active engaged members. The course is set upon whether members are organised or unorganised workers, students or free professionals. Cultivating all-round activists starts here.

Finally, there is no guarantee any of this will work. History may be guided by logic but it is dependent upon events. Parties are collections of people and people can fail.

Socialism is an historical movement. Movements rise and fall but they don’t start from scratch. This is because they become formalised in structures, political organisations that combine multiple talents through division of labour. This is a source of strength as well as conservatism.

The closest you have to a guarantee is the uninterrupted flow between movement and structure: proof in practice will see us right.

Respite...

But at the same time cause for concern. From today's Mumbly-oh piece, Why protesters are now stalkers:

The law [1997 protection from harassment act] creates an offence of pursuing "a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another"...

In 2001, the act was used to prosecute protesters outside the US intelligence base at Menwith Hill, who were deemed to have distressed American servicemen by holding up a placard reading "George W Bush? Oh dear!" In the same year a protester in Hull was arrested under the act for "staring at a building". In 2004, police in Kent arrested a woman who had sent two polite emails to an executive at a drugs company, begging him not to test his products on animals. In 2007, the residents of a village in Oxfordshire were injuncted from protesting against a power company's plan to fill their lake with fly ash – in case they caused alarm or distress to the company's burly security guards...

In 2005 the government amended the act in a way that seemed deliberately to target peaceful protesters and smear them as stalkers. Originally you had to approach one person twice to be "pursuing a course of conduct"; now you need only approach two people once. In other words, if you hand out leaflets to passers-by which contain news that might alarm or distress them, that is now harassment. The government slipped in a further clause, redefining harassment as representing to "another individual" (ie anyone) "in the vicinity" of his or anyone else's home (ie anywhere) "that he should not do something that he is entitled or required to do; or that he should do something that he is not under any obligation to do". This is, of course, the purpose of protest.

We know the government meme "I'm all in favour of the right to protest..." Meme carriers forget to add "just so long as it's not effective in any way". Log this under the State Reverting To Type.

Is there a punchline coming...?

Division of labour under capitalism has a progressive dimension. Vast, powerful organisations can be built up, combining the labour of millions, potentially billions. It also tends to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

What distinguishes human from animal labour is that it’s conscious. Factory labour (whether inside or outside the factory) reduces work to the most easily acquired knack. Work is bestialised in every sense.

There is a contiguous process of bureaucratisation. Many hands applied to commodity production, combined with the reduction of work down to a repetitive series of actions, makes it impossible for an individual worker to account for their work. An army of bureaucrats is raised to manage and account for work done.

The twist in the tale is that bureaucracy becomes a commodity itself. The last twenty years in Britain has seen an explosion in tertiary service employment. A bulk of said employment has been in firms offering services such as accountancy, banking, insurance, auditing, legal advice… etc.

The division of labour firstly divides mental and physical aspects of work. It then reduces all forms of mental labour down to repetitive action as far as possible.

Now we must apply this to politics…

We live in a political society. The great revolutions of the 18th and 19th century revived the category of the citizen. This is a tangible fact, even if the ruling class’s commitment to democracy is mostly platonic.

Democracy as we know it is built upon capitalism. It is built upon a society with a sharp division between mental and manual labour. Upon a society where work is reduced as far as possible to the most easily acquired knack. Built upon a society where bureaucracy seeps from every pore.

People are trained to act as fleshy cogs in a machine. This reduces consciousness to a single dimension, the pull of the production line. No one individual can comprehend society (that is the fundamental problem of bourgeois philosophy, which takes the free individual as its base). This cannot be overcome by will or force of intellect alone.

People group together to form parties in order to achieve political aims. People who come together to work for a political end are imbued with this one-dimensional consciousness. This is true even for the parties that aim to transcend capitalism.

Zip It: part deux

All filler, no killer...

Unfortunately...

The effects of the commodity are interesting. Production for accumulation via exchange is not natural. A bloody revolution was needed to get commodity production started. A society that turns to commodity production rips up all the seemingly natural relations producers have to their work.

A simple illustration: time. Peasant farmers, free or bonded, have the same relation to time, which for them progresses as days, weeks, months, seasons and years. Time is crucial to capitalist production. It must be broken down into consistent, repetitive instants to be measured against productivity in order to calculate socially necessary labour time: the average cost it takes to make a commodity. Time in a factory, shop or office is measured in hours, minutes and seconds.

In his work History and Class-Consciousness Georg Lukacs was very keen on the word “commodity-structure”. Think of an immense collection of commodities. You’ll picture something like piles of boxes in a warehouse. The qualities of a commodity are regularity, repeatability and quantity. A commodity is something that alters the shape of everything around it to conform.

In order for a non-capitalist society (however you choose to define “society”) to get the benefits of capitalist goods, use values, it has to start trading in capitalist exchange values, commodities. The commodity “compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production”.

In order to build and immense collection of commodities able to conquer a market something must change about work.

An artisan can make something for the purposes of exchange. Given that he or she is working under their own power they can really only reach a limited market. Even if they happen to make the same product hundreds or thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of times in their life, the end result is subject to creativity and/or human error. A market depends on trading like for like. This is difficult when a commodity is different from one item to the next.



The logic of commodity production leads to division of labour, co-operation between producers, manufacturing and finally the industrial system. The crowning of this process is Taylorism where. This is where active labour is broken down into individual actions, which can be timed to measure productivity.

This process doesn’t just affect factory work. An example: journalism. At the turn of the last century journalists were free professionals. An article was put together with a literary eye. Compare, say, J’Accuse by Emile Zola to any modern piece of journalism, even quality journalism, and you’ll see the difference. Modern journalists don’t so much as compose (each newspaper and magazine has a style guide) but recombine. They put together tightly written articles from news wires, interviews and press releases. The deadly phenomenon of “churnalism” stems from the proletarianisation of news media.

Back to the point: it is very easy for an artisan to account for the labour that goes into their product. Consider modern industry, the amount of labour that goes into making a product (past and present labour, machinery/raw materials and wages). Thanks to division of labour no one person can account for the value that goes into each product. This is where things such as management and accounting come in. Division of labour is why bureaucracy flowers under capitalism.

Cops and zombies on the way though...

Phil Space

I was going to finish a long 'un inspired by various discussions I've had recently, but snowblindness and tense headaches stopped me. Here is the first part, a diddy little piece of orthodoxy, for your perusal. The rest will come soon.

Also this week you can expect (1) More on the psychology of cops and (2) British jobs for British Zombies: I await your denunciations.

Commodities 'n' Stuff

The commodity is key to capitalism. It’s existence, or rather it’s predominance, indicates capitalism.

Karl Marx begins his epic, Capital, with a chapter called “The Commodity”. It opens with:

“The wealth of societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails appears as an immense collection of commodities”.

Humans labour consciously. Everything made by them is intended for some use. A commodity also has use value, however, it is made for another reason: for exchange. A commodity is made so it can be exchanged.

Those who would argue that capitalism is somehow natural have a problem. For most of human history objects made have not been produced for exchange but direct use.

In the earliest times there was nothing to exchange. Modern humans first arose around the Horn of Africa. Within about 15,000 years they had colonised each inhabitable continent. They were chased across the globe by general lack, in search of food and shelter.

The earliest settlements were self-sustaining tribes. Any surplus wealth generated was accidental. The commodity (not to mention the state) began its slow rise here. It was still a peripheral phenomenon.

Ancient and feudal civilisations did generate far more in the way of surplus wealth. An armed minority generally appropriated it from a bonded majority, working in small economic units with low productivity. The free, trading, middle classes only came into their own once they formed self-governing communes, chartered cities, in the middle ages.

In order for the commodity to gain the upper hand it needed sufficient markets. In order to create this it had to overthrow the old means of creation and appropriation. Landed, noble power had to go, along with the basis of that power, the peasant farm, the artisan’s workshop, the guild and so on.

The middle classes took power and quickly monopolised the means of production (a tremendous intervention in history, a revolution), creating the greatest commodity of all, wage labour. This created both the market and the commodities needed for mature capitalism. Unlike, say, peasant farmers, wageworkers cannot conjure up their own means of subsistence. They have to sell their ability to work and use the proceeds to buy all they need (the market). In the meantime they are contracted to work for the capitalist, whose interest is in making commodities to corner that market.

Ha Ha!

Ha Ha!