Crashlanding on another list. This week, if you haven't formed a band yet, why not consider these titles:
Max's Laxative Saxaphone Taxi
Johnny Bollocks and the Dangleberries
David T and the Blackmailers
The Dr Zaius Experience
The Smug
The Maroon Capes
Dachshund Treadmill
Vowel Shift
The Rubber Masks
Hitler-Stalin Overdrive
Simples
Guns and Bailey
Noel and the Squishy
1876–77 in English Football
Charlie Solves a Puzzle
Oleg
Nameless Taps
Terabitha Butane
Proud Flange And The Armored Rumour
From Furry And The Fallout
Lysergic Knuckle
Aggression of the Ninth Interior
Burrito Danger
Friday, May 29, 2009
Mo' California
Doomed though the state is to be subsumed by the ocean, enveloped by the fury of the supervolcano darkly grumbling beneath 37 million pairs of feet, leaving nothing but scattered Ipods and Anthony Kiedis' socks floating on the water... The good people of California should not let that get them down. All is not lost. Here's something I didn't know until yesterday, Calfornia has the world's greatest concentration of billionaires.
Maybe it's a modest proposal by modest people but perhaps they could chip in to help cover the $42 billion state government debt. No more than $500 million each would be neccessary, simples.
Some might put it more bluntly. No ifs, no buts, pay your fucking tax.
Maybe it's a modest proposal by modest people but perhaps they could chip in to help cover the $42 billion state government debt. No more than $500 million each would be neccessary, simples.
Some might put it more bluntly. No ifs, no buts, pay your fucking tax.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Carnival of Light
There is one last, great Beatles track left in the archives, called Carnival of Light. I say great, I don't know that for certain, only a very few people have ever heard it. It is a apparently free form piece recorded during a session for Penny Lane (a very underrated experiemental record). It was intended for an art show held later that month in the Camden Roundhouse.
Carnival of Light was not included on the Anthology collections. There were apparently only two mixes ever made, one of which is rumoured to be gathering dust somewhere in America.
But the really interesting thing is the culture this has inspired. As far as anyone can tell there are no genuine bootlegs in existence. There are dozens of recordings claiming to be the real deal and some of them are, well, fantastic. Here's two of the best I can find; wonderful pieces of ambient music. Check out the second piece in particular, at 2.06 when a number of echoed voices converge like a Gregorian chant:
Carnival of Light was not included on the Anthology collections. There were apparently only two mixes ever made, one of which is rumoured to be gathering dust somewhere in America.
But the really interesting thing is the culture this has inspired. As far as anyone can tell there are no genuine bootlegs in existence. There are dozens of recordings claiming to be the real deal and some of them are, well, fantastic. Here's two of the best I can find; wonderful pieces of ambient music. Check out the second piece in particular, at 2.06 when a number of echoed voices converge like a Gregorian chant:
Hil-airy-arse
BNP candidate Corinne Tovey-Jones says don't vote for me.
Grim chuckles aside the article shows two important things. (1) How careless and opportunistic the nazis are:
This is of course the party who slapped supposed quotes over stock images of Italian pensioners, American builders and doctors.
But (2) most importantly it shows, even at this stage, how soft the BNPs support mostly is. Under the slightest pressure this particular election campaign has come apart. Even now the BNP can be driven back. They are not triumpant. A powerful, united campaign can turn things round very quickly.
A BNP candidate has tried to pull out of next week’s local elections because she “doesn’t want people thinking I’m racist”...
Corinne Tovey-Jones [said] she wants to withdraw her candidacy for the far-right British National Party in next Thursday’sWorcestershire County Council elections, but has discovered it is now too late to have her name taken off the ballot papers.
Grim chuckles aside the article shows two important things. (1) How careless and opportunistic the nazis are:
Mrs Tovey-Jones, who is standing in Nunnery division in Worcester, said she had been convinced to stand for the BNP by a neighbour after her husband was made redundant...
Mrs Tovey-Jones, who could not remember who the BNP’s national leader was... said things came to a head when we printed her candidate statement on Monday as part of our election coverage.
She said the statement she submitted to the party – extolling her own “Christian values” – had been rewritten by BNP officials to include comments about the “anti-social behaviour” of “an unruly minority".
This is of course the party who slapped supposed quotes over stock images of Italian pensioners, American builders and doctors.
But (2) most importantly it shows, even at this stage, how soft the BNPs support mostly is. Under the slightest pressure this particular election campaign has come apart. Even now the BNP can be driven back. They are not triumpant. A powerful, united campaign can turn things round very quickly.
Newsnooze
Ahhh, it's gone, it's gone, it's gone...All the shitty shows are gone, all the idiots screaming in the fucking wind are dead, I love it... Well, let's not go nuts. It's not quite the cool blue serenity Arizona Bay, but California is staring into an economic black hole. Ahnold Schwartenegger's political career is currently morphing on the event horizon.
As the governor of the most populous state in the US, Schwarzenegger is partially responsible for the wellbeing of 37 million people. He has the burden of the world's ninth-largest economy on his still muscular shoulders. Until a year ago, he also had the benefit of California's lavish wealth, which filled the state's coffers and gave him the luxury to pursue his equally lavish ambitions.
But since then the California economy has tanked, dragging his budget - and potentially his entire reputation - down with it. The figures are hideous. By this summer the state's budget deficit is expected to reach $21bn (£13bn) and by next, an astonishing $40bn (£25bn). Drastic cuts in state services look inevitable. That could see tens of thousands of teachers and firefighters losing their jobs, almost 40,000 prisoners released early from jail, and benefits slashed for some of the poorest and most vulnerable in California society, including children and battered wives. Schwarzenegger's popularity rating, which used to be as healthy as his Hollywood box-office takings, has plummeted to a George Bushian 33%.
It seems the Terminator has checked out, Bush style, halfway through his final term too.
The striking thing today is that very little of this chilling killer instinct has been in evidence. His tactic for dealing with the budget gap was to present voters with a raft of new propositions that he argued would begin to solve the crisis. He argued for increased taxation, a reduced budget deficit, ring-fenced money for schools and reforms to the state's discredited financial system. Yet when it came to selling these ideas to an already disgruntled electorate, Schwarzenegger suddenly went awol. He was nowhere to be seen in the TV and billboard advertising that pleaded with Californians to vote through the changes.
In other news, there has been a teachers' strike in Los Angeles, which got snarled up in restrictive labour laws (sound familiar?). Doubtless it is part of the same story of deficits and cutbacks. But the big battle is over Proposition 8, passed last year premptively outlawing gay marriage. Thousands have been taking to the streets to start overturning the motion. However, unfortunately, the ruling has been upheld by the California supreme court. Of course, if gay people had the right to marry they might actually use it. Wooh, scary.
Lotta continua.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Tiz nuffin
Nothing but what I've been listening to and liking. I am a latecomer but I'm going to add props an' shout outs an' biggedy-biggedy bongs to to (Blur's current support band) Friendly Fires. The so-called indie scene has flattered to decieve. The next obvious step in popular music evolution was the fusion of songwriting and beats.
Middle of the decade, standard indie classics came attached to an uptempo disco beat (simple trick to turn a straight backbeat into something dancable is to leave part of the drum pattern 1/2 a beat out).
In terms of guitar music it's as far as you can get from the very straight Britpop oeuvre. It suggests both urgency and sexuality; dancing is at root about sexual display. It chimes with the current fascination for all things 80s, to kids in their early twenties post-punk and electro sounds fresh, and is summed in Franz Ferdinand's original statement of "making music to make girls dance".
But, Franz Ferdinand didn't really take the idea to its logical conclusion, neither did The Whip, nor the Klaxons, CSS or New Young Pony Club. Friendly Fires seem to have cracked it with their debut album. Here's one of the songs, Strobe:
Middle of the decade, standard indie classics came attached to an uptempo disco beat (simple trick to turn a straight backbeat into something dancable is to leave part of the drum pattern 1/2 a beat out).
In terms of guitar music it's as far as you can get from the very straight Britpop oeuvre. It suggests both urgency and sexuality; dancing is at root about sexual display. It chimes with the current fascination for all things 80s, to kids in their early twenties post-punk and electro sounds fresh, and is summed in Franz Ferdinand's original statement of "making music to make girls dance".
But, Franz Ferdinand didn't really take the idea to its logical conclusion, neither did The Whip, nor the Klaxons, CSS or New Young Pony Club. Friendly Fires seem to have cracked it with their debut album. Here's one of the songs, Strobe:
Some might say
“Catch these anti-democratic idiots and get them sacked.”
BNP leader Nick Griffin on postal workers refusing to deliver Nazi election leaflets
“It’s either go back to Pakistan or be hanged.”
Nick Griffin on Muslims charged with “specific crimes”
“It’s a term invented by Trotsky to demonise political opponents.”
Nick Griffin after being asked to define racism
“I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that six million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades. I have reached the conclusion that the ‘extermination’ tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter-day witch-hysteria.”
Nick Griffin in 1998 on the Holocaust
“Essentially, yes.”
BNP deputy leader Simon Darby after he was asked if the party wanted all non-whites to leave Britain
“We have made it possible for 186 Gurkhas to live here while they campaigned for justice. In that regard we are 100 percent Joanna Lumley and 0 percent BNP.”
Robert Lee of the Royal British Legion responds to the BNP’s attack on the decision to allow Gurkhas to live in Britain
“Scumbags. I’d never vote for them in a million years.”
Scots Guardsman whose image appears on a BNP election leaflet with a quote saying that he supports the party
Indeed.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Fascism and anti-fascism today
I heard something on a recent demo which pinned my ears back. I was staffing a stall when a young, long-haired gentleman outwardly of the metal/stoner clan approached the stall and said, loudly and exaggeratedly that he didn't want an argument, but... To which I immediately said, "well, if you don't want an argument go somewhere else". I might have been preempting him a little but, unfortunately, there are very few surprises in this world. This guy wasn't surprising.
He ignored me and ploughed on:
"I agree with everything else" he said, pointing to the bulk of the placards on or around this particular stall, "but I think it's stupid when one left wing party wants to smash another".
He pointed to an anti-BNP poster. Realising this I said something along the lines of "if you're going to be that daft you can go somewhere else". Words to that effect until he got the point, which he eventually did. He may have innocently though that the British Nazi Party were left wing. I doubt it though. This is a meme that has been doing the rounds on the internet for some time.
Here is a later example of said meme in action. Harry Phibbs is the Guardian's resident Thatcherite intransigent. This is him in action. First of all he is pitching for a tory vote. The immediate threat that has got everybody worried is nazi MEPs after June 4th/11th. The usual electoral move has been to vote Labour (with no illusions, comrade!) to block the nazis. In London this time at least you will have a choice of Labour or the Greens, not much but better.
But there's one other thing Phibbs is trying to head off:
As if he ever thought that any task could be satisfactorily left to the SWP. It is a given for Phibbs that the SWP is a hindrance to the anti-fascist message. He was never likely to explain how the tories might slip the noose on account of their own racism and anti-working class politics. This is the hang Nelson Mandela party.
You know, I know, he knows and everybody else knows the reason the BNP exists and takes the tactics it does is because it was obliterated in the 90s, as was its predecessor the National Front in the 70s. It has had to piggyback the mainstream political drive to demonise and isolate muslims, only go as far as supposedly respectable politicians, in order to worm its way back into public life.
The reason they have had to do this is because the Anti-Nazi League, whose driving force was the SWP, stopped them in their tracks. There will be a struggle after the elections on the (very broad) anti-fascist side over how to respond to the BNP.
There is already an informal anti-BNP alliance being gathered up between the mainstream parties. If they are the prime organisers of the response then we are in trouble. It's as if we haven't had ten years of Islamophobia and thirty years of neo-liberalism: decades of nothing but Norman Tebbit and Phil Woolas. The current parliamentary calamity is merely the icing on the cake.
The arguments they will use to divide the anti-fascist movement will prove utterly corrosive. Phibbs is playing a double game in his article. He wants to expose the BNP as fascists but he also wants to stigmatise those who would do something active and constructive about the nazi threat.
So, after the June elections we will need an active, rather than passive approach, which mobilises ordinary people instead of treating them like voting fodder. Take the initiative now. Here is a link to UAF materials. I shouldn't need to tell you how to use them.
But, anti-fascism is not an end in itself. The rise of fascism is part of a general crisis of society. People to the left of Labour, inside and outside parties should reconvene. Difficult though it may be to put together, a united, radical response to the crisis will work wonders, change the odds dramatically. This is, after all, what Harry Phibbs is really afraid of.
He ignored me and ploughed on:
"I agree with everything else" he said, pointing to the bulk of the placards on or around this particular stall, "but I think it's stupid when one left wing party wants to smash another".
He pointed to an anti-BNP poster. Realising this I said something along the lines of "if you're going to be that daft you can go somewhere else". Words to that effect until he got the point, which he eventually did. He may have innocently though that the British Nazi Party were left wing. I doubt it though. This is a meme that has been doing the rounds on the internet for some time.
Here is a later example of said meme in action. Harry Phibbs is the Guardian's resident Thatcherite intransigent. This is him in action. First of all he is pitching for a tory vote. The immediate threat that has got everybody worried is nazi MEPs after June 4th/11th. The usual electoral move has been to vote Labour (with no illusions, comrade!) to block the nazis. In London this time at least you will have a choice of Labour or the Greens, not much but better.
But there's one other thing Phibbs is trying to head off:
The Conservatives need to get stuck in and expose the BNP as a neo-Nazi outfit. This task can no longer be satisfactorily left to the Socialist Workers party. Voters will understandably dismiss anything coming from that quarter as hysterical abuse – even if in this case it happens to be true.
As if he ever thought that any task could be satisfactorily left to the SWP. It is a given for Phibbs that the SWP is a hindrance to the anti-fascist message. He was never likely to explain how the tories might slip the noose on account of their own racism and anti-working class politics. This is the hang Nelson Mandela party.
You know, I know, he knows and everybody else knows the reason the BNP exists and takes the tactics it does is because it was obliterated in the 90s, as was its predecessor the National Front in the 70s. It has had to piggyback the mainstream political drive to demonise and isolate muslims, only go as far as supposedly respectable politicians, in order to worm its way back into public life.
The reason they have had to do this is because the Anti-Nazi League, whose driving force was the SWP, stopped them in their tracks. There will be a struggle after the elections on the (very broad) anti-fascist side over how to respond to the BNP.
There is already an informal anti-BNP alliance being gathered up between the mainstream parties. If they are the prime organisers of the response then we are in trouble. It's as if we haven't had ten years of Islamophobia and thirty years of neo-liberalism: decades of nothing but Norman Tebbit and Phil Woolas. The current parliamentary calamity is merely the icing on the cake.
The arguments they will use to divide the anti-fascist movement will prove utterly corrosive. Phibbs is playing a double game in his article. He wants to expose the BNP as fascists but he also wants to stigmatise those who would do something active and constructive about the nazi threat.
So, after the June elections we will need an active, rather than passive approach, which mobilises ordinary people instead of treating them like voting fodder. Take the initiative now. Here is a link to UAF materials. I shouldn't need to tell you how to use them.
But, anti-fascism is not an end in itself. The rise of fascism is part of a general crisis of society. People to the left of Labour, inside and outside parties should reconvene. Difficult though it may be to put together, a united, radical response to the crisis will work wonders, change the odds dramatically. This is, after all, what Harry Phibbs is really afraid of.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Phil More Space
An interesting variation on the parliament/government/media axis. Remember, he is Nicholas Langman.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The bad babysitter strikes again
The good news is Michael Martin has been forced out of his job. He is the first speaker of the House of Commons to be forced out since 1695 (don't worry, he's now a Lord). It is good news because we have lived through a period where scandal and controversy no longer meant resignation and disgrace.
The fact that men like Peter Mandelson could continue to have a political career despite being shown up three times as the corrupt bureaucrat he demonstrates the democratic deficit. None of this mattered while the British economy defied gravity. So long as the basis of neo-liberal society appeared sound none of this mattered (the sole exception was the anti-war movement). Democracy as we knew it could wither and no one who could do anything would.
We could go along with the shock. How could this happen? How did they away with it for so long? To the greater extent we should, because people are asking searching questions about the way society is run.
But we have to also remember the newspaper that broke the story was the Daily Telegraph. Its ideological role is to organise and express British ruling class opinion. There are certain questions, with certain answers, that they will not want ask. We have to take this as far as we can because no one else will.
One of the first smokescreen that’s thrown up is shock that this can happen in the Mother of All Parliaments ™? The British state is not the mother of democracy. Taking account the history British state abroad, the empire, it might be closer to the truth to call it the bad babysitter of all democracy.
There have been numerous experiments in citizenship and democracy reaching back into ancient times. The city-state of Athens held that all its citizens were politically equal (not everybody was a citizen mind you). Britons are still technically subjects of the crown. There is no defined constitution. Laws such as the anti-union laws or 28 days detention cannot be deemed unconstitutional.
If we take its history as a whole, Parliament as we know it was first assembled in 1254. The king called it to deliberate on matters such as taxation or war. It was a gathering of nobles and burgesses, not representative of the people. Throughout the revolutions of 1649 and 1688 ideas such as universal suffrage were at the fringe.
It took until the great riots of the 1830s for the first reform act to abolish the rotten boroughs (list?). It took until the 1860s for the idea that constituencies should be roughly the same size in terms of population to catch on. 1911 was the first year the House of Lords could no longer block a bill. 1929 was the first year when men and women could vote together. 1948 was the first year that the universities could not return MPs.
It took centuries of struggle to establish (a) that parliament should be the centre of power and that (b) parliament should be in some way accountable to the general population. Crucially the vote was conceded rather than won. It was used as a means of incorporating political movements outside of parliament into the system.
We get a sense of it from looking at Michael Martin. He is a man who even today professes to be a trade unionist whose only interest was to serve the people. Friends and contemporaries all agreed he jockeyed to become the next speaker of the House of Commons. He wanted nothing more than to dress up in 18th century garb and conduct the pantomime of Prime Ministers Question Time.
Since under capitalism political power is not directly tied up with economic power it you can allow supposed opponents of the system into parliament and even into government. A party which looks to establish socialism via parliament will have its horizons set by parliament. The goal becomes to get in power and stay there, no matter what the apparent cost.
But something very interesting happens to the leaders of said party in particular. JR Clynes on approaching the king to form a government:
The history of parliament weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the elected. They aimed for high office, they have been elected to high office, now they have to behave like they deserve their place in the sun.
Many of the people who sit in parliament today were part of the political movement in the 1980s which simultaneously smashed the unions and liberalised the city. It is only natural that some of the incredible wealth sloshing around the city as a result should have made its way into MPs pockets. Some might regret that they only sold out for a massage chair and widescreen TV. If people have made millions buying up homes with cheap credit, refurbishing them and selling them on then why can’t MPs do the same with the cheapest credit of all?
The question is what to do about it. I think (1) we have to broaden the question of corruption out. When interviewed recently some MPs and Lords tried to turn the tables on their interviewers and ask them about their wages and perks. The issue of media corruption should be taken up, after all it was they who turned a blind eye to these dealings for years. Why?
(2) We can’t simply have a Stop the Corruption campaign. What we can do is use MPs diminished authority to rouse opposition to their policies. The current recession has seen mostly private sector workers take the brunt of the beating. Whoever wins the next election will be charged with massive service cuts and job losses in the public sector. We should do our best to head them off.
This is a good start. Another (small) good example would be a letter in this week’s SW, from the Deputy branch secretary Northamptonshire of CWU, who have recently been on strike, attacking their local MP over the government’s privatisation plans. This kind of thing can be repeated over and over.
The fact that men like Peter Mandelson could continue to have a political career despite being shown up three times as the corrupt bureaucrat he demonstrates the democratic deficit. None of this mattered while the British economy defied gravity. So long as the basis of neo-liberal society appeared sound none of this mattered (the sole exception was the anti-war movement). Democracy as we knew it could wither and no one who could do anything would.
We could go along with the shock. How could this happen? How did they away with it for so long? To the greater extent we should, because people are asking searching questions about the way society is run.
But we have to also remember the newspaper that broke the story was the Daily Telegraph. Its ideological role is to organise and express British ruling class opinion. There are certain questions, with certain answers, that they will not want ask. We have to take this as far as we can because no one else will.
One of the first smokescreen that’s thrown up is shock that this can happen in the Mother of All Parliaments ™? The British state is not the mother of democracy. Taking account the history British state abroad, the empire, it might be closer to the truth to call it the bad babysitter of all democracy.
There have been numerous experiments in citizenship and democracy reaching back into ancient times. The city-state of Athens held that all its citizens were politically equal (not everybody was a citizen mind you). Britons are still technically subjects of the crown. There is no defined constitution. Laws such as the anti-union laws or 28 days detention cannot be deemed unconstitutional.
If we take its history as a whole, Parliament as we know it was first assembled in 1254. The king called it to deliberate on matters such as taxation or war. It was a gathering of nobles and burgesses, not representative of the people. Throughout the revolutions of 1649 and 1688 ideas such as universal suffrage were at the fringe.
It took until the great riots of the 1830s for the first reform act to abolish the rotten boroughs (list?). It took until the 1860s for the idea that constituencies should be roughly the same size in terms of population to catch on. 1911 was the first year the House of Lords could no longer block a bill. 1929 was the first year when men and women could vote together. 1948 was the first year that the universities could not return MPs.
It took centuries of struggle to establish (a) that parliament should be the centre of power and that (b) parliament should be in some way accountable to the general population. Crucially the vote was conceded rather than won. It was used as a means of incorporating political movements outside of parliament into the system.
We get a sense of it from looking at Michael Martin. He is a man who even today professes to be a trade unionist whose only interest was to serve the people. Friends and contemporaries all agreed he jockeyed to become the next speaker of the House of Commons. He wanted nothing more than to dress up in 18th century garb and conduct the pantomime of Prime Ministers Question Time.
Since under capitalism political power is not directly tied up with economic power it you can allow supposed opponents of the system into parliament and even into government. A party which looks to establish socialism via parliament will have its horizons set by parliament. The goal becomes to get in power and stay there, no matter what the apparent cost.
But something very interesting happens to the leaders of said party in particular. JR Clynes on approaching the king to form a government:
'As we stood waiting for His Majesty amid the gold and crimson of the palace, I could not help marvelling at the strange turn of fortune's wheel which had brought MacDonald the starveling clerk, Thomas the engine driver, Henderson the foundry labourer and Clynes the mill hand to this pinnacle beside the man whose forbears had been kings for generations.'
The history of parliament weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the elected. They aimed for high office, they have been elected to high office, now they have to behave like they deserve their place in the sun.
Many of the people who sit in parliament today were part of the political movement in the 1980s which simultaneously smashed the unions and liberalised the city. It is only natural that some of the incredible wealth sloshing around the city as a result should have made its way into MPs pockets. Some might regret that they only sold out for a massage chair and widescreen TV. If people have made millions buying up homes with cheap credit, refurbishing them and selling them on then why can’t MPs do the same with the cheapest credit of all?
The question is what to do about it. I think (1) we have to broaden the question of corruption out. When interviewed recently some MPs and Lords tried to turn the tables on their interviewers and ask them about their wages and perks. The issue of media corruption should be taken up, after all it was they who turned a blind eye to these dealings for years. Why?
(2) We can’t simply have a Stop the Corruption campaign. What we can do is use MPs diminished authority to rouse opposition to their policies. The current recession has seen mostly private sector workers take the brunt of the beating. Whoever wins the next election will be charged with massive service cuts and job losses in the public sector. We should do our best to head them off.
This is a good start. Another (small) good example would be a letter in this week’s SW, from the Deputy branch secretary Northamptonshire of CWU, who have recently been on strike, attacking their local MP over the government’s privatisation plans. This kind of thing can be repeated over and over.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The United States of America will cease to be in 2010
And this is what it'll look like. This prophecy comes from a man called Igor Panarin. He apparently predicted the downfall of Stalinist Russia, well he was not the only one, not by a long stretch. You have to say as well why be so precise? He did make this prediction in 1998, so that gives him some leeway. But, as we know, if empires fell to order the whole revolutionary business would be so much easier.
Still, it's a realistic(ish) looking breakdown, at least to my eyes. Enjoy.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Everyone is a philosopher.
Everyone is a philosopher. People’s actions are frequently in opposition to their ideas. People generally grasp reality on the level of ideology.
They are the key ideas of Gramsci’s philosophical notebook (I paraphrase them a bit). They go a long way to explaining the great break though of Gramsci’s thinking.
The thing distinguishing humans over animals is conscious labour. People aren’t just products of their environment, they have the potential to produce their environment. They can change the way they live. Even the poor workers with mindless, repetitive jobs think about their work, they rationalise what they do in order to continue doing it.
Ideology arises out of society. Ideology here means collections of ideas based upon distinct points of view in society. The ideological struggle between different groups means even before you get down to actual individual perspective you find hybrid philosophies, halfway forms of politics.
People can act in ways that contradict their held ideas. Workers can carry out revolutionary acts while holding reformist or even reactionary ideas. The Biennio Rosso were an outstanding example of this.
All people are philosophers, they work consciously; they cannot sustain activity (be it day to day work or high revolution) unless they come to some understanding of what they are doing. Any instant of class struggle exposes the reality of the capitalist system, at least to those who experience it. The question then becomes what do they make of that experience.
People generally grasp reality through ideology. It makes the difference between taking a pay rise and taking the factory. No one was ever compelled to fight the capitalist system just by raw events alone. They may fight aspects of the system, things that confront them, such as job losses, service cuts, racism, war and so on.
The current crisis is not so much a crisis of capitalism but a crisis of the working class. Events happen, statistics pile up. The question is how do we deal with them. The cutting edge of revolutionary intervention is on the level of ideas.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Some news about some stuff with some comment
A leaked report into the Deepcut deaths suggests murder. Yes, so does the fact one of the dead men apparently managed to shoot himself in the chest from 15 yards away. Royal Mail has recorded a £321 million profit. Which must explain why they're deciding to sell it off and chuck in job losses and office closures for good measure... No, that doesn't explain it. They say there's a penions gap, there is. Primarily because the government have allowed Royal Mail to skip paying into the pensionn fund over 10 years, a pensions holiday apparently. They wouldn't just be using this as a tool for blackmailing the workforce, surely?
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Oh no, part 10: it's back
As the plan almost reached its conclusion it began to unravel.
In America the rebel army was slowly occupying the cities on the east coast. Washington DC was locked down, Baltimore well under control. The army approached New York with care.
The president was personally popular with millions of citizens. The rebels had expected outrage from the population. Sure enough, as the president made his statement, there were spontaneous demonstrations in various cities. Each of them were gunned down or chased away. The situation seemed well under control.
For some reason, not widely known at the time, the rebel group responsible for securing New York stopped on the outskirts of town. By the time the surrender was broadcast they still hadn’t taken the five boroughs.
Groups of citizens took it upon themselves to meet the soldiers. They organised roadblocks round all the bridges. The phone network was still active. The message spread, come out and meet the rebels. They must not take the bridges. They shall not pass. Where people could not be reached by phone, great sweeping clouds of people began to form. People gathered on their way to meet the rebels, closing down any workplaces or schools that were still open.
Hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers began spilling across the urban landscape, main streets and side streets. They covered more ground and felt more confident. People began approaching the rebel soldiers, surrounding them, bombarding them. Many of the soldiers came from formerly loyal regiments. The burning question: why have you turned against the people and their president?
News of the uprising got out. Parallel movements began to form in other cities, including Washington DC. Events were also afoot in continental Europe.
Shock spread as the scope of the conspiracy became clear. Fascist groups began marching all over Europe, huge bands in Northern Italy, Western Russia, the Czech Republic and Poland. The Hungarian army began assembling on the border with Austria.
The conspiracy met resistance. France was shut down by a general strike, as was mainland Greece. There were riots in Berlin as well-armed nazis tried to storm the Reichstag. The nazis were barely beaten back.
The night after the government’s last broadcast citizens from Washington and the surrounding areas began descending on the city centre, encouraged by news of what was happening in New York. It was a cold evening marked by strange, vivid red sunsets in the west. People dressed warm.
As night fell and numbers grew the demonstration took on the appearance of a torch lit parade. The tide was turning against the conspirators.
There was a strong rumour, confirmed after everything had finished, about why the rebels had stopped on the outskirts of New York City. Rebels on the ground had stopped, waiting for air support. They were afraid of entering the loyal city, largest in the union, without clear advantage. A crew of fighter-bombers, whose commander was a long suspected rebel sympathiser, was called up to unleash a lick of hell.
A few major building would be bombed, a couple of working class neighbourhoods and maybe one of the bridges would be also be attacked. Not too much damage but enough to instil sufficient shock and awe into the population. Make them afraid to come out.
By the time the planes had been called up it was already too late. The people had moved too quickly and occupied their own city. The pilots could clearly see the teaming masses below them. They refused to drop their bombs. Before they had time to land their commander and several other officers fled the base, never to be seen again.
The leader of the rebels on the ground had not given up. He had some artillery on his side. He summoned his men to fire on the bridges and into Staten Island. By this time the rebel soldiers were meeting people minute by minute. They were ordered not to talk to civilians, but this rule broke down quickly, discipline broke down soon after. Very few of the soldiers were truly committed to the rebel cause, most were from recently defected regiments. Later that night a small group of them arrested their leader. New York was never captured.
The rebellion was falling apart. The rebels played their final trump card; bomb California into the ocean. Something was up, the crowd knew it; simultaneous eruptions, giant quakes, severed communications. The truth didn’t filter down until the president returned from his exile. The stunning horror did not have a chance to affect the crowd. As the torch lit millions descended on the centre of Washington the remaining rebel army retreated into the congress building on Capital Hill.
Nighttime stand off, both sides feared each other too much to act. Dawn, a group soldiers went out to greet the masses. Nervous, their representative spoke through a lashed up PA, little more than a megaphone.
The rebellion was over. The soldiers had been duped by their commanders. They were told they were entering Washington to protect democracy and ensure good government. Instead they were being led against the will of the people to arrest their elected president. The soldiers decided to go over to the people. They had arrested the rebel leaders, who were being held inside the Capitol building. The president, who had spent most of the last 36 hours held on a base in Puerto Rico. He was safe and well and was presently being summoned to return to Washington DC and power.
The crowd was overjoyed. They remained outside the Capitol building all morning, debating, cheering, chanting; even the grim news slowly filtering in from the West did not dampen their spirits. More and more people came. The city emptied out into the cold streets like a warm, flowing tide, reclaiming the streets. Late afternoon the president arrived by helicopter. Dusk, he appeared on the steps of the Capitol building to address the crowd.
He told them about what had happened, where he had been, how he was treated, his thoughts, his fears and then his hopes as he found out he was being returned home. He thanked the people for their actions, their bravery, for carrying out the greatest democratic act in living memory.
He then broke the news about the attack on California, the grim death toll and the looming likelihood of fallout. Difficult, dangerous days lay ahead. The rebel threat had not gone away. No word had been heard from Texas, the heart of the rebellion. He didn’t lay on the crowd the international extent of the rebellion. Difficult times lay ahead but with the will and tenacity shown by ordinary American a new and better future could still be built.
He thanked the crowd once more and asked them to return to their homes.
In America the rebel army was slowly occupying the cities on the east coast. Washington DC was locked down, Baltimore well under control. The army approached New York with care.
The president was personally popular with millions of citizens. The rebels had expected outrage from the population. Sure enough, as the president made his statement, there were spontaneous demonstrations in various cities. Each of them were gunned down or chased away. The situation seemed well under control.
For some reason, not widely known at the time, the rebel group responsible for securing New York stopped on the outskirts of town. By the time the surrender was broadcast they still hadn’t taken the five boroughs.
Groups of citizens took it upon themselves to meet the soldiers. They organised roadblocks round all the bridges. The phone network was still active. The message spread, come out and meet the rebels. They must not take the bridges. They shall not pass. Where people could not be reached by phone, great sweeping clouds of people began to form. People gathered on their way to meet the rebels, closing down any workplaces or schools that were still open.
Hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers began spilling across the urban landscape, main streets and side streets. They covered more ground and felt more confident. People began approaching the rebel soldiers, surrounding them, bombarding them. Many of the soldiers came from formerly loyal regiments. The burning question: why have you turned against the people and their president?
News of the uprising got out. Parallel movements began to form in other cities, including Washington DC. Events were also afoot in continental Europe.
Shock spread as the scope of the conspiracy became clear. Fascist groups began marching all over Europe, huge bands in Northern Italy, Western Russia, the Czech Republic and Poland. The Hungarian army began assembling on the border with Austria.
The conspiracy met resistance. France was shut down by a general strike, as was mainland Greece. There were riots in Berlin as well-armed nazis tried to storm the Reichstag. The nazis were barely beaten back.
The night after the government’s last broadcast citizens from Washington and the surrounding areas began descending on the city centre, encouraged by news of what was happening in New York. It was a cold evening marked by strange, vivid red sunsets in the west. People dressed warm.
As night fell and numbers grew the demonstration took on the appearance of a torch lit parade. The tide was turning against the conspirators.
There was a strong rumour, confirmed after everything had finished, about why the rebels had stopped on the outskirts of New York City. Rebels on the ground had stopped, waiting for air support. They were afraid of entering the loyal city, largest in the union, without clear advantage. A crew of fighter-bombers, whose commander was a long suspected rebel sympathiser, was called up to unleash a lick of hell.
A few major building would be bombed, a couple of working class neighbourhoods and maybe one of the bridges would be also be attacked. Not too much damage but enough to instil sufficient shock and awe into the population. Make them afraid to come out.
By the time the planes had been called up it was already too late. The people had moved too quickly and occupied their own city. The pilots could clearly see the teaming masses below them. They refused to drop their bombs. Before they had time to land their commander and several other officers fled the base, never to be seen again.
The leader of the rebels on the ground had not given up. He had some artillery on his side. He summoned his men to fire on the bridges and into Staten Island. By this time the rebel soldiers were meeting people minute by minute. They were ordered not to talk to civilians, but this rule broke down quickly, discipline broke down soon after. Very few of the soldiers were truly committed to the rebel cause, most were from recently defected regiments. Later that night a small group of them arrested their leader. New York was never captured.
The rebellion was falling apart. The rebels played their final trump card; bomb California into the ocean. Something was up, the crowd knew it; simultaneous eruptions, giant quakes, severed communications. The truth didn’t filter down until the president returned from his exile. The stunning horror did not have a chance to affect the crowd. As the torch lit millions descended on the centre of Washington the remaining rebel army retreated into the congress building on Capital Hill.
Nighttime stand off, both sides feared each other too much to act. Dawn, a group soldiers went out to greet the masses. Nervous, their representative spoke through a lashed up PA, little more than a megaphone.
The rebellion was over. The soldiers had been duped by their commanders. They were told they were entering Washington to protect democracy and ensure good government. Instead they were being led against the will of the people to arrest their elected president. The soldiers decided to go over to the people. They had arrested the rebel leaders, who were being held inside the Capitol building. The president, who had spent most of the last 36 hours held on a base in Puerto Rico. He was safe and well and was presently being summoned to return to Washington DC and power.
The crowd was overjoyed. They remained outside the Capitol building all morning, debating, cheering, chanting; even the grim news slowly filtering in from the West did not dampen their spirits. More and more people came. The city emptied out into the cold streets like a warm, flowing tide, reclaiming the streets. Late afternoon the president arrived by helicopter. Dusk, he appeared on the steps of the Capitol building to address the crowd.
He told them about what had happened, where he had been, how he was treated, his thoughts, his fears and then his hopes as he found out he was being returned home. He thanked the people for their actions, their bravery, for carrying out the greatest democratic act in living memory.
He then broke the news about the attack on California, the grim death toll and the looming likelihood of fallout. Difficult, dangerous days lay ahead. The rebel threat had not gone away. No word had been heard from Texas, the heart of the rebellion. He didn’t lay on the crowd the international extent of the rebellion. Difficult times lay ahead but with the will and tenacity shown by ordinary American a new and better future could still be built.
He thanked the crowd once more and asked them to return to their homes.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Objectively dull
The MP expenses stuff is objectively dull. It takes some kind of naivety in this day and age to think that parliament is anything other than a money trench and its members are anything other than well paid gas bags. The next revelation will be that MPs go to the toilet on a regular basis, emit carbon dioxide, occasionally procreate or some such etc and various wotsits.
The point made earlier about crises leading to splits in the ruling class is illustrated in a small way by this story:
Interestingly:
So, who gave Lord Foulkes the inside tip? On the chutzpah front:
Now, crap as those two presenters are (and they are) they have built their reputations as interviewers and broadcasters by asking questions people in power often don’t want answered. That is, of course, not undermining democracy but proving it by testing it. It’s sheer brass balls for a Labour Peer, elected by no-one, to huff and puff about democracy. The problem is the rich and powerful aren't asked enough awkward questions.
But the real, underlying point is, in trying to defend his slice of the pie, Lord Foulkes ends up undermining other section of the ruling class, namely the people in charge of mass media. If the people responsible for the front line delivery of news earn £90,000 a year, what about the big-wigs behind the scenes? What does this mean for media impartiality? Can we trust the BBC?
The point made earlier about crises leading to splits in the ruling class is illustrated in a small way by this story:
Labour peer Lord Foulkes today turned the tables on BBC News Channel presenter Carrie Gracie over the MPs expenses row, ridiculing her salary of more than £90,000 to "talk this nonsense" during a live interview.
Interestingly:
The BBC has always refused to disclose the salaries of its presenters, insisting that the information is commercially sensitive whenever freedom of information requests are submitted.
So, who gave Lord Foulkes the inside tip? On the chutzpah front:
During the interview Foulkes claimed that BBC Today presenter John Humphrys was paid "hundreds of thousands of pounds" and Newsnight host Jeremy Paxman "nearly a million pounds" to "come on TV and sneer at democracy and undermine democracy".
Now, crap as those two presenters are (and they are) they have built their reputations as interviewers and broadcasters by asking questions people in power often don’t want answered. That is, of course, not undermining democracy but proving it by testing it. It’s sheer brass balls for a Labour Peer, elected by no-one, to huff and puff about democracy. The problem is the rich and powerful aren't asked enough awkward questions.
But the real, underlying point is, in trying to defend his slice of the pie, Lord Foulkes ends up undermining other section of the ruling class, namely the people in charge of mass media. If the people responsible for the front line delivery of news earn £90,000 a year, what about the big-wigs behind the scenes? What does this mean for media impartiality? Can we trust the BBC?
Life is shit and all you want to do is sell me garage doors
I go to a Marx dayschool and all that happens is I get ignored like a leper MP with swine flu. So, as revenge:
Friday, May 08, 2009
Pretty much all you need to know
... About the current government. UK's income gap widest since 60s. There are numerous headline stats that are just ghastly. You should read yourself.
The DWP report suggests this process has been going on since, more or less, 2005. Of course the problem of inequality has been festering for a great deal longer. The Thatcher revolution was a redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. People know that now. It's why the tories have been generally reviled for decades, why, despite their lead in the polls, there's very little enthusiasm for them or their traditional policies.
The credit boom covered the problem up. There were some grotesque side effects, such as a housing shortage at the same time 700,000 homes lay empty. But problems like those only affected a small slice of the population. Not nearly enough to worry about, especially when said people were unlikely to vote, let alone hold swing votes.
As we often say, unfortunately it takes a crisis to lay reality bare.
The DWP report suggests this process has been going on since, more or less, 2005. Of course the problem of inequality has been festering for a great deal longer. The Thatcher revolution was a redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. People know that now. It's why the tories have been generally reviled for decades, why, despite their lead in the polls, there's very little enthusiasm for them or their traditional policies.
The credit boom covered the problem up. There were some grotesque side effects, such as a housing shortage at the same time 700,000 homes lay empty. But problems like those only affected a small slice of the population. Not nearly enough to worry about, especially when said people were unlikely to vote, let alone hold swing votes.
As we often say, unfortunately it takes a crisis to lay reality bare.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Defending the commons
The fundamental unit of capitalism is the commodity. In order to turn a simple product into a commodity you have to seize the means of making that product. Robbing people of direct access to the means of production creates the market for commodities.
This process is always violent. In early modern Britain this struggle was encapsulated by the fight over access to common land.
The networking of computers across the globe allows people to share information on an unprecedented scale. Some have called this a revolution in our time. While this fact does not alter fundamental social relations it does throw them into an unbearably harsh light.
Information has always been important. Vast political and industrial empires are built on very simple things, paper, the printed word. There are now vast capitalist concerns built on information alone. We are talking about the mass media. The internet, the modern commons, is of great concern to our media emperors. It gives out this strange, bolshy notion that information could be something other than a commodity. It must be tamed.
When Rupert Murdoch announces that his NewsCorp may charge for online access to its news output you have to remember that's his right as a capitalist in the commodity society. Given the speed with which news can spread, without even passing through traditional channels, you have to wonder though. Will he simply drive people away from NewsCorp outlets altogether? It depends on who wins out, capital or the commons.
Anyone can set up a website, a government, a great corporation or an individual. It is right that we fight for the right of (for example) of Egyptian socialists to upload pictures onto established websites, even if they happen to embarrass the Egyptian government. But there is a bigger question of who controls the flow of traffic. Problems such as the Google ranking or the Great Firewall of China have to be addressed. Projects such as the Lenosphere can begin to counter this (note: when you type Lenosphere into Google you are asked if you really wanted Glenosphere. If you don't have a Google rating you don't exist).
This process is always violent. In early modern Britain this struggle was encapsulated by the fight over access to common land.
The networking of computers across the globe allows people to share information on an unprecedented scale. Some have called this a revolution in our time. While this fact does not alter fundamental social relations it does throw them into an unbearably harsh light.
Information has always been important. Vast political and industrial empires are built on very simple things, paper, the printed word. There are now vast capitalist concerns built on information alone. We are talking about the mass media. The internet, the modern commons, is of great concern to our media emperors. It gives out this strange, bolshy notion that information could be something other than a commodity. It must be tamed.
When Rupert Murdoch announces that his NewsCorp may charge for online access to its news output you have to remember that's his right as a capitalist in the commodity society. Given the speed with which news can spread, without even passing through traditional channels, you have to wonder though. Will he simply drive people away from NewsCorp outlets altogether? It depends on who wins out, capital or the commons.
Anyone can set up a website, a government, a great corporation or an individual. It is right that we fight for the right of (for example) of Egyptian socialists to upload pictures onto established websites, even if they happen to embarrass the Egyptian government. But there is a bigger question of who controls the flow of traffic. Problems such as the Google ranking or the Great Firewall of China have to be addressed. Projects such as the Lenosphere can begin to counter this (note: when you type Lenosphere into Google you are asked if you really wanted Glenosphere. If you don't have a Google rating you don't exist).
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Actually existing books
Yes, these are real and can be found in the British Library:
The Romance of Holes in Bread - a plea for the recognition
Rubbing Along in Burmese
All About Mud
Imaging of the Scrotum: texbook and atlas
How to Twirl a Baton
How to Walk
How to Abandon Ship
We All Killed Grandma
Songs of a Chartered Accountant
Erections on Allotments
Whipping and Lashing
'Hurrah'. A Bit of Loving Talk With Soldiers.
Ilustrated History of Gymnastics
A History of Orgies
Railway Literature 1556-1830
Build Your Own Hindenburg
Was Jesus Insane?
The Man Who Made Peace: the story of Neville Chamberlain (Note: published 1938)
Sun-beams May Be Extracted from Cucumbers, but the Process is Tedious.
1,001 Obscure Points
Cameos of Vegetarian Literature
Let's Make Some Undies
Rope Spinning
You can't Catch Diabetes from a Friend
Come Again, Nurse
Birds Fighting
Birds Asleep
On Canine Madness
Liver Building, Liverpool. List of Stopcocks.
The Romance of Holes in Bread - a plea for the recognition
Rubbing Along in Burmese
All About Mud
Imaging of the Scrotum: texbook and atlas
How to Twirl a Baton
How to Walk
How to Abandon Ship
We All Killed Grandma
Songs of a Chartered Accountant
Erections on Allotments
Whipping and Lashing
'Hurrah'. A Bit of Loving Talk With Soldiers.
Ilustrated History of Gymnastics
A History of Orgies
Railway Literature 1556-1830
Build Your Own Hindenburg
Was Jesus Insane?
The Man Who Made Peace: the story of Neville Chamberlain (Note: published 1938)
Sun-beams May Be Extracted from Cucumbers, but the Process is Tedious.
1,001 Obscure Points
Cameos of Vegetarian Literature
Let's Make Some Undies
Rope Spinning
You can't Catch Diabetes from a Friend
Come Again, Nurse
Birds Fighting
Birds Asleep
On Canine Madness
Liver Building, Liverpool. List of Stopcocks.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Good morning etc...
Oh woe, we’re burdened with sectarianism again. Debate is always sterile. Action is always routine. Opinions are always divisive. Everyone always has an answer. We must bury our differences, concentrate on where we agree, be tactically flexible, get in touch with the base, grassroots action in sober analysis with a rooted basis in the tactically flexible grassroots…etc.
Can’t we all just get along? No we can’t, and you know what I think is to blame? Democracy.
In a closed, all-embracing state everything is simple. There is the government and there are revolutionaries. This is what makes totalitarian states in some ways relatively easy to topple. If any social struggle breaks out it quickly becomes a confrontation with the state power.
Formal democracy is a blessing over straight dictatorship, but it is also a trap. For people who we shall call “progressives”, democracy is a state of being equally cursed as blessed. Any social struggle can be easily diverted and/or contained. Anything progressive that is won can be taken back. The current example relevant to Britain is the achievement of the welfare state, being dismantled bit by bit.
With formal democracy what the ruling class gains at one point it loses in another. We might think we are beset with sectarianism but the ruling class has its own divisions. As the late George Bush Junior once said: “a dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier”.
Think about Britain’s press culture. The mass media are crucial to building consent for the system. The ruling class has to split into numerous intellectual currents in order to organise its hegemony. In terms of newspapers we see numerous points of view: from the Daily Mail, which aims to represent the right-wing middle class, to the Sun, which pitches itself at the crossover between lower middle-class and conservative working class, to the Guardian, which is written for left-liberal professionals and the organised working class.
There would be no point in just having The Ruling Class paper, which says “this is what you’re supposed to know, this is what you’re supposed to think”. It would be just as futile as having one Ruling Class Party saying, “these are your options, take them or leave them”.
There are numerous other examples. The point is these groups can fight bitterly over power and influence over the state. This is where the separation of economic and political life is very important. Any party can get elected on any platform. Under the present system capitalists control the wealth and set the framework for public policy.
For ideas to be expressed and made real they must have body. They must take institutional form. The fundamental unit of any institution is people. Whenever there is a divergence in a body of ideas there must be a divergence in the fundamental body. People once united must go their separate ways.
Small example: when the Guardian feels compelled to publish film clips showing arbitrary police violence and Jeremy Paxman (face and voice of BBC Newsnight) feels compelled to dismiss the G20 revelations as just “another Guardian campaign”, you know something’s up. Historical events are pesky things. When the ruling class is split on how to respond to events it gives us a chance to overcome our differences.
In the run up to the Iraq war the growing organisation of the anti-war argument fed into the increasing disorganisation of the pro-war side. The demonstrations in early 2003 created the greatest parliamentary crisis in decades, where a governing party almost voted itself out of power. For a short while there was the basis of an alternative form of politics.
There are numerous manifestations of the current crisis. The current micro-crisis (shall we say) that comes closest to defining and shaping the rest of the crisis is the struggle over civil liberty. As G20 protestors were being imprisoned by riot squads sacked workers at 3 car part plants occupied their old workplaces. The police initially tried to prevent supporters from taking food, drink and clothing to the occupiers, as that would be “helping criminals”.
Whether it climate campers, strikers or Tamils, people trying to use their right to organisation, expression and mass assembly are facing the same obstacle, in the form of men with clubs and shields. If the attack on civil liberties is the common theme of the crisis then lets weave it into our symphony of resistance.
Can’t we all just get along? No we can’t, and you know what I think is to blame? Democracy.
In a closed, all-embracing state everything is simple. There is the government and there are revolutionaries. This is what makes totalitarian states in some ways relatively easy to topple. If any social struggle breaks out it quickly becomes a confrontation with the state power.
Formal democracy is a blessing over straight dictatorship, but it is also a trap. For people who we shall call “progressives”, democracy is a state of being equally cursed as blessed. Any social struggle can be easily diverted and/or contained. Anything progressive that is won can be taken back. The current example relevant to Britain is the achievement of the welfare state, being dismantled bit by bit.
With formal democracy what the ruling class gains at one point it loses in another. We might think we are beset with sectarianism but the ruling class has its own divisions. As the late George Bush Junior once said: “a dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier”.
Think about Britain’s press culture. The mass media are crucial to building consent for the system. The ruling class has to split into numerous intellectual currents in order to organise its hegemony. In terms of newspapers we see numerous points of view: from the Daily Mail, which aims to represent the right-wing middle class, to the Sun, which pitches itself at the crossover between lower middle-class and conservative working class, to the Guardian, which is written for left-liberal professionals and the organised working class.
There would be no point in just having The Ruling Class paper, which says “this is what you’re supposed to know, this is what you’re supposed to think”. It would be just as futile as having one Ruling Class Party saying, “these are your options, take them or leave them”.
There are numerous other examples. The point is these groups can fight bitterly over power and influence over the state. This is where the separation of economic and political life is very important. Any party can get elected on any platform. Under the present system capitalists control the wealth and set the framework for public policy.
For ideas to be expressed and made real they must have body. They must take institutional form. The fundamental unit of any institution is people. Whenever there is a divergence in a body of ideas there must be a divergence in the fundamental body. People once united must go their separate ways.
Small example: when the Guardian feels compelled to publish film clips showing arbitrary police violence and Jeremy Paxman (face and voice of BBC Newsnight) feels compelled to dismiss the G20 revelations as just “another Guardian campaign”, you know something’s up. Historical events are pesky things. When the ruling class is split on how to respond to events it gives us a chance to overcome our differences.
In the run up to the Iraq war the growing organisation of the anti-war argument fed into the increasing disorganisation of the pro-war side. The demonstrations in early 2003 created the greatest parliamentary crisis in decades, where a governing party almost voted itself out of power. For a short while there was the basis of an alternative form of politics.
There are numerous manifestations of the current crisis. The current micro-crisis (shall we say) that comes closest to defining and shaping the rest of the crisis is the struggle over civil liberty. As G20 protestors were being imprisoned by riot squads sacked workers at 3 car part plants occupied their old workplaces. The police initially tried to prevent supporters from taking food, drink and clothing to the occupiers, as that would be “helping criminals”.
Whether it climate campers, strikers or Tamils, people trying to use their right to organisation, expression and mass assembly are facing the same obstacle, in the form of men with clubs and shields. If the attack on civil liberties is the common theme of the crisis then lets weave it into our symphony of resistance.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Humourous, overblown media disease leads to 5 day shutdown
OK, so it's in Mexico, which is far, far away. I suppose we should all marvel at the power of a virus, a microsopic blob that exists on the border between living and dead matter, to enforce a general strike. Then again they can has strikes in Mexico (hold on a minute, Roobs, haven't the the Visteon workers just won...? They have? Yay!).
Mankind has always been subject to contageous, sweeping diseases. We are social animals. This may not be the big one. The rate of infection is apparently slowing, which is good. We are still due a major outbreak of influenza.
The nature of such diseases are built in to the way we organise our society. Capitalism created both the recession and the spread swine flu. If whole economies grind to a halt due to the flu the crises will combine and multiply.
Mankind has always been subject to contageous, sweeping diseases. We are social animals. This may not be the big one. The rate of infection is apparently slowing, which is good. We are still due a major outbreak of influenza.
The nature of such diseases are built in to the way we organise our society. Capitalism created both the recession and the spread swine flu. If whole economies grind to a halt due to the flu the crises will combine and multiply.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)