There's nothing like the excellent discussion of Gramsci and his ideas going on over at Lenin's Tomb to really fire one's sense of inadequacy. I have felt for a while that Gramsci's writings are the almost solitary flower of the Third International theory. In particular, Gramsci's investigation of various dialectics, war of manoeuvre/war of position, state/civil society, reformation/renaissance and so forth, I think can help us pierce the strange veil being drawn over late capitalism, where nothing works yet everything continues as it has. I strongly recommend you read it through.
Meanwhile, in brusque, flippant comment: According to the Guardian Live Feed, Nelly Furtado, Beyonce Knowles and Lionel Richie have all performed for Gaddafi. Nelly Furtdado is returning her fee however, as it's only just become clear he's a murdering loon.
And finally, motherhubbarding good news from Ireland, five new left candidates sent to parliament; a special well done to Richard Boyd Barrett and comrades, jusbecause.
I'm sure they will use their newly won position to get the Irish working class fighting again. Well done!
Monday, February 28, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Stuff...
I recently saw the film Paul. It was enjoyable, enough, a touch easy in places (more on that later). It got me thinking, however, what do aliens mean? Alien are specifically part of capitalist culture. They have substituted, to some extent, for monsters and spirits (perhaps outer space is psychological equivalent of the dark forest).
Without knowing, without bothering to go to some shaded part of the internet to find out, I guess the notion of alien encounters rose out of three discoveries, the heliocentric model of the solar system, the descent of species through natural selection and powered flight. The first two discoveries undermined mankind's unique place in an ordered universe, the third suggested it might be possible to travel between worlds, maybe meet other creatures like us.
As you can probably guess there are two main types of alien in our culture, two uses for aliens. First they represent fear incarnate. Here is a simple, stunningly obvious example, Ming the Merciless (in an early incarnation). Do you even need to know the history of Sinophobia in America to realise he is a racist fantasy? These aliens are dangerous and potent but also repulsive and sybaritic. They ultimately have to be critically effete, the Ayrian Good Guy must prevail.
But there is also the liberal, hopeful breed of alien. Paul is one of these aliens, intelligent, well adjusted, humorous and likeable. The liberal alien has been rather distorted by the film ET, a wandering man-child-walkingcarrot-christ-figure, a bewildered lamb from beyond the stars. Paul at least is a refreshing change from this.
The generic black eyed grey alien is a projection of assumed trends in humanity. They have large heads meaning bigger brains meaning greater intelligence (even though these facts don't follow), they also have smooth, pale skin, large eyes, even more sight-dependant. They are generally given some supernatural power, mind control, telekenesis, the ability to heal by touch. They show humanity's progress, away from its mammal origins.
Paul, the film, is OK, good enough. The strange thing about Paul is it has two charismatic actors who spend all, or almost all of the film off camera. The humour is fairly broad, rednecks are dumb, Federal Agents are uselessly dumb, christians are fanatically dumb. I love religion bashing as much as anyone else, but few religious folk are as boneheaded as the ones in this film. Worse than that, Paul misses the obvious point that Ufology is a modern substitute religion, with claims just as preposterous as regular religion.
Paul would have been better off as a TV series, perhaps with Paul as a wacky neighbour or workmate. The part is very well suited to Seth Rogen's comedy type.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
David Cameron hits out at critics
In this case critics of the British arms trade. See him hit!
Democracies must defend themselves. Mind you, at the moment though these 'democracies' seem to need to defend themselves from their own people; further redefining language. Kuwait, it says here, is a constitutional monarchy. Well, ahem, it also says:
So, kind of a loose-fit democracy that the King can throw off whenever he feels like it... in other words not really a democracy; hence, for example, Kuwait is a prominent centre of human trafficking and indentured labour. Democracy without the guarantee of personal liberty, now that's innovative, radical even. We can expect to see it soon, no doubt, as part of the Big Society.
Yes folks, in the eleventh hour of humanity democracy no longer means "rule of the people" (otherwise how can a 'democracy' attack it's population?) but "countries I like", and by "countries I like" I mean countries David Cameron likes, and the countries he likes are ones that buy his guns.
The prime minister indicated irritation with his critics when was asked during a press conference with his Kuwaiti counterpart how he could promote democracy and reform in the Middle East while travelling with businessmen selling arms to the region.
Cameron said: "I simply don't understand how you can't understand how democracies have a right to defend themselves. I would have thought this argument is particularly powerful right here in Kuwait which, 20 years ago, was invaded by a thuggish bullying neighbour who disrespected your sovereignty, invaded your country and destroyed parts of your capital city.
Democracies must defend themselves. Mind you, at the moment though these 'democracies' seem to need to defend themselves from their own people; further redefining language. Kuwait, it says here, is a constitutional monarchy. Well, ahem, it also says:
The Constitution of Kuwait was ratified in 1962 and has elements of a presidential and a parliamentary system of government. The Emir is the head of State and has the power to appoint the Prime Minister, dissolve the Parliament and even suspend certain parts of the Constitution.
The Constitution expressly supports political organizations, but they remain illegal as no law has arisen to define and regulate them.
So, kind of a loose-fit democracy that the King can throw off whenever he feels like it... in other words not really a democracy; hence, for example, Kuwait is a prominent centre of human trafficking and indentured labour. Democracy without the guarantee of personal liberty, now that's innovative, radical even. We can expect to see it soon, no doubt, as part of the Big Society.
Yes folks, in the eleventh hour of humanity democracy no longer means "rule of the people" (otherwise how can a 'democracy' attack it's population?) but "countries I like", and by "countries I like" I mean countries David Cameron likes, and the countries he likes are ones that buy his guns.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Here's something I bet you didn't know...
Belgium has gone 250 days without a national government... of sorts. How is this possible, you may ask, surely this is resulting in anarchy?
Aside from the very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very... boring obsession with internet social media (driven by the mass media, middle-class self-obession) this is very interesting. There is no workable majority, at least no workable majority in presently constituted parliamentary Belgium, and there is not likely to be in the foreseeable future. But what about the anarchy? Won't somebody please think of the children?
There is still a national government, the national government that doesn't come and go with elections. If this Belgian episode proves anything it proves how inessential elections are to the system of western 'democracy'. If democracy is rule of the people then none of us live in a democracy.
The flashmobs, pranks, parties, and stunts were organised using the now established motor of spontaneous political activism – social networking sites Facebook and Twitter – but with a key difference. While protesters from Minsk to Cairo mobilise online to try to bring down hated governments, in Belgium the campaign is aimed at getting a government.
There is little evidence the elected politicians are listening. The caretaker government of the Flemish Christian Democrat, Yves Leterme, fell apart last April, the third collapse in two years. The June election reinforced the linguistic, political and cultural conflicts paralysing the country, with victory going to rightwing Flemish separatists in the Dutch-speaking north over leftwing, pro-Belgium socialists in the francophone southern region of Wallonia.
Ever since then the king has appointed a string of mediators to cobble together a workable coalition. All have failed. On Wednesday the latest broker, Didier Reynders, the caretaker finance minister, reported no progress and was told to keep trying for another fortnight.
On Thursday the word in Brussels was there would be fresh elections in April, a ballot likely to entrench the divide, deepen the crisis of political accountability and legitimacy, and result in yet further months of government-less squabbling.
Aside from the very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very... boring obsession with internet social media (driven by the mass media, middle-class self-obession) this is very interesting. There is no workable majority, at least no workable majority in presently constituted parliamentary Belgium, and there is not likely to be in the foreseeable future. But what about the anarchy? Won't somebody please think of the children?
There is no talk of royal abdication. There are few signs of Belgium breaking up. But nor is there any sense of direction, of how to escape from deepening division, of how to restructure a balkanised political system which encourages paralysis.
The country is prosperous and well-run bureaucratically. The caretaker Leterme government has just accomplished a smooth and much-praised presidency of the European Union.
There is still a national government, the national government that doesn't come and go with elections. If this Belgian episode proves anything it proves how inessential elections are to the system of western 'democracy'. If democracy is rule of the people then none of us live in a democracy.
Friday, February 18, 2011
New Radiohead
I have listened to most of the King of Limbs tracks now. I don't think Radiohead could ever let me down, but I have a sneaking suspicion they're going to get a backlash off this record. They've more or less spent two years making In Rainbows - Part Deux... Even so, no one else sounds like them. Radiohead are great. This is my favourite so far.
Something that came up
Something that came up in a recent meeting that has me thinking. Permanent Revolution, the theory coined by Leon Trotsky can get slurred a little. The 'permanent revolution' Leon Trotsky referred to is an observation about revolution in a situation where the working class represents a minority of the population but can still find its way to power. It is therefore in a situation where capitalism is relatively underdeveloped, either by the remains of feudalism or the effect of imperialism. It is specifically about the question of state power.
In order for the working class to hold power it has to quickly reduce and eliminate class differences. You cannot work for someone else's profit, 8, 10, 12 hours a day, go home and then become the ruling class. In generally underdeveloped countries this means the revolution has to spread quickly, beyond national borders, in order to find sufficient basis for this process.
Permanent revolution does not mean "political demands growing over into economic demands". The working class achieves power by becoming the universal class, the class that takes on the interests of other subordinate groups in society. If anything permanent revolution means the growing over of economic demands into political demands. It meant, for example, in November 1905, the a general strike in St Petersburg against martial law in Poland; Russian workers striking for Polish freedom.
The recent discussion I felt gave me some insight into Gramsci's stated objections to the theory. In Egypt permanent revolution is an aspiration, not a practical slogan. There is no Cairo soviet. The working class has only recently come into its own. It is forming unions (and good luck with that), not vying for power. Permanent revolution, as a direct tactic, applies to very few situations.
In order for the working class to hold power it has to quickly reduce and eliminate class differences. You cannot work for someone else's profit, 8, 10, 12 hours a day, go home and then become the ruling class. In generally underdeveloped countries this means the revolution has to spread quickly, beyond national borders, in order to find sufficient basis for this process.
Permanent revolution does not mean "political demands growing over into economic demands". The working class achieves power by becoming the universal class, the class that takes on the interests of other subordinate groups in society. If anything permanent revolution means the growing over of economic demands into political demands. It meant, for example, in November 1905, the a general strike in St Petersburg against martial law in Poland; Russian workers striking for Polish freedom.
The recent discussion I felt gave me some insight into Gramsci's stated objections to the theory. In Egypt permanent revolution is an aspiration, not a practical slogan. There is no Cairo soviet. The working class has only recently come into its own. It is forming unions (and good luck with that), not vying for power. Permanent revolution, as a direct tactic, applies to very few situations.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Philling more space
Socialist TV/TV under socialism; not the hottest topic of speculation, but I was asked about it the other day and ad libbed an answer. This, below, is something more precise.
First of all, how does the medium affect the message? TV is, relative to other media, low definition, requiring high levels of involvement. The building block of a TV broadcast is the pixel, red, green or blue light. Compare this with the printed word, which is built out of the letter, well-defined, A = A, B = B. TV demands time and effort out of its audience. You can't absorb TV into other routines in the way you can with radio. TV is much more suited to education and in-depth documentary than current affairs, where it'd be prone to misunderstanding and/or manipulation, and this is what TV news is used for today.
Secondly, we cannot extend from our current conditions to this point. We will deal for a long time in printed media (off and on-line). While the cost of printing and publishing is decreasing (although not the cost of owning and running the means of printing and producing, hence the current crisis of profit in both industries) TV broadcasting is labour and resource intensive. We can only give a very general answer to this question.
In the meantime however TV has had and will have a continuing effect on our society, bringing the periphery into the centre. This allows people to have a much more international perspective, a greater degree of solidarity across borders, all borders. For example: how much easier it is now to rouse people in support of the Palestinian cause because you can see what the Israeli state does to them.
First of all, how does the medium affect the message? TV is, relative to other media, low definition, requiring high levels of involvement. The building block of a TV broadcast is the pixel, red, green or blue light. Compare this with the printed word, which is built out of the letter, well-defined, A = A, B = B. TV demands time and effort out of its audience. You can't absorb TV into other routines in the way you can with radio. TV is much more suited to education and in-depth documentary than current affairs, where it'd be prone to misunderstanding and/or manipulation, and this is what TV news is used for today.
Secondly, we cannot extend from our current conditions to this point. We will deal for a long time in printed media (off and on-line). While the cost of printing and publishing is decreasing (although not the cost of owning and running the means of printing and producing, hence the current crisis of profit in both industries) TV broadcasting is labour and resource intensive. We can only give a very general answer to this question.
In the meantime however TV has had and will have a continuing effect on our society, bringing the periphery into the centre. This allows people to have a much more international perspective, a greater degree of solidarity across borders, all borders. For example: how much easier it is now to rouse people in support of the Palestinian cause because you can see what the Israeli state does to them.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Teacher unions must not be allowed to ruin students education...
No, only crazy, bullying headteachers are allowed to do that!
When it was a matter of school students walking out to defend education the right wing were up in arms. How can we ensure the children are safe? Won't somebody please thing of the children! But this is different, apparently. Juliet Strang, headteacher, union basher and tyrant. For shame!
School students at Villiers High School in Southall, west London, were locked out of their school today, Wednesday.
The headteacher, Juliet Strang, told students in years 10 and 11 not to come to school—and police officers at the gates prevented those who did turn up from entering the school.
The lock-out follows mass protests and a strike by hundreds of students against the sacking of NUT union rep and head of Maths, Amerjit Virdee yesterday.
When it was a matter of school students walking out to defend education the right wing were up in arms. How can we ensure the children are safe? Won't somebody please thing of the children! But this is different, apparently. Juliet Strang, headteacher, union basher and tyrant. For shame!
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Egypt - tip your hat
What a fantastic achievement, toppling a dictator of thirty years pedigree. Even the BBC admitted in their live broadcast, the Egyptians did it on their own. Their challenge is to the whole western, capitalist power system.
In this last week of the revolution the Egyptian working class came into its own, and the regime really began to sway (90 odd years ago do you think there were pompous middle class bods calling the Russian Revolution a "telephone revolution"? All this stuff about twitter and facebook is just the mass media gazing in awe at its own reflection). The workers in Suez sound especially dynamic.
But wouldn't it be a shame if, after all this, the Egyptian working class simply went back to work? As has been said "in case you do not know it egyptians are among the hardest working people on the globe already".
Now is the time to make good this new freedom, before anyone can take it away. Now is the time for permanent revolution.
In this last week of the revolution the Egyptian working class came into its own, and the regime really began to sway (90 odd years ago do you think there were pompous middle class bods calling the Russian Revolution a "telephone revolution"? All this stuff about twitter and facebook is just the mass media gazing in awe at its own reflection). The workers in Suez sound especially dynamic.
But wouldn't it be a shame if, after all this, the Egyptian working class simply went back to work? As has been said "in case you do not know it egyptians are among the hardest working people on the globe already".
Now is the time to make good this new freedom, before anyone can take it away. Now is the time for permanent revolution.
Fox News - all the anxious scare stories your face can handle
Egypt, Iraq, it's all the same to them - scary and brown.
Ha Ha! Dead Nazi!
Quote: Unfortunately whilst at the station one of our fellow patriots entered the area of the train track... And the rest was history.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Egypt
I watched Hosni Mubarak on Al Jazeera last night... what a gasbag! I bet he sounded even worse in Arabic. It was some sight, a million or so people turning from joy to anger, waving their shoes. The Graun live feed is leading with Army Refuses to Oust Mubarak... it may change (the headline), but the job can't be put off for much longer, I guess, and the people will have to do it themselves.
Good luck.
Good luck.
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
What the bloody-hell is going on?
Or this week's news. According to the Daily Star (I won't sully this blog with a link) I saw in the newsagents this morning the EDL are forming a political party. Apart from the fact this means the Star has clearly run out of copy (aka breasts), I wonder, does this mean they are on the retreat or do they think they're on the forward march? I guess the former. It'd certainly be easier to permanently campaign against them. They'd also split the far-right vote.
Meanwhile, bankers beware, Gideon Osborne is levering £2.5 billion off you next financial year. It sounds a lot. Indeed, it makes Deal or No Deal seem like peanuts. But it is a fraction of the money that the banks should really be repaying the public (not the other way round). Besides, they're getting some pretty good perks.
Then you learn that over 50% of Tory Party donations comes from the City of London. £11.4 million pounds to be precise. What a bargain! Welcome to the Bullingdon Club sale! Everything must go!
Silvio Berlusconi may at long last be prosecuted, in this case for sex-offences. Judging by recent history it should send the greasy pimp's poll ratings even higher.
Ian Duncan-Smith reckons Hello magazine is responsible for the ruin of marriage. I'd have thought mass literacy would have suffered the most, but anyway, what on earth is this mentalist doing in charge of a ministry?
Meanwhile, bankers beware, Gideon Osborne is levering £2.5 billion off you next financial year. It sounds a lot. Indeed, it makes Deal or No Deal seem like peanuts. But it is a fraction of the money that the banks should really be repaying the public (not the other way round). Besides, they're getting some pretty good perks.
At the moment tax law ensures that companies based here, with branches in other countries, don't get taxed twice on the same money. They have to pay only the difference between our rate and that of the other country. If, for example, Dirty Oil plc pays 10% corporation tax on its profits in Oblivia, then shifts the money over here, it should pay a further 18% in the UK, to match our rate of 28%. But under the new proposals, companies will pay nothing at all in this country on money made by their foreign branches.
Foreign means anywhere. If these proposals go ahead, the UK will be only the second country in the world to allow money that has passed through tax havens to remain untaxed when it gets here. The other is Switzerland. The exemption applies solely to "large and medium companies": it is not available for smaller firms. The government says it expects "large financial services companies to make the greatest use of the exemption regime". The main beneficiaries, in other words, will be the banks.
But that's not the end of it. While big business will be exempt from tax on its foreign branch earnings, it will, amazingly, still be able to claim the expense of funding its foreign branches against tax it pays in the UK. No other country does this. The new measures will, as we already know, accompany a rapid reduction in the official rate of corporation tax: from 28% to 24% by 2014. This, a Treasury minister has boasted, will be the lowest rate "of any major western economy". By the time this government is done, we'll be lucky if the banks and corporations pay anything at all. In the Sunday Telegraph, David Cameron said: "What I want is tax revenue from the banks into the exchequer, so we can help rebuild this economy." He's doing just the opposite.
Then you learn that over 50% of Tory Party donations comes from the City of London. £11.4 million pounds to be precise. What a bargain! Welcome to the Bullingdon Club sale! Everything must go!
Silvio Berlusconi may at long last be prosecuted, in this case for sex-offences. Judging by recent history it should send the greasy pimp's poll ratings even higher.
Ian Duncan-Smith reckons Hello magazine is responsible for the ruin of marriage. I'd have thought mass literacy would have suffered the most, but anyway, what on earth is this mentalist doing in charge of a ministry?
Monday, February 07, 2011
Oh, that cultural fascism!
It's time to call shenanigans on Top Gear, that said it was time long ago. Top Gear is fascist, both implicitly and explicitly. You might think I am exaggerating and maybe I am, but the secret to defeating fascism is to recognise it early and call it out. The implict message of Top Gear's Adventures In... is technological domination. The boys see a sublime natural wonder and try to drive across it; the Arctic ice sheet, nothing; the Andes, meh; the Sahara, a bit dry but we'll make it. The point is to assert Jeremy Clarkson's will to power. Fingers crossed their next adventure will be driving across the face of the sun.
But Top Gear is more explict than this, evidenced by the to-do with the Mexican Ambassador. Top Gear is, in its own small way, a functional equivalent of the Tea Party in Britain. It helps to poison public life and discourse through consistently demeaning and violent language. Hence Stewart Lee's point: "if Jeremy Clarkson can all Gordon Brown a 'one eyed Scottish pillock' I can wish his daughters go blind". BUT, but, but, but, you can't object to Top Gear, you see, otherwise you're a sandal wearing, bearded, liberal etc who doesn't get it, because it's all just a joke. A fundamental prop for the fascist mentality is violated superiority (not to mention assumed victimhood). This is one of the many reasons why fascism is a middle-class pursuit.
The middle-class, especially the class of middle-managers and private sector professionals, are trained to operate with a sense of superiority over those they command. Their attitude toward their own bosses, who demean them as they demean others, is a mixture of resentment and admiration. They are consistently buffeted by the fortunes of capitalism but have little to defend themselves with. They were born to command, yet life generally dictates to them. They can't fight their way up, hence their need to constantly kick down. This is the Top Gear mentality.
Top Gear is a heaving sack of poison injected into our society once a week. It needs to be drawn. It needs to be taken off air... The BBC won't do it (unless it is forced to). Their explanation of the Mexico incident was "making fun of national stereotypes is part of the national humour", which translates as, "racism is the in thing these days, and with DVD sales like these who are we to object".
Oh, and if you're still in doubt, Jeremy Clarkson is a supporter of the far-right English Democrats.
Case. Fucking. Closed.
But Top Gear is more explict than this, evidenced by the to-do with the Mexican Ambassador. Top Gear is, in its own small way, a functional equivalent of the Tea Party in Britain. It helps to poison public life and discourse through consistently demeaning and violent language. Hence Stewart Lee's point: "if Jeremy Clarkson can all Gordon Brown a 'one eyed Scottish pillock' I can wish his daughters go blind". BUT, but, but, but, you can't object to Top Gear, you see, otherwise you're a sandal wearing, bearded, liberal etc who doesn't get it, because it's all just a joke. A fundamental prop for the fascist mentality is violated superiority (not to mention assumed victimhood). This is one of the many reasons why fascism is a middle-class pursuit.
The middle-class, especially the class of middle-managers and private sector professionals, are trained to operate with a sense of superiority over those they command. Their attitude toward their own bosses, who demean them as they demean others, is a mixture of resentment and admiration. They are consistently buffeted by the fortunes of capitalism but have little to defend themselves with. They were born to command, yet life generally dictates to them. They can't fight their way up, hence their need to constantly kick down. This is the Top Gear mentality.
Top Gear is a heaving sack of poison injected into our society once a week. It needs to be drawn. It needs to be taken off air... The BBC won't do it (unless it is forced to). Their explanation of the Mexico incident was "making fun of national stereotypes is part of the national humour", which translates as, "racism is the in thing these days, and with DVD sales like these who are we to object".
Oh, and if you're still in doubt, Jeremy Clarkson is a supporter of the far-right English Democrats.
Case. Fucking. Closed.
Sunday, February 06, 2011
David Cameron
David Cameron has some nerve attacking multiculturalism. The fact that he launched his tirade the night before organised fascists said they'd attempt a racist rampage, a pogrom through a large, ethnically mixed town in south east England, is especially odious. It was not a coincidence. The British ruling class is deliberately cultivating and coddling the EDL as a last resort against progressive change, while the Tories ram through their devastating attacks on Britain's working class.
He has some nerve attacking the idea of multiculturalism, especially promoting the idea that some groups, by which he means South-Asians, aka Muslims, are self-segregating. David Cameron comes from the most segregated section of our society. He was born into privilege, the younger son of a stockbroker and distantly related to the royal family. He went to Eton public school then Oxford University, where, amongst other things, he joined a group of ruling class delinquents called the Bullingdon Club, whose thing was smashing up restaurants then throwing money at the poor owners (dey waz so rich, see). He spent his adult life either working for the Tory party or as a TV executive, before becoming an MP... you know the rest of the story. He is a millionaire son of a millionaire. Even if a great many people wanted to 'self-segregate', which I'm certain they don't, the average person does not have a choice. The average person gets on with the life and, generally, gets on with people from other races and cultures. David Cameron is ruling class, the most exclusive, not to mention pale, male and stale group in Britain today.
He has some nerve attacking the idea of multiculturalism, especially promoting the idea that some groups, by which he means South-Asians, aka Muslims, are self-segregating. David Cameron comes from the most segregated section of our society. He was born into privilege, the younger son of a stockbroker and distantly related to the royal family. He went to Eton public school then Oxford University, where, amongst other things, he joined a group of ruling class delinquents called the Bullingdon Club, whose thing was smashing up restaurants then throwing money at the poor owners (dey waz so rich, see). He spent his adult life either working for the Tory party or as a TV executive, before becoming an MP... you know the rest of the story. He is a millionaire son of a millionaire. Even if a great many people wanted to 'self-segregate', which I'm certain they don't, the average person does not have a choice. The average person gets on with the life and, generally, gets on with people from other races and cultures. David Cameron is ruling class, the most exclusive, not to mention pale, male and stale group in Britain today.
Thoughts on Luton
Well, on Luton, it's a hole of a dump of a sty. Any heart has been clearly ripped out by Vauxhall motors. My commiserations to anyone whop has to live there... Now, with mixed-bag, fear/silly regional prejudice done with... The demonstration in Luton against the EDL was excellent. Unite Against Fascism estimate 5,000 overall turned out against the nazis. Best of all thousands of locals came to Bury Park, Luton's chiefly Asian area, which the EDL intended to target (for the moment we will leave aside the worrying stories of 'stewards' at Bury Park, almost certainly either Labour Party and/or Islamist, trying to drive people away). This means we have broken the effective police lock down on two occasions. Mass-mobilisation, you can't beat mass mobilisation with the aim of standing in the way of the racists and nazis... Well, the police couldn't yesterday, who were a soft, spongy mass. We gave them a run for their doughnuts, especially breaking out of the town centre kettle. They were not GMP nutters, and may have even been told to take it easy after the police's case, around Bolton, collapsed. I'm not grateful though: the police protect the nazis.
Mass mobilisation (to repeat the standard term) is the way forward. This was one of the largest and most effective instants of political action carried out under the Tory government. The kind of unity seen on that demo is the kind that will, if encouraged, break the Tory agenda. We should put anti-fascist activity back at the top of our priorities.
Mass mobilisation (to repeat the standard term) is the way forward. This was one of the largest and most effective instants of political action carried out under the Tory government. The kind of unity seen on that demo is the kind that will, if encouraged, break the Tory agenda. We should put anti-fascist activity back at the top of our priorities.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Egypt - some semi-ignorant musing
I was asked yesterday to come up with a good dose of pessimism about the Egyptian revolution but was unable. I hadn't been near the news all day but the stories of pro-government thugs (aka the police) coming onto the streets confirmed something that had been lurking in the back of my mind.
Since 1989 the globally common notion of "revolution" has been somewhat circumscribed. It roughly goes thus: people come out onto the streets, something-something-something, a new government is formed. The crucial X factor, an actual uprising, conquering the state is missing (in the recent past it has been replaced by US intervention, e.g. the colour revolutions). The job in Egypt is to oust Mubarak and break up the NDP. I heard people were arguing whether to stay in Tahrir Square or march on the Presidential Palace I thought "people are looking over their shoulders again".
Revolutionary crowds are not like armies, they cannot be expected to advance and retreat in good order. Revolutions tend not to stand still but either advance or fall back. Maybe the revolution has missed its chance, maybe the police violence will spur the revolution on to finish the job. Either way the next few days will be crucial.
Victory to the Egyptian revolution.
Since 1989 the globally common notion of "revolution" has been somewhat circumscribed. It roughly goes thus: people come out onto the streets, something-something-something, a new government is formed. The crucial X factor, an actual uprising, conquering the state is missing (in the recent past it has been replaced by US intervention, e.g. the colour revolutions). The job in Egypt is to oust Mubarak and break up the NDP. I heard people were arguing whether to stay in Tahrir Square or march on the Presidential Palace I thought "people are looking over their shoulders again".
Revolutionary crowds are not like armies, they cannot be expected to advance and retreat in good order. Revolutions tend not to stand still but either advance or fall back. Maybe the revolution has missed its chance, maybe the police violence will spur the revolution on to finish the job. Either way the next few days will be crucial.
Victory to the Egyptian revolution.
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)