Musings of a Radical

Reservations about "Kony 2012"

2012-03-07T14:57:00.001Z

I realise that this blog is not likely to make me particularly popular. Unfortunately, I think it is necessary to express some concern about the latest charity-fad, “Kony 2012”.

Masterminded by an American charity called ‘Invisible Children’, this appears to be an example of one of their periodic marketing campaigns designed to draw attention to their cause.

Their cause, of course, is pretty commendable. Joseph Kony, as many more people are now aware, is the leader of an organisation called the Lord’s Resistance Army in the Great Lakes region of Africa- originally confined to the especially deprived area of northern Uganda, but since spreading out into other countries such as the CAR, DRC and South Sudan.

The LRA is responsible for countless atrocities, particularly against children. Any sensible or compassionate human being would want to see Kony and his henchmen brought to justice.

Yet something- or rather several things- worry me about the manner in which Invisible Children seeks to go about this.

The first instinctive problem I find is the extreme manifestation of the White Man’s Burden. Western teenagers are called upon, alongside influential figures like Rihanna, to raise awareness about Kony and put pressure on their governments to take action.

This patronising approach to Africa is hardly confined to Uganda, and is really rather common. There is a very visible strain of liberal philanthropy which, like Invisible Children, genuinely believes that sending rich white kids off to Africa is the way to achieve change.

Rich white people are then able to pull macho poses, holding guns alongside members of the SPLA- also known to have used child soldiers. Money is therefore pumped into glorified holidays for guilty-feeling Westerners, at the expense of substantially more important programmes.

Instead, emphasis could be placed upon the fact that the people of the Great Lakes region and Central Africa are capable of acting together collectively to bring about peace. How little does Invisible Children talk about possible work by the African Union, compared to their repeated demands for US intervention?

Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is the calls for US military intervention which give me additional reason for concern.

For all intents and purposes, the LRA are in the weakest position they have been for years. Kony has been cut off from his traditional backers in Khartoum by the secession of South Sudan. Their forces have been weakened by continued warfare with various governments, and Invisible Children have eventually admitted that the LRA has not been operating in Uganda since 2006.

Why the need to increase the USA’s involvement? There is already a team of military advisers in Uganda, and since the cessation of Uganda’s occupation of the DRC in 2003 training has been taking place. Western governments continue to fund the Ugandan military despite recruiting children as young as 13.

I cannot help but fear that it is intrinsically dangerous to strengthen the military of a regime such as Yoweri Museveni’s. Although an initially somewhat progressive leader partially responsible for toppling several horrendous dictators, Museveni quickly sided with the West and accepted the prescriptions of the IMF and World Bank.

Museveni’s regime has carried out huge population displacements and considerable numbers of extrajudicial executions. Despite his positive work against HIV/AIDS, he is also complicit in supporting Tutsi extremists in Rwanda and launching horrendous attacks against the DRC.

Even Geldof had the sense to say “Get a grip Museveni. Your time is up, go away” when the Ugandan President expressed an intention to further centralise control and make it possible to govern for another term. And, of course, many spoke out against his efforts to impose the death penalty for homosexuality.

This is not to justify the activities of the LRA but to demonstrate that focussing solely on Kony can be dangerous when the result is more power being obtained by a not-much-better dictator.

Perhaps most importantly of all, a problem I see with the ‘Kony 2012’ campaign is the overwhelming focus on an individual and even an individual conflict as the basis for analysis.

Kony is obviously an ‘evil’ man, but he is not the reason that atrocities are being carried out. The LRA’s insurgency is clearly bloody and tragic, but it has not occurred in isolation.

Reducing a multifaceted and complex problem to the peculiar psychology of a particular person is exactly the sort of idiotic liberalism which we need to discourage. The LRA draws a large number of its members from the Acholi UPDA, who rebellion against Museveni collapsed in 1988. That was a movement based upon the conscious expression of legitimate grievances, and it has now morphed into a movement which is outwardly different but ultimately based upon similar causes.

If you assassinate or capture Kony, then the LRA will morph again. Perhaps his ideology will be perpetuated; perhaps it will be replaced by something new. Either way, ethnic and territorial conflict will not end because the figurehead has been eliminated.

The LRA insurgency, the Rwandan genocide, the Congolese civil wars- they all have common causes. They are rooted in a history of colonialism, in which people were divided on ethnic lines and some favoured more than others. Neo-colonialism has kept countries poor and subservient to the West, which produces the seeds for outbreaks of violence.

No one could ever claim that solving these problems- as well as the conflicts over resources and so on will be easy. It will take a widespread restructuring of international power relations, a system of reparations to the victims of the colonial powers, and genuine truth and reconciliation processes.

This will probably also have to involve the military defeat of Kony and his army, and we all hope that is forthcoming. But it is reckless to call for military intervention for his capture- it is no better than calling for the invasion of Afghanistan to root out Osama bin Laden.

For that matter, it is no better than calling for military support to be given to all the corrupt dictatorships of the Middle East so long as they declare their enemy to be ‘terrorism’.

By all means, raise awareness. It is always better that people in the West understand the nature of the problems, and I hope that this blog might further develop that understanding- although I am no expert.

Yet it must be borne in mind that Africa is a rather more complex continent than some Europeans and North Americans would like to think. It isn’t a place of perpetual crisis, to receive the kind assistance of rich white men.

It is a place where people seek to live their lives well and to produce better lives for the children- and in hundreds of thousands of cases they are successful, just like anywhere else. Africans are not infants to be aided by the benevolent military of the United States.

By raising awareness about Kony, you do a little to improve the world. But there are limits to what any Westerner can do. Over the LRA, we have relatively little leverage- it is not like South Africa or Israel where we could consider withdrawing support.

Even in raising awareness about inequality in international power/trade relations, and the legacy of colonialism, we only do so much. We improve our own understanding, and might do a little to hold our ruling classes to account, but ultimately a better world can only be created through self-emancipation.

It is undeniably impressive that Invisible Children have been able to mobilise such a huge swathe of the Western population which is otherwise largely apathetic. However, it is hugely important that claims do not go unchecked and motives do not go unquestioned.

Please read these blogs and articles for further information:

http://visiblechildren.tumblr.com/post/18890947431/we-got-trouble

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136673/mareike-schomerus-tim-allen-and-koen-vlassenroot/obama-takes-on-the-lra?page=show

http://chrisblattman.com/2009/03/04/visible-children/
http://texasinafrica.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-causes-badvocacy.html?m=1
http://ericswanderings.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/invisible-children-and-joseph-kony/
http://www.how-matters.org/2012/03/06/good-guys-bad-guys/
http://siena-anstis.com/2012/03/07/on-invisible-childrens-kony-2012-campaign/
http://innovateafrica.tumblr.com/post/18897981642/you-dont-have-my-vote
http://www.wrongingrights.com/2009/03/worst-idea-ever.html

Peace,

Dan x

Bozier and the International Division of Labour

2012-03-04T20:50:00.000Z

Luke Bozier, who I once defended before he decided to jump ship to the Tories in the hopes of improving his career, has this evening written some truly idiotic tweets. Even for Luke Bozier.

Now obviously we can’t necessarily expect a “Digital politics & government innovator”, “Purple Tory”, “Start-up entrepreneur” or “Globalist Brit” to have an intimate understanding of Marx.

But sometimes someone makes a comment so obviously stupid (and insulting) that I have to respond. So here we go.

It is of course fairly accurate to suggest that there aren’t large numbers of brands which have originated in China. Many of them are US-spawned, whilst the rest tend to come from the West or from countries which have done well out of the West (e.g. South Korea and Japan).

To Bozier and his ilk, I suppose this indicates that “capitalist-led innovation” and some sort of special entrepreneurial magic have enabled non-Chinese brands to beat out all the rest.

Ignore for a moment the problems with the emphasis on capitalism, like the fact that Toyota wouldn’t exist without the massive US procurement programmes in the Korean War, and just focus on what this boils down to.

Luke thinks that Nike is such a big sports brand because it is the best. And he believes that it is the best because it was produced by America, and if China adopted “American capitalist-led innovation” then they would be able to produce a multitude of Nikes.

Obviously this is rubbish. Here’s a somewhat more convincing story, in a few stages:

1. Brand-designed in the United States creates a new style of trainer, which soon becomes rather popular domestically.

2. In the constant pursuit of profit, the process of producing the trainer is outsourced to countries with exceptionally low labour costs- China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, and so on.

3. As this new powerful corporation (and other corporations like it) become more and more central to the economy of these periphery countries, the periphery countries adapt to the demands of the corporations. Labour repression increases, and resources are devoted to meeting the needs of dependency.

4. The corporation achieves, if it has not already, global market dominance through advertising and lowering prices on the back of outsourcing. Regardless of the quality of the trainer, there is a significant cost to any competitors wishing to enter the market.

In this manner an international division of labour is perpetuated or created.

This is of course nothing new. Periphery countries have always been exploited by the wealthy countries, with many newly independent nations having switched to cash crops despite the population literally needing the focus to be on basic necessities.

But if Luke Bozier thinks it is relevant to ask why China does not produce global brands, then does he not think it equally relevant to ask why Brazil, India, Ethiopia, Argentina, etc, do not produce global brands? Does he not think it is relevant to ask why the United States does not possess an extensive manufacturing sector based on wage depression?

I guess it was never a surprise that Luke Bozier’s ideologically is intellectually and morally bankrupt, but I did genuinely think he might be able to spot neo-imperialism when it was glaring him right in the face.

Sorry, I don’t think this is as expressed as well as I would like. I hope the point is got across. The international division of labour means that (on the whole) some countries produce commodities and other countries design them, consume them, and profit from them.

China can implement as much “capitalist-led innovation” as it likes, but it means nowt so long as China’s place in the world is to make things for comparatively wealthy Westerners.

Peace,

Dan x

Learning from Occupy

2012-02-29T17:50:00.000Z

At the time of writing it appears that the Occupy movement has been all but entirely kicked out of London by the powers that be.

In many ways this is a consequence of the failures which I previously identified- the niche base of support, the form of organisation, and the failure to properly challenge capitalism or indeed anything in particular.

Despite this, after #OccupyLSX was established outside St Paul’s I did come to view the movement as having some positive elements.

If nothing else, Occupy had the potential to feed into other more disruptive forms of action. And regardless of my own views of it as a strategy, it had come to represent our wider political positions to the wider world and therefore was in need of defending.

Unfortunately, I fear that somewhere between my reappraisals and where we stand today the Occupy movement dropped the torch.

#OccupyLSX’s initial ability to influence the media agenda predictably fell by the wayside as news channels found more captivating topics- the continuing struggles in the Arab world, for example. The Christmas period poses a big challenge to activists, and it is rare for any group to succeed in keeping the fire alive as the cold sets in.

More and more, Occupy became an inwards-looking movement, increasing its ability to remain in one place and network without (seemingly) much consideration for capturing the public imagination. London, in its terrifyingly amazing way, incorporated Occupy into itself and thus the City’s masters were no longer threatened by it.

As someone who lives about ten minutes away from St Paul’s, I can reliably say that barely a passing thought was given to those camped just on the other side of the Thames. Occupy moved into the background, always there as a resource to be drawn upon but not itself impacting much outside of the capital’s activist clique.

Of course, this does not diminish the potential that Occupy did at one point possess. So what can be learned?

As well as the problems which I remarked upon from the outset, I think the most important thing is to know when it’s over.

As far as I’m concerned, Occupy’s usefulness virtually dissipated around the Christmas period. This was the point where most people ate their turkey and forgot all about those anti-capitalist campers, and when they returned to work they didn’t remember again.

Giving up would not, clearly, have been an option. To get up and leave without any demands being met is an admission of failure, and would scarcely have registered in the public’s consciousness.

It would’ve been preferable to have forced an eviction, by refusing to accommodate the demands of the state- in reality it appears as if Occupy’s leaders bent over backwards to make sure they would not be expelled.

This is a mistake, because an eviction at the peak of the public’s sympathy and the media’s coverage was exactly what Occupy needed to make its mark permanent.

If you hold on long enough, you don’t necessarily win- people might just stop caring about what you’re saying.

As Neil Young sang and Kurt Cobain quoted, “it's better to burn out than to fade away”. I don’t know how well that applies to human life, but it certainly applies to protest groups.

Solidarity,

Dan x

Endorsements for the LSESU Lent Term Elections 2012

2012-02-28T14:24:00.000Z

As you may or (more probably) may not be aware, it is currently election season at LSE. I thought I’d just provide some brief explanations of my support for various candidates. It’s clearly not comprehensive, as for some positions I lack a real preference, but I figured it might be of use to those who spend less time keeping up on SU politics.

Full details of candidates can be found here.

Mohammed Morley for General Secretary

The competition for General Secretary is a two-horse race between the incumbent, Alex Peters-Day, and Mohammed Morley. I think it’s important to take this into consideration when choosing who to support.

Whilst Alex has not been a bad General Secretary, LSESU has been far from perfect in the last year. Activism appears to have declined, UGM turnout is at an all-time low and the SU appears to have been of only passing relevance in the actions against anti-Semitism and other forms of prejudice which we have witnessed.

It would be unfair to blame Alex for these failings, but at the same time her record is not sufficient to deserve yet another shot. When all other positions appear to be changing hands, it seems fundamentally important to inject new blood into the system.

There are few people who could be better choices for this new blood than Mohammed Morley. I first encountered Mohammed in my SA101 class, where he came across as likeable and friendly.

And whilst I’m still relatively new to LSE, his record speaks for himself. In one of the first SA101 classes, I remember him mentioning how willing he was to help out with campaigns, and he wasn’t lying.

Mohammed appears to always be willing to help out with the campaigning work most (including myself) are prone to shrinking from- indeed, it is amazing to see him leafleting for himself for a change, rather than about prejudice, injustice and brutality.

He is the best hope we now have of helping revive LSESU’s campaigning spirit, and his commitment to support a national demonstration is welcome because such a thing is necessary- if only to resurrect the now dwindling student movement.

Mohammed Morley will help put LSE back on the map for all of the right reasons. Change is important, and passion and patience perhaps even more so- he ticks all the boxes.

Lois Clifton for Education Officer

From the beginning of my time at LSE, Lois has been one of the best representatives of the Student Union- acting not just in her role as Environment and Ethics Officer, but as someone who genuinely cares about students at LSE and nationally.

Lois is the only candidate that can be trusted to balance both the national and LSE-specific issues involved with being Education Officer. Whilst some have expressed the belief that the SU should focus only on the narrow experience of those at LSE, Lois is aware that what happens nationally cannot be separated from what happens at LSE.

LSE100, which is amongst the greatest of annoyances for first and second years, is directly related to the increasing presence of competition within the university sector. Rather than putting resources into teaching and research, competition leads LSE to throw money at improving our ‘brand’- regardless of how it impacts upon students.

This will only increase as the market becomes more ‘competitive’ and university education goes from being a public good to a commodity- where the ethos switches from “understanding the causes of things” to “Jonathan Leape knows best”.

Those who want to depoliticise the role of Education Officer fundamentally misunderstand the role of the position and of the SU as a whole. If LSE is becoming increasingly unwilling to take a bold progressive stance, then it falls to LSESU to take up the torch and stand up for the people in whose interests our institution was founded.

Yes, any Education Officer will deal with LSE’s specific requirements- just as any General Secretary can buy a microwave. What we need right now is someone who can go beyond that and seriously challenge this government’s programme of cuts and privatisation.

Lois Clifton is the candidate who can fulfil that role.

Jack Tindale for Community and Welfare Officer

Jack is the main person that I already vaguely knew of before my arrival at LSE- his Twitter account had prepared me somewhat for what LSE would be like, but it could not prepare me for Mr Tindale’s eccentricities in their entirety.

This is of course the candidate with the most notable campaign so far. Pretending to be a pirate is always a bold move, particularly for someone from Barnsley. I’m not quite sure where the idea came from, except for Jack’s love affair with hats, but it could just pay off.

In all seriousness, Jack Tindale is pretty much the perfect candidate for any of the sabbatical positions. I am constantly surprised at the sheer amount that he does to improve LSE’s community- UGM Chair, Private B, Bankside IT, Pulse, Labour Society, History Society and probably some other stuff I’ve forgotten.

It will indeed take a crew of marines to stop Captain Jack Tindale from pouring his heart and soul into making the LSE a better place for all students.

But beyond his impeccable credentials and amusing gimmick, Jack also has a strong platform- strong enough, indeed, that he should not be pressured into somehow masquerading as a ‘moderate’. Whatever else Jack may be, his campaign is not a load of Blairite twoddle.

Whilst all candidates are capable of expressing broad desires to make things better, Jack Tindale has set out a concrete set of proposals for how this should be achieved.

The Cross-Liberation Alliance is an exceptionally implementable policy which will assist with the coordination of intersectional campaigns and ultimately benefit LSE’s diverse student body.

The introduction of links with a Credit Union would also be a simple step with many benefits- which is rather better than simply chucking nice words around.

Don’t be a bilge rat- vote Tindale.

Nostalgia for Social Democracy

2012-02-23T21:00:00.002Z

In November last year, the Fawcett Society organised a demonstration with the message "DON’T Turn Back Time on Women’s Equality!"

The basis for such a demonstration was quite understandable. Given the cuts being meted out, which in particular target women, there is a very real prospect that all the progress made by second-wave feminism. The 1950s and 1960s, in terms of female (and LGBT+ and BME) liberation, are generally considered to be bad times.

It is peculiar therefore that I am so often given the impression that others in the anti-cuts movement are inclined towards romanticising the Attlee consensus and longing for its return.

Certainly, this was the impression I got at the Next Generation Labour meeting held on Tuesday- held, perhaps poignantly, in the Harold Wilson Room at Portcullis House.

Whilst the speakers included genuine left-wingers like Ellie Mae O’Hagan and the virtually unknown Owen Jones (who invited him?), they also included firm Keynesians like Richard Murphy.

I’m not going to pretend that the mood was overwhelmingly nostalgic, but there was certainly a line of thought being bandied about which called for a reversal of the Thatcherite agenda and essentially a return to Keynesianism, Butskellism and ‘responsible capitalism’.

This is a trend which I believe must be strongly avoided.

It is not entirely ridiculous to remark upon the immense advances made in social justice after the Second World War, especially given the context it occurred within- staggeringly high levels of debt and a weak international economy.

I’m not going to go so far as to say that I do not admire the Attlee government, and it is understandable why institutions such as the NHS have become so important to our national psyche.

Yet the Attlee consensus was also something which those of the Left were unhappy about at the time. Whilst a semi-revolution took place in a very few respects, what was created was not something which we would genuinely refer to as socialism.

Instead, a new bureaucracy was created which scarcely improved the democratic control of the economy which had been sought. Workplace democracy was barely any more existent than it had been before, and foreign policy remained tied to a right-wing agenda because the civil service was never comprehensively overhauled.

Socialism strives towards many things, but its essence is not too difficult to distil. It is the expansion of democracy into all public spheres of life, working class power and self-determination, the abolition of alienation and eventual elimination of hierarchical relationships.

Apologies if that didn’t help, but I struggle to find better words to get across those concepts- alienation is a funny sounding term, but it really is essential in my opinion to understanding the sort of society we want to create.

Alienation is when humans are divorced or estranged from integral elements of their being- from the product of labour, from the act of labour, from their own potential for development and from other human beings. The elimination of these forms of alienation must be at the living, beating heart of the socialist movement.

The pre-Thatcher consensus did not really achieve any of this, except through the stabilisation of work. Career Opportunities was recorded by The Clash in 1977, and Joe Strummer’s lyrics hardly reflect a country in which alienation is a thing of the past.

In the 1950s through to the 1970s, people still worked in jobs they hated and still lived in houses that weren’t really good enough. People still struggled to make ends meet, people were still treated terribly by management, and people were still acting under the constraints of capitalism.

Richard Murphy’s appeal for a “courageous state” is both deeply worrying in its entrenchment of hierarchy (I want anything but courage in a state that occupies Middle Eastern countries and beats up teenagers), but also because it fails to challenge the core of what we oppose about capitalism.

Involuntary unemployment is not a nice thing. But a state with full employment is hardly better than one without if said employment amounts to drudgery. Billy Bragg’s classic Between the Wars declares that “I'll give my consent/ To any government/ That does not deny a man a living wage”, but in reality people want more than that. They want a living wage in return for decent work, and for control over their own lives.

Cuba may have created excellent conditions for its people given the circumstances, but that isn’t worth anything unless Cubans have control over their own lives.

Ultimately, it is our task as socialists to fight for something better. Going back to Social Democracy isn’t just undesirable, but it’s impossible- the liberation of women has (and there is nothing at all wrong with this) changed the labour market, and the necessary international conditions simply no longer exist.

It is no more possible to magically create a new (and never-existing) Golden Age of Capitalism than it would be to establish a feudal society or somehow resurrect primitive communism.

Anyone who is serious about moving forwards needs to recognise that it isn’t good enough just to look back. Socialism must now be struggled for in the context of existing conditions and with the legacy of the Thatcherite consensus behind us.

Rather than constantly using images of the post-War struggle to inspire us, we need to recognise that we cannot build a world in Attlee’s image.

We can build a world far better than that, after all. Don't turn back time, full stop.

Solidarity,

Dan x

Towards a Socialist Interventionism?

2012-02-19T19:50:00.000Z

Growing up in the wake of Iraq and all that it entailed, I have a natural instinct against liberal interventionism. I know I’m not alone, and it is invariably brought to mind during discussions over future military actions in the Middle East.

These have unsurprisingly re-emerged following the uprising against the authoritarian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Syria, just as they did before the intervention in Libya last year. Iraq is also brought to mind whenever there is discussion of war in Iran, as it seems to become increasingly inevitable.

Opposition to liberal interventionism is easy to justify, and is usually based on two main lines of attack.

The first is the view that liberation must be achieved by the oppressed people themselves. This theme runs through much left-wing thought, from Marx to Fanon, and it is quite easy to conclude.

Authentic democratic structures (political, social and economic) must be legitimate, and legitimacy is drawn from being constructed by the people themselves. It is very difficult to impose democracy upon a nation through occupation.

Coupled with this is the view that outside intervention will lead to support moving towards the status quo, and ultimately have a detrimental effect on the revolution itself.

However, complete opposition to interventionism is difficult to justify for socialists without criticising proud moments in the history of the movement.

The most obvious of these is the Spanish Civil War, in which brave communists and anarchists and republicans travelled to Spain to fight the forces of reaction and fascism.

Whilst this venture was flawed in many respects- the fact that Franco eventually came to power being one of them- it is unlikely that this was a result of the nature of interventionism per se. Rather, it was the specific interaction of differing factions (as well as the prominent involvement of fascist powers on Franco’s side) which doomed the Republic.

As internationalists, socialists cannot claim that an English socialist is incapable of contributing positively to revolution in France. Whilst I am not as anti-nation as some comrades, even I struggle to see how travelling to Paris to participate in an uprising would be any different from heading out from London to Manchester.

This is essential to our belief in solidarity, and it isn’t too difficult to see where the line stops. So long as the revolution is led by local socialists and foreign supporters accept their detachments, there is nothing wrong with foreign socialists from participating. After all, solidarity dictates that I support a picket line outside a workplace that is not my own- it cannot be so different for revolutions.

Another prominent objection to liberal interventionism- and it is this that I feel has more weight- is that it is a neoconservative attempt to extend imperialism.

Regardless of the abhorrence I see in Ba’athist Syria and theocratic Iran (or indeed in autocratic-militarist North Korea), they are nonetheless examples of states which have torn away from the shackles of dependency. That is perhaps the only positive which can be attributed to them, and it would be a grave tragedy if it were to be lost in the pursuit of internal democracy.

After all, the West has always been willing to prop up dictators in South Korea, Guatemala and Saudi Arabia when it serves their interests. Within the current international capitalist system, it is difficult to conceive of genuine democracy occurring in the non-Western world without dependency being overthrown first.

Iran, Syria and even North Korea have moved towards this, even if they are in desperate need of further revolution to introduce democratic socialism.

Whilst a Western/NATO intervention is destined to lead to incorporation within the international system of dependency, and ultimately should be challenged as a step away from international socialism, it is not impossible to think of interventions which were consistently anti-imperialist.

In the Angolan Civil War, Cuban troops and Soviet funding played a crucial role in securing victory for the left-wing Movimento Popular de Libertação de Angola (MPLA) against the USA/Israel/Apartheid South Africa-backed União Nacional para a Independência Total de Angola (UNITA) and Frente Nacional de Libertação de Angola (FNLA).

Not only did this mean that a left-wing party (and member of the Socialist International) took power rather than a Western-aligned conservative one, but incidences such as the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale are credited with contributing to the demise of Apartheid and independence of Namibia as the white South African military was defeated by black Cubans and Angolans.

A less successful example of something which approaches what might be described as “socialist interventionism” is the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in 1978. As you are probably aware, the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot had been implementing a horrific cultural genocide within so-called Democratic Kampuchea, having come to power on the back of the United States’ devastation of the country during the wars South East Asia.

The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, with Soviet backing, successfully deposed Pol Pot and installed a less authoritarian socialist regime which eventually allowed for transition towards democracy. The Khmer Rouge’s underground resistance movement enjoyed the support of the United States and Deng Xiaoping’s PRC.

Undoubtedly there were many problems with the Vietnamese occupation. Vietnam had a historical and strategic imperative to place a friendly government in Cambodia, and their state was hardly a socialist paradise. Nonetheless, it is hard to see how we can seriously criticise a move which led to the destruction of an awful regime.

The conclusion I draw from all of this is that socialists have every reason to support our own form of intervention- it is not as simple as choosing between imperialistic liberal interventionism and hard-line pacifism. A spirit of internationalism and compassion compels us to find ways of aiding liberation movements across the world.

In light of this, I recommend several guiding principles for “socialist interventionism”:

1. There is a call for intervention from an overwhelming majority of the opposition movements within the country.

2. The intervening power(s) is of a similar international standing of the state, so that imperialist powers do not intervene in states which have secured independence. Working class organisations within imperialist powers may contribute, as occurred in the Spanish Civil War, though this is unlikely to be as useful.

3. The intervening power(s) has no vested historical, social or economic interests in the state.

4. International approval be obtained- the United Nations General Assembly is more important in this than the United States Security Council, for obvious reasons.

I should clarify that these principles apply only in circumstances where the conflict is internal and where the aim of the intervention is to explicitly support one side and thereby bring about regime change. Few would have a serious problem with UN peacekeeping missions, and most accept that the Allies were right to fight Nazi Germany.

Having outlined these principles, I suppose the important next step is to inquire as to how they can be applied to Syria.

Regarding support for intervention within Syria, unanimity seems to be some way off. The Syrian National Council- dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood- is supportive of military intervention. The left-leaning National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change, on the other hand, is strongly opposed to anything of the sort.

Problems are exasperated when the potential intervening powers are considered. Assuming we oppose the involvement of NATO (and I definitely think such opposition is justified), the most likely candidates appear to be the Arab League and Turkey.

However, an intervention by the Arab League would be wrought with problems. Most significant is the fact that the Arab League is dominated by states like Saudi Arabia, who are generally more authoritarian than Syria and perfectly willing to suppress popular unrest in countries like Bahrain. Saudi involvement in the Syrian revolution is possibly the worst of all outcomes.

Turkey would also have a detrimental impact on any intervention, and would heighten the potential for sectarianism. The Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) has threatened to ally with Assad if Turkey seeks to intervene, and it has to be recognised that Syria’s Kurds would not be optimistic about their prospects under Turkish occupation. Turkey is also an increasingly assertive regional power whose aspirations cannot be entirely trusted.

The task therefore, if intervention is the answer, is to find non-imperialist states capable of being neutral in Syria. The best prospect of this, though at present their opposition to Assad has been muted, lies in the states of Latin America and India. Although unfortunately it does not look like ALBA will be standing against tyranny in the Middle East any time soon, Brazil would be a welcome presence in such a campaign.

I’m not sure I have the answer, but I don’t think it is possible for leftists to stick to pacifism, nor to compromise their principles and back NATO. I think that there is some potential in “socialist interventionism” as a concept, although it probably needs to be further explored.

Solidarity,

Dan

You aren't a "lad", you're a disgrace

2012-02-01T17:16:00.001Z

TRIGGER WARNING This blog contains mention of sexual assault which may be triggering to survivors.

As you may or may not be aware, the web-magazine ‘UniLad’ has recently been suspended as a result of a widespread outcry over an article which endorsed rape, thoroughly typical of the output of the website.

Although I am hopeful that the owner/operator of UniLad has actually seen sense, as I hope the ‘Agony Uncles’ in the Beaver did after their similar “jokes”, I am not filled with optimism. The replies to UniLad’s apology on Facebook indicate that rape culture is alive and continuing to operate in the minds of a disturbingly large segment of society.

For this reason I hope this blog will contribute to the messages already being circulated by @stavvers and @tomilo.

The unfortunate fact is that rape culture is all around us. For those empathy-devoid drones who would rather shout “banter!” than think about the impacts their words have on others, let me make this very simple.

Rape culture is when someone makes a joke about one of the most horrendous and dehumanising of all crimes- sexual assault- as if it is something to be taken light-heartedly.

Rape culture is when a victim, or someone who knows a victim, overhears that joke and can’t sleep all night because it brings back memories of the attack. It’s when they wake up shaking every night for a week or month afterwards because of the nightmares that your joke has caused.

Rape culture is when another man knows the joke is wrong, knows that someone should speak up against it, but is scared to because “banter” and all the sick jokes it entails has become so tied up with modern notions of masculinity that they fear derision if they condemn what was said.

It isn’t something that should be too difficult to get your head around, but rape jokes aren’t funny. Are they taboo? No, because more often than not you know what someone’s about to say. If I had a tenner for every time I’ve heard someone pull the “shout surprise first!” line I’d be the most depressed millionaire in the world.

Pointing this out appears to illicit the rage of those who resort to cries of “free speech!” As if survivors’ have no right to live their lives without people they care about causing triggers.

The article which caused such justified controversy seemed to place great emphasis on statistics. If it can be complimented on one miniscule detail it is that it drew attention to one of the most horrifying facts of our times- the number of rapes which go unreported.

1 in 4 women have experienced rape or attempted rape. Think about that.

Think about the women that you know. If your mother, your sister, your grandmother, your girlfriend, your friends had been raped, would they have told you? Would they have even told the police?

And when you’re sitting around, having a laugh, and you decide to make a rape joke- how do you think those women you know would feel? Unless you’re an emotionally empty husk, it should shake you that your words could easily cause immense trauma for someone that you are supposed to care about.

That is without even going into the legitimising effect such jokes have on other men, who go on to commit rape under much the same justifications as you find joked about by so-called “lads”.

How funny would you find it if you heard a family member’s attacker joking about their assault in the way you joke about hypothetical assaults?

UniLad, even in their apology, described rape as “non-consensual sex”- which is a pretty worrying euphemism. Sex, to me at least, is an act between two consenting and equal individuals. The relationship between ‘sex’ and ‘rape’ is as the relationship between a handshake and grievous bodily harm. It is offensive and detrimental to victims to miscategorise ‘rape’ in this way, particularly when the victim was a virgin when attacked and therefore can feel as if something has been stolen from them.

Organisations such as Men Can Stop Rape point out something that should be obvious. Preventing rape isn’t about patronisingly telling women to be more careful or less “naïve”- it’s about reminding men that NO means NO, that there is no entitlement to sex and that jokes about rape aren’t just unfunny, they’re downright dangerous.

If society has genuinely got to the stage that being a “lad” means supporting rape then I despair for the future of humanity.

If you’re comfortable with rape culture, then you can’t be a friend of mine.

Peace,

Dan x

"Responsible Capitalism" is a dead end

2012-01-19T21:08:00.001Z

It’s either slightly amusing or deeply depressing that both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition so-called have decided to articulate roughly the same ideas on the same day.

Where one uses the term “moral capitalism”, the other favours “responsible capitalism”- that is in essence the only difference, the only other being that Ed Miliband might actually believe it.

The comrade who tweets as @thewarmjets has written a rather thorough and rather excellent critique of David Cameron’s position.

It exposes the falsehoods behind Cameron’s claims to support a co-operative economy, and demonstrates that the “corporate social responsibility” admired by the Right (and touted by some on the Left) is the antithesis of a genuinely democratic and ethical economy.

And I hope that the problems with Ed Miliband’s “responsible capitalism” do not need to be explained. Capitalism- the socioeconomic system where property is owned privately by a tiny minority whilst the vast majority are forced to sell their labour power- is incapable of being responsible in any meaningful way.

Ed Miliband’s late father would have understood this perfectly, and there is a part of me which holds out hope that Ed does too- somewhere deep down, covered up by surrenderist sympathies.

Capitalists are perfectly capable of being responsible- it is just that said responsibility only extends as far as preserving the status quo. Responsibility under capitalism is not creating an egalitarian or just world- it is maintaining your socioeconomic position.

This is not to say that Ed Miliband’s position is not an improvement over the position of his predecessor-but-one. Few could accuse the lamentably uncharismatic Ed Miliband of sharing Tony Blair’s politics entirely, just as he does not possess his brute charm.

However, the difference is in reality miniscule. Even at his most extreme, Tony Blair took care to emphasise the supposedly humanitarian elements of capitalism. It would take a brave man to argue that explicitly irresponsible capitalism is the way forward, and surrenderists are by definition not brave.

And of course there is the fact that Miliband’s position is not radically different from that of the government- the ideological divide is narrower than that between ‘Red Tory’ and ‘Blue Labour’.

That David Cameron and Ed Miliband are so close on this issue rather reflects the fact that the transition from New Labour to Ed Labour has been pretty pitiful. We may be rid of Luke Bozier, but we are not rid of all that his tendency entails.

Even discounting the sheer idiocy of “responsible capitalism” as a concept (and do not get me wrong, that is the central issue) it doesn’t even make sense strategically. Unless Ed Miliband wishes to openly declare himself a diehard defender of the capitalist system, it makes no sense to offer himself up as a barricade against the inevitable incursions of socialists.

I hardly need remind you that “capitalism” is not a term which resonates majorly with the public-at-large. Until the financial crisis hit, it would barely have been seen in print. After the financial crisis, the use of the term has been generally negative- talk of ‘crisis’, ‘greed’ and ‘irresponsibility’.

Thus if the use of the term by politicians has any effect, it is to inspire distrust and distaste in what is fundamentally a discredited system. Ed Miliband, by talking of “responsible capitalism”, will only end up rehabilitating a system which he should certainly not want rehabilitated.

The Labour Party is supposed to be a “democratic socialist party”, if my membership card is anything to go by. As democratic socialism is irreconcilable with capitalism- responsible or irresponsible- it does us no good to rehabilitate it.

Whilst I recognise that the surrenderists may say that “socialism” only inspires thoughts of the Soviet Union, I must sincerely point out that no battle was won by laying down your arms.

Optimistically, I observe that the connection between socialism and the USSR is beginning to decline as the fall of the Berlin Wall becomes a distant memory (or for youngsters like I, a distant non-memory).

And there are indisputably many people in this country that have been raised with a determinedly positive view of socialism, which is unfortunately disregarded by the mainstream press. After all, even in the United States (in early 2010) Gallup found that 36% had a positive image of socialism.

Talk of “responsible capitalism” only discredits our position, by defending the indefensible. If Ed Miliband is genuinely committed to a democratically owned and controlled economy, a more equal society and a political system which prizes liberty then he should describe that commitment as what it is- socialism.

And if he is too cowardly to do that, and too proud to give up power, then he should at the very least argue for a better world without feeling the need to brace it with such foul words as “capitalism”!

It is almost, if you will excuse the analogy, as if the former architects of Italian totalitarianism stepped out of the shadows and post-Mussolini Rome and declared “What we need is a responsible fascism!”

I will continue to argue for democratic socialism. We can only hope that Ed Miliband will start to do the same- and fight to make that happen.

Solidarity,

Dan x

What's wrong with Labour's economic strategy?

2012-01-15T21:25:00.000Z

Everything.

Ed Balls’ speech to the Fabian Society is a perfect example of this.

Although I’m happy to admit that The Guardianexaggerated the extent to which this marks a change of direction for a Labour Party whose opposition to any cuts at all has been pathetic at best, it nonetheless demonstrates the dire state which the party is in.

The problem is not specifically that Labour is insufficiently Keynesian or socialist, although I’m prone to criticising it for that as well. Owen Jones is bang on the money when he attacks Ed Balls as a member of the Surrender Tendency, but the problem with Labour’s economic strategy can’t be confined to erroneous positioning on the left-right spectrum.

You see, the problem with Labour’s strategy is not simply that it doesn’t reflect properly the situation the country is in, or the principles upon which the party was founded. Even in terms of electioneering, to which the Surrender Tendency is utterly devoted, the strategy is a non-starter.

Because Labour’s economic strategy, above all, is boring. It’s dull. It doesn’t capture the imagination, and it certainly doesn’t inspire anybody.

Single term governments have become increasingly rare in British politics, and quick Labour comebacks even more so. Time and time again, Labour has lost out when capitalism has started to come tumbling down.

In 1983, we made mistakes. Contrary to the opinions of some in our party, this was less about what we were presenting and more about how we were presenting ourselves. The manifesto wasn’t labelled the longest suicide note in history because of what it argued for, but because it was about as fascinating as a piece of damp cardboard.

And it’s entirely possible to make the same mistakes whilst tacking towards Tory positions. Indeed, that is what we are doing right now.

Regardless of the true meaning of Ed Balls’ speech (whether it was for Black Labour Hard Keynesianism, Osbornomics or something in between), the way it ends up being received by the public is as a muddle.

Nuance is not the best friend of a politician aspiring to be popular. I’m inclined to agree with somebody who says that Labour can’t commit to opposing all cuts (and any self-respecting lefty can bring to mind a fair few they’d support), but that isn’t the sort of thing you announce in a speech.

Labour is effectively saying, in the minds of everyone who has less than an hour each day to carefully examine minor political occurrences, that it does not support cuts but will not oppose or reverse them. This is not a credible position, and it makes Labour seem two-faced, confused and untrustworthy.

What the public admires in a leader (and we have to accept that general elections are primarily now prime ministerial elections) is bravery and strength. Not foolishness, of course, but the public will respect someone who is able to present their views clearly and with conviction.

Thus whatever Labour is going to argue on the economy, it has to satisfy those criteria. Vacillating between Torydom and Keynesianism, unwilling to make any commitments for fear of Clegging it- that convinces nobody that you are mature enough to rule.

There was hope that Labour would actually articulate something courageous and meaningful with the creation of the five-point plan. Although the changes were too small for me to be seriously convinced that they could fix our economy, they were a step in the right direction in that they were concise and understandable.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that they have gradually fallen out of Labour’s focus.

Undoubtedly there are moves that Labour could make that would capture the imagination and shift the narrative somewhat away from the deficit (which confuses people, and which the Tories have a built-up advantage on) towards how Labour can actually improve the lives of people in this country.

These could include reduction of VAT as far as possible, with negotiations with the EU to abolish it entirely- to be replaced by more equitable and economic forms of taxation such as LVT.

Or a widespread house building and refurbishing programme to alleviate homelessness and overcrowding, to prevent abandoned buildings from becoming derelict and useless, and to create a large number of skilled jobs.

It doesn’t really matter what the policies are, so long as they are bold and catch people’s eye.

Labour’s biggest problem is that it is dull. As somebody said on Twitter recently, it is the fourth party of British politics right now- after the SNP.

Unless Ed Balls starts to articulate something that is bold, clear and credible, that is how things will remain.

Solidarity,

Dan x

Beaver Article: Sponsoring Pride isn't controversial

2012-01-15T20:00:00.002Z

This article originally appeared in LSESU's newspaper, The Beaver, on 10th January.

______________________________________

It isn’t exactly usual for me to spring to the defence of massive corporations, but sometimes there is good cause. Tesco has recently been attacked by the “Christian Institute” for withdrawing some funding from Cancer Research UK whilst sponsoring a family area at the 2012 Pride London and WorldPride event.

Apparently, pressure from hard-line Christian activists has made Tesco reconsider providing funding in 2013 for what Francis Phillips at the Catholic Herald describes as “a clearly political and highly controversial event”.

I genuinely hope that the readers of the Beaver need not be persuaded that providing funding for Pride London- the largest outdoor event in the UK, with such diverse sponsors as the Mayor of London, Trades Union Congress and Coca-Cola- is completely uncontroversial.

Homophobia is amongst the most awful forms of discrimination, and it has not yet been completely confined to the dustbin of history. It is right that there be a public event to raise awareness that homosexuality isn’t a sin about which you should be ashamed.

Few things can be more distressing than tales of young men and women who have committed suicide because some bigoted elements of society refuse to accept acts of love between members of the same sex.

And if there are any students at LSE who hold homophobic views, then I urge you to make them clear by boycotting Morgan Stanley when you go looking for internships- after all, our LGBT Officer managed to get them to cough up for last term’s Pride Week.

But I’m happy to agree with Ms Phillips’ assertion that Pride is a political event, if only because everything is political or politically motivated. It is a political decision to fund an event which promotes self-esteem and combats prejudice, just as it is a political stance to believe that it is worth researching treatments for cancer.

The fact that both causes are equally uncontroversial does not prevent them from also being “clearly political”.

However, as much as I agree that it is a perfectly decent and uncontroversial choice to sponsor Pride, I think that it is important to be aware that this is very likely to be an example of “pinkwashing”- making statements in support of gay rights to cover up very sizeable infringements of other human rights.

Tesco shouldn’t be criticised for doing something to increase acceptance of homosexuality, but there are a hell of a lot of other things for which they must be condemned.

After all, Tesco hasn’t exactly showered itself in glory over the years. In Bangladesh, War on Want found that employees were working over eighty hours a week for less than five pence an hour. In Thailand, Tesco tried to have a critic of the company (and former MP) imprisoned for two years.

And in 2009, Tesco was one of the few major companies to continue advertising on the Glenn Beck Show after the thoroughly controversial host claimed that Barack Obama had a “deep-seated hatred for white people”.

The most recent nefarious activity in which they have become embroiled is participation in the government’s workfare programme.

This programme involves the providing of multinational companies with large quantities of unpaid labour by threatening to withdraw welfare from those without work that refuse to undertake what is cruelly and inaccurately branded “work experience”.

Under this scheme, young people are forced to work up to thirty hours a week without pay. This has gone largely unreported in the media, and years of systematic disinformation regarding the benefits system has meant that the public is unlikely to present much indignation.

Job Seekers’ Allowance for a 16-24 year old is a meagre £53.45 per week. This means that those young people forced to work the full thirty hour week will be effectively earning the equivalent of £1.78 per hour. That is around three times lower than the National Minimum Wage, let alone the Living Wage.

And of course the scheme is entirely counter-productive. Forcing individuals to work thirty hour weeks for the luxury of receiving a pittance means that they have less time to look for jobs, which is pretty difficult when there are an average of 23 people chasing every vacancy.

Furthermore, companies are only allowed to place people in unpaid positions if the positions are considered non-essential. This means that the “work experience” is completely pointless, because it would be illegal to actually employ someone in the position they have gained experience in!

Finally, it is not difficult to predict the consequences of allowing Tesco and other big supermarkets to obtain unpaid labour- increasing numbers of positions will be classed as non-necessary and fewer and fewer people will actually be employed by the company.

Thus the unemployment rate will actually increase as jobs which were previously paid for by Tesco will be replaced by virtual slaves brought in by the government. The political silence on this is unsurprising, as Tesco invests large amounts in keeping both Labour and the Conservative Party on-side.

Legal challenges are being raised as lawyers argue that the scheme contravenes Article 4 (2) of the Human Rights Act: “No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.”

Participation in a workfare scheme, along with all the other unethical activities which Tesco have practiced, shows that it is not an organisation to be trusted. Of course it should be defended from attacks by extreme homophobes, but it certainly needs to be held to account for other actions.

Above all, it should be remembered that a charitable donation by a company accused of dodging huge levels of tax is not motivated by generosity. Instead, it is an attempt to absolve personal guilt and shift focus from all the evil that they undoubtedly do.

Class and Genocide

2012-01-02T20:42:00.003Z

Of all the horrific things which happen in the world, genocide would be amongst the most awful. As defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, it consists of “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”, such as killings, prevention of reproduction and forced removals.

As a history student, currently focussed on extra-European history in the 20^th century, I have had cause to reflect upon the nature of genocide and what links different tragedies both across the world and across time.

I do not wish to suggest that this blog accounts for all of the horror of genocide and that which it entails, but it is rather a series of observations which I have been considering and which I wish to put down into words.

It strikes me that in many of the most terrible acts of genocide witnessed in the last century, it was not merely cultural, ethnic or religious issues which motivated or sustained them. Although the persecution of any group because of their beliefs or heritage or lifestyles is contemptible and clearly did occur, it was not as simple as one group despising another because of their ways of life.

Instead, in most cases, it is of worth to analyse the class elements of the tragedy. It may be that class disputes are twisted into ethnic conflict, or that prejudice is amplified by reference to class divisions.

The Rwandan genocide is an example of the former, with an estimated 800,000 being murdered within approximately 100 days. The genocide was largely perpetrated by the majority Hutu group against the Tutsi minority (although there were reprisal attacks against Hutus, and the Twa group was also targeted), with the murders sparked by the unexplained assassination of Rwandan President Habyarimana and fuelled by an influential and hateful media.

Hutus and Tutsis are virtually indistinguishable- they talk the same language, and the organisers of the genocide required each group to carry ID in order to tell them apart. It is therefore difficult for observers to understand how two groups could come to have such enmity. To do this, it is vital to recognise the background to the genocide, particularly the legacy left by the German and, after 1916, Belgian colonial regimes.

Prior to colonial rule, Rwandan society was ruled by a Tutsi minority. Although the origins of the ethnic divisions are not entirely clear, one highly plausible theory states that the term Tutsi referred more to a position of authority than to a racial group.

For instance, the process of ‘kwihutura’ allowed Hutus who had acquired a certain level of wealth to shed their ‘Hutu-ness’ and become Tutsis. This implies that the terms referred more to a rigid caste or class system than to an immutable division of ethnicities.

However, colonial rule led to a significant shift in the meaning of the two terms. As the historical rulers of Rwanda (i.e. those known as ‘Tutsi’) collaborated with the German/Belgian imperialists, as was the typical process by which Western powers entrenched their control, the division between Hutus and Tutsis became increasingly important and laid the seeds of future Hutu propaganda about ‘Tutsi traitors’.

The colonial powers then turned this trend into a crude ‘science’ through the application of ‘Hamitic theory’, where the Tutsis were judged to be (due to what was classed as a distinct skin tone and nose width) superior to the Hutus. This turned the classification from one of class- the powerful versus the powerless- to one of ethnicity.

This is important because class issues are typically solved through comparatively peaceful means, whereas ethnic conflict is virtually always violent in its conclusion. Although there are instances of class struggle which have been extremely violent, there are only rare examples in which one class has sought to systematically murder another class.

Perhaps the Jacobin Terror can be cited as an example, but even then it is obvious that this was not the only possible resolution to a conflict between bourgeoisie and aristocracy. Class conflict is easily solved through removing the source of the oppressor class’ power; ethnic conflict naturally results in murder because it removes the possibility of changing your classification.

Therefore by inventing an ethnic division where previously there had been little or none, the Belgians took what might otherwise have been resolved through redistribution and the restructuring of society and turned into something which could only logically result in widespread slaughter.

It is obvious that not all ‘ethnic’ Tutsis were powerful just as not all ‘ethnic’ Hutus were powerless- but the introduction of an ethnic dimension meant that power was disguised. Instead of the majority of people rising up and sharing power and wealth equitably, it became a hateful conflict between people based upon classifications virtually invented by the greatest oppressors of them all.

The second way in which class enters into genocide is evidenced through the historical discrimination against the Jewish people, epitomised by the horror of the Holocaust but also within the USSR (especially under Stalin) and still present in modern society.

Class is amongst the most important issues for most people, regardless of whether they consciously recognise it. People treat each other differently based upon class issues, and tend to look down upon those ‘beneath’ them and more importantly oppose those above them. These issues are most obvious at a time of economic hardship, when it is not difficult to find people willing to criticise bankers or politicians perceived to be wealthy.

There is nothing necessarily harmful in this struggle; indeed as a socialist I would recognise it as inevitable. Disliking the fact that a tiny minority own a massive chunk of everything does not indicate that I wish to murder those people, merely that I would rather their wealth was redistributed and society restricted to treat people more equally.

The problem arises when perfectly understandable class differences are equated with ethnic divisions and used to arouse prejudice. Hitlers’ Nazis found their base in the petit-bourgeoisie rather than the proletariat, but nonetheless it was easy to point the finger at one ethnic group in particular as an example of the greedy bourgeoisie.

Anti-Semitism has traditionally been promoted by propaganda-makers in this form. Adolf Hitler was able to depict both Bolsheviks and bankers (the two main groups which his support base most despised) as being largely Jewish- hence the references to “international Jewish financiers” and the “Jewish bolshevist annihilation of nations”.

Stalin used the term “rootless [sometimes bourgeois] cosmopolitan” as a euphemism for the Jewish target of anti-Semitic policies, whilst the “Doctor’s plot” was used to eliminate large numbers of Soviet Jews as supposedly bourgeois opponents of Stalinist Marxist-Leninism.

Even today there are those who too readily combine their opposition to the State of Israel and the modern financial system into an attack on the Jewish people, perpetuating a stereotype which has led to so much bloodshed. This is one of the reasons it seems worthwhile to be aware of the potential for class to become entwined with genocide, so that we can guard against promoting it through careless rhetoric.

A third instance of genocide which I would like to discuss deviates somewhat from the class model, but does ultimately have links to it: Cambodia. Although the Khmer Rouge’s attack on the “new people” was principally framed in terms of an urban/rural divide, this ultimately reflects a class division between the new urban bourgeoisie and proletariat and the traditional peasantry.

Attacks were launched upon intellectuals and city-dwellers that lacked agricultural skills, as well as other groups who were deemed to be enemies by Pol Pot’s regime. Even the wearing of glasses signified that you were an intellectual and therefore an enemy of the Khmer Rouge, which demonstrates how the genocide went beyond a simple class or regional divide through the use of cultural or personal signifiers.

Similar tendencies occurred in the Chinese Cultural Revolution, where intellectuals were also targeted and literacy greatly suffered. The attack on arts which were deemed to be bourgeois, as well as historical artefacts, demonstrates that class had started to be considered to be something rather more than merely an economic relationship- it was a classification loaded with cultural attributes.

Perhaps this is of relevance in light of Owen Jones’ article in Attitude regarding homosexuality. This explains that homophobia is more dominant within the so-called middle classes than within the working class, despite the fact that homosexuality is frequently depicted as a middle class issue.

This is unsurprising, and is probably a stereotype which more of us are complicit in perpetuating than we would like to admit. The truth is that class is a matter of economic relationships- it has nothing to do with sexuality or religion or race, except that there is occasionally an overlap.

Class is not cultural. As soon as you start calling opera or homosexuality or glasses “bourgeois”, you make it acceptable for authoritarians to clamp down on them as representative of counter-revolutionary attitudes.

Yes, it’s amusing to point out that rich people give their kids funny names like ‘Hugo’, but I would also rather we didn’t incubate an attitude that people called ‘Hugo’ are fair targets simply because of their name.

Well, those are just some of my thoughts. Maybe I’m being paranoid in my conclusions, but I think it’s worth recognising that we are all only a few steps away from harbouring fairly dangerous views. By no means is that an attack on my fellow socialists (non-socialists tend to be rather closer to open prejudice, after all), but an expression of worry at what could happen if we are not careful.

Or maybe they’re just some weird musings of someone who has just watched Hotel Rwanda after reading some Chomsky.

Peace and love,

Dan x

Regarding the 'Morning Star Readers & Supporters Group'

2011-12-19T14:14:00.001Z

As many of you will be aware, I am an irregular reader of the Morning Star, which is pretty much the best far-left newspaper out there.

I don’t always agree with its stance, but in terms of coverage of industrial action it is hard to find anything which matches it. It also provides a useful counterbalance to the sort of agenda advanced by virtually every other section of the media.

On Facebook, the main page which is related to the Morning Star (and which people therefore tend to like) is the ‘Morning Star Readers & Supporters Group’. Typically, this publishes links to new articles on the Morning Star website as well as relevant videos and songs.

Today I was struck, as were many others, by what seemed to be an inappropriate status concerning the death of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il:

“Solidarity and condolences to the people of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea over the loss of leader Kim Jong Il. Viva DPRK!”

This was followed by a thoroughly uncontroversial article from the Wall Street Journal (at the time of writing the Morning Star has not published its own article on his death), and then a mass of comments- the bulk of which have unfortunately been deleted.

Many expressed concern over the Morning Star’s Stalinism and some vowed to never buy the paper again. I will admit that I haven’t got a massive knowledge of North Korea (although enough to know that it isn’t praiseworthy), so I endeavoured to do a bit more research before entering the fray.

Having read all about Juche and Songun (the state ideologies of the DPRK), I felt somewhat more qualified to comment. I can’t recall exactly what I wrote as the comment has been purged, but it was along the lines of “Is there anything about the DPRK’s official ideology than can be considered Marxist? Replacing internationalism with ethnonationalism, world revolution with hardcore autarky and the proletariat as the agent of revolutionary change with the military?”

I didn’t think this was particularly controversial. I’ve yet to read the ‘British Road to Socialism’ but as far as I’m aware it doesn’t commit the Morning Star to supporting such substantial deviations from Marxism as Kim Jong-Il’s personality cult.

Unfortunately, one Richard Ej did not agree that what I had written was a worthwhile contribution to the debate. My comment was purged along with that of other dissenters, and I was banned from the group.

This was followed by a message from Richard Ej, to which I replied. You can see the conversation here:

I’m not particularly keen on this state of affairs- I actually thought it was on the whole a good Facebook group, and the way in which I was responded to just adds insult to injury.

Thankfully, I have been assured that Richard Ej is in no way affiliated to the Morning Star and that the editorial board has no control over the Facebook group. I’m not going to stop buying the paper because one of its readers is a self-important tankie.

But I would rather like an apology from Richard, or at least for him to engage in a discussion without resorting to shutting down debate and banning those who disagree with his stance.

The Morning Star has readers from a wide variety of backgrounds and persuasions- they aren’t all Stalinists. Some of us are democratic socialists or Trotskyists or Greens or even social democrats. If a Facebook group is going to masquerade as socialist then it should operate openly with some measure of democratic control and accountability.

Otherwise, an alternative should be found.

Solidarity,

Dan x

Don't Underestimate Cameron on Europe

2011-12-09T12:00:00.001Z

We had cause for great amusement this morning as we awoke to find that David Cameron has positioned the UK alongside Hungary, Sweden and the Czech Republic in resisting Franco-German moves towards tighter fiscal regulation in the Eurozone.

Amidst the hilarity of the notion of an Anglo-Hungarian Empire, there is the reality of what this decision means. My position on Europe is neither Eurosceptic nor Europhilic and I’m not going to outline it in full here, but regardless of your perspective on the EU it is hard to see this as a positive event.

In short, Cameron has isolated the UK from decision making in one of the most important economic groups in the world. By moving towards the Norwegian model, he has burdened us with the drawbacks of integration without the benefits of Euroscepticism.

However, it would be bananas to think that somehow this is a bad decision on the part of Cameron. Yes, it will be bad for the UK. But which Tory decisions aren’t?

Instead, we have to look at this move in terms of how it impacts upon the Conservative Party, and in truth it looks to me as if it will bolster their support. Unless this isolationism completely wrecks the British economy (which is somewhat unlikely) David Cameron will be able to consider it one of his achievements.

Firstly, David Cameron has appeased the City of London, who stood to lose from the EU’s implementation of a fair and progressive Financial Transactions Tax. The Conservative Party can’t afford to upset this group, as in the 3^rd quarter of 2011 it accounted for 60% of donations.

In the longer term the City may actually have cause to question the soundness of Cameron’s decision. But for now he has done their bidding, and he won’t be brought into Guildhall for questioning.

He has also thrown a few scraps to the Eurosceptic far-right of the Conservative Party, who have regularly expressed their displeasure with his actions since becoming Prime Minister. It’s unlikely that they’ll be pacified for long, but he would’ve faced outright rebellion had he acted differently.

Perhaps most importantly, it is difficult to see how this move could be received badly amongst the electorate. The Twitterati may express displeasure and amusement in equal measure, and bemoan Cameron’s foolishness, but kneejerk Euroscepticism is a far more powerful force amongst the public as a whole.

The country is not a Guardian-reading paradise. That Cameron’s decision is being turned into a Eurosceptic populist triumph can be seen through the headlines of rather more popular newspapers:

“We're on our own now! Cameron uses the veto for first time to opt out of new treaty to save the euro and give more power to Brussels” – The Daily Mail

“Who do you think EU are?” – The Sun

“CAMERON SAYS NO! PM REFUSES TO SIGN NEW EU TREATY” – The Daily Express

“DAVID CAMERON’S PLEDGE ON EU” – The Daily Star

David Cameron is presumably conscious of the threat posed by UKIP, and aware that Euroscepticism is only a vote-loser if it becomes an obsession. It is a perfectly sensible move in political terms for the Conservative Party to make anti-EU statements. At the very least it further moves the economic narrative towards blaming Europe and away from blaming austerity.

So how should we respond?

The first thing to take into account is that turning this into a struggle over British membership of the EU would be fighting the Tories on their own territory. Labour can’t realistically attack them from a Eurosceptic position because of the massive number of ultra-Europhilic members it has, and to launch into a pro-EU tirade would be political suicide.

Labour is best on Europe when it exerts a cautious pragmatism, as Gordon Brown did over the Euro. We should express some benefits of membership whilst not presenting an image of ourselves as Europhile metropolitan liberals out of touch with the concerns of ordinary people.

However, we can’t just let Cameron run with this. The negatives of his decision should be exposed and the narrative shifted away from kneejerk Euroscepticism. It should be emphasised that the Conservative Party’s goal isn’t to ensure British independence, but to ensure independence for the ruling class and the City of London.

Rather than focussing on whether the EU should have greater powers, Labour should demonstrate a more mature attitude towards integration by attacking Cameron on the specific issue which motivated his veto- the Financial Transactions Tax.

The FTT (which I’ll admit isn’t the be-all-and-end-all that some liberals would have you believe) is supported by about 65% of the public. This is actually larger than in Europe as a whole, where support is at 61%.

So Labour should attack Cameron for defending the interests of a tiny minority over that of the vast majority. We should perhaps clarify that there are circumstances when the use of a British veto would be appropriate- when the EU becomes a machine to introduce austerity and privatisation. The defence of entrenched elites to the detriment of the wider public is not one of those instances.

The Liberal Democrats can’t be expected to stand by their principles on this, regardless of Nick Clegg’s love of Brussels. Their support is dwindling and for the coalition to breakdown now would be hugely damaging.

Imagine the response of the electorate if the one issue which Liberal Democrats were prepared to rebel over was the EU- not the NHS, not higher education, not VAT.

David Cameron mustn’t be underestimated, and the response from opposition must be carefully considered. Yes, he’s ridiculous and he’s jeopardising relations with our most important neighbours. But he’s also a cunning political player, and he knows how to turn a failure around.

Peace and love,

Dan x

Payday Loans and Well-Intentioned Reforms

2011-12-07T20:19:00.000Z

Labour MP Stella Creasy’s demands for regulation of payday loan companies are finally making headlines. The government appears to even be considering proposals to do something about it, although it has to be said the prospects are grim when Wonga is owned by a gung-ho ultra-right Tory donor.

The fact that the media is starting to draw attention to a horrendously exploitative industry is a good thing. Interest rates of nigh on 2000% are simply outrageous, and they’re hurting ordinary people who are doing their best to make ends meet.

That 32% of people who take out payday loans require an additional loan to pay it off demonstrates the vicious cycle of debt that this industry thrives on. This is a pretty nasty game which certain money-makers are engaged in, and it isn’t something which the public should let go unchecked.

So Stella Creasy is onto something- this is a good, clean policy. There aren’t many people who would object to the most extreme forms of usury which these loan sharks are engaged in. Regulations such as a cap on interest rates are relatively simple to introduce and would have decent effects on reducing the prevalence of companies like Wonga.

And it’s a form of social justice politics which is palatable to everyone. It’s a policy designed to help ordinary people whilst sticking two fingers up to the imaginary banker, which is a fairly sure-fire vote winner.

I’m not going to criticise these proposals, because they’re perfectly decent ones. I’m always pleased to see a Labour politician talking about an issue which genuinely is of intense importance to a vast swathe of the public.

But unfortunately, even if we are lucky enough to see these proposals implemented, this will just act as a plaster to cover a serious and unsightly wound- it might go some way to disguising the problem in the short term, but in the longer term it still is going to hurt.

Ordinary people are not idiots. Virtually everyone recognises that the interest rates imposed by payday lenders are ridiculous, and it isn’t a loan that people would take out frivolously. Regulation of lenders is not needed because the public are too stupid to understand that they’re being screwed over, but because a massive number of people have no alternative except be screwed over.

For once I might even have cause to agree with the enemy. The prime minister’s spokesman expressed concern about restricting vulnerable people’s access to credit.

And as one payday lender retorted to Stella Creasy’s campaign, payday lending “is the last option for most people (at least, the last option that does not involve men with base-ball bats knocking on the door)”.

Clearly I’m not too keen on either of the groups making those arguments- but they do have a point. If people can’t get money from Wonga or its ilk, they will still need to get money from somewhere. A minority might turn to criminal activities, but many would end up dealing with truly illegal loan sharks with even less concern for their borrowers’ wellbeing than Mr Potter in “It’s a Wonderful Life”.

If 45% of people struggle to make their wages last until the next payday, something is wrong. That problem won’t be solved by removing a source of credit, albeit a highly exploitative one.

Of course, I differ substantially from Cameron and his friends in my prescription for the problem. The solution is not to keep all lines of credit open no matter how bad they make people’s lives. Nor is it to institutionalise debt as a way of getting by. We’ve all seen in the origins of the financial crisis that society should not be based upon dodgy loans to desperate individuals.

What then is the alternative?

Without immediately leaping into a call for a complete restructuring of the economy (which I suspect you might’ve expected from me), I think there are things we can call for which would at once be meaningful and sensible-sounding.

The solution, comrades, lies with wages.

Wages make up a significantly smaller proportion of GDP now than in 1955. From 64.5% in 1975 to 53.2% in 2008, wage-earners account for less of the country’s GDP as profits increase. Since the millennium, real wages have increased by 0.9% whereas productivity has increased by 1.6%.

Unsurprisingly, the decline in wages is closely related to the growth of personal debt. In 1980 the debt/income ratio was 45%, in 2007 it was 157.4%!

The general trend away from wages, accompanied by a growing inequality in incomes between rich and poor, has fuelled the need for those at the bottom of the heap to take out massive loans on a regular basis.

And of course the pointless cuts in public spending are just making the situation worse. As unemployment rises, loans go from being supplementary to becoming an essential lifeline.

Until issues of poverty are addressed and the decline in wages is reversed, alterations to the source of loans will be window-dressing at best and a distraction at worst.

Stella Creasy’s intentions are good and I hope she is successful. But if ordinary people are denied unethical “legal loan sharks” as a source of credit, there had better be a Labour Party willing to stand up and demand decent jobs, fair wages and an end to all cuts which threaten the well-being of the public.

This means supporting public sector workers when they strike over changes to their pensions which effectively amount to a cut in wages.

This means sending solidarity to electricians as they fightbosses’ plans to cut their wages by 35%, and standing alongside any other private sector workers demanding a decent wage for decent work.

And ultimately this means arguing for democracy in the economy.

Solidarity,

Dan x

Comedy and Shooting Strikers

2011-12-01T20:47:00.002Z

As you’re by now no doubt aware, Jeremy Clarkson made some rather distasteful jokes in response to the largest mobilisation of the trade union movement in a generation. Discussing yesterday’s industrial action by workers in the public sector, Clarkson claimed that he “would take them outside and execute them in front of their families”.

This has unsurprisingly called a bit of offence. Trade unionists have historically been oppressed and assaulted, and a statement such as this causes indignation in those people who have a vague knowledge of labour history.

Of course, it’s also massively out of step with the public mood- which is generally sympathetic towards action taken by teachers, lecturers, nurses and so on.

The response overall has been varied. UNISON urged for the BBC to sack Clarkson. Now, personally I would be more than pleased to see the back of the odious, unfunny fascistic petrolhead- not least of all because of the disdain he shows towards the public sector of which he is effectively a part.

However, I can also see that to take extreme action to get rid of him would not be wise. It somewhat undermines trade unions’ commitment to demanding fair grounds for dismissal, and is rather likely to piss off that section of the population which still finds him amusing.

That said I also feel it is important to clarify some things for those who are sympathetic to the ‘comedy’ defence. For figures such as Dara O Briain, there is a vested interest in stopping all sarcasm from being leeched out of our culture. We have a rich history of ironic humour and it would be a great shame for this to be somehow abolished.

Clarkson’s comments are inappropriate for several reasons:

1. We know that Jeremy Clarkson has a large audience amongst the far-right. In particular, we know that he was admired and quoted by Anders Behring Breivik- the fascist who murdered young socialists and trade unionists earlier this year.

If anything should give a comedian cause for reflection, it is that. Once one of your fans has carried out the act which you are joking about, it is time to rein in the sarcasm. It would be inappropriate for a comedian beloved by members of Al Qaeda (are there any?) to ‘sarcastically’ endorse suicide bombing.

2. Clarkson’s comments weren’t entirely sarcastic hyperbole- he believes at least part of it. If he was lampooning his own ‘character’ (as I initially assumed he was doing), he probably wouldn’t have repeated the populist lie about ‘gold-plated’ pensions.

By adding fuel to an already bad fire, and twisting it into a (sarcastic?) endorsement of violence, Clarkson shows that his ‘humour’ is something which should be treated seriously.

If someone were to say “all black people should be shot” in a truly sarcastic tone then in the right context that might be excusable. But to follow that up with a piece of racist propaganda repeated as-fact would rightly be roundly condemned.

3. As Sunny Hundal observes, this isn’t counterbalanced by any equivalent voice on the Left. Would the BBC ever really let a properly left-wing comedian onto the One Show? It’s not likely, and it’s even less likely that they would get away with a Clarkson-esque comment.

Just picture it. The day after election night, a Tory regime rules in Westminster. The BBC invites Mark Steel onto the One Show, and he is asked what he thinks should be done about the Conservative Party. He replies that David Cameron and his friends should be herded up and shot, one by one, whilst their families watched on.

Guessing that probably wouldn’t go down well with the Daily Mail’s complaints battalion.

And of course it doesn’t, because we know instances when left-wing jokes are considered the worst thing since civil partnerships by the right-wing press. Remember when Ken jokingly compared Boris to Hitler? Or when a comedian channelled a fairly large swathe of public sentiment by wishing Thatcher dead?

Neither of those instances involved actively encouraging violence, even jokingly. To the best of my knowledge, the fairly unknown comedian criticised by Mensch is not especially admired by Red Brigade wannabes. Comparing Boris to Hitler might be a call to arms for some people, but for most it is just a quip to highlight the polarisation between the two great rivals.

None of this is a reason to clamp down on sarcasm in British comedy. Jokes such as that by Clarkson are, thankfully, rare. The BBC might want to question why someone such as Clarkson deserves to be given airtime, but it’s not exactly likely to ban irony.

Don’t make jokes about killing people when you know that you are listened to by people who are prepared to kill those people. Don’t follow up your sarcasm with dead-serious propaganda. And don’t let the right-wing media hound out all the left-wing comics before rallying in defence of the far-right.

Peace and love,

Dan x

Towards an Alliance of Debtor Nations?

2011-11-23T17:10:00.000Z

My History course has just covered the Third World (primarily Latin American) debt crisis of the 1980s.

Consistently, what has been made clear in lectures and classes is that there are clear parallels with what is going on in the Eurozone in 2011. Partly this will be a teaching technique designed to make the period relevant, but it is also an accurate comparison in its own right.

For example, debts were accumulated as booming-economies proved attractive options for investors with a lot of credit to dish out. It is easy to forget this now, but at the beginning of this decade Greece had one of the fastest growing economies in the Eurozone.

Ostensibly, the benefit of accumulating debt as a developing nation (of which post-dictatorship European states such as Greece and Spain could be counted to an extent) is to facilitate economic growth through infrastructure projects as well as education and so on.

In practice, this was not always the case. In Latin America as well as the rest of the Third World, money was frittered away through corruption, inefficiency and the outgrowths of dictatorship. There was often little plan for how the money would be paid back- Western banks simply assumed that sovereign nations would not default, and didn’t pay much attention to whether the loans would be used to actually grow a country’s economy.

Greece, Spain and Portugal all suffered from Western-backed dictatorships prior to the mid-1970s. In the years following their collapse, it was almost a necessity that newly self-liberated countries engage in high public spending to prevent disenfranchisement and nostalgia for a bygone dictator.

Yet Greece also spent large amounts of money, borrowed with the assistance of Goldman Sachs, on outfitting its military. This wasn’t really a priority, but the Greek political class are inclined towards trying to look tough next to Turkey.

A further comparison between the 1980s crisis and that which we are witnessing today is that both Latin America and southern Europe were (and are) dependent upon highly unstable sectors of the economy. In Latin America, fluctuating commodity prices can cause massive amounts of damage to the economy which serves as a spark to ignite a debt explosion.

The Greek (and most probably the entire southern European) economy is based on shipping and tourism- both of which are susceptible to crashing as a result of wider economic forces such as the late-2000s recession.

Of course the most important comparison is in the aftermath. Once again we can see the International Monetary Fund making demands of the debt-ridden countries, imposing neoliberal agendas and (in the case of Greece and Italy) replacing democracy with technocracy.

In response, ordinary people are once again taking to the streets or withdrawing their labour as a way of demanding democracy rather than slavery to the whims of the markets and the financial class.

One of the readings for my History class raised the question of what the Latin American countries could’ve done differently. Despite all of the pretensions of the Non-Aligned Movement and other Third World organisations, unity was lost as each major debtor country rushed to secure their own interests.

Rather than working together, Brazil and Mexico and Argentina negotiated separately and thereby reduced their own influence and bargaining power. The IMF, Federal Reserve and commercial banks, on the other hand, presented a united front.

Because it has to be remembered that the IMF wasn’t helping these countries out just to be charitable. Western banks were highly exposed to Latin American debt and the IMF understandably feared a banking collapse if there was a refusal to pay.

Thus what Latin America and the rest of the heavily indebted Third World should have done is unite around the slogan of “Can’t pay? Won’t pay!”

Many people of all sides of the economic spectrum (from monetarists to Keynesians to socialists) are increasingly of the opinion that Greece would be better off defaulting. Yet to do so alone, all recognise, would be a horrifically painful process.

Thus an immediate move should be to form (or to call for) an Alliance of Debtor Nations. This would include firstly those implicated in the current crisis (Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland), but also those nations across the world who also suffer from the burden of debt- especially developing and newly industrialised countries.

At the very least, the threat of a coordinated default would enhance the negotiating position of these states. It might not be necessary for them to carry it out, so long as it looked like they were serious- in the same way a general strike could potentially succeed without tools having to be downed.

But beyond that, if a default does become necessary, it would allow for member countries to get through without quite so severe a threat to living conditions. By working together, the damage done through the lack of new loans would be alleviated.

The conditions are not good for the chances of this Alliance being formed. Greece and Italy have already been taken over by IMF-aligned technocrats. Spain has just elected a government which is openly sympathetic to the IMF’s intentions, and Portugal is in a similar position.

Ireland’s situation is somewhat different, as there is a diversity of opinions within the government. Interestingly, David McWilliams is one Irish (right-leaning) economist who has supported the idea of an alliance with Portugal and other countries to resist debt.

If the Irish government, or at the very least the Labour section of it, could advocate the creation of such an alliance then that would be a fantastic step forwards. They could then coordinate with opposition groups within the other debtor nations so that when the austerity/technocratic governments are ousted it is possible to implement.

Maybe I’m being hopelessly utopian, but it doesn’t seem a completely foolhardy prospect.

Peace and love,

Dan x

Quick notes on the General Election in Spain

2011-11-22T17:35:00.000Z

As you may well be aware, a general election has just occurred in Spain. Whilst I somewhat doubt this is of interest to the vast majority of people, this is of interest to those who follow politics (and presumably the Spanish) for several reasons.

The first is that this year Spain has been home to a lively protest movement- the Indignados. Calling for a rejection of corruption, neoliberalism and the political status quo, the square occupations which swept Spain in May have been cited as an inspiration for the more recent Occupy movement across the world.

In light of this, it is interesting to analyse the results of the first post-Occupy general election. If change is to be achieved then existing structures will have to be worked with even whilst their underlying philosophy is rejected. That was the lesson of 1968, and it is likely to be the case now.

The result is not, perhaps, quite as we would’ve expected. The rejection of electoral politics by a sizeable section of the Spanish people should in theory have signalled a dramatic drop in turnout.

Yet whilst there was a decline (from 73.85% in 2008 to 71.69% in 2011), this was reflective of a longer-term trend (the turnout was 77.21% in 2004) and was still higher than the turnout in 2000 (68.7%).

So there hasn’t been a wholesale rejection of electoral politics by the Spanish public.

However…

The second reason that this general election is of interest is because it is another example of a (supposedly) centre-left government falling as a consequence of the financial crisis and being replaced by the centre-right opposition.

For Glenis Willmott on Labour List, this is a sign that social democracy is in crisis. Now, I’ll admit to being a democratic socialist and thus not particularly concerned about ‘reviving’ social democracy, but I’ll bite. There’s something to this claim which needs to be called into question.

It’s important to remember that the foremost “centre-left” political parties in Europe haven’t really been left-wing in any sense for almost twenty years. A rejection of PSOE is no more a rejection of socialism (or social democracy) than the rejection of New Labour was. It’s important to emphasise that centre-left politics isn’t simply whatever the so-called centre-left political parties are doing.

Politics moves pretty slowly, in reality. You can’t expect a mass left-wing party to sprout out of nowhere, so in the short term it is right-wing political parties that are benefiting from the betrayal of the working class.

It is even more important to note that this election was not a ringing endorsement for the neoliberal austerity agenda. The People’s Party gained about five hundred thousand votes. PSOE lost over four million.

This is comparable to what occurred in Britain last May, where Labour’s collapse was not accompanied by an overwhelming swing to the Conservative Party. Since 1997, many working class people have ceased to vote for a party which had failed to represent the people it was founded to look after. In the UK, this meant that turnout fell considerably by comparison to 1997.

In Spain, on the other hand, the third largest party was not (as in the UK) a bunch of liberals and centrists.

United Left, a group largely based around the Communist Party, has begun to reverse its long-term decline as a result of the fall of PSOE. Its number of votes increased by nearly three quarters of a million and it now has a total of 11 Deputies- an increase of 9.

Union, Progress and Democracy (UPyD), the “progressive” social liberal/social democratic party which includes members who left PSOE, gained similarly- over eight hundred thousand extra voters opted for them, more than trebling UPyD’s total number of votes.

Smaller left or centre-left parties also tended to do well, including the regional ones. This demonstrates that the Spanish electorate have not completely disengaged (although left-wingers should be alert to the fact that there is untapped potential in the sizeable number who do not vote), but rather are choosing not to vote for the large parties who have failed them in the past.

That is a more optimistic result than 1968 France, even if in the short term it leaves the right-wingers in power.

It is questionable whether PSOE are worth reclaiming- unlike in the UK, they aren’t the only major party with an institutional link to the working class. Either way, it is essential that an electoral as well as militant challenge be made to the politics of austerity.

Spain’s social democrats would be as foolish as our Blairites to ignore the alienation of their core electorate. But they may well be too ideologically entwined with the neoliberal pro-cuts agenda to even attempt to act upon it.

Solidarity,

Dan x

Against Police Brutality

2011-11-20T20:57:00.000Z

As I write this, my Twitter feed is intermittently filled with reported of horrendous barbarity in Egypt. SCAF thugs, conscious of the threat the ruling elites face, are doing their utmost to crush the second revolution.

Innocent people are being murdered and abused for demanding the sort of life they thought had been won through the struggles earlier this year. That their aspirations were so betrayed by the replacement military regime is a grave tragedy which has received little attention in the Western press.

Of course, less extreme violence is also being meted out closer to home. In the United States yesterday, peaceful demonstrators were violentlypepper-sprayed without any provocation. On the last student demonstration in London, undercover police stirred up trouble and meted out harsh arrests.

And the bizarre and unnecessary attack on a car by a group of undercover officers, for which it has been revealed they will not face criminal charges, just shows how extreme the police can be.

Fortunately, the police did not choose to carry out their threat to use rubber bullets at the November 9^th demonstration. Since the summer riots it almost feels as if they’ve been itching to use them. But for now, I suspect that the Met is keener to scare people away from protesting rather than actually use all of the obscene powers available to them.

However, it would be wrong to think that Western police forces are not capable of using horrendous brutality to suppress demonstrations. It wasn’t that long ago, after all, when it was practically the norm.

On 17^th October 1961, 30,000 demonstrators in Paris campaigning for a free Algeria were attacked by the police on the orders of a former-Vichy-collaborator. It is still unknown how many people were slaughtered that day, but estimates suggest it could be as many as 200. The next year at Charonne, the same police force murdered nine trade unionists for demonstrating against the occupation of Algeria.

On 4^th May 1970, Ohio National Guard opened fire upon unarmed students at Kent State University. Four were killed and nine were wounded, including one who was left paralysed. Examples of police brutality inthe USA are terrible and too many to mention.

The point is that for all the changes that have occurred in the last fifty years, I don’t think it has been so thorough as to rule out the likelihood of authoritarian responses such as those being used in the years ahead.

Is this because the police are bad people?

Well, it is probably the case that some are. You have to be a little bit twisted to casually walk along tear-gassing innocent people. Like any organisation which permits violence (be that terrorist cells or the military), there will always be a few people who sign up because they want to hurt things.

There are always a few soldiers who sign up in the hopes of shooting ‘ragheads’, and there are always a bunch of coppers who are eager to smack someone with a baton.

On the whole, however, it would be an oversimplification to say that everyone who joins the police force is a violent individual from the outset. It would also be deeply insulting to the overwhelming majority of officers, who either sign up because they want to aid justice or because it is the only decent job they have a hope of getting.

Unfortunately, I can’t help but think that the police force institutionally encourages violent and intimidating behaviour.

I’ve detailed before the corrupting nature of authority. The Stanford prison experiment provides an excellent comparison to the police force in the UK.

The current police uniform serves to make the police look as big and as strong as possible. They don’t look like they’re patrolling their neighbourhood- they look like they’re kitted up to patrol a warzone.

And those who don't wear uniforms- the undercover police who take advantage of female activists, stir up violence and generally act like dickheads- behave as if they are secret agents who don't have to abide the law. They have romanticised their job to the extent that they don't need thick armour and massive boots to make themselves feel tough.

They barricade off roads and stop young people walking down them because we “look like we want to smash stuff”. There was a tremendous lack of awareness on display there, as one of the most violent organisations in London tells a bunch of students that they’re bigots for fearing the police.

Something has to be done to bring them back under control, and stop them acting as if they run the place. Otherwise it is an inevitability that violence against demonstrators (and bystanders) will increase. It will only be so long before the Met claims its next victim.

I will stand with comrades in the police force if and when they take strike action. But a condition of that has to be that the police become the defenders of the people, treated equally in every respect, rather than the armed wing of the Conservative Party.

Peace and love,

Dan x

On the Greek Coup

2011-11-13T20:31:00.000Z

Once upon a time, when the right-wing ruling classes were unhappy with a government it would’ve been the military who provided the solution. That was the case in Chile in 1973. And, of course, it was the case in Greece in 1967.

Now, in the West at least, we live in a time when the military is less prone to becoming active politically. Instead, other means are used to remove leaders from power- the immense strength of the markets acting as the political arm of the financial elite.

Hence, in Greece, we are witnessing a return to junta. Even as people from all sides of the political spectrum become increasingly aware of the fact that it would be in Greece’s best interests to default, the Troika’s policies are pushed through at the expense of even a semblance of democracy.

Once again, the corrupt Papandreou family is losing power to an alternative that is no better.

Like the 1967-1974 junta, this regime will be supported by right-wing governments internationally. Sarkozy and Merkel, keen to safeguard the wealth of their national ruling classes, will do all they can to prop up the supposedly ‘independent’ Lucas Papademos.

It would be an exaggeration, of course, to pretend that authoritarianism and neoliberalism are new to Greece. The junta lived on in the policies of the recent New Democracy and PASOK governments, and it is no secret that the Greek police is stuffed with fascists- their collaboration with the Neo-Nazis of Golden Dawn, for example.

Since the outbreak of rioting in opposition to the police’s murder of a teenager in December 2008, the Greek state has spared nothing in clamping down on dissent. Occupied London provides excellent coverage of all that has occurred since the death of Alexandros Grigoropoulos.

Still, it appears likely that this new government will take the opportunity to increase police powers and limit the people’s ability to resist. Trade union rights, for instance, will surely be curtailed as the regime does all it can to appease the ‘markets’ and minimise opposition.

Perhaps the most disturbing facet of banker’s junta is its willing and open involvement of neofascists- Popular Orthodox Rally (LAOS).

In the new ‘national unity’ cabinet are members of PASOK, New Democracy and LAOS. To clarify, the new regime’s closest equivalent in the United Kingdom would be a coalition of Blairites, Tories and the BNP, headed by Mervyn King.

Of course, it is LAOS who give us the greatest cause for concern. The new Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Networks (because why not give fascists responsibility for trains?)- Makis Voridis- was formerly President of the Hellenic Front, a political party which advocated the reintroduction of capital punishment for drug dealers.

And here is a picture of him wielding a homemade axe- stalking the streets of Athens with a gang of thugs, searching for protestors to attack.

The new Deputy Minister for Development, Competitiveness and Shipping is a man called Adonis Georgiadis. He has previously praised Konstantinos Plevris (a homophobe, anti-Semite and Holocaust denier) and the totalitarian dictator Ioannis Metaxas. Georgiadis believes that the 1967-1974 military junta was popularly supported and only brought down because of the supposed involvement of foreign agents.

It may also be considered relevant, given the fact that he is now a member of a cabinet supposedly appointed to deal with a financial crisis, that he believes “the Jewish people by controlling the global banking system can use it as a weapon to blackmail and control foreign countries, including Greece”. That’s on top of his description of Athens as “Taliban-land”!

The fact that such brazen and awful figures can be considered even vaguely appropriate partners just demonstrates how low the financial elite will stoop to ensure that their wealth is not threatened.

World leaders much despised for their ineptitude and corruption- Papandreou as well as Berlusconi- are now being toppled, and that is not something that left-wingers have anything to lament. What we must fight, however, is the fact that the people doing the toppling in this case are not the broad mass of the population or the organised working class. Instead, it is the might of the markets and the financial elite.

In Greece the baton of opposition is now firmly in the hands of the Communist Party (KKE) and the Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA). Though the Communist Party has often been a reactionary force in recent Greek history, it is nonetheless the case that any defeat for the right-wing should now be a victory for the left as a whole.

The remnants of PASOK’s left-wing should work with opposition groups to bring down this government of racists, authoritarians and financiers. Democracy, which was so long denied to Greece by the West, must be restored- not just politically, but economically.

The radical left and the student movement was decisive in the ending of the junta in 1973. Now, with the involvement of students and workers and the unemployed, as well as oppressed minorities, it should be possible for the Greek people to liberate themselves again.

Αλληλεγγύη!

Dan x

On "Anti-Capitalism"

2011-11-01T20:18:00.001Z

Amongst the various things plaguing the folk at #OccupyLSX (and no doubt their friends and comrades across the globe) is the anti-capitalist issue.

The media has adopted their standard simplistic analysis of occupations, in this case defining it as ‘anti-capitalist’. This has provoked substantial controversy, with the movement somewhat divided over how this label should be dealt with.

To some, the simple answer is “yeah, so what?” For others, perhaps those more deeply ingrained into the New Labour approach to political organising, the constant fear is that this will put the public off their noble cause.

The latter response seems somewhat misguided- 52% of people polled by ICM were supportive of protests against capitalism. However, it is understandable that the more ‘moderate’ members of the occupation resent being lumped in with the Trots and anarchists when the media starts dishing out categories.

The unfortunate result of this appears to have been a decision to remove the fantastic ‘CAPITALISM IS CRISIS’ banner which once greeted visitors to the occupation.

I’m not going to try and enter the debate over whether #OccupyLSX is anti-capitalist or not. No doubt it includes a diverse mix of revolutionaries, escapists and (Ed) Milibandian ‘good-capitalism’ reformists.

Rather, I would like to discuss this term ‘anti-capitalist’, particularly the manner in which it has been adopted by certain sections of the Left despite its clear flaws.

The Twitter biographies of many left-wingers, for example, now include the descriptor ‘anti-capitalist’. This is often placed beside ‘anti-fascist’ or a similar negative phrasing of a fundamentally positive ideology.

More prominently, we have seen the name ‘New Anticapitalist Party’ adopted in 2009 by an alliance of French left-wing parties associated with the anti-globalisation movement.

This is closely linked to the earlier organisation ‘European Anticapitalist Left’, which includes in its ranks the Scottish Socialist Party, the Socialist Workers Party, the Socialist Party of England and Wales, Socialist Resistance, RESPECT and Counterfire.

So clearly it’s a term which is reasonably popular. Unfortunately, I can’t help but notice its deficiencies.

The first of these is simply how vague it is as a term. After all, it is not merely socialists who could identify as ‘anti-capitalist’. Various rather more objectionable individuals have raised criticisms of capitalism and even called for its abolition.

Aristotlean anti-capitalism, which has been taken up recently by the Greek philosopher’s admirer Lord Glasman, is one example of this. In Book I of the Politics, Aristotle (who clearly was writing prior to the emergence of capitalism) opines that trade, unlike production and exchange, is unnatural.

His criticism rests upon the idea that whereas production and exchange acquire goods necessary for the maintenance of a community, trade (in seeking a profit) goes beyond this. Perhaps more importantly, Aristotle stresses that money is a symbol of wealth rather than wealth itself.

However, Aristotle was not a socialist and would be downwards-jazzhands out of any consensus-based gathering before you could say “horrible slavery-justifying misogynist”.

Closely related to this view is a conservative resistance towards commodification (a reason why we should be as sceptical about the term ‘anti-consumerism’ as we are about ‘anti-capitalism’).

In recent years, perhaps as a result of the wildest excesses unleashed by free market capitalism, it has become fashionable for the Right to take positions formerly reserved for the Left. The 1960s, a period of remarkable liberation for many oppressed peoples, absolutely terrified people whose minds were stuck in the past.

Thus the sexualisation of young women is resisted by conservatives, but from a thoroughly different perspective than that of feminists. Whereas the latter is critical of objectifying women because it is a continuation of oppression, the former reviles the association of women with sex because it offends their Victorian sensibilities.

Similarly, it was the Right that was most vocal in its pinpointing of consumerism (as well as ‘sheer criminality’) as the root cause of the August riots. This, however, had nothing to do with fighting capitalism and everything to do with deflecting blame from inequality and police brutality.

These two trends can roughly be grouped together as ‘reactionary anti-capitalism’. Anyone advocating a return to pre-capitalist societies is likely to share similar criticisms advanced of capitalism by socialists, but would resist just as happily a progressive step towards socialism.

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote that “The middle estates, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history.”

In Chapter 3, Marx talks of ‘reactionary socialism’. The most serious of these, the ‘feudal socialists’, upbraid the bourgeoisie not for creating a proletariat, but for creating a revolutionary proletariat. I must say, however, that it seems rather kind of Marx to not criticise these people’s use of the term “socialism” when at best they are anti-capitalists.

The next kind of anti-capitalist with whom we would not like to associate is the fascistic anti-capitalist. As advocates of corporatism and rhetoricians against the bourgeoisie, fascists have in the past advocated a number of criticisms of capitalism and advanced a ‘third position’.

Hitler, for instance, once said to Mussolini that “Capitalism had run its course”. A Spanish Falangist leader, José Antonio Primo de Rivera, claimed that “We reject the capitalist system, which disregards the needs of the people, dehumanizes private property and transforms the workers into shapeless masses prone to misery and despair”.

What differentiates this base anti-capitalism from socialism is the belief in hierarchy, class collaborationism and the supremacy of the state; socialists wish to replace capitalism with equality, working class self-rule and internationalism.

A third form of non-socialist anti-capitalism could be considered Randian, or hyper-individualist, capitalism.

Although Ayn Rand accepted capitalism because she could see no alternative, her ideology was resistant to what many defenders of capitalism would believe in- it’s democratic (albeit in my opinion flawed) character.

The world of The Fountainhead is a capitalist world in which Howard Roark struggles to cobble together a living because of the ignorance of the masses- not just ordinary people, but those running businesses also.

Indeed, Roark is initially almost destroyed partially as a result of a media magnate whose closest parallel in the modern world would be Rupert Murdoch. Anything which appeals to the masses most base instincts purely for profit, as opposed to the moral quest for individual perfection, is ripe for criticism from Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand stopped short of turning these criticisms into a criticism of capitalism, but it is easy to see how an extreme individualist would baulk at modern capitalist society’s conformism.

That is not a position that socialists could truly associate with- although we are critical of capitalism for much the same reasons, we also believe that human beings are social animals and we place great importance on the meaning of solidarity.

It is thus clear that there are at least three types of anti-capitalism with which we would not wish to be associated. It seems reasonable to hold that the vagueness of the term is therefore a reason which it should be discarded.

Related to this initial problem, but of perhaps more importance, is my second criticism of the term.

Anti-capitalism, by the very nature of the hyphenation, is a negative phrase. It outlines what we are against (and that which reactionaries, fascists and extreme individualists are also against) but not what we are for.

This is problematic for those of us that wish to replace capitalism with something better. Opposition to the status quo is only one part of our ideology, alongside common ownership of the means of production, resistance to hierarchy and inequality, the self-emancipation of the working class and the end of alienation.

Those are all fancy terms, but when explained and simplified they have more positive implications.

Only by outlining our vision of a socialist society can we realistically hope to overthrow capitalism and usher in a better world. Resorting to the term ‘anti-capitalism’ is nothing less than a cop-out.

Peace and love,

Dan x

A Reappraisal of #Occupy

2011-10-27T21:07:00.001+01:00

I know that in the past I’ve been more than a little sceptical about #OccupyWallStreet and its offshoots.

In many ways, those criticisms do still hold. I still feel that some of those involved have demonstrated remarkable naivety, or essentially expressed views which would be more at home amongst the far-right libertarian fringes. And I still feel that disruption is essential to any movement which hopes to change the world.

However, several things have conspired to make me feel that a blog praising (at the very least) #OccupyLSX was in order.

Partly this was a result of my visit to St Paul’s. It’s hard to deny the positive energy surrounding the place, and one is genuinely given the impression that it has grasped something important. I regret not making time to visit again more recently, or taking part in the general assembly.

It is also partly a result of criticism of the protests from the right (including moderates who claim to be on our side) that I feel go too far or are unjustified. Having now visited the protest, I can’t condone the view that it is entirely worthless.

And perhaps it is also because I am somewhat inclined towards a sort of democratic centralism- I didn’t necessarily agree with the demonstration’s origins, but if it is to utterly fail then it will damage the movement as a whole.

So what then is the value of #OccupyLSX? As I have said before, it isn’t disruptive enough to cause the establishment genuine fear. And the issues it is concerned with are already largely in the public domain, it isn’t necessary to teach everyone that the ‘bankers are bad’.

I think that comparisons can be drawn, if you will let me, with the idea of the ‘foco’- expounded by Guevara- or at least my interpretation of it.

A small group of guerrilla fighters, regardless of romantic portrayals, didn’t win the Cuban revolution. Instead, they acted as an inspiration for the peasantry and proletariat, who were encouraged by their actions to erupt in a more general uprising.

The point wasn’t that the guerrillas would make the people aware that they were being oppressed, or that isolated attacks alone would bring down the Batista regime. But a protracted campaign in defiance of the dictatorship would demonstrate to the populace that resistance was not completely futile.

Thus by establishing a camp in the centre of the City of London, in open defiance of the status quo, #OccupyLSX encourages further activity. It has managed to dominate media coverage and many are becoming increasingly inspired by it.

This is similar to the function that the student demonstrations played as part of the wider struggle last year. Students and young people cannot replace the working class and the trade union movement as an agent of change and clearly even the NUS is not enough to bring down a Tory government on its own.

But by taking to the streets, by occupying Millbank and by resisting the attacks of the police, the students showed that not everyone in this country was going to accept austerity, privatisation and the erosion of our rights.

By the summer of 2011, we had gone from a country largely sympathetic to the attitude of the government to one which saw 500,000 people march against the cuts and 750,000 workers go on strike. A little over a year after the first student demonstrations we will soon see the largely strikes for a generation as 3million people take industrial action.

#OccupyLSX will play a key role in ensuring an understandable narrative for the November 9^th demonstration to the city, and will act as a major draw for students who otherwise might not have bothered turning out.

That is the real importance of the #Occupy movement, and another reason why it should be defended. Yes, some of the hype about it is overblown. That doesn’t mean it does not deserve recognition as a positive and important development.

Solidarity,

Dan x

Disruption versus Symbolism

2011-10-12T18:34:00.001+01:00

Oh, isn’t the Left in a bit of a pickle?

The NHS, which we all love as dearly as much as the next Tory-hating member of the public, has a pretty bleak prognosis. It’s staggering on for now, but it’s only a matter of time before the committees and reports are over and the Third Reading in the Lords is upon us.

Lo and behold, the Conservatives have continued doing exactly as we would’ve expected them to do.

Liberal Democrat peers have almost entirely ignored a furious letter writing campaign, perhaps under the (entirely accurate) impression that if they flout the demands of the electorate and vote along ideologically classical liberal lines then they won’t suffer any consequences whatsoever.

How could the Coalition do these things, I hear you cry? After all, we all lay down on a bridge for a few hours! Liberal Conspiracy called it “mass civil disobedience”- doesn’t that make it hip and rebellious enough to work?

Now I was at UKUncut’s demonstration on Westminster Bridge and it has to be said it was about as disobedient as a police dog.

Yes, it was all very lovely seeing people amass to complain about the Tories- even if the sense of urgency seemed sorely lacking. And clearly anything that helps raise awareness is categorically a good thing- unfortunately awareness went rather unraised that day.

Walking into the middle of one of the capital’s busier (and at the very least most noticeable) bridges and preventing traffic from passing is, in theory, a sensible enough idea.

This is because the most crucial element of any extra-parliamentary political act is the disruptive element. Industrial action is effective because it can bring the economy to a grinding halt. University occupations can be effective because they can prevent the running of the institution.

Even UKUncut’s initial occupation of high street shops could be considered somewhat effective because- as well as the symbolic, awareness-raising element- they actually disrupted business and discouraged tax avoiders from opening to the public.

Unfortunately for our intrepid band of disobedient citizens, perhaps the worst day in the calendar was selected for their bridge-occupation.

Firstly because the bridge had already been closed for the morning anyway, because of the Royal Park Half Marathon- as anyone who lives or works or studies anywhere near the Embankment would’ve been able to inform the organisers.

Unsurprisingly it isn’t very difficult for the authorities to cope with the bridge being closed when they’ve already been preparing for such an eventuality for many months.

Secondly because the police were entirely aware that the action was going to take place, and so did their utmost to prevent it causing any further disruption. The police actually closed off the bridge themselves before we arrived, which makes the whole ‘walking into traffic and sitting down’ thing seem a bit less impressive.

We can’t really avoid letting the police know about these things, but it is nonetheless something to bear in mind when these sorts of actions are proposed.

Thirdly, and perhaps most obvious of all, is the fact that the bridge-occupation took place on a Sunday. When traffic is already minimal. When there aren’t any Lords to watch the action, much less be preventing from voting on a bill.

I suppose this draws me rather neatly onto my next point, regarding another more prominent form of occupation.

Stavvers has criticised #OccupyWallStreet quite excellently today, and I’m sure you’re aware that I have blogged against this activist-brand already.

I could go on to point out further why #OWS has ideological flaws (perhaps drawing attention to the support given by the likes of Alex Jones and his hyper-libertarian followers), but that would ultimately be repeating myself, without any relevance to the UK.

The real reason for my previous blog, rather, was the tactical failings of #OccupyWallStreet and why they mean that we should be wary of any attempts to replicate the action in London.

Obviously my writing was in vain, and now we have the prospect of #OccupyLSX (LSX= London Stock Exchange, presumably because the more commonly used ‘LSE’ would be a tad confusing) this Saturday.

Like in Wall Street, this protest will not be particularly disruptive. It is commencing during the weekend, which means that from the outset it will be prioritising symbolism over disruption.

Defenders of the Occupy movement point out that, as long-term endeavours, they are intended to continue well into the week and thus will actually be witnessed by traders.

Unfortunately, this doesn’t actually increase the disruption- unless traders are physically prevented from getting to work, or trading is otherwise prevented, then in no way will the economy be threatened.

Will that happen? It seems unlikely. Particularly because, y’know, we don’t actually have a trading floor- it’s done electronically.

The main defence of such occupations is their symbolic quality. It’s all about creating a free space (whatever that is) and “aims to open a dialogue” (which has been open for ages). It’s about raising awareness of the role that the City plays in our democracy, and about how bad the bankers have been.

All well and good, up the class war et cetera, but that isn’t really the main challenge right now. People don’t need to be told that the bankers are to blame, as most people tend to express that view already. We’re quite some way away from class consciousness, but in terms of ‘the people’ vs. ‘the bankers’ we have framed the narrative quite successfully.

The problem we are faced with then is not to how to raise awareness through spectacle, but how to achieve change through disruption. How can we make the ruling class listen to the “99%”?

It’s not a question that’s easy to answer- if it was then we’d have had a socialist revolution long ago. I would imagine that it will require substantial industrial action, truly disruptive occupations and so on. Eventually it will require voting along class lines for a socialist government.

What it will almost certainly not require is a few hundred people sitting in a square or a park and communicating vague demands to a curious press.

I’m sorry, but the Left desperately needs to stop emulating what it falsely considers to have been the tactic of the Arab Spring revolutionaries.

Solidarity,

Dan x

Reflections on Cable Street

2011-10-03T13:08:00.002+01:00

Yesterday I had the honour of attending the 75th Cable Street anniversary march and rally.

To hear veterans speak with undimmed passion about the twin fights against fascism and for socialism, to see the banners of the International Brigades, to observe the glorious memorial which commemorates the Battle- it was powerful beyond description.

In remembering the defeat of the police and Blackshirts by the combined might of the Labour, Communist and trade union movements (as well as the unity of the local immigrant communities, both Irish and Jewish), we are forced to acknowledge that the battle against fascism and bigotry continues.

We recognise the intrusions of the BNP and the EDL into working class communities, seeking to divide ordinary people. Although the modern fascist street movements possess working class members, we recognise that they do not in any way represent an “authentic voice”.

There are indisputably legitimate grievances, much as there were in the 1930s- a housing crisis, mass unemployment and a lack of representation. Yet, observing the Islamophobic and reactionary demands of the modern fascist movement, we are struck by how rarely these grievances feature.

The leadership would far sooner peddle racist lies than seek to improve the conditions of their more disadvantaged supporters.

Just as Oswald Mosley came from an aristocratic background and was initially drawn to the Conservative party, the modern leadership of the fascist movement come from reasonably privileged backgrounds: Nick Griffin is the Cambridge-educated son of a Tory councillor, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon lives in a leafy village outside Bedford and owns a sunbed shop in Luton.

It is therefore important to remind individuals who might be drawn towards fascism (perhaps because of the recent weakness of traditional forms of working class organisation) that ultimately the BNP and EDL will work in the interests of the elite.

There are other lessons to be learnt from the Battle of Cable Street.

The barricades didn’t just have to be defended from the BUF, in October ’36- Mosley’s fascists barely even made it to the frontline. The task of assaulting the residents and anti-fascists was left to the Metropolitan Police, who supported the Blackshirts rather than the local immigrant community.

This should be taken as evidence against anyone who claims that the capitalist state, unless held to account by the organised working class (and other disadvantaged groups), can seriously work in defence of ordinary people against those who wish to divide and oppress us.

Prior to the Battle of Cable Street, the local community had sought a petition to prevent the British Union of Fascists from being able to march in the East End. Clearly the sympathies of the government were elsewhere.

As we all know, it took fighting in the streets and a show of strength by a united community to oust the fascists- they were severely weakened for many years afterwards.

Clearly, this was never the optimal situation. Violence in working class communities must always be avoided, and threats to the lives of innocent people must be resisted. Punching a fascist in the face may be successful, as in the case of Matthew Collins, but it also incurs a risk of counter-attacks of a more severe nature.

That is why action should be taken before fascism develops as a significant force in national or local politics. Alleviating the causes- that is to say, building a socialist society- is the most fundamental activity. Decent houses, fair wages, quality public services are the lifeblood of the anti-fascist movement.

It may also be tempting to draw up petitions for the banning of far-right marches, as was initially the case at Cable Street and more recently with the English Defence League.

The motivation for doing this is sound- to prevent destruction of homes and livelihoods by a racist mob prone to rioting, and to eliminate a platform for fascist views.

In principle, the concept of a ban on marches by groups with a track record as bad as the EDL is sound.

Unfortunately, in the present day, the capitalist state works only in the interests of itself and the ruling class- this is even more the case when said state is headed by an antagonistic and right-wing Conservative Party.

Hence the result of the EDL march-ban was that all marches in Tower Hamlets and four neighbouring boroughs be banned for a period of 30 days. Conveniently for the Conservative Party, this allows left-wing marches to be prevented just as thoroughly as right-wing ones.

At a time when anarchists, long at the forefront of the fight against fascism, are being cracked down upon by the state, it is important that we be vigilant about the potential repercussions of any state actions that we might demand.

Let us not forget the likely consequences of a protest ban on October 4^th 1936. Yes, the BUF would’ve been banned from marching. However, so too would’ve the Communist Party’s Aid Spain rally in Trafalgar Square (which was ultimately cancelled so that anti-fascists could focus on the struggle closer to home). One anti-fascist victory would’ve been accompanied by an anti-fascist defeat.

As Sam Ashton wrote in Socialist Appeal (October 2011), “Any laws introduced against the fascists will inevitably be used against the workers. The working class can rely only on its own forces, not those of the capitalist state, to defeat fascism.”

Solidarity,

Dan x

Blog Awards Round Up

2011-09-28T17:06:00.002+01:00

Hey all! Apologies for the lack of blogs recently, have just been settling into university- you’ll be relieved to know that I haven’t fallen in the Thames or defected to Goldman Sachs!

Anyhow, I figured that I might as well do a quick summary of how I ranked in the Total Politics Blog Awards.

In the ranking of left-wing blogs, I came 57^th. I was just relieved to beat Tom Harris (71^st)! Though I’m not quite sure how he weaselled his way into the category…

Amongst Labour blogs, Musings of a Radical came 29^th- somehow I beat Penny Red (who isn’t actually Labour?) and Though Cowards Flinch (who are awesome and deserved to do far better).

In terms of political blogs in general, I managed to come 200^th- which allows me the dubious honour of being in the top 200 rather than the top 300! I was 214^th political blogger, above several who I would consider amongst the best political bloggers out there- Carl Packman, Don Paskini, David Osler, etc.

I was then 28^th Labour blogger (Ed Miliband was 43^rd…) and 39^th left-wing blogger. Johann Hari was 40^th left-wing blogger, which is clearly hilarious. Rest assured, comrades, that I don’t make up quotes.

Hmm, well that was a somewhat egotistical blog, I suppose- sorry for that. If it helps balance it out- here’s Dannii’s blog detailing her rankings.

Until next time then,

Solidarity,

Dan x

On "Men's Rights"

2011-09-23T12:58:00.000+01:00

It’s a confession that I’m sure won’t ingratiate me with everyone in the feminist movement, but a little over a year ago I would have loosely associated myself with ‘progressive masculism’.

This was born of several factors.

The first was a general feeling of disenfranchisement with feminism. I was put off by the combative stance taken by some feminists, which all too often came across as demonising men.

Some of this was undoubtedly right- the attitudes which many men (including myself) take for granted need to be challenged, and this can be a difficult process for men to come to terms with. Mychal Denzel Smith paints what feels an accurate picture of the ‘growing pains’ associated with becoming a male feminist.

But probably more importantly, my studying of sociology (taught, in fact, by a feminist) brought me into contact with ideas that demonstrated that men suffer from patriarchy too. This was the feeling behind my blog on the ‘duality of inequality’ (which I would now consider to go somewhat too far), and it’s an awareness that stays with me now.

It is one of the reasons why this blog, and others like it, are tagged with ‘gender egalitarianism’ rather than ‘feminism’- I am wary of tackling gender issues in a way that ignores the impact of inequality on both genders. I also feel uncomfortable identifying as a feminist, because for me patriarchy ultimately descends from the institutions of capitalism and property.

Whilst some could brand this ‘socialist feminism’, I struggle to see how that is a distinct ideology- just as liberal feminism is effectively just liberalism with more women.

It is from this perspective that some males come to the arena of “men’s rights”.

Personally, I can’t see much value in using the term “rights” rather than “issues”, and to identify as a “men’s rights activist” does not put you in good stead.

I imagine it is also one of the reasons why the “men’s rights” movement is so easily hijacked by reactionaries. It makes any discussion of issues particular to men appear as if it is opposed to the progress made towards gender equality between males and females.

Clearly, women remain- and unfortunately are likely to remain for the foreseeable future- the primarily disadvantaged party in gender relations. It is important that “men’s rights activists” assert this first and foremost, before going on to explain the issues (arising from patriarchy) which are particular to men.

There has been a justifiable backlash against Tom Martin’s suing of the LSE's Gender Institute.

Tom Martin, I think it is patently obvious, is an example of a “men’s rights activist” who has not approached men’s issues in a way that accepts both sides of the gender inequality coin. The Gender Institute may well have its flaws, but there are proper procedures. Martin is taking money from a discipline which already lacks funding- he is hardly going to find himself a great many fans in academia.

However, the discussion of “men’s rights” goes beyond Tom Martin’s latest attention-seeking campaign.

In 2009, many in the feminist movement (though not all) reacted negatively to the creation of a “MENS society” at the University of Manchester.

Understandably, the existence of such a society raises the fears of feminists. In the same way as expressions of ‘straight pride’ or white nationalism are reactionary and dangerous parodies of gay pride and black nationalism, there is a considerable chance that any society appealing specifically to men will promote traditional prejudices and seek to entrench inequality.

From reading Ben Wild’s defence of his group in the Guardian, and from meeting the society’s then-chair whilst being given a tour of the University of Manchester (he was the guide), I don’t really think this was the case.

I am willing to be proven wrong on that point, but I would nonetheless contend that a “men’s society” focussing on issues peculiar to men- so long as it accepted that women suffer greater oppression as a result of patriarchy- is not much less valuable than the “women’s societies” which are already found on virtually every university campus.

There is probably a limit to this- there isn’t any need to call for men’s officers, any more than there is a need for a ‘straight officer’ or an ‘ethnic majority’ officer.

But issues effecting men need to be addressed- father’s rights, the decline in educational achievement, high suicide levels, the mocking of violence against men, prison rape, and so on.

As many men will be able to tell you, hegemonic masculinity isn’t just something which oppresses women- it is also a harsh doctrine which punishes deviation from an establish code of male behaviour. I’m sure that many of my readers will not have always been hugely interested in sport, or enjoyed activities which were decried as effeminate by their peers.

The LGBT movement has been pivotal in challenging hegemonic heterosexuality, but that is not the only aspect of hegemonic masculinity which needs to be torn down. As the questioning of values with which many men have been indoctrinated (and the discussion of issues of which many of us are embarrassed) can be an extremely difficult process, the existence of male-only groups for this purpose is no worse than similar female-only groups.

That isn’t, however, the only value of men-only groups- they are also valuable in challenging the oppression of women by men. This strategy has been pioneered by the American organisation ‘Men Can Stop Rape’.

Working with small groups of young men, the ‘Men of Strength’ clubs are designed to entice males into questioning their behaviour and attitudes towards women. By offering pizza and a friendly atmosphere, trained campaigners are able to subtly lead the group towards progressive conclusions.

Let’s face it; many men struggle to understand female opposition to street harassment. That isn’t because street harassment shouldn’t be opposed (it definitely, definitely should be), but because it is quite a difficult concept for men to come to terms with when we have been trained to view objectification in a positive light.

Whilst strong female role models can be important in challenging boys’ views of women, it is unfortunately the case that males tend to respond most to a male influence. This is explained well by the concept of ‘homosociality’- men’s (and potentially, it has to be said, women’s) behaviour is dictated by a desire to please peers of the same gender.

It is therefore an important and useful strategy to create environments in which men’s issues, and men’s oppression of women, can be discussed.

Eventually perhaps we will reach the stage where men and women are able to discuss each other’s issues without voluntary segregation. For now, however, it is necessary that gender inequality be opposed in whatever way is most effective.

Peace and love,

Dan x

Call Me Cynical

2011-09-20T12:24:00.002+01:00

It appears to now be fashionable for the centre-left media to laud the efforts of #OccupyWallStreet, the protest movement which on September 17^th marched into the United States’ infamous financial district and essentially refused to leave.

Unsurprisingly, people are now calling for similar actions to spread around the world. Left Foot Forward, for example, proposes that ‘Occupy Threadneedle Street’ protests take place in London.

I’m sorry, but I can’t be optimistic about this.

For all its pomp, and the media attention belatedly bestowed upon it, #OWS is a flawed concept in a long tradition of similar actions.

The two groups which pushed for ‘Occupy Wall Street’ to take place are similar in their niche (young, Internet-savvy, counter-cultural) support. Adbusters, a Canadian group of “anti-consumerists”, is most well-known for ‘cultural jamming’: the Situationist-inspired subversion of advertising and popular culture to oppose consumerism.

Anonymous are perhaps the more renowned of the two, having made its name in hacking and otherwise using the Internet to challenge authority.

It appears to have almost left behind its former pursuit of lulz, and is completing the transition initiated by the campaign against the Church of Scientology- from trolls to what once would’ve been denounced as ‘moralfags’.

Neither of these groups deserves to be ridiculed. I am capable of enjoying the clever humour of Adbusters, whilst Anonymous should be commended for their championing of Internet freedom- particularly work in Egypt.

Unfortunately, neither of them is suitable as the basis for a much wider and more significant protest movement.

The first and most obvious reason for this is the niche support I already alluded to. All reports indicate that the main people who attended the demonstration were, as the Guardian described, “over-educated, under-employed and angry”.

Clearly, groups which organise primarily through the Internet are not going to attract the attention from those for whom the Internet is not the primary method of communication. Even amongst the young, there are a great many who would be unfamiliar with the memes (particularly the Fawkes mask) repeatedly used by those involved in Anonymous’ protests.

This has resulted in the #OWS movement being remarkably small and unimpressive. The Guardian described the demonstration as being 5,000-strong, but even the main website for #OWS only claims there were “approximately 2,000”.

Regardless of the precise number of attendees, it has to be said that this is a pretty poor attempt. Last years’ initial NUS-supported student protest in London was attended by 50,000; even the NCAFC was able to mobilise 3,000 on the streets of Brighton and Manchester, 2,000 on the streets of Bristol and thousands at Whitehall.

I do accept that there were other factors to the low turnout for ‘Occupy Wall Street’. Its organisers lacked the resources of the NUS, although it should be remembered that NCAFC was able to organise effectively without such funding. Its location is even harder to get to for the vast majority of US citizens than London, although of course New York City also has a considerably greater population.

The fact remains that the organising style of groups such as Anonymous and Adbusters is not sufficient. As Owen Jones said of our student protests, “Leaderless youth will not bring this Government down”.

Karl Marx famously wrote that “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past”.

He illustrated this with revolutionary examples- Luther “put on the mask of the Apostle Paul”, the 1789 revolutionaries adorned themselves with emblems of the Roman Republic and Empire, and the Revolution of 1848 echoed the sentiments and symbols of 1789.

Now we see students and young ‘activists’ seeking to revive the memory of 1968.

This desire has two sides to it. Firstly, it is based on the flawed belief that 1968 was somehow successful in achieving radical change. Whilst it might be said that it contributed to the shift over time towards a more liberal attitude to sexuality, gender and so on, it nonetheless resulted in Charles de Gaulle further consolidating the power of his right-wing party.

In terms of economic change- which the modern protest movements engaged in mimicry appear to be concerned with- May 1968 was a complete failure.

The reason people continue to aspire to a repetition of 1968 is that leftists (quite understandably) have an idealised vision of a city in a revolution-like state. Whilst it might not actually be successful in achieving any of its aims, it is the feeling of excitement and power found in the temporary casting off of authority that many radicals lust after.

This spectacularism is encapsulated in famous slogans from May 1968- “L'ennui est contre-révolutionnaire”, “I love you!!! Oh, say it with paving stones!!!” and “L'imagination prend le pouvoir!”. These are attractive sentiments which Adbusters seeks to echo, but they aren’t exactly the Communist Manifesto.

The second side of 1968-revivalism is an elitist selective memory. Whenever it is spoken of by young leftists, it is in terms of student occupations and the like. The involvement of vast numbers of trade unionists in May 1968 is the reason it even came close to success, because it enabled the calling of powerful general strikes.

The misinterpretation of May 1968 has been carried over to how groups such as ‘Occupy Wall Street’ understand the Arab Spring, which is the event which they claim to be most inspired by. The media has systematically underreported the importance of labour strikes, and this leads to some people somehow believing that all a revolution requires is to sit in the centre of a city and refuse to move.

This is part of a wider desire on the part of some in the student movement to ‘replace’ the working class as an agent of change- the belief that only socialists with a degree will be capable of truly participating in the revolution.

The Observer drew attention to the staggering inequality in New York. It is clear that demonstrations and working class organisation is needed to alter this. But the people involved with ‘Occupy Wall Street’ would rather rely upon ineffective forms of protest because they are overwhelmingly focussed on graduate unemployment.

Perhaps what epitomises the weakness of #OWS is the call for “a new capitalism”. No, Roseanne Barr- you must call for socialism.

None of this is to deny that the forms of activism espoused by Anonymous and Adbusters have their place. Indeed, we have seen from the success of UKUncut that new forms of organisation are possible. But UKUncut has primarily been successful in raising awareness of a very specific issue- few would expect occupying TopShop to be the end of the movement.

History tells us that the only way change can be achieved is through the collective organisation of the working class, in collaboration with other disadvantaged and disenfranchised sections of society.

It will take a little more than left-libertarian hacktivists sitting in a park to bring about socialism.

I respect the fact that the challenges faced by American socialists are considerable. Trade union density in the UK is poor, at around 26.6%, but it is fantastic compared to the US’ 11.9%.

Similarly, the UK has a parliamentary party with a direct link to said trade unions- the Labour Party. It may not represent the labour movements, but through struggle within the unions and within the party we have the potential to change that.

In America the mainstream political parties were established solely to represent the interests of the ruling class- the Democrats are affiliated to the same international organisation as our Liberal Democrats.

However, the protests in Wisconsin earlier this year do demonstrate the potential that exists in the US. I think it is a profound shame that the AFL-CIO and even the IWW appear to have been ignored during the organisation of ‘Occupy Wall Street’.

By all means, applaud any attempt to raise awareness of leftist and anti-capitalist viewpoints. Just do not masquerade under the false belief that student-led, Internet-based direct action can even come close to achieving the same level of success as working-class trade union strikes and agitation.

Solidarity,

Dan x