I began blogging on Labour Members’ Net in the spring of 2007. At first it was a way for me to relieve the interminable boredom of writing and researching essays for my postgrad degree. I hadn’t yet discovered the value of going outside and it brought me into contact with others from the political party I had just joined – the Labour Party. It was a more erudite attempt at the same engagement which came from the OULC events I attended that year.
A year or so later, I moved to this site, picked up some co-contributors and went my merry way. Everything annoyed me, so everything was fair game for comment. I had been known as Mr. Angry on Members’ Net and this soubriquet continues to be applicable, I suspect, but through my blogging the anger was directed at the hypocrisy of our ruling class, the political and moral ineptitude of Labour and no few other bloggers, for one reason or another.
Quite quickly it became apparent that there were limits to blogging. Put simply, it didn’t change anything. Liberal Conspiracy and other agglomerating sites occasionally gathered in commentary from people who organised protests and meetings, though even here there was a tendency for this to be either London-centric (i.e. in a location readily accessible to the disparate network of people who blog and read blogs) or run by and for the commentariat.
I’ve never made a secret of the fact that I loathe this commentariat. The hallmark of the commentariat aristocracy, the Toynbees of the world, were recycled truisms, easily disproved but never admitted. Fashionable writers below this level made do with saying nothing in a stylish manner. Still further into the Stygian depths were the political opportunists, endlessly attempting to cobble together bandwagons of the outright reactionary and the pitiably naive.
The “campaigns” on civil liberties by various media luvvies are foremost in my mind here, though there is hardly a lack of such opportunism, each exponent hiding beneath the exclamation, “Something must be done!”
The great advantage of Marxism is that it prevents naive illusions in the leaders of the Labour movement or the capitalist class. Lenin’s beautifully succinct article, “Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism”:
“People always have been the foolish victims of deception and self-deception in politics, and they always will be until they have learnt to seek out the interests of some class or other behind all moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises. Champions of reforms and improvements will always be fooled by the defenders of the old order until they realise that every old institution, however barbarous and rotten it may appear to be, is kept going by the forces of certain ruling classes. And there is only one way of smashing the resistance of those classes, and that is to find, in the very society which surrounds us, the forces which can—and, owing to their social position, must—constitute the power capable of sweeping away the old and creating the new, and to enlighten and organise those forces for the struggle.”
No doubt everyone involved found it edifying to listen to so many speeches by so many luminaries, but what did their approach change? The answer was absolutely nothing, and it had the added disadvantage of providing some fig leaves to people I regard as lower than vermin. With respect to Our Nye, one doesn’t have to be descended from the lower nobility or mired in the subjective stink of class privilege to objectively be a poor-bashing Tory lackwit.
If anything stopped me from being absorbed into the commentariat, it was probably less my political views and more my oppositional, anti-social and basely cynical nature. Objectively, whilst I sat idle behind my keyboard, I was little different from them. My equivalent of their dithering-while-Rome-burns was the volume of he-said-she-said articles and daily bemoanings of Westminster events I wrote, and look back on with no little embarrassment.
Hobbies, I suppose, are intrinsically embarrassing because they are personal or milieu-based. Whether it’s building and maintaining train sets, collecting stamps or bird-watching, outside of the groups of people thus involved, these things can look silly. And since what I wrote had no practical purpose, it was nothing more than a hobby. That said, there’s one area which is not so easily dismissed, and which I believe have continuing relevance for the blogosphere.
That is writing which is essentially agitational propaganda. I like to think I did a good job striking down manure Labour and Tory politicians liked to heap on workers. Accounts of industrial disputes, defences of union actions and reports of the meetings I was involved with strike me as being the most salvageable articles, because they provide a socialist response to practical issues of the day and point the way towards actual, physical engagement.
I don’t believe there is any substitute for this. I value the writing of numerous authors active on the internet. Duncan Weldon and Chris Dillow, for example, regularly produce food for thought on matters economic. I find these useful as they help me to process information I acquire elsewhere into a useable format that can inform my political judgment and which then has further practical uses, in discussing with and recruiting people to the Socialist Party.
It was this emphasis which led me from Labour to the Socialist Party in the first place. There are 17 constituency Labour Parties in Kent and two branches of the Socialist Party, and I’m pretty much certain that the campaigning capacity of the SP massively outweighs the much larger Labour Party in this county. The reason is quite simple; Labour is turned in on itself, or else it is focused exclusively on certain institutions such as the press or local councils.
The blogosphere, in large part, provides an easy analogy and is equally ineffective. More worryingly, the blogosphere also seems to have become a method of choice for personal advancement, rather than a means for informing collective struggle. All the internet-based venom in the world won’t actually fix these problems, and that’s why I don’t blog anymore. I leave it to others, whether they are part of that collective struggle or just more hamsters in a particularly public wheel.
This government must be broken in two by concerted, massive and uncompromising strike action. Anyone who says differently is a do-nothing, who wants to stand around bloviating instead of actually getting behind the one tactic which can stop the cuts. Even those people who are electoralists – i.e. Labour Party types – can’t argue with this. We’re not likely to see an election until 2015, according to Cameron and Clegg, so it’s up to the activists.
Even those who argue that we can’t oppose the cuts wholesale and can only separate out individual cuts can’t argue with the pension campaigns. The teachers and civil servants pension funds were both many millions in the black. The government decided to rob these funds, and to force teachers and other public servants to work longer, get less and pay more for what they got, when there was absolutely zero justification to do so, however the Tories spin it. More than that though, the working class doesn’t operate on legalistic principles – there’s no argument that since we’re striking about pensions, that’s all we care about. The battle lines are legion; the slicing up of the NHS, privatisation elsewhere, lowering taxes on the rich while screwing the poor, rising class sizes and falling child care facilities, not to mention massive unemployment spurred on by the Tory budgets.
Unions like Unite and Unison opted to stand aside from the dispute, after the N30 strikes, leaving PCS at the core of a group of unions the best activists of which not only want to organise their own unions but want to throw down the gauntlet to Len McCluskey, Dave Prentis, Brendan Barber and the other backsliders. Our activists and the activists in those unions which have not opted for more coordinated strikes will work together, under the banner of the National Shop Stewards Network, to force those unions to act in the interests of their members – which in the immediate dispute are not served by the Heads of Agreement to which Prentis and Barber and co wanted to sign up, and which in the medium term will never be served by a Tory government, whatever their window dressing.
That group of fighting unions just got bigger, with the National Union of Teachers and the NASUWT both voting for more concerted strikes. This will be a massive boost to the morale and resolve of the NSSN ahead of their national conference on 9th June. There will be deep debates as to how best to ensure first that we get good turnout on the days, and second that we park deep in the massive unions like Unite and Unison our iron determination to continue to fight, a determination we believe many of the members there either share already or would share if they had a trustworthy leadership and were presented with an alternative to simply accepting the cuts as fait accompli.
As a member of my PCS branch, I’ll be looking to get delegated to the NSSN conference and so should you. The more union branches represented there, the more thorough any discussion is likely to be. I’m also fighting to get cooperation from other unions in the place where I work, with joint meetings and real discussions about how best they can support us when we’re on strike and what they can expect from us in return, in their own disputes which management, which are many. I’ll be trumpeting the NUT and NASUWT vote to buoy up morale amongst PCS members.
As a member of the Socialist Party, I’ll be on the streets of Canterbury fighting to get the wider working class involved. I’ll be lobbying the Canterbury and Dover & Folkestone Trades Councils to organise joint public demonstrations and to build for them, rather than simply announcing the strikes and activities and expecting members to turn up as so many of the most bureaucratic union leaders do – a tactic which leaves the unions looking weak and which often confirms those union leaders’ own insecurities about what support they have behind them.
That is something that needs addressed on every level; email lists are far from enough engagement with members – and the reliance on those email lists or one-off face to face activities to instill in our colleagues and comrades the political education to match their instincts is simply not acceptable.
Thursday and Friday’s Days of Action in Canterbury and Gravesend, which Kent Socialist Party organised with Youth Fight for Jobs, suggested to me that though things looked a little wobbly just recently, fightback 2o12 is far from dispensed with, such are the levels of anger with this government. The NUT and NASUWT votes confirm it. All socialists must now play their role as leaders of their communities, of their workplaces and unions and of their class, and push for joint action, exerting maximum pressure to get our allies in Unison and Unite back into the fight. Hopefully the few comrades still in Labour know that and are ready for it.
I tend not to take much interest in paid lobbyists, regarding them as verminous scum. Still, when people I talk to on stalls mention something, I take an interest and it just so happened yesterday that one ex-Lib Dem (left because of leadership treason) brought up the subject of Lord Bell’s “attack” on lobbyists.
Apparently the ex-owner of Bell Pottinger made a speech the other day in which he admitted that they were “a lightning rod for mistrust”. It says something about the type of wet drips who join the Lib-Dems that this guy thought Lord Bell was making an attack on his own profession; far from it. He was in full throated defence.
“The fact remains that, taking on a client good or bad, it is our reputation at stake,” says Bell, and “everybody has the right to representation”. Defending Bell Pottinger’s PR work for the repressive dictatorship of Belarus, Bell says that “Good PR needs substance”, intimating that his firm only held up real good things that were happening there.
Let’s deconstruct this a bit. Not everybody has the right to representation; only those who can pay have the right to representation. Hence it’s the dictatorship of Belarus and not its starved, oppressed people who hired Bell Pottinger. Likewise, it’s capitalist firms and not their workers who hire PR firms, political “leaders” and not activists and so on.
The essence of paid political lobbying is the elevation of those who exist at points where money is concentrated – i.e. the already institutionally powerful and wealthy. So the whole edifice is biased from the beginning. More than that, whilst lobbyists don’t have to lie, the nature of their job is to distort the truth, holding up the good things and explaining away the bad things. Amusingly, Lord Bell actually gets indignant over Belarus, “No attempt was made to understand what we were doing”. Quite the opposite; surely the problem was that everyone knew precisely what Bell Pottinger were doing?
Asked why he thought he was being attacked, Lord Bell’s giant ego moved to obscure the sunlight;
I have absolutely no idea. I think I’m absolutely lovely. But some people don’t think I am, so they attack me. The answer is because I’m at the top of the tree. I say that immodestly, I’m somewhere near the top of the tree and I have been for some time. Tall poppy syndrome applies to our industry the same as everything else. What’s the point of attacking somebody nobody’s ever heard of? It’s much more fun to attack me, or the Saatchi brothers, or Matthew Freud, or Max Clifford. Attack somebody who’s visible.
Attacking somebody who’s visible…and supports murderous dictatorships, oppressive Thatcherite governments and the like, perhaps?
There’s a nugget in all of this which shows that paid lobbying is not to blame for the ills of our political system. There are parallels which exist between people like Lord Bell (i.e. smug rich arseholes) and, say, David Cameron. They occupy a similar ideological universe.
Bell seems to suggest a democracy of the marketplace with his “everyone has the right to representation” spiel. This is hardly different to the Tory equation of corporate donations to their party with union donations to the Labour Party.
Both stories are about attempts to buy power by interest groups. Both treat potential funders as individuals, the better to make all potential funders look like equals and obscure the very real differences in wealth, power and numbers.
The Bell/Cameron model favours small cliques who can more easily use wealth and power over mass organisations of millions (e.g. the people of Belarus or the 7 million workers in unions). Implying any equivalence is ridiculous. Numerous figures in the Labour heirarchy are no strangers to this model, nor are the Lib-Dems. And this is my point. It is natural for them to think this way, to favour the wealthy and still see some balance in their views.
It doesn’t require lobbying. It simply requires that we workers lie down and take it, over and over and over again.
I note with grim bemusement some of the opinions coming out of this blog in recent weeks as regards potential operations in Syria, and the rather shocking attitude of Carl to people he believes hold principles that forbid military intervention in another nation. A deeply disturbing thesis, he calls these principles. Well, I for one disagree. I’m against any attack on Syria by any government.
Western governments cannot be trusted with a gun in their hand, period. It has nothing to do with the possible creation of safe zones, the potential for the Syrian people to rise up if they get Western help or their fate if they don’t. If you put guns in the hands of a movement which is not led by the independent organisations of the working class then, as in Libya, you invite disaster.
This disaster comes in the re-emergence of whatever social roots the criminal dictatorship can rely on, and it comes in the rise of racial, ethnic and tribal tensions. Separatism, as might be emerging some Libyan regions (not forgetting that this country was created by the West), becomes the focus of politics, as it attempts to bury the class struggle that must be waged against the privatisation which Gaddafi had come around to, and which the TNC will support.
If you think this is all abstract Marxist theorising, rather than being based on real events, look at the demands emanating from the local elites in Benghazi regarding Libya’s oil. Look at the details Amnesty International have of the looting of Black Libyan areas by the rebels. And I need not even mention how ethnic, racial and religious tensions became real with a vengeance in Iraq.
When socialists reproach pro-interventionists for listening to propaganda regarding the brutality of Bashar al-Assad, they’re not challenging the veracity of the stories. They’re challenging Western media emphasis on them, and the selection of these particular evils out of a whole world full of torture, oppression and misrule. Pro-interventionists aren’t being sufficiently critical in their approach to such evils. And they plainly haven’t learned the lessons of Western intervention elsewhere.
That lesson is an abject one in total hypocrisy. Concern for the victims of Assad now becomes indifference towards the victims of the Western militaries (and their less politically correct allies) and outright enmity towards those of divergent political aims. To foist such “help” upon the brave civilians who are standing up to Assad is absolute lunacy.
In the end, intervention is not an abstract instrumental question, it is a political one. The reckoning between the people of Syria and the dictatorship will not remain within those narrow parameters because of this. Eleven months into the uprising, the rebels have not been subdued. In fact, if reports are to be believed, Assad is using foreign hired guns to do what he dare not ask the army rank and file to do. Meanwhile the rebels must bring the rest of Damascus over to them – the stirrings of revolution.
Western intervention would almost certainly halt that – and may even result in some accommodation with the regime, after the removal of Assad. How is that justice for the thousands who have died?
These rebellions across the Middle East are not accidental or spontaneous. Dictators who have paid for their rule with oil wealth and relatively good living conditions are being hit by the global economic crisis. People are coming out into the streets not just to demand political freedom but to demand more from regimes that one by one succumbed to the depredations of market capitalism. The other capitalist nations will be more than happy to grant the former if they can forestall demands regarding the latter.
The sort of people the foreign powers are willing to deploy, to shut up the Syrian populace and prevent any further spread of the Arab Spring, is deeply telling however. Up until just this month, head of the Arab League observer mission was Mustafa al-Dabi, the Sudanese military official in post in Darfur whilst the genocide was going on. When the Western nations intervene, or the Arab League intervenes, the purpose will not be to limit civilian deaths, it will be to achieve an outcome satisfactory to those governments.
Moreover, looking at the sort of people likely to attempt to take control of Syria. Another unelected unaccountable trigger-happy transitional authority will simply release the same pressures as it released in Libya – and will thereafter pursue the same policies as Assad, perhaps resulting in worse casualties should any region or ethnic group dare to assert its separatist demands. By the time that happens, we’ll be lucky if there’s a Western media presence never mind a military presence.
Unlike Egypt, but like Libya, the Syrian people have started this with a handicap. They don’t have independent organisations of the working class. But they must develop them. The most we can do is hope on their behalf, and pressure our own governments to both stay aloof and to oppose Arab League intervention. That is not as satisfying perhaps as demanding the immediate bombing of every Syrian military installation in range of the 5th fleet, but that demand is not a solution to the problem – it complicates it. Meanwhile trust the Syrians to feel their way towards the right path. Assad’s continuing trickle of concessions are the surest sign that they will get there.
Meanwhile I wonder if the anti-war movement should be gearing up to oppose military intervention in a conflict closer to home, as it were, as the tension ratchets up over the Falklands again. I’m sure we’ll be hearing all the pro-interventionist piffle about democracy and self-determination on behalf of the islanders, should Argentina invade. As with Belgium in World War I, it is so much hypocritical twaddle in the mouths of capitalist leaders.
Which neatly brings me back to the deeply disturbing thesis. The capitalist state cannot be trusted to wield the military. Capitalist leaders, in their comfortable London drawing rooms, cannot be trusted to put the welfare of people in front of business when there are no lives at stake – why should they be trusted to put the welfare of people in front of what they consider to be the national interest when there are? Hands off Iran, Hands off Syria, Hands off the Falklands and while you’re at it, Hands off the NHS.
This is not a far left rant intimating that, in the aftermath of some successful industrial action, we’re ready to seize control of the country. We’ve achieved a little. Paul is right when he suggests that a lot of people will come away feeling buzzed by the mood of the marches, demonstrations and conversations on that day. I certainly went back to work the next day feeling like we had made our point.
Paul is also right when he suggests that there’s plenty more to do. There are concerns even more pressing than his particular objections to protesting and marching ad infinitum, or at least til the momentum has worn away as in the anti-war and anti-top up fees campaigns. Succinctly; we need to wrest control of the movement before we’re all bored to death by mid-level union bureaucrats.
Tory Canterbury answered the call to strike with fair aplomb. Somewhere around two hundred and fifty people met at a local hotel to hear union representatives from NUT, ATL, PCS and GMB speak. UCU and UNISON were also in marked attendance. As the pickets from around the city began to come in, this number swelled until there were some five hundred people either marching or milling at the Dane Jon.
Without intending to give offence to the speakers from the above-mentioned unions, however, having a captive audience for a full hour, they managed to lecture us all in hesitant style about why we were on strike. As I said afterwards, and several random people within earshot agreed, we don’t need to talk about why we’re there. We need to be talking about next steps – and a hall filled to bursting with the people who turned up to picket and protest strikes me as exactly where we should be talking about this.
The lack of questions from the floor, and the extended contributions from people who have no more authority than the rest of us, meant that when important matters were mentioned – e.g. the potential for a Canterbury-wide Trades Council, pulling in public AND private sector unions – there was no follow up. This comes back to something Paul was saying the other day, about how these meetings should be structured, if we’re not to be put off by continued pontification from above.
It’s all very well the unions stamping their feet like some latter-day Pompey Magnus. and expecting the foot soldiers to spring into action. But having answered grassroots anger with a coordinated strike, most will be content to going back to sleep, for now. We can’t let the momentum fade. The best way to do that is to establish, by locality, lists of people interested in continuing work as organisers not just within their own unions but in other venues too.
Whilst I have my own ideas about what exactly we need to organise, I’m more interested in the establishment of a local centre of gravity than in dictating the future, one which invites contributions from all workers of whatever political level, whatever role they hold or don’t hold in a union. Through these contributions, union reps can only improve their own performance, better representing their members and their class. And people are more than willing to share, with a little help from a ruthless, watch-wielding chair. This environment – of rigorous scrutiny and vigorous democracy – should be the backdrop to deciding where we go next.
And there are complicated questions to be answered about what comes next. Are we activists only, or is there a cross-over into electoral politics? What’s the fastest way to get rid of the Tory government? Is that the ultimate objective? Are we prepared to accept the Labour doctrine of continued cuts, albeit slower and shallower? Is our role limited to industrial questions? Are there practical ways one union can render support to others, even if we aren’t all on strike?
I suspect that last question should be the first answered; there are immediate, practical ways to begin rebuilding the political consciousness of the working class – a goal which should be common to socialists in Labour, in the Greens, in the smaller parties and those who don’t like the current gamut of party politics. For example, one goal should be the re-institution of the refusal by one worker to cross another’s picket lines. This sort of thing is vital to prepare the next national strike – and there must be more.
Rather than engaging in the sort of sectarian banter that gives Weekly Worker readers a hard-on, communists can use their skills and their knowledge of history, of other places and situations and tactics, to throw down deep roots in their class and establish a natural leadership. Merely by pushing for an aggressive line with the government and for the full accountability of those who claim to be our leaders we alienate nine-tenths of Labour Party hacks. Most Greens for that matter. This approach would be the making of any socialist, in my eyes.
One of the things which struck me so forcefully was how absolutely anathema the people brought out on Wednesday last would consider the usual sort of stilted, bureaucratic meetings that any local Labour Party basically runs on. Similarly, how ruinously dull would be judged the “political discussion” meetings so beloved of the smaller socialist parties? Millions of people are up for the challenge of beating the government and answering their ideologically-driven cuts agenda; to do them justice, we have to escape from the old paradigms. And the first step is making every meeting count.
Both sides should “give ground”, says Mr Ed Balls (via the BBC), to avert Wednesday’s “hugely disruptive” strike. He says “the government has got to give some ground, so have the unions”. What does this mean, in practice?
Well, it basically amounts to a special tax on whatever proportion of the workforce are employed by the government. That tax is two-fold, coming primarily in an immediate contributions hike, and secondly in the number of contributions. This is a tax on people who are already low earners (the majority of public servants earn substantially less than the national average), never mind the additional strains low earners face.
I don’t want to rehash the argument about pensions. The government never had a leg to stand on – and their devious, British Airways-style attempt to bully democratic unions by offering a slightly less crappy deal and then threatening to withdraw it unless the strike is called off just proves what we all suspected. Tories are outright bastards, high on the stench of their own rank privilege.
I did want to shout out to all those people who gush about Miliband, Balls and company. There’s nothing like the Labour Shadow Chancellor telling the country that he can sympathise with extra taxes on the poor to really make one’s Sunday morning. Yes, vote Labour and watch them try to out-smarm George Osborne.
Balls, like twat Miliband, flipflop over strikes for two reasons. The first is pure opportunism. They want to seem like the voice of reason. One wonders what constituency they’re appealing to. The strike is going ahead; millions will follow the lead of the unions. Anyone opposed to it can get all the “voice of reason” bullshit they want from Francis Maude.
I’ll be staying an extra fifteen minutes at the pickets just for him, by the way, the supercilious shitbag.
The second reason is that Balls is really just Tory-lite. Dubbed “Labour’s Keynesian rottweiler” by one utter dicksplash at the New Statesman, the five point plan for jobs and growth is shockingly weak. Moreover, it says absolutely nothing about the state of public services. The reason? Because Balls will plough on with privatising prisons, privatising hospitals and privatising schools. In order to seem small business and family friendly, he too will be pushing pension “reform”.
He will be pushing “the cuts to welfare, education and Home Office budgets that [Labour] set out before the election”.
He will be pushing “discipline in public and private sector pay”.
And on pensions? “Under Labour contributions and the retirement age would be rising too”.
Essentially he concedes the central Tory principle; that the poor must pay for economic “recovery”. Workers must pay for the rich to stay rich.
So I say, fuck you Ed Balls.
Since I’m on leave, I made the mistake of wading into the usual storm in a teacup about who-interrupted-what-Tory-twunt’s-right-to-speak. This time it’s random activists with David Willetts at a gathering in Cambridge. O tempora! O mores!
Of course, having enjoyed immensely watching a Tory minister get shouted down (which is about all any government minister is good for), I wish to, ironically enough, have my own say about the whole affair, and to quirkily raise an eyebrow at some of the conclusions drawn by my good friend Paul Sagar, and the loonier types over at Liberal Conspiracy.
Paul suggests that because there’s no point in having the debate (all Tories being scum – right on, comrade), there’s no point in disrupting it either, lest we incur the wrath of a few pudgy academics and their intellectual offspring. Fair point, I suppose, but I’d rather shout down the Tory, as an expression of my endless rage at these fucks.
Moreover, not to get in the way of the rather worthy debate over who has what right to be heard, or determine what others hear, but I suspect that anyone who doesn’t want to yell and scream and burn Number 10 to the ground isn’t really feeling the effects of what the Tories are doing to the country, not to put too fine a point on it.
This was suggested to me by the people in the LibCon sandbox, sorry comments page, who also suggested that David Willetts isn’t, in fact, insane, but is “one of the more reasonable Tories”. This is the guy flogging yet another book about how terrible the Baby Boomers are? Christ! I can’t imagine how that fits in with the moral preconceptions of the Daily Mail.
Oh wait, yes I can. It’s all the selfish, solipsistic Baby Boomers, none of whom had to fight against tyranny. After all, who cares about Northern Ireland? Or sexism and racism? We beat Hitler! Let’s just wave flags all day! It’s nothing to do with the staggering concentration of wealth and power in ever fewer hands, screwing the majority of the boomers, and generations X and Y and sharpening the demographic imbalance.
This guy is sane? So why should I be worried about the people who genuinely think he has something of worth to say?
It’s simple: I shouldn’t.
The next election is not being fought in the heads of such people, nor is the future of the UK. They’ll prevaricate all the way through a potential revolution or will decide that revolution is impolite and line up with the Tories anyway. The next election is being fought in the heads of the millions being screwed who didn’t vote and who don’t turn up to Cambridge University how-d’you-dos!
According to the BBC figures, my household income is in the 8th decile, where 7-and-above see more taxes than they do benefits. I find it hard going at the moment, I can only imagine what the seven deciles below my household income are finding, especially as – never mind their ordinary wages being what we should classify as “Shit” – fair chunks of their material redress are being slashed.
Those people don’t give a toss about who gets shouted down – and neither do I!
Paul S explains his second grievance; that Willetts looks like the good guy, after all these people yelled him down. Question: to whom? Answer: some random anoraks in the blogosphere and his own side. Cry me a river. Such grievances demonstrate in stark terms just how incomplete is the Liberal acceptance that the media is owned by the enemy. They don’t need an actual basis in fact to create a story! They are the true children of Blair in that respect.
Lastly Paul goes on to refer to a previous incident with these Cambridge activists, suggesting that they don’t always know what they are talking about, and that some healthy doubt about their conviction might lend their actions some much needed moderation.
I find that amusing; here we are, a bunch of activists with no extra resources beyond our own heads and whatever scholarship we can lay our hands on – while juggling managing a home, going to work and all the rest – challenging a government with a huge staff of supremely qualified people. Challenging them evidentially, not just ideologically, for that matter. They should already be melting down the bronze for our fucking statues. We’re not always going to get it right. But then, there’s no IQ test, or knowledge test, to qualify for the vote is there? So what does it matter?
People are angry and the sooner we shake off the shackles of this rigmarole we have built around so-called ‘democracy’ and show that anger, the better; will all the equivocators please fuck off?
And I didn’t need to mention No Platform once!
Having been absent from the blogosphere for quite some time now (nor reading any articles, except the increasingly rare Splinty) I haven’t been party to the line-drawing and hissy fitting between the inevitable “Don’t attack / hands off the people of [insert name here]” and the interventionists. This made me happy because god knows I think 99% of you people are petty wankers with no braincells between you. However, at the march yesterday, conversation about all issues du jour was inescapable. So I gave in.
Kate Belgrave, Carl Packman and I had a sensible conversation about it and I thought now might be an opportune moment to commit thoughts to paper, or its modern equivalent. I am an interventionist, by instinct. My first thoughts upon seeing one regime after another tumbling to revolution across the Islamic crescent with Gaddafi resisting, was to hope that our government would blow the hell out of the military equipment we sold him.
On reflection, such a thought was silly. I knew nothing about the rebel movement. That they are somehow an improvement upon Gaddafi is an assumption of mine, borne on the fresh winds of democratic and revolutionary movements ‘appearing’ in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere. I bracket ‘appearing’ like that because from the point of view of the Western audience, they did just appear. Our media barely gives any time to the nuanced politics of other nations, except America.
Moreover, Western involvement will almost certainly awaken reactionary, nationalistic forces within Libya – and outwith, if Gaddafi’s appeal to all Islamists to join him against the usual Western enemy actually succeeds.
That’s not to say I don’t feel a degree of responsibility for the terror that Gaddafi is able to unleash, with the bombing computers and other sundry hardware that we’ve exported to him. That I feel this is not a commentary on the guilt of the British people – I suspect I speak for a great many people when I say that we, the people, if we controlled our state, would never have sanctioned the sales in the first place. My sentiment is a commentary on the contrary interests of Capital and the national state – and the corresponding hypocrisy of our political elite.
Hypocrisy which has calamitous results, I might add. To see this clearly one must only look at the contrast between the rhetoric of the Allies when confronting Gaddafi, versus the continued silence and inaction when it comes to Bahrain and pro-Western nations which have no objection to slaughtering malcontents.
We shouldn’t be blind, either, to the self-interest in the actions of the UK, France and their allies. Not that I would be so crass to suggest that the whole conflict is motivated by a desire for further lucrative trade negotiations, or *cough* oil *cough*. Heaven forbid. Rather it is quite believable that by offering aid to the rebel leadership “from above”, they can sever the connections that leadership had with the unquestionably genuine and mass dissent which tipped several large cities into rebellion in such a short space of time.
It is not radical nor conspiracy theorising to see this as a possibility; indeed, Western armed force backed by gung-ho free marketeers is an unassailably solid fact of the 21st century. Our modern conquistadores, Jesuits and merchants. For this reason, Western bombing in Libya must be opposed – and this is what the “No Fly Zone” quickly developed into; bombing by submarine launched cruise missiles and from aircraft.
I’m still not opposed to a No Fly Zone – but it must be just that. If Libyan military aircraft take off, they can still be shot down. The NATO allies capacity to fly combat air patrols, to enforce exclusion zones as around their aircraft carriers, is surely insuperable for the Libyans, without the need for bombing any ground targets – civilian or military. Such a lightly treading presence has less capacity to rack up a body count and to summon Islamists to Gaddafi’s side. This is the opinion of an amateur of course and on it I remain flexible.
The opportunistic attitude of our Western governments is not, however, an opinion and the bombing must stop.
As an addendum, I’ve come across the view that we shouldn’t be spending money on military interventions when we could be spending it on (insert cause here). I think this is a nonsense akin to the silly posters I saw some unions carrying yesterday – that the alternative to Osborne’s cuts is to scrap Trident. Simple mathematics tells us that’s not true, though in hinting at the reprioritisation of spending, it’s at least grasping towards something positive.
If we want to challenge the economic orthodoxy sweeping governments across the world, stopping the odd military campaign isn’t going to help us much. We need to go much further. I do agree, however, that by mobilising anti-war opinion and linking the military adventurism of capitalist governments (Labour, Tory, Lapdog, doesn’t matter) to the same worldview that sustains their pro-cuts policies, we’ll be doing the country a service.