Ever published a book? Like the idea of those nice people at Channel 4 giving you a programme to plug your latest title? That's the gig Niall Ferguson has managed to land for The Ascent of Money. The first in a six part series aired earlier this evening, and is neutrally described as "the story of money and the rise of global finance. Bringing context and understanding to the current economic crisis, he reveals how the history of finance has been punctuated by gut-wrenching crashes. Each episode shows how a big bang in the ascent of money has changed the course of history." The blurb on his book is far less modest. It says "Niall Ferguson shows that finance is in fact the foundation of human progress. What’s more, he reveals financial history as the essential back-story behind all history."
It certainly sounds interesting. Shouldn't the series be something welcomed by Marxists? Isn't Ferguson confirming a basic tenet of historical materialism, that economics (the forces and relations of production), in the last instance, is the key driver of historical development? Not quite, as will soon become apparent.
The first episode, 'Dreams of Avarice', begins with the "bafflement" over the financial crisis and Ferguson asks if his series should be called The Descent of Money? The answer, unsurprisingly, is in the negative. Money has utterly dominated history and its hand can be felt behind technological breakthroughs, wars and revolutions. From ancient Mesopotamia to modern day London, in Ferguson's opinion the ascent of money is synonymous with the ascent of our species.
He takes us back to Peru under the Incan empire. Unlike most other class societies, Incan society had no concept of money. Its economy was directly based on labour and labour time - no medium stood in to represent it as was the case elsewhere. Therefore precious metals were prized for their aesthetic value, not as tokens. Therefore when it came into contact with Francisco Pizzaro and his conquistadors, they were perplexed by the Spanish thirst for gold and silver. But for Pizarro, it represented an opportunity. They secured Peru and the Incan lands for the Spanish crown, and systematically looted the empire of its gold, and used bonded labour to force many of the natives to work in the mines - particularly in what later became Bolivia.
Despite Spain's overseas possessions and seemingly inexhaustible reserves of precious metals, the empire went into sharp decline. Why? For Ferguson, all this was shipped back to Spain to help finance its wars of conquest in Europe. It didn't make Spain any more wealthy - instead it fuelled rampant inflation. What the conquistadors and the Spanish royals failed to appreciate was that money is essentially a promise, a bond of trust. Going further back into history to Babylonia, Ferguson argued money started off as clay tablets detailing a promise to pay for a good or service in exchange for a good or service. Over time these promises assumed monetary form, going through phases of precious metals, coin and bank notes. The character of trust symbolised in money changed from a promise to exchange a set amount of commodities to a trust in people and banks not to behave irresponsibly.
Ferguson then moves on to the development of credit, without which the modern world would have been impossible. The historical developments from around 1200 in Northern Italy are key here. Then the region was divided up into feuding city states with very little in the way of trust between them. Furthermore the development of trade was retarded by a continuing dependence on Roman numerals - a system that was cumbersome and overly complex when dealing with large sums. If that wasn't bad enough, there was no standardised currency. In Pisa, for example, several different systems of coin were in circulation. The Caliphate to Europe's south and east were much more advanced when it came to mathematics and trade. Then, for Ferguson, Leonardo Fibonacci of Pisa entered the stage of history. Fibonacci's father directed a trading post in what is present-day Algeria, which exposed the young Leonardo to the Hindu-Arabic numeral system, which was far simpler and concise than that burdening the Italian states. He spent years travelling around the south-eastern Mediterranean basin studying under the Arabian mathematicians of the day, and published his findings in the celebrated Liber Abaci - a book that made the case for Hindu-Arabian numerals, and was widely influential on European mercantilism - not least because the examples he used was taken from business (bookkeeping, interest calculation, etc.).
The infrastructure of numbers were in place by the mid 13th century that allowed for an expansion of lending. Traditionally, in Venice, it had been the preserve of the city state's ghettoised Jewish population. Scripture prevented Christians from charging interest on monies loaned (usury), a position enforced by the powerful medieval church. However, a theological technicality allowed Jewish money lenders to do so. Deuteronomy forbade the faithful from charging interest to one's "brother" - but Christians and Muslims were not counted as such. One could be a usurer provided it was they who were the customers. Therefore the religious animosity toward usury combined with biblical-inspired antipathy toward Jews to make the position of the money lender extremely undesirable.
How was this overcome? For Ferguson the sea change began with the emergence of banking, and in particular the rise of the Medici family in Florence. Initially a family of merchants with a less than flawless record (five Medicis were sentenced to death for various crimes and plots), they achieved wealth, power and respectability thanks to the role played by Giovani di Bicci de Medici in setting up the Medici bank. They were able to get around the rules on usury by dealing with foreign currency exchange - the bank charged a commission for undertaking the conversion. By building the bank up and diversifying its activities, it was able to whittle away at usury by recasting the terms. Loans became 'advances' that had 'commissions' to compensate for the risks the bank was taking. This was funded by allowing deposits to be made, which funded the loans. In return, savers received 'credit' as a reward for their investments (this credit, or interest, was typically well below the commission rates charged on advances).
In this way, modern banking was born. The Medicis reaped the benefits, becoming de facto rulers of Italy for a period, producing three popes and marrying into two royal families. Scale and diversification meant that went debtors defaulted on their loans, the spreading of risk meant there was less chance the bank would go under - but nevertheless the Medicis did suffer from bad debts, especially from aristocrats who thought nothing of taking out loans and not repaying them.
For Ferguson, the USA is the country par excellence that has demonstrated the benefits of this financial innovation the most - its success rests on borrowed money. As compared to European nations in the 19th century, who used to imprison defaulters, the process of US bankruptcy is comparatively painless. For example, if one files for chapter seven bankruptcy the property of the debtor is collected by an appointed trustee who auctions it off to pay the creditors. However, most US states allow the debtor to keep essential property. Chapter 13 bankruptcy allows for a rescheduling of debt repayments against projected future earnings. This ability to emerge relatively unscathed is key to the success of American capitalism: it encourages entrepreneurship, and he cites the careers of Mark Twain, Buster Keaton and Henry Ford as former bankrupts made good.
Summing up the first episode, Ferguson argues that lenders should not be seen as parasites or leeches, but as providers of an essential service. But if the banks are the answer to the problems posed by finance, why are we now suffering from a collapse in confidence in the banking system? That question, which is tied to bond markets, is the subject of next week's episode.
There's no doubting Ferguson's ability to make a topic usually the preserve of dry economics text books interesting. But, if you would forgive the pun, there are a couple of reasons why this history of money should not be taken as good coin.
There is the money question itself. As we have seen, Ferguson argues money originated as a bond of trust, as a promise by the buyer to pay the seller a given quantity of goods in exchanged for their purchase(s). Indeed this is the case, but there's more going on beneath trust that Ferguson allows for. Karl Marx argued that all commodities embody greater or lesser amounts of labour time. i.e. Some things take longer to make than others. Therefore in an economy based on barter, the value of one commodity can be expressed in a given quantity or portion of another commodity. When promises of payment emerged as either clay tablets, sea shells, gem stones, precious metals, etc. their function as standing in for payment developed into the means of payment. They became the universal equivalent against which all commodities, as expressions of abstract labour time, could be measured.
The second problem is Ferguson's treatment of capitalism. Or rather, his non-treatment of it. By focusing entirely on the history of finance he abstracts it from their contexts. For example, we are led to believe there is no real difference between the capitalism of today and the mercantile activities of 13th century Northern Italy. Taken at face value, it results in a naturalisation of capitalism, a presumption that the mode of production in which we live now is as old as humankind itself. For example, it is true the Medici innovations can be found in modern day banking, but the mode of production in which they were operating was very different.
In this period, the European economy was based on the feudal system whereby peasants were bonded to the land and forced to labour for a period of time for the land owners. This could take place either as set quantities of grain farmed from the peasant's plot and handed over as tax, or as a set number of days labouring in the lord's fields. If after fulfilling this obligation and attending to the household's needs there was a surplus, the peasantry could sell it on the local markets. Monies made would then be spent on replacing tools, buying livestock, purchasing clothes, etc. The landowners would spend the money realised from the forced surplus labour of the peasants on furnishing their retinue, their castles, objects of (aristocratic) conspicuous consumption, currying royal favour, and so on. Peasants had no economic self interest outside of their immediate needs and their antagonistic relationship to the feudal land owners. Similarly the baronial class had an interest in maintaining these relations of production, but not increasing the productivity of the peasants in their charge. As far as feudalism was concerned, markets were ancillary to its core relationships.
The merchant class of the Italian city states grew up around these markets. Their fortunes were made by purchasing surpluses of this kind and trading it with other city states and empires around the Mediterranean. This activity demanded certain outlays, which was where the money lenders and later, the Medici bank came in. But the sums advanced realised interest off the back of trade profits, or booty from conquest and plunder. Capital accumulation as we understand it now was not sustained as profits went into pursuing dynastic intrigues, funding armies and navies, and patronising the arts. There was no production for profit and accumulation of capital for its own sake. There was no labour market and waged labour, if it did exist, was rare and marginal. In short, no capitalism, despite the superficial differences between the medieval and modern finance systems.
In addition to ignoring the discontinuities between capitalist trade and trade in feudal social formations, Ferguson is guilty of what Ellen Meiksins Wood calls a 'Neo-Smithian' interpretation of history. For Adam Smith, capitalism was an expression of our natural state of being. What Wood argues against (principally against other Marxists, sometimes including Marx himself, as well as the famous German sociologist, Max Weber) is approaching history as if capitalism is a system waiting in the wings to emerge onto the historical stage - provided the conditions are right, instead of treating it as a highly specific mode of production that was born out of a particular conjuncture of feudal crisis and class struggles. Ferguson is certainly guilty of this, suggesting that the law of usury was holding finance, and by extension, capitalism, back from its free development - an argument paralleling some of those made in Weber's otherwise seminal The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.
Perhaps it's too early to make these criticisms of Ferguson's series. After all only one episode has aired and there are still five parts to go. If it is anything like the book, these will deal with previous crises (including the South Sea Bubble), the development of bonds and securities, the colonial globalisation of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the financial roots of wars and revolutions, the present crisis, and what we can learn from this history. All interesting material, but unfortunately a very one-sided and distorted view of the real history fomenting beneath the financial froth.
Regular readers are aware I do like to inflict my music taste upon them from time to time. And why not? Comrades should have the option to have a boogie while digesting my musings on Obama, Marxism, Sexuality and suchlike.
I'm not backward about being forward with my musical opinions either, and I'm afraid there's something that has really got my goat, musically speaking, in 2008, and that would be the rise of "remixed" re-releases.
As a general rule, and forgetting for a moment the music business is, well, a business, a cover or remix should bring something to the track that's being covered. For example, see Britney Spears' (You Drive Me) Crazyhere. Compare it with the cover by obscure kid metal outfit, SugarComa:
Superb.
(Fact fans - until Ken MacLeod started commenting on this blog, my biggest claim to fame was receiving an email from Sugarcoma's drummer).
SugarComa's is an (unintentionally hilarious) example of how a track should be re-imagined. It's a pity this is lost on much contemporary dance music. Take for instance the original vocal mix of Toca's Miracle by Fragma and the 2008 "remix". Where's the difference? See Alex Party's dancefloor monster from the mid 90s? What does the 2008 version bring, aside from a tacky video?
It seems no one can escape it, not even Sash!, who was responsible for some of the best mid-90s floor fillers. His latest single, Raindrops is practically unlistenable because of the way it's been draped around the skeleton of Encore Une Fois. Terrible!
Anyway, I'm glad that's off my chest now. Intent on leaving you on a high note (literally), here's Blue Ray feat. comrade Jimmy Sommerville. Try not to laugh at the video, this ocean of flesh is supposed to be a serious arty piece!
At tonight's branch meeting, Brother G presented his debut lead off. As our resident Bolivia specialist and attendee of the session on that country at last weekend's Socialism, it was only right and proper he did something on the unfolding events in Bolivia.
He began right back at the beginning, at the proclamation of the Bolivian state itself in 1825. Simón BolÃvar, Bolivia's first president and the leading figure in the Latin American wars of independence in the early 19th century from Spain, saw himself as a liberal in the American (as opposed to French) revolutionary tradition. Nevertheless, though the anti-colonial struggle was a step forward it was business as usual for the majority of the population. Recognised citizens of the Bolivian republic made up only 2.5 per cent of the total population, and this of course coincided with the European elite who (apart from 1952) have only recently had their monopoly on power seriously challenged. Bolivia is also unique among Latin America for managing to keep the majority of its indigenous population, mainly because the African slaves the Spanish shipped over we found to be unsuited to labour in the country's climate and altitude. In effect the country's geography saved the indigenous from genocide, and they now (depending on who you believe) account for between 55 and 70 per cent of Bolivia's population.
Bolivia has historically been a byword for political turbulence on a continent known for political turbulence. But also it has been the nation most heavily pregnant with revolution. After independence, the disenfranchised indigenous peoples were enserfed on the land and worked in mineral extraction in conditions that were little better than forced labour. There were no opportunities for them outside of this lot. They were used as cannon fodder in Bolivia's unsuccessful war against Paraguay in 1932-5. This was to prove something of a turning point in their history. In total 100,000 people perished in a fruitless struggle, but their anger and frustration found political expression in the Revolutionary Nationalist Movement (MNR). This left wing party was founded in 1941 and rapidly spread its influence among the trade unions - particularly the strategically vital mining sector. Over 1946-52 the MNR developed militias and participated in the round of coups, insurrections, rebellion and a general strike as part of its struggle against a succession of authoritarian governments. In 1952 the MNR finally seized power after overrunning the armed forces, and embarked on an ambitious programme of nationalisations and agrarian reform. But it could have been more. In G's opinion this was the nearest a country had come to socialist revolution since 1917, but owing to mistakes on the part of revolutionaries active in the movement the leadership were able to centralise power in its hands, and an opportunity was lost. The MNR carried on in power until they were overthrown by the military in 1964, ushering in a period of dictatorship and a rolling back of progressive reforms.
This turbulent period was not enough to break the miners and the socialist movement though. The restoration of liberal democracy in 1982 coincided with a roll out of a neoliberal programme that saw Western multinationals come in and take half ownership of public utilities and state infrastructure. There were a number of important disputes during this period, but things came to a head between 2000-5 over the privatisation of water (where residents were forbidden from even collecting rain water!) and the Gas War. This was the background for the rise of the Movement for Socialism and Evo Morales (pictured), who won the presidency in 2005 with 54 per cent of the popular vote. The renationalisation of the hydro carbons sector of the economy plus an 85 per cent rate of corporation tax has allowed the Morales administration to pursue poverty reduction strategies (already down 15 per cent) and make major inroads into illiteracy.
But there are major problems in Bolivia. The right have moved heaven and earth to oppose the Morales agenda, which has assumed constitutional expression in a movement for autonomy in Bolivia's richest provinces. This has occasionally erupted into naked violence, but civil war has only been averted by (so far) by grass roots mobilisations. Nevertheless the right suffered a set back when its inspired recall referendum saw popular support for Morales increase from 54 to 68 per cent. Some of his opponents in the provincial governors offices were voted out, though they do not recognise the legality of the referendum. And also the Senate does not have a majority for the MAS and its allies. In short, the situation is on a knife's edge. Bolivia could go either way - forward to the revolution, or into the hell of counterrevolution. But the popular support for the MAS and Morales programme is there - will it encourage him to act more boldly?
In the ensuing discussion, A noted that there have been many such knife's edge situations in Latin America in the past. For example, in Nicaragua the Sandinistas held power for 11 years, nationalised 50 per cent of the economy and fought US-backed counterrevolution, but in 1990 reaction came to power constitutionally. In Chile, Allende's Popular Unity government also sought to incrementally advance socialism, which ended in violence. To avoid a similar fate, be it a peaceful electoral defeat or a bloody coup, Morales has to take decisive action. At present the masses are certainly behind the government, including widespread support in the regions seeking autonomy (on average, approval for Morales here was 40 per cent). Morales is still committed to land redistribution - the MAS-sponsored constitution puts limits on the amount of land that can be held, which will go to referendum in January and is likely to pass (five million hectares are currently owned by two million peasants, whereas 25 million is owned by just 100 families - it is under the latter where the majority of gas reserves are to be found).
Some comrades also flagged up what an Obama victory can mean for Bolivia. The election was enthusiastically welcomed by masses of peasants and workers who, like many others, take his change rhetoric at face value. However, his comments on energy independence from the Middle East might indicate an eyeing up of Latin America and moves to secure energy sources once sufficient disengagement from the Arab world has taken place. There was also some discussion about the agrarian question - how to reconcile the desire to redistribute the land with the need to socialise agricultural production and democratically plan it? The former would certainly appeal to peasant consciousness from the most advanced to most backward than slogans around socialisation, but they need not be mutually exclusive - to be successful it would have to proceed on a voluntary basis, and the state could play a role in incentivising cooperatives.
In summing up, it was felt that the situation in Bolivia is more favourable from the standpoint of socialist politics than even Venezuela. There is a strong tradition of trade unionism, independent working class organisation, and is one of the few places where Trotskyism had a mass influence and struck deep roots among our class. A leadership and programme that links together the various Bolivian social movements to self-defence militias, fraternisation with the armed forces and workers' councils is what the situation demands. Already the Bolivian trade union federation, the COB support many of these and related demands, so there is every chance a revolutionary party organic to the movement of peasants and workers could emerge.
As Bolivia is probably the country closest to socialist revolution, and demands the attention of our movement, wherever we are.
What can we expect from an Obama administration? What does his victory mean for US politics? How is it going to affect the rest of the world? These are some of the questions a number of Keele American politics experts attempted to answer at tonight's mini symposium on Obama's historic election victory.
Mike Tappin came first to soften the audience up with some factoids and stats. Because of the 22nd Amendment, the Oval Office was open; the last two years of Bush's presidency had been affected by divided government, and Dick Cheney was the first vice president not to seek the party nomination for president since 1928. The Republicans tried to make hay with Obama's lack of "experience" (while conveniently overlooking the incompetence of their own vice presidential nominee), but in Tappin's opinion the meat grinder of the primaries and the election battle are enough to test the qualities of any candidate. We also saw the GOP try to benefit from the animus Hillary Clinton supporters felt toward Obama via Sarah Palin's selection, but the division, such as it existed, wasn't decisive. Hillary put on a good show of being reconciled, appearing some 72 times during Obama's campaign. Bitter old Bill managed it once, and that was on the final day.
Undoubtedly the Democrats benefited from being in chime with the popular political agenda. At a time when economy was the burning issue for the majority of Americans, Obama looked calm and spoke a language that chimed with most, while the McCain camp were wallowing the gutter with red baiting, guilt-by-association attacks, and clueless responses to events.
At 62.5 per cent, this was the highest turn out for a presidential election since 1908. As nearly everyone has seen, 95 per cent of black voters supported Obama (up seven per cent from Kerry's result, and African-Americans now count for 13 per cent of the population - up from 10 in 1980), as did two thirds of Hispanic Americans. Men overall (just) preferred McCain to Obama (49 to 48), though there was decisive support for the Democrats among women (56 to 43). Much has been made of Obama's failure to win over white men, but here the story isn't as bad as one might suppose. It is true the 30-44, 45-65, 66+ age groups polled 41, 42 and 40 per cent for Obama respectively, but the 18-29s backed him to the tune of 54 per cent. A shape of things to come? Maybe. The first time voter pool scored 69 to 30 per cent for Obama. In addition, of the 63 per cent who reported the economy was their primary issue, 80 per cent went for Obama, a point that underlies the strategic hopelessness of McCain's team. Still, the Republicans can find succour in their (largely) undiminished base. 54 per cent of Protestants recorded a preference for McCain, as did 74 per cent of Evangelicals (fundamentalists to you and me).
In conclusion, what can be said about this election? Tappin hedged his bets and said it was too early to say. There may be signs of demographic shifts in the Democrats favour, particularly the declining proportion of whites ( 1980 - 88 per cent, 2008 - 74 per cent) combined with Obama's support among the young, but nothing suggestive of a definite conclusion. The smart money however is on the incoming administration serving the full two terms, unless it is seriously thrown off the tracks by events.
Chris Bailey wanted to look into the demographics a bit further. Change was the watchword of Obama's campaign, so much so that McCain was forced to ape the rhetoric. But does it mean anything? Does it signify a change in American race relations? Has there been a shift in the patterns of partisanship? And doe it mean an eclipsing of conservatism?
Firstly on race, is there evidence of profound demographic changes? In his concessionary speech, McCain heralded the result as "historic" and held "special significance" for African-Americans. Indeed, some 33 per cent of Americans hail it as the single most important advance for civil rights since the abolition of slavery. For another 34 per cent it is in the top three events. But with all the talk of this being a watershed moment, we have to ask if there's any evidence of advances for African-Americans lower down the government. In 2007-8, there were 650 elected officials at state level, only two governors, and one senator ... who's just about to enter the White House. So an Obama presidency, though welcome from the standpoint of civil rights, can mask the work that still needs to be done. That said, there is evidence racism is becoming less of a factor in mainstream politics. Of the state-level representatives, the number of African-Americans representing all white or majority white constituencies has increased from 91 in 2001 to 189 in 2007. In addition, several African-American congressmen were elected in a similar fashion.
Accepting that racial dynamics are changing, are we seeing the beginning of a new demographic majority that will favour the Democrats? Well, Obama is the first northern urban president to have been elected since John F. Kennedy, but the result is by no means a landslide, especially when compared with Ronald Reagan's 1984 triumph (58.8 to 40.6 per cent, compared to Obama's 52.7 to 46.0 per cent). Nevertheless, we have seen that (so far) the Democrats are appealing more to the young than their opponents and have started to make serious inroads into the sorts of suburban areas that have piled up votes for the Republicans in the past.
So much for the Democrats. What does it mean for the GOP and conservatism? We must remember US conservatism is not a monolithic bloc but rather a coalition of different constituencies and interests, and this is a coalition less than impressed with the performance of George W. Bush - in fact he has been more or less disowned by its ideologues. He has presided over a tenfold increase in the national debt ($1 trillion to $10 trillion in eight years!), an introduction of 7,000(!) new regulations, and increase in federal government employment and an expansion of Medicare - and this was before the measures demanded by the economic crisis! Bush has never eschewed the Reaganite small government rhetoric but his record sits uneasily with the ideology that dribbles from his mouth. This shows Reaganism as a governing principle has long been on its way out, a trend underlined by a slight majority of Americans reporting they were in favour of the government "doing more". Nevertheless, the so-called "values people" (the religious right, fundamentalist activists, etc.) won't be going away, and results from referendums they force on states around issues of gay marriage and abortion don't indicate movement from conservative values.
Whatever happens to the right, at least you could say about Bush and his cronies was that they stood for something, even if it was reaction and imperialism. Obama however appears to have no ideology. He may have a fairly liberal voting record in the Senate, but there's no guiding thread or philosophy, as yet. In fact Obama is keen to portray himself as a "post-partisan" figure, which in practice will be no different from Bill Clinton's administration. Pragmatism will be the order of the day. So, Change? Perhaps ... but don't hold your breath, concluded Bailey.
John Parker decided to take on one myth that has emerged from the campaign - that the media was biased in Obama's favour. Is there any truth in this? Amazingly, there is a popular tacit belief that professional journalism should be neutral when it comes to politics, which is perhaps why Fox News, without any shame, claims to be 'fair and balanced'. Despite this 39 per cent of Americans agree their media has a liberal bias, while 20 per cent think it leans toward conservatism. Looking specifically at Fox, 31 per cent thought it had a conservative bias and 15 per cent thought it was liberal! This idea of liberal bias is a common meme on the right, but it's worth noting the Republicans only wheel it out if they're under fire, or their candidate is losing. McCain, Palin and their hangers on might be moaning about it, but Dubya never complained!
Having performed content analysis of the press between July and mid-October, Obama received 38 per cent more coverage between July and August. 31 per cent were negative, compared to 33 per cent bad press for McCain. No significant difference there then. But the gap widened between September and October 16th. Obama's press was 36 per cent favourable, 29 per cent negative. But for McCain only 14 per cent was favourable, 57 per cent negative. So the media was biased, right? Why did McCain attract hostile comment? Partly it was due to the Republican's campaigning strategy - without a doubt McCain's suspension of his campaign to head back to Washington to deal with the economic crisis just made him look ineffective, especially as it was his Republican colleagues that voted down the $700 billion rescue package. But that can only go so far.
For Parker, the "bias", generally speaking, is in fact a structural feature of media coverage and not its preference for a given candidate. Its coverage tends to treat the presidential election as a horse race - they look at who's in the leads in the polls and they ask why that is the case. The same is true of their opponent, who is lagging behind. 53 per cent of media comment falls into this category. As McCain was trailing, it therefore follows that the majority of news stories about this would be negative. It didn't really matter what else the candidates did - policy issues encompassed 20 per cent of coverage, advertising and spending 10 per cent, and personal stories just five per cent.
Looking at the break down for each candidate, 57 per cent on polls, 77 per cent on strategy, 36 per cent on economy and 44 per cent on McCain's suspension of coverage on each of these issues were positive for Obama. For McCain, the numbers respectively were 14, 10, 15 and 11 per cent. Factoring in the horse race effect and the Republican's strategic ineptitude (wardrobe gate anyone?), this is not so much an instance of bias, more a case of following the issues. If you're winning, the media are favourable toward you. If not, they will attack. For Parker, this has shown to be the case consistently across all modern presidential campaigns. It respects no party labels.
The final contribution of the evening came from Jon Herbert. His task was to sketch out what we could reasonably expect from an Obama presidency, and turned to an influential model of predicting policy change. According to Paul C. Light in his 1999 book, The President's Agenda, he argues the implementation of a policy agenda depends on the amount of 'presidential capital' a successful candidate has managed to accumulate. This is calculated from the level of party support, public approval (and margin of victory), and reputation. Taken in turn, Obama's support among the Democrats is good and far greater than that enjoyed by McCain. His margin of victory wasn't particularly spectacular, but he has a good reputation in popular consciousness and among the media. So the constraints on an Obama presidency are not particularly great. But then again, has he really got a mandate for his (empty) 'change' agenda? Perhaps, but only in certain areas. According to polls, the numbers who said the economy was their number one concern has grown from 15-18 per cent in mid-2007 to some 60 per cent. There's more wiggle room for bold initiatives here than say health care or energy independence.
That said, there are a number of constraints Obama will have to manage. There is what Herbert calls the 'unleash effect' of Democratic congress members seeing the presidency as an opportunity to get their pet policies through, such as updating the benefits system, expanding health care, etc. There may come a time when this section of the party will be able to extract concessions from Obama in return for support for his policies. But also there's a new factor Obama's strategic management will have to take into account: the so-called "netroots". This is the (mainly young, mainly first-time voting) constituency his campaign was able to mobilise. They are at once the most enthusiastic and most demanding, and are least aware of the constraints bearing down on the presidency. The netroots are also the incoming administration's biggest potential headache. Disillusionment and criticism, if it sets in, will be rapidly disseminated among the media networks (forums, blogs, social networking) that have been built up. Democrat strategists are also aware their support will be most crucial for securing the second term, and to this end are going to keep the paths of communication the campaign built up open. If that wasn't enough, Obama must keep the Congress and Senate Democrat leaderships onside and head off opposition that may come from the more conservative sections of the party.
What about Obama's philosophy? As we have seen there's very little that can pin him down. The Senate voting record is liberal-leaning but has shown his pragmatic colours. For example, he has a paper position of public financing of election campaigns, but abandoned it as soon as the private monies started flowing into his. He has made noises about reducing the dependence on fossil fuels, and then forgot it when the Republicans started running with off-shore drilling. But he has been consistent on class, albeit his constant evoking of America's middle class. His is a narrative that has median income earners as the most short-changed by Bush's administration in all sorts of ways. He strikes a populist pose by championing "Main Street" over Wall Street. But that's as far as it goes.
Obama has already indicated his desire to be a post-partisan figure, but will there be opportunities? Notwithstanding the split in the Democrats between conservatives and liberals, there seems to be little mileage in overcoming this by reaching out to moderate Republicans as this has become something of an oxymoron of late. The march of the right in American society has seen centre-right conservatives increasingly squeezed out by the ideologues (imagine your David Camerons and George Osbornes replaced by the John Redwoods and Nadine Dorries). Bipartisan action might be possible in the face of crisis, as a winning over of sufficient Republicans to pass the $700 billion bail out second time round showed, or on matters of mutual interest such as energy independence. The same is true of the military budget (Obama plans to maintain Bush's level of spending). But if Obama is going to tackle health care, then he faces a protracted struggle - especially as the Republicans appear to be well prepared to launch a media offensive against any such moves.
Foreign policy-wise, it's worth noting that Bush's clumsy unilateralism was merely an extension of trends in Clinton's approach to international relations. Like many at home, there's plenty of people outside of the United States who've projected their own hopes on to Obama. But there will be temptations for him to go it alone, as seems likely with his stated intention of having to deal with the tribal groupings in Pakistan's frontier province who are sheltering and supporting the remnants of Al Qaida and the Taliban. It seems the command staff put in place by Bush, particularly General David Petraeus and Admiral Michael Mullen agree with Obama on this. But where they vehemently disagree is on a timetable of withdrawal from Iraq. Furthermore they simply cannot be moved aside by Obama place men - he is stuck with them. the ingredients are there for a high profile conflict - it remains to be seen whether the incoming administration accede to their position on Iraq or somehow out manoeuvres them.
These are some of the difficulties and opportunities facing the 44th president. For those of us concerned with advancing socialist politics in the USA, there could be considerable opportunities around the "netroots" movement that put Obama into office. I have (briefly) discussed the possibility that millions of people activated by Obama's candidacy could start channelling their energies into other movements. Also, if the Democrats are taking the problem of disillusionment among this constituency seriously, so should we. Obama may have promised little but the huge amount of expectation in him is bound to enter into crisis at some point. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, could start casting around for an alternative, and we have to be ready if this comes to fruition.
Saturday night at Socialism is probably the biggest night of the year for the Socialist Party. Speakers are drawn from the four corners of the CWI to address the hundreds of comrades present. It was difficult for me to make a decent estimate of numbers, but somewhere between 500 and 600 is probably right. And there were clearly more attendees this year than last - a sign that Stoke branch is not the only one enjoying a growth spurt.
I was going to write a lengthy report on who said what, but there seems little point now the official version has appeared. And even better each of the speeches were filmed, which you can view on the same page too.
As ever, the rally ended in the traditional way with a rousing rendition of the proper version of The Internationale. Depressingly, nearly all the English language versions on Youtube are reproductions of the sacrilegious Billy Bragg version. So could we please, please film it next year and post it up?
Edited to add: More videos here, this time from the CNWP rally that closed the weekend. (Hat tip to The Revolution Decides).
Around 3.2 million people crammed into the upper hall of ULU on Sunday morning to hear SWP national secretary, Martin Smith (pictured) debate Socialist Party deputy general secretary, Hannah Sell, on building a revolutionary party in the 21st century. That the SWP agreed to send a representative along to Socialism was certainly a welcome development, having been some years since the comrades had sent someone along. It's just a pity Martin came alone - without any of his comrades acting as a counter weight there was always the danger it could have been a one-sided bitchfest. But that didn't happen thanks to skillful chairing and taking speakers from outside the SP's ranks.
In the real world the neoliberal consensus has collapsed, a mass political mobilisation has just defeated the Republicans in the US, and global capital is undergoing its worse crisis in 80 years, so why bother with this debate? Can't the SP and SWP as the largest currents on the far left in Britain just unite? This was the starting point of Hannah's contribution. Her argument was that should a new workers' party emerge over the next few years and many thousands of activists are attracted to socialist politics, the differences between the two will assume greater significance. It is therefore not sectarian to discuss differences, but rather allows for greater clarity about our trajectories and mistakes so we can operate and cooperate more smoothly in the future.
As far as Hannah was concerned, the criticisms the SP has of the SWP boils down to a question of method and perspectives. The SWP has a 'year zero' approach to politics. Whereas the SP constantly discusses its own practice in an attempt to learn from it, the SWP has a tendency to abruptly abandon its previous practice and move on to something new - so it is theoretically possible to meet a new SWP every week.
This is tied in with the SWP's mistaken assessment of the period we've just come out of. The collapse of Stalinism in Eastern Europe and the USSR gave capital a tremendous ideological victory. Grotesque bureaucratic caricatures of socialism they may have been, nevertheless they showed the ruling class that an alternative to capitalism was possible, that their system was not immortal and could be overturned when it is weak. Their passing was marked by an orgy of bourgeois triumphalism and neoliberalism - already the ideological hegemon in most English-speaking countries - rapidly spread beyond the borders of its Anglo-American heartland. Privatisation, outsourcing, increased global capital flows, and intensified exploitation became the order of the day. Labour and social democratic parties the world over elected to swim with the free market stream, and trade unions adapted to the new realities by emphasising boss/worker "partnerships". This was not a precipitous time for socialist ideas, never mind any kind of independent working class politics.
The SWP however felt it was a favourable period. The collapse of Stalinism was a step sideways from state capitalism to market-based capitalism, therefore nothing had fundamentally changed. Tony Cliff had characterised the 1990s as the '1930s in slow motion', implying it was to be a decade of titanic and strategic class battles. It also claimed the 90s was marked by a popular attitudinal adjustment to the left (though Hannah didn't mention this, the SWP's argument that New Labour's election victory in 1997 was a 'class vote', and the fact its membership mushroomed (particularly in the early 90s) could be taken as "support" for this claim). By the end of the decade, the SWP's optimistic perspective saw it hail the emergence of an anti-capitalist/global justice movement as 'the greatest opportunity for the left since the 1960s'. While it was certainly a welcome development from the SP's point of view, its significance should not be overstated. For instance, compared with the mobilisations of the 1980s it was on a much lower level. Nevertheless the SP took part in this movement, as did the SWP, but because of the different methods of building a party, the SWP ended up tailing the movement. Via Globalise Resistance, the SWP uncritically adopted the slogan 'another world is possible' and adopted the strategy of being the movement's most militant and dynamic builders - an approach that would attract the best activists. The SP however sought to implant socialist ideas as deeply as possible, which doesn't at all preclude working to be the most visible and authoritative current.
Hannah went on to note the SWP took a similar line at the founding conference of Solidarity. The organisation, which split with the SSP in the wake of the Tommy Sheridan affair, is currently sub-titled 'Scotland's Socialist Movement'. The SWP voted against the inclusion of socialism and the setting up of Solidarity as a socialist organisation. She also criticised the top-down culture of the SWP, its behaviour over the Socialist Alliance and Respect, and what she thought was its heavy-handed attitude to the RMT when it tentatively explored the possibility of standing in this year's London Assembly elections. Despite this, Hannah concluded that should a new workers' party emerge, the SP and SWP will both be involved. The question remains if the SWP could act as a positive force or as a block on the process.
Martin Smith then began his reply. He thanked the SP for the invite and prefaced his contribution by saying he doesn't normally attend events like this because he knows the SWP would come under attack. That said, he was here to see what we were saying and hoped to sketch out where our organisations are going, not trade blows.
Martin's starting point were the US elections. He and the SWP have no illusions in Barack Obama, but the outcome cannot be dismissed as another round of Tweedle Dum Tweedle Dee politics. What Obama's victory shows is a (positive) reaction against the reckless policies responsible for the economic crisis, a desire to see withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, and a projection by millions of their hopes for a better world onto Obama's incoming presidency. But despite this there is no reason why the left will automatically benefit from the crisis - hope can very quickly tip over into despair. For example, there are projections that unemployment could hit two million by Christmas. By this time next year it could have grown to as much as 3.5 million. Over the same period, thanks to falling stocks and the financial crisis the value of pensions could fall by as much as 30 per cent.
Highlighting the difference between the SWP and SP on the Labour party (as a bourgeois workers' party vs an outright party of business), the economic crisis is likely to compound the problem of Labour as a strategic obstacle facing socialists. We have seen the 'Brown bounce' in the polls off the back of his conference performance and apparent competence in handling the crisis, so Martin was not surprised Labour held on in the Glenrothes by-election. Labour does continue to haemorrhage members (which could now be as low as 120,000 members) but people will still be prepared to support it at the polls, particularly large numbers of older workers. Building a left alternative means coming to terms with this.
He then turned to a common criticism made of the SWP - that it is overoptimistic. He admitted this was true, but so were the Bolsheviks. He argued optimism was necessary because it allows socialists to seize the initiative once the weight of history and potential on/in any given situation is understood. It is this kind of optimism that has allowed the SWP and SP to hold our organisations together in, what he conceded, were difficult times. But we do need to learn from each other - we all make mistakes. Those that don't do anything (nodding toward the ultra-left) have the luxury of being correct about everything. For instance, the SWP knew it got the poll tax struggle wrong (initially calling for non-collection by council workers rather than mass non-payment), but it soon realised its errors and got involved in the campaign, with some of its comrades getting imprisoned for not paying.
Returning to the present political period, Martin suggested there were two things going on. A currently low but nevertheless rising curve of working class militancy (which he timed from the election of the so-called awkward squad is about to collide with a section of trade union leaders who are utterly craven vis the government. The task of socialists is to help this process along, which is why the SWP disagree with the decision of the PCS executive to postpone strike action, which would have taken place this Monday. SP members on the executive voted for this decision as well. In fact, Martin was glad his comrades voted against postponement as he believed that when workers vote yes on a strike ballot you are duty bound to go for it. However, he accepted this was a tactical question and not something the SP and SWP should fall out over.
Responding to the earlier points about the anti-capitalist/global justice movement, Martin said 'another world is possible' was not the SWP's slogan, but belonged to Globalise Resistance(!) The SWP were planning to continue in 'united front work' and argued for more unity in action, not less. Singling out the SWP's involvement in Defend Council Housing, Stop the War, and UAF (among others), it is unfair to say the SWP don't "stick the course".
He also rebutted Hannah's comments on the RMT/Respect talks regards the London Assembly elections. Respect did not "demand" the RMT climb on board its electoral ship. Instead it said it was ludicrous for both to stand against each other and instead possibilities for a united slate should be explored. He then touched on Respect and said it wasn't the case George Galloway was blameless and the SWP were the font of all evil. Its biggest problem was only one MP and one trade union leader broke toward it. If more had come on board, including the SP, we wouldn't have had the acrimonious split. But to keep the coalition together until the split, the SWP had to vote down positions it would otherwise have agreed with, such as a mandatory workers' wage for MPs. And it might be prepared to do so again because the party is still committed to a broad left alternative and it will happen at some stage. The struggles ahead will help realign and remake the left, and we will have to work together more often.
And now it came to contributions from the floor. One comrade got up and defended the actions of the SP on the PCS exec. She was at pains to emphasise that action had only been suspended. The government had agreed to talk about pay with the union for the first time in 20 years, and it would be a mistake to at least not listen to what it had to say - especially as the union had conceded nothing to get these talks. In Lois Austen's contribution, she argued the SWP had no method for looking at events. Citing an email put out by SWP staffers working for Stop the War, it read the coalition was "delighted" that Obama had won the presidency. This she felt was typical SWP fare, which is basically an emotional response. Andrew Price argued the SWP does not systematically learn from its mistakes and is always in danger of replicating them. Judy Beishon argued that any unity between the SP and SWP needs to be genuine and open, but this has not been the track record of the comrades in numerous campaigns over the years - and cited the SWP's actions in the Socialist Alliance as the example par excellence.
An independent comrade who sits on the steering committee of the CNWP congratulated the SP for its behaviour in the campaign and suggested if we contrast it and the SWP's relationship with external groupings, the SP's record is more favourable. Another indie asked if the SP and SWP could keep the dialogue going after this meeting, and Toby Abse singled out the NSSN as a possible way forward while warning that any left formation without either organisation on board was bound to fail.
James Palmer of the Spartacist League was left to supply the comedic element. The comrade said programme came before unity and tactics, before boldly stating there were two trends in the workers' movement: Marxism and social democracy. In his opinion, the SP and SWP belong to the latter (presumably, and given its hostility toward other left groups, the nine or ten Sparts in Britain is what's left of the Marxist trend). Amid much guffawing, he explained the Sparts were the best Trotskyists because they defended the USSR to the end. He also criticised the SP for daring to support the POA, and condemned our attitude to the police. Did we not know that a worker who dons a policeman's uniform becomes a bourgeois cop? It seems tactical nuance is beyond the simplistic black and white world of our Spart friends.
Time was now short, so it was left to Martin and Hannah to briefly reply to contributions. Martin returned once again to the anti-capitalist movement and said it was a wake up call for the entire left, which may have been caught up in the inertia of the period. Seattle, for example, was basically an alliance between trade unionists and a new generation of young people new to activism. It was pregnant with possibilities, albeit one that miscarried under the impact of September 11th. But the movement did not go away, instead it involved itself in other activities. Some were key sectors mobilised by the anti-war movement, others fed into the movement around Social Forums. The correctness of intervening here, Martin argued, is best shown in the US where the movement was, for the main part, ignored by the Trotskyists but embraced by the Maoists, and it is they who are reaping the long term benefits of recruits and influence today. He also returned to the PCS and the postponed strike. It was not a disgrace that the strike had been delayed, but it was disappointing. He thought that having up to 500,000 workers coming out could have had an electrifying political effect. He also said of the SP that his comrades in the PCS caucus do moan and criticise it for this and that, but he tells them not to get caught up on what the SP does but just get down to business. He ended by saying the SWP and SP need to find ways of talking because regroupment, when it happens, will be on a wider scale this time round, and the more cohesive socialists are, the better.
In her reply to the debate, Hannah hoped that reps from the SP would get a look-in at the SWP's Marxism next year, because conversations between Marxists do matter because we can draw lessons from them. She also said revolutionaries need to be optimistic and scientific. There are no benefits in chasing after something simply because it looks good. And finally she agreed with Martin that a mass party will happen and she looked forward to seeing masses of working class people fresh to politics move into activity.
I thought this was a useful discussion, even if Martin did not answer all the points put to him. It showed the SP is keen to have dialogue with the SWP, and hopefully Martin's acceptance of the speaking invite means they are too. It also served to put on show many of the main criticisms the left outside of the SWP has of its practice. It may well be the case SWP comrades disagree and might, in some cases, find them unfair. But even if that is true, the point is the SWP is perceived in this way. The best way of refuting these criticisms is by examining its practice systematically and learn from it, and hopefully it will do so. One final point, the SP and SWP are probably the most dynamic organisations in British politics. They have the activists and energy to make a real difference to any new left/new workers' formation that comes along. Neither current will ever fully see eye to eye on strategy and tactics, but if more joint work is undertaken, if basic trust and dialogue can be built up, the less chance there is of disputes getting out of hand and alienating workers fresh to revolutionary politics.
This is the first of several posts I'm planning to churn out to give readers a flavour of the Socialist Party's annual Socialism school. Who knows? Perhaps it might even move some people to make the time and come down for the weekend next year? Over this week then you can expect me to comment on the Saturday and Sunday rallies and the three sessions I attended (on Pakistan, the debate between Hannah Sell and Martin Smith of the SWP, and the Fourth International). As yet none are available, but I expect footage of the rally and some of the sessions will be posted here. Also my comrade and fellow SP blogger, Leftwing Criminologist will also be discussing Socialism.
This post will be an overview of the decidedly non-political aspects of the weekend.
Stoke branch managed to sell a record number of tickets this year and equal it by transporting most of them down to sunny Bloomsbury, an achievement that dovetails the almost silly (but very welcome!) rate of recruitment us Stokies are experiencing at present. But anyway. The Potteries' Marxists managed to turn up some time between 11.30 and 12.00 on Saturday, having held heated discussions onWorkers' Hammer, the old Stafford branch of Militant, the branch programme, and ... cat sick. Despite all this there was one thought occupying my mind - accommodation. Owing to a slight hiccup, eight of our contingent, including yours truly, arrived at ULU without a bed sorted. Visions of a cold night on a bench in Hyde Park beckoned ... But thanks to the tireless efforts of Kevin Parslow four were found beds/sofas/floors/airing cupboards in comrades' houses and the rest were packed off to the hostel. But more about that shortly.
This year brother N couldn't make it, so our fabled t-shirt stall didn't materialise. So it was down to other comrades to fill the entrepreneurial void. The Brummie Bolsheviks were seen about the place hawking a cushion full of rather smart Socialist Students pins. Centre had sorted a pile of their own socialist t-shirts and were flogging CWI-branded pint glasses. The Manchester and Liverpool comrades had put together a DVD of Terry Fields speeches, and the party used the occasion to launch Peter Taaffe's latest book, Socialism and Left Unity. Who says socialism and the entrepreneurial spirit is incompatible?
One thing that disappointed me was the relative absence of the ultra-left. Socialism regulars, the IBT were there flogging 1917 and plugging their Sunday fringe meeting on fascism and anti-fascism. I certainly fancied this meeting as an opportunity to discover how the IBT fights the fascists in the here and now, and to see if it would degenerate into a bun fight with the Sparts. I hope next year they will schedule their meeting so it doesn't clash with anything. As it was, because neither sent representatives to score points at the 'Fourth International and After' session, I can only conclude they were too preoccupied knocking lumps out of each other. Sadly Socialist Appeal, Workers' Action, the AWL and cpgbs were either absent or failed to make their presence felt. Presumably richer pickings were to be had at the Left Alternative/SWP conference.
I was greeted by a mad scramble after the end of the Rally for Socialism to try and introduce the new comrades to those they would be staying with. But somehow I muddled through. Then it was to Euston station with sister A and Brothers F and G1 for my annual Murder King and a series of bad taste observations from the latter comrade. Do all socialists have a (guilty) love of black humour? Before long it was to the traditional Socialism watering hole, The Euston Flyer for a little of a natter and gossip. It was all a bit of a blur for me - and I hadn't even touched a drop! Before I knew it, some comrades had decided to head to the hostel, the grimly-entitled Clink. Unfortunately, we turned left outside The Flyer instead of right and ended up pissing about outside for 40-odd minutes when we didn't need to. That wouldn't have been too bad if the weather had been kind. But no, the heavens opened. We were pretty soggy by the time we found The Clink.
The next morning I got my coco pops and settled down to hear comrades' dorm horror stories. I passed the night relatively lightly. The bloke on the bunk above me let out the occasional shriek and sigh, but nothing too untoward. G1 reported a chap near him let out a constant stream of guttural groans and squeals of what worryingly sounded like pleasure. But poor Brother F had it worse, the comrade could be psychologically scarred. At 3am on the bed next to him a couple of bonkin' Bolsheviks got down to "business". Nice!
I left The Clink with comrade R relatively early so I'd be able to get into the SP/SWP debate (the room it was due to be held in had only 55 seats - woefully inadequate for what was bound to attract a much larger number). But in a triumph of democratic socialist planning it received the old switcher-roo and moved to a 120 seater. And quite interesting and (mostly!) comradely it was too - but you're going to have to wait a bit for a report.
The Sunday just flew by and all too quickly it was time to board the mini-bus back to Stoke. I'm afraid politics took a dive out the window on the way back, and the conversations, among other things, descended into torture porn flicks, various drinking games/experiences and the infamous 2 Girls, 1 Cup. Yep, this really is what the flower of humanity likes to talk about. But all in all, everyone had a great time and look forward to doing the same in 2009!
Yes, more slow blogging has been the order of the day (or rather, the week). I suppose I'm saving myself up for the blog-a-thon that will be taking place after this weekend. But honestly, what a week to get blogger's block! The USA votes for its first black president and millions around the world celebrate the beginning of the end of Bush's tenure. One thing that strikes me about Barack Obama's campaign has been his and his team's ability to mobilise massive numbers to get the vote out. One would hope that with the election over, not all of this energy has been safely dissipated by the electoral process. Now millions have actively participated in a successful political movement, primarily because they identify itself with the progressive cloth Obama has draped himself in, I'm audacious enough to hope the labour movement will absorb some of this energy and drive.
The Republicans have certainly made a dogs dinner out of their campaign. One mistake (welcome from the socialist point of view) was the stupidity of McCain to label Obama's obviously popular plan to deliver a tax cut for 95 per cent of Americans as 'socialist'. By associating this with socialism, you can be sure a few million are doing their bit to investigate socialist ideas in more depth, and even if they don't go much beyond the Wikipedia page, this is a very welcome development.
Speaking of welcome developments - for the government - Gordon Brown must be a happy man today. The media's 'Labour's recovery' narrative now seems halfway plausible. Labour actually increased its vote on the 2005 tally (19,395 to 19,946), whereas the big losers were the Tories and the Lib Dems. The Tories saw their support halve and the yellow party's vote collapsed. The swing to the SNP seemed to come from these quarters rather than Labour. And once again, the far left vote performed very badly - the combined vote being significantly lower than the SSP's 2005 performance (299, down from 705). I may not have much time for political science, but it is an empirical truism that the electorate tends to punish disunity. Amateur psephologists can compare 2008 and 2005 here and here.
Right, I'm off. See you on the other side of Socialism!
It's that time of year Socialist Party comrades across the country fold up their stalls, put away their papers and descend upon London en masse. Yes, nearly a year has passed since our last annual weekend school and the behemoth that is Socialism 2008 is upon us! I particularly look forward to it because not only do I get to see all my old muckers, it gives me a few days worth of blogging material!
You can read about previous adventures at Socialism here, here, here, and here. Hopefully more of it will be filmed and put online this year too.
Looking at the agenda, there's plenty of stuff to keep us occupied. On the Saturday afternoon yours truly will probably go to 'Is China the world's new superpower?' with Peter Taaffe and Fang Guoli, or maybe Simon Kaplan's look at 'Pakistan and the permanent revolution today'. On Sunday morning there's one session all the ultra lefts will be attending: 'Building a revolutionary party in the 21st century: A debate Between Hannah Sell of the SP and a representative of the SWP'. I will be going along too. Hopefully it will be a constructive session where the differences between the two are thrashed out in a comradely manner, and I hope the SWP rep brings along some supporting speakers from the floor too (what are the chances the Sparts use the occasion to denounce the IBT?) My advice to comrades is to get to that one early. If I can't get into that session I'll be going along to hear Pete Mason speak on 'Marxism and the Big Bang'. I wonder if any Grantites will turn up for that one? And finally, my Sunday afternoon talk of choice is Niall Mulholland on the 'Fourth International and after', before heading to the closing session with speeches from Mark Serwotka of the PCS, our Hannah and Dave, and representatives from Respect and the LRC.
If you fancy spending the weekend rubbing shoulders with The Marxists, you can book here. And if you do come, I might even let you buy me a pint ;)
Can you imagine getting cut off from the outside world for up to 90 days with only odious house mates, the cameras and Big Brother's occasional edicts for company? Can you then imagine the deep unease if the alarms, the deliveries and the cameras stopped? Is it a power cut? Have terrorists bombed Elstree Studios? Is there a plague? Have we gone to war? Has Britain been engulfed by a zombie holocaust? Well, in the nightmare scenario to have emerged from the brain of Charlie Brooker, the latter is exactly what's happened. Dead Set imagines a Britain overwhelmed by hordes of the flesh eating undead. And these aren't your slightly comical stiff-with-rigor shuffling zombies either. As Brooker notes in his interview, since 2002 (i.e. since the release of 28 Days Later), zombies have learned to run.
When you're dealing with zombies, you can't help but be derivative. It is now canonical that you kill the living dead by shooting or stabbing them in the head. Also a recurring theme is survivors finding secure sanctuary from the undead, which, in this case, is the Big Brother house. Then you're allowed a brief moment to relax, to enjoy the smug superiority of humanity over the dim-witted zombies, until it all goes horribly wrong and someone leaves a door or gate open, or hatches a foolhardy escape plan from nice secure location to the zombie-infested wilderness. Perhaps humans aren't so smart after all.
I'm not going to outline the plot. If you want more read about it here, or better still, why not watch it? As mini-series go, it's excellent.
Needless to say, you can't really have zombies without a nod to satire, a golden rule of the zombie genre forgotten by the 2004 Dawn of the Deadremake. And Charlie Brooker being Charlie Brooker couldn't resist having a few swipes at the Big Brother format. The zombies gathered at the studio gates, the spectacle of a zombiefied Davina McCall feasting on human flesh, their blank stares into monitors, all of it is pretty straightforward. As Brooker says, "while you could spend your time watching it thinking ”Mmmmm, yes, a satirical point”, most of the time you're going to be thinking ”Help! Here come the zombies!“ It's kind of a scary romp, first and foremost. It's not a chin-stroking exercise."
But I'd like to offer an alternative reading, which, like all readings, is a tenuous exercise, but is still a half-way plausible one. You could argue Dead Set is all about ruling class anxiety. Our masters, who were once so sure of themselves that even their official ideology trumpeted capitalism, red in tooth and claw, are now no longer certain. The economic shockwave came out of nowhere and knocked them all for six. Politicians' ritual invoking of deregulatory voodoo economics has only succeeded in reanimating Keynes, a figure whose body of thought they previously regarded a stinking corpse. Some have been bitten by the Keynesian bug (New Labour above all) and indecently abandoned the previous orthodoxy. Others remain huddled around neoliberalism's coffin, hoping it won't be long before they can break open the casket. All look to the future with a degree of fear and uncertainty.
Dead Set works through this nightmare. Big Brother stands in for the place the ruling class occupies. Like the bourgeoisie, Big Brother contestants and senior production staff expect to be the centre of attention. The public duly votes to evict their least favourite nominee while the real decisions, the real power, the manipulation and the edits are done away from the public gaze. But on eviction night, the occasion when Big Brother publicly celebrates its hubris, nemesis strikes and the studios are overrun by the living dead. They become an abattoir. Zombies are uncontrollable, unreasonable, single minded, and totally thick. The aura of Big Brother, the circus that once kept millions in its thrall, has lost its power. The shabby, smelly masses are now out for blood, their blood. The survivors holed up in the house are able to erect defences against the mass, which successfully holds the gibbering horde at bay for a short while. But they cannot keep the tide back. No matter how clever or ingenious they are, their better organisation is fractured by internal bickering and scheming. It is only a matter of time before the zombies of the working class are feasting on bourgeois flesh.
Dead Set not only taps into the anxiety of getting overrun by the dangerous but simple-minded mass, it shows the bourgeoisie the fear of their superfluity. Zombies are clearly violent. The presence of the living sends them into paroxysms of bloodlust. Safety is only guaranteed if one lives in a gated community. But when the remaining housemates become zombie fodder and everyone is (un)dead, a strange calm descends upon the land. Zombies shuffle around the trappings of bourgeois civilisation, their unblinking eyes wide open in almost innocent wonder at their surroundings. The hierarchy and power of Big Brother is gone and all is left is a new society of sorts, one achieved only by them coming together as a collective and using their numbers to sweep the old order away. Life (of sorts) goes on without the bourgeoisie/Big Brother. There is no more violence and no more suffering. Zombie communism is the order of the day.
