At yesterday's 45th Munich Security Conference, US vice president Joe Biden outlined the character of Obama's foreign policy for the next four years. While it contained no real surprises it is an important speech for socialists to look at, even if it is light on detail. The US economy might be sliding perilously close to depression, but by a vast distance it remains the world's only imperialist superpower and no other state, be they the great powers of old or the emerging might of China and India, has the kind of global reach America possesses.
It is probably too early to speak of a distinctive approach to foreign affairs but at first glance you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise. Biden speaks of a "new tone" requiring "strong partnerships to meet common challenges", and a casting "aside the petty and the political to reject zero sum mentalities and rigid ideologies, to listen to and learn from one another and to work together for our common prosperity and security." He goes on to say there cannot be a choice between liberty and security as they are mutually reinforcing - "the example of our power must be matched by the power of our example", as he pithily puts it. Despite the diplomatic wording (it would have been impolitic for Biden to have said "we're breaking with Neoconservatism"), these comments clearly mark a change in direction.
What the administration has in mind is a return to a more collegial approach, but this is hardly earth-shattering news. Overseas antipathy toward Bush and the appeal of Obama to a large degree turns on this question of international cooperation. But nevertheless it's worth remembering that despite its Neoconservatism the Bush administration worked multilaterally through NATO and the UN to secure the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan (and let's face it, much of the liberal opposition to the war in Iraq was because it did not successfully proceed through their precious UN, not because the invasion was intrinsically wrong). Therefore what really matters is not Obama's readiness to work with other states, but to what ends the "understandings", pacts, treaties and alliances will be put.
On this occasion though, Biden was careful to sound a liberal note few international relations watchers would grumble about. He identified the key challenges as:
* The spread of mass destruction weapons and dangerous diseases;
* A growing gap between rich and poor;
* Ethnic animosities and failed states;
* A rapidly warming planet and uncertain supplies of energy, food, water;
* The challenge to freedom and security from radical fundamentalism.
He argues America will work with others wherever possible and waxes lyrical about the building and enforcing of collective security arrangements. This enables him to wag a finger at Iran for pursuing its "illicit" nuclear programme and sponsorship of terrorist organisations, but also Biden explicitly states the US is willing to negotiate. What he doesn't elucidate is the second part of this principle - the reservation of the right to act unilaterally "only when we must"; an omission that lends a degree of pregnant menace to his Iran comments.
The second principle is a move from the Bush doctrine of pre-emption to prevention with the heavy accent on diplomacy. As Biden admits, the acid test for multilateral diplomacy is the ever-present destabilising effects of Israel/Palestine. He argues for aid efforts that strengthen the 'official' Palestinian authority at the expense of Hamas, the establishment of a lasting two state solution, and the defeat of "extremists" who perpetuate the conflict (as if the interminable strife can be boiled down to die-hards on either side). The second is the worsening situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which will require multilateral cooperation from all interested parties. For Afghanistan it means ridding the country from terrorists. For Pakistan it is aiding the state against its recalcitrant tribal territories in the north and along the Afghan-Pakistani border and helping out with economic development - probably much easier said than done given the depths of the country's economic crisis.
The third, quoting from Obama's inauguration speech, is "America will extend a hand to those who unclench their fists." He rejects the clash of civilisations thesis and instead paints a picture of a decent world threatened by extremism. Part of the foreign policy programme will see the USA reaching out to hundreds of millions across the Islamic world to strengthen the values most Muslims and America hold in common - and naturally restore the global hegemon's legitimacy. Biden may have in mind Islamic fundamentalism, but what of other sorts of "extremism"? How long will it be before growing labour and socialist movements are grouped into this category? Again, the Obama Doctrine is designed to avoid this scenario. Its favoured method of prevention is the encouragement of liberal democratisation and economic development.
Moving on to the 'vision thing' the development goals Biden sets the administration reads like a liberal interventionist's dream. Their objectives are
* To help eliminate the global education deficit;
* To cancel the debt of the world’s poorest countries;
* To launch a new Green Revolution that produces sustainable supplies of food and;
* To advance democracy not through its imposition by force from the outside, but by working with moderates in government and civil society to build the institutions that will protect freedom.
These are prefaced by a desire to cut global poverty by half by 2015. I think they're going need a bit of assistance meeting that one.
In the final part of the speech, Biden turns his attention to NATO and the perennially frosty relationship with a more assertive Russia. First off he recommits the administration to maintaining a missile defence capability, but only to protect the West from Iran and, importantly, in consultation with the Putin-Medvedev regime. This sounds the tone for a more conciliatory approach to Russia. For example, there is a strange almost-admission that its Soviet predecessor was right to fight fundamentalist Islam in Afghanistan and calls for more cooperation between Russia and NATO against the Taliban (and presumably the Islamic movements and militias active in Russia's near-abroad). He also looks forward to cooperation with Russia over arsenal reduction and against nuclear proliferation. Interestingly Biden notes US opposition to the puppet states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but signals America's intent to keep it as a paper position.
And all this is concluded with a neatly-tied pledge to transatlantic cooperation. So far, so liberal.
It remains to be seen whether the administration's actions will match the rhetoric. But when all is said and done after Guardianistas, Decent-types, sundry Democrat and LibDem commentators, and 'soft' anti-imperialists have pored over this speech, there is no real qualitative difference between the new administration and the ancien regime. Neoconservatives were equally partial to wield the apologia of liberal interventionism - their problem was virtually no one took their humanitarian gloss seriously, least of all themselves. The difference is because our liberal friends want to believe in Obama and his foreign policy actions are likely to get a free pass from this quarter for quite a while. It falls to us socialists to articulate the criticisms and offer an alternative.
Stoke Socialist Party met Thursday evening on the occasion of its AGM for a discussion of national and local party strategy. The substance of the discussion revolved around the report A brought us from the SP's national committee, which was a mixture of material from the party's annual British Perspectives document (last year's here) and the strategic priorities it has laid out for the party.
A started by noting how the party is entering a unique period as none of its activists have ever experienced a crisis of this scale and depth. It is a situation pregnant with dangers and opportunities, and one that will see quite dramatic shifts in consciousness. By way of a small example A cited a journalists' meeting at the Financial Times, called in response to management's leaked plan to lay off 18 staff. Tony Benn spoke and concluded his contribution by observing that "capitalism isn't working". This was reportedly met with "thunderous applause". If staff at the bourgeoisie's house journal are hailing the arguments of a well known socialist, then capitalism's got some serious legitimacy issues.
The scope of the crisis mean it cannot be escaped. Even China and India, the capitalist success stories of the last decade, are facing difficulties as their overseas export markets shrink. Already Eastern Europe and the Balkans have witnessed serious unrest, France has been convulsed by strikes, Britain(!) has had the first successful wildcat action since anyone can remember, and even nominally stable states such as Iceland have brought their government down (joke - what's the difference between Iceland and Ireland? One letter and six months ...)
The effect the crisis has had on politics has been profound. This is especially true in Britain where a seemingly sclerotic government lurched from crisis to crisis seemingly began exuding dynamism and the appearance of competence. The speed with which neoliberalism was discarded was almost indecent. But the government had no choice - either massive injections of cash were pumped into the banking system or the whole financial edifice would come crashing down, which would not only have devastated the British economy, but also have torn a massive hole in the fabric of global capital. Brown and Darling may not have saved the world, but their actions did head off an even greater catastrophe. The problem is the crisis has been temporarily stabilised, but the price paid is financial stagnation. We are told time after time that recovery depends on getting things moving - and the measures so far introduced such as the two per cent off VAT, the availability of government loans to banks, the reduction of interest rates to a single percentage point have all done very little. While it is true lending capacity has dramatically shrunk as foreign banks have withdrawn from the UK market, it is also the case the British economy is caught between the horns of overproduction and underconsumption.
All this adds up to possibly the greatest crisis British capital has ever faced, and the government are now effectively paralysed. When the IMF forecast a devastating 2.8 per cent GDP contraction for Britain this year, all Brown could do was mutter how Japan and Italy would have it much worse in 2010!
The impact on the working class is uneven. As the party and this blog has predicted previously, the crisis has had a stunning effect on sections of the class, perhaps best illustrated by how the collapse of Woolworths and the scale of job losses on the high street has not provoked generalised resistance. And with jobs disappearing at the rate of 1,600 a day, struggles are more likely to be of a defensive character. Take the public sector, for example. Throughout the neoliberal years this has been the bastion of British trade union organisation. It has taken action over government attacks on pensions, job cuts, wages, and so on. With the public sector now targeted for £5bn worth of cuts and some local authorities plan to completely privatise their services, the focus of action will increasingly switch to preserving jobs rather than agitation over wages. But because of union slovenliness in the previous period, particularly on the part of those still formally affiliated to Labour, there is some movement among trade unionists leaving one union and taking up membership in another. On the one hand, it's a positive sign that workers are looking for an organisation prepared to stand and fight, but on the other it could serve to divide union strength in the workplaces. The SP while understanding these sentiments will nevertheless pursue strategies aimed at reclaiming unions and discourage jumping ship.
Staying with the public sector, the massive failure of the market and the part-nationalisation of the banks has put the N-word back on the political agenda. This offers a foot in the door for socialists to make our arguments, but we must carefully differentiate between the state capitalist nationalisations carried through by Brown and co, and those pushed by re-animated Keynesians. Our idea of nationalisation put democracy and the interests of our class at its core and are of a different order entirely of anything the government would consider.
The existence of a new workers' party would have a tremendous positive impact on the consciousness of working class people. But founding a new party between now and the next general election is an increasingly unlikely prospect. Nevertheless the SP will continue pushing the CNWP as well as building its own ranks. Where the Labour party are concerned, the 'Brown bounce' is well and truly over and the polling gap has re-opened between it and the Tories. Its not beyond the realm of possibility that Brown might face his own Iceland-style scenario, but should things proceed normally as per the electoral cycle, people are so fed up that it is increasingly likely Cameron will be forming the next government. From the SP's point of view, it would be better if Labour stayed in power, not least because opposition could allow it to rediscover social democratic values and the aspirations of its core vote. Such a repositioning could see it act as a counterweight to emerging radicalism by sucking in new layers of working class militants and dissipating their energies down harmless institutional channels.
For the SP, recruitment for the last quarter and the year to date is well up on the same period 12 months ago. The level of subs - the regular financial contribution every member makes to the party - is now its highest for 12 years, indicating the difficult period of decline is behind us. But we should not overplay what lies ahead, we're not facing a revolutionary situation or capitalism's Waterloo. That scenario will only come to pass when the workers' movement is strong enough to put the continued existence of capitalism into question. But what we do have is a generalised crisis where the party's organisation and influence could grow significantly. This means paying attention not just to recruitment but also the integration and development of new members. The cultivation and encouragement of new cadres is essential if the SP is to make the most of the new situation.
The main problem facing a small revolutionary organisation is knowing what work to prioritise. As more workers enter into disputes, as the government claws back public services, as national scandals and political crises erupt, the danger consists of spreading ourselves too thinly and getting swamped by the pace and scale of events. For this reason the party is prioritising the Youth Fight For Jobs campaign and march - its demands will act as a strategic anchor and focus enabling us to intervene effectively across workplaces, universities, colleges and schools.
In the discussion, R raised his concerns about the government's intent to implement its workfare programme, which could undercut the pay and working conditions of existing workforces. F said he'd looked into it further for his union branch and found that of the 10 contracts in the process of being finalised, only two are for public sector projects. In other words business will be receiving an indentured labour force it doesn't pay for. For P, as well as being utterly disgraceful, immoral and exploitative in and of itself, he argued this could be a very bad move on the government's part. Unemployment typically atomises workers, but forcing people to work for their dole will throw them together, making collective action not only possible but extremely likely. This is nothing to say of the workers whose jobs will be threatened by this unfree labour - it is a combustible recipe for more Lindsey-style disputes. For F, the consciousness of the 'boom' years with its general antipathy toward the unemployed will melt away as ever more are sucked onto the dole.
Remembering his Militant days under Thatcher, R suggested that an electoral victory for the Tories could catalyse opposition. A thought this might not be the case seeing as Cameron will want to play his soft Conservatism hand. But P replied that whether the Tories play good cop or bad cop, the trade union leaders without a government to embarrass any more might be more likely to fight. But J, going from his experiences on the stalls, believed there was little enthusiasm out there for any of the mainstream parties.
The discussion then moved on to local strategy and how the YFFJ campaign can tie all our work together. I'm sure readers will understand why that won't be receiving a public airing on here. We then elected our new branch committee and delegates to the WestMids regional committee - it was heartening to see new comrades taking up organising roles.
Overall I think comrades came away with a clear understanding of the challenging year the branch has ahead of it. But also of the political rewards that are within reach.
Taste is a subjective thing and it's pointless trying to construct a theory that rigorously or scientifically justifies one's preferences. But that's not going to stop me from having a stab at why bad science fiction is, well, pants.
In an excellent post, Martin of Wis[s]e Words fame discusses how science fiction literature inhabits a second class existence. He talks about the feting of literary authors when they have a dabble in sci-fi (he mentions PD James, but also Margaret Atwood, Kazuo Ishiguro and Philip Roth spring to mind), even if the science fictional aspect is, well, pretty dodgy. And also the assimilation of prominent (but often long dead) SF authors into the literary canon.
To my mind nothing illustrates the dichotomy between "proper" literature and SF more clearly than the prodigious output of Iain (M) Banks. For his literary works he is simply known as Iain Banks, and for the SF the M initial is inserted. As a reader of all his work they are entertaining, clever, original, and witty. None of his SF can be shoe horned into the big-gun-bug-eyed-alien mould, even though there are plenty of them about. But as far as the literary world are concerned, some of his output is more worthy than others. According to the first edition of this book's attempt at creating a new literary canon, only one Iain M Banks makes it into the 1,001-strong list (The Player of Games) while a handful of his literary novels make the grade.
Can this be put down to general snobbery? Probably, but not solely. But what makes literature literary is, crudely and generally put, the adherence, or a commitment to subvert a set of accepted narrative strategies, which usually prize style, plotting, subtle invocations of influences and contemporary fashions, and characterisation. In other words, literary authors work in a particular field encompassing other authors, publishers, lay and academic apparatuses of criticism, and audiences with certain expectations. Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go can get away with it not just because it is by a respected name, but because it conforms to certain literary conventions. Iain M. Banks's SF, a superb author like Peter F. Hamilton, at least for now, fall outside of these conventions.
The field of science fiction operates in much the same way hence why it is easy to dismiss literary forays into its domain as not 'proper' SF. For example it is quite possible to write a book or series of books around one or several big ideas and still win sci-fi plaudits because value is attached to speculation over and above traditional literary value. Authors like Richard K. Morgan, Stephen Baxter and Harry Turtledove are certainly in this mode.
Following Bourdieu, fields do not exist in isolation. They inter-mesh and overlap other related and formally unrelated fields to varying degrees. Similarly everyone simultaneously inhabits multiple sets of fields and sub-fields. Some are in complementary relationships while others are conflictual and contradictory. In my own case, as a regular reader of science and literary fiction, I am aware of the "capitals", strategies and stakes each field possesses. Among others I inhabit a sociological field, circumscribed to a degree by specialism, geographical location, and academic biography/career; and the socialist end of the political field - again conditioned by my party membership, the issues that particularly interest me, and my experience as an activist. A theory of taste, or rather more accurately, a theory that explains why I like what I like can be constructed from concepts generated from this framework.
Let's illustrate this with a novel I've recently read. John Birmingham's Weapons of Choice is the first in an alternate history trilogy that sees a multinational naval taskforce from 2021 accidentally transported across time and space to the mid-Pacific on the eve of the Battle of Midway. The rest of the book is spent with all sides - the task force and the 1942 combatants trying to come to terms with the "transition", with a touch of 21st century meets WWII scrapping along the way.
The premise of pitting modern day technology against the 2nd World War is not a new one - Harry Turtledove did it over four turgid books in his World War series (where alien lizards from outer space have a go at invading Earth in 1942). And there are a couple of obvious winks in Weapons toward it. But what makes it objectionable to me is not just the cardboard characters and unlikely plotting (seriously, in a middle of a war and unsure about how much 21st century technology Japan had salvaged, would precious and irreplaceable materiel be expended in POW rescue missions?), but also the drawing of the female characters - who are either Paris Hilton alikes who do guns and kung fu, or dowdy lesbians - is awful, and the overall sociological naivete really grates. It offers an apologia for the War on Terror (accepting the thoroughly discredited claim this is a clash of civilisations and ideals) and puts a liberal gloss on the allied involvement in WWII, which, of course, was all about stopping the bad guys. Birmingham really does believe it too - there's more than one occasion when characters from the future lecture their forebears on the theory that history is merely a clash of contending ideas.
Weapons fits nicely into the alternate history/techno thriller sub-field of SF, but you cannot help but bring the baggage of other fields to bear when forming a judgment. It almost completely eschews literary values, sticks in the craw of my political values, and on top of that does as much violence to the laws of social development as the premise does to the laws of physics. But, again showing up the subjective limits of a sociological theory of bad sci-fi, Weapons is not intended as an intervention in any of these fields, but as a cultural artefact it cannot help but be interpreted through the filter of other fields and judged according to tastes informed by them.
Bourdieu's concepts provide a method for investigating literary tastes in much greater depth than this illustrative example, but it cannot arbitrate on the question of value. It is a way of explaining why some things are valued and others are not. What it cannot be is the final word on good and bad taste.
(An alternate and more formal way of spotting bad fiction is here, courtesy of Feminist SF).
By now most readers will have seen the news that a set of proposals agreed by the unions and stewards will be put to the workers at Lindsey tomorrow. In my opinion it is likely the strikers will accept the deal, and the secondary actions will vote to return to work by the end of the week.
But there's something missing from the media commentary on the strikes. As CBC pointed out to me last night, when the firefighters were on strike in 2002 the BBC were all over it, reporting every moggy that was stuck up a tree and every minor fire. In 2005 British Airways were hit by their own wildcat action and the £45 million loss this caused them was widely reported. And when the posties walked out in 2007 the press and TV news were full of how many millions the strike was costing Royal Mail. This kind of narrative, which is usually wheeled out every time workers take action, is completely absent this time round. No reports of money lost. No reports of disruption or inconvenience. As the workers involved belong to a 'strategic' section of the working class (especially true of refinery and power station workers), I refuse to believe the actions are having no effect whatsoever.
This is a cross-section of localised reports on the strikes.
Lindsey - According to Total's press release, operating non-stop round-the-clock, the Lindsey Oil Refinery processes around 200,000 barrels of crude everyday. But the nearest we get to disruption comes from Humberside plod, who say it is "impacting on the flow of traffic".
Sellafield - Monday's press release blandly states 900 workers went on strike while Sellafield Ltd employees stayed in. It says "we are confident it will have no impact on safety, security or production."
Drax Power Station - The Press claims the contractors were working on projects ancillary to power generation.
Coryton - About 150 on strike, but again, the local press quote the refinery as business as usual.
Stanlow - Again, no disruption, as all the 500 workers, we are led to believe, are maintenance workers and marginal to operations.
Grangemouth - 700 out, but again, nothing about loss of production.
In addition, the CBI has put nothing I can see on their website, despite several press websites saying it gave Total its backing.
I don't believe in media conspiracies, but this is strange. Are the right wing press keeping it out their pages because, for the moment, they think the protests serve their anti-EU agenda?
When significant events unfold there is a tendency for the left online to become a seething intense bubble of debate. I say bubble because we tend to be too busy discussing strategy and outcomes among ourselves than arguing outside the left, and pay scant attention to the views circulating outside of it. The two pieces for this blog on the wildcat strikes were certainly written with a left audience in mind. But what have the blogging commentariat at the other end of the political spectrum got to say on the matter?
The AVPS 'establishment' blog roll is a pretty representative cross section of mainstream blogging (i.e. Brownite Labour, Tories, LibDems and assorted madcap splinters), so this is a good place to start.
The new Labour List super blog, which has 54 (count 'em!) contributors has only now been able to muster a post on the strikes, and what thin gruel it is. Keith Vaz has this to say:
Traditional trade union values support the right to work of all workers equally. We should take great care when we try and create a right to work that is dependant on whether or not you have a British passport. Seeking to create opportunities to work that are based on the concept of citizenship that excludes those who are EU citizens or have indefinite right to remain in the UK is dangerous and wrong. It is an unnecessary political gift to the far right.
And that's it! Less a blog and more a press release, don't you think? Poor old Keith can't even bring himself to mention the 's' word - strike. We shouldn't be too surprised. It's been many a year since he uttered the other 's' word too.
What about other mainstream Labour bloggers? Recess Monkey? No. Luke Akehurst? No. Labour of Love? No. Hopi Sen? Nope. Sadie's Tavern? Not a sausage. At least Harry's Place mentions the strikes, albeit only as a (useful) expose of a BNP front group professing to support the workers.
What passes for comment and analysis barely improves on Vaz's piece. Mars Hill thinks the strike has an unpleasant atmosphere, and is not justified anyway. John Gray as a trade unionist has something a bit more substantial to say but doesn't even address the idea of supporting the strike. It's simply left up in the air. Kevin Maguire is much worse, putting all his hopes in Ed Miliband to sort it out(!) Lastly, blogging Labour MP, Tom Harris has a bit of fun ribbing the Tories because it raises the spectre of EU-related divisions. But once more, nothing on the strikes themselves - but any old foil will do to attack the Tories, eh?
The LibDems, well, what do they think? It's pretty difficult finding a LibDem blog that's been updated in the last few days - presumably they're all busy in the LibDem HQ basement churning out their celebrated 'we're winning here' and 'it's a two-horse race!' leaflets. Well I'm not complaining if there's less twaddle to wade through. First is LibDem superstar blogger, Alix Mortimer who suggests hiring British workers is in no real sense different from preferring to buy local. In fact, she says there's a business case for doing so. Wow, what an inspiring political message. Meanwhile, over at Liberal England, Jon Calder takes a trip to planet contradiction. Clearly he has sympathies for the workers' grievances (which is more than what the above Labour bloggers have managed), who he sees as globalisation's losers. And yet, he's convinced there's benefits for them too. As smart Compassite blogger Tom Miller notes in the comment box, "Well done. You have passed the initial module in 'becoming a socialist'. Next week we'll examine 'what can be done to solve these problems'."
Given the flag-waving and BJ4BW slogans, and the alleged support of the right-wing press, is it not reasonable to expect the Tories and their semi-detached "libertarian" ilk to be all over this story? Anyone looking for guidance from the Big Boys will find themselves titillated with snow puns, stat porn, unfunny cartoons and Twitter tweets. Such hubris will be their downfall, I tell you. But anyway, at least some Tories have had a stab. John Redwood supplies the analytical style he's known for, but prefers to use it as a means of showing off his anti-EU hobbyhorse. Yawn! Thoughtful Tory blog, Letters from a Tory worries about the political fall out of the strikes. New blog, Events Dear Boy, Events has been running wild with the strikes - but only as a means of popping Mandelson's pompous balloon. It falls to the "opinionated arrogance" of Dizzy Thinks to come to the rescue. He brings some clarity to the issue: "I certainly could never support secondary action ... those taking secondary action should be fired in my view, and the law on this matter should certainly be enforced. It is illegal to strike in sympathy at other strikers elsewhere, and quite right too." He goes on to blame welfare dependency and the "lazy Brit" addiction to it, and his solution would be cutting welfare even further. Well, at least we know where "Dizzy" stands, even if his outpourings owe more to opinionated ignorance than anything else.
I suppose when this typifies the sum total of mainstream blogging wisdom, you can understand why lefts prefer to debate among themselves.
In the mean time, the Socialist Party website will be running regular updates from Lindsey oil refinery.
Hope comrades don't mind me taking a quick time out from super serious class struggle blogging to afflict this on you. I saw it this morning on Crooked Timber, and to say it has tickled me much is a slight understatement. Behold the blurb:
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies features the original text of Jane Austen's beloved novel with all-new scenes of bone-crunching zombie action. As our story opens, a mysterious plague has fallen upon the quiet English village of Meryton—and the dead are returning to life! Feisty heroine Elizabeth Bennet is determined to wipe out the zombie menace, but she's soon distracted by the arrival of the haughty and arrogant Mr. Darcy. What ensues is a delightful comedy of manners with plenty of civilized sparring between the two young lovers—and even more violent sparring on the blood-soaked battlefield as Elizabeth wages war against hordes of flesh-eating undead. Complete with 20 illustrations in the style of C. E. Brock (the original illustrator of Pride and Prejudice), this insanely funny expanded edition will introduce Jane Austen's classic novel to new legions of fans.
You can pre-order Pride and Prejudice and Zombies here.
Whatever next? A werewolf remix of Daniel Deronda? Great Expectations vs the Martians? Sounds bloody brilliant anyway.
Are there any "updated" classics and mash-ups you'd like to see?
I am an irregular viewer of Lead Balloon on BBC Four. Last night, I watched repeats of all of series one on the Dave channel. This took some four hours and prevented my usual dash to my local for a couple before closing-time. But it was worth it. Lead Balloon makes wonderful comedy.
Jack Dee is superb as not-very-funny comedian Rick Spleen. Rick seems to be in a permanent state of irritation, but his melancholic lethargy normally prevents this niggling torment from exploding into anger. He is a complete shit! He is tight (despite somehow managing to earn a good living), and he lies and cheats incessantly in his usually-unsuccessful attempts to save money or advance his career.
His partner Mel (Raquel Cassidy) seems oblivious to the worst sides of his character. She prefers to view him as a lovable if trying child and veers between treating his antics with resigned acceptance or mild but stifled amusement. She is like a mother who doesn’t shout because it's not the done thing for good parents.
But for me the star of the show is probably Magda (Anna Crilly), their Russian au pair. She permanently has a face like a smacked arse. But she is clever. By being so morose, she erects a barrier between her and Rick and therefore avoids being manipulated by him. Then there is Marty, his American scriptwriter who I find just slightly irritating, but I am not sure why. There is Michael, the painfully-sensitive and wet owner of a café whose establishment Rick and Marty seem to visit every day. Rick has a daughter, Sam, who continually scrounges off her dad, ably assisted by her boyfriend, Ben. The only other regular in the cast is a neighbour, Clive, who periodically rings on Rick’s door to complain about something.
The programme is very middle class. It is set in a comfortable London suburb where the sun always seems to shine and the trees are always in leaf. The café is not my idea of a kaff. Bacon, eggs, bubble, black pudding and a fried slice are not on the menu. Poncy and pretentious twaddle such as ‘aubergines with parmesan cheese’ is. There never seems to be a shortage of money despite Rick’s frugality. Apart from the main characters, there a few cameos from people representing the lower orders - delivery drivers or shop assistants.
But I find it hilarious. The humour is subtle rather than in-your-face. There is no canned laughter, or sexual innuendo to get cheap laughs. If you never tried Lead Balloon, I suggest you catch up on it. For me, it is probably the best comedy show I've seen in recent years.
Unsurprisingly the spreading wildcat strikes have sparked off wide-ranging debate on the left. The flurry of commentary from left-wing party websites, blogs, forums and so on represents a serious attempt to come to grips with a spontaneous outbreak of militancy unseen in Britain for many years. Well, at least it does for some. Pathetically, on Socialist Unity, some have interpreted the SWP's statement through the sectarian prism of it distancing itself from George Galloway's and Jerry Hicks's positions. According to its monomaniacal critics, we are to believe a settling of scores with Respect is the primary concern of the SWP as it seeks to make sense of an important workers' mobilisation.
The flip-side position has been an ultra-left denunciation of the strikes as the actions of "racist morons". Galloway and Hicks, the Socialist Party, SSP, the Morning Star and everyone else who - correctly in my view - have realised the importance of the class dynamic behind the nationalist slogans, are denounced for "pandering to reaction". Safe to say we won't see any of their ilk going anywhere near the picket lines and protests, which is just as well seeing as they're more likely to do the socialist cause more harm than good.
If the debate is not to become a sectarian slugfest we need to bring out the points that are not under dispute.
* Everyone agrees the adopted slogan, 'British Jobs for British Workers', is chauvinist and divisive. No socialist can raise such a slogan and remain a socialist.
* The trade unions concerned (Unite-Amicus and the GMB) have not combated the nationalist sentiment. Indeed, footage and photos of mass meetings show that among the home made placards are union-branded boards and signs with BJ4BW slogans on them.
* That the BNP see it as an opportunity to spread their poison.
* When socialists visit the picket lines, regardless of affiliation, all will be united in arguing more or less the same thing. That is the Italian and Portuguese workers are not to blame for the situation; that Total are attempting to undermine the agreements it has with the recognised trade unions by contracting out the work to firms whose staff are not covered by these arrangements, that management's "right" to manage has to be challenged, that links should be forged with the IREM work force, and are will be agitating for unity among workers of different nationalities.
The main point of contention is whether the left can support these strikes.
The SWP and those close to it say no. The comrades argue, rightly, that a divided work force is a weakened work force. The only beneficiaries of division are the bosses, which is why 'BJ4BW' is wrong-headed and potentially dangerous. But they go on, "Those who urge on these strikes are playing with fire ... We all know what will happen if the idea spreads that it’s foreigners, or immigrants or black or Asian people who are to blame for the crisis. It will be a disaster for the whole working class, will encourage every racist and fascist and make it easier for the bosses to ram through pay and job cuts."
This is a principled position, but is also a mistaken position. The SWP statement, in my opinion, gives too much weight to the nationalist slogans being advanced and pays insufficient attention to the contradictions of the protests. As much as the left would wish it wasn't so, we should not be too surprised that the first significant spontaneous class mobilisation after the collapse of the "boom" years is of a nationalist character.
Since the titanic class battles of the 1980s capital has held the whip hand over the working class. Our organisations - the trade unions, the Labour party, the far left - still bear the scars of these defeats. The unions and the far left carry much less social weight, and Labour has capitulated almost completely to capital to the extent that there is little qualitative difference between it and the Tories and Lib Dems. Meanwhile successive governments and capital have restructured the British economy without any real significant opposition. The service industries that have grown as manufacturing has declined are much less secure, lower paid and atomising. The idea the working class has separate material and political interests to the bosses has little purchase any more.
Because our class has been unable to cast much of a shadow over mainstream politics, in its weakened state it has been more prey to reactionary ideas. Day after day the bulk of the press have churned out the most disgusting lies - that immigrants take the lion share of the jobs, that asylum seekers are living luxurious lifestyles on benefits, that Muslims conspire to make Britain an Islamic state, that British sovereignty has been usurped by the Germans and French, and that ZaNuLabore want to dismantle the nation. Even worse the main parties have fallen over themselves, to varying degrees, to accommodate these views. This has created a favourable climate for backward views in our class. A tiny minority have turned to support the BNP at election time (in fact, given the political climate, it's a sign of their incompetence that the fascists aren't doing better) but mostly it has fed back into the atomisation of the class, resulting in apathy, fatalism, and the further decomposition of working class organisation.
The BJ4BW slogan raised by the unions is dangerous, but it tapped into a commonplace sentiment among workers. The unions thought they could ride the nationalist tiger in pursuit of commonplace trade union objectives, but ended up sparking off wildcat actions they could not have foreseen. This is where the main contradiction in the mobilisation is located - the majority of workers are motivated by British chauvinism, but their protest has seen them take up the traditional weapons of working class militancy. The two, nationalism and independent working class activity, cannot coexist indefinitely. If the strikes resume and spread at the start of next week, it is the job of socialists to intervene with our arguments and bring the contradiction to a head to try and resolve it in a positive direction.
But because these are strikes, they can be won or lost. Socialists cannot be indifferent to the outcome. If we turn up on the picket line and at best appear equivocal, or at worst, opposed to the strike, we will have a hard time getting the ear of workers (in the SP's case, this is at least aided by having a member on the Lindsey refinery strike committee). We cannot fudge this. In my opinion socialists should favour the strikers' victory. Aside from defeating the union-busting issues underlying the dispute, it will demonstrate to millions that militancy works, that workers can take action and win. Yes, assuming hundreds of workers aren't converted to internationalism overnight, nationalist attitudes will persist and might be strengthened, but the impact on working class confidence will be an order of magnitude greater.
We saw in the last post on History and Class Consciousness that Lukacs strongly made the case for socialism as the conscious and coordinated effort of the working class before and after the revolution that finally puts pay to capitalism. In the final essay of the book, 'Towards a Methodology of the Problem of Organisation', Lukacs turns his attention to the revolutionary party, the organisational expression of proletarian class consciousness and the main political weapon it has in its struggle against capital.
Previous discussions saw Lukacs argue that the advent of capitalism means that philosophy beginning from the standpoint of the individual inevitably reproduces, in thought, the structural relationship individual capitalists have with the rest of society. Philosophical investigations that persist from this basis can only offer partial explanations of the world, and these in turn clash with similarly one-sided perspectives. How Marxism differs is that as the theoretical condensation of the collective experience of the working class, it is able to produce a coherent account of capitalism in its totality. The philosophy of the individual subject has now outlived its theoretical usefulness. But it is not enough that the correct theory exists. Marxism is more than a scholarly enterprise, it is a means of understanding society so it can be changed by the working class. There has to be a fusion of Marxist ideas and proletarian practice - this is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for overthrowing capitalism. But this does not happen by itself. This requires an organisational medium that infuses Marxism into the working class to the degree that makes the positive transcendence of capitalism possible - the unity of theory and practice on a mass scale is possible only through the revolutionary party.
Even when a revolutionary party has not won a majority (or even a respectable-sized minority, as is the case in most parts of the world), it still performs a mediating function. The party needs to pay the utmost attention to the DNA of theory and practice - the dialectic fusing the lessons of the past with the demands of the present to realise its objective. The resulting actions can never be smooth, but they have direction, and if the party's perspectives are right, the result will be the gaining of ground in the class from which further advances can be made. Therefore the party requires a culture that can generalise its experiences and the lessons its activists have learned throughout its ranks. The unimpeded circulation of criticism and discussion among the various levels of the party is the precondition for a self-critical party. Without this there can be an internal narrative that explains reverses in terms of "objective conditions", which suggests a slide toward fatalism. Or, alternatively, a voluntarist note can be taken by describing mistakes solely in terms of the acts of certain individuals. In either scenario the party does not learn from its practice.
Engels was fond of saying that the proof of the pudding can be found in the eating. Likewise for Lukacs, theoretical errors can be corrected through practice - this is ultimately the criterion of the veracity of any theory. For that reason, what Lukacs calls opportunist theory completely neglects practice. The last thing it wants to do is set up a position offering an internal critique of its ideas. This is why social democratic and labour parties have tended to have a liberal tolerance of the circulation of ideas within its ranks. But as is the case in any political party, active members tend to coalesce around sets of ideas, which then become expressed organisationally in terms of internal factions, pressure groups and networks of paper sellers. For Lukacs, in a vast body such as the Second International, the old workers' parties had to balance these internal divisions with the demands of the apparatus, the politicians and their trade union affiliates and supporters. Therefore when these parties did take a position, they were a fudge that upset nobody while ensuring the party was not committed to a line of action other than routine electioneering. In this organisational environment it's small wonder that where Marxism was its official creed, it was gutted of any revolutionary content. It was a totem that could be wheeled out on occasion to give the latest policy a militant gloss while acting as the ultimate guarantor of socialism's inevitability.
Lukacs's critique of Luxemburg saw him drive this point home. Socialism can only ever be the result of the working class becoming conscious of itself as a force in history with its own interests and destiny that points to a future beyond capitalism. It goes from an object buffeted about by historical process to the subject of history that can bend it to its will. Marx described this movement as a leap from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom. But just what is the nature of this freedom that comes with the growing maturation of socialist society? It is not the same as the individual freedom relentlessly reified by capitalism. As Lukacs puts it "this 'freedom' which isolated individuals may acquire thanks to their position in society or their inner constitution regardless of what happens to others means then in practice that the unfree structure of contemporary society will be perpetuated in so far as it depends on the individual" (1968, p.315). To demonstrate how bourgeois freedom rests on fundamental unfreedom, consider how even a modest mainstream lifestyle in 21st century Britain depends heavily on cheap commodities, which in turn are made possible through the super exploitation of workers in the global south.
Lukacs is very clear on this point. The struggle for freedom requires the renunciation of individual freedom and the subordination of the individual to the collective will of the party. This is because if the party is to be the weapon it needs to be in the struggle for socialism, any sort of collective decision-making is possible only if it is a disciplined organisation. If Marxists organise along individualist lines this then is a recipe for a discussion circle. Concerted action would be the exception, not the rule. The revolutionary party, therefore, is a qualitatively different beast to bourgeois, petit bourgeois and bourgeois workers' parties. The greater demands it makes of its members, if even only a paper principle, emphasises over and over again that progressive outcomes in the class struggle depend on conscious action. It is a practical way of reinforcing in the minds of its members that socialist society will not happen by itself.
The disciplinary character of communist organisation has, for the first time in history, provided the means for reconciling the individual and class consciousness - "the active and practical side of class consciousness directly influences the specific actions of every individual, and secondly, at the same time it consciously helps to determine the historical process" (p.318). The revolutionary party therefore locks in the mediation between the individual and history. Because they are looser organisations, the parties of other classes and class fractions have a greater degree of apparatus autonomy from the variegated membership. They are not capable of performing a mediating function in the same way as their socialist counterparts and as such tend not to make history, but rather, at best, react to it. The political freedom that exists in bourgeois parties - the freedom of ideas, the non-binding leadership decisions, the absence of a party line - is the sort of reified individual freedom that allows bourgeois politics as usual. Such a structure is totally unsuited for organising the working class as a political party.
Returning now to the question of the organisational separation of the revolutionary party from other political formations, to quote what was said previously on this; "Lenin and the Communist International insisted upon the organisational independence of revolutionaries to better contest for the leadership of the working class." This separation which, it must be emphasised, is not the same thing as separating the party from the mass of the class, gives it the political freedom to put forward the formulations and demands it thinks will advance the building of class consciousness. But independence is not a guarantor of the party's revolutionary character. The danger of sectarian degeneration is ever present if it does not seek to relate to the class as a whole, including its most backward sections. A party is effectively a sect when it opposes "true" consciousness (i.e. what, in its eyes, the working class should be like) to the really existing working class, which is always going to fall short of these purer than pure expectations.
If the class consciousness of the proletariat viewed as a function of the thought and action of the class as a whole is something organic and in a state of constant flux, then this must be reflected in the organised form of that class consciousness, namely in the communist party. With the single reservation that what has become objectivised here is a higher stage of consciousness (p.328).
For sects generally, but also infant revolutionary organisations, there is a tendency to direct its efforts outwards at the expense of its internal life (why debate with other members when there are papers to be sold and workplaces to be leafleted?) But if an organisation is to be a party and not a sect a balance has to be struck between the two. Centralisation of party structures should not be a bureaucratic exercise - it needs to be fed by and encourage a culture of constant tactical innovation so it can effect the class, and in turn be conditioned by it. The handing down of a line from on high and have it mechanically enforced with appeals to party discipline is the hallmark of an organisation either drifting away or abandoning the field of revolutionary politics, despite whatever formal positions it may hold.
Revolutionary parties operate in a capitalist society. Despite its organisational independence, its consistent work among the working class, and guidance by the most advanced social theory possible, none of these will forever and finally inoculate revolutionaries from bourgeois pathologies, and the most pernicious of these is reification. The party must contend with ideological manifestations of reification, in particular, critiquing ideas that offer individual way outs of capitalist misery, be they political, religious/spiritual, life-stylist, etc. But unfortunately because reification is a process and not a condition the struggle against it will last as long as capitalism. It therefore cannot but leek into the party from time to time to varying degrees, producing inside it instrumental-bureaucratic, rigid, and dogmatic tendencies. The best way to mitigate its effects, apart from waging the battle of ideas is "to draw together all the party members and ... involve them in activity on behalf of the party with the whole of their personality. A man's function in the party must not be seen as an office whose duties can be performed conscientiously and devotedly but only as official duties; on the contrary, the activity of every member must extend to every possible kind of party work. Moreover this activity must be varied in accordance with what work is available so that party members enter with their whole personalities into a living relationship with the whole of the life of the party and of the revolution so that they cease to be mere specialists necessarily exposed to the danger of ossification" (pp.335-6).
No one can pretend the demands of party organisation aren't considerable. The struggle commands the physical and moral existences of its adherents, be they rank-and-file or leaders. The political purpose of the party therefore calls into being a new relationship between "leaders" and "led". Because all members take part in a range of activities and united by the common purpose, the party's self-correction mechanisms (i.e. freedom of discussion) has no time for a culture of deference and kow-towing. The expectation that members should become involved in all aspects of party work requires members have a critical attitude toward all the actions the party undertakes, up to and including the leadership. The closer the relationship between leaders and other full-time cadres is with lay members, the better the dialectic between individual and class consciousness, and party and class, operates. The more isolated leading cadres are the more likely they are to fall into the reified outlook of the 'traditional' party leader, one which views "their" members as passive onlookers to be manipulated and directed on a whim. The flip side of this is an inculcation of a fundamental indifference toward the leadership, one which manifests itself as apathy, or (often embarrassingly) blind trust. Criticism, if it is permitted at all, may get an airing at the annual congress, be after the fact, and will have little, if any, effect on the party's overall direction.
In sum, Lukacs has demonstrated how party organisation is a political, not a technical question. How the party develops and reproduces its structures depends on constantly and consistently working within the working class, building up its experience, diffusing lessons among its ranks, informing its analysis, formulating strategies for further interventions, and so on. It's not surprising organisations who exalt their shibboleths or flip-flop from opportunism to ultra-leftism are brittle and riddled with the problems Lukacs identifies above. They are in error because for whatever political reason the organisation's cycle of revolutionary praxis has seized up, that's if it ever began in the first place.
A complete list of History and Class Consciousness postings can be found here.
Hundreds walk out of their workplace. On the second day the strike spreads, pulling up to a thousand workers out on secondary action across sites in Northern England and Scotland - much of it illegal under the anti-trade union laws Labour has, to its eternal shame, left on the statute books. In short, an outbreak of the very 'spontaneous' actions of our class that would normally excite the left in this country. Except there appears, at first glance, a racist fly in the militant soup.
According to the BBC, on Wednesday the Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire awarded a portion of a £300 million construction project to an Italian firm, which, going from the reports, will be using Italian and Portuguese workers. At a time of rising unemployment you can understand why the local union, Unite, and many of the workers are angry about this development. Quoted on the BBC, Unite's Bernard McAuley says "there are men here whose fathers and uncles... built this refinery from scratch. It's outrageous."
But, somewhat surprisingly, it is left to the Daily Star(!) to show this dispute is about class, not race. An anonymous scaffolder tells the soaraway Star “we need to make a stand now. This is not a racist protest. I’m happy to work hand-in-hand with foreign workers, but we are not getting a look in. There are guys at this site who had been banking on that work and then it gets handed to an Italian firm. It’s about fairness.” No doubt some of these workers will have attitudes a lot less enlightened than the chap above.
British bosses are past masters at using race, ethnicity and nationality to divide and conquer both at home and abroad in their former colonial possessions. Drafting in migrant labour from overseas is a tried and tested method of undermining the pay and conditions of workers. Turning on the workers who come in to take advantage of employment opportunities plays directly into the bosses' hands - it obscures the fact it is they who are attacking and driving down wages, and therefore the responsibility lies with them. Unsurprisingly, the mainstream of the labour movement has a less then spotless record when it comes to this. For example, while in the North West the T&G arm of Unite have done some good work amongst Polish workers, trade unions as a whole have done little to combat knee-jerk xenophobia of this type.
When the bosses divide our class along the lines of race and nation, we are weaker. Instead of capitulating to the anti-immigrant sentiment fanned by the gutter press, unions must demand legislation that prevents employers from taking on workers at below the basic rates of its workforce. Unfortunately, as this appears to be beyond the political imagination of many a trade union leader, it falls to the small and scattered forces of the left to make this case at the refinery gates.
Edit: Now also published at Socialist Unity .
