Market socialism: oxymoronic or just plain moronic? These days the '99%' and 'Another World is Possible' are slogans fluttering atop many a radical social movement. Yet on those occasions activists' deliberations turn to what a post-capitalist future might look like, there will be a lot of talk about participatory democracy, community networks, the decentralisation of power and so on. The state might (might!) occasionally get a look in as something that can facilitate the building of the new society, but what definitely will not are markets and market-type mechanisms. And it's entirely reasonable why they should not. Ostensibly, the world economy has had 35 years worth of free market fundamentalism. The tearing down of tariffs and protectionism has been accompanied by an orgy of privatisation, speculation, and offshoring. Markets are the only political game in town. They have been introduced by hook and by crook into public services. In country after country, tax payers cash have been thrown at markets to lubricate them. Even more, with the banking crisis, they have saved markets from their tendency to eat themselves. Anywhere and everywhere, markets have proven themselves the handmaidens of the powerful. Obscene wealth concentrated in few hands and environmental destruction condemns them in socialist eyes.
Or does it? I'm no fan of markets for exactly these reasons. Philosophically speaking, socialism, if it is anything is the regulation of a complex, advanced industrial society by its participants. It's about recognising social life as a conscious, collective endeavour. For socialists heavily influenced by Marx, like me, there is plenty of extra ammunition too. Markets are one aspect of the elemental forces capitalism has unleashed, they are the very instantiation of the estrangement of human beings from human beings. Capital confronts us in a number of guises. It is an alien power we have to submit ourselves to in the workplace. It, to greater or lesser extents via the medium of employer/boss/supervisor subjects us to diktat and discipline. Capital also confronts us as many capitals. They sometimes compete with each other for our attention, as courtiers coveting our purses and wallets. They also compete with "our" (employing) capital, threatening to drive it out of business, take it over, make life turn hard; their competition systematically undermines our place in the world, the sense of our security. Yet this is entirely artificial. Markets are the outcomes of purposeful human activity, albeit one where the invisible hand wields an iron rod. Its anarchy is the direct corollary of workplace despotism, the less individual capital can make its own way against other capitals, the more it bears down on its workers to accumulate more. Capital is our monster, the market is its habitat. It is a creature born of our collective powers, which it has subverted and returned to blindly dominate, subjugate and compel.
As with most things Marx-related, there is another side. For all the exposure and critique of commodity fetishism, Marx conceded that in the lower phase of communism after the seizure of power by the immense majority in the interests of the immense majority, for a time those societies may still be grounded in 'bourgeois right'. In other words, after the glorious day has been and gone there will still be private property, codified law, the inequitable distribution of resource (pay differentials), and so on. The role of organised proletarians here is to manage society under the circumstances in which they find it and proceed to build socialism using what they have. After the revolution comes reform. Despite socialist hostility to markets, and given the impracticality of leaping from capitalism to the society of associated producers in short order, a red government, be it revolutionary or having come to power as per received constitutional niceties would have to treat with the market economy. Does a socialist society decide to live with it and change it over time, or rip it all out and begin afresh with a democratic plan - albeit at a price of further social dislocation and conflict?
Market socialism tries to go some way to assuage the understandable level of hostility socialists have towards markets. Market socialism got some impetus from Alec Nove's influential The Economics of Feasible Socialism, which appeared in 1983. Here, Nove approached issues of institutional design for a socialist society, how its economy might work, and so on. But market socialism as a distinct set of ideas broke cover toward the end of the 1980s. If one wanted to be uncharitable, it could be read as a left capitulation to the right's rampant market agenda. Old Labour shibboleths around nationalisation were out of touch and out of time. Bureaucracy was under attack here and in the command economies of so-called actually existing socialism; so groups of thinkers, academics and wonks drawn from the broad Labourist/Fabian tradition looked at markets afresh. And in policy paper after article after book chapter, market socialism was fashioned. Simply put, markets and capitalism are not one and the same. Markets can neutral allocative mechanisms that can aid socialist development, empowerment and efficiency; but only if they are disaggregated from private ownership of the means of production. Markets yes, capitalism no.
The now forgotten edited collection Market Socialism by Justin Le Grand and Saul Estrin (1989) proved something of a landmark text, bringing together contributions on virtually every aspect of the topic. What united all the papers were some shared basic propositions:
a) Markets act as self-organising information sharing/incentive indicating economic systems. Ideal typically, price as they appear on the market are the point in which they are sold. This relays information back to the manufacturers that this is the market rate and can reasonably expected to continue selling at that price. But as well as providing information, it acts as incentive too. If x quantity of commodities are sold at that price that allows the firm to recoup costs and yield a profit margin, our producer/supplier rushes more commodities to market to yield more profit, and so on. This is why markets over time can meet a bewildering diversity of need/demand.
b) There is a relationship between markets and freedom. Markets are economic systems that respond to individual preferences. Employers compete to attract the best staff, brands compete among themselves to sell their wares, in total capital-in-general offers and endless multiplicity of choices. Hence market capitalism inculcates a certain form of subjectivity that is capable of making decisions on the basis of the information available to them and choosing as autonomous, independent beings. The encouragement of critical faculties of a sort does not sit well with authoritarian/dictatorial regimes with liberal market economies. The two cut against one another - either a regime shuts down a market or the critically-minded subjectivities markets have engendered will shut down the regime.
c) Competition can be a great leveller. It drives efficiency and innovation and cuts out the sclerotic and shoddy. Provided, of course, markets are embedded in an institutional and regulatory context entirely different to those pertaining under capitalism. For example, depending on the rules of the game, markets can theoretically undermine accumulated economic advantage, as per this radical carbon credit trading scheme. Abstracted from capitalism, there is no reason not to believe that socialist market competition cannot deliver the goods, keep the lights on, and have everything running along without the recrudescence of inequalities and private economic power.
In the context of collapsing bureaucratic "socialism" in Eastern Europe, and the transition in China from Stalin-style commandism to an authoritarian market socialism (or is it state capitalism?); and of Labour's three straight election defeats on a "traditional" platform, it's understandable why this emerging set of ideas turned heads. Market capitalism appears to beat capitalism at its own game. Liberated from private ownership, schematically it promises market efficiency and the ability to meet the niche, individual needs of consumers. Compare and contrast with the USSR and its clients. The bureaucratically planned economy existed only in theory. Behind the imposing edifice of Gosplan, the much admired plan, the "proletarian property forms" were anarchic as any market - except perhaps even worse. Production targets did not meet demonstrable need. Large firms leaned on bureaucrats for extra resources under the plan irrespective. There was no impulse to quality control, let alone innovation. And at the margins, where the plan broke down not only citizens but entire enterprises traded goods and services on the black market. And, nominally at least, if there is one plan there can only be one agency with the authority, expertise and vision to drive it. That, of course, was the Party.
We should really talk of market socialisms rather than market socialism. There is market socialism of the middle range, like this:
The market socialist wishes, where possible, to reap both the efficiency and libertarian characteristics of markets whilst promoting much greater equality than we presently experience. The market socialist society will inevitable require a strong democratic state ... with powers to intervene and regulate where markets fail, with powers to promote competitive conditions and undermine monopolies, and, above all, with powers to promote equality of freedom. (Abell p.80, in Le Grand and Estrin 1989)
There are weak market socialisms that stress what is now wonkishly termed 'predistribution' (of which more another time). And there are very strong variants. How does a society in which capital has been expropriated from its owners, ownership and control have been hived from one another (and is strictly enforced), and the typical market actor is a worker cooperative, sound? The state, itself thoroughly democratised, consistently intervenes to ensure the market remains within certain parameters, that it will forever be society's servant, not its master.
The purpose of this piece is to provide the basic ideas of market socialism in order to explore them further. Socialism might be as far off the political agenda as it has ever been, but there is no reason why the possibility of what an alternative society might look like should not be discussed. After all, if we are serious about socialist politics - if we want it to paint this century in the vibrant tones of freedom from tyranny, inequality, and want socialism has to have answers about what can be done and how things should be done. It's more than a random shopping list of demands to organise working people behind; it has to link interest and vision together in something credible and so realisable you can almost touch it. This is the spirit in which I'll be returning to market socialism in the future.
Few things say family entertainment more than "I've sunk your battleship!". Plenty of times during the course of the 80s my brother and I would disinter our Battleship set. It wouldn't be long before each of us were plugging red hit pegs into our beloved aircraft carriers. But could we ever hunt down each other's two-hit destroyers? If the devil was an ocean-going vessel ... Yet not in my wildest imaginings, being as it was encumbered by Transformers and dreams of a computer of one's own, did I entertain the possibility Battleship would warrant a movie based on the game. Besides, wasn't basically every WWII American movie set in the Pacific theatre an exploration of the theme? Apparently not. So 2012 came and instead of giving us the end of the world, we got the weirdest licence in Hollywood history.
The plot, such as it is, deserves as much of a cursory mention as the film gives it. Some years after NASA (foolishly) beams a message at a promising-looking extra-solar planet, aliens land in the Pacific and start laying siege to Hawaii. Because their own communications ship hit a satellite on entry and was destroyed, so they need the radio telescope arrays dotted atop O'ahu's peaks to summon the rest of the invasion fleet. Standing in their way are three (summarily despatched) destroyers, the battleship Missouri and a bucketful of cheese.
To say Battleship is a terrible film is like ticking the government front bench off for lack of real world experience. The effects stand in for the acting and the whole thing doesn't make sense. Of course, the humans USA wins the day through grit, sacrifice and bloody-minded determination but the end is so disjointed from the action that had you turned on two minutes before the credits, you could be forgiven for thinking it was a hokey romantic comedy with Liam Neeson.
The big mystery is why Battleship was made at all. Well, apart from the obvious one. On a budget of $209m(!) it managed worldwide box office takings of $303m. Who cares if a film's rubbish if it brings in the dosh? Simply put, there is a ready market for unchallenging military romps with the razzle and dazzle of the latest special effects. On that score, Battleship does well. In a cinema the explosions and intricate alien technology would have been a spectacle. It also sits very firmly within the current climate of US culture. A declining global hegemon it might be, but its cultural anxieties are offset by a firm reliance on the capacity of the military to deal with any and every eventuality the world (or the universe) can throw at it.
Something else too. As noted in my Godzilla review, big monster/alien invasion movies are tributes to the US military. With the purview of its activity long having wound down from facing a potential existential threat in the USSR to what more or less constitute police actions in the Middle East and elsewhere, movies of this type are able to charge the military with the heroism, valour and hope that current operations do not allow for. Here as in Godzilla and countless others of their ilk, the tiny forces left to face off against the aliens put themselves in harms way almost recklessly. There's no hint of Vietnam Syndrome here - the men and women in uniform go to their inevitable deaths with iron hard square jaws.
Where Battleship differs from the crowd is traditionally the US navy loses out on box office love. What use is a destroyer when tripods are tearing up Boston? What contribution for ageing battleships against monsters indifferent to the comings and goings of marine craft? This film was clearly conceived and written to address that gap, to show they can be as meat-headed but as brave as any other arm of the US military. They can clear up the messes just as the airforce and infantry can.
Yes, an appalling movie by every measure. Still, at least Hasbro shifted a few new branded units off its back.
Candi Chetwynd is a Stoke-on-Trent Labour activist who stood last year in the contest to succeed Joan Walley as Labour's parliamentary candidate in Stoke-on-Trent North. She is also hoping to contest a seat for Labour in 2015's local council elections. You can follow Candi on Twitter here, or if you live in Stoke-on-Trent expect to see her on a doorstep near you.
Why do you want to be a Labour councillor?
To fight for social justice locally. I am tired of seeing inequality, low pay, and lowered aspirations distributed according to post code. People deserve better.
Have you ever been tempted to take up blogging?
I have thought of blogging quite a few times but can never find the time.
Do you find social media useful for Labour things?
Yes. Social media is the second most effective tool to campaign. Nothing beats face to face political discussions though.
Who are your biggest intellectual influences?
My good friend Phil BC, Neil Thompson and Stephen Hawking.
What are you reading at the moment?
I enjoy reading about the life of Saints each day but I'm sorry to say I'm not a huge reader. I try to on holiday. I like facts, figures, statistics and maps. I read online and follow news feeds and articles.
Do you have a favourite novel?
Erm ... Fantastic Mr Fox!
Can you name a work of non-fiction which has had a major influence on how you think about the world?
Not a book, but most recently watching Prof Brian Cox talk about the universe is amazing and makes me appreciate how miraculous life really is.
What was the last film you saw?
Immortals. I have seen it before. 7/10.
How many political organisations have you been a member of?
Just the Labour Party!
What set of ideas do you think it most important to disseminate?
Hate crimes, stereotypes and discrimination. Education is needed to ensure these are made history. Questions of standard of living, quality of life, human rights and respect need to be put at the forefront.
What set of ideas do you think it most important to combat?
Racism, sexism, fundamentalism and greed.
Who are your political heroes?
Dennis Skinner and anyone else who is unafraid to say exactly what they think is right regardless.
How about political villains?
Anyone who is in politics for the wrong reasons. Greedy people who enjoy fame at others' expense.
What do you think is the most pressing political task of the day?
Saving the NHS and increasing funding.
If you could affect a major policy change, what would it be?
I would significantly raise the payment of Carers Allowance as it is at an unbelievably low rate considering the amount of work, care, dedication and selflessness it demands. Caring is a vocation.
What do you consider to be the main threat to the future peace and security of the world?
Nuclear weapons. The fear of global life as we know it ending on a split second decision. We should be at a point in our history of civilisation where weapons are mere historical artefacts.
What would be your most important piece of advice about life?
Live everyday to the full, making sure you are true to yourself and others. Appreciate the small things. Smile and say thank you.
What is your favourite song?
MC Hammer, U Can't Touch This.
Do you have a favourite video game?
Super Marioland 2 on my Gameboy from when I was 10.
What do you consider the most important personal quality in others?
Honesty.
What personal fault in others do you most dislike?
Rudeness.
What, if anything, do you worry about?
The fact that younger people are less likely to vote. I am trying to encourage as many people as possible and if I am elected I will make this a personal campaign.
And any pet peeves?
How processed food is getting.
What piece of advice would you give to your much younger self?
Read.
What do you like doing in your spare time?
Socialising with family and friends. Cooking and eating Italian food. Looking at beautiful landscapes.
What is your most treasured possession(s)?
A medallion and necklace that my maternal great grandmother gave to me.
Do you have any guilty pleasures?
I eat a lot of cakes and desserts but it's all part of a balanced healthy diet and lifestyle!
What talent would you most like to have?
The ability to eat more pizza on a buffet! No, really to be able to speak more languages.
If you could have one (more or less realistic) wish come true - apart from getting loads of money - what would you wish for?
Equality.
Speaking of cash, how, if at all, would you change your life were you suddenly to win or inherit an enormously large sum of money?
Regardless of how much cash I had, I'd always support the Labour Party. I would help as many people as possible out of poverty, donate to charity and carry on campaigning.
If you could have any three guests, past or present, to dinner who would they be?
Julius Caesar, Boudica and Florence Nightingale.
You've been a very active campaigner since you joined the party. Would you recommend it?
Absolutely!!! No need for a gym membership anymore! If you want to be active in the community, really know what politics means to other people and fight for justice then campaigning is just the tonic. Campaigning can inspire and encourage more people to vote and get involved, and you get the chance to meet people who have been waiting for an opportunity to talk about what matters to them. It can be very humbling, but is also character building - it's absolutely essential if you're passionate about politics.
"When I was poor and I complained about inequality, people said I was bitter. Now I'm rich and I complain about inequality, they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want inequality on the agenda because it is a real problem that needs to be addressed." Normally something to pin on your tumblr, this week it's become something of a prophecy. Russell Brand was ambushed on Channel 4 news (two million views and rising) for having the temerity to stand with New Era Estate residents against the sale of their homes to American-based property sepculators. Scenting an opportunity to shift a few papers, The Sun joined C4 with front page attacks on Brand on Wednesday and Thursday. And so it came to pass that the Dirty Digger's tabloid terriers went to war with Russell Brand.
I pity the fools.
Brand has segued from comedian to a campaigning voice-of-a-generation figure. He is a bit marmite, but I like him and so do quite a few yoof-types. And he's using his celebrity to raise awareness about working class struggles that would otherwise not have passed muster as far as the media's gatekeepers are concerned. Best of all, he's not doing the millionaire rockstar pretend-friend-of-the-poor thing while body-swerving taxes. He may be a touch narcissistic and have some notorious blind spots, but he's standing up for the class he comes from.
How does this compare with the self-styled paper of working class Britain? To be sure, on every movement, campaign and achievement of, by and for those people - our people; for every voice raised against the inequity, privilege and power; on every measure that has made a modest improvement in the quality and standard of living of working class people, time after time The Sun has set its lying, ugly face against them. Yes, they were even against the minimum wage. So for The Sun to call anyone out as a hypocrite demands an expansive memory hole large enough to swallow their previous multitudes of scabby deeds.
As Murdoch's minions take to the field against Brand, it's not their appalling record that will lose them the war. You don't have to be a sociologist of the media to know that tabloid campaigns against a new folk devil have a tendency of backfiring. What The Sun have done is take a popular, radical (and radicalising) celebrity, let off the heavy artillery and are moving in for the mop up. Yet their attacks are complete duds. For the kids who are having to grow up with The Sun - like I did - having the straight, dull world of parents and papers moaning about the antics of a dynamic, anti-establishment comedian is exactly the kind of publicity Brand's celebrity feeds off. Every shell The Sun fires off not so much rebounds on their own trenches, but falls haphazardly onto their supply lines. By attacking and rubbishing a popular youth figure the paper is alienating many hundreds of thousands of potential future readers. They're smashing up, churning up their own market.
The Sun has launched a war it cannot win. I therefore hope it continues for a long, long time.
At the moment I'm reading Daniel Bensaïd's book, Marx For Our Times. And yes, it is excellent. I don't know, I spent a ridiculous amount of time wrestling with Althusser and sundry poststructuralists 10-15 years ago when, unbeknown to me, there was already a strain of post-Althusserian French(ish) Marxism that had moved on and captured the critical, scientific spirit of historical materialism. Poor old Louis made this possible but, irony of ironies, wasn't able to accomplish that himself.
Bensaïd's book is especially good because of the demolition job it does on recent myths the likes of poststructuralism and Analytical Marxism have tacked on to Marx's voluminous beard. Teleology? No. Marx's Theory of History? No. People as appendages of classes? No. Marx was blind to other classes apart from the bourgeoisie, landowners and proletariat in capitalism? No. And on and on it goes. Written in an accessible style it comes highly recommended.
Anyway, the first 'critical Marxists' who had a historical materialist approach purged of Hegelian phantasms and all other metaphysical ghoulies were ... Marx and Engels in the first place, and quite early in their career too. For anyone still labouring under the assumption the dynamic duo held to a naive theory of history, here is Engels from *1843* absolutely nailing it:
History does nothing, it possesses no immense wealth; it wages no battles: It is man, real, living man who does all that, who possesses and fights: 'history' is not, as it were, a person apart, using man as a means to achieve its own aims; history is nothing but the activity of man pursuing his aims.
(Engels, The Holy Family, in Bensaïd 2002, p.10)
170 years later some "Marxists" and its purported detractors carry on as if these words were never written.
Still, the Autumn Statement is a welcome opportunity to dissect something seldom seen from the Tory benches - a morsel of quivering substance. The headline grabber, and what I'm going to stick to here, was the cut in stamp duty. A nakedly political move, of course, one that has to reach out to voters while punching the opposition in the guts. On turning the electorate's heads, this can be - and is being - spun as the Tory party embracing hardworking Britain (puke) by leaving not inconsiderable sums in their pockets. The ones who really benefit from this, however, are not your archetypal young couple priced out of the market and saving to step up to the housing ladder. No, the big gainers here are buy-to-let landlords, the majority of whom handle property of modest to middling values. Since Thatcher's council house sell off in the 80s, the constituency has been assiduously cultivated and protected by the Tories. Today's stamp duty announcement might have perceived swing voter appeal, but it's another tax payer handout to private rental.
On the other hand, by whacking up stamp duty for the 2% of homebuyers with cash to splash on £25m properties Osborne and his Treasury team and Lynton Crosby think they've stuffed the mansion tax into a sack and drowned it down the canal. The potential for Labour to gain from a bit of left populism around it has been nullified. And there we were thinking that Osborne was supposed to be some sort of political genius. On immediate appearances it does seem like a masterstroke, but it only is if it forces Labour to abandon its scheme. There is absolutely no sign the party will do so. Whatever stamp duty jiggery pokery the treasury can pull, Labour's mansion tax will go ahead because a) it guarantees a regular monthly income to the NHS, b) it is popular with people who live in the real world, and c) those same real world people are happy to see tax dodging-London spivs and whiny celebrities getting soaked, soaked, and soaked again. Presumably Osborne has calculated that he'll be able to score points off Labour by claiming theirs is a "homes tax" on aspiration and a declaration of class war. Except attacks lines like that have all the bite of Michael Fabricant's toupée. Just as it's a bad idea for the Tories to try and out-UKIP UKIP, it's just as daft to give out-Labouring Labour a go.
But Osborne's biggest error are the mixed messages he's sending out. The economy is growing strongly, but things are still "precarious". The public finances are under control, but deficit spending and public debt are growing again. We need fiscal discipline, but the government are splurging money on tax cuts and road building. From this a coherent message Osborne hopes to fashion. But he won't. Every new spending announcement he makes undermines claims against Labour's so-called profligacy. The unearned lead the Tories have on economics and finances are, unsurprisingly, starting to slip and with the government having very little to say about people's actual standards of living, this is ground Labour can make up between now and election day. Careless, yes. Savvy, definitely not.
This will be Osborne's last autumn statement, and is to be noted above all for its incoherence and wishful thinking. In that respect, as the chancellor's stewardship of the economy draws to a close he ended as he started.
We're practically in perpetual motion territory. It's swollen to the size of a Jovian red spot that preys on lesser Twitter squalls, and rips the energy from them to power its own storm engine. We're talking #CameronMustGo again, the unstoppable, irrepressible social media phenomenon of the last week and a bit. Sure thing it got a bit of a push yesterday after snarky attacks on it in the press which were sooo predictable that Mystic Meg here pointed out their foolishness a week ago. Embarrassing. But perhaps even more cringeworthy than professional journos pontificating from platforms most activists can but dream of has been the shambolic attempt by Tory activists to send a counter hash up the trends.
I've expended words on Tory stupidity as a fact of life twice before. It's not that individual Tories are spectacularly unintelligent, though clearly many are, but they tend to be trapped within a world view that fights shy of evidence that contradicts their politically loaded views. For example, in the lead up to the Autumn statement we've had sundry Tory politicians doing the media round saying their splurge on the NHS, roads and what have you can be afforded because the economy is strong and that they have the public finances under control. That's alright, if those claims were not outright lies. Cynical and stupid to the Tories is what pots and oatcakes are to Stoke-on-Trent.
Anyway, the "brains" behind the Tory counterhash is the official feed for the ruling Conservative group on Melton Mowbray Borough Council. What devastating counter blast could the collective wisdom of an 18-strong group come up with? This peach was the fruit of their labours:
Devastating.
Look at some responses from within the Tory echo chamber:
"Classic." "Brilliant." "Genius." I suppose some people have a low bar for this sort of thing.
Apart from stating the bleeding obvious, #VoteLabourGetMiliband is interesting for a few more reasons too. First off, it was jumped on very quickly by Labour folks. Like this:
Then, barely a day in we had the baseless self-congratulation:
But quickly, lack of purchase turned into bitterness:
What the good Tory burghers of Melton Mowbray have given the world is a masterclass in how not to try and get a hashtag going. If it's partisan, it cannot be something one's opponents could annex with ease. I mean seriously, vote Labour get Miliband? Is that the best they could do? The second point is motive or, rather, anger and grievance. Labour's recent Twitter successes work because they tap into a sense of anger against this government that exists far beyond the party's ranks. Ed may have his detractors, but Dave is hated by a significant proportion of the electorate. Yet none of this is reflected in the mainstream media, except on occasions when a big march or protest might get coverage. Axe-grinding is a powerful motivator, so collectively assorted Labour supporters and lefties have collectively hacked a ledge out of Twitter's edifice from which they can broadcast far and wide.
The Tories on the other hand don't need Twitter. They can more or less rely on three quarters of the press and most of the broadcast media to not seriously challenge their rubbish. Why bother pleading with Tory "celebs" to get your hashtag running when friendly coverage lands on the doormats of millions of Britons every morning?
There are a couple of other interesting observations. First off the big Tory Twitter beasts avoided it like the plague. Probably because few still wish to be associated with Louise Mensch, but also because of the hashtag's obvious idiocy. Pro tip: do not alienate those you seek to recruit to the cause. Also, the whole hitching causes to hashtags is merely an extension of the sort of campaigning most Labour and left people are involved in. Can you imagine figures like Tim Montgomerie, Simon Heffer, Bill Cash and the like ramming their timelines with #VoteToryGetTory or #LongTermEconomicPlan or #SecuringABetterFuture? Of course not, it's all a bit too, well, vulgar.
The second problem is that underneath the very showy clothes afforded by hedge fund money, the modern Conservative Party is a sack of bone and gristle that barely draws breath. Out and proud Tory-identifiers do not manifest on Twitter because they do not exist on the medium in large numbers, which is reflective of the party's membership being concentrated in the 70+ category. Also, the London commentariat are blind to the fact that being an out Tory is simply not as culturally acceptable as being Labour. Yes, even after 13 years of government. All told, it's a good job the Tories have money and powerful friends. If they had to rely on the human resources organised in their depleting associations they'd be sunk.
Shia LaBeouf, ex-Hollywood beefcake turned avant-garde performance artist hasn't featured on this blog before. But he does now and for good reason. If you haven't heard the story, he's alleged that he was raped during a project back in February. The exhibit, #IAmSorry, sees a paper bag-wearing LaBeouf silently sitting alone in a room with members of the public as they talk/cajole/berate him. On his bag is written the legend 'I am not famous anymore'.
According to LaBeouf,
One woman who came with her boyfriend, who was outside the door when this happened, whipped my legs for 10 minutes and then stripped my clothing and proceeded to rape me.
Yes, you read that correctly. LaBeouf claims he was raped. By a woman. His allegation is backed up by his collaborators on the piece who intervened to stop the attack. The presence of two eyewitnesses, however, are not good enough for Piers Morgan and his dissection of LaBeouf's account. Among the dross (carried by Mail Online - who else?) Morgan justifies his victim-blaming, noting that "If he’d wanted to stop this complete stranger supposedly ‘raping’ him, all he had to do was physically stop her himself or shout for help. But he didn’t. He just let it all happen."
Morgan wasn't there, so how does he know what did and didn't happen? And why does he feel entitled, from a position of complete ignorance, to adjudicate on whether LaBeouf was raped according to some ideal-typical model he carries in his fetid brain?
As it happens, I do have an idea where his bullshit comes from. In advanced industrial societies, gender is constituted/constructed in particular ways. There are masculinities and femininities as opposed to a single, definitive Masculinity or Femininity. Yet certain ways of performing gendered identities are more valorised than others. Archetypes of these strut about television programmes, litter video games and print publications, and use their idealised bodies to sell us stuff. It's not very often obese, conventionally unattractive women and men are used to market cars, cosmetics, holidays, new styles, etc. There then exists hegemonic masculinity and femininity, a standard reinforced and tweaked by the manipulations of marketing that projects whole sets of prescribed behaviours that covers appearance, conduct, lifestyle choices, and sexual behaviour.
Yes, sexual behaviour. Mainstream pornography for heterosexual male audiences condenses so many standard sexual scripts that condition the libidinal imaginations of many men. Women are basically objects to be fucked. It doesn't matter how one does it, hegemonic masculinity still valorises the guy who has sex with a lot of women - it helps explain why rancid trogs like Dapper Laughs and Julien Blanc find no shortage of defenders among some groups of young men. Putting it about, however, doesn't require an entourage of laddy lads to give your back a good old slapping. Manliness can be affirmed to one's own satisfaction too. The serial shagger, the overseas sex tourist, the married Tinder user, the kerb crawler - very different kinds of sex, very similar kinds of buzzes. It's as if virility can be measured in the equivalent of a transpotter's logbook.
A constant throughout this is that het guys on the hunt are the active participant. Their objects the passive. It is a gaze, a disposition, a way of orienting toward women that reduces them to sexy body bits. When a woman responds positively or, even better, initiates the beginning of what could quite easily lead into a sexual encounter well, it is the stuff of fantasy. Which is why so many porn scenarios has the female performer triggering the scene. No roses and Milk Tray needed. Whereas hegemonic femininity still encourages women to feel guilty about casual sexual encounters, hegemonic masculinity inculcates a sense of regret for opportunities passed up.
I do apologise for having to reintroduce Piers Morgan at this point. His tirade is draped in the assumptions and conceits of the hegemonic sexual script. He has profound difficulty with the notion that Labeouf was overpowered and raped by a woman, that a reversal took place in which he became an object to be attacked and violated. There's an unsavoury stain of nudge nudge wink wink there too. A bit of 'what a dawg/lucky bastard'. Caught with his pants down and his girlfriend nearby, surely he cried rape to mollify her anger at an episode he did not object to. And if it was anything other than consensual, why weren't the police called? Why haven't the police still not been called?
What a disgusting creature Piers Morgan is.
Unlike Piers, if someone says they've been raped or abused, then I'm inclined to believe them. "No you weren't" or "oh fuck off" are as crass as they are stupid. As we know the criminal justice system still has a difficult time ensuring rapists are detected, prosecuted and banged up. Making an allegation, going through the rigmarole of having it taken seriously by the authorities and (sometimes) friends and family can be deeply affecting and traumatic too. Small wonder rape remains underreported in Britain. Coming out as a rape survivor comes with significant costs. Hence why my starting point is belief.
When someone like LaBeouf says he's been raped, his claim comes with personal costs too. While his story will find sympathy in some quarters, because it involves a woman he will be a laughing stock in others. His image as a buff, some-time action man lies in tatters. The allegation was made in the full knowledge it will cost his future film career dearly. And yet he's done it anyway. That's why I believe Shia LaBeouf, and why you should too.
Most read this month were:
1. Who is White Van Dan?
2. SWP Bullies London Black Revolutionaries
3. What #webackEd Means
4. Neil Findlay for Scottish Labour Leader
5. Labour's Leadership Woes
It has been a right busy month on the blog, placing November fifth on the all-time hits chart. It's been one of those 'saying the right thing at the right time' affairs. Worry not, next month I'll be touching on the obscure stuff because nothing happens over Christmas, ever.
Having White Van Dan forced on us like some paragon of working class virtue got mine, yours and the zookeeper's goat in November. As it turned out Dan's proletarian creds were only skin deep, but the insecurity that clearly is at the root of his authoritarian Sun-penned 'Danifesto' (rofl) is felt keenly enough. Then we had the SWP's latest shenanigans. I don't know if an organisation can go lower than covering up rape allegations and intimidating the complainants. Perhaps the SWP themselves don't know and are setting out to be as shitty as possible. I'm just glad that two minutes with Google will be enough to put any new recruit off for life.
As for the rest, it's been a bit of a rum time for Labour in what was a disaster of a month for the Tories. Go have a look.
On this occasion there are two posts in the second chance category. The first, The Rise of the Comedians could also have been dubbed 'What Habermas might think of Russell Brand'. Had I gone with that I'd probably have got a shedload more reads. Keeping with a Frankfurt School theme, my second is Herbert Marcuse and One-Dimensional Man. Belatedly marking the 50th anniversary of this once very influential book, I take a look at its relevance half a century on.
That's your lot!
