It was almost a year ago the world breathed a sigh of relief as possibly the worst presidency in the history of the United States. By way of contrast, going off the hype and global enthusiasm for Barack Obama you could be forgiven for thinking the Second Coming was taking up residence in the Oval Office. In this piece below from the CWI website by Tony Wilsdon of Socialist Alternative in the US, we see Obama has proven to be as much a tool of vested corporate interests as previous incumbents.
One year ago, millions of Americans were in the streets cheering the election of Obama as the end of Republican policies and the start of a new era. How quickly these hopes have been dashed. One year after Obama’s election, it’s hard to identify one positive achievement of his presidency.
Obama’s campaign was filled with lofty speeches, and he repeatedly promised to change who controls politics in Washington. He promised that ordinary Americans “will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally [been] reserved for the wealthy and the powerful.”
Almost immediately, Obama packed his cabinet full of Wall Street executives and powerful political figures from previous administrations, both Democrat and Republican. This was followed by another huge bailout for the architects of the financial meltdown – the big banks – with few, if any, strings attached.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration refused to support legislation in the Senate which would have allowed judges to force banks to renegotiate mortgage instruments to give desperate homeowners reduced monthly payments to avoid foreclosure or eviction. This follows his decision the previous year, while in the Senate, to vote against a cap on the interest rates on credit cards.
Matt Taibbi wrote in Rolling Stone, “the aid that Obama has provided to real people has been dwarfed in size and scope by the taxpayer money that has been handed over to America’s financial giants” (9 December 2009). This showed the extent to which Obama is beholden to the bankers and financiers who helped fund his election campaign.
This was followed by his decision to offer major concessions to the private hospitals, drug companies, and insurance companies as part of building the framework for his health care reform bill (New York Times, 8 December 2008). For example, Obama stepped in personally to promise drug companies that the government would not use its clout to force down drug prices. This paved the way for the massive handout to private medicine that is at the heart of the Obama-supported health bill recently passed through the House and Senate.
Then came the decision for a 30,000-troop surge in Afghanistan, the failure to support the international treaty to ban land mines and the failure to support the issues dear to the LGBT community. He also failed to address the massive poverty and imprisonment that afflict the African-American community; he refused to enact a powerful jobs program or to seriously fight to protect the environment. And, of course, he put on the backburner promises to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have made it easier for workers to form unions at their workplaces.
Empty Promises
Millions of working-class and poor people are now forced to grapple with the fact that Obama’s promises to be a transformative figure were just that – electoral promises. In the real world, he is the chosen candidate of the Democratic Party. He got there, as every other candidate of the Democratic Party, by proving his loyalty to the big corporate sponsors who fund the party and its candidates. He received more corporate money than any other candidate in 2008.
So what does this tell us about the nature of the Democratic Party? In the Democratic Party, as in the Republican Party, corporate interests consistently trump the concerns of working people and the poor. How else can one explain the policies of the Obama administration on issue after issue? Obama is the current spokesperson for a big business political party.
With the Obama administration stepping back from any progressive promises it made, this alienated its supporters and weakened the powerful majority of Americans who were willing to help push through Obama’s promise to break with the agenda of the Republicans.
This left working-class people disarmed and confused. Into this vacuum stepped the right-wing populist spokespersons of the Republicans, distorting the issues, playing on people’s fears, hammering away at Obama and attempting to block his agenda by any means necessary.
Democratic Party Fails
Instead of exposing this motley crew and mobilizing the public, the Obama administration sat down to negotiate away one progressive element after another from its legislation. For what? With each concession, Republicans have called his policies “socialist” and “un-American” while demanding more. All these concessions resulted in not one Republican vote in the Senate for the health care bill.
We can now expect apologists for the Democratic Party to blame the American people for not being willing to support Obama’s progressive agenda, and to claim that Obama “was forced” to make concessions to the Republicans. The opposite is true. The majority of the public has been consistently to the left of both political parties in the last ten years. They have demanded troops be withdrawn first from Iraq and now Afghanistan, constantly supported a government-run universal health care system, called for fundamental change to protect the environment, and demanded controls be put on Wall Street corruption and hand outs to wealthy CEOs. These are policies neither of the two major parties will touch.
Time and again we have seen the same process. The Republicans get exposed; the Democrats promise change in order to get elected. Once safely in power, they shed promises and reveal their corporate core. Clinton also made promises - and then delivered NAFTA, the WTO, the abolition of welfare, the militarization of the border with Mexico, the bombing of Serbia and inhumane sanctions on the people of Iraq.
Call to Action
It’s time to step up and say “enough is enough.” We will only get the policies we need by building a powerful movement to demand them. This has always been the way progress has been won in the past. This is the way we forced big business to concede social security, the 40-hour workweek, and civil rights for women and African Americans – not by depending on the voluntary votes of Democrats.
This is the best we can get from Democrats. Their corporate character is there for all to see. In this health care debate their priority has been big business’s agenda, making the health care bill “fiscally neutral.” They refused to even discuss a single-payer system, which would have provided quality health care for all by eliminating the wasteful insurance companies. Compare this to Obama’s statement in a primary debate in 2007: “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program. I see no reason why the U.S. cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody.”
There is massive anger at the economic conditions – humiliation and pain from fighting just to keep our heads above water and our bodies from being forced out on to the streets.
That anger will demand change. We need to channel that anger to build a new political party and a socialist program that stands for working people, not corporate America. That is the only way we can achieve real change.
Ahad, 10 Januari 2010
Sabtu, 9 Januari 2010
The History of Now
The broadcast media is very taken with its lists and retrospectives, and this week the BBC has added three more documentaries to the ever growing heap of attempts to diagnose our times. That said, The History of Now were slightly more highbrow than your Most Annoying People of 2009 and The Greatest Songs of the Noughties as the accent was on social trends and cultural phenomena, rather than the ins and outs of Katie Price's bedroom.
The first episode looked at how aging had been redefined in the 00s, examining the differences between the generations, the extension of adolescence into "kidulthood" and "middle youth". The second focused more on celebrity, class and social mobility. It talked about how the extension of cheap credit had stimulated a consumerism driven by the godheads of celebrity. It made the interesting point that the instant and seemingly easy routes to contemporary fame actually masked declining real life social mobility. For every young man and woman plucked from obscurity for a "career" in the glossies, millions more rare doomed to modestly paid work with little or no prospects of advance. The last discussed the impact globalisation has had on British society, covering everything from mass immigration and multiculturalism to the Washington-London axis in international relations.
There's no real need to produce in-depth reviews seeing as they are available on BBC iplayer, at least for the next week or so. But there are a couple of problems with The History of Now.
The first of these is standpoint. The talking heads were, in the main, well remunerated white male journalists and academics. This fitted the perspective of the documentary very well - it was more a middle class history of the 00s than anything else. Nearly everything was prefaced with a catch-all "we" - we all globe trotted thanks to cheap air travel. We all spent hundreds of pounds a month chasing the latest fashions. We were all property mad. We all benefited from the boom before the crash. And we all had a jolly good titter at the vulgarity of the chavs.
The second problem is the way the 00s are represented as radically discontinuous of the 1990s. I don't think this is the case at all. Multiculturalism figures more now than it did at the turn of the century in hegemonic narratives, but all the basics were there - the cultural battle against overt forms of racism, sexism and homophobia had made massive advances by 1999. Ditto the universality of popular culture and the spread of consumerism - both of which had been established by the late 1980s. It was surreal listening to arguments about the decline of class identity in favour of consumption-led tribalism as if this was a new thing - I remember studying exactly the same ideas as an undergrad in the mid-90s. Post-Fordism and the 'New Times', anyone? (And of course, with the yawning inequality gap and frozen social mobility, it is very difficult to pretend class "doesn't matter").
Finally, The History of Now completely misses *the* defining characteristic of the 00s, if there is one. The 00s has been a decade of introspection. As instantaneous communication and economics has compressed time and geographical space, British society has simultaneously turned itself inwards, as if engaged in a bout of existential soul searching. The endless list programmes about best music and TV, the explosion of surveillance technologies (including voluntary self-surveillance exercised via Facebook, Twitter and blogging), reality TV, and environmental anxieties are all suggestive of a culture interested in what it is and where it is going.
This notion itself is nothing new either. There was a time Anthony Giddens used to make notable contributions to sociology. Among these was his understanding of reflexivity - that modernity (i.e. modern industrial/post-industrial civilisation) was, thanks to the break down of existing class and community relations and the development of new technologies, becoming progressively self-aware. Its capacities for recognising the problems society faces grows - however, while risks can be identified how they are met are a matter of politics (it is however a weakness of Giddens' approach that he pays insufficient attention to the structural reasons why some identified problems go unresolved - climate change is the example par excellence).
So if you're in a reflexive mood, these documentaries are well worth watching. But best keep your critical spectacles on.
The first episode looked at how aging had been redefined in the 00s, examining the differences between the generations, the extension of adolescence into "kidulthood" and "middle youth". The second focused more on celebrity, class and social mobility. It talked about how the extension of cheap credit had stimulated a consumerism driven by the godheads of celebrity. It made the interesting point that the instant and seemingly easy routes to contemporary fame actually masked declining real life social mobility. For every young man and woman plucked from obscurity for a "career" in the glossies, millions more rare doomed to modestly paid work with little or no prospects of advance. The last discussed the impact globalisation has had on British society, covering everything from mass immigration and multiculturalism to the Washington-London axis in international relations.
There's no real need to produce in-depth reviews seeing as they are available on BBC iplayer, at least for the next week or so. But there are a couple of problems with The History of Now.
The first of these is standpoint. The talking heads were, in the main, well remunerated white male journalists and academics. This fitted the perspective of the documentary very well - it was more a middle class history of the 00s than anything else. Nearly everything was prefaced with a catch-all "we" - we all globe trotted thanks to cheap air travel. We all spent hundreds of pounds a month chasing the latest fashions. We were all property mad. We all benefited from the boom before the crash. And we all had a jolly good titter at the vulgarity of the chavs.
The second problem is the way the 00s are represented as radically discontinuous of the 1990s. I don't think this is the case at all. Multiculturalism figures more now than it did at the turn of the century in hegemonic narratives, but all the basics were there - the cultural battle against overt forms of racism, sexism and homophobia had made massive advances by 1999. Ditto the universality of popular culture and the spread of consumerism - both of which had been established by the late 1980s. It was surreal listening to arguments about the decline of class identity in favour of consumption-led tribalism as if this was a new thing - I remember studying exactly the same ideas as an undergrad in the mid-90s. Post-Fordism and the 'New Times', anyone? (And of course, with the yawning inequality gap and frozen social mobility, it is very difficult to pretend class "doesn't matter").
Finally, The History of Now completely misses *the* defining characteristic of the 00s, if there is one. The 00s has been a decade of introspection. As instantaneous communication and economics has compressed time and geographical space, British society has simultaneously turned itself inwards, as if engaged in a bout of existential soul searching. The endless list programmes about best music and TV, the explosion of surveillance technologies (including voluntary self-surveillance exercised via Facebook, Twitter and blogging), reality TV, and environmental anxieties are all suggestive of a culture interested in what it is and where it is going.
This notion itself is nothing new either. There was a time Anthony Giddens used to make notable contributions to sociology. Among these was his understanding of reflexivity - that modernity (i.e. modern industrial/post-industrial civilisation) was, thanks to the break down of existing class and community relations and the development of new technologies, becoming progressively self-aware. Its capacities for recognising the problems society faces grows - however, while risks can be identified how they are met are a matter of politics (it is however a weakness of Giddens' approach that he pays insufficient attention to the structural reasons why some identified problems go unresolved - climate change is the example par excellence).
So if you're in a reflexive mood, these documentaries are well worth watching. But best keep your critical spectacles on.
Jumaat, 8 Januari 2010
Debating the Crisis
When it comes to the theory side of the far left's theory/practice dialectic, our collective efforts have been less than stellar. Partly this is because of how organised Marxist politics is constructed in this country, split as it is between small groups that compete primarily with each other for influence, paper sales and recruits.
Particular analyses and positions are as much a defining feature of a group as a guide to action. This means, speaking in terms of the development of Marxian theory, the far left punches below its weight. Exchanges between different members of different groups have a tendency to devolve into point scoring. Considerations of being seen to be right predominates over the search for the truth. For instance, when was the last time you saw a theoretical piece in Socialist Review, International Socialism or Socialism Today say something positive about the arguments and analyses deployed by other groups. This privatisation of theory feeds an 'ourselves, alone' attitude and has, on occasion, led to the unacknowledged "adoption" of opponents' arguments (which rarely gets picked up on - only inveterate sectarians like your humble scribbler reads the output of several left groups).
This is all a round about way of prefacing my endorsement of a recent article published by a factional opponent of the Socialist Party. I sometimes give my former comrades in the Weekly Worker a bit of stick, but this week's edition of the paper is excellent. Mike Macnair's piece, World Politics, Long Waves and the Decline of Capitalism is especially good. He simultaneously reviews and critiques contributions to the understanding of the present crisis (including Stoke labour movement legend and friend of the blog, Boffy), the decline of the USA as world hegemon, the part played by unproductive labour in contemporary economies and the possible fate capitalism is hurtling us toward. But it is a contribution to a debate about crisis and not a strategic document, such as the CWI's recent prognosis for global capital.
Well worth a look if you're trying to negotiate your way through a complex set of issues.
Particular analyses and positions are as much a defining feature of a group as a guide to action. This means, speaking in terms of the development of Marxian theory, the far left punches below its weight. Exchanges between different members of different groups have a tendency to devolve into point scoring. Considerations of being seen to be right predominates over the search for the truth. For instance, when was the last time you saw a theoretical piece in Socialist Review, International Socialism or Socialism Today say something positive about the arguments and analyses deployed by other groups. This privatisation of theory feeds an 'ourselves, alone' attitude and has, on occasion, led to the unacknowledged "adoption" of opponents' arguments (which rarely gets picked up on - only inveterate sectarians like your humble scribbler reads the output of several left groups).
This is all a round about way of prefacing my endorsement of a recent article published by a factional opponent of the Socialist Party. I sometimes give my former comrades in the Weekly Worker a bit of stick, but this week's edition of the paper is excellent. Mike Macnair's piece, World Politics, Long Waves and the Decline of Capitalism is especially good. He simultaneously reviews and critiques contributions to the understanding of the present crisis (including Stoke labour movement legend and friend of the blog, Boffy), the decline of the USA as world hegemon, the part played by unproductive labour in contemporary economies and the possible fate capitalism is hurtling us toward. But it is a contribution to a debate about crisis and not a strategic document, such as the CWI's recent prognosis for global capital.
Well worth a look if you're trying to negotiate your way through a complex set of issues.
Khamis, 7 Januari 2010
The Best Fighter Money Can't Buy
From Coventry Socialist Party:
An independent socialist voice for Coventry North East
Dave Nellist - The best fighter money can't buy!
No to MPs' Sleaze - Support a Workers' MP on a Worker's Wage
Can you help the campaign in Coventry North East?
Could you display a poster?
Could you deliver leaflets in your area?
Could you come out canvassing with us?
If you can help the campaign in any way phone or text us on 07906468797
or email us coventrysocialists@googlemail.com
This leaflet has already been delivered to over 42,000 houses in Coventry North East but that is just the start - get in touch and help the campaign!
Dave Nellist was a Coventry MP from 1983-92. In those 9 years he took only a worker's wage. The surplus was donated to causes which benefited ordinary people and Dave published regular reports posted to hundreds of local people detailing where the donations went.
What a difference to the bunch of careerist politicians we have in Parliament now!
Make sure you support a real Workers' MP on a Worker's Wage!
The Socialist Party has launched a financial appeal to enable it to stand candidates in the next general election and put forward an alternative to the programme of massive job cuts in public services and privatisation being promised by Labour, Tories and the Lib Dems. The main parties are all determined to make working-class people pay twice over for this economic crisis, having already bailed out the banks with £1.2 trillion of our money. The Socialist Party is in talks with leading members of the RMT transport workers' union and other organisations to discuss standing candidates as part of a wider electoral coalition that puts forward the interests of working class and young people. Such a coalition could act as a step towards the formation of a mass workers' party in the future.
Local Elections
There are also local elections in 2010. Four Socialist Party councillors will be standing for re-election in Lewisham in London, Kirklees in Yorkshire and Coventry in the West Midlands. Socialist Party members and supporters need to be able to effectively campaign to defend these positions.
High Costs
It will cost at least £2,000 per candidate in the general election, to pay for the deposit, for the election address to be delivered to every household, and to print and distribute posters and leaflets. This means that if, for example, Socialist Party members contested 25 seats a minimum of £50,000 would be needed to fund this. Therefore the Socialist Party is asking every member and supporter to pledge a donation to the election appeal, which can be redeemed by 30 April 2010. Socialist Party members have previously donated the equivalent of one week's income to help fund election campaigns, paid over three or four months, and it is that spirit of sacrifice that we appeal to now. It is understood that donations on this scale may be difficult for many people, but the Socialist Party has no rich backers and it can only rely on the party's members and supporters to finance this campaign.
Socialist Ideas
Your donations, whether it is £10 or more from a school student or £500 from a skilled full-time worker, will be vital for standing in the elections. Such contributions will enable the Socialist Party to promote its ideas to as wide an audience as possible, and discuss with workers and young people about the need to get organised, join the Socialist Party and build a socialist alternative.
Please send any donations to General Election Appeal, PO Box 24697, London, E11 1YD
To see a copy of the 'Coalition to Stand General Election Candidates' leaflet click here
An independent socialist voice for Coventry North East
Dave Nellist - The best fighter money can't buy!
No to MPs' Sleaze - Support a Workers' MP on a Worker's Wage
Can you help the campaign in Coventry North East?
Could you display a poster?
Could you deliver leaflets in your area?
Could you come out canvassing with us?
If you can help the campaign in any way phone or text us on 07906468797
or email us coventrysocialists@googlemail.com
This leaflet has already been delivered to over 42,000 houses in Coventry North East but that is just the start - get in touch and help the campaign!
Dave Nellist was a Coventry MP from 1983-92. In those 9 years he took only a worker's wage. The surplus was donated to causes which benefited ordinary people and Dave published regular reports posted to hundreds of local people detailing where the donations went.
What a difference to the bunch of careerist politicians we have in Parliament now!
Make sure you support a real Workers' MP on a Worker's Wage!
The Socialist Party has launched a financial appeal to enable it to stand candidates in the next general election and put forward an alternative to the programme of massive job cuts in public services and privatisation being promised by Labour, Tories and the Lib Dems. The main parties are all determined to make working-class people pay twice over for this economic crisis, having already bailed out the banks with £1.2 trillion of our money. The Socialist Party is in talks with leading members of the RMT transport workers' union and other organisations to discuss standing candidates as part of a wider electoral coalition that puts forward the interests of working class and young people. Such a coalition could act as a step towards the formation of a mass workers' party in the future.
Local Elections
There are also local elections in 2010. Four Socialist Party councillors will be standing for re-election in Lewisham in London, Kirklees in Yorkshire and Coventry in the West Midlands. Socialist Party members and supporters need to be able to effectively campaign to defend these positions.
High Costs
It will cost at least £2,000 per candidate in the general election, to pay for the deposit, for the election address to be delivered to every household, and to print and distribute posters and leaflets. This means that if, for example, Socialist Party members contested 25 seats a minimum of £50,000 would be needed to fund this. Therefore the Socialist Party is asking every member and supporter to pledge a donation to the election appeal, which can be redeemed by 30 April 2010. Socialist Party members have previously donated the equivalent of one week's income to help fund election campaigns, paid over three or four months, and it is that spirit of sacrifice that we appeal to now. It is understood that donations on this scale may be difficult for many people, but the Socialist Party has no rich backers and it can only rely on the party's members and supporters to finance this campaign.
Socialist Ideas
Your donations, whether it is £10 or more from a school student or £500 from a skilled full-time worker, will be vital for standing in the elections. Such contributions will enable the Socialist Party to promote its ideas to as wide an audience as possible, and discuss with workers and young people about the need to get organised, join the Socialist Party and build a socialist alternative.
Please send any donations to General Election Appeal, PO Box 24697, London, E11 1YD
To see a copy of the 'Coalition to Stand General Election Candidates' leaflet click here
Rabu, 6 Januari 2010
Leadership Challenge No. 2,497
Alas that was not the case for Blairite backstabbers Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon. Firmly on the most odious wing of the Labour party, their public call for a secret leadership ballot of MPs reignites an issue most outside the Parliamentary Labour Party felt was done and dusted until at least after the election. Hewitt and Hoon may be despicable, but they're not stupid. Like Hazel Blears' resignation from front line politics, they knew their letter to fellow MPs would strike a blow against Labour's slim chances of re-election. It is a political truism that electorates punish disunity.
Why have Hewitt and Hoon wielded the dagger so publicly? There's an element of sour grapes, certainly. Hoon was humiliated by the press and forced to step down from the government after being exposed as a very enthusiastic home flipper. Hewitt was similarly stung, and will be leaving parliament after the election to spend more time with her consultancies and directorships. There's an element of being in the media spotlight once more before their political careers pass unremarked into the night.
But also, unusually for a Blairite cat fight there might actually be a little bit of politics behind their actions. Though their letter is devoid of overt politics, masking their argument as concerns about divisions in the party over Gordon Brown's leadership, clearly the Blairites have been rattled about the so-called "class war" rhetoric. Their hatred of anything smacking of Labour's social democratic past is very deep-rooted, as is their belief that the overwhelming mass of Britons enthusiastically support privatisation, deregulation and a million and one other neoliberal monstrosities. They are congenitally incapable of linking the modest rise in government support to its equally modest nods in the direction of old Labour. Hewitt, Hoon and their ilk prefer instead to take the rantings of wealthy right-wing columnists and editors as the authentic voice of the marginals. It's a wonder 1997 hasn't been on the phone to ask for its media strategy back.
Beyond torpedoing Labour's chances, it's very difficult to see what Hewitt and Hoon are trying to achieve. Beyond Charles Clarke, whose calls for Brown's resignation are as regular as his not inconsiderable bowel movements, and Frank Field, the government benches' very own in-real-life troll, who in the party is going to back this? Younger Blairites like David Miliband, Caroline Flint and James Purnell have got positioning for future front-line roles in opposition/government to think about. The PLP as a whole appear to be against a ballot. And the trade unions and party membership are pretty pissed off, if this snapshot of "notable" opinion is anything to go by.
It is possible that like the last round of bullying attacks on Brown it could actually benefit our beleaguered prime minister. It's also likely this tantrum will marginalise Blairite influence in the PLP and wider party even more. Even if these positives emerge from the turmoil, Hewitt and Hoon stand proven as reckless, idiotic, selfish, and disloyal.
Selasa, 5 Januari 2010
Stoke EDL Update
As the temperatures plunged below zero outside, the North Staffs Campaign Against Racism and Fascism (NorSCARF) met on summer chairs and garden furniture in a ad hoc location last night. The reason? To put our anti-fascist preparations into operation for the planned "protest" by the English Defence League on January 23rd (more details about why they've chosen Stoke in this previous post).
Most crucially after a meeting with the police the venue of the EDL mobilisation and the counter-protest have changed. They have decided not to ban the EDL protest (though apparently there are efforts under way by some councillors to do so), but will be heavily policing it. The EDL will be arriving by coach somewhere at the boundaries of Stoke-on-Trent and will then be escorted to the meeting place in the city centre. Funnily enough, their rendezvous point is yet again J.D. Wetherspoons (I wonder if they've ever considered a sponsorship deal?) EDL thugs arriving by train will also be met by the police and then escorted on. The EDL rally will then take place at 3pm opposite Argos in Hanley and go on for one hour, apparently with speeches.
The anti-fascist mobilisation has changed venue too. Previously I reported it would be taking place at Staffs Uni Student's Union, which is just a stone's throw from the train station. Instead the police have recommended we mobilise outside Hanley town hall - which is about 200 yards from where the EDL will be. From a policing point of view it makes sense - the streets in that part of town make a natural 'no man's land' that a concentrated presence would be able to enforce.
The NorSCARF protest may or may not include a march (to be decided) and will be a mix of a vigil and a rally. The emphasis will be very much on non-violence - so those thinking of travelling to Stoke for a ruck with either the EDL or the old bill are not welcome. NorSCARF are also looking to mobilise as many anti-fascists as possible from around the country - so all trade union, faith groups, socialists etc. will be warmly received. NorSCARF also has a number of stunts planned, about which I'm sworn to secrecy.
That's the latest for now. A press statement will be released shortly with the finer points of detail on it. Obviously, I'll keep readers posted.
Most crucially after a meeting with the police the venue of the EDL mobilisation and the counter-protest have changed. They have decided not to ban the EDL protest (though apparently there are efforts under way by some councillors to do so), but will be heavily policing it. The EDL will be arriving by coach somewhere at the boundaries of Stoke-on-Trent and will then be escorted to the meeting place in the city centre. Funnily enough, their rendezvous point is yet again J.D. Wetherspoons (I wonder if they've ever considered a sponsorship deal?) EDL thugs arriving by train will also be met by the police and then escorted on. The EDL rally will then take place at 3pm opposite Argos in Hanley and go on for one hour, apparently with speeches.
The anti-fascist mobilisation has changed venue too. Previously I reported it would be taking place at Staffs Uni Student's Union, which is just a stone's throw from the train station. Instead the police have recommended we mobilise outside Hanley town hall - which is about 200 yards from where the EDL will be. From a policing point of view it makes sense - the streets in that part of town make a natural 'no man's land' that a concentrated presence would be able to enforce.
The NorSCARF protest may or may not include a march (to be decided) and will be a mix of a vigil and a rally. The emphasis will be very much on non-violence - so those thinking of travelling to Stoke for a ruck with either the EDL or the old bill are not welcome. NorSCARF are also looking to mobilise as many anti-fascists as possible from around the country - so all trade union, faith groups, socialists etc. will be warmly received. NorSCARF also has a number of stunts planned, about which I'm sworn to secrecy.
That's the latest for now. A press statement will be released shortly with the finer points of detail on it. Obviously, I'll keep readers posted.
Isnin, 4 Januari 2010
Mary Daly: Death of a Feminist
Daly was probably best known outside of her discipline for refusing to admit male students to 'mixed' theology classes at the Jesuit-run Boston College, a course of action that led to her enforced retirement in 1999. Most obituaries over the coming days are likely to focus on this controversy.
I maybe a socialist and committed to women's equality and liberation, but as a man I find Daly's views deeply uncomfortable. And she would not have had it any other way - she was after all committed to writing for women. Why should she go out her way to mollify those she held responsible for perpetuating sexual violence, systematic discrimination and gendered inequalities? On the other hand, the uncompromising positions she assumed always proved problematic for more mainstream feminists, for whom women's liberation is bound up with a host of other progressive movements (not least anti-racism and the labour movement).
The most troubling aspect of Daly's philosophy as far as radical politics are concerned was her essentialism (which she dubbed her quintessentialism), a position that cast all women as stoic sufferers of injustice and all men as misogynists in on a patriarchal conspiracy - a conceptualisation a million miles away from the actually existing, complex and decentered reality of how women's oppression works. Such a position informs lesbian separatism - both in terms of building a feminist movement (independently of not just men, but also heterosexual/bisexual women and women who advocate coalition building, of so-called "malestream" feminism), and, disgracefully, alibis transphobia in the women's movement. In her Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism, she apparently refers to trans people as "Frankensteinian" and living in a "contrived and artifactual condition". Daly also supervised Janice Raymond's PhD dissertation. Published as the notoriously transphobic The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-male, which in all seriousness contends transwomen are patriarchal agents in the women's movement and whose existence "rapes" women's bodies. Unfortunately, such absurd and reactionary views tend to swill about the feminist blogosphere still, inflaming bitter disputes wherever they rear their ugly heads.
Despite this, it would be a mistake to reject Daly's views outright. In works like The Church and the Second Sex and Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women's Liberation, Daly flails the promotion and perpetuation of patriarchal norms and values at the heart of Catholic theology. She writes "a woman's asking for equality in the church would be comparable to a black person's demanding equality in the Ku Klux Klan." She also elaborated a philosophical position not dissimilar to vulgar Marxist accounts that oppose class consciousness to false class consciousness. According to her Wikipedia entry:
She created a dualistic thought-praxis that separates the world into the world of false images that create oppression and the world of communion in true being. She labeled these two areas Foreground and Background respectively. Daly considered the Foreground the realm of patriarchy and the Background the realm of Woman. She argued that the Background is under and behind the surface of the false reality of the Foreground. The Foreground, for Daly, was a distortion of true being, the paternalistic society in which she said most people live. It has no real energy, but drains the “life energy” of women residing in the Background. In her view, the Foreground creates a world of poisons that contaminate natural life. She called the male-centered world of the Foreground necrophilic, hating all living things. In contrast, she conceived of the Background as a place where all living things connect.Another element to Daly's philosophy is self-actualisation - a celebration of women casting off the shackles of patriarchy and becoming empowered free agents. In an interview with EnlightenNext magazine, she says "... I don't think about men. I really don't care about them. I'm concerned with women's capacities, which have been infinitely diminished under patriarchy. Not that they've disappeared, but they've been made subliminal. I'm concerned with women enlarging our capacities, actualizing them. So that takes all my energy ... I'm trying to name something that can only be recognized by women who are seizing back our power. But the words have been stolen from us—even though perhaps they were originally our words—they're our words, but they've been reversed and twisted and shrunken. I see myself as a pirate, plundering and smuggling back to women that which has been stolen from us." You get a sense of this from her own short biography and statements like "courage is like -- it's a habitus, a habit, a virtue: you get it by courageous acts. It's like you learn to swim by swimming. You learn courage by couraging." Judging by the comments left on her obituaries, this part of her philosophy has been a positive influence on the lives of some of her readers.
The legacy Daly bequeaths feminism is more complicated and mixed than an assessment based solely on her provocative position-taking.
Ahad, 3 Januari 2010
New Blog Round Up
Here's a round up of new(ish) blogs I've been made aware of recently.
First up is The Grey Matter. They say "The Grey Matter is an independent newsletter about politics in Tyne and Wear, based in Newcastle. It is not affiliated to any political party and it is run entirely by volunteers. We want to expand our operation and are constantly looking for more people the help out. If you have a story, want to contribute, think you could help in any way, or have a suggestion don’t hesitate to contact: thegreymatternewsletter@gmail.com". Sounds alright, but there's nothing much doing on the blog since mid-December.
Scottish Socialist Youth have got in on the blogging act with an irreverent and unserious (in a good way) makeover to their website. It leads with Harry Trotter's magical adventures leading Santa's elves out on strike, and dubs Rage Against the Machine's successful bid for the Christmas number one "the greatest victory for the working class ever". I for one entirely agree.
A welcome addition to progressive blogging comes in the shape of FWD/Forward, a blog for disabled feminists. They write, " It is a place to discuss disability issues and the intersection between feminism and disability rights activism. The content here ranges from basic information which is designed to introduce people who are new to disability issues or feminism to some core concepts, to more advanced topics, with the goal of promoting discussion, conversation, fellowship, and education."
A couple of blogs now for comrades who like their labour movement history. First there is Socialist History News, which carries pieces from the Socialist History Society's newsletter, advertises lectures, etc. The London Socialist Historians Group blog offers similar fare for London-based lefties and is more active than the national site.
I've occasionally moaned about the allergic reaction some on the far left have toward blogging, so I'm pleased to see comrades from my own organisation have entered the fray in a sort-of-official capacity. Coventry Socialist Party has recently launched a Councillors' Blog. There's not a great deal on there at the moment (a motion Dave Nellist and Rob Windsor brought to council supporting the Vestas workers, a report on a public meeting, a think piece on social housing) but I hope it will become more active and give an insight into what it means to be a socialist councillor.
One of the most curious groups on the far left are our friends in the Socialist Party of Great Britain. In one sense they are the most fundamentalist of all the organisations that claim Marxist inspiration as they are committed to arguing for socialism and nothing but. They alone have the strange position of disavowing any links between workers' struggles in the here and now, the confidence the labour movement has in its collective power and the movement for socialism. Instead abstract propaganda on why socialism is nice and capitalism nasty is the order of the day. Which leads to another curiosity - the existence of a relatively large number of SPGB bloggers, despite offering very little variation on this theme. Perhaps new SPGB blog Free Times 3x will be a departure and offer something more? We shall see. You can follow Free Times 3x on Twitter here.
From the fringes to the centre left, next blog Tory Stories is the brainchild of Jon Cruddas MP and Chuka Umunna, Labour PPC for Streatham. The blog is another addition to Labour's "evidence-based" armoury in the run up to the general election. They write "the site acts as a depository for evidenced articles on Conservatives in local and regional government, showing that, once in office, the party’s actions consistently fail to match its rhetoric. We urge readers to contribute to keeping this as up-to-date as possible by sending in further Tory Stories from across the country."
Sticking with Labour-loyal blogging, Attleeite Lefty is Rosie, a "left-wing-lefty student, amateur blogger, Twitter addict, avid cook, socialist, burlesque enthusiast and generic person who happens to write on politics occasionally." You can follow Rosie on Twitter here.
Time for what is perhaps the newest blog on the block. ajit8 appears to promise a mix of Maoism/Guevarism and anarchism (going by the site aesthetic), and kicks off with a repost of an article by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. In the about section, ajit8 writes "Because there is no compromise. Because compromise is a Kop-out. Be true, be real and don’t be tainted." You can follow him on Twitter here.
And that's it as far as new blogs go. If you know of any recent start ups that haven't been covered previously (past posts on new blogs are here) then please let me know.
Just a couple of further announcements. Because I've promised him for ages and have kept forgetting, here's a plug for centre-left Labour blogger Hadleigh Roberts (you can also follow Hadleigh on Twitter here.
Second, in my recent post on socialist blogging I expressed scepticism that centre left bloggers would plug those from Marxist/Trotskyist backgrounds. Replying, Will Straw of Left Foot Forward writes:
Right, that's the last time I'll be blogging about blogging for quite a while, I promise!
First up is The Grey Matter. They say "The Grey Matter is an independent newsletter about politics in Tyne and Wear, based in Newcastle. It is not affiliated to any political party and it is run entirely by volunteers. We want to expand our operation and are constantly looking for more people the help out. If you have a story, want to contribute, think you could help in any way, or have a suggestion don’t hesitate to contact: thegreymatternewsletter@gmail.com". Sounds alright, but there's nothing much doing on the blog since mid-December.
Scottish Socialist Youth have got in on the blogging act with an irreverent and unserious (in a good way) makeover to their website. It leads with Harry Trotter's magical adventures leading Santa's elves out on strike, and dubs Rage Against the Machine's successful bid for the Christmas number one "the greatest victory for the working class ever". I for one entirely agree.
A welcome addition to progressive blogging comes in the shape of FWD/Forward, a blog for disabled feminists. They write, " It is a place to discuss disability issues and the intersection between feminism and disability rights activism. The content here ranges from basic information which is designed to introduce people who are new to disability issues or feminism to some core concepts, to more advanced topics, with the goal of promoting discussion, conversation, fellowship, and education."
A couple of blogs now for comrades who like their labour movement history. First there is Socialist History News, which carries pieces from the Socialist History Society's newsletter, advertises lectures, etc. The London Socialist Historians Group blog offers similar fare for London-based lefties and is more active than the national site.
I've occasionally moaned about the allergic reaction some on the far left have toward blogging, so I'm pleased to see comrades from my own organisation have entered the fray in a sort-of-official capacity. Coventry Socialist Party has recently launched a Councillors' Blog. There's not a great deal on there at the moment (a motion Dave Nellist and Rob Windsor brought to council supporting the Vestas workers, a report on a public meeting, a think piece on social housing) but I hope it will become more active and give an insight into what it means to be a socialist councillor.
One of the most curious groups on the far left are our friends in the Socialist Party of Great Britain. In one sense they are the most fundamentalist of all the organisations that claim Marxist inspiration as they are committed to arguing for socialism and nothing but. They alone have the strange position of disavowing any links between workers' struggles in the here and now, the confidence the labour movement has in its collective power and the movement for socialism. Instead abstract propaganda on why socialism is nice and capitalism nasty is the order of the day. Which leads to another curiosity - the existence of a relatively large number of SPGB bloggers, despite offering very little variation on this theme. Perhaps new SPGB blog Free Times 3x will be a departure and offer something more? We shall see. You can follow Free Times 3x on Twitter here.
From the fringes to the centre left, next blog Tory Stories is the brainchild of Jon Cruddas MP and Chuka Umunna, Labour PPC for Streatham. The blog is another addition to Labour's "evidence-based" armoury in the run up to the general election. They write "the site acts as a depository for evidenced articles on Conservatives in local and regional government, showing that, once in office, the party’s actions consistently fail to match its rhetoric. We urge readers to contribute to keeping this as up-to-date as possible by sending in further Tory Stories from across the country."
Sticking with Labour-loyal blogging, Attleeite Lefty is Rosie, a "left-wing-lefty student, amateur blogger, Twitter addict, avid cook, socialist, burlesque enthusiast and generic person who happens to write on politics occasionally." You can follow Rosie on Twitter here.
Time for what is perhaps the newest blog on the block. ajit8 appears to promise a mix of Maoism/Guevarism and anarchism (going by the site aesthetic), and kicks off with a repost of an article by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. In the about section, ajit8 writes "Because there is no compromise. Because compromise is a Kop-out. Be true, be real and don’t be tainted." You can follow him on Twitter here.
And that's it as far as new blogs go. If you know of any recent start ups that haven't been covered previously (past posts on new blogs are here) then please let me know.
Just a couple of further announcements. Because I've promised him for ages and have kept forgetting, here's a plug for centre-left Labour blogger Hadleigh Roberts (you can also follow Hadleigh on Twitter here.
Second, in my recent post on socialist blogging I expressed scepticism that centre left bloggers would plug those from Marxist/Trotskyist backgrounds. Replying, Will Straw of Left Foot Forward writes:
You issue something of a challenge by saying "Apart from Liberal Conspiracy, I doubt Labour List, Left Foot Forward and the like would be willing to give those to their left outside Labour a leg up."Can't say fairer than that really.
We're already working with Green party and Lib Dem contributers plus a number of trade unionists, NGOs, campaign groups, and think tanks. We'd be happy to extend this "leg up" to you guys (although judging by your traffic stats it may be the other way around).
So here's a challenge to you: write for Left Foot Forward on new ideas that are not yet getting mainstream coverage, critiquing conservative policies and statements, and challenging the right wing media bias.
In turn, we'll increase our link love (an error of omission rather than anything else thus far).
If you're up for it, my email address is editor@leftfootforward.org. The same offer applies to any other bloggers reading this.
Right, that's the last time I'll be blogging about blogging for quite a while, I promise!
Sabtu, 2 Januari 2010
My Ten for Orwell
One thing I didn't mention yesterday was the attitude socialists should take toward awards and lists. I understand some on the left take umbrage at them, but as far as I'm concerned anything that can introduce socialist bloggers and socialist politics to a wider audience is a good thing. That's one reason why I haven't and won't be boycotting Iain Dale's annual poll, and why I'm submitting the following ten to the Orwell Prize for Blogging.
Without further ado:
A 'Racist' Strike? - on the outbreak of strikes at Lindsey oil refinery in late January.
Goodbye Jade - Jade Goody succumbed to cancer amid a tawdry media spectacle. This is what I thought about it.
Men of the People - while everyone was going frantic over expenses, this post takes a look at the second jobs of selected shadow cabinet members.
Marxism and Michael Jackson's Death - a Marxist look at the celebrity and demise of the King of Pop.
Daniel Hannan, the NHS and Twitter - what the Twitter storm around Daniel Hannan's attacks on the NHS say about the relationship between media and politics.
Murdoch: The Blogger's Best Friend? - I look forward to the time when Murdoch rolls out his pay walls.
Nick Clegg: Closet Socialist? - first of a two part review of Nick Clegg's pamphlet, The Liberal Moment.
Move Over Labour? - the problematic nature of the political space to Labour's left.
Porn As Ideology - is it useful to think about porn as an ideology?
The Lifespan of Political Blogs - 21 months on average, in case you're wondering ...
Without further ado:
A 'Racist' Strike? - on the outbreak of strikes at Lindsey oil refinery in late January.
Goodbye Jade - Jade Goody succumbed to cancer amid a tawdry media spectacle. This is what I thought about it.
Men of the People - while everyone was going frantic over expenses, this post takes a look at the second jobs of selected shadow cabinet members.
Marxism and Michael Jackson's Death - a Marxist look at the celebrity and demise of the King of Pop.
Daniel Hannan, the NHS and Twitter - what the Twitter storm around Daniel Hannan's attacks on the NHS say about the relationship between media and politics.
Murdoch: The Blogger's Best Friend? - I look forward to the time when Murdoch rolls out his pay walls.
Nick Clegg: Closet Socialist? - first of a two part review of Nick Clegg's pamphlet, The Liberal Moment.
Move Over Labour? - the problematic nature of the political space to Labour's left.
Porn As Ideology - is it useful to think about porn as an ideology?
The Lifespan of Political Blogs - 21 months on average, in case you're wondering ...
Jumaat, 1 Januari 2010
Blogging on Socialist Blogging
It's all very interesting for blogging geeks and the like and all the contributions make worthwhile points. But there is a certain blindness to the conditions that made the big three of Tory blogging so big: a mix of a less crowded blogging market place and pre-existing relationships with insiders that allow Iain and Guido to break Westminster gossip, and for ConHome to steal a march on policy announcements are much better explanations than self-serving bollocks about the internet being natural Tory territory. Apart from one or two Tory bloggers outside of the "big boys", most do not even reach the execrable standards set by Dizzy Thinks and Tory Bear. The online conservative movement is a hollow beast.
But I'm more interested in the state of socialist blogging. As Dave noted yesterday there is an absolutely solid phalanx of socialist bloggers. I may be biased but the comment pouring out of this coterie offers much better fare than most of the centre left. And as far as the right goes, their mix of gossip-mongering and ignorant ranting doesn't hold a candle. But how are we to grow the readership, influence and profile of socialist bloggers? None of us do it full time. There will be no trade union sponsorship for our endeavours. Apart from Liberal Conspiracy, I doubt Labour List, Left Foot Forward and the like would be willing to give those to their left outside Labour a leg up. So we have to look to ourselves.
I think there are a number of things we do that will put socialist blogging on a firmer footing this coming year.
First off, socialists in Britain have our own 'big three' - Socialist Unity, Lenin's Tomb, and Dave's Part. I don't know the size of Dave's audience, but SU and Lenny certainly get more than the 305,000 visitors LabourList received last year. SU does use its position to promote other blogs, both in Andy's posts and the regular round ups of progressive blogs I do. Dave does to a lesser extent, and Lenny virtually never bothers. Generally the linky love is much better on the next tier down.
This lack of "leadership" (for want of a better term) from the top is symptomatic of the sectarianism that scars our movement. Politically there are of course differences between Andy Newman, Dave and Lenny but for reasons we need not go into relations between them are frosty at best. This kind of animosity is often taken to absurd extremes when blogs like Shiraz Socialist make like a left Harry's Place and slag off Andy and Lenny for their imagined crimes against political decency. We need to leave this sort of behaviour behind us, quite frankly. Venom and bile should be reserved for Tories and their ilk, and even then be employed sparingly.
Second, there are things we do that other blogs simply cannot. Because many socialists are more than just internet scribblers, we always have one eye on activism. Louise, Alex, Clare and Derek are particularly good in this regard, but many other socialist bloggers do it too. For news and reports on activism and trade unionism, often times left bloggers are the only in-depth sources available.
While we're on the subject of touching parts other blogs do not reach, there is a wider audience beyond the existing ranks of the far left for the kind of analysis we offer. As the only serious political tradition in Britain that offers a fundamental critique of the root and branch of capitalism, we can cut to the chase without spin and obfuscation. This allows us to offer original takes on the issues of the day that can find an audience tired of the same old same old. This is the chief strength of Dave Osler's writing, but also The Third Estate, TCF and Chris have developed formidable reputations on this score (I've also found posts on slightly off-beam issues attract an audience). Furthermore our purview of critique tends to be wider than the bounds of conventional politics. If you like, we offer 'politics plus'. Socialist bloggers are at home commenting on practically everything - politics, literature, sex, media, international relations, etc. Again, apart from LibCon our counterparts on the centre left very rarely do. As for the right, well ... the less said the better really.
There are no shortcuts to getting ourselves a wider audience. It requires continued graft, plenty of patience, and for us bloggers to rub together more as a collective. But I believe the potential audience is there, and persistence will be rewarded in the long run.
Langgan:
Catatan (Atom)