Writing of the passing of Hugo Chavez, Pamela Sampson of the Associated Press criticises his government for lifting millions of Latin America's poorest out of poverty. Instead, Chavez should have shelled out on vanity projects. Leaving aside the amorality of their position, Sampson and the AP have got it wrong. Fancy buildings are like so noughties, man. The fashionable super rich with hundreds of millions in disposable income need to get with the (space) programme.
There was a ripple of excitement in medialand a week or so ago when the world's first space tourist, Dennis Tito, unveiled his plan to send a couple to Mars. Sadly, this would not be a landing (others are working on that one) but a circumnavigation of the red planet, similar to 1968's Apollo 8 mission that flew around the Moon. Media interest has focused on the possibility human excreta may have to be used for radiation shielding, and that a middle-aged married couple be recruited as they would, apparently, be best suited to face the psychological challenge a 501-day journey would entail. It's all very risky too - the craft could well become an expensive coffin. Despite the dangers, I expect there will be no shortage of volunteers. Allow me to suggest a few.
Before his skyward trip to Butlin's made him famous, Dennis Tito previously worked at Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory as an engineer. After leaving their employ, Tito went into investment banking and made his fortune from applying the mathematical modelling he worked on at JPL to the markets. So when they say you need to be a rocket scientist to understand the ever-shifting web of stocks and derivatives, they aren't joking. And typical of the 1980s nouveaux riches, Tito was a regular contributor to GOP coffers.
Tito is part of that band of conservatives who strongly identify with the founding myth of America and the frontier. Though, of course, the actual frontier is long buried under continent-crossing highways and air lanes, it still exerts an almost magical pull on the American imagination. As the more overtly nationalist of America's two political parties, it helps explain how the Republicans are the party of religious fundamentalism and anti-science quackery, AND simultaneously the party of Moon bases, space stations and off world colonisation. Therefore for Tito and others it must be endlessly frustrating that the Obama administration - and Democratic presidents since Kennedy - have avoided the pie-in-the-sky space projects of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. But more than that, it's an abrogation of America's duty and symptomatic of the liberal decay that grips the federal government. For an America locked into irresistible relative decline AND big government's unwillingness to take to the stars, the frontier promise falls to great men to assert the nation's manifest destiny. The project is even subtitled a mission for America.
As well as tangled with and emerging from frontier ideology, Tito's initiative comes against the backdrop of a burgeoning commercial interest in space beyond the routine launching of communications satellites. Branson's been banging the space tourism drum for a while. There's the current X-Prize race to put a cheap lander on the Moon and return it with a sample. And why not? Plenty of interesting stuff abounds on the lunar surface just waiting to be mined. And speaking of mining, money is finding its way into asteroid prospecting too. A NUM renaissance might be around the corner.
Tito's 'Inspiration Mars' has to meet the technological challenge of manned deep space exploration. If they do, the commercial spin-offs are obvious. The rewards will be massive for those who can patent the technologies the coming industrialisation of the solar system will depend on, provided we don't all die or get raptured first.
As a bit of a spacehead I find this is all very exciting. The long-term future of the human race requires that we spread beyond the atmospheric envelope of the Earth. But at the same time, we need to recognise, scrutinise and challenge the interests driving it. Because if we don't, as I have written before, the crap we're mired in will go to the Moon, Mars, and beyond with us. And I'm not talking about radiation shielding.
And drawing the short straw this time is ... Bonnie Tyler:
Well that was insipid. Will the UK ever enter a decent song again?
Eurovision is taking place this year on Saturday May 26th. Expect the traditional run down/commentary before then.
An extract from the SWP's pre-conference bulletin. If only the "comrades" below showed as much concern for the survivor of alleged rape and sexual assault.
Stop the witch-hunt
Over the last several months there has been a campaign against a leading member of our party. This campaign has been carried out by a minority of comrades and shocked and appalled the majority of us. Although the campaign has been carried out by a minority it has done serious damage to the party as a whole, forcing us to focus on internal matters to the detriment of building the fight against austerity. The campaign has been a key element of all the factions formed, including the secret and unconstitutional ones. The campaign has to stop and stop now. Consequently, we propose that any comrade or groups of comrades continuing with it in the branches, via social media, blogs or in any form must face sanctions. These sanctions may, regrettably, have to include disciplinary action up to and including expulsion from the party.
The Disputes Committee
The Disputes Committee, and before it the Control Commission, investigates and handles disputes between comrades and breaches of party discipline. And, as our constitution states, “The Disputes Committee reports to Conference, where its activities are subject to endorsement or otherwise,” (SWP Constitution, Section 7, Disputes Committee). It is the custom and practice of the SWP, and suggested by our constitution, that the findings of the Disputes Committee are made public for the first time at Conference.
The secret faction
Therefore, we were greatly surprised to read before our Annual Conference that a number of comrades had formed a secret faction (for which they were correctly expelled) at least in part because they disagreed with the handling of a case heard by the Disputes Committee involving the comrade. These people took their action before they had heard the Disputes Committee’s report and so one can only assume that they based their opinions on hearsay and speculation. It is hard to see how facts and reasoned argument could have played a role.
Factions
Unfortunately the secret faction was only just the beginning of the campaign. Both statements of the factions formed in the run-up to the Annual Conference made reference to the case. The faction statement of the ‘Democratic Opposition’ claimed that “It is disturbing that the comrade concerned did not voluntarily step down...” This was an absolute disgrace. (It is not clear what ‘steps down’ means here because the comrade had announced that he would not be standing for re-election to the Central Committee.) Again it should be made clear that these factions were formed without actually hearing the report of the Disputes Committee. (By this time the Central Committee (CC) had made a statement to a National Committee meeting which was subsequently summarized at a number of aggregates but the statement merely made members aware that an allegation had been made and that the Disputes Committee would present a report at our Conference.)
At Conference the Disputes Committee offered its report, which found that after a detailed and rigorous investigation the complaint was not upheld and thus no disciplinary action was taken. A debate took place concerning the Disputes Committee’s handling of the case after which Conference voted to accept the report and the decision of the Disputes Committee. And that should have been that. Unfortunately, the campaign against the comrade showed as little respect for democracy as it did for facts or reason.
In the branches
Having failed to force the leading comrade from an active role a number of comrades tried to pass motions in their branches calling for a Special Conference. The pretext here was a number of articles in the national press. A key demand of many of these motions was to continue the campaign against the comrade requesting that, for example, he no longer do paid work for the party. Those driving the campaign failed to get the 20 per cent of branches required to call a Special Conference, showing the lack of support for their campaign against the comrade and their political perspectives. What they were successful in doing was causing the party to become increasingly polarised.
The unconstitutional faction
Having failed to force the comrade out of a leading role in the party and our united front work a number of comrades launched an unconstitutional faction. (As the CC rightly pointed out at the time “The CC does not accept the right to form factions outside the three month pre-conference discussion period. Such factions open the door to permanent factions and permanent oppositions, making it impossible to unite and intervene effectively,” (CC Statement).)
Many of the people who formed the faction are so focused on their campaign against the comrade that they are prepared to go the length of breaking our constitution to demand that the comrade “...stand down from any paid or representative roles in our party or united front work for the foreseeable future,” (Faction Statement).
Stop the witch-hunt
Let us be clear that this comrade has been found guilty of nothing. Yet he has faced a concerted campaign over many months to oust him from a leading role in the party. A campaign that has seen people form a secret faction, launch two factions, attempt to call a Special Conference and, finally, break our constitution. It has been a campaign that has paid little heed to fact or reason but rather has been built on hearsay, speculation and sometimes downright lies. It has been nothing short of a witch-hunt. But it is a witch-hunt that has to stop. And it has to stop for three reasons:
(1) If the disputes procedure is ignored, or subverted it makes it impossible for any comrade to be confident of fair treatment, either if they are a complainant or are complained against. Every comrade must have the right to make a complaint if they so choose, and no-one is above being questioned, criticised or disciplined. It does a disservice to all of us if a proper system of investigating and adjudicating on such matters is destroyed. That is the danger of the way the faction has approached the issue.
(2) It does a grave injustice to the comrade.
(3) It has thrust our party into possibly the biggest crisis it has ever faced. It has forced us to focus on internal debate during the longest economic depression in modern times when we should be focusing all our energies in building the biggest possible fightback against austerity.
No more
Consequently, we propose that any comrade or groups of comrades continuing with it via the branches, social media, blogs or in any form must face sanctions. These sanctions may, regrettably, have to include disciplinary action up to and including expulsion from the party.
Terry (North London)
Penny and Donny (Edinburgh)
I haven't forgotten I'm supposed to be writing about Bernstein. Needless to say, rereading Evolutionary Socialism some 16 years after first doing so is proving fascinating. Of that another time. But in lieu of a proper blog tonight, here's an interesting comment on capitalist development and material interest:
... the point of economic development attained today leaves the ideological, and especially the ethical, factors greater space for independent activity than was formerly the case. In consequence of this the interdependency of cause and effect between technical, economic evolution, and the evolution of other social tendencies is becoming always more direct, and from that the necessities of the first are losing much of their power of dictating the form of the latter. - Eduard Bernstein 1909, pp 15-16
Translated into contemporary Marx-speak, Bernstein clearly grasped that the relative autonomy of what we have traditionally called superstructural phenomena grows as capitalism develops. It's one of those neat ironies of history - the more capitalism drives social development, the less the fruits of that evolution are directly dependent on and determined by the structural tendencies of capitalist economics. As bourgeois and proletarians struggle over their material interests and benefit from the successful prosecution of them, the less that conflict overtly plays a part in conditioning the outlooks of strata and classes. In many ways, this insight precedes the arguments underpinning post-materialism by 70 or 80 years, and implicitly draws attention to cultural struggle long before Gramsci did so.
Not bad for a renegade.
I'm often struck by how quickly government pronouncements and promises come undone thanks to its own side. Take this morning's Telegraph as a case in point. It featured an article by Dave in which he rules out any "lurch to the right", as a response to his party's spanking by UKIP in Eastleigh. Dave writes "It’s not about being Left-wing or Right-wing – it’s about being where the British people are. The right thing to do is to address the things people care about; to fix yourself firmly in ... the 'common ground’ of politics." Unfortunately, even before the ink was dry on the copy, his lieutenants were busily contradicting Dave's line of march.
Chris Grayling came out with the bald assertion that a future majority Tory government would scrap the Human Rights Act and withdraw the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights, leaving us to buddy up with the only other non-signatory, that bastion of democratic rectitude, Belarus. That the EU as an entity under the Lisbon Treaty is due to sign up to the ECHR, thereby making it a condition of EU membership hasn't troubled Grayling. But still, in all likelihood it's a difficulty the Tories won't be tackling post-2015, so why not score some populist points in the here and now?
The second awkward moment for Dave's new-found triangulation saw his foreign secretary peddling a particularly pernicious immigration myth. "Benefit tourism must end" thundered William Hague, this morning. With pieces like this stirring the pot, the media have gone out of its way to talk up the prospect of *millions* of new Romanian and Bulgarian workers pouring into Britain. And not only that, a massive chunk of them will make their way here solely to sponge off Britain's social security system. As anyone who's spent some time on the dole will tell you, an opulent existence awaits.
Never ones to let the truth get in the way of scaremongering, the Tory/media myth of 'benefit tourism' got a good kicking here and elsewhere when it was first floated over a year ago. There is no evidence *at all* that people get on the plane just so they can check out the fancy interiors of JobCentre Plus. Sure, there are overseas workers who happen to be on the dole because they find themselves out of work, but it's spin of the most cynical and politically obnoxious kind to suggest they're benefit tourists. As the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants put it, "why shouldn't migrants who've worked and contributed to the UK through taxation on their income be it as salaried or self employed people, claim benefits when they fall upon hard times just like anyone else?" Indeed, especially when you consider British nationals working in EU territories can take advantage of reciprocal arrangements should they need it. But this is simon pure dog-whistling, and Hague is playing a very grubby game.
So there you have it, within hours of Dave committing the Tories to the centre ground, two very senior figures indulge blatant populist opportunism in a panicked attempt to see off UKIP.
How's that "no lurch to the right" coming along?
Here are the new(ish) left blogs that have advertised their presence to me over the last month.
1. Atos Victims Group News (Unaligned/Disability Rights) (Twitter)
2. Captain Jack (Greens)
3. Councillor Michael Roche (Labour) (Twitter)
4. Feminist Avenger (Unaligned/feminist) (Twitter)
5. John O'Farrell (Labour) (Twitter)
6. Labour Mag (Labour) (Twitter)
7. Pol Pot's Hut (Unaligned) (Twitter)
8. Rethinking the Left (SWP Opposition) (Twitter)
9. Roxsie's Ramblings (Labour) (Twitter)
10. Soviet Goon Boy (Unaligned) (Twitter)
11. The Vagenda (Unaligned/Feminist) (Twitter)
12. Too Tired to Blog (Unaligned)
13. Unison WestMids (Unison) (Twitter)
14. Welfare News Service (Unaligned) (Twitter)
That's it for February/March. If you know of any new blogs that haven't featured before then drop me a line via the comments, email or Twitter. Please note I'm looking for blogs that have started within the last 12 months. The new blog round up is posted on the first Sunday of every month, and is also cross-posted to Socialist Unity.
What have the British media got against The King? In the Eastleigh by-election, the Elvis Loves Pets Party was frozen out by the press, BBC, Sky etc. You could be forgiven for thinking this blackout represented a conscious effort by the capitalist media to keep rhinestone suits from the public's gaze. Still, despite only polling 72 votes Elvis fans can rest easy knowing its leaflets were seen by thousands of people. I also have it on good authority that on enthusiasm and campaign vibrancy alone the ELP were the clear winners. A marker has been put down for advance in the years ahead. Who needs the media?
In the cosmology of the contemporary far left, be it Trot, Tankie, or something else, there are two possible relationships the Party can have with the media. Revolutionaries are either subject to a blackout (indeed, complaints about media indifference are now par the course for TUSC statements). Or, they are singled out for scurrilous attacks.
Socialist Action's defence of the SWP against a "bourgeois media offensive" encapsulates the latter quite nicely. While the press have, in the past, done numbers on Communist Party members and leading figures in Militant, this was in the context of a more powerful labour movement and a revolutionary left with not insignificant industrial and political clout. Furthermore both those organisations had some weight and impacted the course of political events. But to pretend the present "onslaught" against the SWP - which, off the top of my head, has consisted of two Mail articles, one apiece in The Sun, The Indy, The Graun, New Statesman, Progress, The Swindon Advertiser; and some Seymourist poststructural gubbins on gender and domination in CIF - forms a concerted effort to disrupt the left is gruel of the most watery kind. You would have to be suffering Spartoid-levels of disengagement with reality to sincerely believe such guff which, of course, many of the lynch mob 500 do.
Underlying both positions is an ideology of relevancy. Because the far left were once attacked in the press as dangerous subversives, critical scrutiny by the papers today are still interpreted by them through the self-same filters. The idea they could be filler for more salacious reasons, or simply because there weren't enough Kate Middleton photos that day does not even occur. Similarly the absence of coverage, of any evidence that the bourgeois press are concerned with the comings and goings of the far left, is, dialectically speaking, proof positive of an anxiety about revolutionaries.
Either way, both serve to anchor the identity of far left parties as oppositional entities with very fixed ideas about what is and want isn't socialist (and who is/isn't a socialist too), and to flatter the fortitude of its adherents. Gone is the notion that Marxist analysis is a guide to action. Instead it's Marxist position-taking as revolutionary identity politics.
UKIP may well be "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" but they're also riding high after last night's by-election result. Farage must be kicking himself for not standing as just 1,800 votes separated his party (and it is his party) from the hapless LibDems. With his profile, had he not ducked out of the fight the commentariat today would be pouring over a loss as horrifying to the Tories as Galloway's win in Bradford was for Labour.
In an attempt to put a brave face on the 14-point drop, Clegg said "We overcame the odds with a stunning victory". A solid LibDem constituency with 40 LibDem borough councillors (gaining two in 2012) aren't exactly adverse conditions, Nick. For EdM, Labour must "redouble its efforts" to win over people who wouldn't normally vote for it.
And then there is Dave. His response was a bland "This is a by-election. It's mid-term. It's a protest. That's what happens in by-elections. It's disappointing for the Conservative Party but we must remain true to our principles, true to our course, and that way we can win people back." If you say so, Dave. But every socialist and progressive person must hope they listen to Tory vice chair, Michael Fabricant, and act accordingly. He said "The Conservative voice is muffled and not crisp. It does not clearly project Conservative core policies or principles." Does he have a point?
Some Tories regard UKIP with envious eyes and believe tacking right will win the voters back. As empiricists of the crudest and most stupid kind, the simple arithmetic of adding the Tory and UKIP vote is taken for proof. But, to use the old language, you have to burrow beneath appearances to get at the essence of things. One Tory with more sense than his feverish contemporaries is Lord Ashcroft. Based on a study of 14 focus groups with UKIP voters and maybes, Ashcroft's observation is worth quoting at length.
The single biggest misconception about the UKIP phenomenon is that it is all about policies: that potential UKIP voters are dissatisfied with another party’s policy in a particular area (usually Europe or immigration), prefer UKIP’s policy instead, and would return to their original party if only its original policy changed.
In fact, in the mix of things that attract voters to UKIP, policies are secondary. It is much more to do with outlook. Certainly, those who are attracted to UKIP are more preoccupied than most with immigration, and will occasionally complain about Britain’s contribution to the EU or the international aid budget. But these are often part of a greater dissatisfaction with the way they see things going in Britain: schools, they say, can’t hold nativity plays or harvest festivals any more; you can’t fly a flag of St George any more; you can’t call Christmas Christmas any more; you won’t be promoted in the police force unless you’re from a minority; you can’t wear an England shirt on the bus; you won’t get social housing unless you’re an immigrant; you can’t speak up about these things because you’ll be called a racist; you can’t even smack your children. All of these examples, real and imagined, were mentioned in focus groups by UKIP voters and considerers to make the point that the mainstream political parties are so in thrall to the prevailing culture of political correctness that they have ceased to represent the silent majority.
UKIP, for those who are attracted to it, may be the party that wants to leave the EU or toughen immigration policy but its primary attraction is that it will “say things that need to be said but others are scared to say”. [My emphasis]
Where UKIP's support comes from is the virulent disenchantment and irreverence with and toward official politics. It is a knee-jerk reaction - in both senses - against the cultural trajectory toward greater integration and acceptance of minority communities at the perceived expense of the majority, and is also a diffuse, unforeseen consequence of the ways our social fabric has been bent and ripped by 30 years of neoliberal economics. Think I'm flogging a hobby horse by banging on about the dismal science? Well, all you need do is look at all the liberal democracies who've undergone similar social change over that time frame - most continental countries have seen the emergence of right-populist parties and movements speaking to (national-specific) concerns outlined by Ashcroft, and all position themselves as ostensible truth-tellers to a corrupt, uncaring and elitist political class.
As the party of government, and one of two parties naturally capable of forming governments, right populism is closed off for the Tories as a serious political strategy. They can indulge in contrived demonisations of immigrants and social security recipients, play around with Europe and other 'UKIP' issues (they can even steal their colours), but as they pose their UKIP-lite to the real deal, more moderate voters who might like Dave, appreciate his principled stand on equal marriage, and accept the austerity programme will get alienated. Trying to out-UKIP UKIP on policy hobbles the Tories, and misrecognises the nature of the beast they're up against.
But the Tories, or at least its dwindling and ageing activist base, believe that grappling UKIP issue-by-issue is the route out of their impasse. Ashcroft instead suggests that at least among those UKIP voters who could be persuaded to switch back, patient explanation and clear evidence of policy delivery and efficacy could win them down. But with Dave and Gideon dogmatically addicted to trickle down assumptions and the disastrous economic policy that flows from that, UKIP will continue to thwart, blunt and erode the Tory capacity to fight and win elections.
It is worth remembering that UKIP springs from a pool that has analogous constituencies across Europe and the United States, it is also part of the long decline of conservative politics as hegemonically constituted in the British (or, more specifically, English) context. With more expulsions, resignations, and defections than your average Trot group, UKIP is an incredibly volatile party. Like most such movement/parties, the persona of its leading figure plays a crucial role in holding it together - without them as a focal point for a movement to invest its hopes and aspirations, it can quickly dissipate - as the subsequent fate of Lijst Pim Fortuyn proved after the murder of its leader.
Another thing missing from Ashcroft's analysis is the appreciation of age. The concerns he identifies are, to put it bluntly, mainly middle-aged and old-aged worries. The latest YouGov tracker poll finds them on four and three per cent respectively among the 18-24s, and 25-39s. Of course, younger people's attitudes change with age but the under 40s are far more at ease with the sort of Britain UKIP rails against. In other words, the efficacy of UKIP and right populism is time-limited.
As a Labour and labour movement person, I am only worried about UKIP in as far as they can tap into discontent among our support, which has so far proven to be limited. More important is that our party and our movement rebuild trust in politics by rebuilding itself and, later in government, tackling the conditions that fuel anti-political rage. Again, following Ashcroft's advice, it means policy delivery. But more than that we need to seriously address the kind of economy we want and ensure our people feel secure in their place in it. If you can't offer certainty, it's small wonder that many millions turn off and switch to those whose politics promise a reified form of security.
The five most-read posts of last month were:
1. Support for SWP Central Committee Statement
2. SWP: The End is Nigh
3. How Not to Write About Catholicism
4. The Real Cost of the Bedroom Tax
5. Englishness and Suburbia
As predicted last month, the SWP proved to be front and centre in February. It never ceases to amaze how posts about an organisation with the revolutionary potential of my cat's litter tray can command large audience numbers. As an out-and-proud sect watcher, it's heartening to know many thousands of others share this little quirk, albeit quietly and furtively. With the drama set to resolve itself in fireworks and recrimination in 11 days time, don't be surprised to see a SWP-related post or two knocking about the top end of the monthly chart come April.
The one post that didn't make the list but fully deserves a larger audience is Remembering Stalingrad.
