Saturday, 3 January 2015
Capitalism's Hierarchy 2015
Here is a photo montage attempt at updating the IWW 'Pyramid of Capitalist System' (1911) for the UK in 2015. (The photo is a bit askew!)
Thursday, 1 January 2015
How about nowish?
After 35 years of neoliberal economics working class Britain is not doing well. A recently published report shows that in 2011 nine out of the ten poorest regions in North West EU countries were in Britain (1). The figures for 2009-10 in the UNICEF report 'Child well-being in rich countries-a comparative overview' puts Britain fourteenth out of the twenty nine 'most advanced economies' (2). That doesn't sound too bad until you realise that is pretty much last place out of NW European countries with a similar post WWII experience. Also reported this summer was that out of the twenty eight EU countries the UK comes in twenty sixth in terms of loneliness- that is not having someone you could turn to and rely on in a crisis (3). After three decades of what Harvey termed the economics of class war (4) the British working class is atomised, alienated, lonely, precarious and increasingly skint. We live in an ill society that generates ill people. Studies show that individuals are happier within societies that are more equal — wide disparities of income and wealth create societies that are less happy and more ill at ease. The UK has high rates of inequality, one of the consequences being the prevalence of mental illness and the use of anti-depressants. In a society marked by inequality, exploitation and environmental degradation people are struggling with unease and alienation and a lack of an alternative to ‘what is’.
Since the industrial revolution of the mid 1700s capitalism has concentrated power in the hands of the owners of the means of production — factories, land, mines, distribution — and has separated the vast majority of people from those means. Power and wealth have been and are accrued by an elite while the rest of us hope to pay our bills. This plus the commodification of the necessities of life -food, shelter, heating etc — means that the working class are forced to sell their labour, whether mental or physical, in order to survive above destitution. Within capitalism the wealth of the few and the exploitation of the many is linked, the worker spends her day adding value to the assets of the company, at the end of the day that work/added value is taken by the company who then gives the worker a wage that is less than the value they have generated pocketing the difference. They pay enough to keep the workforce functional-unless they can get the government to subsidise those wages via Working Family Tax Credit etc- as they need their labour and thus each day the shareholders/boss/company gets richer while the worker struggles on, hoping they might win the lottery or looking forward to the next weekend.
Capitalism is exploitative, oppressive, alienating and instrumentalist. The worker is alienated from their work, having to carry out tasks assigned to them, the benefit of that work being largely accrued by someone else; from their colleagues who they are taught to see as competitors, as threat; from themselves as they wonder how they ended up doing this, being this. And the worker functions as an instrument, a means to someone else’s ends. In post industrial work there has been a change, industrial capitalism demanded the worker's body but was often uninterested in their mind or ‘soul’, their thoughts, relational skills, communication abilities, however post industrial work wants those aspects as well. 21st century work often demands all of the worker leaving her with little to construct a meaningful life outside of work. In industrial work there was a chance to find meaning, community in unions, political/social clubs etc but often the modern worker is drained of all energies and goes home to watch TV and get ready for tomorrow. As this goes on the only place of meaning in her life becomes work, the very place that incapacitates her for anything else (5).
Since the 1980s neoliberal capitalism has dominated UK politics, an ideology of free markets, small state provision (for the workers, though not for corporations), individualisation, privatisation and a continual dismantling of workers rights and protections, concessions gained since the Second World War. In short class war waged by the rich to cite Atari Teenage Riot (6). Neoliberal capitalism and politics have reconfigured institutions (governments, schools etc), individuals and society into it’s own image. Brought up in a commodification environment that promotes work and individualised consumption as the highest goal people have been reduced to objects, women especially valued according to their physicality-and make of handbag. Capitalism’s most brazen trick is to try and pass itself off as natural, or ‘god ordained’ in a bygone era, attempting to convince us that this is how it is meant to be, that no other world is possible. The Situationists wrote about this in 1950s/60s referring to it as ‘the spectacle’ (7) — how advanced industrial societies are represented to themselves by the elite, so effectively that the oppressed internalise those values, those views. Society and culture dominated by a seamless representation of a capitalist version of the world via the media, state and corporations (7), where any dissent is marginalised or co-opted. Gramsci referred to something similar as 'cultural hegemony' (8).
And over this society that is a material expression of capitalist interests exists the state, hierarchical, coercive, serving the interests of the political and corporate elite. The capitalist state is a capitalist construction expressing capitalist’s interests, configuring society to the interests of capital. Between 1945 and the 70s there was a respite from the state/corporate amalgam as unions and the Labour Party gained concessions for the working class but since the 1980s the state has re-assumed its historic role of enforcing capitalist interests. Where there has been resistance, as in the Miner’s Strike of 1980s, the coercive nature of the state has come to the fore, undisguised and brutal. The state’s authority rests ultimately on the use, or threat, of force, it is normally structured and bureaucratic but if it has to be more violent to achieve it’s ends it will be. The modern capitalist state is inherently hierarchical, coercive, patriarchal and militaristic.
As individuals we are ‘socialised’ by the societies and cultures we are reared in, we imbibe their values and embody their world views. We listen to their fairy tales of royalty, hierarchy and the sinister ‘other’ both as children and adults and believe them. We take the norms of our societies and believe them to be nature, believing this is how it is meant to be rather than seeing them as top down constructs, the result of class war that has been waged particularly ruthlessly by the rich over the last 30 years.
Capitalism and the nation state system have been responsible for the misery and deaths of countless millions over the last 300 years. The state communist system proved little different to capitalism perpetuating the same old patterns of hierarchy, instrumentalism, elitism and coercion. However throughout history there has been another way of organising society, economics and politics that has been glimpsed, sometimes poorly, sometimes more fully explored; anarchism. Anarchy is a word often used by the media to describe disorder, violence and chaos and the Sex Pistols did it no favours either! Anarchism has been misrepresented by many people for various reasons. There have been violent anarchist who in the 1800s believed in ‘propaganda by deed’, the idea that the assassination of a leading industrialist or politician would stir the working class to revolution, they were wrong, and it enabled the state to represent anarchists as violent and to crack down on non existent global anarchist networks (9).
However anarchism did not go away and has hung around waiting its time-which should be about now!
Anarchism is the belief that communities of people are capable of self organisation for the common good and don’t need to be told what to do by bosses of whatever kind and that in fact being socialised to look to a parental figure to always adjudicate or direct holds people back from maturity. In an anarchist community all people are equal there is no hierarchy, no patriarchy, no racism. All people take part in making decisions about those things that affect the community, the decision being reached by discussion that concludes when every one has agreed or is at least happy not to block the consensus.
The means of production — land, machinery, natural resources, distribution — are held by the community there is no private ownership of the means of production and people organise and work in co-operatives of equals. Obviously some people have certain skills and abilities and that would not be neglected but certain roles would not bestow special status on anyone, all valid work is of equal worth. Production would be primarily on the basis of need, consumption also, the maxim ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their need’ is appropriate here.
Because production would be organised on the basis of people’s needs not profit there would be more leisure time available for people to explore their creativity. An anarchist community should be a place of creativity, arts, crafts and relationships. Communities would be voluntary associations of willing participants whose concern would be for the common good knowing that their own well being and the well being of others is intricately linked.
Lots of anarchists are federalists, realising that autonomy is different from independence they favour local or regional councils made up of recallable representatives from different communities. These councils could resolve difficulties or coordinate actions to do with production etc.
Syndicalist anarchists would see anarchism as applicable to the function based, spread out world of industrial work as well as geographical communities.
Some anarchists have been preoccupied with individual freedom while others see it as the only reliable path to social justice and equality as its structures preclude anyone from accumulating wealth or power. Over time people brought up in anarchism would be socialised into a different way of being, of co-operation and collaboration and of seeing people as equals to be worked with rather than as objects to be used.
Obviously production in an anarchist economy would use less natural resources and energy due to holding many goods collectively and producing primarily on the basis of need this would stop the rapid exhaustion of the earth’s resources and with the decentralisation of energy production slow global warming
In an anarchist community where things are held collectively, everyone’s needs are met and status goods are irrelevant so crimes of appropriation would fall, however in instances of violent crime a period of supervision or even exile may be appropriate, disciplining action would have to be agreed by the community and be victim centred aimed at healing, restitution and rehabilitation.
So how do we get there from here? The classic anarchist answer is to begin ‘building the new in the shell of the old’, to disregard the structures and powers that be and to do something better instead. Capitalism according to John Holloway is a verb, it is something we do rather than it existing independent of us (10). It will end when we stop doing it! Some think there would be a period of conflict, that the powerful are not going to allow the source of their wealth and power-the working class- to turn away and reconstruct society without a struggle. However anarchists have nothing to gain by the use of violence because 1. not enough people would be prepared to get involved; 2. there is no point taking on the capitalist state at it’s point of strength; 3. your means must be consistent with your aims, if they are not you won’t hit the ends you were aiming for, ends are shaped by means; 4. if you believe it is acceptable to use violence to achieve your objective you have to cede the same right to your opponent.
The online learning site 'Futurelearn' (11) runs a course called 'The Secret Power of Brands' (12) which includes the idea of a Venn diagram in which one circle contains the felt needs of your target group, the other circle your organisation's attributes-in the overlap of the two circles are the aspects of your organisation that meets those felt needs, the aspects that the organisation needs to communicate (12). Obviously this is to do with businesses but is transposable to other spheres. In an online article 'The Left Can Win' Pablo Inglesias of the Spanish Podemos party-that emerged from the Indignados movement- makes the point that the Left needs to communicate in a language that people understand about things that people are bothered about, that there has to be a tie up between what we are talking about and what people are experiencing or we are irrelevant while having the correct analysis (13).We need to disrupt the top down dominant discourses that people read and hear by listening to people and talking with them about the things that matter to them in a way that alerts people to the misleading, elite-serving, disempowering narratives they have been given and instead empowers people to engage and create change.
A recent 'Red Pepper' article/interview with another Podemos member Eduardo Maura comments that the Left needs to have a better grasp of "class compositions and identities" (14) which are far more complex and fragmented than before the neoliberal era, and to have a better understanding of people's lived experiences so that it can communicate effectively (14). Podemos seems to have managed to embed itself in local communities with many local branches as well as using social media/ the internet extensively in order to enable involvement and participation in discussion and decision making for as many people as possible (14). This model of a movement with multiple access points so that people with busy fragmented lives can get involved in the way they can manage has to be taken seriously as for many people an initial involvement that includes conferences, reading lengthy books and protests may be a bit too much. The above examples are peculiar to time and place, in circumstances different to our own but they do give us clues as to how anarchism could engage more effectively with the world around us- exploring how anarchism answers the felt needs people have, listening to people and their concerns and then trying to give them a better analysis of the causes of their problems in a language they understand, having a localised and online movement that has multiple points of access so that people can learn, understand more clearly, engage and participate in a way they can manage. It will almost certainly be a bit messy and include mistakes but the need for a clearer, more effective communication of anarchist politics is paramount.
Many people in the industrialised world are experiencing alienation, lack of community, purpose and fulfilment-they know something is wrong with their lives, with the way we are organised but they are distracted and anesthetised by TV and the tabloid press which keeps them away from alternative narratives and visions. What is needed is the propagation of an anarchist alternative and an example of what it looks like in practice so it can be seen and experienced.
The future is not necessarily anarchist, it could be even more authoritarian capitalism or environmental meltdown but if we want to avoid these two then the working class are going to have to decide to change our direction, to find ways of discussing and exploring how we can move towards a more equal, just and free tomorrow. The challenge for anarchists is how to facilitate this, a mass movement towards a just, equitable society-how to move out and engage in a project of coordinated education and activism.
.
Bibliography:
(1) Rickman, D. (2014) 'Are 9 of the poorest region in northern Europe really in the UK? http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/are-9-of-the-poorest-regions-in-northern-europe-really-in-the-uk--eJ0axHCqmx
(2)'Child well-being in rich countries-a comparative overview' UNICEF UK https://www.unicef.org.uk/Images/.../Report%20card%20briefing2b.pdf
(3) Bingham, J. 'Britain the loneliness capital of Europe' . 18-6-14. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/wellbeing/10909524/Britain-the-loneliness-capital-of-Europe.html
(4) Harvey, D. (2005 ) ‘A Brief History of Neoliberalism’, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.
(5) Berardi, F. (2009) ‘The Soul at Work’, Semiotext(e), Los Angeles.
(6) Atari Teenage Riot, ‘Black Flag’ on ‘Is this Hyperreal?’ Digital Hardcore, 2010.
(7) Debord, G. (1968) 'The Society of the Spectacle'. Black and Red, USA.
(8) Thomas, M. (ed)(2012) ‘Antonio Gramsci: Working-Class Revolutionary’, Workers’ Liberty, London
(9) Butterworth, A. (2010) ‘The World that Never Was. A true story of dreamers, schemers, anarchists and dreamers’. The Bodley Head, London.
(10) Holloway J. (2010), ‘Crack Capitalism’ Pluto Press, London and New York.
(11) www.futurelearn.com
(12) 'The Secret Power of Brands' UEA https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/the-secret-power-of-brands
(13) Inglesias, P. (2014) 'The Left Can Win' 12-9-2014 https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/12/pablo-iglesias-podemos-left-speech/
(14) Dolan, A. (2014) 'Si se puede' in Red Pepper, Issue 199, Dec/Jan 2015, Socialist Newspaper (Publications), London
Since the industrial revolution of the mid 1700s capitalism has concentrated power in the hands of the owners of the means of production — factories, land, mines, distribution — and has separated the vast majority of people from those means. Power and wealth have been and are accrued by an elite while the rest of us hope to pay our bills. This plus the commodification of the necessities of life -food, shelter, heating etc — means that the working class are forced to sell their labour, whether mental or physical, in order to survive above destitution. Within capitalism the wealth of the few and the exploitation of the many is linked, the worker spends her day adding value to the assets of the company, at the end of the day that work/added value is taken by the company who then gives the worker a wage that is less than the value they have generated pocketing the difference. They pay enough to keep the workforce functional-unless they can get the government to subsidise those wages via Working Family Tax Credit etc- as they need their labour and thus each day the shareholders/boss/company gets richer while the worker struggles on, hoping they might win the lottery or looking forward to the next weekend.
Capitalism is exploitative, oppressive, alienating and instrumentalist. The worker is alienated from their work, having to carry out tasks assigned to them, the benefit of that work being largely accrued by someone else; from their colleagues who they are taught to see as competitors, as threat; from themselves as they wonder how they ended up doing this, being this. And the worker functions as an instrument, a means to someone else’s ends. In post industrial work there has been a change, industrial capitalism demanded the worker's body but was often uninterested in their mind or ‘soul’, their thoughts, relational skills, communication abilities, however post industrial work wants those aspects as well. 21st century work often demands all of the worker leaving her with little to construct a meaningful life outside of work. In industrial work there was a chance to find meaning, community in unions, political/social clubs etc but often the modern worker is drained of all energies and goes home to watch TV and get ready for tomorrow. As this goes on the only place of meaning in her life becomes work, the very place that incapacitates her for anything else (5).
Since the 1980s neoliberal capitalism has dominated UK politics, an ideology of free markets, small state provision (for the workers, though not for corporations), individualisation, privatisation and a continual dismantling of workers rights and protections, concessions gained since the Second World War. In short class war waged by the rich to cite Atari Teenage Riot (6). Neoliberal capitalism and politics have reconfigured institutions (governments, schools etc), individuals and society into it’s own image. Brought up in a commodification environment that promotes work and individualised consumption as the highest goal people have been reduced to objects, women especially valued according to their physicality-and make of handbag. Capitalism’s most brazen trick is to try and pass itself off as natural, or ‘god ordained’ in a bygone era, attempting to convince us that this is how it is meant to be, that no other world is possible. The Situationists wrote about this in 1950s/60s referring to it as ‘the spectacle’ (7) — how advanced industrial societies are represented to themselves by the elite, so effectively that the oppressed internalise those values, those views. Society and culture dominated by a seamless representation of a capitalist version of the world via the media, state and corporations (7), where any dissent is marginalised or co-opted. Gramsci referred to something similar as 'cultural hegemony' (8).
And over this society that is a material expression of capitalist interests exists the state, hierarchical, coercive, serving the interests of the political and corporate elite. The capitalist state is a capitalist construction expressing capitalist’s interests, configuring society to the interests of capital. Between 1945 and the 70s there was a respite from the state/corporate amalgam as unions and the Labour Party gained concessions for the working class but since the 1980s the state has re-assumed its historic role of enforcing capitalist interests. Where there has been resistance, as in the Miner’s Strike of 1980s, the coercive nature of the state has come to the fore, undisguised and brutal. The state’s authority rests ultimately on the use, or threat, of force, it is normally structured and bureaucratic but if it has to be more violent to achieve it’s ends it will be. The modern capitalist state is inherently hierarchical, coercive, patriarchal and militaristic.
As individuals we are ‘socialised’ by the societies and cultures we are reared in, we imbibe their values and embody their world views. We listen to their fairy tales of royalty, hierarchy and the sinister ‘other’ both as children and adults and believe them. We take the norms of our societies and believe them to be nature, believing this is how it is meant to be rather than seeing them as top down constructs, the result of class war that has been waged particularly ruthlessly by the rich over the last 30 years.
Capitalism and the nation state system have been responsible for the misery and deaths of countless millions over the last 300 years. The state communist system proved little different to capitalism perpetuating the same old patterns of hierarchy, instrumentalism, elitism and coercion. However throughout history there has been another way of organising society, economics and politics that has been glimpsed, sometimes poorly, sometimes more fully explored; anarchism. Anarchy is a word often used by the media to describe disorder, violence and chaos and the Sex Pistols did it no favours either! Anarchism has been misrepresented by many people for various reasons. There have been violent anarchist who in the 1800s believed in ‘propaganda by deed’, the idea that the assassination of a leading industrialist or politician would stir the working class to revolution, they were wrong, and it enabled the state to represent anarchists as violent and to crack down on non existent global anarchist networks (9).
However anarchism did not go away and has hung around waiting its time-which should be about now!
Anarchism is the belief that communities of people are capable of self organisation for the common good and don’t need to be told what to do by bosses of whatever kind and that in fact being socialised to look to a parental figure to always adjudicate or direct holds people back from maturity. In an anarchist community all people are equal there is no hierarchy, no patriarchy, no racism. All people take part in making decisions about those things that affect the community, the decision being reached by discussion that concludes when every one has agreed or is at least happy not to block the consensus.
The means of production — land, machinery, natural resources, distribution — are held by the community there is no private ownership of the means of production and people organise and work in co-operatives of equals. Obviously some people have certain skills and abilities and that would not be neglected but certain roles would not bestow special status on anyone, all valid work is of equal worth. Production would be primarily on the basis of need, consumption also, the maxim ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their need’ is appropriate here.
Because production would be organised on the basis of people’s needs not profit there would be more leisure time available for people to explore their creativity. An anarchist community should be a place of creativity, arts, crafts and relationships. Communities would be voluntary associations of willing participants whose concern would be for the common good knowing that their own well being and the well being of others is intricately linked.
Lots of anarchists are federalists, realising that autonomy is different from independence they favour local or regional councils made up of recallable representatives from different communities. These councils could resolve difficulties or coordinate actions to do with production etc.
Syndicalist anarchists would see anarchism as applicable to the function based, spread out world of industrial work as well as geographical communities.
Some anarchists have been preoccupied with individual freedom while others see it as the only reliable path to social justice and equality as its structures preclude anyone from accumulating wealth or power. Over time people brought up in anarchism would be socialised into a different way of being, of co-operation and collaboration and of seeing people as equals to be worked with rather than as objects to be used.
Obviously production in an anarchist economy would use less natural resources and energy due to holding many goods collectively and producing primarily on the basis of need this would stop the rapid exhaustion of the earth’s resources and with the decentralisation of energy production slow global warming
In an anarchist community where things are held collectively, everyone’s needs are met and status goods are irrelevant so crimes of appropriation would fall, however in instances of violent crime a period of supervision or even exile may be appropriate, disciplining action would have to be agreed by the community and be victim centred aimed at healing, restitution and rehabilitation.
So how do we get there from here? The classic anarchist answer is to begin ‘building the new in the shell of the old’, to disregard the structures and powers that be and to do something better instead. Capitalism according to John Holloway is a verb, it is something we do rather than it existing independent of us (10). It will end when we stop doing it! Some think there would be a period of conflict, that the powerful are not going to allow the source of their wealth and power-the working class- to turn away and reconstruct society without a struggle. However anarchists have nothing to gain by the use of violence because 1. not enough people would be prepared to get involved; 2. there is no point taking on the capitalist state at it’s point of strength; 3. your means must be consistent with your aims, if they are not you won’t hit the ends you were aiming for, ends are shaped by means; 4. if you believe it is acceptable to use violence to achieve your objective you have to cede the same right to your opponent.
The online learning site 'Futurelearn' (11) runs a course called 'The Secret Power of Brands' (12) which includes the idea of a Venn diagram in which one circle contains the felt needs of your target group, the other circle your organisation's attributes-in the overlap of the two circles are the aspects of your organisation that meets those felt needs, the aspects that the organisation needs to communicate (12). Obviously this is to do with businesses but is transposable to other spheres. In an online article 'The Left Can Win' Pablo Inglesias of the Spanish Podemos party-that emerged from the Indignados movement- makes the point that the Left needs to communicate in a language that people understand about things that people are bothered about, that there has to be a tie up between what we are talking about and what people are experiencing or we are irrelevant while having the correct analysis (13).We need to disrupt the top down dominant discourses that people read and hear by listening to people and talking with them about the things that matter to them in a way that alerts people to the misleading, elite-serving, disempowering narratives they have been given and instead empowers people to engage and create change.
A recent 'Red Pepper' article/interview with another Podemos member Eduardo Maura comments that the Left needs to have a better grasp of "class compositions and identities" (14) which are far more complex and fragmented than before the neoliberal era, and to have a better understanding of people's lived experiences so that it can communicate effectively (14). Podemos seems to have managed to embed itself in local communities with many local branches as well as using social media/ the internet extensively in order to enable involvement and participation in discussion and decision making for as many people as possible (14). This model of a movement with multiple access points so that people with busy fragmented lives can get involved in the way they can manage has to be taken seriously as for many people an initial involvement that includes conferences, reading lengthy books and protests may be a bit too much. The above examples are peculiar to time and place, in circumstances different to our own but they do give us clues as to how anarchism could engage more effectively with the world around us- exploring how anarchism answers the felt needs people have, listening to people and their concerns and then trying to give them a better analysis of the causes of their problems in a language they understand, having a localised and online movement that has multiple points of access so that people can learn, understand more clearly, engage and participate in a way they can manage. It will almost certainly be a bit messy and include mistakes but the need for a clearer, more effective communication of anarchist politics is paramount.
Many people in the industrialised world are experiencing alienation, lack of community, purpose and fulfilment-they know something is wrong with their lives, with the way we are organised but they are distracted and anesthetised by TV and the tabloid press which keeps them away from alternative narratives and visions. What is needed is the propagation of an anarchist alternative and an example of what it looks like in practice so it can be seen and experienced.
The future is not necessarily anarchist, it could be even more authoritarian capitalism or environmental meltdown but if we want to avoid these two then the working class are going to have to decide to change our direction, to find ways of discussing and exploring how we can move towards a more equal, just and free tomorrow. The challenge for anarchists is how to facilitate this, a mass movement towards a just, equitable society-how to move out and engage in a project of coordinated education and activism.
.
Bibliography:
(1) Rickman, D. (2014) 'Are 9 of the poorest region in northern Europe really in the UK? http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/are-9-of-the-poorest-regions-in-northern-europe-really-in-the-uk--eJ0axHCqmx
(2)'Child well-being in rich countries-a comparative overview' UNICEF UK https://www.unicef.org.uk/Images/.../Report%20card%20briefing2b.pdf
(3) Bingham, J. 'Britain the loneliness capital of Europe' . 18-6-14. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/wellbeing/10909524/Britain-the-loneliness-capital-of-Europe.html
(4) Harvey, D. (2005 ) ‘A Brief History of Neoliberalism’, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.
(5) Berardi, F. (2009) ‘The Soul at Work’, Semiotext(e), Los Angeles.
(6) Atari Teenage Riot, ‘Black Flag’ on ‘Is this Hyperreal?’ Digital Hardcore, 2010.
(7) Debord, G. (1968) 'The Society of the Spectacle'. Black and Red, USA.
(8) Thomas, M. (ed)(2012) ‘Antonio Gramsci: Working-Class Revolutionary’, Workers’ Liberty, London
(9) Butterworth, A. (2010) ‘The World that Never Was. A true story of dreamers, schemers, anarchists and dreamers’. The Bodley Head, London.
(10) Holloway J. (2010), ‘Crack Capitalism’ Pluto Press, London and New York.
(11) www.futurelearn.com
(12) 'The Secret Power of Brands' UEA https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/the-secret-power-of-brands
(13) Inglesias, P. (2014) 'The Left Can Win' 12-9-2014 https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/12/pablo-iglesias-podemos-left-speech/
(14) Dolan, A. (2014) 'Si se puede' in Red Pepper, Issue 199, Dec/Jan 2015, Socialist Newspaper (Publications), London
Monday, 29 December 2014
Colonialism/Hegemonic Masculinity
An attempt to explore hegemonic masculinity- which includes the elevating of force/violence and putting the male at the centre with that around seen as resources for gratification.
Saturday, 27 December 2014
Commodification-Living Dolls.
Thanks to Valentina and Matt for inspiration.
Exploration of consumerism and the commodification of relationships.
Friday, 26 December 2014
Hegemonic Femininity.
Thanks to Valentina and Matt for inspiration.
This is my attempt to visually explore the pressures and socialisation girls/women experience via the media etc to conform to a sexualised objectified ideal and the anxiety/resistance that can result.
This is my attempt to visually explore the pressures and socialisation girls/women experience via the media etc to conform to a sexualised objectified ideal and the anxiety/resistance that can result.
Sunday, 14 December 2014
Onwards and Outwards?
 |
| image yvonne forster |
For some while I have been wondering how the UK Left/anarchism can facilitate the working class to actively engage in political contestation and struggle, how the working class in one of the most hyper capitalist societies can be woken up from the soporific effects of 'the spectacle' (6)- that seamless representation of the world from a (neoliberal) capitalist perspective propagated by the media, corporations and state-a 'spectacle' that we have spent so many decades exposed to that we have internalised it's values, unquestioningly perform its norms.
About a year ago I did a course on Futurelearn (7) called 'The Secret Power of Brands' (8)(good to 'know your enemy') which included the idea of a Venn diagram in which one circle contains the felt needs of your target group, the other circle your organisation's attributes-in the overlap of the two circles are the aspects of your organisation that meets those felt needs, the aspects that the organisation needs to communicate (8). Obviously this was to do with businesses but transposable to other spheres. In an online article 'The Left Can Win' Pablo Inglesias of the Spanish Podemos party-that emerged from the Indignados movement- makes the point that the Left needs to communicate in a language that people understand about things that people are bothered about, that there has to be a tie up between what we are talking about and what people are experiencing or we are irrelevant while having the correct analysis (9).We need to disrupt the top down dominant discourses that people read and hear by listening to people and talking with them about the things that matter to them in a way that alerts people to the misleading, elite-serving, disempowering narratives they have been given and empowers people to engage and create change.
Similarly a recent 'Red Pepper' article/interview with Podemos member Eduardo Maura comments that the Left needs to have a better grasp of "class compositions and identities" (10) which are far more complex and fragmented than before the neoliberal era, and to have a better understanding of people's lived experiences so that it can communicate effectively (10). Podemos seems to be a political party that is closely aligned with progressive grass roots movements, it has managed to embed itself in local communities with many local branches as well as using social media/ the internet extensively in order to enable involvement and participation in discussion and decision making for as many people as possible (10). This model of a movement with multiple access points so that people with busy fragmented lives can get involved in the way they can manage has to be taken seriously as for many people an initial involvement that includes conferences, reading lengthy books and protests may be a bit too much. Meanwhile, further down the Mediterranean coast in Greece the group Solidarity4All links together various grass roots groups working to alleviate the poverty many are experiencing by enabling the 'exchange of knowledge and information' between these different 'solidarity groups' (11). These groups, as well as helping to alleviate suffering, give people the chance to get involved in making a positive difference (11).
In Scotland earlier this year the 'Yes' campaign was a diverse movement that included many on the Left including The Radical Independence Campaign who again saw the need to communicate to people about the things that concern them in a language they understand (12), they gave their local groups 'autonomy' within a national framework and engaged in 'mass canvassing' events in areas and at sporting events as well as running 'community events' (12). While the 'Yes' campaign failed to win the vote their grass roots model of campaigning seems to have been very effective at engaging people in local, community based discussion and participation.
All of the above examples are peculiar to time and place, in circumstances different to our own but they do give us clues as to how the Left/anarchism could engage more effectively with the world around us- exploring how anarchism answers the felt needs people have, listening to people and their concerns and then trying to give them a better analysis of the causes of their problems in a language they understand, having a localised and online movement that has multiple points of access so that people can learn, understand more clearly, engage and participate in a way they can manage. It will almost certainly be a bit messy and include mistakes but the need for a clearer, more effective communication of radical Left/anarchist politics is paramount.
Bibliography
(1) Rickman, D. (2014) 'Are 9 of the poorest region in northern Europe really in the UK? http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/are-9-of-the-poorest-regions-in-northern-europe-really-in-the-uk--eJ0axHCqmx
(2)'Child well-being in rich countries-a comparative overview' UNICEF UK https://www.unicef.org.uk/Images/.../Report%20card%20briefing2b.pdf
(3) Bingham, J. 'Britain the loneliness capital of Europe' . 18-6-14. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/wellbeing/10909524/Britain-the-loneliness-capital-of-Europe.html
(4) Harvey, D. (2005 ) ‘A Brief History of Neoliberalism’, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.
(5) Thomas, M. (ed)(2012) ‘Antonio Gramsci: Working-Class Revolutionary’, Workers’ Liberty, London
(6) Debord, G. (1968) 'The Society of the Spectacle'. Black and Red, USA.
(7) www.futurelearn.com
(8) 'The Secret Power of Brands' UEA https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/the-secret-power-of-brands
(9) Inglesias, P. (2014) 'The Left Can Win' 12-9-2014 https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/12/pablo-iglesias-podemos-left-speech/
(10) Dolan, A. (2014) 'Si se puede' in Red Pepper, Issue 199, Dec/Jan 2015, Socialist Newspaper (Publications), London.
(11) Prentoulis, M. (2014) 'Party Time' in Red Pepper, Issue 199, Dec/Jan 2015, Socialist Newspaper (Publications), London.
(12) Shafi, J. (2014) 'Another Scotland is-still- possible' in Red Pepper, Issue 199, Dec/Jan 2015, Socialist Newspaper (Publications), London.
Thursday, 27 November 2014
Eagle Spits In Response To Questions.
 |
| Photo; Rachel Eagling. |
Eagle Spits is probably not his birth name but does seem to suit a character who nearly 40 years after his initial involvement in punk is still going strong- still angry, hopeful, humourous, militating for change. After meeting in the summer and then going along to a 'Punk 4 The Homeless' gig I asked Eagle if he would mind answering a few questions...
Q, When did you start to self identify as a punk? What was it that attracted you, what did punk mean to you then-and what does it mean now?
A. It all began when I was 14 which was 38 years ago. I had heard about punk rock, the mass hysteria it had caused in the media. How it was rebellious, anti authoritarian, disgusting and something to be stayed away from. I was intrigued. At the same time I was searching for an identity. I was a troublesome kid and although I didn't realize it back then I had blanked the whole of my childhood out due to being sexually abused (all that stuff came flooding back when I was 27. I had started my mental health nurse training, was in a classroom learning about sexual abuse issues..zap, there it was) so I was really lost with no sense of self and no roots. Then one day I walked into the living room and The Stranglers were on TOTP. They blew me away, the energy, power, freshness. I had never heard anything like it. I went out and bought the 'No More Heroes' single (much to my parents disgust) then a couple more singles and The Clash first album. First band I got to see were Sham 69 (at Cambridge Corn Exchange) which turned out to be a blood bath with the National Front kicking the crap out of everybody. Then me and my mates got nicked back at the railway station because some skinheads came in and smashed the waiting room up. We spent the night in the cells and the cops gave us a lift home the next morning because they realized we were innocent (sitting in a cell for something I hadn't done) and we were just kids. I had loads of great times at punk gigs but there was always violence due to the Far Right. One of those great experiences was when my school thought it would be funny to send this young punk to a posh hotel in Peterborough, The Bull, but it back fired because The Clash (my all time fave band) booked in, befriended me and my friends and took us to the sound check where we spent lots of quality time partying with them and The Slits. Obviously the punk scene helped me to form a political awareness (although the Left in the form of the WRP and Far Right in the form of the NF tried to hijack things). When I was sixteen Crass brought out 'The Feeding of the 5000', which I thought was the funniest thing I had ever heard until I realized they were being serious, and the anarcho punk thing started. I had considered my self to be an anarchist for about 3 years but that scene helped me on my way. So I was involved in the punk scene early on but have often found it a bit naff and hypocritical over the years. Loads of the bands were signing to major labels, obviously The Clash and The Pistols but even those who should have known better; Chumbawamba, New Model Army and Blaggers ITA signing to EMI (probably the biggest arms dealers in the world still, for fuck's sake). So yes I am still involved in the punk scene but one which has a DIY, fuck corporate bollocks attitude. The punk scene can be very narrow minded with people struggling with stuff which doesn't fit the genre, which most of the stuff I tend to be involved with doesn't. So yes I am a punk if punk is an attitude but no if its someone who just consumes generic, unchallenging crap. I still comfortably sport a bright coloured mowhawk but I am not interested in bands who just want to be rock stars. I am still naive enough to want to change the world and despite it's problems believe the punk scene can be a major part of that.
Q. I think you would call yourself an anarchist. What do you mean by that? How would you describe anarchism? For you are anarchism and punk synonymous?
A. Yes I am an anarchist from the same school as Leo Tolstoy, Dorothy Day and Jesus Christ with a touch of William Godwin. I don't believe we need external governments, police or the military running things. In fact I see them as enemies that we need to resist as much as possible. Tolstoy pointed out that there has not been a war in history which hasn't been caused by government. I think as part of that I need to disentangle myself from the world's systems as much as possible and not accept Caesar's coin. As for defining anarchism I can't but for me its obvious that if we live in a more natural environment we behave better as a species but there are those who do not want this because power and wealth are too important to them. So basically I believe all we need to thrive as a species are two laws (although they are not laws at all but the working out of natural attributes), the law of love and the law of reason. Then we would have what I believe to be an anarchist system. I do not see punk as always being synonymous with anarchism. When a young John Lydon was screaming that he was an anarchist I doubt if he had read Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin etc., it took bands like Crass to bring in a bit of thought, but it was a bloody good catalyst for change.
Q. As someone involved in punk since the 70s have you been encouraged by how its evolved-or is it too diverse to be able to make generalisations?
A. I got involved in 1976 and have to give you a yes and no answer. Being someone who got beaten up for being a punk in 1977 I am pleased that hostility has, to a very large degree, disappeared. As for its evolution I believe the punk attitude has existed forever. Sure it showed itself in the punk rock scene but also very much in the bebop jazz scene, the beatniks, the folkies etc. etc. It was the attitude of 'Fuck this shit we are going to change things' by doing things our way, on our terms. When The Clash were getting crap for making music which didn't fit the generic punk style Strummer said “I thought we were a fucking punk band. I thought that meant we could play what we wanted” and I totally agree. Unfortunately it is easy to see in hindsight that the majors and the mainstream music press needed resisting from the start but it wasn't obvious exactly what could be done without them. So today I see a much better scene in DIY but that would not always be seen as a punk thing- hope that makes sense!
Q. How about your own evolution! Over the period you have been writing lyrics and poetry has the subject matter changed as well as your own understandings?
A. Well I started writing when I was 14 and many of the subjects remain important to me today from anti nuclear “Three mile island what happened there? You fucking know but you don't care. Its alright its a safe device but the impossible accident happened twice” to the anti commercialization of punk “I'm a punk look at me, bondage strides and pvc's, 17 quid, so were these, from a shop called Boy and Seditionaries”. But now there's issues of drones, badger culls, Atos etc. all issues which need sorting. Plus I am a Christian anarchist so those issues crop up in my writing. Often pointing out social injustice and hypocrisy (although I think you have to be pretty damned perfect to call someone an hypocrite and I am not) within systems and organizations. Issues of poverty, oppression, injustice are all part of what I am about. I guess I have always been concerned with the spiritual side of things and 'meeting' the “Agitator from Nazareth” not only opened me up more spiritually but also got me more involved in social justice issues and action etc. So I guess my writing has matured with age, has a slight touch of spirituality and is more informed because I am more involved. Less 'Fuck this fucking world' more 'Change this fucking world'.
Q. You are involved with two bands 'The Poor Geezers' and 'Spitune'-what sort of musical styles and subject matter do they explore?
A. It gets worse than that. I also perform as part of a dark ambient, industrial, punk poetry duo called EAGLESPITSHEXX and do poetry gigs as Eagle Spits. The Poor Geezers is basically myself and a chap called Dean P Riches who drums with his feet whilst playing acoustic guitar who also sings and plays harmonica. The best description was by Dave HT from Fungalpunk Webzine who called us Patchwork Punk because we chuck everything in the mix, punk, psychobilly, folk, blues, gospel, anything we fancy. Its usually about issues but occasionally personal stuff creeps in. We both write lyrics and were both involved with mental health services and drugs counselling so both of us have a dark sense of humour which also creeps in. Spitune are best described as Anarcho, Industrial, Dub Punk with Krautrock influences experimentation. We are not easy listening. Stephen Surreal creates the music, plays keys, synth, bass, boran. He is into loads of stuff like Coil, Throbbing Gristle and tons of dub. I write most of the lyrics although there's one of Stephen's on the new album alongside a Crass cover (Bloody Revolutions) and a King Blues cover (Shooting Fascists). Again its mainly about issues. I shout, clank and crash stuff with a mallet and play the fire extinguisher. Rachel Joy, sings, clanks, plays the washboard and a pagan drum. We sometimes have a drummer and often members of the audience join in in a kind of music therapy way. Other people occasionally join with The Poor Geezers too, Danny Ratcatcher has played double bass in both bands although there was one occasion where he couldn't bring his bass on the train so he brought a stylaphone instead. So anything pretty much goes. Punk poet Dwane Reads has often played drums for Spitune. So I guess we want to fuck shit up and stretch people. At recent gigs Spitune have had reference points as diverse as Faust, Captain Beefheart, Sheep on Drugs, Hawkwind and PIL used about them. 99% of the time all the outfits I am involved with play alongside punk bands and we are definitely part of the DIY scene.
Q. 'Punk 4 The Homeless' is something you are very involved with-can you tell us what that is all about? Does that include the 'Punks and Poets' evenings?
A. 'Punk 4 The Homeless' was set up my myself 5 years ago (although I have been putting gigs on for the same cause for well over a decade) to raise money and awareness for street children by putting on punk gigs and festivals (all over the UK) , bringing out compilations and selling T-shirts etc. We even ran our own radio show until the station closed down. In Latin America the kids live on rubbish tips and are seen as vermin by the authorities and police who kill them. Hence the slogan on the 'Punk 4 The Homeless' shirts reads “Stopping cops killing kids is punk rock”. We work very closely with Casa Alianza who are a small charity who get the children into orphanages and education and give them a future. That in brief is what we do but alongside that we like to encourage youngsters to get involved and collaborate with lots of other not-for-profits. There's been loads of great people in the punk scene who have helped us from promoters to bands, from zines to radio stations etc. Loads of generosity. I was living in Boston, Lincolnshire before getting married and moving to Nottingham a couple of years ago and was using a hall within a big old Methodist church to put the gigs on. The church folk even bought us a P.A. so we didn't have to keep hiring, all at no cost. I don't see 'Punk 4 The Homeless' as charity I see us as a movement because together we can fucking change things. And if the kids are united maybe we can stop the cops kicking them to death.
Q. Playing in different bands and organising must involve a lot of collaboration-is that something you find valuable and enjoy?
A. I love collaborations but as a promoter I tend to want to do everything unless I can totally trust people to do what they say otherwise things don't get done but there is now several people I trust but it has taken about 30 years to get this far. I have always been involved in promoting fundraisers etc. but only performing myself for about 14 years. I tend to create with those round me who want to do shit and cause change. DIY is very much part of a brighter future as I see things. Work together and survive outside of the system.
Q. You have spent a lot of years in activism and challenging people to engage with social issues-how have you managed to avoid burn out and becoming jaded?
A. By having fun and having ADHD, moving onto the next thing quickly whilst going backwards and forwards, juggling a stack of balls at the same time and having a patchwork life. Very irritating I guess but works for me. I not only want a revolution I can dance in I want to dance, scream, shout around, paint everywhere, cause mayhem, break boundaries, break punk rock, live life in its fullness and nick Bakunin's brandy. We are in a tough battle but lets throw the party where everyone's invited. Punk rock, the kingdom of heaven and Bahktin's carnival theory. Then after breakfast...
Q. What books, bands and people do you find interesting and inspiring?
A. I love the Bible. I agree with Tolstoy that Jesus' message was the most liberating message ever but in the hands of the church it has become the most oppressive. The message is bloody simple and radical; love, and freedom happens. Tolstoy I love. Dorothy Day, Hennessey, Crass, Strummer, Atari Teenage Riot, Sun Ra, Peter Tosh, MLK, Kropototkin, Bakunin, Herman Hesse, Thelonious Monk, Can, Mary Shelley, William Godwin, Attila the Stockbroker, Nick Cave, Pigface, Scott Walker, Tom Waits, Zounds, Rob Bell, Dom Helder Camara, Jesus, Chomsky, Charlie Parker, Blind Willie Johnson, Christopher Hill, Diogenes, Faust, Sheep on Drugs, Kierkergaard, The Swans, Killdozer, Dickens, Victor Hugo, Alan Moore, Frank Miller, Batman, Iain Banks, Eagle Spits, Lee Perry, Mahler, Blake, William Morris, Eli Weisel, Gandhi, Simone Weil, Emma Goldman, Dean Kennedy's, MDC, The Cramps, Wire, The Sonics, Marlon Brando, DR Zeus, GG Allin, Mother Teresa, Woody Guthrie, Gerard Wynstanley, John Steinbeck, The Violent Femmes, Johnny Cash, Viktor Frankl, Carl Jung and anybody else who gives a shit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)