Humour, democracy and the successes of anonymous groups

I, like many of you, am extremely unhappy with the direction that our nation and perhaps the world is heading right now, and am frustrated by what feels like far too slowly growing people's movements. People are joining us all of the time, and movements like #occupy and #ukuncut are encouraging, but then they run out of steam and we start to feel helpless again, doomed even.

The uneven distribution of wealth and power is the cause of our greatest political problems in my opinion, and I'm sure it is a widely held view amongst ordinary people. Much of the power inequality is only possible through the lack of participation by the mass of ordinary people. The ruling class have done a great job of isolating the population into ever smaller groups to prevent unity through creating apathy, in a deliberate social engineering process often referred to as atomisation. However within these 'atoms' there are millions of people literally just waiting to connect with social movements and do something good for the world, whether they know it or not. We know this, because we have all been those people.

The advent of social networking has played a tremendous part in unifying and mobilising ordinary people in push backs against ruling class policies and propaganda, but I don't think we are exploiting those tools intelligently or effectively enough.

The volume of ordinary people using sites like Facebook and Twitter is enormous, albeit largely wallowing in the meaningless junk culture of celebrity, consumerism and so forth. This is the human resource that we need to be tapping into more effectively than we are, and we need to start thinking about and coming up with ideas for achieving that.

Grasping the reality of the world we live in is often an unappealing prospect. I recall many a day, getting ready for work, and flipping channels to get away from the 'news' because it seemed so depressing. I now subscribe to many Facebook networks, and find my time line flooded each day with deeply depressing and often horrendous stories and images, as fellow activists try to raise awareness of various issues. Nonetheless, I sign as many petitions as I can, and continue to participate in discussions on these issues, but I can see why so many simply ignore the posts I share from these various groups on my time line.

So the question is how do we engage people, or at least utilise them to reach others within their networks?

One thing I have noticed is that people like sharing amusing images and comments. When we share these things, the source group is generally shown in the time line with the image/comment. So I suspect one mechanism for recruiting people to our groups is to share more amusing images comments to our groups. When others share those items to their own time lines, the groups themselves are also propagated to their Facebook friends via their time line. Anonymous groups have been enormously successful for the simple fact that they propagate lots of humour. Whether this is conscious tactics on the part of anons I don't know, but it sure works. If the image above at all influenced your decision to click and read this article in anyway then you're probably already on board with the point.

This is just one way in which we can do better, and we need to try think about other ways and perhaps learn from movements of the past. I will be glad to hear your ideas, so please, as always comment away.

Letter to Karen Lumley (MP for Redditch) on energy prices

Dear Karen,

I just wanted to give my thoughts on the energy debate you currently having re:

"Energy and Climate Change: Energy Costs (28 Nov 2013)http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2013-11-28a.394.0&s=speaker%3A24856#g394.3
Karen Lumley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what the people of Redditch  want are fair and firm energy policies, in the realization that no Government can fix international oil and gas prices, despite what they are being told locally by the Opposition?"

It may be the case that the government can't fix oil and gas prices from OPEC for instance, but it certainly has influence that it can use to keep them down. It should also be noted that the energy stock sources are not the only costs to the consumer. The quasi-monopolistic providers like EDF, NPower and others also add considerable cost to the consumer by way of their ever increasing profits, and these can be challenged if we have a government with the ethics and backbone to try. Given that for many people this is literally a life and death issue, particularly for pensioners, it is absolutely the right thing to do to force corporations to sacrifice profits to the rich. 

Most affordable housing has been built with dependency on the gas/electric grids, so most people are trapped into being consumers of these products. They are relying on people like you to deliver the possibility of their survival since they have no other choice. My own home for example is built with a gas flue. I cant afford to replace it with a chimney so that I might use carbon neutral energy as an alternative to being an involuntary gas monopolies consumer. Many other people in flats and other accommodation for instance don't even have the possibility of replacing their flue for alternative heating. This is the case for gas but analogous issues arise with electricity too.

I hope you remain on the right side of ordinary people's struggles for their lives versus the efforts of the rich to exploit them for profit.

Yours Sincerely,

Ian Kirwan

Letter to Boris (on IQ versus wealth)

Dear Boris,

I don't know how true the claims are in a recent article in The Mirror regarding comments on IQ and wealth attributed to yourself, but I wanted to give a few comments of my own on the matter for your consideration. I hope that is not too presumptuous of me.

I don't know whether IQ is a particularly good predictor of wealth, but I can see why such an assumption might be made. IQ is certainly not a great predictor of ethical behaviour or humanity, and I think you would find much better predictors of wealth and power in metrics of greed, ruthlessness and selfishness should they ever be adequately measured and calculated. Also it doesn't take exhaustive research to realise that the most voluminous and monstrous crimes against humanity and the planet are orchestrated by the most wealthy and powerful, not the least, and always have been.

Claims about IQ distribution to support the existing rich/poor disparity strike me as alarmingly eugenicist rhetoric. I hope that such notions are not a genuine participants in your own philosophy.

I would be glad to hear your thoughts on the matter by reply.

Yours Sincerely,

Ian Kirwan

----------------------
Posted to Boris Johnson (mayor@london.gov.uk) 29th November 2013
----------------------
Update: Email received from the Mayor's office; "Thank you for your interest in the work of the Mayor and the Greater London Authority, we are keen to answer your query as quickly and fully as possible. As you will appreciate, the Mayor receives a very large amount of correspondence but he is committed to responding to your query within 20 working days."

What, if not capitalism?

I, like a rapidly growing portion of the population, am more than unimpressed by capitalism. Before tackling the headline question I'd like to express some of the problems, both ethical and practical, that I see with capitalism as a socio-economic system.

Profit is the the prime motivating factor in capitalism. This ought to immediately raise concern, as it places profit above all other human aspirations. If profit is not your principle objective in a capitalist system then you are going to fail, unless you are very lucky, because capitalism sets everyone in the world in competition with each other, competing for profit. So any egalitarian principles such as equality, fairness, environmental concern, caring and so forth have to be at best subservient to the principle of profit. If you are not profiting then at best you are breaking even, which to maintain is akin to balancing a plate on the end of a pencil, or you are heading into bankruptcy and failure. We also should note that in a fair and equitable exchange of goods or services, there is no profit, just mutual benefit. Profit only arises when people or the environment, but not the profiteer of course, are being exploited. This is more than apparent in almost any business you can point to. Businesses are owned privately. The workforce and consumers of the business's output are exploited for the profit of the owners. This system therefore inherently favours profiteers at the cost of all else, namely humanity and the planet. We ought then to be considering what kind of society and future we are creating by rewarding greed and ruthlessness above all else.

Private ownership is another core principle of capitalism. This is another element of capitalism that deserves our attention. In a pure capitalist system everything must be privately owned, from the means of production to the planet itself.  Given that profit guarantees an unfair distribution of wealth, based on ones' propensity to exploit and therefore profit, it follows that there will be an unfair distribution of ownership of the planet, which of course is already the case, and has been since long before we were born. I often liken this to joining a game of Monopoly long after it has already been won, which is the position that the vast majority of us find ourselves born into. We should also note that given the competitive nature of capitalism we are all set up in perpetual conflict, struggling for control of portions of the planet, no matter how big or small. There is no inherent levelling factor here, merely an arms race of one sort or another. An interesting departure from the game of Monopoly in capitalism should also be considered here. The game has a fixed set of rules, which players generally adhere to. However, in the real world, the more capital you have the more power you have, and given that the principle is profit, all else be damned, the most effective profiteers, selected by capitalism for their lack of ethical principle, will use their power to change the rules in their favour, and that is precisely what we see happening.


Many proponents of capitalism frequently argue that we do not live in a capitalist system, citing government regulation as the principle reason for this, as it distorts the idealised 'free market'. Capitalists argue also that the 'free market' (in quotes because it is fictional, an ideal not a reality), is the levelling factor I previously claimed not to exist. This levelling factor is often referred to as the 'invisible hand', which has rather religious implications as I'm sure you can see. Thus critics of capitalism often talk about the religion of the 'free market'. There are many reasons to dispute the possibility of such a levelling factor, some of which I have already expressed in this article. The idea that the principle of greed in the dedicated capitalist is countered by the ethical intuitions of the consumer, making choices about which of the greedy should profit most by buying their products or services is absolutely absurd. The greedy win, every time. There is no choice. Furthermore the uneven distribution of wealth also infers an uneven distribution of marketing, a naturally self distorting effect of free market ideology, thus the most greedy command the most favourable attention in the consumer population. So it is not a negative feedback system naturally controlling itself, it is a positive feedback system spiralling out of control. Some capitalists even advocate something they call anarcho-capitalism, which to me is nothing more than an oxymoron, just as anarcho-fascism or anarcho-totalitarianism are.

So what, if not capitalism? What kind of system should we be trying to operate? Many anti-capitalists call for socialism, communism or even anarcho-syndicalism. Whilst I am not, in principle, against any of these alternatives I would just like folks to think about some of the problems that conspire to poison any system. We live in a world of a hugely uneven distribution of power, legal or otherwise, and those that have such power will fight to defend if not expand that power. Generally speaking we call this group the ruling class, the establishment or the elite. They will always seek to take the levers of power in any system and control society to serve their ideologies and aspirations. This was very much the case in soviet Russia and led in no small part to the collapse of the Russian socialist revolution, aided and abetted of course by capitalist powers in the rich West, as Chomsky explains so lucidly here:

 Chomsky on Lenin, Trotsky, Socialism & the Soviet Union

So for me, what is far more important than picking some idealised system is to struggle and to build movements to counter and dismantle concentrations of power. This, aside from decentralised democracy, is a core component of anarchism (please be sceptical about the description of anarchism in the link. It is but one description of anarchism, but at least presents some anarchist ideas. It may be better pursue descriptions presented by anarchist communities such as those at libcom.org). To my thinking we must apply such anarchist principles to whatever system we have and aspire to have. Capitalism inherently favours concentrations of power, not democracy, not fairness or anything else, and thus is possibly the worst of all systems because of where it inevitably leads, and anarchism is to me the only antidote, lest we all become slaves to those that accumulate the most. If anarchism is the only antidote then surely it applies equally if not more effectively to systems other than capitalism.

I would very much like to hear your views on capitalism and any alternatives, and how you see them being maintained. As always please comment below.

To mask or not to mask, that is the question

I was pretty insensed when I read Martha Gill's blog article, "Anonymous have been exposed as hypocrites. Watch them try to wriggle out of it", via The Telegraph website today. It was a dreadful attempt to pick any little hole possible with the movement by arguing that anons buying Fawksian masks to attend protests somehow contributes to misery in the 3rd world. I immediately responded in the comments section below her article:

"Slimey establishment spin from the Teleguff. What a surprise. Interestingly boycotting these factories would make these people considerably worse off. The right thing to do is to support their fight for better conditions. Furthermore it is establishment corporations in the West keeping these third world workers so oppressed. Establishment corporations that the Telegraph supports and receives advertising revenues from and whom pay Martha for her 'journalism'. But you wont read that in the Telegraph. Wriggle out of that Martha! Frankly you disgust me"

Martha could have done a little investigation into how Western corporations lobbying politicians put in place the kinds of international trade agreements that perpetuate and exploit the poverty and hardships of people living in the third world, for profit. She could have gone further to point out how these same corporations are driving down working conditions and dismantling the welfare state in the UK to create worker insecurity thus enabling corporations to stagnate workers wages against a back drop of inflation, effectively meaning wage cuts. All the while corporate executives and shareholders are getting fatter and richer. She could have talked about how Western corporations are using 3rd world workers as wage 'competition' against UK workers, putting many workers out of work or pushing them into zero hour contracts. But no, she didn't do this. She managed to spin anonymous, perhaps many unwittingly, keeping third world workers in work, into some kind of story about anonymous perpetuating their hardships. That takes at least one of two things; an unacceptable degree of ignorance for a journalist and a calculated cynical establishment hit on a people's movement.

Such smears will be little surprise to anons of course, having watched the media go to town on the likes of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange in recent years. Her article does however illustrate establishment ideology at work beautifully. They will try to find any little thing they can to bring down people's movements for justice. No matter how flawed their argument is, it doesn't matter. They're the establishment media. They decide what people should believe.

Martha very likely considers herself an independent minded journalist. What she almost certainly doesn't consider is that she has grown up in the downpour of establishment propaganda, as did her parents, 'educated' in the establishment run/controlled education/indoctrination system, selected by an editor because of her views, who himself/herself was selected for their views by the establishment owners/executives. This is how the hierarchy conspires to narrow the range of views presented to the public. This is totalitarianism in action. Martha will be completely unable to see it or herself for what is/she is. Nonetheless she is a tool of corporate/fascist totalitarianism.

One thing this whole issue does however do is make the waters of boycotting unethical businesses a little muddy. There are times when boycotting is the right thing to do, but this would not be one of them. Boycotting Israeli products for instance is a good idea as this puts economic pressure on Israel to end it's vile and murderous oppression of Palestinians. So what is the defining criteria for ethical boycotting? Well Israel is a prosperous state, and no small part due to its occupation of other people's territories, so a boycott is unlikely to put Israeli workers into the kind of abject poverty being inflicted upon Palestinians, whereas profits will be hurt. So we have to think about who we are helping and who we are hurting, and evaluate each case on its merits. I wish I could be more cut and dry, but this is the best I can come up with for now. I will be interested to hear your views on the matter, so please comment below.

So what of the mask? Is it a good idea to where the mask? Author and former war correspondent Chris Hedges argues that it isn't [1]. I agree mostly with Chris's point that hiding behind a mask of some kind is a gift to the establishment. The reason being that the sleeping masses will see this veil as the mark of criminality rather than legitimacy. If you are not a criminal then why are you hiding your identity? I know, I know, it's a horribly flawed rationale, but that is where they are at, and if we want to win them over we ought to avoid alienating them. That aside I do think that the Fawkesian mask carries with it tremendously important symbolism and of course a novel visual tool for drawing attention to the movement. I can't and don't want to tell others how to protest or dress but I can tell you what I will do and why I will do it and hope that others see what I perceive as the wisdom of it. I don't want to hide. I am happy for people to see my face when protesting. Why shouldn't I show my face? I'm proud to be standing for a cause. I will however continue to carry the mask and wear it for brief periods because of its symbolism and power to draw attention. But I will lift the mask from now on to talk to passers by who express an interest. This is just the same as taking off your sun glasses when talking to someone. Standing in front of someone with a mask covering your identity whilst talking to them suggests that you do not trust them, whether true or not, and that is not a smart way to go about bringing them on board. I want to meet them face to face. I want to smile at them and win them over with my humanity and my argument, and the mask can be a tremendous barrier to that. So if I had any advice to give on the matter I would say use the mask wisely and thoughtfully. Don't let it be your down fall.

References/Citations
[1] Chris Hedges and Occupy Debate "Black Bloc" tactics, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SoXWuQPrrI

Article short URL: http://tinyurl.com/phcmms6

Remember, Remember, the 5th of November, Birmingham UK 2013

Finally, the afternoon/evening of the 5th of November had arrived. The #MillionMaskMarch was on. Images from across the world were already starting to appear on Facebook of Anonymous protests and protesters, from the cities of Australia to the US. The excitement was growing.

I arrived at the Bull by the Bull Ring a little before 5pm, almost 2 hours late. Sorry guys. Life had already conspired to delay me. Already anonymous folks had convened, prepared banners, and were successfully attracting the attention of Birmingham shoppers and workers. The Fawkesian masks, being entirely appropriate for the 5th of course, certainly raised the interests of passing folks, young and old, different ethnicities and creeds. It soon struck me, the significance of the mask that is. Guy Fawkes had plotted against the rulers of the day in the onslaught of ruling class tyranny, and here we were 400 years later still struggling against a ruthless ruling class. The mask carries with it an important piece of history; the ever present struggle by the ordinary people against the monsters who dominate our lives. That idea is somehow carried implicitly in the mask itself. Folks without realising it, see the mask and receive an important message. The struggle is still going on. It's here and now. It is the rich and powerful against you, against us.

Anonymous protesters did themselves proud. Making friends with passers by. Answering questions calmly and thoughtfully. No aggravation. No trouble. Just spreading the message in a friendly, visual and effective way. The banter was fun and people wanted to know more not less. I am struggling to find words to express what I want to say but alas I should just say that I was proud to be part of this event, because of the people involved and their commitment to peace and positive engagement with the public.

It was my first demo and, truth be told, I was disappointed that there weren't more people involved, but I suspect I'm not alone in that sentiment. The issues being raised (see the banners in the images) were all of tremendous importance to the lives of ordinary people and perhaps even the survival of our species, and so long as they remain issues we are going to want more people participating in these events. We need the people to realise that they are in a war, a class war, and that they are us, we are them. The movement must grow, and it will. It will so long as there is oppression and tyranny, and we have an indelible symbol to unite behind. The movement is a symbol, a symbol of discontent, a symbol of defiance, a symbol of unity of the people regardless of the issues being raised.

Just a few metres away another protest had gathered, under the banner "Bonfire of Austerity", put together by  The People's Assembly against Austerity and the Midlands Socialist Resistance. They had quickly realised that we were fighting for many of the same issues that they were and invited us to join them in demonstrating at pay day loan shops. The police arrived quickly to do what they were instituted for, to protect the interests of the rich against the ordinary people. Thankfully no one was arrested and no trouble occurred. The protest did succeed in penetrating the shops themselves and making a point inside the building to the workers of Cash Loans and the Money Shop. Please take a minute to understand the issues of pay day loans and why they are a cynical and deplorable exploitation, by the rich, of the poorest workers, often trapping them into a spiral of debt with extraordinary and obscene interests rates.

After the loan shark protests, anonymous and The People's Assembly reconvened at the Socialist Resistance stall where people were invited to speak. We heard some great speeches about the voluntary complicity of local councils in the most cynical of Tory policies, free speech and other issues. I even got up to the microphone myself and rambled on a bit about democracy, law and order, sadly failing to get across the most important things I wanted to say e.g. how picking between factions of the rich every few years is not democracy, and how the principle function of the police is to maintain order, the social order, rich to poor, by protecting property over people. Those with property being the rich, those without being the poor, as it has always been. Many thanks to the Socialist Resistance for allowing us to speak. This was a great show of solidarity between different protest groups.

One of the points that I did make, regarding the establishment media and it's explicit function of serving the establishment rather than the people, came to mind again this morning as I replied to comments on Facebook about the appalling media coverage of protests. This is precisely why we have to get out on the streets and make our points. On the street there is no establishment media standing between you and your audience. No intercept. No 'interpretation'. Just you speaking to other people. We should also never forget the power of these face to face interactions. They are real. They make a lasting impression. They are free from the abstract and artificial experience of the media or internet.

Anonymous is an idea, not a group or organisation, and we must remember that and convey it. I think that idea was expressed well and we should all continue to develop our messages and our capability of delivering them. We have to encourage our fellow citizens out of apathy and into participation. This is after all about all of us. It's about how we are treated as livestock to be exploited by the rich for greater riches and power. It's about how if only we stand up and speak up our message will be loud and clear. It's about letting ordinary people know that they are not alone and that they do have tremendous power if only they choose to use it. We exist in far greater numbers than our oppressors and exploiters, and their power to oppress and exploit relies explicitly on our apathy and participation in their machinations. All we have to do is say 'No More' and refuse to play their games. But we have to do it together, and we can. Keep going people. There is hope. So long as there is a breath in your body there is hope. Movements grow by ordinary people simply acting and spreading the message. All big things start small, and those who have the gumption to start small, in hope, deserve a great deal of credit and recognition. It is a pleasure to be with you guys. Peace.

"We Are The 99%"

 "Join Us"

"Together We Stand. We Are Legion"

"Too Poor To Learn". Reminding us of how the the education system is become an explicit privilege of the haves under the ruthless and greed driven ideologies of capitalism.

"United as one, Divided by zero"

"Together We Can; End poverty, Eliminate pollution, Feed the world. Unite. Let Peace Grow."

"If you're not angry, you ain't paying attention"

"Say no to; Badger cull, austerity, fracking, bedroom tax, NHS cuts"

Russell Brand: Man of the People

I used to think that Russell Brand was a complete twonk. Another icon of establishment decadence swaggering across the screen at our expense with a typical celebrity class ignorance and indifference to the injustices lavished upon the majority for the power, prestige and riches of the sociopathic minority we call the elite, the establishment, the ruling class. Whether that sentiment was justified at the time I'm unsure, but it is one I no longer hold. I became aware that Russell had sympathy for us, the 'unwashed masses', when I came across an article he produced for The Guardian in which he scorned the extreme hypocrisy of the establishment in their treatment of rioters whilst continuing to lay a carpet of rose petals for our war criminals, terrorists and ultra-thieves we call investment bankers and traders [1]. However I nearly fell off my sofa the other evening when I saw him being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight [2]. Russell was on fire! He was fierce, filled with the pain of the people and the planet, a freight train of disgust plowing into Paxman's agenda riddled questions, carriage after carriage of articulate decimation of the political paradigm that prevails ubiquitously in the establishment media. I'm surprised that the interview was even aired. For that Mr. Paxman and Co. do deserve some credit, but it is Mr. Brand who should be appreciated here, not merely for his spirited lambasting of the vogons that rule over us and control the the wealth of the nation, but for the circumstantial fact that he can awaken and invigorate a lost generation of disenfranchised and disengaged young people like few others can. I can only hope that other celebrities of Brand's generation hear the groans of the people and pick up the torch, to help ordinary people, particularly the younger generation, fight back, not just for justice and equality but very likely for the survival of the species.

Russell brings to the fight some long over due humour. A kind of humour that us ordinary folks can relate to. It has the incredibly important characteristic of raising awareness of the seriousness of the situation we're in but without sending us into a coma. He is able to stitch back together our attention spans, that have been shattered by the mind and ethics disintegrating triviality and chaotic dross we call the mainstream or establishment media. It should be well noted also that this arrangement is far from undesigned as Chomsky and others prolifically reveal [3][4][5]. The establishment do not want ordinary people participating in politics. They never did. They never will. If ordinary people enter the arena en mass then the political system will no longer be heavily tipped in favour of the rich. Check out Russell's piercing but also funny recent article in the New Statesman [6].

Russell is absolutely right that voting is a waste of time. As I sometimes say "if this is democracy then giving a slave the day off once every few years should be called liberty". Picking between factions of the elite once every few years is not choice. It is not participation. It is very definitely not democracy. It is the scam we are told to believe is democracy, rather like being given the choice between a kick in the teeth or a punch in the mouth. Furthermore there are very good reasons why genuine prominent alternatives do not exist, or at least are not made known to us. They are numerous, but perhaps most significant is the fact that the establishment own and control the mainstream media. Are they likely to allow alternatives and views that challenge their exponentially disproportionate wealth and dominance over us? It's a no brainer. The only participation in politics ordinary people have is in the streets, demonstrating, protesting, striking, refusing to comply with the ideologies forced upon us. But we do have power. Enormous power. Our power lies in our numbers. The elite are terrified of us, which is why they go to such great lengths to divide us, disengage us and make us apathetic and hopeless. But hope is here, it's growing, and you need a piece of it. Growing and evolving movements around the world are linking up, sympathising, educating, sharing and galvanising. Occupy, the 99%, Anonymous, the Arab Spring, human rights groups, animal rights groups, unions, celebrities, academics, political dissidents, whistleblowers ad nauseam are all fighting back, not just for themselves, but also for each other and for you. You just need to pay attention. Visit their websites and their YouTube videos. Join the Facebook pages and Twitter discussions. Feel the power of the people. Connect with others who are as outraged as you. Join a protest and make new friends, real friends with a passion for humanity, for the planet, for our future, for you. You'll thank me I promise.

Russell is a good man doing a darned good thing, and good people deserve our appreciation and reciprocation. The only thing I can do to reciprocate here is to make you aware that it is very typical of the establishment to go after outspoken public figures and try to bring them down before their message really reaches the masses. Don't be surprised if Russell Brand becomes 'embroiled in scandal' of some sort in the not too distant future. He is certainly at best sacrificing career opportunities for our benefit. Stand by him as he stands by you!

As always please let me know what you think.

References

[1] Big Brother isn't watching you, http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/aug/11/london-riots-davidcameron
[2] Newsnight: Jeremy Paxman and Russell Brand, 23/10.2013, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri0R9wCZz-o
[3] Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AnB8MuQ6DU
[4] Orwell Rolls In His grave (including an extended interview with media expert Professor Robert McChesney, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_lYGyIaK80
[5] Psywar, the battle for your mind, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXX0vujix-o
[6] New Statesman article, Russell Brand on revolution: “We no longer have the luxury of tradition”, http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution

Representative Democracy: An oxymoron?

I've often given thought to the idea of the representation of interests but have never 'put pen to paper', so I thought I might share with you where I have gotten to and see what you think about the matter.

Who is the best arbiter of your best interests? As a babies we lack any capacity to reason and therefore it is down to our parents to do their best to ensure our survival and our futures. Our genes predetermine this parental behaviour, which is what is meant by maternal or paternal instincts. As our capacity to reason develops we begin our struggle for independence. Often an unhappy time for both child and parents as their instinct to best serve our interests starts to conflict with our own developing sense of self interest. At some point we take control of our much our own interests, which is typically upon leaving the nest. Outside of this normative pattern the capacity of others to best serve our interests diminishes with diminishing kinship. That is to say; the less connected we are as family or friends the more we are likely to be serving our own interests rather than each others'.

How then is a representative democracy possible? Is it merely an oxymoron? Can a politician really have your interests at heart? Personally I don't think so. They are by nature representing their own interests, even if they earnestly believe they are trying to serve ours. Even if we manage to communicate to them our needs and desires we run into numerous problems.

• The representative is going to have to balance our needs and desires against the needs of desires of others they are representing.
• They have their own political ideologies, needs and desires that may and in my opinion almost without exception does conflicts with our interests.
• Party affiliations often demand that representatives follow the party line even if the representative is not in favour of the party line.
• The fact that one person is supposedly representing the interests of many makes them a target of powerful third party interests who are seeking to ensure that your interests are not represented. This can take the form of bribery, propaganda and even threats.

It is also important to note that the rich and powerful conspire to ensure that democracy is so configured. An examination of the notes of James Madison, perhaps the leading framer of the US constitution, provides us with an important insight into the thinking of the elite. The US founding fathers certain had England as a working model around which to construct their own system, and notes from their secret meetings show just that:

"In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They [branches of government] ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." [1]

Particular attention should be paid to the notion of protecting the interests of the minority of the opulent against the majority. Here James Madison is explicitly stating that the interests of the rich and powerful must trump those of the masses, fearful that democracy would lead to equality. Despite these horrific statements we should bare in mind that the founders were actually attempting to construct a comparatively more fair system for all than that of England at the time. They were however in fact elite, wealthy land owners and slave owners, and of course serving their own interests. This is the US 'representative democracy' in construction, but what they were in fact constructing was a tyranny over the masses with democracy for the rich. That system persists to this day, with our own British system now mimicking it almost entirely.

These points certainly demonstrate how wealthy people impose a class system upon us in which the further down the social order we are, the less participation in democracy we are afforded, for the explicit purpose of serving their interests, even if they believe they are serving ours.

For me, I don't think that there is any such thing as a representative democracy, because representatives do not and cannot represent us. I do think the term is at best an oxymoron if not an outright term of propaganda.

What do you think?

References
[1] Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787, Taken by the Late Hon Robert Yates, Chief Justice of the State of New York, and One of the Delegates from That State to the Said Convention, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp

Modern life: What is wrong with it all?

A few years back a couple of friends and me decided to cycle a well known UK route called the C2C. As the name suggests it goes from sea to sea. In this case, from Whitehaven to Sunderland. We packed up our bikes with tents, food and other essentials and set off on the 4 day trip across the land, camping by night. It is possible to do the trip in one day if you are very fit, but we were not, and the additional weight of carrying what we needed to camp etc., slows you down, hence the 4 days. It was relative hardship compared to ordinary daily life, peddling our way across the Cambrian mountains, through sunshine, rain, fog and hail. The aches and pains of leaning on the handle bars, the bruising and soreness on your backside, revealing themselves more assertively each morning as you start the next leg of the journey, make for discomfort that us pansy-ass townies are really not at home with. Additionally, the late night sounds of your mates snoring and what I can only describe as half-goat-half-pig-half-goose mating grunts at 3 am in the morning, eminating from perhaps 20 feet away, amongst other strange noises, leaves you tired if not exhausted each morning. But still, we got on our bikes and peddled. On the upside, you see the country from a completely different perspective. You start to enjoy the rolling hills and peaks, at least when you're coming down them. You encounter people in a new context too. Folk are helpful, friendly and sympathetic to your quest, perhaps to some degree wishing it was them. By the end of the trip we were truly exhausted, though simultaneously elated at our small achievement, and enriched by the experiences along the way. But, something else had happened to us. We didnt want to stop. We didn't want to go home. We wanted more. What and why?

There was a comradery that developed, despite sleep loss and fatigue induced grumpy exchanges, that I have not experienced in daily town life. Something about the shared hardships and joys that creates unspoken bonds that we don't experience in modern life, save perhaps within the family home, but even then there is something different about this. There was more than just the bonds that made the experience so memorable and precious.

If we step back and look our lives and peer down from a larger perspective there are hints at why. We are constrained by having to pay for our homes and life in them, which forces us to take paying jobs, with our homes creating physical barriers to all outside the four walls. So for the most part of our lives we are either in our homes or in the place of work doing work, where the opportunities for the kind of experiences and comradery I'm talking about do not really exist. Furthermore we are bombarded constantly by marketing, everywhere, it is even piped directly into our homes courtesy of the box in the corner of the room. It teases us, manipulating our desires and emotions, making us addicted consumers of products, somehow dulling our brains to the fact that we are forced to pay all of our lives to live on a tiny patch of our own planet. The bricks and mortar having been paid for just a few years into our mortgages, and the rest just pampering the rich who hold our planet hostage. In this sense we are slaves to the rich. We are forced to live within their laws and ideologies, and skillfully manipulated and coerced into accepting this way of life.

Out on the road, we discovered something about freedom and friendship that is difficult to find or experience within the highly structured system of modern life that is imposed on us. Perhaps the fact that being on bikes, relatively unconstrained by road laws, allowing us to go just about anywhere also had something to do with it. I can't even adequately describe the meaning and joy of what we discovered. It is only something that can be appreciated by embarking on such adventures I think. But it changed me. It continues to change me. Every time I do something outside of the norms of the system now I feel that freedom and joy, and it's addictive. More and more I reject modern life; it's fakery, the celebrities, the rules, the slavery. And I feel good about it.

We can't continue our existing way of life. We already know it. The exhaustion of resources, the damage to our ecology, the wars that will probably ensue, the biological hazards, the nuclear hazards. If the constraints of wage slavery and these mentioned threats are not enough to compel you to change your existence, your existence will change anyway. The question is, do you want it to be on your own terms or are you going to let the terms of others, specifically the rich and powerful, be imposed on you?

My experiences have taught me that there is a much more fulfilling existence for us, waiting for us, beyond the walls of this fake life imposed on us by the rich. It will involve work too, but not this meaningless 'existance' as servants. We have to fight for our rights and freedoms, and that takes comradery and solidarity that doesn't come from ordinary modern life. You can experience it on an adventure, in protests and demonstrations, through participating in life with fellow ordinary folk. It creates meaning for your life that you wont find on your TV, in the supermarket or at work, but you have to seek it out to understand it. As the famous anarchist Rosa Luxembourg once said "those who do not move do not feel their chains", and that is something we cannot truly grasp whilst continuing to go through the motions of the life that has been designed for us by the rich for the rich.

Do something you have never done. Do something beyond normality. Understand what the word liberty means, and how we give it up by continuing with modern life. Become addicted to freedom and learn how to fight for it.

"Profits and tax cuts are not dirty words" according to David Cameron

This is the headline of a lead article from The Guardian today. It is in fact interesting to see such statements make it into headlines, as it suggests that there is a debate afoot as to the reality of the statement. If profits and tax cuts are not dirty words, why say anything? The very fact that the PM felt the need to say it is evidence of a fight back against public opinion by the ruling class. So I'd like to explore these words here for your consideration.

Let's be clear, when David Cameron states that 'tax cuts' are not dirty words in an act of defence against an opposing public position, we know he is not talking about tax cuts across the board but merely tax cuts for the rich. One of the Cameron government's first taxation acts was to cut the 50p rate on inheritance tax, which is a tax that only affects the rich. Why tax cuts for the rich? It's not as though they are facing any financial hardship is it? It is however the corporations of the rich that are lobbying our ministers and MPs on a daily basis, with campaign donations and offers of post-parliament 'consultancy' roles for MPs carefully tucked up their sleeves.

We should all take time to consider the meaning of the word profit. What is profit? What does it mean to profit? If I grow fruit on my land and exchange some for vegetables grown by my neighbour there is no profit. It is a mutually beneficial exchange for the purposes of our survival. It gets a little more complicated when we venture into the world of money, but the principle remains; in a fair and equitable exchange of goods or services there is no profit. Profit only arises when one party is exploiting one or more other parties, and on this 'principle' the ruling class has worked very hard to convince us all that it is fair and good, Cameron's own words being an explicit example. So who are the exploiters and the exploited? Well clearly ordinary folk are exploited by the rich, otherwise they wouldn't be rich! This isn't to say that the rich do no work. In fact they work very hard, exploiting us, because it is so profitable, but then should we really be calling this work? A con artist might have to go door to door for weeks before finding a suitably gullible enough victim with sufficient money to make his efforts worthwhile, but we don't call it 'work', nor should we of the activities of the rich. Furthermore the rewards to the rich are astonishingly disproportionate to their efforts.

The status quo is maintained of course by the fact that the wealth of rich gives them power, doorways into the process of government, and furthermore their domination of the media allows them to persuade the unsuspecting masses in their favour whilst keeping the truth as far from us as possible. If only folks had the time to look into the public record properly. The parliamentary record. The declassified record. Interestingly if we were all working to the principles of making a living rather than a profit, especially the rich, then there would be far greater financial equality. Perhaps more to the point though is that if we did away with the profit system and ditched all of the pointless junk produced in its name, we might all only have to work a 2 or 3 day week. Then there would be time on our hands to look into what the ruling class actually do. Catch 22. That's how they keep us intellectually and financially chained.

Thankfully ordinary folk exist in vastly greater numbers than their ruling classes, such that the mere act of talking about these things and propagating these ideas amongst ourselves leads to powerful people's movements that force the rich to act in our favour lest they risk revolution. Monsieur Guillotine's famous invention, used prolifically for shortening members of the French ruling class in the French revolution, really does play on their minds when we take to the streets.

National Service legislation for 18-25 year olds in progress

 A legislative bill to force national service on 18 to 25 year olds is currently making its way along the legislative conveyor belt in UK Parliament. The bill, titled 'National Service Bill 2013-14'[1], making it an offence to have reached the age of 26 without having performed national service, currently at the committee stage, will force young people to serve the armed forces or one of a number of other activities. Whether these alternate activities could be chosen from by young people in service is not defined suggesting that young people might be able to specify a preference but with government ultimately deciding the nature of their service for them. This leaves open the possibility of unofficial allocation of service by social class, school history or other capricious allocations.

The bill, sponsored by Conservative MP Philip Hollobone (Kettering), contains provisions for the following service content:

• forced re-education for young people who have not attained qualification in mathematics or English reading/writing
• a forced physical fitness regime, personal appearance and discipline
• life skills (cooking and so forth) and time keeping

This is not the complete list. The provisions also include what are likely to be regarded as socially beneficial elements.

The duration of service proposed is for one year for which young people on the program will be paid at the national minimum wage rate. Young people with severe physical or mental disabilities will be exempt from the program.

No official rationale for the bill is presented but it is not hard to see what it is trying to achieve. Governments have regularly created schemes for reducing unemployment figures without creating new employment. However it has been a long time since national service was in force suggesting that other motives may also be at work. The economic situation has certainly not improved for the majority of people in the country, with young people being worst affected, the government's unwillingness to tackle the big banks on activities that led to the 2008 crash, the shenanigans that have left the majority with increased work loads and pressure for the same pay, the economy is set to continue having problems and perhaps crash again. The bankers and corporate CEOs will not have missed the uprisings in Greece, Spain and elsewhere, and will be keen to see rebellion against their policies contained or stamped out. A national service program would indeed reduce the number of people with time on their hands who might be prepared to protest whilst simultaneously creating extra forces for controlling outrage and dissent by those worst hit.

If you have concerns about this bill then please express your concerns to your MP, whose contact details and email address can be found at the 'find your MP' page on the Parliament website. Additionally you may wish to share this article with friends and family in order to spread awareness since the establishment media are not so far covering this bill.

 

References

[1] National Service Bill 2013-14, http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/nationalservice.html

--------------------------------
Edit (13/09/2013):  I should have noted that this is a private members' bill, and as such has a lower likelihood of becoming law than a bill introduced by a minister.

Syria and the myths of power

Today I encountered two points of view that caught my attention. The first was an article posted in The Guardian by Niall Ferguson criticising left wing views on US intervention in Syria, which immediately had me thinking about propaganda and the establishment's self justifying mythology. By accident I stumbled upon an interesting talk called 'The Myth of Capitalism" by the historian Michael Parenti who from the outset began laying out what I was already thinking about regarding the Ferguson article, which was both a delight, for having my own view supported, and also a bit of a bummer since he was saying more or less what I wanted to say now, leaving me feeling like anything I write here now will be superfluous at best. Nonetheless I am compelled to write and so here I am.

Thankfully Parenti's talk is about capitalism whereas I wanted to talk about the situation in Syria, the 'humanitarian intervention' being pushed for by the West and the reality of Western power. Ferguson's article, I believe, is more or less a reflection of his beliefs on the matter in hand rather than some deceitful propaganda he dreamed up with hope of fooling readership. Ferguson argues for three points in his article, which I feel must be addressed:

"I have made three arguments that the left cannot abide. The first is that American military power is the best available means of preventing crimes against humanity. The second is that, unfortunately, the US is a reluctant "liberal empire" because of three deficits: of manpower, money and attention. And the third is that, when it retreats from global hegemony, we shall see more not less violence."

That US military might is the "best available means of preventing crimes against humanity" is to me predicated on basis of illusion and delusion. First off we would have to ignore all of the crimes against humanity carried out by the US both directly and indirectly. Western establishment media of course does this almost uniformly, notwithstanding the occasional article in The Guardian buried deep amongst the non-headline articles and thus never actually penetrating the public mind. Furthermore the establishment has always gone to extreme lengths to silence sources, of significance, that expose their criminality. So right now Bradley Manning is languishing in prison for having leaked evidence of US war crimes and the central journalist of this revelation, Julian Assange is being persecuted under the dubious pretext of being a fugitive of justice for rape, the details of which leave few in doubt as to the real agenda in play. Perhaps we should just remind ourselves of what the US did in Iraq that was leaked:

This is just one instance, just in Iraq, and we are 'lucky' to have such explicit video evidence, thanks to the bravery of Bradley Manning. It is difficult to convey how this represents a mere drop in the ocean of crimes of US imperialism, most of which the Western public is kept ignorant of by the Western establishment media, but for the curious amongst you, you may wish to look into US operations in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Cambodia, Cuba and Haiti to name a few. This ignores all of the proxy wars, terrorism and oppression carried out on behalf of the US or with its consent in places like Chile, Nicaragua, Columbia, East Timor, Palestine ad nauseam. Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti and others write and talk extensively about many of these 'ventures', which you can find on YouTube or in print.

The second argument made by Ferguson is that the US is a reluctant actor in the world with respect to its use of military force. This is an extraordinary claim that really has me wondering about Ferguson's honesty on the matter. In what sense might we call the US reluctant to use military force? It might prefer to delegate acts of mass violence to its client states for appearance purposes, but that is really about it. The US doesn't spend as much of the rest of the world combined on it's means of violence for no reason. It's 900 military bases stationed around the world might also be telling us something too. However its list of military engagements, against countries that were certainly not attacking the US, since WWII, must surely be the concrete post in the coffin of the argument for reluctance.

For me, the most interesting argument Ferguson makes in favour of US military engagement is that the world would be more violent without it. This is the template myth upon which all establishment power is instituted and maintained. The point was made beautifully in the film 'V for Vendetta' when Chancellor Sutler bellows to his staff; "I want everyone to remember why they need us". It is certainly common place for the police to believe that without the police the world would descend into perpetual violence, thus justifying their own violence, which is almost without exception discussed under the aegis of 'justice' within the establishment media, thus disguising police violence that is mentioned and completely ignoring implicitly the violence carried out by the police that isn't mentioned. The reality is that the majority of and the most extreme violence in the world is carried out by authorities, not ordinary people. They rely upon the myth that without their violence there would be greater violence. So we have to fear a world that doesn't exist in order to accept the world of violence that does exist. In fact the entire world order is constructed on the basis of violence or at least the threat of their violence. That is what is meant by the term 'force' as in 'police force', 'air force' and so forth. It is their capacity to use violence to achieve what is favourable to them. Really we should be asking ourselves, 'are my neighbours really going to march around here and start threatening me with violence if there is no police force?'. Very few people are going to answer an honest 'yes' to this question. In reality you are more likely to get the most rapid and effective help from your neighbours in the case of being attacked than you are from the police, if only your neighbours are called.upon. The real justification for authoritarian power was articulated eloquently by US founding father James Madison. In discussion of the founding of the United States he wrote:

"In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They [branches of government] ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."[1]

 "Protect the minority of the opulent against the majority". That's right, it is all about protecting the rich, and their wealth, from the masses from whom they exploited it, often using violence.

With respect to Syria, the idea that the US has any humanitarian concerns is absurd. Groups that are attacking the Syrian regime are comprised of militant groups largely supported by if not controlled out right by US client regimes, most notably Saudi Arabia. The US as always is seeking hegemonic control in the region, not least for the region's oil resources, and Syria is a pillar of support to Iran, perhaps the most prized of oil producers not under US control.

Is Niall Ferguson a ruthless liar for Western power or merely indoctrinated with the myths of Western power? I think I shall give him the benefit of the doubt and go with the latter.

[1] Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787, Taken by the Late Hon Robert Yates, Chief Justice of the State of New York, and One of the Delegates from That State to the Said Convention, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp