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"