Links & Notes. posted by lenin

Well, as I'm taking a quick break from Hobbes and the rest (if anyone has any good dirt on Hobbes, kindly let me know), I've got some interesting links and reading material for you.

First of all, go have a listen to Doug Ireland talk about the EU Constitution Treaty vote. There's a nice blend of analysis and background information on the key players. You need Real Player.

Secondly, the new site UK Watch has been drawn to my attention. It's a sort of ZNet for the United Kingdom, bringing together an assortment of radical left-wing commentary on a range of issues. It is clearly still in development, but there's already a wealth of invaluable material on there. I particularly like this .

Finally, I want to highlight Peter Mandelson's commitment to democracy :

Peter Mandelson, the trade commissioner in Brussels, said the French government could well ask the people to vote again in a second referendum in the hope of getting a different answer.

"No single member state has a veto over a constitutional treaty of this sort," he said.

"France will have to consider its position: whether it is going to maintain a No or whether it is going to revisit the question and possibly come forward with a different view."

Of course, all member states have a veto. You'd expect the EU's trade commissioner to know that. Pillock.

Killer Fact. posted by lenin

Harry Hutton , known for his killer facts, points out that "Advertising on weblogs apparently yields 50 cents per thousand clicks." It's a paltry sum. It is at about the same level of dignity as panhandling for loose change. My guess is that there is a certain kind of esteem attached to it: if you can get ads on your blog, that must mean it is well-read.

But, you know, you can still be picky. For instance, this charming repository of ossified post-Stalinist liberalism advertises a book on The Politics of Faith, which, when clicked, will take you to a site by the author of the book, Peter Glover (I've linked to the Google cache). The site, called "Wires From the Bunker", is an illiterate, Christian fundamentalist kookie hole. (Even the ad, which is reproduced on his site, contains a glaring punctuation error). Blogads, the service used in this case, points out that "All ads are subject to publisher's approval" .

For 50 cents per thousands hits, you'd think they could have let that one pass. For Christ's sake, guys, I'll give you the fifty cents myself, have some dignity!

There is nothing to fear but The Guardian itself. posted by lenin

The reduction of politics to a pseudo-psychoanalytic drama is not new. Zizek outlines the coordinates of this gesture in postcolonial studies: first, the reason we exploit and oppress others is because we don't tolerate their Otherness; second, the reason we don't tolerate their Otherness is because we haven't learned to tolerate the Otherness in ourselves. If only we learn to accept that we have that within which is radically Other, we will cease pushing migrants to the bottom of every available pile and then blaming them for being there.

A similar narrative is at work in The Guardian's slap-faced reaction to the French decision to reject the EU Constitution. "Fear eats the soul", it begins, which sort of takes the piss out of portentousness. The result is described, through citation, as a "masochistic masterpiece", and then:

It proves the old point that if you call a referendum on one question, voters will often answer on the basis of other, unrelated or tangentially related grievances. It is no exaggeration to say that the future direction of an EU of 25 countries and 455 million people has suffered grievous collateral damage in the battle for the soul of an agonised and unhappy France.

There you have it: Europe, once an enticing realm of social justice for the French, has now become a frightening Other; and the reason it is frightening is because the French people are internally divided, agonised, unhappy, shocked by the Otherness within. For the record, and just going by a vaguely detected linguistic tic, I think this particular leader was written by Michael White, The Guardian's timid political editor.

However, I wonder if there isn't a philosopher lurking there. Ask people one question, and they will frequently answer on the basis of another. True, but that's because they rightly suspect there is more to the original question than meets the eye. Suppose you approach one of my fellow Ulsterfolk and innocently ask "What's your religion?" Do you know, often as not you will get the reply, "who wants to know?" Similarly, go down South of the border and ask for directions to a particular destination, and the reply will begin, "Well, I wouldn't start from here. Go over there - it's nearer." It's che vuoi again - "yes, you are asking me this, but what do you really want?" Hence:

Q. Are you for or against Europe?
A. Why are you asking me that? I don't trust you. Get your hand off my wallet!

Or better:

Q. Are you with us or with the evil-doers?
A. No.

Charlotte Street summarises the perfectly excellent pragmatic reasoning behind such a response:

Deleuze, writing about Francis Bacon, suggests that the initial painterly canvas is not blank. Not for Bacon at least. It is already scribbled through with clichés and the dead weight of the history of painting. The painter must fend off this frozen scribble and win space and freedom for himself. Similarly, any piece of writing which enters the public sphere must presumably first budge and contend with the pre-existing encrusted ideas and the inertia of received opinion. It can therefore be thought to involve, where it does not simply confirm and slot into this pre-existing field, an act of low-level violence, a pre-emptive strike, or even just a sullen reproach.

'Fear' is a double-edged cynosure of political discourse. The Prime Minister, infamous for fatuously larding his prose with talk about "the fears of working families" in "a turbulent global economy" as if he were an intellectually stunted Anthony Giddens (which I suppose he is), also enjoys sharing his fears as the basis for legitimate political action.

The cheap recourse to accusations of nationalism (those bloody French with their tricolores and Gauloises) is also bifurcate, in tongue as well as effect. I'm not satisfied with A Gauche's suggestion that we treat nationalism as a form of economic self-interest wrapped up in the flag. Nor do I think Matt is right to hope for Europe to become a realpolitik counter-balance to the US. Actually, both arguments have something in common with the liberal shrieking that we're hearing at the moment, although I am accusing neither of that. In the first case, the assumption that nationalism expresses a very localised, fearful, unreflective, Hobbesian sort of self-interest against the more Kantian aspirations of European unity, is already inscribed in the liberal case for the EU. (Giscard D'Etaing, then, is our generation's Immanuel Kant?) In the second case, the notion that one super-imperialism should be replaced by two (with the attendant arms race and likely escalation of aggressive wars in each's 'sphere of influence') also forms part of the liberal-left case for the EU. Aside from that, it creates illusions of vertical solidarity, when what we need are new forms of horizontal solidarity, germinally represented in the World and European Social Forums. Anyone who has illusions that 'EU' is a more progressive and less imperial acronym than 'US' would do well to have a look at how the EU uses its present economic strength in the world . To butter, add guns, and you have US imperialism writ large.

No. What this cheap talk nationalism misses is that the liberal progressives have their own form of undeclared nationalism. While it is hard to imagine scores of them launching themselves at the barricades, star-spangled flags aloft, yelling "Long Live the European Union!", it is essentially a limp-wristed, drippish version of the appeal to an imagined community that activated the unifying forces in Italy and Germany in the 19th Century. It just happens to involve a more intellectually satisfying, multilingual, cosmopolitan community than most nationalisms do. In short, it is a form of nationalism that sits well with the liberal comportment: you know - open, inclusive, culturally experimental, bohemian. It is not 'open' to, or 'inclusive' of, Algeria, Egypt, Somalia or Pakistan, of course - 'they' may come in small numbers to work in our black markets while introducing new sumptuary and gustatory choices, but the liberal has no wish to share a polity with them. Imagine the bills we'd have to foot next time tsunami, or an earthquake, or a drought or a flood comes along!

No, down with European unity! Raise the red flag, not that pathetic, miserable blue thing with the circle-fucking stars on it. The liberal wet-dreams of an EU superstate are those of the rich and the white - well-heeled crackers pretending they're down with hip-hop. Down with the EU, down with capitalism and imperialism of every flag. For a Socialist Republic of Cairo, London, Baghdad, New York, Helsinki, Lahore, Belgrade and Caracas!

Well, you may say I'm a nutter. But I'm not the only one.

Update: I'm not the only one.

Yes, it's no!! posted by lenin

France has strangled the EU Constitution at birth , which is, for some (and me), "un moment de joie" . Direland has some very useful analysis of the results.

The great joy of this is the number of noses which have been smacked hard, bloodied and flattened by this vote. The corrupt Mr Chirac whose popularity rating is now negative; the Tories, New Labour and the Lib Dems, who have all pledged to more or less abandon the fight given a no vote; and the unelected EU bureaucrats so desperate for "an internal market where competition is free and undistorted" (except when it comes to CAP).

It is remarkable that the market and competition should be raised to the status of constitutional precepts. Even more remarkable is that even modest boureois principles of democracy should be cast aside - the Council of Ministers is not elected, but it has the powers of the executive and legislative together, so that neither popular sovereignty not separation of powers is respected. The only elected body, the European Parliament, has only limited veto powers and no executive powers to speak of at all. It is remarkable that the parties of the Socialist International (née Second International) have even attempted to flog this undemocratic neoliberal drivel to the voters. Fuck 'em. Let these bruschetta eating, shiraz-quaffing mofos drown their sorrow in mange touts and the finest red. This is, as someone said in the comments boxes below, the best May the left has had since 1968.

Capitalism, markets and the modern state. posted by lenin

Two birds slayed with one stone, the following essay embodies exam revision and a submission for Carnival of the Uncapitalists . It doesn't go into any particular depth about the class struggle that went into the formation of the modern state, instead attempting to critically engage with non-Marxists views of the state and solve some of the problems posed by the standard Weberian definition of it.

Introduction.
If the emergence of capitalism, often attended by vicious class struggle, provided sufficient conditions for the rise of the modern state to occur, it might be remarked that this did not rule out other sufficient conditions being available. But what I will say is that these conditions are not sufficient, but necessary. And I will argue that explanations revolving around politico-military pressures are inadequate.

Weber’s definition of the modern state is that it is “an administrative and legal order” which “claims binding authority … over the members of the state, the citizens … also to a very large extent over all action taking place in the area of its jurisdiction”, and with “the monopoly on the legitimate use of force”. It is characterized by bureaucracy, centralism and impersonal means of control which are supposed to safeguard the objectivity of decisions being made; although in practice the state is connected through various means to extraneous interests – political parties, NGOs, interest groups, businesses etc. Another feature characteristic of the modern state is that, although the nation-state does not usually coincide with a homogenous ethnic group, the state has often tried to legitimize itself through national identity, a suffusion of affect in the general population. (Max Weber, Essays in Sociology, H Gerth & C Wright Mills, ed.; Graham Gill, The Nature and Development of the Modern State, 2003; Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities, 1991).

Alternatives.
There were many competitors to the sovereign nation-state as capitalism was emerging. In particular, there had been Empire, the Church and feudal relations. Feudalism, emerging from the ruins of the Roman Empire, after it had finally been overrun by Germanic tribes, was a decentralized, fragmented mode of social organization. In it, families enjoyed personal rule over areas defined by manses and allods; land was generally inherited rather than sold; rank was gained by birth rather than earned by labour; and protection was sought – not from a centralized state, but from knights who had emerged from an earlier warrior elite and, being wealthy, could afford to buy horses. They were rewarded with land, which over time ceased to be a temporary reward and became part of the hereditary structure of rule. Serfs, tied to the land, owed obligations to the landlords, who also fulfilled juridical functions. According to Gill, the structure was “disarticulated, decentralized and cellular”. The power of the central monarch declined as feudal lords gained in power. (Guy Bois, The Transformation of the Year One Thousand: The village of Lournand from antiquity to feudalism, 1992; Gill, 2003).

The development of new technologies and a growing commercial economy saw payments in kind replaced by pay in money. The growth of towns, to paraphrase Fernand Braudel, both generated commercial expansion and was generated by it. (Braudel, The Structures of Everyday Life, 1981). Church power, often in the vanguard of the development of these new technologies (water mills, wind mills, new farming techniques) which allowed for a sufficient surplus to increase demand for new commodities, and therefore contributed to the rise of the towns and the merchants and artisans who worked in them, was one of the first institutions to suffer from this development. It was this social layer that was to lead the Reformation. In particular, the principle of ecclesiastical rule (Christendom) was to be supplanted by that of territorial rule (Europe) by the 18th Century. (Chris Harman, A People’s History of the World, 1999; F H Hinsley, Power and the Pursuit of Peace; David Held, Democracy and the Global Order, 1995). As society grew more complex, new forms of rule were required. The alternatives to the nation-state embodied in Church and Empire had entered a period of serious decline by 1300. According to Spruyt, this was the outcome of a process of ‘survival of the fittest’, in which states unfit to the new market-based societies adapted, died or were subsumed.

Other alternatives were the city-state and the city-league. For instance, the Hanseatic League combined a number of German towns in an arrangement that had arisen out of agreements between merchants but by the 14th Century had become a relationship between towns, governed by regular assemblies. This arrangement, however, was rather loose. Of all the towns involved, only 20 sent delegates, with smaller towns often giving proxies to Hamburg or Lubeck. Its effectiveness relied on the commercial strength of one or two very large towns, and the only sanction available for those who did not acquiesce in its rulings was expulsion – largely unenforceable against the larger urban centres. By the end of the 15th Century, the assemblies were increasingly rare. (Denys Hay, Europe in the 14th and 15th Centuries, 1966). Spruyt suggests that such leagues became dysfunctional because the towns involved had no congruity and it was unclear where real power lay. There was no central authority, and these forms were eventually crowded out by more powerful states. Absolutist rulers, by contrast, were able to standardize currency, weights and measures, which made trade much easier. Although the Italian city-states were more like autonomous units, they tended to be fractious and weak in competition with more centralized states. Justin Rosenberg notes that “the citizen militias gave way earliest to the mercenary armies that would later characterize European absolutism; and … a population given over increasingly to commerce and manufacture elaborated new forms of class conflict”. (Rosenberg, The Empire of Civil Society, 1994).

Politico-military pressures.
IR theorists of the ‘realist’ school, as well as certain Weberian theorists, often assert that the primary force that convoked the modern state was military competition. According to Otto Hintze, the state is a form of organization for war, while Charles Tilly argues (and Michael Mann agrees) that the capacity and character of the state was determined in its formation by the kind of revenue needed to meet geopolitical challenges. Mann argues that this dictated the character of the states which emerged – while wealthier states were able to meet the costs of war without absolutist rule (England, Holland, the Italian city-states), those whose primary advantage lay in population numbers required a centralized, rationalized bureaucracy to mobilize its subjects (Russia, Austria). There are some crucial differences here, however. While Mann disaggregates military and political power, Hintze avers that “all state constitution is originally military constitution”. I would argue that Hintze is on the right side of this argument, though not for the reasons he thinks. In brief, while Hintze thinks that the state’s organized violence is directed toward external enemies, I shall argue that this capacity for violence is largely directed internally and insofar as it is directed externally, it is related to the internal interests of the polity which utilizes such violence. (Gill, ch. 5, 2003; Michael Mann, The Sources of Social Power, volume 1, ch. 13 and ch. 16, 1986; Gianfranco Poggi, Forms of Power, ch. 10, 2001).

Gill outlines some of the problems with the Weberian approach. It is of course true that, in the absence of an overarching Empire embodying Christendom, European states were drawn into struggle over territorial and ideological/normative rule. This none could opt out of, and the growing costs of war compelled governments to seek greater extractive powers in order to pay off debts incurred by battles and facilitate further investments in war. However, heightened geopolitical competition would often frustrate the process of rationalization and structural reform – war often left states so exhausted that they had to seek ad hoc measures for immediate results rather than long term efficiency. Only when wars were less significant was there a discernible improvement in administrative structures, in the 1300s and early 1400s. At the same time, the intense and sustained geopolitical competition of the 11th and 12th Centuries subjected all forms of polity to the same pressures – yet, once it had subsided, the city-states persisted in Italy, Germany remained disunited and the Hansa continued as a league of trading cities. (Gill, ch. 5, 2003).

Justin Rosenberg goes deeper in his critique. While for Weber, the state to some extent subordinates other social and economic relations (see Anthony Giddens, The Class Structure of the Advanced Societies, 1981), the realists have saw fit to treat state power as something that can be understood as ‘autonomous’ from other social forms – the state is an entity to be understood as being the same, sui generis, trans-historically. One thing that stands out about feudal society, however, is that the exercise of political power is not separable from economic activity. In various ways, the social structure of feudal societies determined the goals and modalities of war in the High Middle Ages: the role assumed by dynastic diplomacy; the recognition of private rights of warfare; the absence of international law as such. In fact, the development of capitalist society and what Giddens calls “the extrusion of the means of violence from the principal axis of class exploitation” were coterminous. The replacement of the “traditional state” in “class-divided societies” with the modern ‘autonomous’ state could not have taken place without the dissolution of feudal relations in which power was largely parcelled out and dispersed. Hence, Marx’s remark that “the modern state … is based on freedom of labour”. (Giddens, Power, Property & the State: A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism, vol. 1, 1981; Giddens, The Nation-State and Violence, CCHM, vol. 2, 1985; Rosenberg, ch. 3, 1994).

Legality and rationality.
The Weberian definition of the modern state cited above is useful for designating what the modern state does, but it is less useful in designating what it is. Weber famously distinguished between the different modes of legitimacy of any state – traditional, legal and charismatic. In his own society, these three followed in close succession: Bismarck, Weimar, and then Nazism. However, the persistence of the legal form, the rationalism and impersonal forms of rule in capitalist society that Weber talks about demand explanation more than they explain. We can very well say what law does in a circular way – law is a system of rules governing conduct, enforced by the state with its monopoly of violence. But why law? Why not, for instance, religious injunction? If we can say why law is the universal mode of regulation in modern societies, we will come closer to an understanding of the modern state.

Gill notes that the law was important in that it enshrined the right of private property, and facilitated the use and mobilisation of those privately owned resources. (Gill, ch. 4, 2003). Yet, this just pushes the question back one more step. Law did do this, but why? According to the Marxist theorist, Evgeny Pashukanis, the legal form enters in precisely where isolation and opposition of interests begins to replace mutual obligation and fealty. He ties it conceptually to the commodity form, in which the very trade of various items as commodities involves the traders being bearers of rights rather than privilege. To make the distinction clear, while a feudal master ordering a peasant to go into town and buy some pepper is an expression of personal rule, the buying of the pepper involves him in an interface with a seller who is, in this exchange at least, no superior or inferior. In fact, for the commodity form to become the axis of economic activity, actors on the market must not behave in a manner so as not to appropriate the commodity of the other or alienate their own, without the consent of both parties. Law, backed up by a state with the monopoly of legitimate violence, pacifies and provides a kind of determinacy to an exchange that might otherwise be resolved with physical force or go on in endless haggling (more likely the former). Understanding law in this fashion helps to explain one way in which the nation-state as sovereign subject is constituted. The recognized unit of international law is the sovereign state, all of which are nominally equal. The sovereign state is a legal form, and law in this sense is a process of negotiation between these actors, albeit one without the determinacy provided at the level of the nation-state. As law is fundamentally a matter of coercion, or congealed violence, decisions reached are invariably coercive and stand or fall on the ability of those determining the decision to back it up. (China Mieville, Between Equal Rights: A Marxist Theory of International Law, ch. 3, 2005).

If this is correct, then the legalization and rationalization of the state can be accounted for in part by the development of capitalism and markets within feudalism. In particular, the precocious economic development of Italian Communes could partly explain the re-emergence of Roman Law, although – as Gill also notes – the precise form of law was less important than what it did. The rise of ‘law merchant’ since the 12th Century was a direct expression of the interests and sentiments of the merchants themselves, while maritime law emerged to serve the same interests. And it was mercantilism which first promoted a public economic policy on a national scale. States did create the merchant companies as legal entities, but in doing so they implicitly acknowledged the growing importance of commodity exchange, which itself had been facilitated by the extraordinary dynamism of feudalism. (Gill, ch. 4, 2003; Mieville, ch. 5, 2005; Harman, 1999).

Nationhood.
Another problem thrown up by Weber is the territorially bounded nature of the modern state. The state claims legitimate rule over a geographically defined territory, and in that space citizens are subject to the state’s laws. But what explains the ‘nation-ness’ of the modern state? The answers offered by Spruyt, Hintze and others revolve around the ‘sovereign-ness’ of the state, which is moulded by military competition. The nation-state involved both the right scale, and the internal cohesiveness to survive intense geopolitical struggle. This certainly accounts for one aspect of appeals to nationhood, inasmuch as it was necessary to win support for domestic populations, and wars based on dynastic claims were often far, in all senses, from home. The emphasis of common ‘national’ characteristics evoked an imaginary community which people could identify themselves with (Gill, ch 5, 2003). But this is in itself inadequate. It explains part of the reason why states legitimized themselves in this way, but it does not completely explain it or the reason why it was successful.

Benedict Anderson argues that populations were receptive to nationalist ideas in part because of the way in which the invention of print and the penetration of markets into most walks of life had forged national languages with much more homogeneity than had previously persisted. At the same time, the ‘imagined community’ that preceded the nation-state, Christendom, was eroded from several quarters, not least the Reformation which in attacking the papacy and asserting the direct relationship between man and God undermined the idea that a polity could be based on a community of faith. (Anderson, 1983; Gill, ch. 3, 2003). There is also a sense in which nationhood is forged and reproduced through the standardisation of currency, weights, measures and education. These, as Anderson argues, have been partially state-driven, but have also arisen from the needs of the developing capitalist economy. But the ‘national’ character of the modern state is also overdetermined by its relationship to capitalism: the overthrow of feudalism, in Marx’s words “set free the political spirit, which had been, as it were, split up, partitioned and dispersed into the various blind alleys of feudal society … and established it as the sphere of the community, the general concern of the nation”. (Quoted, Rosenberg, 1994).

Conclusion.
The modern state is a capitalist state; its key characteristics cannot be disarticulated from the social processes from which it emerged. In no way need this invite a view that reduces the state to being a mere 'instrument' of the bourgeoisie, but it is thoroughly constituted by social and economic relations that it supervises and reproduces.

References, quibbles, corrections and supplementary argument are all very welcome.

Cohen's Fallaci. posted by lenin

Nick Cohen. You know he gives me those Sunday morning blues. If there is no sin except stupidity, there is no greater defiler of your holy day of rest than the one-time star cynic of the Observer's back-pages. I'm just interested in this paragraph from his latest :

In Italy, a journalist, Oriana Fallaci, faces trial for writing a book which is 'unequivocally offensive to Islam'. The alleged crime of The Rage and the Pride is to insist there is an unbridgeable divide between the Islamic world and the West. What she says may not be true, although it certainly is true of Islamism and the West, which have armies at war to prove it. It's also the case that even by the standards of Italian journalism, Fallaci is a raging prima donna. Still, since when has it been a criminal offence for prima donnas to sing, however tunelessly?

As a plea for freedom of religious (or irreligious) expression, this would not make Spinoza turn green with Dutch envy, but it is nice to know that Cohen doesn't want to see morons locked up for being morons.

However, it would be refreshing to see him get his facts right, just for once. The Rage and the Pride is a stupid polemic by a hysterical racist witch whose main prophylactic against such charges is to make her racist remark and then say "and now they will call me a racist!", and then follow it up with a contrived idiocy. In that book, she has the immigrant "sons of Allah" pissing on Rome's Catholic monuments, contributing to prostitution, drugs and crime. Her verdict: "Terrorists, thieves, rapists. Ex-convicts, prostitutes, beggars. Drug-dealers, contagiously ill". She has Muslims forming a fifth column, coming into Europe in waves with the express goal of conquering Europe and destroying Western civilisation. They're bringing diseases, shrieks Fallaci, straining those tendons in her throat. Syphillis and AIDS are just the start. (Some of the Egyptian fundamentalists say the same thing about the Jews, and about the tourists whom they blow up). They have "orders to multiply like rats". Aye, the House of Allah has many finely appointed wombs. In the service of this case, she fabricates evidence , time and time again . How could one not, making such a fantastical case? It is her Protocols of the Elders of Allah. And she bemoans the absence of a Richard the Lionheart to take the fight to these people.

Very well, Fallaci is who she is - a bitter, tired, whipped old shit-stirrer who has long since pissed her talent up against the wall. Gore Vidal once had cause to refer to her as the greatest political interviewer of all time, and she did have an admirable set of balls. Let's leave it at that and move on.

Cohen must know that this amounts to more than stipulating an incommensurability of values between Islam and the West (what categories! The categories, in fact, of an Orientalist). Why cover that flaccid fundament? It is one thing to say that Fallaci should not be on trial, but why make it appear as if the complaint is groundless? And why does Cohen imagine that Islamism is what the West is at war with? Because he doesn't know what he's talking about. If all Muslims aren't the same for him, all Islamisms are - a fairly obvious process of substitution to preserve Cohen's amour propre if you ask me.

Open Letter to SOAS Director posted by lenin

A reader has asked me to publish the following letter, which is addressed to the director of SOAS. It discusses the harrassment of a Muslim student who had written an analysis of the ethics of violence, and who rejected the blanket condemnation of Palestinian violence on the grounds that such a position was unreflective about the roots of the Israel/Palestine conflict. For having taken such a position, this student was subjected to a disciplinary investigation. Despite the fact that such questions are on the reading lists for courses at SOAS, this student was not allowed to have his thoughts without being subject to harrassment. At a time when SOAS is being maligned for 'anti-Semitism', it is important to note that the Director cited Noam Chomsky's Voltairean position on freedom of speech to defend the visit of a representative from the Israeli embassy - a principle that clearly doesn't apply when it comes to Muslim students. Here is the letter:

Dear Director,

I would like to respond to your message to the school regarding recent allegations of anti-Semitism, intolerance and intimidation at SOAS. Whilst I understand that you have been put in an almost impossible situation I believe it is very important to distinguish between two different issues. The first kind of issue relates to polarisation of students. It would be surprising if, given the diversity of students at SOAS, there was not polarisation of students around issues of principle and current global political controversies. Indeed it would be rather disappointing if students were not engaged with such controversies at an institution like SOAS. One reason why students are attracted to SOAS is precisely because this is what they expect. A number of students on both the courses that I teach said they came to SOAS because they wanted exposure to such controversies and, at the same time, to have the chance to explore them in greater depth then is possible outside of an academic environment. These students had various political and ideological attitudes to these controversies and conflicts. Obviously many students from various countries with various political traditions are often surprised (and sometimes a little shocked) to be exposed to views and opinions they are unfamiliar with. I think SOAS has always been about surprises and shocks of this kind and that this is part of the unique educational experience the institution offers.

The second kind of issue relates to questions about intimidation and racism. It is vitally important to understand that these questions are quite different and that there is no necessary relationship between them. I have yet to see any convincing evidence at all that there has been any issue of racism or intimidation at SOAS and have to admit that accusations of this kind seem to me mischievous and politically motivated emerging largely from the media and, apparently, the home office. I am therefore a little concerned about what kind of discussion will take place in the proposed ‘workshops’. If these discussions are to be concerned with issues of racial equality one might ask if they are being held for the benefit of students and staff or whether they are being held for the benefit of the Times and possibly the Home Office. If this is so I would suggest this is very unwise and a capitulation to political interference in the internal affairs of the college. If on the other hand there is the thought that political issues raised by the Israeli/Palestine conflict require some kind of special adjudication by the college might I raise a note of caution?

Aside from an impression of a kind of colonial snooping amongst Arab and Muslim students at SOAS, the AUT is about to debate issues connected with academic boycott of Israel (see today’s Education Guardian). Similar debates have been had inside of UNISON. Such debates have stirred up precisely the same controversies in the outside world as they have inside of SOAS. If there is to be some kind of ‘line’ about what position to take on the Israel/Palestine conflict that will satisfy politically both supporters and opponents of Israeli policy this would necessitate having a narrower range of discussion inside SOAS then takes place in the outside world. A large number of students and staff would feel that they were being politically censored and intimidated at the behest of the media and the home office through the agency of college authorities. I would suggest that this would be likely to inflame matters further. I do not think it a good idea to get into games of who is most intimidated by the current situation, however subjecting a student to investigation under the colleges disciplinary code for writing what struck me as a sensitive analysis of the ethics of violence, raises really serious questions about the duty of care this university owes to all its students irrespective of the media and the home office. It also raises substantial issues about academic freedom which I think should be the concern not only of students but also of academics, values which I believe our Director has a duty to represent and protect no matter how politically controversial or unpopular it is to do so. Understanding the difficulties you face I hesitate to add to them.

But for moral reasons I would like to put it on record that I do not believe that Israel as presently constituted is a legitimate state. I would also like to put it on record that I believe that the ethics of condemning violence in anti-colonial struggles are complex and worthy of debate. My views on this subject have been shaped by the years I have been at SOAS and the things that I have been taught here. If this student is to be disciplined for reflecting on what Richard Falk (a prominent academic theorist) has described as the ‘right to violence’ and what Ted Honderich (a prominent analytical philosopher) has described as the ‘right to terrorism’ one might ask why the institutions which these two prominent intellectuals belong to have not disciplined them. One might also ask whether we ought not proscribe books currently on recommended reading lists, and indeed articles sometimes written by academics who work here, which encourage similar reflection.

Most importantly however I believe that if this student is to be subjected to investigation and harassment then so should I and so should many full time academic members of staff at this institution. It is my hope that should this student be disciplined members of staff will similarly step forward and suggest that they be investigated and possibly disciplined. I find myself deeply worried that a student is being intimidated for writing an article, the substance of which is reflected in many published academic tomes, some of which I might even have over the years recommended that my students read (one thinks here in different ways of Fanon, of Falk, of Chomsky, of Said, of Eqbal Ahmad, a whole range of thinkers and writers on Post-Colonial and Colonial politics). Perhaps, indirectly, I am responsible for what this student has written, either because I have taught him personally (I cannot remember) or because he has been taught by colleagues that I know and talk with. I would like this taken into account both in terms of possible culpability on my part and in terms of the charges being faced by this student. Of course this student is in a defenceless position, he is a member of a faith much discriminated against (one suspects if the argument had not been couched in terms of Islamic theology the outcome would have been different: although the student in fact sensitively attempts to universalise the argument) and demonised in this part of the world, and it is quite convenient to off-load the problems of the institution onto his shoulders. But perhaps this is a little unfair, a little irresponsible, perhaps even a little ignoble. I find the silence surrounding the position of this student from staff, from students and from yourself perhaps the most sad and depressing thing about this entire affair, and the victimisation of this student a clear breach of everything SOAS is supposed to represent.

But perhaps members of staff need not worry. Most of them, after all, are not Muslims and as long as they keep their opinions to themselves and do not speak publicly about these matters nothing will happen to them. And perhaps if we sacrifice this student an embarrassing situation will go away, and with a few face saving exercises (workshops!) the press and the home office will get off our backs. A far cry from your recent remarks about Noam Chomsky I must say. And a terrible lesson for students about ethics, responsibility and the values a university is supposed to represent (I am concerned about the Students Union being encouraged down this path and the moral effect on them). Apologies for the tone of this letter but the issues which have been raised are far too important not to be confronted directly.

Sincerely,
John Game
Teaching Assistant
Politics Department.

Get your tanks off our lawns. posted by lenin

Via Meaders . It seems that the police have suddenly come over all gorblimey about the Stop the War rally planned for the G8 protests, and are trying to ban it . What could it be now? Last time it was the fucking grass they were worried about, do they now think we're going to storm Edinburgh Castle and start firing the cannons at the G8 Summit?

There have been national and local StWC demonstrations all over the country, dozens and dozens of them. Not one has resulted in disorder or violence, despite my best efforts. So, what's the beef?

On a side note, anyone who wants to prevent London Fire Brigade taking a fire engine away from Bethnal Green where it is sorely needed, you can join this blockade in just under two weeks. Galloway, the FBU reps and a bunch of local residents will be there to try and stop them taking it.

Realpolitik posted by lenin

Recent events prompt me to a bit of citation:

Roy: Unethical? Are you trying to embarrass me in front of my friend?

Joe: Well it is unethical, I can't...

Roy: Boy, you really are something, what the fuck do you think this is, Sunday School?

Joe: No, but Roy this is...

Roy: This is ... this is gastric juices churning, this is enzymes and acids, this is intestinal is what this is, bowel movement and blood-red meat - this stinks, this is politics, Joe, the game of being alive. And you think you're ... What? Above that? Above alive is what? Dead! In the clouds! You're on earth, goddamit! Plant a foot, stay a while.

And later:

Roy: Yes. Yes. You have heard of Ethel Rosenberg. Yes. Maybe you even read about her in the history books.
If it wasn't for me, Joe, Ethel Rosenberg would be alive today, writing some personal advice column for Ms. magazine. She isn't. Because during the trial, Joe, I was on the phone ever day, talking with the judge...

Joe: Roy...

Roy: Every day, doing what I do best, talking on the telephone, making sure that timid Yid nebbish on the bench did his duty to America, to history. That sweet unprepossessing woman, two kids, boo-hoo-hoo, reminded us all of our little Jewish mamas - she came this close to getting life; I pleaded till I wept to put her in the chair. Me. I did that. I would have fucking pulled the switch if they'd have let me. Why? Because I fucking hate traitors. Because I fucking hate communists. Was it legal? Fuck legal. Am I a nice man? Fuck nice. They say terrible things about me in The Nation. Fuck The Nation. You want to be Nice, or you want to be Effective? Make the law, or be subject to it. Choose.

That stuff's from Tony Kushner, Angels In America, Part One: Millenium Approaches. As you might have gathered, the Roy in that dialogue is Roy Cohn. And he has spawned a thousand and one little bastards, desperately trying to emulate him.

Kill Bill posted by lenin

The screw is turning: depending which way you look at it, the US ruling class is beginning to take fright, or the Democrats are beginning to grow some chutzpah. The first ever bill to design a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq was introduced into the House of Representatives yesterday - and voted down by 300 votes to 128.

That 128 is far higher than it would have been eight months ago when Kerry was campaigning on a 'bigger, better occupation' policy. In the vote, two thirds of the Democrats present voted for the bill, in the form of an amendment to the near $500bn Pentagon budget, and five Republicans joined them. One of the Republicans who voted for it, and the only one who spoke for it on the floor, a Walter Jones of North Carolina (hick), had previously been behind the campaign to change the name of French fries to freedom fries. So, why has he gone all limp-wristed and Gallic?

Well, one reason could be that, despite delusions that the demonstration elections would result in the Iraqi resistance turning into a nerdish, cultish hobby for a few remaining stragglers, the fact is that there has been little sign of the battle abating - whether in terms of the civilian resistance or the armed resistance . The war is not, contrary to expectation and hype, winding down .

Despite the metaphors preferred by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz about Iraq being like a kid learning to ride a bike (the imperialist cliches never change), they seem curiously reluctant to allow the vehicle to slip out of their fingers and ride off into the desert sunset. The US is presently constructing four giant new bases in Iraq , which doesn't look like preparation for a slow withdrawal and a warm wave to a nation firmly on its bike. Indeed, reports describe how the US is seeking to "re-assert itself" in Iraqi affairs, as if it had been taking a back seat since the elections. In particular, America has its "red lines" that Iraqi officials dare not cross, because "we have 140,000 troops here, and they are getting shot at". Further, the US has been measuring up the Iraqi troops they've been training and, although we often hear nice round figures indicating that a total of 140,000 Iraqi troops and police have been trained, they have found that of the 81 Iraqi army battalions assessed, only 3 were able to conduct operations independently . The Iraqi troops either cannot or will not fight against the resistance.

But it will be very difficult to sustain the occupation at the present level, as recruitment problems abound . In fact, anti-recruitment campaigns are, as Yoshie pointed out some time ago, having a serious impact on the numbers of young people willing to be taken in by promises of college money and so on. Even in Britain, where there hasn't been an anti-recruitment campaign with any particular profile, there is a "recruitment crisis" , a state of affairs the army blames on the Stop the War Coalition. In the US, public opinion has turned against the war .

The war against the resistance is not being won, and the reintroduction of the death penalty by the puppet government is unlikely to do anything other than add legal corpses to illegal ones. In large part, this is because the occupation is much dirtier, much more oppressive, than we are given to understand by the great wall of silence on the television news, where only the latest explosion merits discussion, and then only for ten seconds before moving onto the latest scandal about hoodies and faulty NHS operations.

This excellent article on the "psychodynamics of occupation" provides some chilling glimpses at the inner state of many US soldiers, and how this affects the way they react to Iraqis. Hence: "The enemy has got a face. He's called Satan. He lives in Falluja. And we're going to destroy him." The apocalyptic language easily matches anything bin Laden might come up with, and the civilian death toll from the November destruction of that city, is now estimated to be as high as 1,300 . Or, if you don't like that, try the anonymous note left on a mirror in one destroyed home: "Fuck Iraq and every Iraqi in it!" If only they could get them into Abu Ghraib, they might just succeed in doing that. Or, how about this message to the kids: "The one thing you learn over here is that there are no innocent civilians, except the kids. And even them -- the ones that are all, 'Hey mister, mister, chocolate?' -- I'll be killing them someday." Suge Knight has nothing on this guy. Or better still: "There are things I have to do out here that I can't explain to my chain of command, and that the American people would never understand." Read the article, and check those copious references to see what sort of things this US army Sergeant is talking about.

No wonder that, according to Dahr Jamail, most Iraqis refer to the resistance as "patriots" . The ungrateful Iraqis, unlike the ungrateful Bosnians , are causing enough havoc for the US that withdrawal is a mainstream proposition not only for most Americans, but for much of the governing class as well.

CIA's advice to the Iraqi Resistance. posted by lenin

The CIA combines the sinister and the absurd, sometimes in equal measure. When they were trying to assassinate Fidel Castro, they decided to interfere with his cigars, either adding explosive materials that would blow his head off or poisonous materials that would cause his beard to fall out. Similarly, during the 1980s war on Nicaragua, directed from Honduras by then Ambassador John Negroponte, the CIA produced a 'Freedom Fighters' Manual', to help the people free themselves of "Marxist tyranny" (the Sandinista regime was, according to them, a Soviet puppet). Now that Negroponte has found alternative employment in Iraq, where local regime really is a puppet, I thought it would be worthwhile revisiting this classic manifesto of resistance to imperial oppression. Click on the pictures below - each is a frame from the Manual, which incites people to throw sickies, leave taps and lights on, make false hotel reservations, spread rumours, threaten the boss over the phone, make Molotov cocktails and so on. Sometimes I wonder if the CIA isn't being secretly run by Wile E. Coyote. (Of course, it doesn't mention the bit about killing 30,000 people in attacks on 'soft-targets': schools, medical clinics etc.)


Freedom Fighters’ Manual 1.


Freedom Fighters’ Manual 2.


Freedom Fighters’ Manual 3.


Freedom Fighters’ Manual 4.

Viva la resistance!!

Scabs posted by lenin

Any anchorperson whose face you can see live on the BBC right now has crossed the picket line .

We know your faces, you greasy little lickspittles.

Incidentally, if you want to give the scabs working on the Online News service something to do, send your messages of support for the strikers here .

Image/gaze/bomb them all. posted by lenin

Ideological interpellation, in Zizek's treatment (The Sublime Object of Ideology, 1989), involves the assumption of a 'mandate'. One is called upon to undertake a mission (lead the chosen people to Canaan, overthrow capitalism, establish an Islamic Emirate), and the hysterical subject is one who cannot fulfil this mandate. Take Jesus. In Martin Scorsese's film The Last Temptation of Christ, he is an ordinary man susceptible to the usual sins, lusts and tempers, yet who gradually discovers - horrified, fascinated - that he is the Son of God. He never totally accepts this role, and even on the cross is to be seen "looking for a loophole" (as WC Fields explained was his goal when found studying the Bible in his death-bed). Christ is hysterical precisely because he does not feel adequate to the task.

How is one interpellated? We know how people identify with a celebrity, a sports person, or a great political leader and try to emulate them - this is imaginary identification. One wants to be just like how that person seems, in order to be likeable to oneself. But for whom? Why should this identification make you likeable to yourself? Typically, one wants to fulfil a symbolic identification, in which one has wholly internalised the preferments of, say, the father. In other words, you are servicing the gaze of the father, seeking to make yourself acceptable to him, although you may be totally unaware of doing so. Zizek notes that, behind the feminine imaginary identification is an extremely masculine symbolic identification: a girl might emulate the comportment of a leading movie starlet in order to appease the paternal gaze, for some she wants to seem likeable.

This is the mechanism, which is by no means merely a psychological drama, by which one is integrated into a given socio-symbolic field. Of the Orwellistas on the pro-war Left, we might ask: for which gaze are they emulating the socialist who became a hero of the Cold War Right? Whence the imaginary identification with "The great Irshad Manji" ? I'll come back to this, but Barmecides , before he packed up his blog, had a suggestive answer.

However successful ideological interpellation is, there is always a hysterical remainder rendered as "che vuoi?" Which is to say, "you are asking this of me, but what is it you really want?" The mandate, it is suspected, comes with strings, clauses in small print that may be sinister or not. So, for instance, the Bolshevik demand for "Land, Bread and Peace" might have elicited the query: "but for what end? Isn't it really world domination you have in mind? Don't you want to bring about the return of the anti-Christ?" The usual way in which "che vuoi?" is manifested is through racism - when Jesse Jackson made some initial inroads in the 1988 Presidential elections, the press began to ask "what does Jesse Jackson really want?", which they hadn't asked of anyone else. And of course, the main target of such questioning has historically been Jews: "you say you only want emancipation, freedom from the ghettos, the right to free expression, but don't you actually want to control the world's financial system and...?" The end of such questioning, of course, was the near annihilation of Europe's Jews in gas chambers and Einsatzgruppen-style mass shootings.

Hence, "what do the Muslims really want?" According to Anthony Browne of The Times (who professes admiration for Irshad Manji), the Muslims want "to conquer the world". Daniel Pipes, (also a fan of Irshad Manji), thinks that what he calls Militant Islam wants to conquer the world, and remarks apropos of Muslim migrants that "West European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene". The BNP - well, we know what they think of Islam (a "wicked, vicious faith"), but it is interesting to note that they too call on "moderate Muslims" to make their religion "compatible with the modern world".

Well, why raise Irshad Manji? Manji styles herself as a "Muslim refusenik" and has written a book entitled The Trouble with Islam, which purports to be a progressive critique of Islam, but is larded with extraordinary phrases like "the Muslim Mind", apologetics for Israel (some examples of which here ) and an extraordinary naivete about US military power which, she asserts, "is the unrealized hope, not the lead criminal". Not susceptible to the obvious, then, Irshad Manji is the model 'moderate Muslim' whom Islamophobes can trust and admire. Locating the problems of the Muslim world within Islam (see some of her comments in this obsequious article ), Manji exculpates those who oppress Muslims and corroborates them in their slanders.

The gallery of figures from the racist right to the pro-war Left lining up to pay homage to Manji is unsurprising in that respect. But if the latter form an imaginary identification with her, what is the underlying symbolic identification? Back to Barmecides:

About any [political affiliation] one can ask: what is its defining project? That of [the pro-war Left] seems to be this: to endlessly plead before an imaginary tribunal, packed with neo-cons/ assorted members of the Right. This tribunal tirelessly, and with the immense ideological and economic resources at its disposal, accuses the Left of predictable crimes and complicities. [The pro-war Left]'s principle aim is to exonerate itself before this tribunal by placing before it endless examples of Left-wing venality. Secondly, it seeks to occupy and re-tread a terrain of argument mapped out for it in advance by the Right. It scuttles obediently back and forth before the points of this circumscribed territory, reiterating that this is indeed the correct and proper terrain.

To exhort on behalf of a 'Muslim refusenik' who covers for the West and prattles naive gibberish about the people she pretends to be appealing to (Manji's co-religionists) is to make oneself likeable to the bourgeois gaze. One becomes an alibi, unwitting to be sure, of the anti-Muslim racism that corroborates extraordinary imperial aggression and its apparatus of extra-legal prisons and torture chambers. The liberal gloss, known as 'whataboutery', is always-already available: Torture in Abu Ghraib and Bagram? Yes, but what about the elections? What about women no longer obliged to wear the burlap sack in Afghanistan? Mass murder that makes 9/11 look puny? Yes, but what about the 'Cedar Revolution'? Occupation of Palestine? Yes, but what about 'the new anti-Semitism'?

Addendum: for those outraged on behalf of secularism, here is an intelligent, humane, socialist critic of Islam and particularly of the corrupt leaders and regimes which use it to legitimise their reign, who manages to be irreligious without slandering Muslims or apologising for the criminals in Washington and Tel Aviv.

"Eurovision": a protest. posted by lenin

Okay, so let's get this straight. The songs deliberately suck. Terry Wogan is a machine designed to expostulate, titter and groan in his faux-Oirish fashion whenever the appropriate button is pushed. And the worst of these very very bad songs appears to be winning (when everyone knows Greece should be winning). All this I can understand - we are, after all, in Europe.

However, one place that isn't in Europe is Israel. Israel is definitely not in Europe. Israel is in Asia, just next to Africa. So why does it have a slot, when Palestine does not? Why not Egypt come to that? And why does it keep getting lots of votes when its song is shit?

Seriously, if the arbitrary continental restriction no longer applies, surely the name should be dropped. How about Whitevision? Or, given the quality of the songs, Whitetrashvision? No, better yet, Crackervision!

I've been to various spots in Europe. I know enough to say that the brown Thames is somehow more pleasant for me than the green Seine or the blue Danube. However, the extent to which casual racism is simply a part of European life had to be hammered home to me in Vienna, where Rachel Whitread's Holocaust Memorial sits in the Judenplatz. There you can find cake-shops selling delicacies like 'the little darkie', as well as racist graffiti more noxious than that on some very public walls. What was once known as 'Red Vienna' is now the youth suicide capital of Europe, and it wasn't hard to tell why. The best of Old Europe was eclipsed by the worst of New Europe; the worst of Old Europe eclipsed the best of New Europe. To put it like this, the Stephansdom (which is perhaps the most impressive building there) was covered in advertising; but at the same time, they have extreme restrictions on alterations you can make on buildings in the centre. That is, they can't update anything that needs updating, but they can construct billboards on whatever is worth preserving. Even the churches have ads plastered around them. Rooms once used by Freud and Mozart are eagerly rented out for tourists in a curiously empty experience, which is as good a metaphor as any for what has happened to Europe's cultural hegemony. Vienna isn't dying on its knees - it wishes it could die in such a dignified posture. It is dying flatly on its arse. Wien, je ne regrette Wien...

The European idea is over, terminal, tainted at source. Eurovision is a symptom of that.

Okay: Greece are winning now. About time.

Iraqi resistance: dossier. posted by lenin

You don't have to be a genius like me to figure out that much of the pro-war Left is both purblind and racist . However, crucial misunderstanding about the nature and structure of the resistance to the US occupation in Iraq extends well beyond those quarters, so that even perfectly mammalian types are deceived.

For instance, the resistance are "terrorists" for many, and merely "murderous" for others, not even meriting the term 'insurgency' without scare quotes. Already, I can see some of you reaching for various epithets of your own. A lot of this is related to unconscious fantasy life, with Iraq perhaps reduced in many minds to an imaginary menagerie, a hothouse full of savage, exotic animals leaking blood indiscriminately.

I hesitate to describe this as a 'rational kernel', but the actions of some groups described as part of the resistance provides ample material for these cranial productions. However, with that rather obvious stipulation in mind, it is important to keep the facts at the forefront. One salient fact is as follows: the resistance against the occupation of Iraq is legitimate, and by and large it does not target civilians.

And this shouldn't be controversial but, of course, it is. It is necessary to displace the media distillation by noting a few facts that even the 'Orwellian Left' with their window-pane-literalism can't dispute.

Extremist groups like Tawhid wal Jihad, hitherto taken to represent the bulk of the resistance, or at least a substantial strand within it, account for a tiny fraction of resistance attacks , assuming you accept their inclusion in that category. In particular, the most attacks that could be attributed to TwJ as of November was 29 out of 3000, although the most that could be attributed with any certainty was six out of 3000.

Similarly, the image of the resistance being a tandem force, uniting "Saddam loyalists" and Islamist groups, is a fiction . Such a picture involves a 'command and control' structure that does not obtain. The resistance is largely decentralised, localised and acephalous. According to the CIA, the average resistance fighter is a nationalist offended by the presence of coalition troops, and will generally have had direct or indirect experience of violence and maltreatment at the hands of US troops. Local cells operate largely independently of one another, although there are tacit agreements and there is often improvised cooperation.

The resistance generally does not target civilians . The overwhelming bulk of attacks are directed at coalition troops, as this graphic drawn from statistics in a report by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies shows. Similarly, this graph from the New York Times shows exactly the same thing: however attacks have fluctuated in their frequency and intensity, the overwhelming bulk of them are always directed at coalition forces. (Note: these graphics are difficult to see on the web, so it is best to copy and paste onto a word document, then enlarge - they become quite clear then).

Facts are often no competition for the PR machine , and as the old Russian proverb has it, repetition is the mother of learning. So, by repeating again and again that one has killed Al Qaeda fighters 'on the border with Syria' or some such thing that reinforces received opinion, the image becomes almost impregnable.

There is no doubt that Iraq is in a violent, chaotic and frightening state , but this is in large part because there is a US policy of supporting and funding death squads which are intended to crush the resistance. Some groups are killing off Sunni scholars , and it can't be a surprise that some Sunnis are drawing the conclusion that this is part of a state policy, given the brutality even of the official CIA-trained Iraqi security forces. It is hard to resist the conclusion that the US is trying to steer the country into a bitter civil war, which would both provide a rationale for their staying, and undermine the unity of the resistance, which is already weak.

What Iraqis Want. posted by lenin

Erica Jong has nothing on me. She purported to tell men what women want - now I, in my delphic way, can tell Westerners what Iraqis want. I can do so because, as an Orientalist, I know the natives, and my knowledge is an expression of my power over them.

Hence, when certain blogs of the pro-war Left mumble about what this or that Iraqi blog says, I simply tut and shake my head. I know what they want. They want freedom, democracy, truth, all that stuff. They wanted us to invade, they didn't want us to invade. They would have committed suicide if we didn't go in and kill them. They want the troops to go, but not quite yet, although now would be a good time if they were thinking about it.

Consequently, I know what this and this mean. I know, without having to assert openly (because you know I know) that these Iraqis are being silly, expecting too much too soon. They are not quite rational. Don't they understand that we want to interrogate ourselves more fully than they want to interrogate us? That we want to leave quicker than they would have us leave? We're doing this for their own good. We had to destroy Fallujah to save it. This is what Iraqis want. I can say this because I know Iraqis. Not one of them spoke out against it. And those who did, they were saps, or worse. President Bush can sleep safe in the knowledge that Iraqis are quite open to Jesus, if only Jesus will get rid of those godawful terrorists.

The Question posted by lenin

Derrida. What's the big deal? It's just common sense.

I kid, of course. I am as befuddled as you are when I try to read that deliberately abstruse text. It's like trying to walk through mashed potato. And yet, there is a sense in which what Derrida is saying is perfect common sense, or at least common enough that anyone can understand it if they are receptive enough. Just a quick example.

On the philosophical question. In 'Violence and Metaphysics: an essay on the thought of Emmanuel Levinas' (you can find this in Writing and Difference), Derrida goes to the heart of what I think is his approach. He notes that the question is always enclosed, always-already determined by the answer. To ask a question, as any fule know, is already to know part of the answer. Hence: deconstruction. The anthropologists, the philosophers, the metaphysicians of presence - they already know the answer when they begin, and construct their observations accordingly. Derrida, in Of Grammatology and in Structure, Sign and Play in the History of the Human Sciences, carefully pulls apart Levi-Strauss' writings to show how he structures his narratives to create the myth of innocent speech interrupted and distorted by writing. The question has been scripted by the answer.

In part, what is to be preserved is the original question, the "initiative" question, the "eh?" that prompts all our other questioning. It isn't that there can be a question before or outside of text, (bear in mind that, for Derrida, there is nothing prior about speech - text is all in the mind, so to speak), but there is a moment in which the question is "not yet determined enough for the hypocrisy of an answer to have already initiated itself beneath the mask of the question".

Derrida, like Said, irrupted into Western philosophy from the repressed margin of the imperial West - in Derrida's case, Algeria. His questions were not aimed at destroying rationality as Johann Hari stupidly claimed (how would this be possible?); they were aimed at destroying the means of intellectual domination by which the West asserted its hegemony. The whole lineage from ancient Greece to structuralism had to be radically re-thought as if there really was some thinking to do.

In this, he represented a true return to philosophy, in which questions themselves had a lot to answer for. It is no coincidence, that those who are most impatient with Derrida today, and who used his grave as a urinary receptacle, are the most ardent believers in the meliorative capacities of rapacious imperialism.

If your answer is Gordon Brown... posted by lenin

...then you're asking the wrong question.

Gordon Brown, having been frustrated in his bid to prevent the EU enforcing the Working Time Directive in Britain, which stipulates a maximum working week of 48 hours (come on, even France had 35 hours), has been telling off the trade unions , and warning them he'll fight them over the policy:

There Mr Brown warned against any relaxation of economic discipline and, despite striking an upbeat tone on UK economic prospects, insisted there could be no return to large public sector pay increases.

He warned bluntly that the Government will fight the unions over the 48-hour working week. They are campaigning to scrap Britain's opt-out from European Union restrictions on working hours.

Amicus was told by the Chancellor: "In the public sector, reform and wage discipline will at all times match our investment.

"And because 50 per cent of our trade is with Europe ... and because economic reform matters, I have to tell you that we will resist the opt-out being removed."

Incomes policy, anyone?

Meaders has more.

Street-fighting man. posted by lenin

Well, you can watch Galloway's whole testimony here . From The Guardian this morning, I see Galloway had a few words for Christopher Hitchens:

Before the hearing began, the MP for Bethnal Green and Bow even had some scorn left over to bestow generously upon the pro-war writer Christopher Hitchens. "You're a drink-soaked former-Trotskyist popinjay," Mr Galloway informed him. "Your hands are shaking. You badly need another drink," he added later, ignoring Mr Hitchens's questions and staring intently ahead.

"And you're a drink-soaked..." Eventually Mr Hitchens gave up. "You're a real thug, aren't you?" he hissed, stalking away.

Hitchens is probably the only person in the world with a bigger ego than Galloway, so I can only imagine that the Hitch was indeed in some state simply to skulk off like that. But I've seen how Hitchens treats the public and those who disagree with him - he condescends to and humiliates them. So, he's not a thug? What's the old saying about physicians and healing? Hitchens himself gives Galloway credit , although his recounting of the incident rather makes himself out to be the passive recipient of Galloway's scorn rather than the provocateur.

Anyway, according to the Beeb papers hail fighting Galloway . I daresay this is largely fed by resentment about US politicians impugning an elected British politician. However, there is no question about this fact: yet another attempt to divide the antiwar Left has floundered. Galloway has been the lightning rod for these attacks, yet through his street-fighting skills, acquired on the streets and while climbing greasy pole in the Scottish Labour Party, he has ripped the floor out of every one of them. He has shown that they have nothing - no reliable evidence, no points that anyone could take seriously, and no moral basis to criticise someone who was trying to stop the sanctions and the war that followed.

BionOc has more.

Galloway documents forged. posted by lenin

Socialist Worker has this scoop:

The central document used against George Galloway this week by the senate committee in Washington is a forgery. Investigation by Socialist Worker shows that evidence crucial to the alleged case against the Respect MP is a fake, created after the fall of Baghdad in 2003.

...

Most of the accusations hurled against George Galloway by Norm Coleman’s senate committee on investigations this week were based on testimony which was supposedly freely given by former Saddam Hussein regime officials who are now held by US forces.

In many cases they are not even named.

But there is one piece of evidence that at first glance seems persuasive. It is in the findings of the Duelfer Report — the conclusions of the Iraq Survey Group headed by Charles Duelfer which last year admitted Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.

The senate committee’s document says, “According to the evidence in the Duelfer Report, the Hussein regime granted Galloway six oil allocations totalling 20 million barrels of oil”.

In the section of the Duelfer Report on “Regime finance and procurement", there is an annex (Annex B) of “Known oil voucher recipients”.

According to Duelfer, “This annex contains the 13 secret lists maintained by Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan al-Jizrawi and the Minister for Oil, Amir Rashid Muhammad al-Ubaydi. A high-level Iraqi State Oil Marketing Organisation (SOMO) official provided the Iraq Survey Group with both English and Arabic versions of these lists on 16 June 2004. The lists reproduced here are the original SOMO translations in English."

The list has hundreds of names of individuals and corporations many of which, according to Duelfer, acted legally in dealing in Iraqi oil under the UN Oil for Food programme.

The first mention of George Galloway is contract M/09/23. This alleges that 1.014 million barrels of oil were allocated to “Mr Fawwaz Zurayqat - Mr George Galloway -Aredio Petroleum (French)”.

Look closely at the entry




The typeface (font) used for “Mr George Galloway” is different to the rest of the line. Indeed the only time the font is used in the entire document is for George Galloway entries.
"Mr George Galloway” does not line up with the rest of the words in the entry, it is at an angle to the other words.
The spacings between “Mr George Galloway” and the rest of the words are inconsistent.
The dash after the words “Mr George Galloway” touches the following word.
The words “Mr George Galloway” are at a different density (lighter) than the rest of the line.



The most likely explanation is that the words “Mr George Galloway” have been imported after the list was prepared, perhaps stuck on and then photocopied to produce the list in the Duelfer Report.

Elsewhere the Duelfer Report revisits this same contract note and, citing an internal Iraqi document, says the allocation was to “Fawaz Zuraiqat — Mariam’s Appeal”.

More: David Traynier has extracted this image of the Galloway reference from this page of the Duelfer report.

This is supposed to represent the entry on which Galloway was directly given money by Hussein's regime. If it doesn't look dodgy enough in itself, compare it to the rest of the entries. The format is different and the spacing is different.

Operation Muslim Vote. posted by lenin

Sometimes Channel Four does something brilliant that recalls its trouble-making days from the 1980s, and this documentary about a pair of activists from the Muslim Public Affairs Committee was such an occasion. MPAC, from all indications, is a youthful upstart, seeking to undercut the hegemony of the entrenched leadership in what I hesitate to call 'the Muslim community'. Its politics appear to be oriented around a progressive interpretation of Islam (see, for example, this article on the Islamic justification for the welfare state, which involves the usual references to the zakat, but more besides).

A number of things became glaringly apparent throughout: the two activists had a level of commitment, passion and clarity that I have rarely seen in mainstream politics; they never stood a chance against the unofficial Labourist hierarchy among Muslim leaders in places like Blackburn; and their strategy is totally inadequate.

The first point became obvious when they opened their mouths to speak, and when they stood up against some quite aggressive people outside Lord Patel's mosque, where they were intimidated and beaten. The second point was obvious when they emerged from the houses of some rich middle-class Muslims who wouldn't donate anything to help: "If you want to put a brilliant new chandelier in a mosque, these people will give you half a million quid. If you want to stop the man who's sending troops to kill and rape Iraqis, suddenly you're asking for too much! What kind of bullshit Islam are they following?" Well, the version that's compatible with being rich and reactionary, dummy! The last point was obvious from the start. Mobilising the Muslim vote is necessary, but insufficient. One thing that became apparent to me from my brief spell in the East End was that what is unctuously referred to as 'the Muslim community' is just as divided as 'the white community', 'the Jewish community' or any other imagined community you can think of. You have to expand your purview and your aim well beyond your particular ethnic group. Of course Muslims should oppose the massacres in Iraq and Palestine - but should not atheists, liberals, Christians, socialists and Jews also do the same? Can they not, and do they not? This weakness was crystallised when they allowed themselves to commend and distribute leaflets published by some local activists in Rochdale without checking the contents - the leaflet, they later discovered to their cost, contained the assertion that Lorna Fitzsimmons was Jewish, which was both wrong and totally irrelevant. Their response was to apologise profusely and reject the Islamophobic response that assumed that Muslims would vote against someone because of their race.

There was an awful lot of shit talked about the MPAC campaign by Jack Straw and others - this 'egregious' organisation that was so "well-funded". The camera showed how well-funded they were: toothbrush and towels for two activists with a bunch of leaflets. Yeah, they were flipping loaded. Straw also claimed that they had bussed in loads of people to campaign against him - again, not quite right. Two activists had come in their own vehicle, which isn't all that awe-inspiring when you think about it.

Anyway, I think the Respect strategy did a better job of mobilising Muslim and non-Muslim voters. I don't just think that - it's obvious. Where MPAC did contribute to getting a Lib Dem elected in Rochdale, they need to think seriously about what that amounts to. The Lib Dems were extremely unprincipled in their opposition to the war, temporising at times, suspending their opposition while the bloodshed was actually happening, and have hardly been principled or consistent opponents of Israeli aggression - it seems to me that we would be better off building a broad, progressive left-wing alliance, including Respect and the Greens, with electoral agreements, and using the marvellous election results as the basis for launching a sustained battery attack on Labour's biggest battalions.

Irony. posted by lenin

Most of us know how to use irony, even if many confuse it with sarcasm. But I used to think only a certain kind of postmodernist knew how to use 'irony' in ever-expanding quotation marks. An irony that is reflexive, perpetuating itself in ever expanding circles of mockery. Now, news arrives that Jack Straw is a grey Kierkegaard, without the wit or moral seriousness. For lo, in today's Guardian , his comments on Uzbekistan are reported. Replying to a question about whether Britain would support an opposition movement in Uzbekistan (notice, not even invade or anything!), Straw said:

"It's for the people to decide on a change of regime, not outsiders."

I'm glad he finally got that straight.

Meanwhile, Craig Murray, who displays a sense of humour, outrage, political nous and moral seriousness that evades his former paymasters, writes in The Guardian this morning of the oppressive regime in Uzbekistan, of the support it gets from the US (both diplomatic and financial), and of the means of dismissal already being deployed - they're "Islamic terrorists" says Scott McLennan. Unto which: "I travelled to Andijan a year ago to meet the opposition leaders, and kept in touch. I can give you a direct assurance that they are - or in many cases were - in no sense Islamist militants. They died an unwanted embarrassment to US foreign policy. We will doubtless hear some pious hypocrisies from Jack Straw. But when I was seeking funding to support the proto-democrats, the Foreign Office turned me down flat."

Pious hypocrisies? From Jack Straw? See above.

Carnival of the Uncapitalists. posted by lenin

It's that time of the week again: the unruly mob of uncapitalist nay-sayers are beseiging the blog-o-sphere. There will, as the ILWU president told Seattle protesters, be no business as usual today. Throw on a hoodie and keffiyeh, because this is Carnival of the Uncapitalists .

First, Bionic Octopus writes as an American Jew to demand that her 'right of return' to Israel be transferred to someone who actually wants it: a Palestinian. Then, Eli at Left I finds it curious that Cuba manages to look after its citizens' health better than the United States - not just that, it looks after the health of other nations with "more doctors serving abroad than the World Health Organisation". At Science and Politics , a Serbian Jewish atheist living in America demands bigger government, noting that conservatives have no problem with a big state, provided it is a guns-and-batons big state. Since we are all part of the government, Bora asks, hadn't we better start demanding better priorities from it?

Red Harvest gleans news of United Airlines cheating its 120,000 employees out of their pension entitlements, and the company is still trying to cut $75 million from wages and benefits. Meanwhile, Subversity has found corroborative evidence from an unlikely quarter that capitalists are evil. Political Calculations finds that modern cities in America are failing people, particularly families with children, by selling off public assets to the wealthiest buyers.

The socialist/situationist blog Fruits of our Labour remembers and celebrates the year 1871, "the fulcrum point of human history". The Paris Commune sent the bourgoisie scurrying into the arms of the reactionaries, and marked the point of cleavage between bourgeois democracy and working class democracy. Resist Oppression finds a curious aphasia strikes free-market economists when China intrudes on the scene: "where state control over capital allocation and rigid controls on currency exchange rates have produced a record rate of economic growth", thereby showing that the IMF-World Bank model of development is, mildly put, "a crock".

A free market anti-capitalist, The Mutualist objects to the government telling us we can't treat ourselves when we're sick. Come on, you know that's intriguing. Agitprop registers an impressive Swiftian disgust with the mainstream media, and urges leftists to "become the media", which is exactly what blogging should be about.

The man behind the uncapitalist curtain, Charles Norman Todd, has a nice piece at his regular blog Freiheit und Wissen about the Central American Free Trade Agreement and the infirmed Bush trade agenda. In particular, it seems that Cafta is meeting the opposition of the major farming industries as well as others, unlike Nafta whose primary opponent was labour, and is therefore likely to fail. Parenthetically, I would note that in a curious reversal of King Midas, everything Bush touches seems to turn to shit these days: social security, John Bolton, Iraq, Uzbekistan... He must be the most unlikely second-term President in history, returned only by the vacuity of the opposition.

Finally, in a late submission, To The Barricades records some extraordinary upheaval in Athens, with anarchists engaged in battle with armed police. Memories of November 17th are as vivid as ever. And, finally, my own contribution to this drunken riot is below . I'm not going to summarise it just to save you the effort of clicking on a link or scrolling down.

Next week, Carnival of the Uncapitalists is to be hosted by Agitprop . I have also been asked to remind carnival-goers that there is a new mailing list newsletter . If anyone wants to contribute to the Carnival in future, they should peruse the submission guidelines , and get in touch with Charles or Gretchen .

Reforming the British State? posted by lenin

The bourgeoisie has charms, discreet and otherwise. Some of its allure can be accounted for in the unique dynamism that Marx imputed to it:

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.

The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his, real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

...

The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation or rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour? (Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848, chapter 1).

Such a heroic idealisation of that class was intended, of course, to allow Marx to bury it all the more comprehensively. In it, however, lies the seed of an error that underlies much present debate in my view. To summarise it, the error seems to me to consist of believing that Britain is unique among advanced capitalist states in the components of its polity, which are said to hold back political progress, guarantee conservative hegemony, and retard capitalist growth. This is a view of Britain that spans the whole terrain from academic Marxism to the Huttonite centre-left. It is as well not to forget the profound influence of Hutton on early 'new Labour' thinking. As David Coates points out in Prolonged Labour (2005), the 1990s had its 'Hutton moment', the time in the middle of the decade that saw Hutton's book The State We're In become a best-seller, and his ideas form a crucial intellectual back-drop to Blair's otherwise formless 'revolution' - that is, before Blair found a more malleable ally in Anthony Giddens, and a less demanding intellectual inspiration in Charles Leadbetter.

In his way, Hutton was answering to a crisis of capitalism that neoliberalism had not solved. During the 1980s, American economists like Robert Reich and William Lazonick had, respectively from social-democratic and Schumpeterian viewpoints, condemned what they described as an inflexible, short-termist, hierarchical Fordist model of production. One, they said, that did not invest nearly enough in research and development, tended to take skills of the shop-floor, and de-motivated the workforce. They ventilated most enthusiastically on the Japanese model of capitalism which had not yet experienced the kind of recessions and crises of profitability that the US and most Western European states. By creating 'vertical solidarity' in the workplace, privileging long-term market-share over short-term growth, and allowing a stable investment climate, Japan was said to have avoided the crises of the West. Much was ado about the 'yellow peril' when Nemesis arrived in the form of Japanese car and IT firms in the US. Such ideas were put cruelly to the test and found wanting when Japan's profit rates fell, financial crisis ensued, and the extraordinary 1980s splurge on capital began to yield negative returns.

A different fish of the same kettle, William Keegan wrote The Spectre of Capitalism as if the answer was to be found in social-democratic Europe and Rhineland capitalism. Some years later, as unemployment climbed and the Franco-German axis stagnated, this looked less convincing. Will Hutton wrote just as talk of a 'goldilocks economy' in the US hinted at the recrudescence and entrenchment of neoliberal orthodoxy. A 'new paradigm' was said to be emerging, one in which new technologies provided the means to improve productivity without allowing inflation to soar. Hutton, to his credit, was not bowled over, but still preferred the Rhineland and South Asian models of capitalism. His thesis triangulated three co-ordinates: constitutional reform, economic reconstruction and social renewal. In the first category, he proposed denuding the City of London of some of its powers, de-centralising the British state and reducing the powers of the Executive. These were intended, among other things, to free capitalism from the priorities of the City of London, whose origins were in mercantilism, feudalism and Empire. By reducing the obsession with short-term profits and keeping a high pound, one could produce a more balanced economy in which manufacturing could compete overseas and in which long-term investment was encouraged. The rest needn't detain us, although it bears remarking that his conception of the 40:30:30 society underpins much 'new Labour' talk about 'social exclusion' and 'insecurity' for the allegedly growing middle class.

The argument has its lineages in the more radical criticisms of Perry Anderson who, in The Origins of the Present Crisis (1964) argued that Britain was a backward state in which the ancien regime had yet to be completely disposed of. If, as he argued in Figures of Descent, the British pattern had universalised to some extent, he still maintained that Britain was unique. The theses were as follows: Britain had the first, but most mediated and least pure bourgeois revolution of any major European country; England had the first industrial revolution, and created a proletariat before the emergence of mature socialist theory, and the polarisation of industrial bourgeoisie and aristocracy was attenuated by the fear of this class, particularly in the wake of the French revolution and the Napoleonic wars; Britain had, by the end of the 19th Century, siezed the largest Empire in history, qualitatively distinct from other European powers, "which saturated and 'set' British society in a mould that it has retained to this day, with the consequence that most major figures of the British Left were vocal imperialists; among European nations, England alone emerged from the two world wars, unoccupied and without major exogenous shock or discontinuity to its social structure.

The consequence of all this was that Britain's culture, hegemonic ideology and leadership was unusually 'upper class', or aristocratic. The 'supine bourgeoisie' had formed a historic alliance with the aristocracy, particularly when the City pressed for the Restoration in the face of political anarchy. That legacy had produced the most profound conservatism, as the ideological rationale of the aristocracy was never fundamentally interfered with by a revolution with genuine egalitarian potencies. Similarly, parliament is a site of dominance for the old elite in which Conservative governance is 'natural', producing a continuous landscape of political power, whereas a Labour parliament becomes a "spotlit enclave, surrounded on almost every side by hostile territory". To properly expropriate the aristocracy of this hegemony was to fatally wound the bourgeoisie at the same time.

Gregory Elliot, largely accepting what has come to be known as the Nairn-Anderson thesis, wrote in a similar but more dyspeptic vein that to create even the preconditions for socialism, it was necessary to transform Britain into a more egalitarian Continental capitalist state (Labourism and the English Genius, 1993). He proposed a progressive coalition aimed at fundamentally reforming the British state, integrating it into a new European supranational entity with some power to tame, as Marx might have said, the powers of the nether world whom the bourgeoisie has called up by its spells. He supported Maastricht, particularly the Social Chapter, and the campaign by Charter 88 for electoral and constitutional reform.

Charter 88, consciously modelled in 1988 after Charter 77, embraced a then fashionable notion that Britain was somehow an unusually retrogressive or tyrannical state. ( Wikipedia has more here ). Many dinners were hosted and attended by well-known left-wingers (Harold Pinter, Billy Bragg etc), and the stage was set for the revival of Whiggery on the British political landscape. Blair's contumelious takeover of the Labour Party would have been that bit more difficult without that enabling ideology, which represented both a misconceived notion of the bourgeoisie and the state, and also a political retreat in the face of a successful New Right.

As I said from the outset, I think this whole conception is fundamentally in error. It misdiagnoses the failures of both socialism and capitalism, misconstrues the role of the monarchy, the City of London and the Executive, and mistakes the history of the bourgoisie. In The Pristine Culture of Capitalism, (1991), EM Wood provides a compelling analysis and critique of the Nairn-Anderson thesis which also equips us with some sound reasons for rejecting the more intellectually light-weight versions which persist today.

The facts of Britain's origins as a capitalist state are not in doubt: the priority of the English bourgeois revolution has fundamentally defined its subsequent trajectory and left it ill-equipped to undertake the restructuring of capital that would have enabled it to weather international competition more successfully. "But these facts are susceptible to more than one interpretation", says the voice of understatement. In particular, Wood argues, Britain is not less capitalist for its feudal trappings. And the bourgeoisie is not the uniquely privileged agent of capitalist development - it is a by now banal fact of history that it was the aristocracy that created the conditions for capitalism through its land enclosures, which forced the peasantry to rent its labour, and which in itself was aimed at cultivating cattle to produce wool for sale overseas. Many of those aspects of British capitalist society which Anderson would see as enfeebling capitalism, and resulting from its relative immaturity compared to European states, Wood suggests actually result from its relative advancement. And while Nairn correctly notes that the monarchy sits at the apex of an ideological structure in which pre-capitalist principles are perpetuated, thereby obfuscating genuine class-relations and mystically embodying the will of all, Wood notes that this has not in itself retarded the militancy of the British working class which, it is often forgotten, has historically outbid its Continental rivals in terms of combativity. The ideal-type of a 'pure' bourgeois revolution, in which the bourgeoisie assumes power and activates a period of capitalist expansion has nowhere obtained without significant mediation. British exceptionalism is therefore a penurious confection, incapable of explaining or solving either the crisis of British capitalism or the failure to date of the classical conception of socialism.

Europe is littered with ex-colonial powers, monarchies, and strange feudal-style contraptions fastened to the parliamentary chambers, so Britain is not unique in any of these respects. Those that have proportional representation do not necessarily reflect the will of the people any better than does the British system. Republics like the US do not seem to be less hierarchical or more democratic. For instance, the President's war-making powers have been more or less unofficially sequestered from Congress with little protest. The enduring power of the City of London may be worth taming or abolishing in itself, but it is not the cause of Britain's economic problems - the decline in manufacturing has much more to do with the determined onslaught of Thatcherism and the subsequent 'post-Fordist' consensus than with the undue influence of the City of London. There is nothing particularly progressive, as Dan Atkinson & Larry Elliot point out in The Age of Insecurity (1999), in a European Union in which the prerogatives of a brutal neoliberalism form the current vulgate. In fact, while most of the demands of groups like Charter 88 are valid, none of them resonate beyond their own diminishing borders.

There are moves afoot to challenge, in parliament, the royal prerogative which Blair, the Queen regnant of all our hearts, used to go to war. There is a campaign, being pushed by the Independent newspaper, for some form of proportional-representation. The current political landscape seems defined for many by stagnation, and an apparent imperviousness to registering the demands of electors. It is a mistake, however, to imagine that any but incidental or incremental differences would result from the abolition of the royal prerogative or any form of PR. The nation would still have gone to war if Blair had been obliged to get a vote, and a red-yellow coalition that would undoubtedly result from PR would be unlikely to be substantially more progressive or reflective of popular will. It is to the substance of political power, and in particular class power, that our critique and actions must cut. Through mobilising popular and working class radicalism for efforts inside and outside parliament, on the streets and in the trade unions, we stand a better chance not only of achieving the kinds of reforms that the Left should welcome, but also of developing the political capacity to terminate the system whose awesome global dominion, not immaturity or backwardness, is the compelling problem of our time.

Mixing blood. posted by lenin

The uprising in Uzbekistan is one revolution that won't be branded. The State Department has no word for the protesters, about 500 of whom were murdered by the government led by Islam Karimov. This is the very same regime ex-diplomat Craig Murray accused of boiling dissidents to death and torturing thousands of people each year - the regime is much more cruel and vicious than the former Soviet one. Mr Murray also told Newsnight last night that the regime's courts have a 99% conviction rate (ours is 3%), so those sprung from prison had a very low chance of being tried fairly. It is alleged that the protesters began the violence, but the BBC was reporting on Thursday that the protests, which had been going on for months, represented Uzbekistan's "most orderly protest" in some time. Karimov claims that the troops had to fire into the crowd of demonstrators to put down an uprising, after they had tried to 'negotiate' a peaceful settlement. Troops don't negotiate - they say "get the fuck out of here before we kill your asses", or they simply kill your ass.

Naturally, the American news is taking a remarkably even-handed approach in all of this. "Troops and protesters killed in Uzbekistan clash" says the New York Times. CNN International is even better: "U.S. values Uzbekistan but urges rights reform" : "The United States has had good relations with the government of Uzbekistan in recent years but at the same time is bluntly critical of the country's political system and the human rights situation there." Rewind two years and replace the word Uzbekistan with 'Iraq' - wouldn't that have been a remarkable sentence?

Anyway, if you want to know more about those "good relations", here's some pictures from the invaluable Billmon :





My God! You can see the bluntness etched into their faces, can't you?

"Al Qaeda number three" is number two. posted by lenin

And this is taking the number one. Yes, The Guardian has discovered that a captured AQ member may be in a position to reveal details about any attacks being readied against Britain or Europe:

A top al-Qaida suspect arrested in Pakistan could have vital information about possible terrorist attacks on Britain, intelligence sources believe.
British security and intelligence officials are seeking information from Abu Faraj al-Libbi, believed to be number three in the al-Qaida leadership, to find out what he knows about any operations planned against Britain or British interests abroad.

Mr Libbi had no direct contact with al-Qaida sympathisers in the UK, officials say. But, as the controller of a number of overseas networks, he would be in a position to know what attacks, if any, were being prepared against Britain and other western targets.

Which is presumably why he is being held in Pakistan first - the 'ticking clock' scenario so beloved of torture enthusiasts lurks under the surface of this story, if you ask me. And Musharraf's security forces are unlikely to be softies.

However, the problem with the story is that al-Libbi is not "number three in the al-Qaida leadership". He isn't even in the top ten .

It is an unfortunate habit, the passive voice: with little evidence, you can say that someone "is believed" to be this and that. Much worse, of course, is when the BBC reports that "the Prime Minister passionately believes", or "the Home Office believes" when it would be glaringly apparent to anyone outside the myopic media village that what is purported to be believed and what is actually believed often do not coincide.

"A bolus of wankers" posted by lenin

Alan Clarke's famous description of his fellow Tory cabinet members about sums up my feeling for this government - except that it doesn't go nearly far enough. Let me try and evoke it for you.

Imagine you are a young Russian woman, drawn to a location in Western Europe by what appears to be a job offer. When you arrive, you are kidnapped, taken to a private room, beaten by several men, then gang-raped. Not once, but repeatedly. Then, broken, you are pimped out by the same men on London's streets. You escape, or are rescued - only to discover that :

"The UK is apparently one of only two countries unwilling to sign the measure, which includes requirements to provide a 'reflection period' of 30 days ... for victims to recover, figure out their next move and decide whether to help authorities prosecute, as well as a temporary but renewable residence permit."

The reason? The Home Office is concerned that women may decide to fake it, an interesting concern in itself. They seriously contend that "women ... 'may falsify stories of sex trafficking as a way of seeking asylum', or that they 'may actually use sex trafficking as a method of gaining entry'."

The misogyny would be obvious except to a hard core of club-clutching troglodytes, which presumably tells you a great deal about who runs the country. This is in roughly the same vein as the various asylum scare stories that emerged a few years ago, with one Sun story reporting that Roma women were offering sex to men in Kent for potatoes. People believed that shit, by the way, which is also telling. What did they imagine - that some pimp was taking the spuds off them and handing back a couple of chips each time, with the plaintive words: "I gots expenses, inni?"?

But if one expects an infantile pot-pourri of racism and prurient misogyny from the Sun, the British government could at least be expected to shield its inhumanity from general view. The fact that they did not in this case is, as I say, suggestive.

Red, orange, yellow alert. posted by lenin

Yes, you can have any colour you like as long as it is red, orange or yellow.



What is the meaning of this? Seriously, what are you supposed to do with this information? How many Americans are urgently consulting this chart every day to actually find out what manner of hell is winging its way to their homes? Does anyone actually know what colour it is today? Orange? Red? For sure, it will never descend to blue or green. The sole purpose of this 'advisory' appears to be to maintain people in a state of perpetual fear, and also rage at their impotence. The terrorists are coming, but can you do shit about it? Maintain that sort of atmosphere, and any country you want to bomb is fair game. Cathartically, all of the dread and fury that has been building up will explode into patriotic support for the latest killing spree.

Noticeably, the alert level has gone up every time the President has been in some kind of trouble. Thanks to Direland , we now know why:

"More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it," Ridge told reporters. "Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on (alert). ... There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?' "

"The level is raised if a majority on the President's Homeland Security Advisory Council favors it and President Bush concurs. Among those on the council with Ridge were Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI chief Robert Mueller, CIA director George Tenet, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell. Ridge and Ashcroft publicly clashed over how to communicate threat information to the public. But Ridge has never before discussed internal dissention over the threat level."

The alert goes up or down on the say so of the President and his apointed council of advisors.

Don't mistake me, I am not just accusing them of lying about the level of terrorist threat. I'm saying that even the truth would be a lie, because this chart is meaningless. It conveys no information other than how scared the government thinks you ought to be at this particular juncture, therefore allowing the government to calibrate the national mood with more precision than is usual.

Wonder what colour it will be when Galloway visits the good Senators next week?

Galloway claims. posted by lenin

One of the joys to be had in watching the media furore over Galloway's election and these 'new' allegations about him has been the way newsreaders and journalists have been obliged to repeat the words "Respect MP George Galloway". God, how those vocables must stick in the throat. Which will be why The Guardian prefers to call him the "independent MP, George Galloway".

Anyway, Sonic (yes, he is named after that bloody blue hedgehog from the old Sega games) has some interesting morning reading for you, particularly this excellent article by Roy Greenslade , a man whose involvement in framing Scargill gives him a perfect purview from which to view this case. Also, it appears that these claims merely rehash the old libel claims .

The hearing that is to take place now that the report has actually been compiled by a Senate Committee under Senator Norm 'Dentistry' Coleman will in all likelihood be a joy to watch. I can't see those Senators with their rictus grins, vitamin-D deficiency and taut rectums being able to handle Galloway. He'll bite their bloody heads off.

Now, to even better news: "The modern Conservative Party is an old man wanking into a sock" .

Books and mags, booze and fags. posted by lenin

Alright, aside from my usual repertoire of subscriptions and regular reads, I've just signed up for a subscription to Red Pepper , which I had previously rejected for some curious reason. I strongly recommend you do too, since upon reading it again I've found it invaluable. They'll take electron payments over the internet now, which is something you povo fucks who had your proper card taken off you by the bank (like I did) will find useful. Naturally, I get Socialist Review , and International Socialism . The New Left Review is either genius or codswallop, depending on which article you're reading, so I buy it selectively. Historical Materialism is a remarkable, under-read publication. From Zizek's perambulations about the risk society to polemics about Brenner, it is a vast repository of knowledge and conceptual clarity. It is by turns enthralling, infuriating, difficult, stunning and entertaining. Seriously, I'm not kidding. Alright, I'm a wierdo...

I hoke around the second hand book shops, the bargain basement outfits and especially the Waterstones near Russell Square all the time. Why just today, I purchased Ian Kershaw's study of popular opinion under the Third Reich, Christopher Hitchens' book 'Love, Poverty & War' (the section on war is remarkably short, presumably a publishers' concession to the fact that his writing about war has not been very good, and all stuff pre-9/11 heavily edited to omit the searing antiwar invective), Tariq Ali's 'Empire and Resistance' and 'Street Fighting Years', Daniel Guerin's 'Fascism and Big Business', John Gray's 'Heresies'... Now, here's the thing. Tomorrow, I'll probably find a way to squeeze in a few more, and tell myself that I'll actually read the bastards, which will only happen incidentally.

The occasion for the Kershaw book is that I got in a bit of an argument with someone who was demonstratively expostulating about 'evil majorities, democracy is repulsive, an enemy of liberalism' etc. Among the many arguments he cited, some of them very sophisticated, he remarked that the Nazi regime in the late 1930s was very popular. It occurred to me that at any rate if the majority had ruled in 1933, Hitler would not have become Chancellor. But this argument is actually not as marginal as it may appear. There is a growing consensus among 'human rights' types that the main threats to freedom today are 'democratic dictators' whose destructive policies are mandated by electoral majorities (or pluralities). This represents a profoundly conservative turn among NGOs and their representatives, many of whom have argued that democracy must be susbtantially curtailed in the interests of promotion liberty. In particular, when it comes to Bosnia or Kosovo, they prefer the Republic of Human Rights to the Democracy of Risk.

Now, Michael Mann has a book out about 'The Dark Side of Democracy' in which he expatiates on precisely these themes. But it is hardly an original insight in itself to suggest that there is nothing sacred about a majority, and that majorities can be quite evil. John Stuart Mill, heavily influenced by Tocqueville's writings on democracy in America, based a large part of his On Liberty precisely on the idea that democracy, having supplanted the abritrary and brutal rule of a minority, might deliver the arbitrary and brutal rule of the majority. As a Member of Parliament, he proposed all sorts of checks on democracy, including giving those who were educated double the voting power of ordinary electors. As a utilitarian (albeit a more sophisticated one than his predecessors), he submitted every recommendation to the Utility Machine - does it produce the greatest happiness, and does it cause harm (defined here as repressing in any way a person's 'internal preferences' as opposed to their 'external preferences', the terms coming from Ronald Dworkin), etc. Mill famously believed that we should make experiments of our lives, since it was unlikely that human society in its present condition represented the nec plus ultra of our species' development. In order to be able to do this, we needed to be free from all kinds of arbitrary power, including majoritarian tyranny. Consequently, he developed the 'liberty principle' in which no one may be threatened or punished by another person or party, unless they are protecting themselves from harm (in the sense defined above).

Now, my foil was advocating Mill while saying he'd be quite happy to live under a benign dictatorship. Provided, he thought, everyone was able to live freely and conduct their own lives without undue interference, what need have they of politics? (I should have pointed out that his view wasn't a million miles from that of Thomas Carlyle, who believed that the most wise of men had never been represented in a majority in his life-time, never mind anyone else's). Everyone running the country? Nightmare! Pressed for time, I opted for a cheap joke about how it was at least less objectionable than the government presently running the United States. Works every time.

However, the argument hadn't moved me. Even supposing a society could be constructed along the lines advocated by Mill, in which people are merely regulated rather than self-governing, in which a governing class provide the conditions for freedom (Mill was a Fabian before his time), who is to prevent the agents doing the governing from violating the liberty principle or the utility principle, accruing unusual and ungainly amounts of wealth and power, and becoming more oppressive than the majority he is so terrified of? There seems to me no more guarantee of freedom in a republic than in a democracy. It is a sociologically banal fact that basic liberties have been most under threat when the majority has not ruled in some way.

There is, in fact, no guarantee of any freedom or 'right', however construed. There is only struggle, which is largely occluded. And at any rate, invoking the many crimes of the 20th Century to justify such a posture involves a specious reductionism, in which the history and trajectory of such movements as have threatened freedoms is simply not assessed. So, therefore, one starts from Hitler and the alleged popularity of his regime in the late 1930s, rather than in the crucial years of 1929-33. No majority returned the Nazis to power, and their vote was declining after the 1932 elections. And the argument has no sociological content - we might ask how these 'democratic dictators' emerge, under what conditions, and to what extent there is any real democracy at work. I'm afraid my foil was an apostle of 'totalitarianism', convinced that the only reasonable discussion about modern polities is how they avoid Stalinism and Nazism, which are superficially compared with respect to their techniques of governance and which are teleologically assumed to have been necessary correlates of their tainted ideological source (Hegelian organicism or some such thing).

At any rate, I did his knee-caps in and had a few drinks.

Reasons to be cheerful. posted by lenin

Beyond the great Respect results, there's a bunch of other stuff happening across the world that should inspire and hearten the Left. Here are a few examples.

The Portuguese Left Bloc is doing very well, having got eight representatives elected to parliament. Meanwhile, Rifondazione Comunista, fresh from its own spectacular electoral performance in tandem with the United Left in Italy, has sent a congratulatory message to Respect. Meanwhile in Germany, Die Wahlalternative , "old Labour with a dash of Respect" according to The Guardian, looks set to perform strongly in its first election outing. This is in the context of a massive fight against Schroeder's attempts to cut back on welfare and make labour more 'flexible': "reviving leftwing ideological resistance is also a factor in Germany's shifting political calculus. Oskar Lafontaine, a former finance minister who broke with Mr Schröder in 1999, declared last week that the SPD had lost the people's confidence. 'We need different politics. It's about standing on the side of the weak,' Red Oskar, as he is known, told a rally." In fact, some might say that a movement is sweeping through Europe .

The Venezuelan government, gaining support across Latin America , has plans to introduce worker-management of industry , and workers in Alcasa have already begun organising themselves, electing their shop directors and so on. Chavez is using the country's oil revenues to finance rural workers' cooperatives and fund house-building to replace shanty towns. Still, Chavez is not making the investors happy - he wants to tax foreign oil as he claims they owe $2bn in back taxes. ( More ).

The apparent recrudescence in armed Islamism in Egypt is likely to prove short-lived, as mass protests push armed groups to the margins . The recent Cairo Conference saw the Nasserist democracy activists, the revolutionary Left and the more moderate Islamists unite in a bid to overthrow the Mubarak regime. The last time these three groups united was during Suez. ( More ).

Finally, the neo-imperialists at Harry's Place are calling for Syria to be bombed because of allegations that its government is allowing terrorists to enter Iraq. But America has been terrorising Cuba for decades, with the CIA sending in its agents to bomb airliners and hotels. Can Fidel bomb the Whitehouse, please?

More good news: China Mieville has won the Arthur C Clarke award again. Also, Johann Hari shockingly draws some fairly accurate conclusions from the recent elections. Respect, Johann. May dreams of Galloway, the fearless left-winger who - as you rightly note - represents the majority, escort you to the land of Nod...

Links & notes. posted by lenin

Via Alphonse , a nice article on Venezuela and the presumptuousness of even its left-wing defenders in America.

If you ask me, Chavez is one of the smartest leaders to emerge from the Left in some time. He has handled the situation he is in impeccably, warding off violent threats, a coup attempt, a viciously hostile media - all the while making small, but substantial reforms in aid of the rural poor and the workers. And while there are grounds for criticising Chavez, (his dealings with Castro are misguided), there is no excuse for Beautiful Soul puritanism. Come to think of it, if I was a socialist leader (in a real and not titular sense), and Castro had saved me from a coup attempt while offering free doctors and so on, I don't know that I would turn it down. That said, Fidel Castro is reported to have said at a press meeting between the two: "You know I could harm my reputation by associating with you."

Meanwhile, K-Punk has an interesting post on how the Tories might revive themselves. Like Tim Yeo today and John Gray a couple of years ago, he argues that a) the Tories would have to successfully re-hegemonise the centre-ground rather than just "the aged and the ageing privet hedge nazis of the shires" and b) this would involve successfully inventing a genuinely post-Thatcherite solution, rather than warming up and consolidating the monstrous achievements of Thatcherism itself, as the Blair regime has done. I profoundly disagree with K-Punk's assessment of Labour's downfall in the 1980s (punk radicalism clotted with media cliche about the big bad unions, dammit), but the article is onto something.

Meanwhile, I would have thought that the obvious way to synthesise the centre-right with the privet hedge Nazis would be to emphasise crime and domestic security. Crime is a beautiful issue for the right because although it is a valid issue for many people in itself, it is also a code-word for racists - ie: "I don't like going into that area, you might get mugged". "The people there are funny, they're really threatening, know what I mean?" It is also suffused with a certain middle-class resentment at the working class, and it taps into the fantasies of the budding Tony Martins out there: an Englishman's home being his castle and all that. And, of course, there is the culture of cruely , the specific enjoyment people take in seeing tough punishments meted out to the weak and innocent: hence, ASBOs for the suicidal and mentally ill. (Meaders was first to note the Tory-Lib Dem realignment).

Finally, also via Alphonse, Jean Bertrand Aristide on Democracy Now . The question of US power in Haiti was sedulously avoided in the film The Agronomist, an otherwise remarkable account of a Haitian underground radio station. That's no surprise, since precisely that question is avoided by practically every other media form or outlet now that it has manifested itself to depose Aristide, install a government of sweat-shop merchants and former death squad leaders, and oversee the brutal suppression of dissent.

Also: see the excellent blog detrimental postulation for some pre- and post-graduate political ruminations.

Claims/evidence. posted by lenin

Those familiar with the techniques of smear will know that the end has been reached when claims made against a person or party become mutually corroborative: that is, the prosecution becomes its own evidence. No smoke without fire, we wouldn't be trying this guy if there wasn't something in it, are you now or have you ever been...?

Dead Men Left has a fine piece detailing just such an instance, in which claims made by a Ben Virgo, 34, about suffering abuse from youths in Bethnal Green & Bow (who we are allowed to believe are probably Muslims, since they accuse Mr Virgo of racism) are invidiously linked to Respect's victory there. Whether the incident happened at all, or as relayed in the anecdote, it is a slender confection to link this to Respect's victory. Dead Men Left wonders if this was the same Ben Virgo, 34, who was found to be among a "rent-a-mob" group of Labour supporters who have been found stuck behind the Prime Minister and Gordon Brown in press shoots at a poster launch and had been involved in previous launches.

Similarly, an article in the Jerusalem Post (a sort of Washington Post for the Likudnics of the Republican right), cites 'worries' on the part of the Conservative Party, 'claims' by Oona King ex-MP, and maledictions from Labour sources as well as the former head of the Israel Society at the London School of Economics. Similarly, a certain philosopher-blogger cited Galloway's "unpleasant" victory speech in Bethnal Green & Bow, and his confrontation with Jeremy Paxman as evidence for the prosecution, as if the alleged unpleasantness was not itself a frame supplied by the election night commentariat, and as if the BBC had not arranged Paxo's absurd 'interview' to convoke an "unpleasant" exchange.

As others - Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein - have learned to their cost, once the stream of accusations, slanders, smears and hyperbole has exceeded a certain point, it acquires a regenerative aspect, capable of perpetual and effortless repetition. It becomes impervious to disproof or doubt, as one rebutted claim is replaced by another, and yet another until, with typical circularity, the original claim is returned to as proof of the rest. The appearance of solidity is thus given to pure gusts of air, and rhetoric that is as cold, empty and windy as its purveyors acquires the mould and fashion of substance.

(Update: Dead Men Left has more...)

Shut the fuck up. posted by lenin

Reputedly, when Lenin was asked by journalists about reports of a massacre at Kronstadt, he replied: "Who wants to know? The gentlemen who have just killed 14 million people in Europe?" The quality of his mercy, alas, was never strained. Yes, there are probably a thousand and one ways to repeat the mote/plank homily, and this post is one of them.

Shortly after the elections, for which I stayed up all night, got drunk and did live blogging (because I got nothing better to do), I started to receive hits from this tiresome wheedle at Normblog. I wondered: am I supposed to take this seriously? Apparently, I am, since no attenuation or retraction has yet appeared. The author of The Contract of Mutual Indifference, and moralist par excellence, is comparing yours truly with Andrey Vyshinsky, one of the key promulgators of Stalin's Terror. The reason? I wrote this:

For a while, I shall be rubbing the faces of Nick Cohen, Johann Hari, David "I give them a year" Aaronovitch and Harry's Place in the shit. Smell it, you fuckers, and feel this hate.

In retrospect I would not have written that, but certainly not for moral reasons: it is just poorly written and the last line is obviously derivative of the late Bill Hicks. I could understand the Vyshinsky reference if I had said, even in jest, that "the best way for Norman Geras to spread his philosophy would be for him to blow his brains out". But I didn't, and wouldn't. Not even as a joke.

Yet, there is something to the claim that one's public language is a matter of no small importance. For instance, what am I to make of someone who writes five separate posts about the mutilation of four US soldiers in Fallujah, but could not manage one about the subsequent siege which, we now know, killed thousands? What does this reveal about someone who is so serious about his use of language, who measures his posts so carefully, and yet can find nothing of any particular moral seriousness to say about the slaughter of innocents in this case? Perhaps that he is not just a moralist any longer (which would be bad enough in itself), but an apologist. If I were a moralist myself, I might note that anyone of progressive outlook who's heard George Bush speak more than a few times without drawing the necessary moral and political conclusion isn't very perceptive.

I myself don't claim to measure my tone or my output with Norm's obsessive-compulsive care, which is not to say I shirk responsibility for it, but which is to say that I wouldn't go round evincing morose sanctimony about anyone else's tone or language, and nor would I find the time to write silly missives complaining about a humorous article in which it is suggested that the world might be better off if President Bush met the same fate as Kennedy.

On an entirely unrelated matter, I found this hilarious bit of comedy from Denis Leary. I nearly pissed myself as Leary, not in this instance ripping off Bill Hicks (don't get me started), made light of child abuse and drug addiction. But then, that is because I am not a flat, humourless oaf.

PM stress. posted by lenin

The Prime Minister should quit - present and former Labour MPs agree, the sensible Labour-acquitting liberals agree, and probably most of the voters agree. Even Nick Cohen, following a slightly bizarre rant against the bizarre WRP and Vanessa Redgrave's Peace and Progress party, argues that it is time for Gordon Brown to take over. The liberal British Bulldog, Davey Boy Aaronovitch, is snapping at Blair's heels. The Mirror's Paul Routledge, undistinguished in other respects (except that he resembles an extra from Midsomer Murders), has returned to his labours for the permanently deferred Brown leadership bid. The Mirror itself, having returned to its impeccable Blairite proclivities after the departure of Piers Morgan, is calling for Blair to go, calling him Labour's "greatest vote-loser".

Yet, as Andrew Rawnsley perceptively points out amid the usual apologetics, it is unlikely to happen. Gordon Brown has had several chances to take Blair down, and he has not launched one attack. In fact, where he might have taken the opportunity to obfuscate his support for the war, and therefore distance himself from the most immediately unpopular episode of the Prime Minister's tenure, he has resolutely stated that he is for it. He has been as bellicose, in his scowling fuck-off manner, as Blair has. Opportunity, forever knocking, never finds Mr Brown at home. What accounts for this Hamlet-like procrastination? Simply put, Brown would have to mobilise his supporters in the trade unions, in the Parliamentary Labour Party, and in the constituency parties, in order to succeed. That is, he would be mobilising people who by and large are well to the left of Brown himself, are opposed to the New Labour project, and naively think that Brown represents an alternative to that. In doing so, he would substantially rejuvenate the soft left critics in the party, and also land himself in Number 10 precisely at the moment when the Labour majority is so reduced that he could be "hostage" to the "hard Left" - that is to say, there might be enough Labour backbenchers with principle to prevent the introduction of ID cards, or the benefit 'reforms' that have been delegated to Blunkett.

If Brown won't take the initiative himself, perhaps the strong Lib Dem showing in Labour core seats, the locally strong Green results and the extraordinary first outing for Respect, will put iron in the souls of the Labour back-benchers. They may cause Blair enough difficulty to force him to stand down. On the other hand, perhaps it is presumptuous to imagine that the bulk of them have souls to strengthen. But Blair may do himself in, through inertia and a simple unwillingness to recognise the reasons why Labour's "historic" third term is so enfeebled.

As Jamie at Blood & Treasure points out , Blair's response to the election results displays his classic tendency to think and act like a Tory. The Prime Minister says he has "listened and learned" - but he appears to have been listening to Norman Tebbit. He says he will now crack down on immigration, enforce discipline and respect in schools and on the streets. And, says Jamie, "Blunkett's back. But not Robin Cook". Despite the fact that the national 'swing' to the Tories was 0.5%, despite the fact that Labour's vote eroded largely to the left (or, in the Lib Dems case, what is seen as the left), Blair seems to be pining for those who defected to the BNP, UKIP and Veritas, what with their 'gut British instincts' and all.

If more 'sincerity' and triangulation is all Blair has to offer, an instinct for self-preservation may at last kick in for some Labour MPs and members. Clive Efford, John Austin and Jon Trickett - all of them soft left Labour MPs - have been calling for the Prime Minister to stand down. They had better start calling, at conference, in the House of Commons, at the TUC and in the media, for a totally different political orientation. I know at least one party ready to unseat a few more Blairite nose-tanners if they don't.

Election highlights. posted by lenin

The buzz will not die down for a while. Galloway's victory, and the strong results in East london, Birmingham, Slough and elsewhere will give a massive shot in the arm to the Left in this country. There is absolutely no doubt about that. If we have Respect tables out across the country asking people to join this weekend, people will join. The votes are unprecedented for a small party standing on its first election. Added to that is the apparent success for our member Matt Wrack in the election for general-secretary of the Fire Brigades Union. If the firefighters' strike had taken place with Matt at the helm, there would have been no stopping and starting at the whim of the Labour Party. Gilchrist, a member of the Labour Party, was all too susceptible to bullying and cajoling. And we now have a stronger basis on which to appeal for union funds and support; on which to work in and with the unions over issues to do with pay, job safety and employment rights.

Another achievement has been to totally marginalise the extremists like al Muhajiroun, who argue that Muslims should not unite with white people. The necessary anti-fascist campaign that must start in West Yorkshire and Barking with immediate effect will be the stronger for the kind of unity that has been built here.

The Liberal Democrats' success, disguised by strong votes in very safe Labour seats, but exemplified by some astonishing captures from the labour heartland, should be encouraging in one way. But in no sense can they be relied upon to be in practise any more left-wing than New Labour. This is one further reason why Respect needs to grow as an organisation and stand more candidates. It must consolidate itself in the councils, in the unions and on the streets. The groups within Respect are quite happy to become smaller fish in a much larger pond, and that is what will happen. Building in this way, Respect can bring rank and file socialist politics back to the mainstream, after having been relegated for so long to a benchmark from which sensible politicians should compete to distance themselves.

The fine showings for Craig Murray and Reg Keys are very encouraging, as was the remarkable, savage sock to New Labour's jaw from the independent socialist candidate in Blaneau Gwent. Even the Greens did quite well, taking some relatively strong votes - although their sectarian attitude to working with others also saw them humiliated in some constituencies, and their decision to stand against Galloway and Rose Gentle did nothing for them. And the Tory revival was much less pronounced than anyone expected. So far from a swing to the Tories, the Conservative vote rose by a miserly 0.5% - the bulk of the gains came in marginal constituencies where Howard ruthlessly targetted the resources of his party machine. Even then, they did not always succeed - the decent left-winger Bob Marshall-Andrews did in the end keep his seat in Meadway. As the psephologist Tony King pointed out, this was not a swing to the right - rather, the Labour vote crumbled and escaped in various directions.

Finally, some of the best moments have been those inviting schadenfreude - the impotent, stunned groping for explanations by the pro-war liberals; the fact that every one of Oliver Kamm's predictions for the election has been a total failure (the confidence with which he delivers ignorant bullshit is breathtaking, the sure sign of a con artist); the merciless slapping that Paxman received from Galloway on national television; the fact that Blair has had to grovel so deliciously; the agonised expression on Oona King's face; the fact that Howard has had to resign so suddenly, and so sullenly; the fact that Kilroy has been so thoroughly humbled, and that UKIP has spent a fortune without winning a single seat; the realisation that the war really does matter to workers and not just the middle class (and what a nasty shock for Peter Hain MP to discover that). Oh, there are so many delicious moments. This is one to savour. Put it like this: In 1997, I was up for Portillo; this time, I was up for King. That's how big this is.

Join us .

Galloway Victory. posted by lenin

Victory.

GALLOWAY WINS!! A brilliant series of Respect results, including 21% for Abdul Mian and 20% for Lindsey German has been capped by a Galloway win in Bethnal Green and Bow. The slanders, the ballot fraud, the lies - none of it worked. Respect has an MP, and some unprecedented results for a new party. It has arrived. The Greens can lick their lips with envy, while Veritas, UKIP and the BNP can cordially fuck off. On top of all this, a brilliant result for Craig Murray and a fantastic one for Reg Keys. Then add the drama at Blaneau Gwent, where the Independent socialist candidate beat the Blairite with a 40% swing. And I must admit, I am not in the least unhappy that Labour have lost core seats to the Lib Dems on massive swings.

Anyway. For a while, I shall be rubbing the faces of Nick Cohen, Johann Hari, David "I give them a year" Aaronovitch and Harry's Place in the shit. Smell it, you fuckers, and feel this hate.

More election day news. posted by lenin

You'll be wanting clues, then, some material to help with your psephological divinations - anything, in fact, to distract from the ceaseless drivel from the perfumed commentariat on the Beeb and ITV. The fat Northern comic on Channel Five isn't going to help much.

I'll tell you what I know. I got to one of the polling stations off Cable Street at 10am, and was greeted by a couple of people giving out leaflets for Respect. There were a pair of Labour tellers, one on either entrance. One of them was a mad old geezer who kept accusing us of 'intimidating' voters - apparently, pointing leaflets at people is some form of intimidation. It struck me immediately as a sign of desparation, and the turn of events did not disappoint in that regard. Most people who turned up to vote were friendly to Respect, taking leaflets and giving the odd knowing wink. Many, many people cheered us on, and I can't say that the Labour tellers (despite surreptitiously advising people on who to vote from well within the illegal fifteen metres of the gate) got anything like that enthusiasm.

Okay, Chris Mullin has just taken Sunderland South on a reduced majority. The BNP vote was worrying at just over a thousand, and I fear it will prove to be one of their lower votes of the evening. Bigger swing to Lib Dems & Tories than anything else, though.

With my rosette on, I took off for lunch after a few hours of shaking hands, grinning and mouthing a few obsequies. I took a stroll about town, walking through Shadwell and so on. Quite randomly, people would shout 'Respect' at me - which under other circumstances would have me running for the station. Five kids standing outside a shop accosted me, took the piss a bit, then asked for a leaflet. They asked me if Galloway hadn't, in fact, supported the war on Afghanistan. I was temporarily befuddled - "er, well, I dunno, I don't think -", "well, you should know, you're in his party!" Good point, I thought. "Don't be silly," I said. "You're assuming that because Galloway was a member of the Labour party which prosecuted the war that he actually supported it." Shrugs. They were repeating some disinformation from an Islamist group, of course. One of them mentioned that he would vote Liberal if he were old enough. "The Liberals!" I expostulated. "The first thing they would do is flood the streets with more police. 10,000 extra coppers, their leaflets say! You don't need that shit." Vigorous nodding. A bit more discussion about the threat of the BNP - to which, an interesting response: "If they come round here, we will kill them." Good, I thought. Self-defense is no offense.

Got back to the polling station, and the turnout was still bumbling along in its slow way, if much quieter than before. The Liberal Democrats had sent a lone leafleter down - but he neither had the energy for it, nor could he match the rapport Respect people had with locals. I heard feedback from Stepney and elsewhere that the turnout had been much higher at other parts of the constituency, and that Respect was doing solidly. I also heard that it was very very close overall.

Look, having campaigned for the Socialist Alliance, I have experienced enough disappointment to cool it when I have to. So I'm cooling it. Lower expectations. Realistically, it's up in the air. There are so many variables, it is hard to tell what will happen. In a close vote, the recent spate of apparent fraud could potentially have an impact. Similarly, how motivated are people to come out and vote for us? Did a lot of people stay at home? At my station, it looked like they did, although elsewhere it was busier.

So, I'm cooling it. George Galloway's going to walk all over that Blairite - no, no!! Cool, analytical, calm. That fucking warmongering idiot is going to be counting her votes on one hand - no, no, no!! Keep it in check. A lot can happen.

Meanwhile, the exit polls suggest that the Liberal Democrats are not doing as well as they might have hoped, while the Tories are doing better than they had any right to expect. It's been a long time since exit polls in this country were anything other than indicative - that is, indicative of the fact that there's a pack of lying bastards in this country. However, they generally lie in the other direction, with Tory voters pretending to vote Labour, because they know they're arseholes.

Keeping my eye out for Reg Keys, Rose Gentle, Craig Murray and, of course, the loveable scruff Brian Haw who is standing in my own constituency on a Peace candidacy. His van was plugging insensibly round the estates here earlier, with rainbow flags a-fluttering, tannoy booming and peace signs aloft. Later.

Election day. posted by lenin

In my constituency area, given its curious make-up, it will make little difference who I vote for, so I'm voting Green. I'm meeting you half-way, you fucking hippies.

Spent yesterday canvassing and leafleting in Bethnal Green & Bow constituency, particularly on the southern end of Wapping. It is a curious area, in that shit poverty nestles uncomfortably with idle wealth. Some glorious gated houses (either upgraded Peabody buildings or warehouses much of them) were separated from extremely dilapidated and neglected tower blocks, the aesthetics of which seem to have been drawn from a prison, by no more than 200 yards. Frankly, I'm surprised that property crime is not more ubiquitous. Glittering Audis and Mercs just sit there, unmolested. Remarkable. Anyway, the canvassing went well, and suggests that Respect can win if our vote is sufficiently motivated - unfortunately, canvassing during the day means you miss people who are out at work. Then there's the possibility that fraudulence at the polls that has gone undetected could make the difference. Suffice to say I believe we could just do it. I'm still very nervous, however.

The Financial Times' Matthew Engel reported yesterday that there is "something in the air" around the East End, and Bethnal Green & Bow in particular. Aside from showing his age with the Thunderclap Newman reference, he got it spot on. I've campaigned before, and I have never seen an atmosphere quite like it. Trying to speak to people about the election was sometimes a bit difficult until you mentioned Respect - then it was, "ah, Respect party!" Banners, leaflets, posters and stickers, especially around Whitechapel, Shoreditch and Bethnal Green are ubiquitous. Oona King is barely seen, except in a restaurant owned by Mr Salique on Hanbury Street, where a large glowing picture of Oona sits on the wall. Mr Salique, a well-known local property owner, was featured in yesterday's Guardian article about election fraud, with allegations of 12 'ghost voters' found registered at his place. Some smart-arses were flyposting A4 typed sheets about Galloway's marital difficulties (who, I wonder, would do that?), while some religious group had plastered photocopies of a Respect leaflet supporting gay rights - as if anyone gives the slightest fuck in either case.

The Lib Dems sent out a couple of wealthy-looking ladies in a flash car to campaign in some of the places we were canvassing, and cleverly enough they sent people who knew some of the residents. I know this because having knocked on one door, and just uttered the words "Hi, I'm canvassing for Respect, can you - ?" I saw that a Lib Dem canvasser was in there, laughing and giggling with the resident. God damn those yellow Tories. Not that they were any match for the red 'n' green brigade. The Liberal Democrat candidate is an inept, bumbling fool who apparently shouts out words at random when speechifying, while their leaflets are packed with pseudo-populist bullshit about cracking down on "yob culture" by supplying an extra ten thousand policemen - an odd gesture, really, because that sounds like ten thousand extra yobs to me. The only apparent reason for their candidate choice is that he is a Bangladeshi. In fact, as near as I can tell, the only candidate who doesn't have some ethnic-religious minority status is George Galloway MP - and they accuse us of communalism!

At any rate, it looks very close. Some areas are still solidly Labour, in spite of all. Some areas are now solidly Respect, a remarkable achievement in itself. Much rests on how motivated the two sets of voters are. We've done our campaigning, leafleted everywhere, canvassed, rallied, marched and held street stalls. There is little else to do except try and get the vote out and cross our fingers. If Galloway can win this, if Respect can get close seconds and thirds in other constituencies, the national organisation will expand. Respect will have arrived. More than that, the Left will be fundamentally altered - antiwar and anti-racist campaigns will have a stronger hand, and unions will have a growing, coherent, radical voice within them. No longer will general-secretaries be able to say "Vote Labour, or else..." If not, well - there's always the 2006 council elections. It's exciting, and terrifying.

Electoral fraud in East End. posted by lenin

Dead Men Left had the story first, and now The Guardian has picked up on it:

Special branch officers are investigating allegations of electoral fraud in the London constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow after it emerged that dozens of "ghost voters" had been sent polling cards.

Detectives will focus on a number of addresses in run-down homes on Brick Lane, where dozens of electors are registered. The Guardian has uncovered evidence suggesting that these flats are either unoccupied, are business addresses or have long been inhabited by different people.

Naturally, Oona King is "sure" there's nothing to it; and naturally is pretending that she will keep the seat or Respect may win enough to "let the Tory in" - except that the Tories aren't in this race at all, and never have been and won't be tomorrow either. What a twit. Apparently, it's been going on in Birmingham as well.

Vote smart. posted by lenin

Never mind Cohen & Aaronovitch, the ugly sisters of British opinion journalism. Never mind that silly bat Polly Toynbee and her increasingly shrill pleas to vote Labour for the workers, for the mothers, for the kids (just not the Iraqi kids). Pay attention to what the smartest guy in the world says :

I urge everyone to vote in the election tomorrow only for MPs who voted against the war in Iraq.
Prof Stephen Hawking
Cambridge University

I think that's probably heavily edited down. I'm sure he provided some graphs, explored some mysteries of cosmogyny and cosmology, provided scholastic appendices and so on - but you get the message. What's the problem with these geniuses, anyway? They're always trouble-makers. Einstein was a socialist, Oscar Wilde was a socialist, Stephen Fry is a big fat leftie...

The Ghost of Labour's Past. posted by lenin

It is tempting to speculate that the blazing public hatred for all things Left evinced by many former socialists is a reaction-formation. One imagines behind the public zeal and rhetorical prestidigitation sad lumpen figures, wistfully thumbing their banned copies of Marx & Lenin and jacking off to the latest alluring edition of Socialist Worker. Ask not for whom the blood boils, comrades; if Melanie Phillips is any guide, it boils for you.

Yet, there is a sense in which those who have sold out (for example, Alistair Darling, once a bearded Trotskyist, is now an unappetising Blairite - a neat move from the animals to the vegetables) can claim to stand effectively where they have always stood. At least, those who moved from Labour Left to Labour Right have made no momentous shift, compared to those who have moved from Labour Left to "left Labour". And that is why when George Galloway announced that Respect was to be "the ghost of Labour's past", I shuddered. Surely he had come to praise us, not bury us? Yet he cannily followed it up with the qualification, "or the ghost of what its supporters wanted it to be". Is the spectre of Labourism haunting Oona King, then? I don't believe so, and fervently hope not, since an examination of Labour's past actually undermines the novelty of this Whig administration.

Teetotals and Benthamites.

Labourism is an atypical fixture of European social-democracy. Born in the lean years of defeats for the working class, it thrived only after the locust years of 1914-18. The New Unionism of the 1880s and 1890s notwithstanding, the bulk of the working class was still not unionised when the Labour Representation Committee was formed in 1900 from a coalition of the Fabian Society, the Social Democratic Federation, the Trade Unions Congress and the Independent Labour party. An employers' offensive, prompted in part by the Great Depression, was battering the working class (culminating in the Taft-Vale judgement of 1901), and the formation of the LRC was effectively a defensive move against this, given the unlikelihood of the hegemonic Liberals doing anything to defend the interests of workers. The bet was that it would be more possible to pressure a Liberal government into ventriloquising workers' interests if the working class had independent representation, with its own whips and policies. The intention was not, as with continental socialism, to radically alter the structure of capitalism either by reform or revolution, but to seek some melioration for the needs of workers within the existing constitutional arrangements.

After the Liberals won in 1906 on a 'radical' ticket, the LRC was re-constituted as the Labour Party. Just as it had been ally to and parasitical on liberal progressivism, the Labour Party's initial success in gaining MPs was part of the Liberal revival. Insofar as there was any commitment to socialism, it was either the 'state socialism' of the Fabians (which included, as well as patrician oversight of the workers and industry, the British guardianship of non-adult races) or the 'ethical' socialism of Kier Hardie, Ramsay McDonald and Philip Snowden. (McDonald, of the three, produced the most copious theoretical work in defense of his socialism). Religious-style language about 'the new Jerusalem' abounded. Structurally, a party of the trade unions (with unusual voting bloc procedures which still persist, thus providing the illusion that the working class was in some sense genuinely represented), ideologically there was no commitment to the working class that was not integrated into an appeal to nationhood. Privileging class struggle at best made a virtue of the necessary sectional fights for improvement within the system, or sorely misrecognised the commonality of British interests. McDonald was persuaded that between capital and labour were the general interests of the "community" (a totemic imprecation that has become a cynosure of British Labourism, old and new). The SDF, a sectarian outfit under the leadership of the former Tory Henry Hyndman, had already departed the LRC in 1903 - and was not mourned in passing. And, at any rate, the SDF did not approve of industrial struggle, holding that such activity was a diversion from the inevitable.

Only in 1918, with the approval of section four (subsequently, 'Clause 4') at the party's February conference, was socialism an explicitly formulated goal - although the formulations are in fact rather nebulous, and attenuated by the get-out clause in section three ("as far as may be practicable"). Ralph Miliband notes the Fabian tone ("secure for the workers") of what he says was effectively a Labourist prospectus for the higher regulation of capital rather than a commitment to democratic socialism (although the latter vocables would soon be conflated with welfare capitalism).

While Labour accepted the constitional arrangements of the British state (a striking fact in itself, given the undemocratic nature of the Crown-in-Parliament, the obsessive secrecy of the civil service bureacracy, the class-conscious obstruction of the Lords and so on), it did seek reforms, and was rewarded with a growing electoral base - beating the Liberals in 1924, with almost four times the number of seats. Yet, obsequious during the General Strike of 1926, the Labour Party practically gagged on the ruling class teat once in office. The undistinguished minority government, formed in 1929 with 288 seats, was doomed by the acquiescence with already-existing structures of power. Parliament, Philip Snowden told the Labour Party conference, should not intervene in the financial matters of the City, since "Parliament is not a competent body to deal with such highly delicate and intricate matters". Wall Street crashed, Labour remained enchained to the fiscal austerity and economic orthodoxy of its opponents, and unemployment doubled to 2.7 million during its brief time in office, before the formation of a National Government with Tories, Liberals and the remains of Labour united under the leadership of Ramsay McDonald under the invitation of the King. Labour had quelled a mutiny in India, placed unemployment policy in the hands of the Lord Privy Seal and Snowden had announced that public spending would be cut - the bulk of the cuts were to be found in unemployment insurance, further immiserating Labour's constituency. While the National Government terminated the Labour administration in 1931, the remainder of the Labour Party first radicalised, then swung right. McDonald's apostasy had guaranteed an impregnable Tory monolith, and it ruled until 1945.

Springtime for Attlee

If the reformist road to socialism, however construed, proved unavailing in the pre-war years, there is a great deal of mythopoeic writing about what persisted in the post-war years. The National Government had, during the war years, used Keynesian techniques of demand-management to stimulate the economy and keep the nation afloat. At the same time, the experience of fighting a war which was popularly conceived of and fought as one against fascism radicalised much of the working class. Clement Attlee, himself an uncharismatic and rather drab right-wing monarchist, benefitted from these two legacies of war. His government was elected with a 145 seat majority, and proceeded to implement a number of highly substantial reforms: the National Health Service, in which dentistry and prescriptions were initially free; the nationalisation of key sectors of industry (opposed by the executive in 1944, a young Ian Mikardo proposed a motion to commit Labour to extensive nationalisation, which was passed by congress); new council house-building; and the dramatic expansion of the welfare state.

Yet, it is precisely on this point that the post-war social democrats deluded themselves. Having rejected an unavailing reformist road to socialism, they now believed they had reformed capitalism substantially enough that the interests of workers and capitalists coincided. Through these reforms, they believed they had tied the Conservatives into an unwilling consensus which could not be broken, and had therefore provided the frame in which to pursue more limited reforms (Crosland). Even when the Tories won a majority in 1951, they were pledged to maintain the status quo. Butskellism was, for Labour's leadership, not a sign of their own accomodation to capitalism, but to the solidity of their own accomplishments. Yet, the reforms thus far achieved were, if too radical for the Tories, nowhere near as radical as they had promised to be - for instance, the commitment to the extensive nationalisation of industry was settled at 20%, mainly including industries that were of dubious pre-potency. The government therefore restored profitability to substantial sections of industry, and ran them as state bureacracies rather than as democratic socialist enterprises. Much of what was carried out by Labour would have been pressed upon any Conservative administration (and, of course, was). And such reforms as were acheived were coterminous with financial orthodoxy, a willingness to use troops to break strikes, and wage freezes. The continuation of war-time rationing squeezed living standards, while exports were increased. Foreign policy was no less continuous with past administrations. Labour's Ernest Bevin promised on election day that the new government's foreign policy would not be different from the previous one. Labour had, in 1944, supported the policy of crushing the Greek partisans and supporting monarchist forces. Similarly, it would go on in government to send troops to assist the French restoration in Vietnam, support Nato (despite noisy opposition from the Left), and develop nuclear weapons.

This was the zenith of reformism, even if it didn't represent the apex of reformist aspirations. It was argued that the new 'mixed economy' was in some senses a post-capitalist one, one that provided workers with growing income and employers with generous profit rates. But it was precisely the unusual health of the economy that demanded explanation more than it explained. As Larry Elliot & Dan Atkinson point out (in The Age of Insecurity), whatever else may be said of the post-war Labour governments, they were not Keynesians. Inasmuch as counter-cyclical measures were implemented, they usually involved 'taking the economy off the boil', suppressing demand rather than reflating the economy in a down-swing. If the postwar settlement relied upon the dynamic expansion of industry, the failure of that condition would surely infirm that consensus and with it the entire complacent edifice of post-war social democracy.

Of course, it was precisely that condition which did begin to absent itself toward the late 1960s - and it caught the Labour government, then with a solid majority, totally unprepared. Harold Wilson, whatever else he was not, was a keen accountant of his own legacy while still alive. His own government, first elected in 1964, was vigorously opposed by Lord Cromer, the governor of the Bank of England, in its policies of maintaining 'full employment', demanding a wage freeze and higher unemployment. The failure to implement these proposals led to a wave of selling sterling that ate away at reserves. Wilson found himself in an argument with Cromer, in which he describes Cromer confirming that, in fact, international speculators were sending a message that the policies on which Labour had been elected could not be implemented. They wanted an increase in unemployment to slow wage demands, and an incomes policy complementary to that aim. A $3 billion loan was obtained from central bankers, but it was not enough to staunch the attacks on the currency. Therefore, and behind the backs of cabinet, the government made a deal with the Johnson administration. In return for a bail-out of the currency, Labour would deflate the economy, impose a statutory incomes policy, back the war in Vietnam, and maintain a military presence East of Suez. This bought some time, and Labour won the 1966 election with 48.1% of the popular vote. Their first act was to take the fight to striking seafarers who were demanding a modest pay-rise. Although it would lift many workers out of poverty, the government said that it would "breach the dykes of the incomes policy". In July of that year, Harold Wilson announced a complete reversal of economic policy: there would be a mandatory wage freeze - the first total wage freeze since 1931 - as well as public spending cuts, in order to deflate the economy. The IMF were brought in to manage this process, and it was they who argued for the introduction of prescription charges among other things. Dick Crossman asked the Chancellor Jim Callaghan at the time if he might increase family allowances for the poor: "Sorry, old boy, the IMF won't allow it". Unto which: "So we're back under the control of the bankers".

The post-war consensus crumbles

'Democratic socialism' entailed neither much democracy nor a great deal of socialism, although it did involve a surfeit of parliamentarism, which is exactly what crippled Labour in government time after time. As the economy unwound, a new monster emerged from the Keynesian national welfare-state: stagflation. Rising unemployment, slowing growth and higher inflation ran confluently into the Seventies, particularly after the 1973 OPEC crisis, which re-introduced the world to that old forgotten stranger known as 'recession'. Social democrats, and Keynesian economists, were baffled. Having failed to restore profitability and stem the crisis through restrictions on trade union bargaining power (In Place of Strife), Labour's leadership must have gained profound satisfaction from watching Ted Heath's Conservative government founder on the same rocks. The attempt to rein in the workers through the Industrial Relations Act only exacerbated the growing militancy of British workers, and two massively effective miners' strikes broke first the Tory policy and then the Tory government.

How did Labour, restored to government in 1974 on its most radical postwar manifesto, handle the crisis of social democracy? Largely, by ditching it. Proposals for higher public spending, a workers' share in the control of industry, taxing the rich 'til their pips squeaked - all were dropped in favour of a Social Contract which coopted the union leadership into a national incomes policy which would not allow wages to increase by more than 5% a year, when inflation was running at 20% a year. Public spending, under an agreement with the IMF, was slashed. Benn's proposals for democratising industry were killed off by the civil service and the Labour leadership. A clamorous New Right, with its monetarist dispensations, found an unexpected champion in chancellor Denis Healey. Meanwhile, sectional and disorganised militancy erupted among workers against what was described as "the social con trick", and Barbara Castle sent the army in to break a firefighters' strike. (Even this total capitulation was not satisfactory for some parts of the Establishment. The MI5 launched a disinformation operation called Clockwork Orange, whose details were revealed in Spycatcher, and several high-ranking intelligence officials set up private right-wing paramilitary organisations to sieze power if the 'Communists' in the government brought down democracy).

Social reformism to neo-liberalism

The failures of the Wilson-Callaghan government, as well as the brutality of the incoming Thatcher government, contributed to a brief ideological revival of left-wing ideas in the Labour Party, exemplified by the near victory of Tony Benn over Denis Healey in the 1981 election for the Deputy Leadership. Michael Foot was the most left-wing leader of the Labour Party for some time, although he joined in the general flag-waving during the Falklands War. But the weakness of this revival could also be detected in the defection of the 'gang of four', whose Social Democratic Party succeeded in splitting the left vote at the 1983 election. The very fact that they could succeed in splitting the vote was indicative of a general degeneration and fragmentation of the Left. At the same time, Southern Europe had witnessed a revival of radical reformism that did result in governments styling themselves as socialist - yet, they (Pasok in Greece, Socialist in Spain, PS in France) all in various orders of alacrity threw aside their radical manifesto commitments and embarked on programmes that differed from Thatcher's only in the inordinate belligerence of their execution. Their ideological self-effacement was prompted in most cases by capital flight, or fear of the same. The parties of the Second International, refounded as the Socialist International after the war, had generally proceeded from a strategic reformism to a reformism of principle, to an acceptance of welfarist capitalism, and were now in practise implementing the agenda of the hard right. Even the Labour left compromised itself through its proceduralism, its commitment to party structures and internal bureacracy - what Gregory Elliott acidly called "the resolutionary Left".

No matter, for in short order the Labour left was reeling under a witch-hunt led by the belliferous Neil Kinnock, whose crusade was facilitated by the defeat of the Miners' Strike. Benn had deluded himself that the 1983 election had represented an unprecedented vote for a clear socialist programme, but in fighting a pitch battle against the Trotkskyists and radicals in his party, Kinnock proved that the Left was on the retreat. For Kinnock was not simply demolishing the little Temples of Bronstein within the party; he was deliberately discarding every policy that could possibly be associated with socialism - unilateral nuclear disarmament, full employment, a planned economy, withdrawal from Nato, renationalisation of public utilities and so on. Thatcher had destroyed the industrial base with fanatical cruelty, with an impugnity largely supplied by the obsequiousness and weakness of the opposition. She had introduced laws that seriously weakened the bargaining power of labour. She had decimated a great deal of Labour's voting base, encouraging whether by accident or design a growing atomism and social break-down. Kinnock soon proposed that none of this would be altered by an incoming Labour government. Already in 1986, a joint Labour-TUC document expounded a mildly meliorist agenda which incorporated many of the Tories' changes to labour legislation. In the 1987 election, they campaigned on a modest programme of Keynesianism and job-creation, and pledged to renationalise British Gas and BT. But by 1988, after only a small revival in electoral fortunes, a new document entitled Democratic Socialist Aims and Values, signalled a new depth of surrender to the neo-liberal orthodoxy. In particular, full employment was re-defined as "satisfactory modern employment"; equality was replaced by equality of opportunity ("genuinely fair competition"); any invocation of the interests of labour or the working class was replaced with those of the "community"; regulation and public ownership was discarded in favour of "market allocation" in which it is agreed that "the competitive system" (the one that dare not speak its name) is enjoined to pursue the interests of choice, freedom and equality - as if markets could be infused with the prerogatives of social democracy.

The shambles of the poll tax campaign, in which Labour councils prosecuted non-payers en masse exemplified the obsessive parliamentarism of the party, at the expense even of its voting base. A 20% lead in the polls was frittered away on fudging around the poll tax and support for the Gulf War, as Kinnock attempted to represent Thatcherism-with-a-human-face and was outbid in that necrophilic auction by John Major.

The Blair "Revolution"

The speed and facility with which Blair, effectively an SDP viper in the breast of the Labour Party, and his allies took over the party machinery, gutted its constitution and banished even a nominal commitment to socialism (the famous 'marketisation' of Clause 4) astonished the grassroots and even traditional Labourists. Out-manouevred on every front, what was left of the Left could only resign itself to the miserable hope that Blair's warmed up liberalism would provide government - one that, if it did not advance the cause of socialism, would at least attenuate some of the worst Tory policies. They could not predict that even those policy nostrums that 'New' Labour allowed to define itself in opposition would be ditched once in government, but they similarly put up little resistance either in conference or in the PLP or even in the unions to the appropriation of even the most ridiculous Tory policies. Cuts in benefits for single mothers and the disabled, the imposition of immediate cuts in public spending, the private finance initiatives, the old familiar tincture of moral imperialism and the elevation of the consumer and community above the interests of labour marked a return to very old Labour territory, as well as a full-circle return to the cynosures of liberalism. The 'ethical' pieties of reformists past was reborn in a peculiar moral fervour embedded in the Christian Socialist tradition to which Blair belongs. Communitarian moralism was abetted by the staccato stock of Blairite conjugations ("rights and responsibilities", "firm but fair", "fairness not favours" etc).

If Labourism has never led an offensive against the power of capital, it now - like the Oedipal child - seeks to deny its own vulgar parentage, and disown as far as possible the movement which gave birth to it. A tributary of liberalism, it never properly belonged even with the renegades of the Second International. In an era in which the very power of national governments of reformist pedigree to deliver reforms is under question, Labour gainsays the question. Reforms that are desirable are barely aimed for, while the word 'reform' has been captured for a neoliberal discourse that seeks to introduce the 'efficiency' of the private sector to even those treasured and sentimentalised achievements of Labourism past.

The one thing that Labour has been entirely consistent about is its pettifogging parliamentarism, its proceduralism, its gradualism and its timidity before capital and the Establishment. The only boldness it has ever shown has been in disciplining its own 'extremists', shocking its own supporters and punishing its natural constituency. It is therefore no good for socialists, whatever concessions to contemporary political realities they may be obliged to make, to try to reformulate the Labour Party, to create an upgraded and more robust version of the same. Respect is both more and less than the Labour Party: more radical than it is ever again likely to be; less structurally embedded in trade unionism; more than an offshoot of liberalism; less than a hegemonic party of the Left. It is not at its final stage - there are many directions that Respect can take. But in its emphasis on grassroots politics, on the working class and on the streets, it eschews mere electoralism. This gives it as good a chance of any of avoiding the calamity of Labour's past.

Language fatigue. posted by lenin

Comedy abounded in the desperate scramble to expound a credible thesis of a threat from Iraq to the UK in the run up to the war. Who remembers the release of this IISS report ? Obviously suffused with the joys of John Prescott, the Prime Minister's spokesman told the world - now, pay close attention here:

"This is clearly a very serious piece of work. It has been produced without any access to intelligence materials."

This was a man who knew. He went on to warn against "language fatigue", adding:

"We're obviously not talking about washing powder here".

In the event, the discovery of some washing powder would have been splendid vindication compared to what was actually turned up.

Well, I only raise it because - as is so often - the language revival redounded to Downing Street's disadvantage, since a report showing that the "UK sells chemical weapons to the world" was not long off the presses. Don't let that language fatigue fool you, now: this isn't washing powder, although it does help keep the world free for the whiter-than-whites.

Similarly, a few months ago, the world was recoiling from the shock news that the US was preparing to implement "the Salvadoran option" in Iraq. John Negroponte, having directed death squads for the puppet regime in El Salvador from the US Embassy in Honduras, was now sitting in the brand new US Embassy in Iraq with a serious proposal for the formation of death squads to help the puppet regime deal with an insurgency. At the time, US government spokespeople dismissed it as so much waffle, especially railing against the intimations that 'death squads' might be involved.

Then we heard tell of these pop-up militias in Iraq . These were armed groups formed mainly from the Shi'ite south, numbering about 15,000. Many had close connections to senior Iraqi politicians, like Iyad Allawi, while most were being armed, funded and trained by the Pentagon for 'counter-insurgency' operations.

How to justify such a policy - not just to Iraqis, but to those hippies in the 'human rights community' who had already complained about the use of torture and disabling beatings by Iraqi forces? First, invent a hostage drama in which Sunni insurgents have taken hundreds of Shi'ites hostage and threatened to kill them if every other Shi'ite does not leave town. How would that help the resistance? We don't know. Then, suddenly 'discover' the hostages floating dead in the Tigris, apparent victims of some mass atrocity only a few days old (this despite the fact that the bloated corpses discovered had evidently been in the water for weeks). When that is revealed as a pack of lies, rely on the BBC to obfuscate for you. (Remember Jalal Talabani? "We have all the names...").

And now, (via Needlenose ), it turns out that the New York Times magazine has given the game away. Among the many American advisers involved in the direction of death squads in Iraq is a James Steele:

"As part of President Reagan's policy of supporting anti-Communist forces [in El Salvador in the 1980s], hundreds of millions of dollars in United States aid was funneled to the Salvadoran Army, and a team of 55 Special Forces advisers, led for several years by Jim Steele, trained front-line battalions that were accused of significant human rights abuses."

Further:

"...having been a key participant in the Salvador conflict, Steele knows how to organize a counterinsurgency campaign that is led by local forces. He is not the only American in Iraq with such experience: the senior U.S. adviser in the Ministry of Interior, which has operational control over the commandos, is Steve Casteel, a former top official in the Drug Enforcement Administration who spent much of his professional life immersed in the drug wars of Latin America."

It also appears that the General in charge of the particular squad being interviewed by the NYT magazine was behind the lynch mob television spectaculars in Iraq.

Open brutality meets the NYT journo when he visits a 'detention centre' run by the militia:

We walked through the entrance gates of the center and stood, briefly, outside the main hall. Looking through the doors, I saw about 100 detainees squatting on the floor, hands bound behind their backs; most were blindfolded. To my right, outside the doors, a leather-jacketed security official was slapping and kicking a detainee who was sitting on the ground. We went to a room adjacent to the main hall, and as we walked in, a detainee was led out with fresh blood around his nose. The room had enough space for a couple of desks and chairs; one desk had bloodstains running down its side. . . .

A few minutes after the interview started, a man began screaming in the main hall, drowning out the Saudi's voice. ''Allah!'' he shouted. ''Allah! Allah!'' It was not an ecstatic cry; it was chilling, like the screams of a madman, or of someone being driven mad. ''Allah!'' he yelled again and again. The shouts were too loud to ignore. Steele left the room to find out what was happening. When returned, the shouts had ceased. But soon, through the window behind me, I could hear the sounds of someone vomiting, coming from an area where other detainees were being held, at the side of the building.

. . . One afternoon as I was standing near City Hall, I heard a gunshot from within or behind the detention center. In previous days, I saw or heard, on several occasions, accidental shots by commandos -- their weapons discipline was far from perfect -- so I assumed it was another negligent discharge. But within a minute or so, there was another shot from the same place -- inside or behind the detention center.

Needlenose comments:

There are caveats throughout the article that, of course, the U.S. isn't really condoning any of this brutality, much less pursuing it as an intentional policy. And yet, all of the above incidents occurred in the presence of American military officers and a U.S. civilian journalist.

So there you are: death squads, murdered captives, torture, and a farrago of lies issued to justify it. Don't let that language fatigue get you: we're not talking of washing powder here, although one assumes it will wash pristine white.

Ann Clwyd's epistemology posted by lenin

The Vicar of Cynon Valley is in The Guardian today , complaining about an allegation from the Iraqi writer Haifa Zangana:

Haifa Zangana (Comment, April 22) accuses the multinational forces in Iraq of using a "modern form of napalm" against the people of Falluja, "a crime that has been met with silence not just by Tony Blair but also by Ann Clwyd, his human rights envoy". In fact I raised the allegations with Foreign Office minister Elizabeth Symons, who told me in her February reply that "the reports are completely without foundation. Coalition forces have not used napalm - either during operations in Falluja, or at any other time." It's a pity Zangana ignores those Iraqis working with great courage to rebuild the country after the horrors of Saddam.
Ann Clwyd
Prime minister's special envoy on human rights in Iraq

Bless. The job title alone is a blast. Let's follow the argument:

1) (If p, then q) If the government denies something it isn't so.
2) (p) The government denies the use of napalm in Iraq.
3) (q) The government did not use napalm in Iraq.
4) (xyz) Haifa Zangana is a shiraz-quaffing, middle-class, stuck-up, snooty intellectual.

The first three points are a valid form of argument, in the form of modus ponens. If the antecedent of a conditional is true, then the consequent must also be true. So if points one and two are true, then point 3 does indeed follow from them. The argument is valid. Point four is barmy.

However, I would modestly suggest that point one could be technically described as gibberish. Moreover, it is worth checking out what Zangana actually said : "Banned weapons have been used in Iraq too, as the US military has been forced to admit, including the MK-77 incendiary bomb, a modern form of napalm."

MK-77 is indeed a napalm canister , so if it happens to be true that the US admits to using such a device in Iraq, then what Ann Clwyd has said is even more thorough bullshit. Actually, it isn't news. In August 2003, US officials were defending their use.

In fact, according to the State Department , "Mark-77 firebombs, which have a similar effect to napalm, were used against enemy positions in 2003". In fact, the US Department of Defense refers to these as not merely 'napalm-like' but simply as napalm:

"Everything from hand grenades to 2,000-pound bombs and napalm are shipped, ready for use whenever 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing needs them."

US military officials describe it as napalm :

'We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches', said Colonel Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. 'Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers there. It’s no great way to die'. He added, 'The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect.'

There are various stories about the use of napalm in Fallujah in November 2004. Whether these are true or not matters less than the enormous, documented destruction that was inflicted on that city and its trapped inhabitants during the siege. But is a worthy testament to Clwyd's deliberate myopia that she will rest on any shoddy misrepresentation of the facts provided she has the mandate of the government to do so.

The impossibility of socialism in the mind of a gene. posted by lenin

The workplace, traditionally the easiest place to convince a person that she is being exploited and oppressed with crushing regularity, was the site of a spectacular attack on socialism this week. For imagine - someone had got wind of this "selfish gene" business that the sociobiologist Richard Dawkins has been hawking and concluded that this makes socialism impossible. See, the genes make us selfish, and, er... yeah, can't happen, never will, never has. Can you name a time when it has happened? Exactly. Not a surprise, then, that the book was issued for a second edition in 1989...

Where does one begin? Aside from the fact that the argument involved a crude reduction of an already reductionist thesis, it is a remarkably useful shorthand for dismissing the tragic and heroic history of a cause whose failures and successes to date still include the absence of a successful and long-lived post-capitalist society. By invoking 'human nature' in some fashion - particularly in this way, the cited way - one has no cause to bother with the intricacies of history, agency, structure, contingency and so on. It is a strangely teleological view, combining the utopian with the dystopian; socialism is doomed, both an unrealisable dream, and an intolerable nightmare. If you want socialism, you've got the wrong organism - far better to wait for the alien invasion (it is already forgotten that we are the real aliens on this planet, one of the many thoughts evoked by the beautiful Koyaanisqatsi).

Unfortunately, many socialists have reacted to the fall of Stalinism, and the ensuing collapse of the social-democratic tradition, as if indeed socialism was now an impossibility, or at least a possibility that was permanently deferred. Fidelity to the cause has therefore taken the form of principled attachment to the lost object, to the loss of what they never had: in Slavoj Zizek's painful joke, they are Fidel Castros, faithful to their own castration. This symbolic commitment involves the notion that one has only to generate the right formulae from a careful exegesis of Lenin, Trotsky and the rest, and then apply such wisdom to today's problems. Innovation and risk need not apply. Unfortunately, this causes many would-be revolutionaries to sound like talking bloody text-books.

What if, by contrast, we treat socialism as a real, material possibility, a future hibernating in the penumbral recesses of the present? How if, for instance, we think of socialism as not merely providing a stoical stock of answers to the acknowledged failures of capitalism, but actually of being a material force which is adequate to the situation in the right hands? For I say we underestimate the accomplished facts of socialism and overstate the hegemony of capitalism - which is, guarding all proportions, fulfilling every promise of The Communist Manifesto, particularly in battering down all walls, Chinese walls included.

If we don't seek an historical guarantee for the success of socialism, we can nevertheless locate the materials for the construction of it in daily capitalist society. For instance, the principle that society should share the costs of production while enjoying free access to goods at the point of delivery is one already operative in a huge public sector in most capitalist states. The concept of 'relative scarcity' assumes that because human needs are elastic, and infinitely so, there will always be competition for scarce goods and therefore the necessity for a market. Yet we see this point disproven daily. The National Health Service, public education, street lights, garbage collection etc., all involve the sharing of costs and free and non-discriminatory access at the point of need. Some goods that remain on the market are already treated as free goods: salt is a common example. While there is some very minor elasticity in demand, it is bought and used as if it were a free good. That is, because the cost of a commodity falls below, and the income of the consumer rises above, a certain minimum, it is purchased and used according to need, not budgeted. Clothing, shelter, certain basic kinds of food, light, transport - in all of these areas, such a logic could obtain with little difficulty given the socialisation of their production and distribution. It would simply involve creating such an abundance that the price of such goods may as well be zero.

The objection to this usually involves a notion that the suppression of markets in complex, modern economies with a vast and almost incomprehensible network of exchanges, segmentarities, lines of flight and relays will inevitably lead to the construction of vast and ineffective bureacracies. Truly, the NHS and local councils hardly represent the nec plus ultra of efficiency, although they are in fact more efficient than private companies and have many other side-benefits (for example, they can run at a loss, thus maintaing jobs and having a counter-cyclical effect in a capitalist economy). And if one were proposing the erection of Stalinist chains of command in which orders flowed downward and information rarely flowed upward, then the point would have something to it. But while the market could not be demolished tout court and with immediate effect the first day following a revolution, the dynamic movement away from a system which naturally generates inequalities would involve the replacement of market transactions by horizontal rather than vertical networks of control: co-ordination rather than subordination.

The models for achieving this emerged naturally throughout the 20th Century: workers' councils in Europe after the First World War; cordones in Chile during the Allende government; shorahs in Iran before the overthrow of the Shah; and, of course, soviets in Russia, before they were relegated to rubber-stamping mechanisms under Stalin. As goods become more abundant and no longer need to be traded as commodities, their production and distribution can be co-ordinated by elected bodies subject to instant recall. Meanwhile, those goods which remain luxuries or specialities, or those new goods which need to be tested for demand, can still be circulated through the market.

Well, how to even get to a stage where we can implement such ideas? Revolutionaries will have to do better than simply insisting on the need to build a mass revolutionary party which unites the most militant sections of the working class. For that is a supposition that demands explanation more than it explains. Given present realities, how does one get to the stage where it is even possible to build a mass, revolutionary party? Posing abstract answers (like 'build a party that unites revolutionaries on the 90% they agree about, stand in elections and organise in the trade unions'), will yield victories only in the abstract. It is not enough to pose the 'right' slogans; revolutionaries must be adequate to the situation.

In today's Britain, I would suggest that the immediate task is to break Labour's hegemony on the left and working class vote. This involves a strike both at the ideological hold of neoliberalism and the institutional hold of a party that can no longer even promise capitalism with a human face. This can be done because Labour has, through its PFIs, wars and attacks on civil liberties, pissed off two key groups which are likely to be sympathetic to socialist arguments: 1) trade unionists, 2) Muslims. Add to that pensioners, former Labour Party members, students, single mothers, the disabled, immigrants, shiraz-quaffing patio-botherers and so on, and you have a potentially large coalition.

The immediate effect would be to create the conditions for a revival of socialism, trade unionism and so on in the mainstream. It would provide a platform for the ideas of the Left, as well as providing an alternative venue for trade union activity and funding. To this end, I propose the formation of a new alliance, one which unites the antiwar Left with disenfranchised Muslims, socialists, trade unionists and so on. It should contest elections and propose a minimal socialist programme. It should involve itself in demonstrations, serenade the trade unions and court media coverage. Perhaps it should have a funky new name. If we could get a well-known MP involved, that would certainly be a considerable boost.

Anyway, I realise that this will take some effort and maybe many people won't ... what? You mean, it already exists? Well, what is it called? Eh? What kind of a stupid name is that?