AngloNoelNatter

Happy Christmas & a quick announcement!

anglonoel — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 21:22:40 +0000

My lust for the Precious drew me to Mordor and all I got was this lousy hat!

2012 I will get back into blogging. I should be getting a new (and hopefully better) computer in the second half of Jan. The one I have now came into a world before Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, BBC iPlayer etc really existed. The new one that I am getting will have a memory that can cope with the age we are in. In the meantime I will decide what I want to do with my blog. Blogging-wise I lost my way a fair bit in 2011 (and in hindsight it started to go awry in the summer of 2010) but that was largely as I didn’t really know where I was going. I now have some time to recuperate and decide the direction I want to go. I might even find a back on an envelope to scribble a ‘social media strategy’ on!

Anyway, enough from me for the moment. Have a great Festive Saeaon, best wishes for 2012 and see you again soonish!

Blogging since November 2004…

anglonoel — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 21:52:53 +0000

…and I feel like a proper break from it all. I’ve got existential issues to deal with (nothing too heavy though!). I will return. In the meantime, if you can help:

Back From Beyond…

anglonoel — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:22:33 +0000

…well, Vancouver anyway. Lots of good weather, lots of decent things to do. If you are from there, or around there, or visiting, I would suggest you give both The Vancouver International Fringe Festival (happens in September) and The Terminal City Rollergirls (games all year around) your support as much as possible!

I get back to London and it is sweltering. My brain is slowly starting to clank into gear. One thing I have decided since getting back is to give Ken Livingstone my second vote in next year’s London Mayoral contest (after giving my first preference to Green candidate Jenny Jones) simply because he supports a 5% cut in bus and tube fares. The way prices and the cost of living are going up at the moment, anything that makes a dent in inflationary tendencies should be welcomed.

1981: does anyone else remember a flat fare of 2p on all West Midlands bus journeys 30 years back?

Transport for London are saying reducing fare prices will mean less investment in London’s transport network. However, what does ‘investment’ mean in practice? A load of corporations getting taxpayers money hand over fist and a lot of the tube system being closed down at weekends to allow ‘essential engineering work’ for ‘improvements’. In my experience, such ‘improvements’ have to be further ‘improved’ before not too long at further expense. (Incidentally, it always makes me smile whenever I see Thames Water signs in a seriously dug-up London street making a big deal about all the ‘Victorian water mains’ they are having to change. The way most big business-owned ‘public’ utilities work this days, they’ll have to change the pipes a fair while before- to use their monarchical references- Charles III/ William V succeeds the current head of state.)

So Ken it is (unless, of course, it is a Green landslide on the first ballot…) He has many faults, but the thought of 4 more years of London having a Mayor who is straight out The Drones Club from PG Wodehouse’s novels is all too much for me!

After The Millennium Triology…

anglonoel — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 02:09:23 +0000

(…which I started Saturday lunchtime and finished on Tuesday morning! I did sacrifice a bit of my life to do so though!)

I’ve seriously neglected this blog again, and am about to do so again very soon. I’m off to Vancouver in a day or two for a few weeks, then back at work for a few days. So I won’t really back in the blogging fray until late September. I’ve wanted a serious break (mentally) from it all for a while.

This chap has the right idea…

There’s a number of reasons:

(i) information overload;

(ii) a weary seen it all before attitude towards the world (and in my lifetime, apart from nuclear war, revolution in the West and the Earth being attacked by aliens and/or a giant meteorite, I have seen it all);

(iii) increasingly unco-operative and slow computer and internet browsers (the phrases ‘Google Chrome’ and ’Google Chromebook’ increasingly come to mind as solutions) &

(iv) another mediocre summer weatherwise.

So I need a serious break to recharge the proverbial batteries and I can face the world again and get it all sorted out!

Radicalism and Conservatism: Thinking Aloud

anglonoel — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 20:27:57 +0000

Posted this originally on November 1st 2008. If you find the ‘when did you stop beating your wife?’ tone of many political (and other) quizzes annoying, you may find Kevin Carson’s thoughts on the matter of interest!

‘Radicalism’ and ‘Conservatism’ are words that are used in politics to pretty much describe anything. Not as bad as, say, using ‘Socialism’ or ‘Fascism’ as political swear words, but not far off. However, ‘radicals’ can be described as people who want to change things politically, while ‘conservatives’ want to conserve things. I call myself an ‘English Radical’, but not an ‘English radical’, as ‘English Radicalism’ is recognised as a phrase encompassing a number of ideas and historical figures/movements ie the idea of a post-1066 ‘Norman Yoke’; the Levellers; Tom Paine; the Chartists; William Morris; GDH Cole. An ‘English radical’, on the other hand, is just an English person who happens to be ‘radical’.

However, most people would associate political ‘Radicalism’ with ‘the Left’ (don’t get me started…) and/or Socialism, while Conservatism is associated with ‘the Right’ and/or Capitalism. However, is that the right way to look at politics? I am reminded of a John Le Carre quote I posted up a few months back:

‘The mere fact that communism didn’t work doesn’t mean that capitalism does. In many parts of the globe it’s a wrecking, terrible force, displacing people, ruining lifestyles, traditions, ecologies and stable systems with the same ruthlessness as communism.’ (Times Higher Educational Supplement, 20/6/97, p.11.)

If Conservatism = Capitalism, surely it should not be ‘The World Turned Upside Down’ (to use a good phrase from the English Civil Wars) in the same way Communism promised to? Then I think of the Communist Manifesto: the capitalism and capitalists Charlie and Fred describe are hardly ‘forces of conservatism’ (to use a Blairism- Tony not Lionel):

‘The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby 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.’ (David McLellan, ed., Karl Marx: Selected Writings, Oxford University Press, 1988, p.224.)

From a different perspective then, Capitalism (or the corporate, globalising version) can be considered to be dangerously ‘radical’, not ‘conservative’. At the same time, I think a lot of ‘Left/Socialist’ political activity can be seen as ‘conservative’. That is, it is activity that(usually rightly) tries to conserve jobs, health and social services, educational institutions, the environment etc from rapacious corporations and financial institutions.

So I think it is quite respectable to be both a political ‘radical’ and a political ‘conservative’. Better than being a corporate frontperson, that’s for sure! A lot of the current unease about the crisis in the global financial system stems from the wish of individuals to see their savings/job/home protected and/or conserved from the rapaciousness of institutions that wish to turn all that is solid for individuals into air.

Looking through my files I found notes I made probably about ten years back from a book I got from the local library by Trevor Blackwell and Jeremy Seabrook called The Revolt Against Change: Towards a Conserving Radicalism (1993: Vintage). Here’s what I wrote down:

‘…the reason why parties advocating radical change were so unsuccessful was because they were striking against the resistance of people who had changed. who had been compelled to change, too much.’ (p.3)

‘…the only radical politics left to us should be based upon resistance, recuperation and remembering.’ (p.4)

‘To talk about the people’s refusal to change has a curious resonance at the end of a period of two hundred years which have seen nothing but incessant, remorseless change. If there is one thing which is obvious to anybody it is that the last two centuries have been a period of unprecedented change.’(p.11)

‘The conservatism of the people has been stolen by a social and economic system which can never deliver to them the security which is at the heart of their conservative impulse.’
…true radicalism does not consist in tearing up society by its roots…, but on the contrary, returns to those roots in order to nourish their survival and sturdy growth.’ (p.56)

‘…a true conservatism (preserving what is of value) is seen to be in opposition to its false namesake (maintaining industrial society); just as a true radicalism (fundamental change) stands against its counterfeit (endless uprootings by the industrial system).’ (p.64)

‘To be radical now is to resist the ever more invasive intrusions of a world system that can afford to leave nothing alone, but that must open up new pathways to profit deep in the still unexploited fastnesses of the heart, the secret depths of the psyche, even when it goes about its global privatisations…To be radical now is to say we want to be left alone to determine our lives, to say that our needs are more important than the system’s necessities.’

‘The radicals and true conservatives both know that there are things that are beyond price, and that this precious inheritance sustains us all. A conservatism that has thrown in its lot with universal market forces has lost its roots; and a radicalism that accepts the gratuitious tearing up of all that is rooted in human experience could have no idea where it is going.’(pp.95-6).

‘In the existing order, the apparent oppostion of conservatism and radicalism conceals their common subordination. Both tend solely to a conserving of profit; and the means whereby this is attained is through continuous change and upheaval.’ (p.96)

‘It should be a characteristic of the new radicalism that the people should determine their own role and function in bringing about social change and safeguarding human activities.’(p.97)

While typing these extracts out, it did occur to me that while people are often ‘out-radicalised’ politically and culturally (ie ‘I’m more of a socialist/Leninist/Eurosceptic/punk/Muslim than you/thou’)people are rarely ‘out-conserved’. I might try it out at some point:

‘We get our freedoms from Magna Carta.’
‘No, we get them from the Anglo-Saxons, Norman-lover.’

‘It’s traditional to smoke in pubs.’
‘Only in the last four hundred years. By the way, did you know cancer cures smoking?’

‘This is a Christian country.’
‘Tell the Druids that.’

But I digress…

I probably would not have put this post up without this recent one by Chris Dillow:

October 08, 2008: conservatives for revolution

James Delingpole says of Ian Hislop:

I think he’s a bit like Jeremy Paxman — another of those handsomely remunerated, public-school-educated presenters who believes in most of the things a Tory ought to believe in (the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, riding to hounds, warm beer, Brief Encounter, probably).

But I too believe in these things – especially as Britain‘s Most Evil Man doesn‘t.

Indeed, I suspect a reverence for English traditions is more common on the Left than amongst the Conservative Party. Neil Clark’s tastes border on the reactionary; Francis Sedgemore is a Morrisman; you’ll struggle to find a Conservative voter at a meeting of CAMRA or at a Martin Carthy gig. [I did leave a comment to this post to say that CAMRA's public face, Roger Protz, used to be 'Socialist Worker' editor in the early 1970s.] And when Shuggy writes that ‘our culture seems incapable of expressing disapproval of something unless it can be shown that someone’s rights have been violated’ he is expressing a conservative view.

Many leftists, then, have Tory sentiments. And many Conservatives do not; David Cameron’s Desert Island Discs are not those of a conservative.

Which raises the point – that the conservative temperament and the Conservative party are two completely different things – indeed, two opposed things.

One reason for this is that the pursuit of profit – which Conservatives support – destroys the traditions loved by conservatives. As Marx and Engels said:
Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones.

Another reason is that the conservative temperament is sceptical of individuals’ new ideas, and of anyone‘s claim to know better. As Oakeshott put it: ‘it is beyond human experience to suppose that those who rule are endowed with a superior wisdom.’ The conservative prefers the tried and trusted to the new; he prefers to back the field than any particular horse.

But bosses reject all this. Their claim to power – in business or in government – is a claim to an especial expertise. And the Conservative party, at least in my lifetime, has been the party of bosses.

The conservative temperament gave us mutual building societies, with their local roots and long traditions. The Conservative party gave us the demutualized societies, which blew up spectacularly.

The conservative disposition, then, to use Oakeshott’s phrase, is opposed to Conservative politics. Bryan is right: socialism is ‘certainly not in conflict with true conservatism.’

I’d go further. One reason why I have revolutionary sympathies is precisely that I have a conservative disposition.

For one thing, in replacing hierarchy with co-ops is one way (the only way?) to assert the wisdom of crowds and the tacit knowledge embodied by professional and craft traditions over the spurious rationalism of managerialist ideology.
And for another, institutions – in the long-run – shape character. And the conservative temperament sees much to bemoan in the modern character: the saccharine displays of public emotion; the supine expectation of ‘leadership’ from those above us; the inability to stand on one’s own two feet and face the responsibility of one’s own actions; the demise of virtue and rise of priggish rule-following; the pursuit of external rather than internal goods ; and the demand that we ‘respect’ others’ sensibilities regardless of their imbecility.

If such widespread failings of character are to be reversed, we might need radical institutional change.

In this sense, revolution and conservatism are compatible.

The reference to public schools at the start reminds me of the description of old Etonian George Orwell as being conservative in everything except politics. I’ve been struck by the similarities in his personal tastes with those of a proper cultural and political conservative, J.R.R. Tolkien. George:

‘Outside my work the thing I care most about is gardening, especially vegetable gardening. I like English cookery and English beer, French red wines, Spanish white wines, Indian tea, strong tobacco, coal fires, candlelight and comfortable chairs. I dislike big towns, noise, motor cars, the radio, tinned food, central heating and ‘modern’ furniture.’ (Gordon Bowker, George Orwell, Abacus, 2004, p.263).

John:

‘I like gardens, trees and unmechanised farmlands. I smoke a pipe, and like good plain food (unrefrigerated), but detest French cooking…I am fond of mushrooms (out of a field); have a very simple sense of humour…;I go to bed late and get up late (when possible). I do not travel much.’ Humphrey Carpenter, ed., The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien , Harper Collins, 1995, pp.288-9.

(BTW For a few years I have somewhere in my mind a plan to write a ‘compare/contrast’ piece on Orwell and Tolkien, but I have a feeling it might never be started. Apart from their major differences on Catholicism and politics, I think they would have got on, especially with their respective interests in the nature of power and language, as well as their love of English nature. Orwell’s first wife, Eileen O’Shaughnessy, read English at Oxford, and one of her teachers was Tolkien (Bowker, op cit, p.167.)

Now this post has ended up at Tolkien, another set of notes I’ve found this evening are on Meredith Veldman’s 1994 book (Cambridge University Press) Fantasy, the Bomb and the Greening of Britain: Romantic Protest, 1945-1980 which I first came aware of via Patrick Wright’s review in the Guardian on St.George’s Day aka Shakespeare’s Birthday/Death called ‘How the Hobbits saved the world’. I eventually got around to reading it (and making notes) a few years later. The inspiration for Veldman’s book was when she was reading both The Lord of the Rings and E.P. Thompson’s The Making of the English Working Class while working as an academic in Chicago and finding them extremely similar in tone. In her book Veldman traces the roots of romantic revolt in the British Isles against industrialism from the late Eighteenth Century through to the anti-nuclear protests of the post-1945 period. Some of these ‘romantic protests’ have extremely dodgy politics (the Soil Association, worthwhile organisation that it is now, was part-founded by people with pro-Fascist/Nazi ties (Veldman, p.202) but there were also very democratic ones, in both political and economic terms (ie G.D.H. Cole and ‘Guild Socialism’; G.K. Chesterton and ‘Distributism’). I intend to discuss them, and other themes from Veldman’s book, sooner rather than later.

I think I’ve strayed a bit in this post away from discussing radicalism and conservatism. That’s thinking aloud, I guess. I hate writing conclusions, but I would say that I think there is room for democratic ‘radicals’ that don’t hold onto Big Business or Big Government (including those who think quoting Lenin makes Big Government better for ordinary people) and democratic ‘conservatives’ who don’t cheerlead for the Corporations (and aren’t obsessed with Race and/or Religion) to get together, discuss things and work together. Perhaps I haven’t persuaded people so, but I hope that you’ve found this post interesting, one way or another!

Preface to a Free Market Anti-Capitalist Manifesto?

anglonoel — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 19:35:30 +0000

I originally posted this June 30th 2006. It basically puts together a repost from the blog of Nanaimo-based Evolutionary Anarchist Larry Gambone and some quotes and arguments used by David Korten. Nothing very original, unless one is tied to the belief that corporations = free market.

Recently I read Dan Hind’s ‘The Threat to Reason: How the Enlightenment was hijacked and how we can reclaim it’ (2008: Verso). There are a couple of good quotes in it about corporations. One is from the Georgia Supreme Court in 1929 (p.76):

‘freed as such bodies [corporations] are, from the sure bounds to the schemes of individuals- the grave- they are able to add field to field, and power to power, until they become entirely too strong for that society which is made up of those whose plans are limited to a single life.’

Hind also quotes 18th Cebtury British lawyer and politician Lord Thurlow who said if corporations (p.77):

‘they have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned; they therefore do as they like.’

Anyhow, back five years this month…

This from Larry Gambone…Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Withdraw Corporate Life Support

It isn’t necessary to control corporate capitalism with legislation that restricts its harmful aspects. Simply pull the plug on it – abolish corporate law, patents, eliminate all forms of government assistance, no more state as capitalist goon squad, repeal all anti-worker legislation.

What about corporate law? Limited liability shifts the burden of debt away from the officers of a corporation to the corporation itself. If a corporation with limited liability goes belly-up, you can’t grab the CEO’s personal bank account and mansion. Small shareholders might lose everything, and the workers their jobs and pension funds, but not the bosses.

Limited liability creates a situation like a gambling addict with a rich parent who funds the addiction. When the gambler loses, the parent pays, when the gambler wins, he keeps his winnings. Corporate officers have a free hand to speculate with other people’s money. Such speculation can lose, but it can also win big. Such “big wins” inflate the market share and size of a corporation, furthering the process of concentration and centralization. Put another way, without limited liability, corporate officers would be very conservative with other people’s money and high-risk speculation would not exist. Corporations would tend to be a lot smaller and many would not exist at all.

Eliminating the fraud known as the corporation as the “fictitious individual” would have far-reaching effects. Rights and freedoms were meant for INDIVIDUALS, not corporations. In order to give corporations these rights they invented the lie that a corporation is an individual. Thus, attempts to control corporate advertising and Korporate Krap Kulture are met with loud shrieks of censorship, and since the corporation has the rights of an individual, it cannot be touched. With rights reserved only for living, breathing people, changes might occur within corporate media. If a corporation is no longer an individual, and thus no longer has rights, corporate media can no longer directly censor the editorial staff. The real living individuals working for them could then demand THEIR freedom of speech.

Patents are harmful because they allow the patent holder a monopoly. With a monopoly they can gouge customers through artificially high prices or inferior goods. Patents waste a lot of energy as people invent procedures to get around the patent. A royalty system, like that of song-writing, would allow inventors a good return without these harmful effects. Patents made Bill Gates the richest man in the world. Without patents, he would still be rich, but not anywhere near the same extent.

Government assistance to Big Business comes in a host of ways; tax breaks, cheap loans, free land, government paid R and D, corporate-aiding infrastructure. The right-wingers want to cut government expense, well start here. The fact remains, that without the state hog trough, many corporations wouldn’t exist at all.

Stop the state from acting as a goon squad for the corporations. No more injunctions, no more rubbish about ‘illegal’ strikes. Yes, the government can mediate if it wishes, but quit taking sides with the corporations. No more using the police to break up picket lines or bully demonstrators. The police should only intervene if an actual crime is being committed, and then only with the individual doing it. One person smashing a window should not be an excuse for beating and arresting 50 people. The procedure for union recognition is absurd and only helps the bosses. The moment the majority in a shop are signed up, they become the union, period. No dragging it out for months allowing the boss time to bully the employees.

Freed from state restrictions on striking and union recognition, free from state thuggery, the labor movement would begin to seriously challenge the corporations.

Without its state provided life support systems, corporate capitalism would gradually disappear, in the same way the Mom and Pop hamburger joint faded away thanks to MacDonalds. Only this time the evolution would be in the opposite direction. Nature abhors a vacuum, with the state’s vicious pets dying off, small businesses, small farms and local production would return. I suspect many new ventures would be cooperatives. With a high level of local production and local consumption the vagaries of the corporate created world market would lessen and we could evolve into a ‘steady state economy’ rather than the ecological insanity of ‘growth as God.’

Hey Greens, Hey NDP, are ya listening?

A book I had heard a lot about over the past decade but never actually got around to buying/reading until a couple of months back is David C. Korten’s When Corporations Rule the World (1999 [1995 original edition], Earthscan Books, London). What follows is not so much a review (‘It’s good- read it yourself!‘) as taking various facts/quotes/arguments in it which others may find of use/interest. I wouldn’t call the Korten’s work a free market anti-capitalist tract, as Korten in one of many on ‘the Left’ who confuses ‘corporate capitalism’ with ‘the free market’. He calls those who support corporate capitalism ‘corporate libertarians’; clearly no genuine libertarian should be apologising for the corporations! This caveat aside, Korten recognises that the vision of a market economy proposed by Adam Smith and David Ricardo is the antithesis of the racket run by the corporate behemoths who now bestride the globe.

Anyway, here’s some Adam Smithisms Korten cites (page numbers from When Corporations…):

‘It is to prevent this reduction of price and consequently of wages and profit, by restraining that free competition which would most certainly occasion it, that all corporations, and the greater part of corporation laws, have been established.’- Wealth of Nations (p.56.)

Smith believed that trade secrets confer a monopoly advantage and are contrary to the principles of a free market (p.74).

‘Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.’ Wealth of Nations (p.75).

‘By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he [the entrepreneur] intends only his own security, and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand, to promote an endwhich was no part of his intention.’ Wealth of Nations (p.77). Note that the ‘invisible hand’ for Smith only works for the benefit of society at the level of the domestic, national economy. To say such an ‘invisible hand’ works through the vehicle of transnational corporations operating on a global scale is a complete travesty of Smith’s arguments.

‘People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.’ Wealth of Nations (p.222).

It seems clear from Korten’s work that Adam Smith would hardly be a fan of Actual Existing Capitalism. Neither does it appear that David Ricardo would be enthusiastic about it. As Korten shows (p.78), Ricardo writing in 1817 said that three conditions were needed for free trade between two countries to work for the benefit of the people in both:

(1) capital must not be allowed to cross national borders from a high-wage to a low-wage country;
(2) trade between the participating countries must be balanced; &
(3) each country must have full employment.

Are there any examples of these three criteria for free trade existing under Actual Existing Capitalism?

Korten also shows that the rise of the corporation took place during the Nineteenth Century . He identifies the American Civil War as the period when corporations in the USA started to dominate the economy and quotes Abraham Lincoln in evidence (p.58):

‘Corporations have been enthroned….An era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power will endeavour to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people…until wealth is aggregated in a few hands…and the Republic is destroyed.’

Korten identifies the moment when the corporations took their modern form as 1886 (p.59). This was the year that the US Supreme Court ruled in the Santa Clara County V Southern Pacific Railroad case that a private corporation is a natural person under the US Constitution. Consequently a corporation is entitled to protection under the Bill of Rights, including the right to free speech and other constitutional protections extended to individuals.

Over a century later, Korten argues, we are living in a world dominated by the corporations. Furthermore, the corporations will fail, Kortern asserts, due to their similarity to the so-called Marxist regimes failed in Eastern Europe (p.89):

‘Both lead to the concentration of economic power in unaccountable centralised institutions- the state in the case of Marxism, and the transnational corporation in the case of capitalism.
‘Both create economic systems that destroy the living systems of the earth in the name of economic progress.
‘Both produce a disempowering dependence on mega-institutions that erodes the social capital on which the efficient function of markets, government, and society depends.
‘Both take a narrow economistic view of human needs that undermines…the community of life that is essential to maintaining the moral fabric of society.’

To combat the corporations, Korten recognises the need for a new anti-corporate, anti-big government political movement (p.116):

‘The time is ripe for a realignment of political alliances, which is likely to come into full flower only when the true populists [of 'the Right?] realise that their enemy is not only big central government but also the giant corporations that owe no allegiance to place, people, or the human interest.’

Marx damn the SWP

anglonoel — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 18:52:15 +0000

The above is from the scurrilous early 90s Anarchist publication ‘Trotwatch’…

This post is from June 16th 2005. You do not need Nostradamus-like pretensions at predicting the future to know that the SWP’s various cunning plans to make it big in British politics always end in tears. However, I wrote this barely a month after George Galloway won Bethnal Green for Respect, in which the SWP played a major part. The political big time beckoned…

Looking back, it still amazes me how badly the Far Left in Britain has done in the 6 years since I wrote this. I know nothing should surprise me about the Far Left’s ability to screw things up-but still… Just looking at this May’s election results makes me seriously wonder whether there is any serious future for the Far Left in British political life. Ten years back it seemed to stupid here that the Socialist Alliance (before the SWP killed it) was the best hope for a Far Left breakthrough, not least if it modelled itself on the Scottish Socialist Party (a very good dissection of the SSP’s demise can be found here).

Anyhow, back to 2005…

The Socialist Workers Party is a subject I’ve wanted to blog in depth about for a while (for non-British Isles people, the SWP are the British section of the International Socialists, who sell ‘Socialist Worker’- they have lot of overseas sections, but the SWP here is the sun around which its satellites orbit). I could go on forever about how thick the average SWP member is (I once had a semi-conversation with some in Nottingham years ago, who apparently thought the Houses of Parliament were a form of direct democracy!!) but I’ll limit myself to saying something about the SWP’s trajectory over the years. For most of its history the SWP (or as it as known from the 1960s until 1977, the International Socialists) operated outside the Labour Party, but always called for a Labour vote at General Elections (‘Vote Labour But Build A Fighting Socialist Alternative’). As other socialists pointed out, during the 1980s the SWP spent half its time saying how bad a Labour government would be, while spending the rest of the time telling people to vote Labour. This continued until the late 1990s. Tony Blair’s becoming Labour leader and Labour’s adoption of Thatcherite policies was something the SWP (and nearly all the rest of the non-Labour left here) had great problems in coping with. I remember the SWP poster ‘Why Won’t Blair Fight the Tories?’ in the mid-90s. ‘Because he is one!’ seemed the most plausible answer!

At the very end of the 90s the SWP changed tack. There appeared to be a gap in the political market to the Left of Labour. The SWP took over (through sheer numbers- but we are talking the low thousands here) the Socialist Alliance, which was an umbrella body of various left groups outside the Labour Party. I remember going to a couple of meetings, handing over a bit of money and even leafleting for the London Socialist Alliance in early 2000. Ken Livingstone was standing as London Mayor, after leaving the Labour Party, and the Socialist Alliance/SWP were hopeful that they could win a seat on the London Assembly on the back of a Left backlash against New Labour. It didn’t happen. I remember the SWP going on about the need to ‘struggle’, when I think most people don’t want to struggle more than they have to! (‘Socialism will be a right struggle’ is not a great slogan, is it?) Also the answer to any economic problem was to nationalise it, which may help with the railways, but with everything?

Anyway, the SWP/SA announced that the 2000 London campaign had been a great triumph (mind you, every SWP campaign is hailed as a great triumph, and there’ll be another one arriving soon anyway!). The whole project was based on the belief that many traditional Labour voters and party members were chomping at the teeth to join a Socialist alternative to the Labour Party. That was the logic behind the Socialist Alliance campaign at the 2001 General Election. However, the Socialist Alliance only got 5% of the vote in 2 out of around 100 constituencies. The Red Tide it was not.

However, the SWP at this point noticed the ethnic polarisation which was taking place during the spring and summer of 2001 in many northern English urban areas. The BNP was starting to pick up votes (particularly Oldham and Burnley) on a ‘Rights for Whites’ platform, while the SWP, under its Anti-Nazi League front, was able to mobilise many Muslims to go out and confront the BNP (when they turned up). Then we had Sept 11th, which polarised things further. Many Muslims took part in anti-war demos in the Autumn of 2001, and the SWP saw a way of mobilising support (or at least selling copies of ‘Socialist Worker’) to a new audience.

At the end of 2001 the SWP was able to centralise decision making in side the Socialist Alliance. This led to the Socialist Party (the ex-Militant tendency) leaving the SA, and with it virtually all its elected councillors. The SP has many faults, but at least it is able to get itself elected (at local council level) in the sort of working class areas the BNP are found increasingly sniffing around for support. From late 2001 the SA was gradually wound down by the SWP, and there was no SA presence at the large Stop the War demos in 2003. The SWP put the SA out of its misery in early 2005, but by then it was fully engaged in the Respect project, which seems mainly to consist of getting ‘Socialist Worker’ sellers standing outside Mosques telling people to vote for George Galloway (and buy the paper!).

Let’s say if the SWP, George Galloway and the Respect project are the future of socialism in this country, Marx help us!!

Hope you are all working on your tans- or rust…

anglonoel — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 18:07:56 +0000

I have the above to read in the coming weeks! I rarely read fiction except when in a holiday frame of mind, so take this as a sign that there is little guaranteed blogging from me in the near future. That is not until Autumn, when I start getting back into politics big-time.

However, I will get around to posting some greatest hits ie stuff that wrote before I came to WordPress, with some small addendums and/or additions which you may want to peruse.

Startng with Blogger posts tonight of various vintages…

Worker-Dandyist Manifesto

anglonoel — Mon, 30 May 2011 02:31:57 +0000

The Worker-Dandyist Manifesto

‘The Socialist Workers’ Party? What An Absolute Shower!’

The Working Class is paramount. Our Dandyism is subordinate to our class. Dandyism outside of the class is of no interest to us. Dandyism without class-consciousness is of no interest to us.
We are committed to total social change with the ultimate aim of absolute democracy. There is no blueprint for the New Society so we needn’t get into any pigeon-holing or championing of dead Russians just yet. Suffice to say, we are not vanguardists; we are of the seething, but smartly dressed, masses.
Proletarian revolution is not, as enemies of the class insist, about universally lowering living standards to the level we plebs are currently forced to live at. It is about raising our living standards to the highest levels achievable. We refuse to abandon the good things in life to those chinless dolts who have done nothing to assist in their production. We reject the stale crumbs flicked from the rich man’s table. We demand the entire bakery and one day we will take the entire bakery. What’s more; we will take the rich man’s table and ram it up his foetid posterior, one splintered leg at a time.
We define our Dandyism, in essence, as simply making as much of an effort as possible with the limited resources available. An effort in sartorial flair and individuality, an effort in civility, social responsibility and courtesy, and an effort in communal culture, welfare and hedonism. Our definition of Dandyism will most certainly conflict with the pompous elitists’ definition of Dandyism. Of course, we embrace and encourage popinjays, peacocks and coxcombs but we shall dispense with the conceitedness associated with such terms in favour of community and kindness.
The Worker-Dandy opposes sweatshop labour, child labour and forced labour. If you paid £5 for a new skirt then someone, somewhere has been paid, at most, pennies to manufacture it. The Worker-Dandy will never knowingly contribute to such exploitation.There are many ways and means of dressing well. Slavery is not one of them.
The Dandy will seek out what he or she regards as the very best in music, art and film. We will not allow ourselves to be bottle-fed shit by talentless, creatively bankrupt moguls. We are not affected one jot by any artificially created charts, polls or ratings and are equally unmoved by profit-driven advertising. Information is what we require to make choices, or, failing that, a coin.
We regard Worker-Dandyism as just one method of achieving greater happiness, friendship and social cohesion within the class. Dandyism is not for everyone and may be regarded as superficial by many. We agree: outward appearance is intrinsically superficial but, in the case of Worker-Dandyism, is the icing on the cake. Dandyism may also be thought of as silly. True enough, it is. Humans without humour are no fun to be around and fun is, after all, humanity’s raison d’être.
We reject religion and supernaturalism just as a growing child rejects Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy: as nothing but infantile fantasies passed from generation to generation and, in the case of organised religion, with the sole purpose of converting the class to fatalistic defeatism and apathy thus avoiding revolutionary desires. People are born atheists, they are converted to simpletons.
At worst, religion is a force for unmitigated evil directed by a hierarchy of deep-dyed degenerates with no regard for life, human or otherwise.
Worker-Dandyism is rational and therefore vehemently opposed to quackery. Pseudo-science is a leech that feeds on humanity both economically and physically. Reflexology, homeopathy, magnet therapy, etc., are all bunk. Snake-oil salesmen have always exploited the gullibility and desperation of the sick for financial ends and, while people are free to dispose of their earnings as they please, when people are discouraged from seeking proven medical treatment in favour of junk remedies we regard this as tantamount to criminal assault.
We are Anti-Fashion. Fashion, being an arbitrary, capitalist construct, is irrelevant. We do not change our tastes from month to month and do not need to change our wardrobe from season to season -excepting the demands of climate and weather. We appreciate that clothing design evolves through the ages but quality, style and function are, to a Worker-Dandy and, indeed, to anyone with an ounce of sense, what matters. Wear what you like, not what the High Street dictates.
Alcohol, when consumed imaginatively, responsibly and regularly, can act as a stimulus to hedonism, carnality and revolt. It should, therefore, be embraced with gusto.
The Worker-Dandyist International has no leaders, no structure and no organisation. We simply encourage YOU to declare yourself a Worker-Dandy, live by the spirit of this manifesto and encourage others to do so.

Inspiration on Primrose Hill…

anglonoel — Mon, 30 May 2011 02:13:18 +0000

You don’t have to tell me that my posts here have become increasingly sparse in recent months. However, about three weeks ago I really hit a point where I could not see how I could carry on blogging. A real feeling of melancholy came over me. The grey mist lifted later in the day, but I realised that I had to (i) set goals and (ii) give myself time for a blogging sabbatical, when I get away from it all and not feel guilty about not posting stuff up. I found recently that guilt about not blogging was causing a form of writer’s block. It was all becoming too much. I had to sort out an escape plan.

Next day I had a walk around NW London and ended up on Primrose Hill. Seeing the city from the summit and appreciating the sun and blue sky above had a beneficial effect. It all came pretty clear to me what to do! Some inspiration at last!

It’s June on Wednesday. Next month I am going to try and get a lot cleared up relating to the blogging ‘background’ (making notes, finding articles that I want to use in the future and putting them in some coherent order, sorting my books out- again! etc). I might post a few things up, but nothing too heavy.

Hopefully by July all that drudgery will be sorted and I can leave it all until October! I might post the odd thing that catches my eye over the summer, but basically I can have a guilt-free break from blogging and get my mojo back.

After that, I plan to split my ‘political’ life two ways. One way is the ‘pure’ writing. Stuff I find interesting I’ll blog about. Not that much of it will be very contemporary. I hope to write a bit about the past and perhaps what the future should be like- or a future to like.

The other is to get involved in campaigns and movements out there in the ‘real world’. Like thinking about politics, this can burn people out too and if I campaigned hard on everything I have an opinion on, I would soon be of no use to anyone. So there are three main areas I intend to concentrate on:

(i) for next year’s London Elections I intend to get involved with the Green Party again;

(ii) support the Peoples Pledge to try and get a referendum on EU membership (please sign if you agree!); &

(iii) to promote civil liberties support both NO2ID (ID cards are no more, but we still have a Database State) and the Open Rights Group (and the battle for internet freedom has hardly started yet). You may want to sign this.

So there you have it- if in doubt, go up to Primrose Hill on a nice day!