Archive for October, 2008



Idiots, Bastards etc.

Chris Hedges has a fine, if fearful piece on Truthdig on the current crisis for American capitalism. He addresses something I’ve been thinking about recently, which is that the corporate form that permeates government and business is structurally incapable of delivering for the common good.

Our elites—the ones in Congress, the ones on Wall Street and the ones being produced at prestigious universities and business schools—do not have the capacity to fix our financial mess. Indeed, they will make it worse. They have no concept, thanks to the educations they have received, of the common good. They are stunted, timid and uncreative bureaucrats who are trained to carry out systems management. They see only piecemeal solutions which will satisfy the corporate structure. They are about numbers, profits and personal advancement. They are as able to deny gravely ill people medical coverage to increase company profits as they are able to use taxpayer dollars to peddle costly weapons systems to blood-soaked dictatorships. The human consequences never figure into their balance sheets. The democratic system, they think, is a secondary product of the free market. And they slavishly serve the market.

He then goes on to interview John Ralston Saul:

“The difficulty is you have a collapse, you have a loss of face by the people who are there, and it’s not just George Bush, it’s very, very deep,” Saul said. “What we’re talking about is the need to rethink the departments of economics, of political science. Then you have to rethink the whole analytic method of the World Bank. If I’m the secretary of the treasury, and not a guy like [Henry] Paulson, but I mean a sort of normal secretary of the treasury or minister of finance, and I say, OK, we’ve got a real problem, let’s get the senior civil servants in here. Gentlemen, ladies, OK, clearly we have to go in another direction, give me some ideas. Well, those people don’t have any other ideas because at this point they’re about the fourth generation of what you might call neoconservative globalist managers, unfairly summarized. So they then go to the people who work for them, and you work down; there’s no one in there with an alternate approach. I mean they’ll have little alternatives, but no basic differences in opinion. And so it’s very difficult to turn anything around because they’ve eliminated all opposing ideas inside. I mean it’s the problem of the Soviet Union, right?”

If, as their standard of living becomes increasingly precarious, the bulk of the population decides to sit back and expect the thinking about what is to be done to be conducted on their behalf by intellectually sclerotic elites who act out of commercial interests, the general prospects are not good, as the rest of the piece shows. Hedges’s prescription of ‘a revolt against our bankrupt elite and the dynamiting of the corporatist structure’ strikes me as modest and reasonable under the circumstances.

You can hear more from John Ralston Saul here, talking about his book The Collapse of Globalism. And also an interview here. Excerpt:

London: What do you propose we do about these entrenched elites and the rise of technocratic language and all these other evils. Where does that leave the lonely individual?

Saul: I’m not in the business of suggesting solutions, by the way. I don’t belong to the Platonic tradition, I belong to the Socratic tradition. But a lot of the sorts of things I’m talking about are things which are very, very simple. One of them is simply that if we are a democracy, how is it that we’ve highly structured our lives so that every free minute of our day is accounted for working, holidays, breaks, etc. and that the only time left over is the time to go home and have dinner with our families, go to bed, make love, get up, go to the bathroom, and go back to work — go back to the structured system. We have to sit back and say, “Wait a minute, we live in a democracy.” We have structured everything in there — sick leave, pregnancy leave — but we haven’t structured one minute in for citizen participation. The only way a citizen can participate is voluntarily, which means giving up going to the bathroom, give up making love, give up sleep, give up eating dinner with your family. In other words, we have structured citizen participation out of our society. For me, this is the simplest and most complete proof that we don’t live in a democracy — that we live in a corporatist society.

Hardly coincidental, then, that the people out protesting this week on the streets of Dublin were students and pensioners: they’re the ones with free time on their hands.

Advertisements

Movements

I was thinking in the train about street protests. The TV images of students and old people out protesting called to mind when I got involved in organising student protests against fees in the UK some time back. We managed to assemble decent crowds, listened to a few speeches of outrage and defiance, and went home. In the end, it didn’t have much of an effect: UK students and graduates have far bigger debts on average now by comparison with then. In the beginning, it didn’t have much effect either: brief coverage on TV then zip.

When you fail to meet your objectives, you can always talk up the action after the fact, and propose that if you hadn’t done anything, things could have turned out worse. And you can also argue that there’s a certain intrinsic value in organising protests because you get good at it with practice, and from a wider perspective you are at least forcing the general population to think about your predicament. Furthermore, you might also be signalling to the political class that their plans will be met with resistance. Also, at a personal level, you can feel good about it: a united show of opposition offers a certain stiffening of the spine.

So, despite the scenes shown on TV the other day, fairly remarkable by Ireland’s modern standards at least, I feel a bit sceptical about the eventual impact of the protests held. Part of it is probably a residual effect of the failure of those protests I myself was involved in. But those were different times.

For a start, the future looked rosier for students and graduates because the UK economy was headed toward a period of growth. The average citizen, I guess, tends to be easily satisfied when things are on the way up, even if they’re going up a hell of a lot faster for a lot more people. So erosions of what once seemed like basic entitlements can be weighed up and set aside when there are other, more tantalising prospects on the horizon.

On the contrary, your average captain of industry, the one who enjoys a far greater degree of power and influence in a capitalist democracy, is not easily satisfied when things are going up a hell of a lot faster for a lot more people. He or she will fight tooth and nail to triumph over others, and this eternal state of dissatisfaction is a necessary condition for flourishing within this system. This is a fact that both British liberalism and the strongest brand of Irish patriotism have done well to obscure.

The lesson to be learned, one which demands consistent repetition, is that the citizen needs to be more tenacious and more motivated in the preservation and strengthening of basic rights and entitlements than those who are out to demolish them in the service of their own interests. And that’s not all. They need to be as cunning as serpents.

Part of this entails, I think, not falling under any illusions or complacency when protests result in a disruption to business as usual. It also entails being brutally realistic about what your activities are likely to achieve, without lapsing into cynicism or despondency. Where it looks as though you achieved absolutely nothing, there’s no point consoling yourself with the nobility of your deeds or the bond you have formed with your fellow protesters. This point becomes even more important when it looks like you have in fact achieved something of substance.

None of this will come as anything new to people who have experience in organising protests, but it’s worth repeating for onlooking sympathisers who, watching and reading the coverage of an irruption of fantastically disrespectful protests from old people and students in front of the Dáil, might be inclined to think that at some level all is well because, when push comes to shove, a bit of jostling every now and again from angry sections of the population is enough to keep things on an even keel.

That is the vein in which media outlets have been celebrating the protests. The drama of personal embarrassment and weakened party political power is the primary focus, with the main protagonists -the aged protestors- depicted in terms that seem, oddly, deferential and patronising at the same time.

So whilst one might agree tentatively with this element of the Irish Times’s leader judgment:

There is something good about what has emerged in recent days. There is a new engagement with the political system, a sense that politics and what happens in Dáil Éireann does matter and have an effect on people’s real lives.

One must reject outright this part:

There is an onus on grey organisations to effectively channel the current anger to positive effect… The rudeness of protesters towards Government representatives over the last two days did their cause no good.

That’s some cheek, coming from an institution that, as Cedar Lounge rightly noted, ‘hunts with the hounds and runs with the fox‘, though the same is true of other papers. What reasonable comparison is to be drawn between discomfort from a few posters and slogans on one hand, and the terrifying effect of the prospect of a forced choice between a rotten standard of health care or impoverishment in old age on the other?

The attitude of the IT leader is worth considering, I think, because it shows the terms on which it is desirable for the establishment to address this situation, and how it ought to be perceived in general. That is, a bit of fun and ructions every now and again is fine, but please be civil in the future, because if you don’t, you’ll only be hurting yourself.

But that sort of mild support with a minatory undercurrent is for liberal wimps. For a more full-blooded response, see what other papers are saying. One of the most powerful features of capitalist ideology is how it represents the preservation of the prevailing order as radical, even revolutionary. This can go as far as issuing approval for revolution, though usually confined to consumer appetites, such as the purchase of cocktails or mobile telephony.

So we shouldn’t be too surprised in light of more protests in the months ahead, to see newspapers actively cheering on the ‘Silver Revolution’, and pointedly denouncing the government for things like its handling of the medical card issue, whilst simultaneously lamenting that there’s no alternative to a whole range of policies that will see more and more people wind up with dreadful health care, longer working hours, lower wages and a more fragmented existence in general. They may also talk up the activities of opposition politicians who are similarly critical of the management techniques shown by government, but not of the basic policies and core ideology.

So my scepticism arises, I think, from a fear not that the protests are impotent, but simply that they won’t go anywhere near far enough, assuming they continue, because people won’t think they need to do anything more once they see some sort of minor reversal. And any minor achievement (on the scale of things, even a total reversal of the government’s position is very minor considering the disastrous state of the Irish health services), gets represented as a huge victory. What is in fact a very modest, conservative even, demand for a decent society ends up getting presented as hugely radical one. And for those in power, it probably is. Terrifying, even.

The point, then, when you get told about how unreasonable you’re being and for-god’s-sake-would-you-look-at-what-you-have-already-been-given-sure-isn’t-that-enough-this-is-getting-ridiculous, is to persevere, and not to flinch, ever, until you get your pound of flesh. Less ‘We Shall Overcome‘, more ‘Keep Your Eyes On The Prize’.

Honi Soit Qui Objects To Colonization and Expulsion

The government replied by saying that the royal prerogative was “primary law” and could not be challenged by the courts.

The majority opinion in the House of Lords, expressed in the opinion of Lord Hoffman, held that while the royal prerogative could be challenged in court, in this case, the government was right.

“The right of abode is a creature of the law. The law gives it and the law may take it away,” he ruled.

As for the issue of “good governance”, he rejected the argument that this meant the interest of the islanders alone had to be considered.

Lord Hoffman said there were wider interests, and wrote: “Her Majesty in Council is therefore entitled to legislate for a colony in the interests of the United Kingdom.”

He also said the government was entitled to take into account the interest of its ally, the United States.

Rough translation: we can do whatever the hell we like and there’s nothing you can do about it.

Escape To Victoria

A while back in a meeting about the Irish Left Review I was discussing with a few other bloggers -ones who have actually, like, written stuff on it- how to get more people to read it. I made a light-hearted suggestion about harvesting e-mail addresses which was rightly shot down as rather unethical.

And then I get this in my spam filter and think: comrades, capitalism is giving up the ghost before our very eyes. People are willing to listen to what you have to say without resorting to the likes of this.

Sinful Thought For The Day

Geoffrey Wheatcroft has a thought-provoking piece on religion in American politics.

Nearly half a century later there has been a complete change. Palin’s convention speech was held for a time to be the height of feisty wit; but much more revealing is what she and her pastor have said about “the end of days”, an idea in which millions of American evangelical Christians sincerely believe. According to Kalnins, the Jewish people must be gathered into the Land of Israel as a preliminary to Armageddon. When that vast conflict comes the Jews will be converted, or possibly annihilated, and it will be followed by the Rapture.

Already Kalnins sees “the storm clouds are gathering” through conflict in the Middle East: “Scripture specifically mentions oil instability as a sign of the Rapture. We’re seeing more and more oil wars. The contractions of the fulfilment of prophecies are getting tighter and tighter.” And he hopes to witness the Rapture soon. “I’m just looking at the turmoil of the world, Iraq, other places – everywhere people are fighting against Christ,” he says. Since Palin is one of his flock, she presumably believes this too. She certainly believes that Jesus told us to invade Iraq: she said so from the pulpit.

I think there needs to be some interrogation of the nature of religious belief as expressed by the likes of Sarah Palin. It is a hunch on my part, but I don’t believe Sarah Palin believes in the Rapture in the same way that, for instance, I believe that drinking bleach will make you sick. I’m more inclined to think that she and people like her both believe it and don’t believe it at the same time.

It’s the expression of the belief that seems the important part, to my mind: what it means in terms of the structure of the society in which you exist. If these people’s belief that ‘the earth is 5000 years old’ were really of the same kind of belief as ‘drinking bleach will make you sick’, then they wouldn’t feel the need to building ‘museums’ and promote the likes of ‘intelligent design’ as a means of justifying it. It is precisely the fact that the belief is plainly absurd, in light of what we know these days, that demands these people attest to it. When they say that it’s a ‘test of their faith’, what they really mean is it’s a test of their discipline. This is a discipline defined not by God, but by men and women.

In religious terms, what these people are up to is sinful. The unshaking belief that they, as sinners, know precisely what is intended by scripture and that it relates personally to their own predicament, is not something of which the God of the Ten Commandments would approve. The first couple of commandments are quite resounding on this: 1. I am God: not you. 2. No false idols, and that means, among other things, no making fetishes out of words.

So when Wheatcroft characterises this activity as the ‘resurgence of religion’, he’s right in one way, but it is a particular form of religion that isn’t so much based on spiritual enlightenment but submission to authority. And the question arises: is it religion in se that gives rise to authoritarian submission, or is it authoritarian submission that acquires particular form in religion? The point being that there are material conditions that bear directly on religious behaviour. One example is the nature of work in a corporate organization. In this, ‘our people are our most important asset’, ‘we value all our people’, and so on, yet there is a clear hierarchy, and the people at the top exercise tyrannical power. It’s easy to see how this structure can end up being reflected in religious practice.

Until I Learn To Expect My Reward

The leader of the opposition in Ireland’s official department of capitalo-parlementarisme says

No decent government would take away something given to older people as a reward for serving the State in difficult times.

How’s about that for robust opposition? I don’t know whether it was FF or FG who originally thought the point of free medical cards was a way of saying ‘well done good and faithful servant’, but the starting point here for Kenny’s criticism of the government’s actions gives you some idea of why this place is U-bend bound. Apparently it’s desirable that your health prospects should depend on how well you served the very entity that, in a democratic society, is supposed to serve you. And then he quotes Alan Greenspan at the end. Jesus Christ.

Decide- or Not? You Decide!

I see from my wordpress dashboard you can now add polls to your posts. How kick-ass is that?

I shall have to think of some useful purpose for it.


I on Twitter

October 2008
M T W T F S S
« Sep   Nov »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
Advertisements