Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Mick Hume
I don’t predict a riot
The passivity of public reactions to the financial turmoil is a symptom of the other crisis: of democratic politics.
These can seem like surreal times, when little is as it appears. Walking through a sunny London at lunchtime last Friday, you would never have guessed it was mid-October. And to judge by the sunny disposition of many working people, you might also have been hard pressed to guess that we were in the middle of a financial crisis which even business papers have described as ‘the end of liberal capitalism’.
The London crowds were going about their business as normal, the pubs and restaurants were as packed as on any other Friday. People walking to and from work would take a quick glance at the newspaper billboards screaming about ‘Blind panic as shares crash’, then go back to their decidedly non-panicky chatting and texting. It was as if the crisis was happening in some other city, far away.
At lunch, I was talking to an old friend about the apparent absence of public displays of anger or outrage at the financial meltdown and government bailout of the banks. He said he had recently watched again Gangs of New York, Martin Scorsese’s dramatised version of events leading up to the New York draft riots of the 1860s, in which poor citizens of the city pulled the wealthy from their big houses ‘and then pulled them apart’. There were no signs of any such anti-rich riots in sunny London.
Instead all that happened on Friday was that the Socialist Worker Student Society got a couple of hundred students to play dodge with the police and march through a ‘glitzy shopping mall’ in the City of London, shouting: ‘No bail! Send the bankers to jail!’ There were no arrests. On Monday, as share prices rose again, there was another small left-wing protest in the City against ‘taxpayers’ money being plunged into the banks and trans-national finance institutions’. Few taxpayers took part.
Apart from these almost universally-ignored efforts, the only visible signs of public disquiet have been predictable postings about ‘fat cats’ on those ‘have your say’ online discussion boards, and invitations to join websites mocking the agonies of investment bankers. It hardly amounts to an uprising, or even an argument.
No doubt the relative lack of reaction is partly because the economic consequences of the crisis have yet to affect most people. But more importantly, even if and when it does hit home, what could they do about it? This strange and transient state of affairs, the apparent disconnection between the economic crisis and everyday life, is more a symptom of another crisis: the crisis of democratic politics.
One thing that clearly distinguishes this financial disruption from earlier capitalist crises is the complete absence of any political alternatives. Unlike in the 1930s or 1970s, there is no Soviet Union or parties of Western state socialism to offer even the illusion of an alternative to capitalism. Society is widely described as facing a crisis, a crossroads, yet there is no serious debate about which road to take into a different future. The Conservative opposition in the UK has managed the considerable achievement of looking even more paralysed than the government. Meanwhile, we are warned by the authorities that this is ‘no time’ for idle talk, as if we were facing a foreign invasion. But if now is not the time to raise questions about the direction of our society, when is?
In fact the problem goes further than an absence of alternatives. There is no longer even a ruling political ideology against which to formulate one. An alternative to what? There is nothing political about the Labour government’s multi billion pound bailout of the banking system. This is not nationalisation as an act of ‘state socialism’, unless you seriously believe that President George W Bush has become the world’s leading socialist. Instead Bush and Gordon Brown are simply adapting the non-political managerialism of government over the past decade to firefighting in a crisis, trying to keep as much of the existing financial structures standing as possible. Despite his token gestures about squeezing bankers’ bonuses, prime minister Brown’s political vision does not extend further than the next day’s share prices or opinion poll ratings.
Brown has sought to signal that he is above politics by comparing himself to Winston Churchill as a strong national leader in an emergency. Many pundits seem to agree, announcing that the crisis and the counter-crisis measures have restored the authority of Brown and the New Labour government. These responses only serve to confirm the distance between the world occupied by the political class and the one where most people live. An unpopular government facing the prospect of a recession, alongside tax rises and/or public spending cuts to fund its financial rescue package, has little to feel smug about.
But more importantly, what does it matter to people in the non-political world whether Brown survives or not? The responses to the crisis to date have demonstrated that the masses have effectively been disenfranchised, left with no political voice or vision, milling past billboards announcing what our rulers are doing in our name. When the recessionary pressures hit more people harder they will certainly react. In the absence of any political debate, however, those reactions are likely to be conservative and narrowly fatalistic. It is perfectly rational for people to refuse to buy houses or anything else or to invest their hard-earned money in such uncertain times. But hiding our lives under the mattress is no alternative either.
The crisis of democratic politics has reduced people to mere spectators at a potential turning point for their own societies. At best we can shout at fat cats on the television or the internet – an even more passive and pointless display of public anger than fans booing England footballers. The description of disgruntled citizens as ‘taxpayers’ – common to both right- and left-wing protesters today – captures the view of people as mere fee-paying passengers on the ship of state, rather than active political agents. There seems little prospect of any old-fashioned eat-the-rich riot – though even such a mindless outburst might look meaningful compared to what’s not happening today.
People can vote for or against Brown, and they can vote with their feet or their wallets in the financial crisis. But until we find a way to address the crisis of democratic politics, they will still have no choice.
HoniSoit wrote:Where is the movement when it could try to mobilise people and provide an alternative to the government-led solutions of fixing up the economy?They are in places like India, Nepal, South America & the Middle-East (no matter how reactionary they might be). In the West, the movement has been hijacked by students. In addition, a lot of people who are of working-class and middle-class don't have the connections or knowledge of a group that would fight for progressive policies (vicious circle). In addition, when I was working a job while I went to school, there were movements that I knew about, however, I had to work during the time when they had protests (weekends or weekday afternoons). Equally enough, it's tough for people who still can feel they are living a fairly reasonable life-style, aren't going to gain the desire to revolt, others are alienated by the capitalist system, however, don't know of any movements or just don't care.
I guess my best option at this moment would be to join the Communist Party of Canada.
Vera Politica wrote:NOOOOO Eauz, don't do it!Then give me an alternative. And don't give me this nonsense about Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada. I spoke with then about writing for them and they pretty much said that they want didn't want any writings from anyone, unless they were actually serious about writing and were a member for a certain period. Goodness, I can't imagine how I could prove that I'm serious about it, aside from actually writing for them. I did write a piece which has yet to be published and no word if it will ever be published.
Edit: Plus, more factions within the left, since they label their movement Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Really? What ever happened to just fighting for socialism? Now we have to fight for a specific form of it? Marxism is Leninism, Maoism, Stalinism, blahblahism, whatever. I've talked to you about this before, however, the vast number of our parties are stuck in the clouds of reductionism and have their arguments in the roots of follies.
In the West, the movement has been hijacked by students.
Eauz wrote:In the West, the movement has been hijacked by students.
) aren't an alternative. Various leftist parties don't have the size. Unions usually don't get invovled passed lobbying.
HoniSoit wrote:1) I think the movement is more diverse in its composition but sure there are lots of students.I don't mean to put all students in the bad light, however, the vast number of students I met, who were of the left, were more interested in what grades they received, than any issue involving the development of an actual social movement. Sure, there are definetly some who did protest and started small groups, however, where are these people now? Now that they've got that stable job with good pay? Why do most of them end up giving up these dreams, if we are supposed to put faith in these same people to organise and develop social movements (as Red Rebel suggests)? We can't just constantly hope that those university students will be there to save the day. There has got to be something of more stability, since most university social movements are made up of a wide range of people, some of whom just join because their friend is there and really don't have an interest.
2) I'm not sure what you meant by students hijacking the movement. If you are talking about the anti-globalisation movement in the West, there were always students; if you are referring to 'the' Movement, well - what do you do when the working-class and traditional communist parties are highly effective if not already simply co-opted.
Kiroff wrote:This is what happens when there is over 80 years(or 50 if you like Mao) of ideological dogmatism. Syntheses are not developed on realistic terms - who we are, what we want, and what we need to do. When they are they are rather dogmatic and/or with the interests of the group's leadership at heart more than anything else.I understand that old habits are hard to break, however, does it really help our cause that we have groups that support the way Mao brought about revolution or the way Stalin ruled? In abstract terms, Mao and Stalin had their success and failure, but this is 2008 and we are living in places like Europe, Canada and the U.S.A. It's time to knock down these little issues that constrain us from organising and concentrate on organising society towards a socialist movement. We can study Stalin, Lenin and Mao all we want and learn from them, however, using the same methods of the past are not going to succeed in bringing about revolutionary movements or social movements.
Then give me an alternative. And don't give me this nonsense about Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada. I spoke with then about writing for them and they pretty much said that they want didn't want any writings from anyone, unless they were actually serious about writing and were a member for a certain period. Goodness, I can't imagine how I could prove that I'm serious about it, aside from actually writing for them. I did write a piece which has yet to be published and no word if it will ever be published.
Once again, another failure of the left to recruit people for their movement. So, I'm always open to options, where are they, Vera?
Vera Politica wrote:My advice, as it has always been, is to independently pursue serious studies in Marxism and anything you can relate to it - be it economics or philosophical movements such as structuralism... anything.My problem with this point is that on the one hand, you hate organisations like the Communist Party of Canada, who are indeed reductionist liberals with their heads in the clouds of follies, however, you are quick to say that I want to be independent and part of my own interest and ideals. This is the base of why we see today so many splinter groups in the socialist camp. I'm not suggesting that you have to give up your perspective for the idiocy of the Communist Party of Canada, however, I think it is time for the socialist camp to grow up and realise that the point of socialism is to fight for the progressive development of socialism in society. The more we bicker and complain about the other party, the more idiotic we seem to people who might be interested in joining the movement and the less likely any organisation would appear, if another market collapse occurs. Where will the socialists be, the next time a worse collapse occurs? Are they just going to let the middle-class fall towards fascist philosophies? We must remember, nothing is inevitable and having a strong, progressive socialist organisation in the good and bad times is of great use to society. None of these actually exist though, and probably won't, come the next economic collapse.
Eauz wrote:We can study Stalin, Lenin and Mao all we want and learn from them, however, using the same methods of the past are not going to succeed in bringing about revolutionary movements or social movements.
@FiveofSwords For background... According to […]
- By SpecialOlympian
Now...because I personally have read actual prima[…]
- By SpecialOlympian
You aren't American, you don't get a vote in my go[…]
- By ingliz
- By Wellsy