Monday, 19 September 2016

The Nye and Owen Show



The greatest of thinkers stand on the shoulders of giants. Owen Smith, it is fair to say, is not a great political thinker. Still, he tells us that he is standing on the shoulder of one the labour movement's giants. Debating with Jeremy Corbyn on television he said:

I want to be a force for good in the world. Therefore, you need to achieve power. Nye Bevan, my great hero, said it’s all about achieving and exercising power. I’ve devoted my life to that.
(Stolen from Left Foot Forward)

I'm a little confused about this, I must confess. Is the Nye Bevan being spoken about here the same Nye Bevan who said this?

The Right Wing of the Labour Party would rather see it fall into perpetual decline rather than abide by its democratic decisions.
What about this, given that people have been expelled from the Labour Party recently for saying far less barbed things?

That is why no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party that inflicted those bitter experiences on me. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.
 
Then there's this, a Bevan quote favoured by today's self-professed moderates, but in actual fact a neat statement of a basic of historical materialism:

Freedom is the by-product of economic surplus.
Let's face it, Nye Bevan would have been expelled from today's Labour Party. Because the Compliance Unit would know all too well who would be getting his vote.

Sunday, 18 September 2016

Dispatch Dispatches

There are times when you can't escape realising how far your opinions lie from that dullest of social constructs that goes by the name of mainstream opinion. The current public notoreity of Momentum is a case in point.

Regular readers of this blog will be aware that my issue with Momentum, of which I am an active member, is that we are not left-wing enough. That is to say, we're not - at a national level - sufficiently resigned to the inevitability of fights within the Labour Party (still, in spite of it all, I hear hopes for 'Party unity' being expressed), and the need to organise to win these, and win them decisively. Nor are we doing nearly enough to form the new generation of activists which is likely to be the lasting legacy of the Corbyn surge.

A Momentum activist - still from tomorrow's documentary

Quite incredibly, it seems that the makers of Dispatches don't share this outlook. The programme, to be broadcast tomorrow, targets people I know and like. It also makes the bizarre claim that Momentum is a hotbed of Trotskyist entryists, an accusation from which the organisation alas distances itself. On the on hand, the claim is too ridiculous to warrant an answer; on the other, even if it were true, the Labour Party has always contained Marxists - starting with the plodding second internationalist Marxism of Hyndman's SDF, compared to which the AWL represent a distinct improvement. In fact your host here is a Marxist.

Still there is a comforting familiarity about journalists seeing Leon Trotsky lurking within every GC. This, at least, is standard issue reds-under-the-bed fare. Altogether more disturbing, albeit hardly without historical precedent, is the focus on  selections, deselections, and mandatory reselection.

I leave you with one question: since when is the ability of members of a political party to choose who represents that party in elections something sinister?

Saturday, 3 September 2016

Shadow Cabinet Elections

On a day when the forces of entitlement scorned took to the streets to articulate the demand of Brecht's Writers' Union that we dissolve the people and elect another, I should start by saying that I am heartily in favour of democracy. One of the many problems with capitalism, whether run from Brussels or London, is that it is not nearly democratic enough.

So, then, I support the demand of some Labour MPs to restore Shadow Cabinet elections, right? Well, as it happens, no. At least not in the terms in which they're being requested.



The internal democracy of the Labour Party is about the democracy of a movement or it is a hollow sham. The Labour Party I am interested in being a member of is about the political representation of a mass of working people and their allies, not least as organised in trade unions. Labour MPs matter in as much as they are the parliamentary expression of this movement, but they are not the Labour Party. We are, all of us.

In the heady days of the late 70s and early 80s, the Labour Left supported Shadow Cabinet elections in combination with a raft of measures designed to secure the accountability of the PLP to the wider Party and the election of the leader by the entire Party. Subsequent history has brought us a situation in which there are no Shadow Cabinet elections, the PLP is packed full of MPs more right-wing than the Party at large, and yet Jeremy Corbyn is - and in all likelihood will still be at the end of the month - Labour leader. In this context the demand for the PLP to elect the Shadow Cabinet is not a democratic demand. It is all about a right-wing PLP blocking the ability of a leader supported by the mass membership to implement policies supported by that membership. And it should be opposed.

However, electing the Shadow Cabinet isn't a bad idea in itself. Why not allow every member of the Labour Party and its affiliates to participate, holding elections at the same time as NEC elections?


Saturday, 27 August 2016

Socialism, ethics, and humanity (III)

(Last in series here)



Socialism could provide us with a chance to flourish, to fulfil our natures, in a way that is not possible under capitalism. There's a bitter irony about this, since capitalism itself is responsible for transforming both what it is to be human and the capacity to realise the possibilities inherent in this far beyond the imaginings of any previous age. Technology has stretched our potential for creativity, communications have broadened our imaginations and deepened our needs, and labour-saving innovations offer us the hope of producing all that we want in a fraction of the time and with far less effort than could ever have been contemplated. All of this has been conjured up by the very same capitalism that stunts its potential, producing as it does for profit rather than human need. The task of realising capitalism's potential falls to socialism. More concretely, it falls to another of capitalism's creations, the working class.

What does this picture mean imply about our politics, which was after all where this series started? Socialism, as I've sketched it, is about the big picture. It concerns how we organise the world in a way that our lives can be good. This is not the fare of those who for whom the horizons of politics do not go beyond marginal tax rates or urban traffic schemes. The picture is not naive; contrary to almost every textbook portrayal of Marx's thought, socialism is not inevitable. It might not even be particularly likely; still we socialists, with a cold hardened realism, think that it is the only option for an unfulfilled and divided humanity threatened with environmental catastrophe. The diagnosis becomes even more severe now that capitalism cannot afford social democracy.

This picture has to be communicated. In our conversations, not least with all those new Labour Party members, at meetings, in print, we should be talking about socialism. It is a persistent temptation for the Left to play its ideas close to its chest, keeping a conspiratorial silence about its thoughts on the means of production and preferring instead to talk about the minimum wage and Trident. Delicate judgements need to be made here, of course. There are times for forming broad alliances, and no profitable conversation has ever been had by not meeting somebody where they are at. Yet, meeting somebody where they are at is one thing, leaving them there something altogether.

Now is a time for laying out the socialist stall. Thousands of people have wandered into a place where they can inspect its wares, because of the so-called Corbyn surge. Contrary to all that excitable stuff about entryism, the politics of this group are mixed, and often vague. Retaining these people will need something that warrants commitment: we have that and we should share it. This is the case not least because there is a rough road ahead, the present purge being one intimation of this, and without a framework within which peoples' experiences can be situated, a good number are likely simply to walk away. Even if the party bureaucrats tire of purging, the initial enthusiasm of Labour's new members will either fade away, or worse be converted into the reality-denying optimism that pollutes too much of the Left: the stable alternative lies in the realm of ideas.

The mention of optimism leads me to another aspect of this understanding of socialism that deserves mention. A political outlook that recognises the animal, embodied nature of human beings, as this one does - it is this nature to which socialism speaks - can be far more nuanced in its view of our prospects and more sensitive to our fragility than is often the case on the Left. One popular story goes as follows: conservatives have a dim view of human nature, which is enmeshed in Original Sin, or held back by genetics, depending on the conservative account in question. Humanity's grand projects are doomed to fail; society will not improve, at least not consistently, and the best that can be done is to insulate ourselves from violent motion with a generous layer of tradition and order. Progressives meanwhile (note the word) see human beings as perfectable. With a good amount of social progress, and perhaps a bit of luck, the New Jerusalem can be built on earth.

There is a very obvious sense in which human beings are not perfectable. People are not going to stop dying, or mourning. No matter who owns the means of production, it is likely that couples will still have acrimonious break ups, people will be thoughtless, and lives go inexplicably wrong. It is certainly true that human history is littered with progress and triumphs, and to be a socialist is not least to hope for a good deal more progress. It's just that a genuinely radical, rather than deludedly progressive, outlook recognises that progress is itself not without ambiguity, tragedy even. The capitalism that lends substance to the hopes I have been describing also led now forgotten children to deaths in hellish mills. The 20th century witnessed victories for women's liberation and anti-colonialism; it also saw the doctrine of human rights that had motivated many participants in this struggles used to justify brutal wars. The light-headed and cheaply upbeat attitude that has, unfortunately, followed in the wake of the Corbyn victory, if it is to give rise to a sustainable socialism, has to mature into a more sensitive and ambivalent take on our species and its history.

Stripped of unwarranted euphoria, counting the costs of struggle, the aim of this politics is to allow us to be ourselves. That is what the emphasis on fulfilling our nature amounts to. Ours is not a programme for angels or robots, but for the wonderful, tormented, ageing, animal beings that we in fact are. It cannot offer us limitless possibilities, because our possibilities are not limitless. However much the Situationists asked us to demand the impossible (and there is a sense in which that is the right thing to demand), we cannot travel faster than light, live a thousand lives, resurrect the dead, or do more than our energies, physical or emotional, allow us. Fashionable though it is in millenial circles to talk about 'self-definition' I cannot define myself, and much unnecessary anxiety has been caused by suggesting otherwise. Nor does our politics promise to do away with flaws, mistakes, irritations, or limitations. Socialism is a politics of human frailty: its simple suggestion is that we live in the world as the kind of beings that we are in fact. To make this more than a pipedream would indeed take a revolution, but perhaps one a good deal more compassionate in its aims than many think.

If we think this it should affect the way we conduct and understand ourselves. There is a relentlessness and puritan earnestness about parts of the Left, the latter being a correlate of underestimating the scope and difficulty of transformation. Taking frailty more seriously would be an important counterbalance here, and is one of our most urgent tasks.

Friday, 26 August 2016

Lies of the Labour leadership contest 8: Foo Fighters are a Trotskyist front organisation.

Lie 8:


Tweeting about Foo Fighters is out of order.

Bollocks because:

Before we get to this, we should note the hypocrisy. The people making this judgement are the rump of a political movement that used D:Ream's Things Can Only Get Better as a campaign song. They are in no position to adjudicate on musical taste. 
But really, you should fucking love Foo Fighters. 

Tuesday, 16 August 2016

Definitely Maybe

It is, several radio programmes and broadsheet articles inform us, twenty years since the 'Summer of Britpop'. I was there, young and music-loving. Comparisons with earlier golden ages are inexact; it can't have been like the 60s, since I can remember it. It involved, as I recall, inordinate amounts of Guinness combined with indelicate swaying to the dulcit tones of What's The Story Morning Glory. We weren't aware that it was the Summer of Britpop at the time. It was just summer, the school holiday. Nor did we, by which I mean my friends and myself, think there was anything especially epoch-making about the music we were listening to, or rather the music that was played at us, in pubs and clubs and on the radio; my own tastes were slightly more eclectic. It was alright, it was just there. We hadn't known any different. Nostalgia, however can transfigure the most quotidian of times, and so here we are, two decades on, keeping the anniversary of something called the Summer of Britpop.



There is something distinctly unsettling about people feeling nostalgic for periods within one's living memory. Nostalgia is always for people older than oneself. It is more a matter of not being able to get bananas in the war, or the electric tingle as a beehived girl rubbed against your chinos than of the Verve or David Blunkett. The jarring intimation of mortality repressed beneath the surface of this discomfort might go some way towards explaining why I have greeted public celebration of Britpop's birthday with a mixture of incomprehension and blind rage. So, when 6Music announced that they had made Oasis' Knebworth performance available on Iplayer, I tweeted this:

This perhaps demonstrated a temporary inability to think both sides of the question, but then age does funny things to you. A good proportion of my digital fury was entirely justified, but before we get onto the reasons for that the other side of the balance sheet needs addressing. The Britpop phenomenon, either in its musical origins or promotional narration (if it's even possible to disentangle the two), issued from a perfectly correct sense of the American dominance of rock and pop music, and a legitimate resentment of this. Even though there is a good case to be made that the Smashing Pumpkins were better than Suede, and in spite of the awkward fact that, like the mods before them, the Britpoppers could only respond to rock's wrapping itself in the stars-and-stripes by wrapping themselves in the Union Jack, there was something praiseworthy about the urge to kick back at the bigger country. There was too  a sense in which working class identity was cool within Britpop culture. This didn't necessary translate into working class people themselves being cool, nor did the working class identity that was enacted on stages and lauded in the NME commonly bear much resemblance to anything that would have been recognised by many inhabitants of that class. Still, compared to today's hipster scene, where one gets the distinct sense that working class people are regarded not as voguish aliens to be emulated nervously, but as Brexit-voting, commercial music listening, racists who wouldn't know a good craft beer if they tasted one, it wasn't so bad. These things are relative.

Britpop was also capable of voicing discontent in a more or less articulate fashion. Admittedly, it most often came down on the 'less' side, but it remains the case that the raw anger of 'Is it worth the aggravation/ to get yourself a job when there's nothing worth working for?' has a lot going for it. Gallagher's devil-may-care drawl voices a nihilism more conditioned than staged. Blur were capable of framing their protest in more explicitly political terms. Mr Robinson in his quango is 'the self-professed saviour of the dim right-wing'. Ernold Same was narrated by the man described in the CD insert as 'the right-on Ken Livingstone'. It turns out that Damon Albarn was the source of the band's occasional leftism. Dave Rowntree was meanwhile an enthusiastic supporter of New Labour and ultimately a cheerleader for invading Iraq. Alex James now divides his time between making artisan cheeses and hanging out with the Chipping Norton set.

Alas, Britpop was not simply well-meaning angst and sticking two fingers up to Uncle Sam. It was in other respects, as we learned to say later, problematic in many respects.  This probably wasn't what Adorno had in mind when he said that every tale of civilisation is also a tale of barbarism, but nor is that line entirely irrelevant here (even if 'civilisation' is an optimistic description of Country House, and 'barbarism' an unkind take on Menswear). Culture is a human product, and as such is tainted from the outset with the conditions of its production, which means amongst other things with politics. This much is evident in the very word 'Britpop', a musical subgenre defined as much as anything by the state from which it issued. In this it bears some resemblance to the earlier Krautrock, although the acts generally classified as part of the latter are universally more interesting than Ocean Colour Scene. In both cases, there is a politics to the identification. Germany at the time of Krautrock was not one, but two, states. Britpop, in spite of its name, was an overwhelmingly English phenomenon. The most obvious exceptions are at best borderline cases: the Manic Street Preachers pre-date the movement slightly, and never really fitted in culturally or politically. Catatonia were of the period, but I never recall thinking of them as being 'part of the same thing' as Blur and Oasis. This was, retrospectively, a compliment. Ash were admittedly Irish, but in the face of eight centuries of national oppression the misdescription of a rock band seems a slight matter.




Claiming English idiosyncracies as uniformly British is a national pastime. A peculiarity of British rock music has been, at least until recently, its celebration of a certain kind of imagined working class identity, coupled with the occasional elevation of working class people themselves to superstar status. Britpop satisfied this fetish enthusiastically. Oasis certainly were from working class backgrounds, and spoke in interviews about being on the dole. Blur were from more monied stock in at the time ill-specified parts of East London but spoke like the love child of Dot Cotton and Dick van Dyke's chimney sweep. This was class as a marketing method; the proletariat were in this season, just as ripped jeans had been a few summers previously. The working class as presented in the posters and at the gigs was a pastiche, packaged for quick consumption. It was a matter of cheeky smiles and the hint of attitude, without taking the latter far enough to be intimidating. You expected Damon Albarn to shout 'oi, get orf me barrow' at any point. What the working class as adapted for Britpop certainly didn't lower itself to doing was work. Whilst The Who, the band Oasis wanted to be when they weren't busy trying to be the Beatles, could make a film in which a young man gets away from the drudgery of London toil, only for the hero of a mod dance floor to be revealed as a bellboy, by the 90s five days of the week were almost entirely absent from British musical output. Oasis, quite reasonably didn't want to work (Eagleton describes this as a good reason to be a socialist), but lyrically it was mostly a matter of falling in love, falling out of love, taking drugs, being a rock and roll star, and - in the case of one Blur song - listening to the shipping forecast. Put like this it sounds not unlike the life of a full time rock singer. Imagination was not a notable feature of the period.

The band often counted as part of Britpop who were better on class, in every sense in which a band could be, were of course Pulp. They are exempt from my criticism,  but were never really part of Britpop. The band predated the phenomenon by a long way, and accidentally hit the big time on the back of it. I've written about them before here. Whether or not 'nobody loves a tourist' was aimed, consciously or otherwise, at what their musical contemporaries were saying or doing, it captures some of the truth of an era. Even more dispiritingly, it speaks also to subsequent eras.

Candida Doyle's role in Pulp also distinguishes them from the run of Britpop star acts, which whiffed of Lynx and testosterone. A blokish, cliched working class masculinity suffused the genre. There were female fronted bands: none of them got the headlines and the best known, Elastica, obtained that status not least because their lead singer was sleeping with Damon Albarn, which doesn't suggest that Britpop represented a feminist high point. The best, and most under-rated, of the bands insufficiently male to be canonised were Kenickie. Notable for having singing in a regional accent that was, on the one hand, neither Cockney or Mancunian, and on the other genuine, they were musically and lyrically excpetionally. Misleadingly naive in content, their songs communicate a reality airbrushed by the comic book capers of Albarn and Gallagher they had this in common with Pulp. Lauren Laverne's wilting voice on 'People We Want' captures a darker side to the Britpop era, boredom and anxiety combine as insecure, in spite of cocaine, a young woman wades through a night out as though it were quicksand. 'This life, it's taking too long', she sings; and you know what she means.



The fear that life might not be worth living is not one that haunts the male Britpop oeuvre. It is fundamentally upbeat, macho even - although not aggressively so: with the possible exception of the Gallagher brothers, Britpop frontmen presented as new men. This did not make them averse to the odd nod and a wink. This was the era of new laddism; young men were busy learning from Loaded magazine that what, to a casual observer, might appear like sexism was in fact both ironic, and empowering for women. The apparently contradictory nature of these claims seems to have passed by for these born again feminists. The masculinity of Cool Britannia was resolutely heterosexual. In this respect it was less diverse than any other significant rock movement for a couple of decades. Brett Anderson performed an ambivalent androgyny: yet Suede were John the Baptist figures for Britpop, teetering uneasily on the brink of the New Covenant, quick to diminish so that Blur, Oasis, and countless derivative acts could take to the stage. When the messiah came, he was butch. On one occasion Alex James wore an Oasis t-shirt on Top of the Pops. He might just have well sported the slogan 'I've got a bigger dick than Noel Gallagher'. The intensity of the gender retrenchment in 90s music was in many respects laughable, even though it reflected, and fed back into  a much more dangerous backlash against feminism in society at large. It would be a cold-hearted person indeed, however, who didn't laugh - and not in the manner intended by the authors - at the ridiculous spectacle of 'Vindaloo' competing with 'Three Lions' for the number one spot, as the cultural icons of the period jockeyed to demonstrate their authentic football-supporting laddishness. It has always been unclear to me which team Alex James supports, but then I don't follow Chipping Norton Swifts closely, so I may be missing something. We should, I suppose, be grateful that Keith Allen allowed his mum and his gran to share in the bucket of vindaloo.

Singing about Goan food might have been de rigeur, but too many English people have always been more comfortable with Asian food than with Asian people. Britpop was white in its makeup and its cultural reference points. This in itself communicated something about how Britishness was understood at the time. The period coincides, for example, with Asian Dub Foundation's first releases - far more enduring and musically interesting than anything sung at Knebworth all those years ago, yet never counted as part of Britpop. This is both an injustice and a liberation.

The simplistic image of a white, male, straight, salt-of-the-earth, urban, sexual but not threatening, impish but never straightforwardly rebellious, working class was tailor made for New Labour. A wave of populism and flagwaving ushered Blair through the Downing Street gates, riding high on the legacy of forgotten protest and ageing hope. Elected, in large part by a class (contrary to much speculation, there are in fact working class people in marginal constituencies, even in the south of England), he wanted to govern a mass. A heady mix of 'progressive' nationalism and condescending ordinariness spewed forth from government onto a society already drenched with the same concoction by its rock stars. This was a Britpop government. And the Blairites imagined that the working class was as contemporary rockstars presented it: monocultural, in many ways reactionary, white, but with a sense of fair play and fun. The result was as politically ambiguous as Britpop itself was culturally: it gave us increased public spending and ASBOs, a minimum wage and asylum detention centres, the Human Rights Act and the invasion of Iraq.

There's a reluctant admission on the part of their sometime supporters that the Blair/ Brown governments did not usher in the New Jerusalem. Yet even this is narrated in terms of the working class as imagined in the Britpop era. We hear a lot about the forgotten people of the period, as indeed we should, the betrayal of core supporters by New Labour in government was real and deep. Quickly, however, this shades into talk of the white working class, the need to understand traditional values, generations of male pride lost to unemployment, concerns about immigration - in every way imaginable real and urgent social and economic crisis is renarrated in terms of a backlash against the gains of the past two decades as regards race and gender politics. In this way we end up with Blue Labour and its lingering influence. Nostalgia for Britpop fits in perfectly with this use of an ideological construction of class to defuse the politics of class. From the perspective of this project the immediate enemy is an out-of-touch metropolitan obsessed with the politically correct agenda of earlier times and unaware of the concerns of ordinary, hard-working, people. His name is Jeremy Corbyn.

Twenty years have passed, then. Were it not for the remarkable elevation of a socialist to the Labour leadership, it would be tempting to say that the most notable change is that privately educated rock aficionados no longer feel the need to adopt working class accents. These are not times in which Etonians lack confidence. That, more than the whimpering of Owen Smith, ought to serve as a cautionary tale for left-wing ebulience.