How to avoid the next monetarist consensus II

1% Truth?

For some people ‘capitalism’ will always be a dirty word – synonymous with greed and exploitation. In more mainstream discussion the term pulses between negative and positive, in step with history: Good for the first decades of the twentieth century, bad after the depression of the thirties; resurrected by the Thatcherites at the end of the seventies, and all set to be reburied by the current financial crisis.

Notice it’s only the term ‘capitalism’ that has fluctuated in favour. Capitalism itself has remained the dominant mode of production the whole time. But the relative esteem of the term is telling in terms of what is expected of it, and how it is assumed to work. Those who use ‘capitalism’ unabashedly are most likely to be champions of free-market economics. Those squeamish about the word are far more likely to favour state intervention and regulation.

Similarly, while increasing numbers of people are calling themselves ‘anti-capitalist’ this can mean very different things. It doesn’t really matter when you’re protesting. All that matters is the knowledge that the current system is wrong. Being united in opposition is far from being united in alternatives.

‘Anti-capitalists’ vary widely, from those who simply want to rein-in corporate power to those who want complete abolition of property relations. Some fight for a class-free, property-free future, perhaps within this life – a quick revolution followed by a lasting peace. Others have a similar end goal but see it taking centuries – a quick revolution followed by slow trudge to Jerusalem. Five paces forward, four paces back, or worse.

Then there are some who see state-control as the end goal in itself. Some just want state direction of industry and commerce; others go further and want the state to be the major or even monopoly owner of production.

And some simply oppose incorporation and corporate power. They have no problem with a genuine market economy, only with the abuses that arise from conglomeration.

While the goals vary one thing that unites all these schemes is the desire for some sort of democratic control over production. Whether by regulation, intervention or full-blown nationalisation, those calling themselves anti-capitalist demand that government take responsibility for the economy. Or to put it in more positive terms, they want democracy to be extended into the economic sphere. They want business to be accountable to the electorate and the state to protect us from voracious capitalists, rather than sell us to them.

For monetarists this is the key heresy – ‘collectivism’. All evils spring from this supposedly naïve desire. As discussed in part one, the better part of this horror and indignation is in fact cynical, inconsistent and hypocritical. But for the sake of argument let’s assume an idealist monetarist and an idealised model. Here are four points monetarists employ to win hearts, minds and elections. Even if you find them repellent, you will need to have a good answer to each.

1. The Limits of Collectivism

None but the blindest monetarist (there are still a lot about) would deny that privatisation of public utilities has been a disaster. Outside the boardroom and the stock market we are all victims of this theft. Given the impending environmental crises things couldn’t be worse. At a time when it is vital for energy supplies to be in the hands of elected bodies they are instead run as cash cows for international corporations. The last thing these owners have in mind is a reduction in output, or a more equitable distribution of energy resources.

But what about the other end of the scale? How far should collectivism extend into the micro-economy? Some anti-capitalists would answer ‘all the way’, but we have to seriously consider what this might mean.

Does anti-capitalism mean the dissolution of all market relations, right down to micro-transactions? Does it mean the dissolution of even the petit-bourgeoisie? Should independent green-grocers be chased out of town by state-monopoly green-grocers? Should every window cleaner, builder and gardener be paid a set wage by the state rather than negotiate costs with the person employing them?

If your answer to this is yes, fair enough, but you have a lot of explaining to do. Aside from issues of individual freedom, the necessary bureaucracy would make the EU seem like a well-oiled machine, and the necessary monitoring and penalising of those who transgress would make the Stasi seem like the neighbourhood watch.

Then again if you do assent to this level of market relationship you also have to accept that you are in some sense pro-capitalist. Like it or not, if your politics permits this level of market economy you are advocating something on the capitalist continuum. It doesn’t mean you endorse Rockefeller, but it is an endorsement of market economics, and not a superficial one. It’s a concession with deep implications.

Complex questions become unavoidable: How widely should the free-market be allowed to operate? How big should a company be allowed to get before it is deemed antisocial, ripe for dissolution or state absorption? Is it right, sane, or even probable that the state would intervene to dissolve or break-up a business that was booming, punish it for booming?

Moreover, who is in a rightful position to make such judgements? Who is qualified to judge whether a business is still small enough to be socially safe, or has grown so large that it endangers liberty? Some medium-sized businesses are run by model employers and some small businesses are run by tyrants. Why should the moral player in these instances be penalised for their success?

Note that in the monetarist model these problems do not arise. In the idealised free market you strive to become as big as possible through any possible means. Nothing decides the size of your business other than your success in business.

2. Productivity

All capitalism is exploitation. For the self-employed this needn’t be as bad as it sounds. To exploit your own talent and labour for your own profit is respectable enough. The negative connotation only wakes-up when you employ others to labour on your behalf.

In this sense large businesses with large profits can be seen as places where large numbers of people are exploited at the same time. A thousand workers in an office or factory can be simultaneously squeezed; the surplus labour drained off for re-investment, bonuses and enhanced share-value.

Even when a company or organisation is supposedly non-profit-making the same is necessarily true. You are employed for the bit of extra value you produce on top of your wages – clearly no company would want to employ someone whose productivity only broke-even against their wages, let alone someone whose output failed to even cover their wages.

This fact gives rise to what Marxists call class struggle and monetarists call productivity. They really are the same thing. While it is in the interest of bosses to keep wages low, it is in the interest of workers to keep them high. Low unit prices and high profits are in a perpetual battle with fair pay and good working conditions.

There’s no such thing as a free lunch, as monetarists, Marxists and physicists say. Every extra day’s holiday a union secures for workers is a loss in profit for the bosses. The price of the product must rise, or wages be suppressed, or suppliers be squeezed to cover the extra cost of non-productivity. Something has to give.

Success in business is then intimately linked to success in the class struggle. Profitable companies, those that undercut and outsell their competitors, are those that squeeze their workers the hardest, or employ subcontractors who squeeze their workers the hardest. This is the hideous truth behind the astonishing bargains at Primark and Poundland. Treating people badly can be highly profitable. Paying people peanuts allows you to sell your products for peanuts, and thus bankrupt your competitors.

Given this irreconcilable class-struggle it is easy to see the monetarist case against state intervention in industry. Any government taking over control of a business will face a persistent dilemma: Whose side are you on? Whose corner are you fighting? Are you there to ensure workers’ rights at the cost of productivity, or are you there to maximise profits at the cost of workers’ rights? Or are you there to mediate between the two?

Any government assuming the role of boss will find itself torn in two – desperate to balance company books and keep the business afloat, desperate to keep the workers happy.

Workers are, after all, the majority of the electorate. Furthermore any government attempting to run business is likely to be on the left, and likely to be reliant on the votes and support of trade unions. This was certainly the case for the post war British Labour governments. Every attempt to maintain the profitability of nationalised industries was taken as a kick in the teeth by the very people who got Labour into power.

Conversely every government concession to the workforce is a loss in productivity, an increased unit price in a world where other firms and other countries are making their units cheaper, and perhaps better.

3. Quality

In a perfect world quality and demand would be intimately linked: We would desire and choose the best products to suit our needs and our pockets.

In the real world of course demand is no guarantee of quality. Advertising skews demand to sell trash. It turns mundane objects into religious icons. It manufactures false choices like Coke v Pepsi, and Daz v Persil. It encourages us to assess the quality of identical products and then feel good with ourselves for choosing the ‘better’ one.

Less cynically, perhaps, collective ownership and control of industry has its own distorting effect upon demand, and its own negative impact on quality. In both cases there is pressure to sacrifice quality for a higher goal. With advertising the higher goal is profit. With collective ownership the higher goal is social good.

Recent events in the US car industry illustrate both distortions perfectly. Over the last decade marketing was employed to sell preposterously oversized and overpowered vehicles at premium prices. The worst possible vehicles for the 21st century were transformed into sexy necessities. Now, with the economy shrinking and sales plummeting the US government is bailing-out the manufacturers. Subsidies are being injected to keep the factories open and maintain production of these beasts.

Clearly some intentions here are good. The subsidies are intended to protect jobs, stop people being thrown out of their homes. But equally clearly product quality has been compromised. Already an unwanted unit is being pushed onto the market. But more importantly, in the long term there is now less pressure for these producers to maintain standards.

While subsidies do not guarantee a drop it quality, clearly they do create room for it. If the money keeps rolling in regardless of whether a product sells there is more opportunity for quality to drop. After all, what’s the worst thing that could happen? More subsidies?

And note here that a drop in quality is not merely an inconvenience for the consumer, it’s also a very slippery slope for the producer. Outside strictly protected markets (like those once enjoyed by Lada and Trabant) it is unlikely that the fortunes of such producers will improve. If better quality is available elsewhere custom will follow it.

When a business is run for any goal other than making good quality products product quality will be at risk. If pay keeps rolling-in regardless of how well you do your job what’s the incentive to do it well? If your company stays solvent regardless of whether there is demand for its products why fret about quality? If contracts are guaranteed regardless of whether you innovate, what’s the point in innovating?

In the idealised monetarist model this is not an option. Quality is constantly maintained by the invisible hand of demand. Innovation is spurred-on by the threat of bankruptcy. The only products that get made are products that sell. If they don’t sell the business doesn’t get subsidised, it goes under.

4. Freedom

Everybody wants to be free, it seems, but both left and right claim the monopoly on achieving it.

In part this is due to the different emphasis people place on different, sometimes mutually contradictory, freedoms. One person’s liberty is often another’s bondage. An increase in the highest band of income tax is simultaneously an assault on the freedom of the wealthy and a means of liberating the poor. One person’s freedom to unionise is another’s restrictive working practices. Freedom to choose private healthcare and private education is the flipside of poorly funded social medicine and state education.

But things run deeper than interpretation. The difference between collective and individualist methods for gaining and maintaining freedom signal a profound disagreement about the relationship between production and liberty.

Left collectivists tend to see production as something that needs to be tamed, democratised, regulated, if we are to enhance freedom in other spheres of life. The belief is that if we can liberate ourselves from economic exploitation we will be free to enjoy being human.

But to the monetarist this is completely cart before horse. The attempt to introduce ‘democracy’ into economics would in fact render social liberty impossible. The logic runs as follows: The more the state intervenes in production the more power it inevitably places in its own hands. However benevolent its intentions, if the state owns and controls production it does just that. The power to decide what is made is taken away from the producer. The power to decide what to buy is taken away from the consumer. Supply and demand are divorced from human desire and handed over to experts or committees or dictators who decide for us what we want to make and buy.

Given the economic stagnation monetarists see as an inevitable consequence of state intervention, even minor attempts to steer the economy will set us on the slippery slope to serfdom. As the economy falters the collectivist government’s reflex response will be more of the same. It will further crank-up its grip on the economy and on society in general, spiralling on towards totalitarianism. Inside every Tony Benn beats the heart of Erich Honecker. Or so we are told.

Those then are the arguments. I’ll save my own answers for a third post.

How to avoid the next monetarist consensus

If capitalism survives this crash one thing is certain. The corporate classes will again lobby for the same rules that brought us here. History will be rewritten and it won’t be the unregulated market to blame but the remnants of government intervention. As always with the monetarist religion all errors boil down to the same failing – we didn’t believe hard enough. Again we will be assured that the only root to freedom and economic security is through the economic free-for-all.

Resisting this resurgence will not be easy, any more than last time. The bitter fact is that wealth usually has the power to usurp truth. While it is plain as day that privatisation and deregulation have been disastrous for democracy, liberty and security, the elites that benefit have much louder voices than those who suffer. Monetarist ideology is 99% lies, but its advocates are well connected and have endless resources at their disposal.

The other problem is the remaining 1% - the grain of monetarism that is true. The rational kernel of free-market ideology may be minuscule in comparison to the propaganda that hangs off it, but its logic is potent and appealing. Those who wish to prevent free-market madness from returning would do well to understand that logic.

99% Lies

The first point is plain enough. While monetarism is sold to us as freedom it is in fact a strategy to neuter democracy. All the talk of liberty and free competition is propaganda. The real objective is to keep politics and economics out of the hands of the citizenry and in the hands of the super rich – and it’s worked a treat.

It is bitterly comical to recall that Thatcher won power in 1979 as the champion of the small business. Thirty years on and every high street is reduced to the same cluster of national or global chains. Thirty years of ‘free competition’ culminates in us all being fed by four supermarkets; independent butchers, bakers and greengrocers outnumbered by homeopaths and palmists.

The monetarist might argue, well that’s the free market. There was a fair contest and these four won. But of course the competition never was fair. Obviously those with huge cash reserves can buy and sell cheaper, and bankrupt smaller competitors. But this shows no talent in business only a talent for ruthlessness. And the end results are the antithesis of freedom and competition.

If the consequence of a competition is four indistinguishable businesses and no real choice then clearly there was something wrong with the rules of the game. Any government truly interested in the benefits of the free market would break these behemoths up and run the competition again, with rules to protect the smaller retailers from such vast accumulations of capital (that’s any government truly interested in the benefits of the free market.....)

Similarly the privatisation of public utilities was nothing but corporate theft of public property. Such a grand heist required a thick smokescreen. The propaganda version was that this was a democratic extension of share ownership. A portion of shares were sold, undervalue, to the general public. Those lucky enough to afford a few then saw the share price rise sharply and so sold them on – to the usual suspects. So a tidy profit for those members of the public who already had a few quid handy, and a swift transfer of ownership and control to unaccountable multinational corporations. If you see Sid, tell him.

Similarly, how can a market be free when some of the competitors are lobbying government or bribing government, or actually serve in government? Corporate propaganda, or as it re-branded itself, ‘Public Relations’ is an immense industry with tentacles in every corner of business and politics. No string is left un-pulled to ensure wealth stays with the wealthy, and that democracy never poses a threat to profit.

The central plank of monetarism is that government should keep out of business. For this to have any useful meaning the opposite must also be true – business must keep out of government. Politics cannot be democratic when wealth is allowed to skew opinion and skew elections. A market cannot be free when ministers awarding contracts end up on the boards of the companies that win them. (For the whole horrific history of back-scratchers, businessmen, lobbyists and politicians see Miller and Dinan’s A Century of Spin.)

Finally, the lies that triggered the current crisis, a deceit transparent enough for a child to see through: It doesn’t matter how bad your credit record because property prices just go up and up indefinitely. And no one ever loses their job. What can possibly go wrong?

How ever did such lies and idiocy become the orthodoxy? It all comes down to self-interest, self-delusion, and a wilfully naïve interpretation of ‘laissez-faire’. This monetarist slogan roughly translates to ‘let do’, specifically, ‘let the economy do’; let business run itself, with minimal state intervention. Monetarists argue that this is the key to prosperity and security, and indeed the only way to protect individual liberty.

The validity of this belief will be the subject of part-two. To finish here, it can be seen that the lies and chaos of the past thirty years can be traced back to this naïve interpretation. To mix the Frenchisms, ‘laissez-faire economics’ was translated as ‘carte-blanche for capitalists’. Everything for sale to the highest bidder. From bin-collection to building societies, the only relevant qualification to own or run anything was money.

And should anyone query this wisdom a reflex answer was to hand: Stop interfering. The market will provide. Anything else will lead to low productivity, un-competitiveness, perhaps even lead to another Stalin or Hitler.

Although the lie was vacuous and transparent, as long as enough of the right sorts of people were doing well out of it there was nothing to stop it spreading. To the last minute government and media were still nosing it along. As calamity loomed dissenting voices were still labeled heretical, part of any problem, snuffed out.

Only when the banks failed did the expressions change. Brows once fixed in certainty now feigned surprise: Who would have thought unrestrained corporate slash-and-burn could result in economic disaster?

Overnight, heresy became necessity. Suddenly it was fine for governments to intervene in business, essential in fact. All talk turned to checks, balances, interventions and bailouts.

The monetarist ‘consensus’ was just a confidence trick. The scam held as long the economy could bear it, but the game is well and truly up. The artists and their shills are laughing on the beach. The mugs, the great mass of us, prepare to meet the costs in tax, employment, housing, public services, health, hunger, warfare, ecological breakdown and a swathe of other uncertainties.

The free market promised wealth, security, and liberty and then led us to the abyss. But all will be forgotten should the economy ever recover. We’ve been here before, after all. Monetarism will re-emerge, probably under a different name, but making the same demands. It will be advocated by the same self-interested parties and have the same financial backing. That’s the self-generating power of privatisation. It makes some people very rich. They can then use those riches to campaign for more privatisation.

Nevertheless there’s one weapon in the free-marketeers arsenal with more to it than wealth and power. Mention of it is likely to prompt more cries of heresy, this time from the left. It’s the 1% of monetarist ideology that is merits examination, and that’s the subject of part two.

Propaganda through Ignorance: The Case of South Ossetia

For a great many of us the term Ossetia is new on the ear. It’s the sort of noise one might hear briefly on mainstream news in the context of an earthquake or flood or ‘senseless’ war, before returning to the reality of London or Hollywood. Only with Russia’s recent incursion has Ossetia become worthy of elevation into media and public consciousness.

Such background ignorance is a gift to propagandists. The less we already know on a subject the more scope there is to bend or invert our understanding. If we have no will or desire to probe any deeper the message on Ossetia is simple: It’s the bloody Russians. They have invaded Georgia, a neighbouring sovereign state. They have broken international law.

All other details then take the form of supporting evidence. We can be reminded of Russia’s history of invading its neighbours – Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and of course the baseless cold-war fear of Russian tanks rolling over Western Europe. The invasion of Georgia fits perfectly with this rekindled world-view. Russia is simply up to her old tricks.

Likewise the West can be painted in its traditional colours, as the defender of freedom. The only questions to be asked relate to our integrity in standing up to this criminality. “What can we do to contain Russia?” implore the leader-writers. “Countries need to know that their territorial integrity is absolutely secure” insists the British Foreign Secretary, “Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century” adds the American President” both presumably with straight faces. Russia, we are told, must face the consequences of this “blatant aggression”.

You could leave it there – and to the great relief of our government and media many do. But pan-out a little and certain absent facts modify this simple moral landscape. A hint comes from Russian mainstream news. According to these propagandists the Russian invasion was a humanitarian intervention to protect the people of South Ossetia from Georgian war crimes. Naturally “humanitarian intervention” should ring alarm bells for anyone familiar with modern history. Invading to protect has been the cynical pretext for war-crimes from Czechoslovakia to Vietnam to Iraq. Nevertheless it is a testable claim.

Firstly, regardless of Russian motives, it certainly is a fact that Georgia was pummelling the people of South Ossetia prior to the Russian invasion. No mention or condemnation of these war-crimes from Milliband or Brown.

Secondly, the people of South Ossetia certainly have voted by an overwhelming majority to become independent of Georgia (99% in favour with a turn-out of 95%). This fact seems particularly pertinent and particularly suspicious by its absence in western news reports. After all, haven’t we just been told that breakaway autonomous states are a good thing? Haven’t we just been sold the wonder of Kosovo’s autonomy from Serbia? If that was a miracle of democracy and self-determination, why not so in South Ossetia?

Even if Russian motives are wholly cynical surely these facts could only add to public understanding. Instead, on the odd occasion we hear of the Ossetian referendum it is only in the context of its supposed invalidity and illegality. South Ossetia is not recognised by the “international community” i.e. the UN, NATO the EU and all the other international bodies that can usually be relied upon to rubber stamp western interventions and atrocities.

And it doesn’t stop there. Another potentially illuminating but suspiciously absent fact is the enormous oil pipeline running through Georgia. Might this not be helpful in explaining the West’s indifference toward the wishes of South Ossetia’s inhabitants and its toleration of Georgia’s crimes? Likewise the fact that the West is pushing for Georgia to enter NATO – in strict violation of promises made to Russia. Might this not be useful in explaining Russia’s actions more than its supposed malignant desire to begin a new cold war? (For these and copious other inconvenient facts see Chomsky here.)

No doubt such thinking will be written-off as paranoid nonsense. To even entertain such thoughts is to be suckered by Russian propaganda. But note that nothing here is in dispute. You don’t have to believe anything Vladimir Putin believes that Condoleezza Rice wouldn’t also admit to. It’s only that our government and media have decided that these particular facts are not relevant to our understanding of the situation. For one reason or another ignorance of these topics is seen to be preferable to knowledge of them. We can only wonder why.

Knife Crime: New Hoodies for Summer ‘08

Like the paedophile summer of 2000 and the hoodie summer of 2005, 2008 seems all set to be forgotten as the summer of knife crime. Rather than pit-bulls or perverts this season’s ephemeral terror is the blade.

Which is not to mock the horror of reality. If ownership of knives really is on the increase it’s a genuine cause for concern. What does deserve ridicule is the political and media response. As discussed in this post written during the great hoodie terror of 2005 such moral panics have little to do with solving social problems and a great deal to do with selling newspapers and furthering political ambitions.

As suggested at that time, the fact that these vital crusades are dropped as soon as something else comes along is a good measure of the sincerity of those leading them. Judging by the date, the London bombings were soon to blow the hoodies off the headlines. By the time the dust settled the threat posed by jogging-tops was long forgotten.

Hopefully it won’t take anything as awful as the London bombs to remove ‘knife culture’ from the front pages, but in the event of slow news summer (i.e. no large quantities of dead westerners) we can still fully expect the issue to wear-out and slip from the public eye. As a threat with a long pedigree, and a long list of personas (teddy-boy razor gangs, skinheads with flick-knives) it will surely re-emerge in time, with a suitably macabre new name. But for the meantime it will be consigned to the same scrapheap, or rather recycle bin, as mad dogs and trampoline photography.

In the midst of a given panic such observations will likely encounter indignation. Some will contend that even if such campaigns are short-lived and insincere they are better than nothing. But it’s a difficult position to defend. In most articles the growth of ‘knife culture’ is attributed to two factors, fashion and fear: Some children see knife ownership as an essential part of seeming tough while others claim it's necessary for self-defence. If this is the case then saturation media coverage can only exacerbate the problem. The press are actually cranking-up both the sinister glamour and the perceived threat.

And even if evidence could be found that a saturation of ‘knife culture’ articles really does reduce knife crime, wouldn’t this imply negligence of other topics? The fashion for reporting every single dog attack on every single news bulletin has long passed but the attacks continue. Should we assume that the current crusade is causing more children to be mauled by diverting our attention onto knives?

The only possible beneficiaries it seems are those breast-beating from the bandwagon. Cherie Blair must be hoping for a bit of the Princess Diana landmine factor to rub off on her. Perhaps it’ll help to detract from the great lake of children’s blood her husband has spilt. The media on the other hand always enjoy a firm moral stand when there’s no risk of its own implication. British newspapers don’t have a history of excusing children for stabbing each other like they do for excusing governments that drop bombs on children. A convincing moral crusade should always focus on the guilt of others, the last thing you want on board is uncertainty about your own deeds.

Two thoughts on the recent BNP victories II

Media

Comical as it might seem most news outlets maintain the pretence of sticking to the following journalistic principles:

1. Strive to tell the truth.
2. Strive to reflect opinion.

At first this might sound worthy and sensible enough, the only obvious problem being the sincerity of the striving. How hard does the Murdoch press really strive to tell the truth about anything in the world?

However this masks a deeper problem, one well-illustrated by the recent BNP victories. What if principles one and two conflict? What if a section of the public starts believing something mistaken? Is it still the media’s duty to reflect it back at the rest of us, perpetuate the error? Shouldn’t principle one always trump principle two?

The standard defence against this is context. The BBC would argue that it makes clear when its output is fact-based and when it is ‘just’ opinion: Newsreaders read facts, Question Time panellists express opinions – and the public is fully aware of the distinction.

Certainly if you ask the producers of Question Time why a fruitcake like Melanie Phillips is persistently invited back they wouldn’t dare suggest it’s because she speaks the truth. You’ll be told that it is because her opinions reflect the views of a substantial section of the British public. Likewise there is no suggestion that the hang ‘em and flog ‘em brigade who dominate Radio Two phone-ins are painting an accurate portrait of Britain in the twenty-first century, only that they speak for millions of Britons.

Whatever the truth of this it remains highly problematic. Broadcasting or publishing falsity is still allowing falsity to calibrate the agenda, even when the audience is advised to take it all ‘with a pinch of salt’. Worse still as bogus opinion often yields a larger audience than painful truth frequently it is allowed to actually set the agenda.

It’s certainly possible to defend a great raft of lies like The Great Global Warming Swindle by citing principle two, but not without jettisoning principle one. For those who wish to continue driving and flying and consuming without restriction it was music to the ears. The delightful idea that the scientists had got it all wrong had wide appeal and led this ‘documentary’ to be sold across the globe, attaining audience and pundit attention the truth could only dream of.

But for all this interest it remains what it always was – a raft of lies. The fact that a sizeable audience is keen to hear that humans are not causing rising temperatures has no bearing on the wealth of evidence that we are. The fact that some lies are more palatable and saleable than the truth doesn’t make them any truer, or excuse passing them on.

Likewise, the fact that the BNP is gaining support doesn’t make its outpourings any more accurate or valid. Like Melanie Phillips, Nick Griffin would have us believe there’s a danger of Islamism sweeping to power in Britain. Sad to say a growing number of people seem to believe this too. But does that make it true, a valid concern?

Similarly, like Melanie Phillips, Nick Griffin sees multicultural Britain as a failed experiment, and the root of most social evil. Crime, it seems, is a recent import. The BNP want a return to the good old London prior to mass immigration, the London of Hogarth and Dickens, free from gangs, drugs and prostitution, safe for a lady to walk unaccompanied at night.

A great many evangelicals believe that Satan stalks the earth but few serious broadcasters would make that the starting point for debate. While it’s everyone’s right to wallow in fantasy there is nothing democratic about broadcasting falsehood, even when falsehood is gaining popularity. As with global warming there is probably a keener audience for bogus interpretations of social history than those that might cause the viewer to question their own country’s role in the world. Patriotism is far easier on the eye and ear than imperialism. The benevolence of Britain and the ingratitude and ineptitude of her colonial subjects makes far more comfortable viewing than tales of colonial brutality and ongoing exploitation. But comfortable isn’t the same as true.

While it would be unrealistic to suggest that Britain is slipping into fascism the methods of the far-right remain the same: Scapegoating sections of the community and playing-on existing prejudices. Like unscrupulous mainstream politicians, unscrupulous journalists and editors may see opportunity rather than danger in the new terms of debate. Rather than countering the lies they will assist in the beating down of a wider terrain of idiocy. Any criticism can be countered by citing principle two – their duty to reflect public opinion. The price of such talk will be high for many citizens, but worth paying for increased circulation and higher ratings.

Two thoughts on the recent BNP victories I

Politics

The BNP’s success in the May elections is clearly a matter of concern for the main parties. Condemnation rains down from all sides. To be fair some of this may be genuine, motivated by fear of what this nasty little clan might actually get up to. But then again it’s hard not to hear naked party/self-interest lurking behind the outrage. Just as powerful a motivation for the condemnation is the simple desire to snatch those votes back.

More darkly and quietly then we can also expect some effort to adopt the ‘appeal’ of the BNP (if that can ever be the proper term!) Politicians crave votes and they are usually not too choosy about how they acquire them. Clearly the BNP are saying things which chime with a section of the British public, one large enough to secure a hundred local government seats. Shrewd councillors, MPs and PR staffers will now be working overtime to ascertain the BNP’s electoral appeal, and working out ways to soften it and slip it into their own language and manifestos.

It won’t be the first time. While Margaret Thatcher certainly was a racist race was never really an issue in her vision of a new order. Thatcherism was about breaking unions, cutting welfare, dismantling the NHS and getting industry back into private hands. But when a swell of traditional Labour and Tory voters drifted towards the National Front she and her advisors saw the perfect opportunity to feign concern about immigration, and steal those votes back. She could raise the vague “fear of being swamped by people of a different culture” to gain power, and then get on with the unrelated business of monetarism.

The politics of gaining power needs bear little relation to political agenda. Government is about economics. Gaining office is about foetal rights, marital fidelity, prohibitions on flag burning, and of course the delicate application of racism.

In 2008 many in New Labour and the Conservatives are not even racist in their personal lives – some are even members of the dreaded ethnic groups. But if they hope to win power and get the chance to implement their radical and distinct political reforms (breaking unions, cutting welfare, dismantling the NHS and keeping industry in private hands) then the temptations of populism will beckon. Condemnation of Mr Griffin’s shabby little gang will continue for sure, but we can also expect mealy-mouthed appeals to its logic, vague talk of flags, Britishness, armed forces days, and when they dare, the fear of being swamped by foreign cultures. The price of such talk will be high for many citizens, but worth paying if the righteous are to gain office.

Second thought in progress...

Authority and Obedience

Innate Levels of Obedience

Dissent isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. While some find it natural others find it excruciating.

Some feel it’s wrong to complain in the first place, wince at any challenge to authority, wish that everyone would just shut up and put up with things as they are, as they do. But even among those who want to push for change many find the act itself uncomfortable. Full in the knowledge that justice can only be attained through protest many of us squirm at the prospect. While accepting that every cherished liberty was secured by people who refused to be cowed by power and authority it can still seem a lot easier to keep your head down.

Some of this seems innate or at least sewn-in so early it appears so. Throughout life some people exhibit an ingrained awe of power while others find it all a joke. Some children struggle with tears outside the headmaster’s office, others struggle with laughter. Some adults go cap in hand to their bosses, others are happy to shout and thump the table.

For most of us however deference levels rise and fall with the particular situation. It all depends on who it is we actually respect or fear and that can vary greatly. Some children are rude to their parents but in awe of their peers. Some adults are happy to spit in the face of a prince but still squirm at foul language in front of the priest.

In an ideal world it would all boil down to legitimate authority – we would only acquiesce to the authority of those who truly know better – but it isn’t as simple as that. In this unjust world many of us have to feign respect for cynics and bullies just to hold onto our jobs, or avoid a punch.

And even when there is no such clear threat we can still be cowed by the psychological social hierarchy we each carry within. As a time-served customer-service drone I’d like think I treat each caller equally, but I can’t deny the change that comes over me if it turns out I’m addressing a police officer or MP or minor celebrity, particularly if they try to ‘pull rank’ – “do you know who I am?!” While I can find no rational reason to modify my behaviour towards these people I can’t deny the pressure their supposed status exerts.

Origins of Obedience

The roots of such conflicts become clear if we consider the origins of authority and obedience. As social beings there really are times when it’s best to accept the authority of others and times when it’s best to rebel.

Children certainly must accept the authority of responsible adults if they are to grow up well adjusted, or get to grow up at all. But just as crucially they also need to learn to assert their own rights and desires if they are not to be crushed and cowed by others. The persistent power struggle between parent and child can be seen as the exercising of this capacity. Children test our will as a means of testing their own power in the world. They are constantly feeling their way around the power structure they find themselves born into, checking what they can get away with, deciding when it’s time to throw in the towel.

Like it or not this process of standing-up and climbing-down continues throughout adult life. Although some of us might tend to veer towards rebellion and others towards conformity every well-adjusted adult is someone who has learned to exercise both strategies. The spoilt child and the bullied child both grow up with inappropriate notions of their own power and importance. The perpetually rebellious and the perpetually subservient are skewered on opposite poles. Neither can lead a happy or useful life.

Pressure to Conform

Even for those with a well-developed sense of justice it can still be a struggle to stand up to the powerful. Power is by its nature intimidating. It instils fear, not least the fear of getting into trouble. While we often despise it we usually remain dependant upon its patronage. Power holds most of the cards and is in a prime position to punish those that challenge it. Organising a strike or sit-in always carries the risk of reprisal – loss of pay or promotion, a beating, or even loss of life. Keeping in the good books of the powerful is a major incentive to tolerate injustice.

Similarly loyalty and sense of belonging bind many to powers that are not in their interest. Ingrained faithfulness to church, royalty, military and country are all blocks to rational thought and rational dissent. Questioning the powerful can involve questioning the things we are taught to hold dear, an internal conflict prone to cause nausea. This effect is by no means the reserve of the working-class Tory. Even those who consider themselves progressives often cling to something or someone long past reasonable support, perhaps a hero politician or nation state. It is these sorts of loyalties that lead supposed socialists to defend Stalin or Mao or even the current Chinese regime as it batters Tibet.

And of course power is in an excellent position to propagandise on its own behalf, much more so than those who seek to challenge it. The corporate media is one long advert for the legitimacy of the powerful and the impertinence and blind idealism of those who dare to challenge it. Arms manufacturers, rapacious oil companies and tax-exempt media moguls can paint themselves as the rightful guardians of the world. Those who campaign against them are presented as idealistic fools. Who wants to be in that gang?

Such propaganda also fuels another strong pressure to conform – peer pressure. The Sun, Mail and Telegraph don’t just sedate their readership, they also serve to crush the spirit of colleagues and acquaintances. For every progressive in the workplace there are a host of naysayers, waving their tabloids and dampening dissent. The deferent will always be on hand tell you you’re being a troublemaker or associating with troublemakers, and that besides, resistance is futile.

Pressure to Rebel

In part this is driven by embarrassment at their own inaction. Once someone has decided not to fight for their rights the last thing they want to watch is someone else try. Better to throw cold water on it. For in truth, just as there is a strong impulse to conform to power there is also a great deal of respect to be gained by standing up for yourself. And just as there is a fear of being singled out by power as a troublemaker there is also the opposing threat of being seen as a ‘yes man’ or ‘yes woman’ by one’s colleagues.

It is this opposing pressure that leads to many of the tall tales one hears in the workplace. Those renowned for tugging their forelocks are usually the first to claim they take no crap from the management, forever recounting the times they confronted the boss. Conveniently enough these magical transformations always seems to occur when there is no one about to witness them – “You should have seen me in there!”

While most of us want to avoid trouble nobody likes to be thought of as a carpet. Self respect and a will to protect the rights of others is widely recognised as a virtue, even amongst the powerful. The mere act of challenging authority can earn its respect rather than its punishment, even earn its promotion. The shrewd underling is the one who knows when to say thus far, and no further. Bosses (both shrewd and stupid) often respect and value such individuals (if they don’t send them to the gulag.)

Doing the Right Thing

Worthwhile disobedience takes some thinking about. Unchecked, the dissenting mind is prone to wander into utopia. It’s easy to overestimate the potential for change, particularly after a small victory or rousing rally. Many a wannabe progressive has seen the seeds of global revolution in an anti-war demo or local pay dispute. While such visionaries do little to affect change they are a great target for those who seek to paint all dissenters as blind idealists. Small wonder so many ultra-leftists end-up disillusioned and arguing on the right.

Alternatively the unchecked conservative mind can become complicit with all sorts of injustice. The mere existence of an institution or organisation does not justify its existence or justify compliance with its rules. While it’s fine in principle to love the state what if that state is corrupt? What if its leaders are unelected kings or generals or emperors or chairmen? What if they are formally elected but in league with robber barons or psychotic corporations or Mafiosi? What sort of natural order is that to defer to?

Progressive dissent walks a thin line. Naïve revolt and naïve deference are gutters either side. Naïve progressives can glibly claim the whole system is irredeemably corrupt whatever it is. Naïve conservatives can counter that this is the best of all possible worlds and that to rebel is to meddle with the natural order. The best course of action must surely lie somewhere between the two. The question is, where?