Thoughts for the brain...

I am, I hope, about to have something of mine (a rewrite of the recent Another Green World post) put up on the IS Network blog. The point of the piece will be there is something to be said for socialists incorporating environmentalist politics in a non-utopian way.

Part of the difficulty of green politics is who is expected to put on the agenda, let alone into action. The piece ends with a set of suggestions, possible demands that can link improving quality of life to curbing greenhouse gas emissions to tangible action in the here and now.

The other problem with green politics is the scale of climate change. There is no plausible environmentalism-in-one-country. We’ve commented before on the potential risks and rewards geo-engineering, particularly the scheme for carbon dioxide removal via iron fertilisation of the oceans.

Another solution proposed is solar radiation management, the most realistic idea being spraying the atmosphere with particulates that reflect sunlight. It’s a very costly outlay but it’s familiar from nature. Very large volcanic eruptions have cooled the global climate many times. But the knock on effects can be drastic. Two African droughts in the twentieth century have been linked to eruptions in the northern hemisphere. 

Geo-engineering is no substitute for reducing greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere, but, given the late hour we will need some measures to ameliorate climate change. An environmental movement linked to the workers movement can bridge the gap between the huge ends and currently inadequate means. 

Thoughts for the Brain

Or, oh boy, politics, that's where I'm a Viking!

A fascinating, if lopsided post is topping the Tomb at the moment.

I say lopsided because it is focused on intra-left discussion and interaction; probably because the original article was focused on the idea of a Coalition of the Radical Left (if anyone cares to respond to this you’ll be responding to a response to a response). A small observation: the word ‘radical’ has been bled of almost all meaning. Applying radical politics should mean going to the root of a problem. One of the earliest uses of this metaphor was in the English Revolution, the Root and Branch Petition, which called for the abolition of the church hierarchy.

And it’s just here we can get ourselves into all sorts of difficulty. Just what is the problem and exactly how do we get to the root of it? For example: in some quarters you’ll hear no end of arguments about whether the current crisis is due to capitalism or corporatism. Leaving aside the whether we can do something about either of these two phenomena right now, the two problems posed, capitalism and corporatism, suggest two very different solutions. This means two forms of activity, two movements, in the end two parties, not one.

But, I guess, at this point, radical can be fairly well understood as opposed to austerity politics, not a bad means for regrouping. The immediate job is to clarify and popularise anti-austerity politics. The difficulty (for the British left) identified by the original author is the very loaded, winner-takes-all political system. Another, more important, difficulty is the monolithic nature of British trade unionism. There’s only one meaningful federation of unions and it’s tied to the Labour party. Though it could be powerful it is often the Lion that Squeaked.

The point is, without some surprising social upheaval, a British May 68 (and with hindsight the original May 68 wasn’t so surprising), a new left is going to be stuck for many years, unable to make an impact or even regularly manifest itself.

Some points then:

1)      If we’re talking about a Coalition Against Everything then the net shouldn’t be cast too widely and the aims should not be too high. The thing has to hold together through difficult times.

2)      If we’re talking about at Coalition Against Something, a particular aspect of austerity, then it makes perfect sense to widen the coalition within the bounds of effective action.

3)      Two axioms – limited initial success plus the need for effective action equals concentrating on areas where progress can be made. For example: building a rank and file group amongst workers with sectional strength that can press its claims against the bosses and the union leadership. Narrow campaigns, as opposed to broad, demonstrative ones – we are not a Feb 15th Re-enactment Society.

4)      Everything Lenin says about the conduct of debate, but in particular the righteous urge to demand everyone bury their differences – NOW. Sometimes it’s not the People’s Front of Judea vs the Judean People’s Front. Sometimes, every now and then, arguments happen over important principles. Any formal structure must allow for this.

Mo' thoughts

Fantasy in fiction is inescapably political, and not just in the sense that all culture is inescapably political (art in the age of mechanical reproduction is no longer underpinned by ritual but politics… and so forth). Fantasy scenarios are most often based in the future or the past, or a future/past; we’re talking Star Trek or Lord of the Rings. The other not so common scenario is deconstruction of the present, near future or recent past; some titles plucked out of the air, Ape and Essence, Children of Men, The Mighty Boosh.

Fantasy can be a critique of our own society, taking modern institutions and prevailing ideology out of their context. This is satire. Satire is generally motivated by a reformist impulse, to expose hypocrisy, set wrongs right and so on. Satire, though a totally valid art-form, is actually a form of release. By focussing on specific issues it eases the pressure, ideological pressure, on our ruling class. We may be laughing at our rulers, but that means we’re not grabbing pitchforks and heading for Versailles.

But fantasy can also be experienced as a sublimated form of anti-capitalism, a desire to crack open reality in order to release the repressed potential inside. If for whatever reason the urge overthrow the current order is repressed, the drama of revolution is overlooked, instead it can come out as desire for restoration of the old order. All that is sacred is profaned by capitalism, so, goes the logic, we must restore what was once sacred. This is why we can root for Aragorn and Frodo, despite the fact their literal cause is the restoration of the King of Gondor. Lord of the Rings is a reactionary fantasy, but there is more than enough flexibility, in the film, in the book and in the genre, to allow multiple interpretations.

Occupy CoL - some observations

The picture sums the current situation up. To be blunt anyone who is not rooting for the St Paul's campers is an idiot or a scumbag. I went along to the inital demo to check it out. The following thoughts occur:

(1) A few thousand people put together in a few days by people working over the internet is not to be sniffed at. Of course larger, formal organisations can deliver greater numbers and have them better organised, which leads on to...
(2) There is not enough time to faff around with demonstrative democracy when there's a job to be done - if you're going to occupy the stock exchange work out how you're going to occupy it (preferably don't advertise it to the police first) occupy it and, once that's done, then you vote on stuff...
(3) If you were asked to rebuild the pyramids you wouldn't round up 10,000 slaves, you'd buy a load of JCBs. If there is no prohibition on amplifying your voice in the City of London there's no need for a human megaphone - it's just frivilous. If this was anything else but the beginning of something you'd be tempted to think the camp is just mass playacting.
(4) Da sound of da police: According to the Graun:

The Metropolitan police said some "containment" had been in place to prevent a breach of the peace

... An utterly baffling reversal of logic. The only purpose of kettling is to give the police total physical superiority in order to provoke and frustrate, thereby allowing them to pick off 'troublemakers'.

The cops made a serious bodge when they didn't close down the nearby shops and restaurants before putting their kettle in place. It meant they had to 'assess' (their exact word) who was legitimate and who wasn't.

PC Brains: Why're you here, sonny jim?

Person: Well it's just such a beautiful day...

Brains: Not good enough.

Regards whether this was collective imprisonment I also heard from two separate plods that it's not imprisonment because you're not being held under a roof; which is a novel definition, one that may have been comfort to Ivan Denisovich.

I felt lucky to get out when I did... Once they weeded out the tourists, I expected a police riot on Saturday. Give them time... or don't, actually, give the campers your support.