In light of the recent defeat of Clare Solomon in the University of London Union elections a lot of people have been bandying about a lot of the usual political rhetoric about a victory of the right in dethroning the revolution’s favourite single mother, highlighting once again the intense politicisation of the student movement in recent years. Clare’s own politicisation – which was a relatively recent development for her – has been one of the key points of contention. The ex-Muslim, ex-Mormon, ex-Capitalist, “Revolutionary” could certainly tick a few boxes in an Equal Oppurtunities application, which is why it’s kind of ironic that’s it’s her massive political sectarianism which was finally downfall. Of course, this is hardly a radical statement – it’s clear that Clare’s views are not exactly going to appeal to all shades of the political spectrum. Where she and her gang have shot themselves in the foot is that they have managed to essentially divide and disillusion the student left.
Clare and her followers have created an invisible line in the sand and anyone whose views lean any farther left of that line than her is basically a Tory sympathiser. A “counter-revolutionary”. Aaron Porter’s own vilification at the hands of the Solomonites has been a perfect example; a man whose views certainly swing a bit further left than Ed Miliband’s has basically been accused of turning the NUS into an HQ for Tory spies because he didn’t give the old nod and wink to the balaclava boys when they were tearing down public property. Admittedly there were a few more criticisms of him than that, but most of them can be attributed by some kind of need for inclusiveness and pragmatism – concept which the Solomonites just can’t comprehend. It’s become a case of towing the party line; “you’re either with us, or you’re against us” and “against us” is anyone who dares to condemn the destruction of public property or throwing cinderblocks at the police. This is perhaps the true hypocrisy of the Solomonites – they constantly throw around the word “solidarity” while setting a bar of such high extremes of political violence, both physical and verbal, that the only people qualified to take the high ground have the Gang of Four tattooed on their arse-cheeks and alienate anyone but the most rampantly left-wing. People use the word “bigot” interchangeably with “racist” nowadays, but it is actually defined as anyone obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices and this sure as hell sums up the bigoted Solomonites.
In a recent Guardian interview, Clare blamed her defeat on a “right-wing alliance” which, for her, includes Labour, Tory, Lib Dem and basically anyone who isn’t a card-carrying Socialist Worker. Even if we ignore the intense paranoia in this accusation, it is the sheer gall she has in asserting her importance in the grand scheme of things – as if the Tories don’t have better things to do. And I think that the greater left have simply had enough. The sheer nonsense of the Solomonites’ sectarianism is that students are traditionally left-leaning. Conservative students are still a rarity - if a majority kicked her out, then that’s a majority of lefties who kicked her out. Maybe not balaclava-wearing, para-militirist wannabe lefties, but lefties nonetheless. There is a large constituent of students with left-wing beliefs – probably a majority in fact – who are being ostracised and vilified by the Solomonites’ vindictive triumphalism. To label Clare’s defeat as a victory of the right is arrogant in the extreme; Clare Solomon does not represent the left, she is not the socialist figurehead, she was the head of a multi-faceted, inclusive organisation and by forcing her own bigoted, violent pseudo-Bolshevism on the student movement came damn near close to destroying it and turning progressive politics into a caricature. Her defeat is a victory for the left, not the right. The Red Flag is not flying for you, Clare...
Wednesday 30 March 2011
The Morality of Violence and the March 26th TUC march
In light of the TUC demonstration on the 26th of March, the big issue again getting all the media attention is the violence. Groups of black-shirted “anarchists” vandalising Oxford Street, Piccadilly Cirucs, Trafalgar Square and anywhere else they may feel like in the name of bringing down the symbols of capitalist exploitation, etc. As usual it was the youngsters causing all the trouble – aside from a few drunken shouts of “sell-out” during Ed Miliband’s Hyde Park speech from the older generations, it was the same group of young wannabe-insurrectionists spoiling the party for everyone.
Let me posit this scenario – one day I’m walking down Oxford Street and I come across McDonald’s. Since I’m a staunch anti-capitalist (and they ripped off my name) I decide to pick up a brick and throw it through the window. No-one is hurt, but the police come and take me away. Now, I doubt there are many people who would see my actions as justified, or as the actions of anything other than a lunatic, and yet this is exactly the same scenario that occurred in Oxford Street and Piccadilly and Trafalgar Square on the 26th. The only difference is the mob mentality which gives people strength (and anonymity) in numbers. And I honestly cannot see what the “anarchists” present on the 26th – and I use that term in the loosest possible sense since I very much doubt Kropotkin or Proudhon would have been giving their stamp of approval to these nutjobs – think they can achieve with their tactics. To quote Kropotkin himself, in reference to the acts of violent anarchists in 1887, “a structure based on centuries of history cannot be destroyed with a few kilos of dynamite.” It’s all meaningless venting, particularly considering that they only ever come out in force under the shelter of a greater demonstration. Their inherently frightening personas mean that they have no chance of winning public support and the fact that they all come under the definition of “youths” certainly makes me picture a lot of feckless Black Flag fans with too much time on their hands. At best, the suppression of the state is the last thing you want in these neo-neo-liberal times and the anarchist cause is hopelessly misguided and naive as it ever was, and its theories unworkable beyond pragmatic application in select institutions. At worst, you have a bunch of ignorant moral egoist thugs who are destroying the reputation of the greater anti-cuts movement by association.
Of course, the other anti-cuts groups don’t exactly help themselves in this case – the refusal of UK Uncut spokesman Lucy Annson to condemn the violence committed on the 26th is a perfect example of otherwise peaceful anti-cuts groups shooting themselves in the foot. The only way they can justified and rally public support is by presenting themselves as anything but “radical” and although it may be more ethically sound not to make a stand on the violent action, it’s a real kick in the crotch for their publicity – particularly since UK Uncut’s ideologies couldn’t be further from those of the black block. This is another example of that dreaded notion of “solidarity” – the concept that there is some kind of good/evil divide in the ether at the moment and that the black bloc and other violent protesters are part of the “good” because they stand against the “evil” bankers and tax-cheats. This sounds moronic, but it’s dangerously close to how the minds of many people work. The police actions at Fortnum and Mason were bizarre and idiotic, but that does not mean that the police are the “bad guys” here and therefore the black bloc are the “good guys”. This not a conflict. This is not a revolution.
Here in Britain we are blessed with one of the most free and open societies on the planet. The insurrection in North Africa is a tragedy – the people of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya should never have needed to overthrow their government and the fact that they were pushed to it should not be romanticised. To compare our society to theirs is sick and offensive – the protesters calling to turn Trafalgar Square into Tahrir Square are so utterly ignorant that it baffles the mind that these people are supposed to be standing at the avant-garde of “progressive” society. In Britain we have a system has been honed over years of political construction to allow individuals the right to expression. By resorting to violence, these privileges – which every rebel in Libya is fighting for their lives to gain – are being tossed aside in favour of primitive, un-thinking, instinctive stupidity. Violence is the first and last resort of the moronic. And we do not need it here.
Now of course, there is a big difference between the destruction of property and violent acts against other human beings. But at the same time, the impetus is the same – destruction. Aggression. Anger. Violence. No stable society can be built on these principles – violence begats violence, as the French Revolution showed us. Why people still romanticise violence in this day and age is beyond me. And my main point is this – who the hell are you to decide what’s acceptable in terms of violence? Who the hell are you to make the choice to destroy someone else’s work, let alone destroy a person? What gives you that right? Since when did destruction ever lead to growth? We have laws in this country because there needs to be an objective set of rules on these limits, particularly in these increasingly secular times – a lot of us don’t have a big magic book to tell us anymore and you are sure as hell not smart enough to decide for yourself. It’s that kind of moral egoism which enables men like Gaddafi to take power and lets bankers decide to rob people blind without disturbing their conscience. By deciding their own boundaries, the black bloc are all part of the same parcel and are, therefore, hypocrites.
So let me just say this – I have no shame in trying to push a pacifist agenda on people. As far as I am concerned it’s the only morally justified lifestyle. It is not possible for individuals to make a decision on the moral use of violence – to do so is fascist and, last time I checked, fascism was a bad thing. And to the black shirts – whoops, sorry, I mean the black bloc - if you’re still keen on the old anarchism, try reading Tolstoy’s “The Kingdom of God is Within You” and then see how your ideologies stand. Because from where you stand to me, all I see is a big black mark on the face of society...
Let me posit this scenario – one day I’m walking down Oxford Street and I come across McDonald’s. Since I’m a staunch anti-capitalist (and they ripped off my name) I decide to pick up a brick and throw it through the window. No-one is hurt, but the police come and take me away. Now, I doubt there are many people who would see my actions as justified, or as the actions of anything other than a lunatic, and yet this is exactly the same scenario that occurred in Oxford Street and Piccadilly and Trafalgar Square on the 26th. The only difference is the mob mentality which gives people strength (and anonymity) in numbers. And I honestly cannot see what the “anarchists” present on the 26th – and I use that term in the loosest possible sense since I very much doubt Kropotkin or Proudhon would have been giving their stamp of approval to these nutjobs – think they can achieve with their tactics. To quote Kropotkin himself, in reference to the acts of violent anarchists in 1887, “a structure based on centuries of history cannot be destroyed with a few kilos of dynamite.” It’s all meaningless venting, particularly considering that they only ever come out in force under the shelter of a greater demonstration. Their inherently frightening personas mean that they have no chance of winning public support and the fact that they all come under the definition of “youths” certainly makes me picture a lot of feckless Black Flag fans with too much time on their hands. At best, the suppression of the state is the last thing you want in these neo-neo-liberal times and the anarchist cause is hopelessly misguided and naive as it ever was, and its theories unworkable beyond pragmatic application in select institutions. At worst, you have a bunch of ignorant moral egoist thugs who are destroying the reputation of the greater anti-cuts movement by association.
Of course, the other anti-cuts groups don’t exactly help themselves in this case – the refusal of UK Uncut spokesman Lucy Annson to condemn the violence committed on the 26th is a perfect example of otherwise peaceful anti-cuts groups shooting themselves in the foot. The only way they can justified and rally public support is by presenting themselves as anything but “radical” and although it may be more ethically sound not to make a stand on the violent action, it’s a real kick in the crotch for their publicity – particularly since UK Uncut’s ideologies couldn’t be further from those of the black block. This is another example of that dreaded notion of “solidarity” – the concept that there is some kind of good/evil divide in the ether at the moment and that the black bloc and other violent protesters are part of the “good” because they stand against the “evil” bankers and tax-cheats. This sounds moronic, but it’s dangerously close to how the minds of many people work. The police actions at Fortnum and Mason were bizarre and idiotic, but that does not mean that the police are the “bad guys” here and therefore the black bloc are the “good guys”. This not a conflict. This is not a revolution.
Here in Britain we are blessed with one of the most free and open societies on the planet. The insurrection in North Africa is a tragedy – the people of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya should never have needed to overthrow their government and the fact that they were pushed to it should not be romanticised. To compare our society to theirs is sick and offensive – the protesters calling to turn Trafalgar Square into Tahrir Square are so utterly ignorant that it baffles the mind that these people are supposed to be standing at the avant-garde of “progressive” society. In Britain we have a system has been honed over years of political construction to allow individuals the right to expression. By resorting to violence, these privileges – which every rebel in Libya is fighting for their lives to gain – are being tossed aside in favour of primitive, un-thinking, instinctive stupidity. Violence is the first and last resort of the moronic. And we do not need it here.
Now of course, there is a big difference between the destruction of property and violent acts against other human beings. But at the same time, the impetus is the same – destruction. Aggression. Anger. Violence. No stable society can be built on these principles – violence begats violence, as the French Revolution showed us. Why people still romanticise violence in this day and age is beyond me. And my main point is this – who the hell are you to decide what’s acceptable in terms of violence? Who the hell are you to make the choice to destroy someone else’s work, let alone destroy a person? What gives you that right? Since when did destruction ever lead to growth? We have laws in this country because there needs to be an objective set of rules on these limits, particularly in these increasingly secular times – a lot of us don’t have a big magic book to tell us anymore and you are sure as hell not smart enough to decide for yourself. It’s that kind of moral egoism which enables men like Gaddafi to take power and lets bankers decide to rob people blind without disturbing their conscience. By deciding their own boundaries, the black bloc are all part of the same parcel and are, therefore, hypocrites.
So let me just say this – I have no shame in trying to push a pacifist agenda on people. As far as I am concerned it’s the only morally justified lifestyle. It is not possible for individuals to make a decision on the moral use of violence – to do so is fascist and, last time I checked, fascism was a bad thing. And to the black shirts – whoops, sorry, I mean the black bloc - if you’re still keen on the old anarchism, try reading Tolstoy’s “The Kingdom of God is Within You” and then see how your ideologies stand. Because from where you stand to me, all I see is a big black mark on the face of society...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)