Curmudgeonly Communism

I have only just seen the ad as I do not watch television, so please forgive me for being so behind the times. Now, I am not usually a defender of advertising, Probably comes with the commie territory. But having watched it on Youtube, I found it most endearing and quite funny. That is quite depressing in a way because on the few occasions I have watched television at my cousins house, I have sat resolutely po faced at Never Mind The Buzzcocks, Mock the Week, at anything Noel Fielding has ever said and as I have already commented on an earlier blog post, Touch Me I'm Karen Taylor. The fact that a 31 second tv ad can make me laugh while the latest in "comedy" cannot, reinforces my cast iron belief that modern television is mostly shit and you can stuff it. I could not however, even at my most curmudgeonly fail to laugh at the tough Noo Yawk Deli Man gesturing to himself and gruffly demanding "hey, ain'tchoo forgetting sum'in?" Come on, that's funny.

So what in the name of Satan's buttock sweat were people thinking when they complained? What bloody relevance did their complaint have? I do not mean how dare people find two blokes having a little peck on tv, I know people get their knickers in a twist about that. To be honest I think that has less to do with an ideological defence of the family or a deep seated revulsion for homosexuality. It certainly has sweet fuck all to do with "the children". I think it has everything to do with the "ew gross" attitude of people who see two blokes kissing, find it personally distasteful in that very childish way and want to make damned sure they never see it again.

I cannot play the holier than thou card here. The first time I ever saw gay pornography I knew that while same men are fanciable indeed, I knew the whole man on hairy man action was not my thing at all. I was alright while watching them missing the pink and potting the brown but the kissing... no, can't say I'm a fan. I suppose that makes me a hypocrite because I've snogged men meself. I thought I'd give it a go, but it's all stubble and aftershave and seems (in my mind and libido at least) an interesting fantasy but not my preferred way of spending an afternoon. I cannot believe however that the act would so scarring that it would leave children up down the country traumatised and dumbstruck. For one thing, is that unusual to see men kiss each other? I know the preferred method of male bonding is the awkward hand shake and a hesitant pat on the back but at some point, on very special occasions this does sometimes break down, surely? Well it does in my family anyway. And footballers kiss and hug each other when they score goals. I wonder how many football matches faced being banned from tv because Michael Owen planted on Beckham's cheek after he scored a screaming free kick in an England match. Actually given the paucity of scoring opportunities from England this is probably a moot point.

Okay so you could argue that kissing is one thing; this was a representation of "alternative family" life. Right but again there are precedents. Years and years back on eastenders there was that poncy bloke and his wide boy boyfriend Barry. They kissed on screen. The world did not crumble around their ears, butch Brut wearing casuals did not suddenly ditch their girlfriends and weekends of 10 beers and a stripper down the local boozer with the lads... for well, the lads, so to speak. Eastenders carried on as normal. Oh I daresay someone got their knickers in a twist over it mind you. Having read an article about the ad (which is how I got to see it) I understand that there are gay characters in both Emmerdale and Corrie.... so the ad may have been squeezed between these two shows then. Two shows in which presumably the characters have not be fired or the shows pulled. Again though, it is likely that people go arse over tit about those characters as well.

Okay so people get het up about all sorts of silly nonsense. On one level I think well so what. Everyone needs a hobby. If their hobby is being a prick, then okay. I am not perfect, I probably harbour less than wholesome thoughts about all sorts of people. That is to say, I do. When you consider things like an impending war in Iraq, the Labour government, etc. It is all small potatoes I suppose. It's annoying to think people don't have a sense of humour but then some people think Karen Taylor and Ali G are funny. To them it is me that doesn't have a sense of humour. Its also mildly irritating to note that people don't get the bloody ad in the first place. The point of it is not look at the gay family, the point of it is that having this mayo is like having a New Yawk Deli in your house. Or something. Alright so it may have been a bit clumsily done but jeez it's an ad, it's not Chekov. The finest minds of our generation are not working on making Heinz products more attractive. At least I hope not. If they are, the 21st century is worse than I thought.

What really irritates me is that apparently it took 200 people to get the ad pulled. 200. Thousands of people marched in Birmingham to save the Rover plant at Longbridge. The government could have stepped in, listened to what is franly their natural instinctive voters. They did not. Thousands marched in my home town to save Vaxhall. Same. Millions of people marched against the Iraq war and it didn't matter a toss. But TWO HUNDRED FUCKING PEOPLE GET AN AD PULLED BECAUSE IT OFFENED THEIR TINY IMMATURE MINDS. THE CUNTS. That's how fucked society is, that's what a shit nation we live in and that's our shittty democracy. Because it's all about fucking marketing and profit and shitty fucking mayonnaise. My mind absolutely boils. It fills me with nameless apoplexy to think that on such a trivial matter 200 sad sorry bastards just had to cock their little finger to change something for us all. On one level it is pretty tiny. It is just an ad. But commentators have long banged on about the power of the media and it's control. Some control. The spineless bastards pissed their pants because there would be 200 less people less inclined to buy their cunting mayo.

Maybe I am focusing on the wrong thing. It is equally sad to think that while we're doing much better, anti gay bigotry is still virulent in some quarters. The poor lad who was attacked for being gay earlier this week is testament to that. Yet the overriding thought for me is that I cannot help but think that something is broken somewhere when on the big questions no one in power listens, but some bastard ad executive bends over backwards to soothe the ruffled feathers of a few twats.

And to those 200 people I can only say look, on this matter alone I would never be a friend, acquaintance, lover or work colleague of yours. You may all be otherwise charming, delightful sweet and generous people. But that tiny, petty stupid little thing you did taints your soul. It's like realising that while Elvis was gyrating his hips and giving you that smouldering look while singing "you ain't nothin' but a hound dog" he had skids in his underpants.

Lug Radio Is now over. I'm just downloading the last show now. I think it's a real shame. As I never watch TV, a lot of my evenin's entertainment is listening to the radio and increasingly, podcasts. Lugradio, which I discovered back in series 2, was by far my favourite show. They talk about Linux and Open Source software, which is obviously not terribly interesting to most people, but they did so in such a down to earth and humorously blokey way that being at all interested in computers was never a necessary prerequisite for listening to the show. In a way it was like the Skinner and Baddiel world cup podcasts - I'm not a big footie fan by any stretch, but the shows were entertaining enough for that not to matter. As far as I am concerned they set a podcasting standard, regardless of subject matter. And they read out an email of mine (slagging off Eric Raymond)! So anyway, cheers guys, it's been a great show. It'll be sadly missed.

Metropolitan Police officers were rapped after an investigation into photos and comments posted on the Facebook site 'Look I've Had a Pocol' - slang for police collision.

The social networking site had more than 200 members around the world before it was taken down in January.

One photograph showed a police vehicle in an accident with a small white car.

The officer who posted it wrote: "I did him a favour. At 82 years old you just shouldn't be on the road and if you are, then most certainly don't go through a green light into the path of an innocent police car."

Another member wrote: "Ran over a drunk. I believe he has a permanent limp and a hefty payout. I was given a three-month holiday from job driving. Ooh, bummer."

One picture showed a uniformed officer giving a thumbs-up next to a vehicle, which seemed to have hit a fallen tree.

Another picture featured the wreckage of a patrol car after it had mounted the kerb and hit a lamppost.

A spokesman for the Metropolitan police said the offending officers were given written warnings for misconduct.

"Fourteen officers received written warnings and four were given a speaking to. The warnings will remain on their records. Another five had unofficial words in their ear," he said.

The disciplinary action follows a driving ban in January for a policeman who made 'thumbs-up' gestures to speed cameras while racing to emergencies.

David Mayes, 34, from Barnsley, was also fined £400.

Also in February, the Independent Police Complaints Commission concluded an probe into officers from South Wales who competed to see how far they could travel from the station while on duty.

The Gwent officers, nicknamed the "Seaside Five", took their patrol cars as far as the beach on Barry Island.

Two were told to resign from the force, another two were fined 13 days pay and a fifth resigned before the conduct hearing.

http://londonclasswar.org/newswire/index.php?itemid=257

So, I finished my access course. I have provisionally passed the course, I needed 48 credits at "Level 3" (A level equivalents) and I got 51. Plus I got my maths and science GCSEs. It was tough. We did 10 subjects all together - 8 A level equivalents and two GSCEs in a 4 day week in under a year. So tough in fact, that they've decided to drop the minimum credits to 45. Anyway, it's done now. It's still touch and go. We all had to keep our work in a portfolio for the internal moderator. If there's anything wrong with the portfolio that's it, you fail. Which is kinda harsh. Heh, of course if it wasn't for the fact that I know mine isn't excatly 100% even though I have passed everything, I would be a bit more upbeat about it. As it is I am still nervous. But it's up to them now.

Leaving meant saying goodbye to someone, which was extremely sad for me. I have gone from feeling distraught to numb to feeling like it was getting better back to bitterly missing them again. But with any luck the time will heal that wound. The memories hurt right now but one day I will be able to treasure them with no regret or sorrow. I am glad for that. I'm also glad that I managed to make my peace with almost everyone that I fell out with towards the end of the year. Everyone except for one person. My heart simply isn't big enough for that. Lastly, am I glad I will never have to see a certain person on the course ever again! Naw, she's not a bad person by any stretch, just very challenging.

It's been a year of joy and pain and all points in between but I am glad I did it. Still, no time to rest. I still have to go back on Monday and Tuesday and I'll be at school until they break up. After that we'll see. If I officially pass then I have to prepare for University and find a proper job that pays money. If I haven't officially passed then I have some thinking to do. Whatever happens, it was an experience alright. One I won't forget in a hurry. If I had my time again I would have done one or two things differently but most of it I wouldn't change. So that can't be bad, eh?

I'm not eating my own hat as I need it. Besides, a girl commented on it when I was on a bus last week.

Anyway, I thought this was great, it is a total clever bonce smart arse feller David Harvey giving a series of online lectures on reading Karl Marx's Capital Vol. I.

http://davidharvey.org/

If no one else is interested, knickers to you. Saves me bookmarking it by sticking it here.

Yesterday was the final day of schools' healthy week. Teachers and kids alike all had to dress "sportily", which isn't a real word, but you get the gist. I felt seriously under dressed but you have to join in with the spirit of these things. Anyway, one of the kids in the class said to me "your trainers are multi coloured". I was very disappointed that he didn't know that they were Puma Clyde reissues in a rare and ultra limited edition colourway, with extra wide fat laces. I then remembered (and was equally disappointed by) the fact that he would have only known this if he had been a B-Boy circa 1983 and as he was only 7, this was unlikely.

Then I finally remembered that giving a toss about these facts made me a sad bastard,

Still, they're nice trainers.

I had a quick pint with a mate a few weeks ago, one of the few occasions I bother to be social. And we were moaning, as moaning prematurely old and grumpy men tend to do. One of the things we moaned about was music. When I was, I dunno, 15-16, the music I listened to was pretty noisy stuff. If I wasn't listening to hip-hop (stuff like Public and NWA) or acid house and what not, I had a predilection for thrash and death metal. That was what constituted "alternative" as far as I was concerned. These days, and obviously I am far too old to know what constitutes the cutting edge, sounds really wet and wimpy. It was bad enough with Linkin Park (whinging bastards) and Slipknot (death metal lite) but these days, everything I hear wouldn't offend anyone's ears. Surely music is supposed to be noisy for anyone my age? (30+) Surely I should be saying "turn that down"? I think (for instance) My Chemical Romance are shite but that's because they're so inoffensive! They make the Smiths sound like Extreme Noise terror!

This is a sad turn of affairs. Almost every other subculture I can think of (with the exception of the mods) - Pyschobilly, B-Boys, Punk, Skinhead, Goth, Rivetheads, Cybergoth, etc. has tried to set itself apart from the "norm" by looking and sounding outloundish. Is the current subculture wave a rebellion against being different? Is it making a statement by going to a common or garden shop on the high street, buying a pair of vans slip ons and messing up your hair a bit? I'm just glad I don't have children. I can see the disappointment on their faces when they come down stairs having died their hair black and have new tattoos. It's hard to rebel against a dad who had turquoise liberty spikes, brothel creepers and multiple piercings when he was younger. Maybe the best way would be to start wearing sensible cardigans... oh wait, they're already doing that.

Bumped into someone I used to know at school. Well as he pointed out we knew each other at infant school, juniors and senior school but it did take me a while to remember him. Ehh, I never remember people from school. Always surprised when they remember me. I tell you though, he must have changed a lot. I remember him as a terrifying bloke, a proper hard bastard. I last saw him... 'bout 10 years ago, running with some firm or other. I figured him for a lifelong trouble maker. But he was in a nice car... not flashy, just decent and sensible and a kid in the back seat. That I did not expect! Still, good for him! Settled down and respectable. And why not? Anyway he told me that my best friend in Infants/Junior school died in a car crash two years ago. Jeez. Our friendship was always kinda up and down and by the seniors I didn't talk to him at all. Still shocked the hell out of me though. But then I dunno, it might not be true. Brendan might be mistaken. Anyway, I last saw him... I dunno, I s'pose I was in my early 20s, maybe a bit younger. He didn't seem to be going anywhere in life, but then nor was I. I hope that he had turned himself around like Brendan has. But then, wouldn't that be worse? I wouldn't want to think he'd left children behind or whatnot. Anyway, I don't know why I posted this today, I have no moral or message or "makes you think"... but then... well I s'pose it did make me think.

THE working class will neither unite politically, nor man the barri-
cades, for a 10 per cent rise in wages or 50,000 more council flats. In
the foreseeable future there will be no crisis of European capitalism so
dramatic as to drive the mass of workers to revolutionary general
strikes or armed insurrection in defence of their vital interests.

Andre Gorz Reform Or Revolution

Socialist Register, Vol. 5, 1968.

It is strange that Gorz should have written these words. That same year had seen a wave of international protest and struggle that was not sparked by economic crisis. In France, events were brief and explosive. In Italy, the long hot autumn continued to smoulder for ten years. The process was uneven. It was white hot in Europe and the US but a damp squib in the UK (so what else is new)

He was not the first. Anthony Crossland had argued that the class struggle was over and that socialism would simply happen as a result of enlightened good sense. Herbert Marcuse argued that the working class had been bought off by consumerism. Yet the 60s and 70s seemed to prove them wrong. The legions of people who would argue that there is no such thing as the working class any more, that everyone is just a consumer and so on is an old argument. Youl could probably trace it back to the leader of the German SPD in the late 19th century, Bernstein. At every lull in activity people line up to say that it couldn't happen. It is over.

Is it over? Possibly. Possibly not. Human beings are contrary creatures. I would be just as daft and arrogant to suggest that I know it will happen because the above commentators were proved wrong. I do know that I would never have predicted the anti-capitalist/anti-globalisation movements of the late 90s and early 2000s. I would never have predicted what would happen in Argentina a few years ago or what is happening in Latin America today. I would never have thought that an anti-war movement would have brought so many people out on the streets. Predictions work fine for the stock market and the weather (and even then...) for history? We do not fare so well. The right is on the rise and in France Sakorzy is feted as the new Thatcher. But he's not having it easy. Class struggle is still alive in France. None of this denotes a possibility of a future left revival. But then, it doesn't herald its opposite either. History is the activity of real people. Real people do not respond to blueprints or schemas. The future is still unwritten.

I'm going to Brazenly steal from DominicGee here for an opening to my next post.

"I find Marxism is mostly theory, as in practice there's nothing there that anybody would willingly advocate".

http://needfully.blog.co.uk/2008/05/27/the-usa-is-not-a-fascist-regime-4229243#c6915535

I can see what he is getting at. There's a big stodgy pile of rancid rubbish that goes by the name Marxism. It's usually badly written ponderous tripe or hysterical, strident tripe. Like this little gem from the hilariously mad Sparticist league.

“All of our party’s activity is directed to organizing, training and steeling the proletarian vanguard party necessary for the seizure of state power. In contrast, the politics of the reformists and centrists consist of oppositional activity completely defined by the framework of bourgeois society. The latter was sharply characterized by Trotsky as ‘the actual training of the masses to become imbued with the inviolability of the bourgeois state.’ Such accommodation to capitalist class rule by organizations nominally claiming adherence to Marxism is, if anything, more decisively pronounced today in a world defined by the final undoing of the Russian Revolution and the triumphal assertion by the imperialist rulers that ‘communism is dead’.”

—Spartacist pamphlet, For Socialist Revolution in the Bastion of World Imperialism! (November 2000)

http://www.spartacist.org/english/esp/index.html

To quote from the learned Butthead, "this sucks!" Okay, so I am picking a particularly lurid example. To be fair, most of it isn't like that.

But most of it is predicated on a blueprint that they believe is based on the Bolshevik model. Why? Because the Bolsheviks seized power and that is what counts. So the theory is, you build a "party" - and there can only be one by the way - wait for the point of revolutionary crisis, seize power and implement the "programme".

What else? Er, well that's it, actually. Okay, no, I am being disingenuous. There are socialists out there who commit themselves to practical work. The SWP in my opinion do a lot of hard graft. However, as I pointed out before, the hard graft is tied to Leninism. The problem with that is that “Leninism” arose from specific historical circumstances. The Bolsheviks were shaped by the experience of conspiratorial, underground work in Russia. They did not have the experience of decades of work in democratic workers' organizations or a democracy. The absence of that type of work shaped their experience and eventual practise. That practise was not as many would argue, a failure. I do not see how seven plus decades of existence would be described as such. It was not a failure. But it wasn't socialism either. Yes Stalin said it was. So what? A cat won't become a dog because you call it rover. You can't pour sugar on shite and call it dessert.

So what was it? That is a question for another day. What I would like to briefly blog about is what I believe Marxism to be.

Firstly, it is not a theory. If you read Marx you find common themes, that's true. You find a definite method in his work, that is also true. What it is not is a rigid dogma. Or at least it shouldn't be. As Cyril Smith writes

Even in their lifetimes, Marx (1818-1883) and Engels (1820-1895) were dismayed to see their fundamental notions buried under the myth of infallibility. Marx would have been utterly hostile to the statement of Plekhanov (1856-1918) that ‘Marxism is an integral world outlook’. In fact, only a fraction of Marx’s original plan for his work was ever completed. By the time of his death, bourgeois society was already entering a new stage. A large and important part of his writings remained as unedited and undeciphered manuscripts, unknown even to Engels

(http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/millenni/smith2.htm).

It is a dangerous, but almost ubiquitous notion of both friends and foes of Marxism that there's a body of work out there that tries to answer all problems. Of course no human mind can do that. Marx's detractors are right to argue that there is no recipe for a future Utopia in Marx's work. There was never intended to be one.

It suited the benighted bureaucrats of the Soviet Union to make “Marxism” into a state religion.

The name of Marx was now obscenely linked with the ‘theory’ of this Party. In that terrible time, the very terms ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ came to be identified with this monstrosity. But even for those who could see what a falsification this was, the ideas of Marx became inextricably fouled up in the network of bureaucratic assumptions, including terms like ‘workers’ state’, ‘revolutionary party’, and ‘orthodox theory’. The name of Marx, who stood for the liberation of mankind from exploitation and the disappearance of state oppression, became entangled with the defence of the privileges of a bureaucratic caste and the power of a brutal state apparatus

(http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/millenni/smith2.htm).

But they were not the first. An orthodoxy was already starting to emerge long before the Stalinists took a stranglehold of the communist movement. Trotsky wrote

In the hands of the Party is concentrated the general control.... It has the final word in all fundamental questions.... The last word rests with the Central Committee.... We have more than once been accused of having substituted for the dictatorship of the soviets the dictatorship of our party. Yet it can be said with complete justice that the dictatorship of the soviets became possible only by means of the dictatorship of the party

(http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/millenni/smith2.htm).

The notion of orthodoxy persisted even amongst its dissidents afterwards.

Even those who fought against the murder-machine which was ideologically lubricated by this stuff could not escape being affected by it. Trotsky (1879-1940) and his supporters struggled to maintain the outlook which inspired and guided the Russian Revolution and the formation of the Communist International. With whatever voice they had, they denounced the lies and corruption of Stalinism – especially the lie that Stalin’s Russia was ‘socialism’. But they never had the theoretical resources to penetrate to its philosophical core. The best they could do was to show that Stalinist policies and distortions were contrary to the decisions of Lenin’s party and the teachings of ‘Marxism’

(http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/millenni/smith2.htm).

The weight of orthodoxy has managed to bury Marxism in so much sludge that people believe that Marxism is synonymous with that orthodoxy. I would argue that this has nothing to do with Marx himself who was long since dead and gone.

To be continued...