The Greek 'Revolution' will not be a shining light for Europe's Left - The truth about modern Left wing politics (part two)

The truth is this subject could run and run; the last post was too long and I've had to accept Left wing politics can't be dissected in two posts. So I'll do it bit by bit, this second part has been forever delayed and of course now a General Election is going to get in the way.

If Labour manage to win outright or go into Coalition, there should be a lot of good examples of the problems of Left wing politics, but for now I’ll look at the most obvious current example of a serious Left Wing Government; Greece.

    Syriza's Leader - Alexis Tsipras 

    Greek, in a Left Wing Government and apparently serious...

There's always an element of wanting to see the opposing view fail, for it to be proved wrong; it is in the nature of politics and to some extent it is part of human nature, the cynical part of course. 

I don't wish the people of Greece ill, not at all, it'd be good to see them sort things out and create some sort of successful 'alternative', it'd be interesting to see how it can be done. 

It's not that I don't want it to happen, but I can't see it happening. Not without going into the territory I wrote about in the first post.

Just as I posted about the problems of modern Left wing politics, a party with a truly Left wing outlook was elected to Government in Europe - Greece election:Anti-austerity Syriza wins election. So it seems at least part of my analysis will be tested.

    Syriza have won people over with their humble style

    European politicians should learn something from them.

There aren't that many truly Left Governments in the world and at the end of the day without a Socialist bloc (as existed in the 20th century), they have to exist in a capitalist world and therefore lack support, for hard Left politics.

European Leftists want to paint Greece as the alternative to 'austerity', but I think they're on a hiding to nothing and of course the Left will say that it isn't the politics (the ideals) that have failed, it will be because its opponents have brought it down.

In some respects that will be true, if and when the Greek experiment fails. It's all about money and Greece needs a lot of it. The Left will say Syriza and the nation were denied the chance to make a success of it and they were unable to succeed within the current system (a German controlled EU and a wider capitalist system).

    Angela Merkel

    Between a rock and hard place...?

    Greek Protesters

    Not a fan?

    More Greek protests at Merkel

    Bit extreme...

But Greece would fail in most circumstances, at least if they didn't radically transform their economy. The only situation that would work for Greece is a worldwide revolution and then their global comrades could help them out, because right now they're a basket case.

They don't produce anything much, too many of their citizens don't pay their taxes; they have the economic set up of a third world country, but they have become accustomed to first world public services. And of course they want to maintain those services, but someone has to pay for them and if they're not producing enough to fund their own services, then who pays?

The rest of Europe, particularly Germany, feels that they are paying for the Greeks.

This BBC article talks of the inaccuracy of claims about ‘lazy Greeks’, supposedly retiring early - Greek bailout talks: Are stereotypes of lazy Greeks true? 

I wasn't aware of these claims about the Greeks, the French, yes... 

While there does appear to be some truth to the accusations, according to this article it is to a relatively small extent, but the author does go on to confirm the other problems of their economic set up. Why are people retiring early in an unproductive, dysfunctional economy? Who pays for it?

It does seem that Greece is being squeezed by Germany and the EU should take a lot of the blame for what Greece has become. Just as the Labour Government oversaw an unsustainable economic model in the UK, the EU allowed Greece to get like it is:

Greece: why did its economy fall so hard? 

    Athens Olympics - 2004

    Good times.

The new ruins of Athens: Rusting and decaying 10 years on, how Greece's Olympics turned into a £7 BILLION white elephant

But the idea of writing off debt while maintaining their public sector and services, is actually insulting to those playing by the rules, not least many countries outside the EU who would love to have the Greek standard of living.

Greece as an independent nation has been afforded its standards of living by the EU and membership of the Eurozone

They are down the GDP list by any measure and their position will be assisted by the currency, many countries with far worse services and infrastructure will be ahead of them in terms of economic output. The respective circumstance and development of each nation make for complex comparison, but there is a simple principle involved. And the Left are normally fond of simple principles…

You could say writing off the debt would allow them a fresh start and a chance to reform without the burden of debt, something that has been offered to the developing world in the past.

    Make Poverty History - Edinburgh 2005

    We've come a long way since then...

Firstly I think they have to sort out the tax evasion before this is even considered, they could be closer to having the means to service the debt but this has been effectively ignored. It certainly has been by many of the Left wing advocates championing the Greek revolution, talking all day long about tax avoidance in this country and then supporting debt in one country being written off, so that they can fund their public services, instead of collecting tax for it. Money is lost from outside Greece, UK included, when the funds may well be in Greece; how does that sit with UK Uncut’s principles…? It’s overlooked - https://twitter.com/ukuncut/status/566914895846047746

This is Corruption, everything about the situation is utterly corrupt and that needs to be addressed. Thankfully tax evasion is being acknowledged as a significant part of the problem - Greece debt deal: Reforms will 'combat tax evasion'. It hasn't been acknowledged by the Left at large. Our mate and favourite celebrity revolutionary Russell Brand, who admits to not understanding economics, shared on Twitter a link to an article about a impromptu market of 'the people' in Greece (“Without middlemen” market). How wonderful Russell, but how much tax is collected from this to fund their public services? There was no response to my question on Twitter...

Secondly, if the debt is reduced or gone, they should then have to fend for themselves. I imagine the likelihood of them leaving the Eurozone is high if they won't service their debt and it would only be fair to the other nations within the zone, any nation with a large amount of debt. Surely Spain, Portugal and Italy will all be clamouring for better deals if Syriza get their way within the Euro.

If Greece leaves, we will see how they fair, if they can change their economy and maintain their standard of living.

The crux of the situation does appear to be that Syriza want the rest of the EU to support and maintain the Greek standard of living, when they are not productive and do not pay their taxes.

The European Left should not be championing this situation.

You can’t blame the Greek population for turning to a political movement promising to maintain their way of life without the ‘pain’ of austerity, the electoral victory doesn't make this is a success for Left wing politics, they haven’t achieved any of their aims yet.

    Yanis Varoufakis and Alexis Tsipras 

    Having a laugh...?

If the Greek government do get a handle on tax evasion then the Control aspect of Left wing politics I looked at in the last post, will be in place. Although rightly in that circumstance, it would still be interesting to see the effects.

Fiscal and wider reforms would have to be fundamental and will put pressure on large sections of the population, some of whom may currently be supporting Syriza, but it will take some time to see what happens and how any changes affect particular groups and activities - Keypoints: Greece economic pledges to Europe

Greece suffers from Corruption in various ways, tax evasion is just one aspect of that and they will need to radically improve their economy with relatively limited means to prove their politics are Practical, in the modern world.

If they can avoid endemic levels of corruption as they move on, then maybe they will be heading in the right direction. Their population is relatively low and this is can enable more successful restructuring and then allow for a Left Wing organisation of society to be maintained.  

This is the case with the favourite national examples of Left leaning success for the more Liberal Left in the West; the Scandinavian countries. They are similar to Greece in that each has a relatively low population, but the similarities pretty much end there; the Scandinavians pay their taxes, levels of corruption are low and probably most importantly, they have long established, functioning economies. 

I saw one Twitter comment suggesting the Greeks should take a leaf out of Iceland’s book, the small nation having apparently made strides towards recovering from the economic crisis. And this appears to be a common suggestion on Twitter.

Iceland and Greece? Opposite ends of Europe, very different economies and cultures, and the population of Iceland is barely that of the average small European city. So it’s a bit more complicated than the suggestion…

    Reykjavik, Iceland

    Athens, Greece

It is just shows how desperate the European Left wing intelligentsia have become, as they're championing Greece, when it is little more than a fed up people wanting to maintain their living standards on flimsy economic foundations. Championing their cause is one thing, but championing their politics and methods is different. Of course it's always the principles of the matter for Leftist intellectuals, not the practicality...  

Leftists have long given up on France... And further afield, Venezuela was a former favourite of the Left - the Left's favourite 'socialist paradise' is sliding into poverty and dictatorship, but this has faded away recently and is in truth another poor example for the Left. Crime and corruption are still rife in this country, there is significant opposition to the current Government, even then it is still in some ways a better example of potential economic success for the Left than Greece, as Venezuela at least has oil money to exploit. 

It's not good, it shouldn't be a sound economic foundation for Left wing sensibilities, but that didn't bother Owen Jones and it seems the notion didn't bother the SNP in Scotland. A means to an end. At least Norwegians appear to realise it can't last forever.

If you don’t have the natural resources, then you have to work hard to stay ahead. The Greeks have got their work cut out, if they are to sort out this mess and prove the likes of Owen Jones right.

    Owen Jones

    Socialism at its best

The world was certainly looking at Greece when Syriza won power. Of course many are keen to point to Greece as the cradle of European civilisation and the pioneers of democracy, and while this is of course true, things have moved on quite a lot since then. Mostly Northwards, where modern civilisation has flourished and largely been maintained. 

    The Greeks are proud of their history

    Start there and move on...

Europe has already had one catastrophic collapse since their ancient democracy and Greece was under foreign rule for significant parts of the intervening time. So are they saying it begins and ends in Greece or the cycle starts again…?

They’re certainly tempting history now:

Greece played its Russia card… Now what? and Greece makes huge claim for Nazi era

    Tsipras is ok now Putin is behind him...

    "I must do what Stalin should have done many years ago..."

Good luck to them, I think we all need it... 

Reality Control - Ed Miliband would have you believe the Labour Party were victorious in the 2012 Local Elections…

Ed Miliband claims that Labour are winning back the trust of voters and some are even hailing the results of the recent Local Elections as some sort of validation of his Leadership. And of course the results have been taken as a validation of Labour in general, as a potential Government; the result returning Labour to power if played out in a general election.

    Ed Miliband amongst his followers

    For some reason Ed thinks he's popular...

As always it is b*lls**t, obviously perpetrated by the Labour propaganda machine, but also by a media that has little else to do, other than attempt to devise powerful headlines and sound-bites.

In these very hard times under a particularly unpopular coalition government, Labour could have wiped the floor with the Tories, as some opinion polls had been suggesting. But they got around 38-39% of the vote (Tories 31%) on a turnout of 32%...

12.5% of those able could be bothered to vote for Labour. Barely 1/8^th of the electorate backed Labour and because of this the Labour party have both power in many crucial areas and also momentum. That’s a particularly small minority having a major say over what happens in British politics and society, if it was played out across the country in a general election it would be a travesty.

    A future Cabinet...?

    A travesty, right now...

While the apathy has of course been noted, no-one could fail to address it; they still trumpeted Labour’s ‘success’, alongside the Tory losses.

But it was only 12.5% of the electorate in these circumstances and you also have to look at the areas of the country involved.

Though granted Labour did well in places like Chipping Norton and Southampton, taken from the Tories, the rest was the North, Scotland and Wales; Labour strongholds

The SNP probably would have liked to stretch away from Labour in Scotland and it remains a fundamental area for Labour support, and in Wales the result is verging on meaningless, this is nothing new and I have mentioned it before. They’ll vote for Labour almost whatever happens; Labour could put a pig…

Still they spin results like those in Wales. Alastair Campbell thought Twitter users would be interested in his thoughts on Labour's success in Wales. The Labour propaganda machine never stops spinning...

    Alastair Campbell taking time out from the Ministry of Truth

    Still doing some freelance spinning…

Current cutbacks aside, around 1/5^th of the working population is employed in the public sector, there are regional variations and where are the higher proportions…?

    Public sector map of the UK

In many of the areas that voted in the local elections.

Labour winning back voters’ trust…? It could just as easily have been their highly motivated supporters in the public sector. The Unions, students, the Left; those who’ve loudly stated their opposition to this Government, these groups could easily make up 12.5% in those areas, without any trouble. But no-one mentions that.

What the results really showed was simply apathy towards politics and perhaps a general disdain for politicians.

Labour are winning by default, Miliband certainly is.

Who in their right mind would want this man as Prime Minister??!

    Ed Miliband, taking it all in...

    We can't believe it either Ed, it's unreal...

The Unions?

    TUC Chairman Brendan Barber ready with prompts

    'Stick to the script you Muppet...' 

Just think if they’d picked David instead…

    Ed and David Miliband, brotherly love...?

    David probably wanting to say what we all think...

Boris Johnson didn't suffer from any backlash in London, although that election did take on a life of its own with personalities apparently overtaking everything else; the turnout was higher than the national average (38%) and they turned out to vote for a Tory.

    Boris Johnson - Very much a Tory…

    'What the f**k is he on about now...?!' 

There was a turnout of 41% in the local elections last year, though the referendum would have had some effect. The Tories and LibDems did worse this year but on a much lower turnout. The increasing ‘anger’ wasn't evident, though the Left would like to present it that way.

That’s not to say people aren’t unhappy with the Government, it’s just that they don’t see Labour as a credible alternative.

    Ed Miliband talks about his 'Alternative'

    Preaching to the choir...?

Although the whole country didn't go to the polls, as I suggested in the last post the recent opinions polls weren't played out across the nation. On Sunday (6th May) YouGov put Labour on a 12 point lead.

UKIP did better in terms of share (13%) and so did the LibDems (16%); not nearly as bad for them as polls had suggested and their more traditional heartlands in the South didn't vote. They did lose councillors, but it should have been much worse.

    Nick Clegg has a lot on his mind

    Trying to think of worse scenarios...?

Many commentators seemed to ignore this, for instance pointing to the drop from the 2010 election, but that result was less than polling at the time.

Commentators, like the Labour Party, want to pretend they know what ‘the people’ are thinking all of the time.

But look at that 2010 result; how much has changed if we compare to these recent results? The Tories currently on 31%, they only got 36% in 2010 and Labour have picked up around 10% since the general election, when they were supposed to be at rock bottom…! UKIP seem to have made the same sort of gains as Labour, looking at the 2010 figures, obviously a large proportion coming from the Tories.

The fact is Labour’s strong core support has remained and it is quite obvious why I have been writing about it since the general election, and there were many around the fringes of that core that quickly went back to them when they saw the alternative.

    Anti-cuts protesters in 2011

    Flooding back to the Labour Party...?

    Ed Miliband addresses the protesters

    Hanging on Ed's every word...?

With the Socialist leader Francois Hollande winning the French Presidency there does seem to be the beginning of a seachange in European politics as many hail this as the first major rejection of austerity. We’re living in hard times and few like cuts in spending, least of all the French. The Greeks too are not happy and there was a backlash in their recent elections, but then their economy is ruined and it’s going to take a lot of work to sort it out, it'll be no picnic, publicly funded or otherwise…

But there seems to be a need to state the blindingly obvious; Britain is not France, Miliband is not Hollande, so to their parties.

I don’t pretend to know a great deal about the current state of French politics; but the Left in Britain cheering Hollande’s win as if it is some sort of endorsement of the Labour Party and their policies are quite simply having a laugh, whichever way you look at it.

    Francois Hollande and Ed Miliband

    'What is ze joke?'

    Ed Miliband is still amused...

    'Whatever ze joke was, it is over now...' 

A low turnout is no good, the results are manipulated for propaganda and power is given away too cheaply, to the often undeserving. People need to vote for something else, to go out and vote, but choose something different (certain extremists excluded…).

Clearly there is a dislike of the main parties and this has to be seen in the next election. Maybe then some real reform can happen.

Miliband and the like say they want to engage and reach out to the disaffected but the fact is if people don’t vote, it won’t matter to them. Labour haven’t changed and they won’t need to unless voters go out and force change in politics.

12.5% of the electorate holding sway over the rest of the population? Is that fair for all...??

    The cover of Labour's 2010 Manifesto

    The public servants controlled all they could see...

Do people really want to let the Labour Party control the future…?

    Gordon Brown...

    Is always watching…

You say you want a revolution..?

Well, where to start..?

With the Occupy movements
http://occupywallst.org/
http://www.occupylondon.org.uk/

Occupy Wall street, New York


Occupy London Stock Exchange


Developing from the Occupy Wall Street movement, the Occupy London Stock Exchange action is attracting a lot of interest at the moment and the movement has spread far and wide. But it seems to me that confusion reigns within the movement and its supporters, and so in turn, its detractors.

We all want to change the world and if they just wanted greater reform to the Banking sector, economic reform and a ‘fair deal’ for the poor, then it would be more coherent, would garner wider support and gain greater momentum. The UKUncut movement and the anti-cuts (http://falseeconomy.org.uk/) movement are at least clear in their aims.

However, this Occupy movement encompasses all of the anti-coalition politics that has gone before and more. They did manage to gather round and come up with a statement detailing their objectives.

This was welded together from the meeting of a lot of very strongly opinionated groups and gives a picture of the wide variety of viewpoints and aims of the people involved. They want a lot; a lot of very different things.

What is it that you want to do..?

'We want to be free...'

The first clear contradiction is that they state the current system is unsustainable, but then go on to say they do not accept the need for cuts and support student and public sector strike action.

So they want to overturn the ‘current system’, but they want to maintain the systems that the Labour government funded on the tax receipts from the boom in the financial sector and the pension arrangements that have been developed by successive governments over post-war years. Pensions that could only be sustained through continually increased input from younger generations, not to mention good performances in the stock market. I’ve mentioned previously that the students and public actions don’t actually sit very well together, if the students actually thought about it.

None of it fits together… But I’m sure they’re working through ideas how to marry it all up; a new system that will maintain public sector jobs and services, create worthy jobs for millions, make education free for millions and pay for the pensions of millions of people to retire for some 20 to 40 years on a reasonable income.

Good luck chaps…


The stated aims would seem reasonable to many and as I say, they do blend a lot of what has been demanded by public protests over the last couple of years. However, the first aim about the unsustainable system, as well as the ‘structural change’ mentioned in point seven, represent the underlying theme of the movement which is anti-capitalism, even the idea of a genuine revolution and a desire for anarchism or communism. I think the political theory gets somewhat blurred there.

All over the world, a symbol of defiance from a Hollywood film










The mask company must be doing very well

Regardless of any stated aims, wanting an end to the capitalist system, revolution, a communist system or anarchy means so much more than wanting the bankers to pay their ‘fair share’ and economic reform.

Again if we’re talking anarchy, as in no government, then the desire to maintain government spending and public sector spending is incongruous.

Laurie Penny (PennyRed) and many more would very much like an end to global capitalism apparently.
http://www.swp.org.uk/
http://www.fifthinternational.org/

Rage against the machine



I'm intrigued... Let's give 'em a go..!

Anarchy in the UK? http://occupylsx.org/?p=268

It is with these anti-capitalist notions that everyone gets confused, supporters and critics alike. A good example of this occurred on ‘Have I got news for you’ on BBC One 21/10/2011

Within the scoffing of this Tory (Louise Mensch) there is a point and it’s completely overlooked, deliberately by Hislop, Merton and Baker; anti-establishment radicals that they are. She attempts to mock the anti-capitalists for participating in the capitalist society and enjoying its spoils; buying ‘coffee’ and tents, using smart phones, but she is rebuffed, of course. How could all of them get by without participating? A revolution cannot live on fresh air alone… Simple actions like buying coffee do not undermine your principles.

Well not in most cases. But this lot have been queuing up at Starbucks, the epitome of global capitalism! If she had just talked about the likes of Starbucks then she’d have made a point.

The fact is companies like Starbucks and Tesco do represent the system, its success as well as its failure, in pushing out smaller traders for instance.

Hislop et al (and hundreds more on Twitter) mock the Tory for saying the protesters are hypocritical for ‘buying coffee’, but the point should have been made clear about where it was bought. You can get coffee in all sorts of places, many independent. If you are making a very public protest against capitalism and you buy coffee from Starbucks, a massive global corporation, then it is contradictory.

I appreciate we’ve all got to eat, drink and clothe ourselves and the fact is where else would they get a tent and unfortunately for anti-capitalists, phones (very useful for revolutions it seems) are only produced by multi-national conglomerates. We all have to live within the current system, but Starbucks is something else (using them for the toilets or not. Or is just using the toilets sticking it to the capitalists..?).

One Twitterite questioned if she was suggesting that they should grow the beans themselves (aha hahahaha…). No, they could go to one of the many independent coffee shops, that I have no doubt there are in the city of London! You smug p****.

Too pricey? Is that because of the system? F*** ‘em anyway, they’ll just look like hypocritical t***s. To the right wing at least.

But maybe that’s it, they don’t care? They get cheap coffee (and/or use the toilet) and don’t see it as hypocritical, because when they finally get it together these corporations won’t exist..? Might as well get a reasonably priced coffee while you can and if you’re independent in London (charging more) you’re just as much a slimey capitalist… The employees will be liberated from both forms of slavery..!

Rejoice comrades, you will be free!

To do what instead..?

Maybe it’s ok because it’s fair trade (apparently, more Twitter…), but it took public criticism to get them to stop their policy of leaving the f***ing taps on non-stop! Not very environmentally conscious.

And that’s effective action right there, by the Sun newspaper no less

Would the Occupy protesters have crossed this picket line?



'You will be free, soon. But I just want an Americano right now...'

In Bristol there have been a number of protests about a Tesco store opening in an area known as Stokes Croft. Basically the protesters believe they’re defending their area from the effects of an evil corporation. If they boycotted the store, as well as smashing its windows, yet went round the corner and shopped in the more established Tesco superstore in a nearby area, wouldn’t that be hypocrisy?

Late night shoppers turn nasty

'We don't want your sort round here!!'

But in the cold light of day, a change of heart...

'It's just sooo convenient...'

It seems a lot of Lefties are willing to overlook hypocrisy, right wing bloggers are usualy quick to pick them up on it though - Guardian’s Tax Hypocrisy is Ridiculous

On the subject of the Guardian, their tax and Left wing hypocrisy, Twitter contributor @NewRedDawn ended that particular discussion with another user on this note:

"@fatcouncillor If I cheated on my wife, would I be a hypocrit (sic) for saying another man should not cheat on his? yes, but my advice invalid? no" (22/10/11)

“Don’t do as I do, do as I say” seems to be the order of the day for some Leftists.

NewRedDawn's tweets make for interesting reading and he does have some distinct views and ideas, also here on his blog, which I am yet to become completely familiar with…

As indicated by this gem of a tweet - "#occupylsx: communism to me, as a goal = super abundance of goods, elimination of want. Surely that is always a worthy goal?" (22/10/11). He advocates pure socialism/communism and he appears to think the 'do as I say' doctrine is perfectly reasonable. If he is right about the revolution, what in the Lord’s name does the future hold? Nothing different from the past…?

They seem to only worry about hypocrisy if it comes from rich Tories, because ultimately they’re in the right and they remain morally superior.

Hislop would normally love to pick up such contradictory behaviour, but this one is text book Daily Mail and the point was incredibly badly made by a Tory. Hislop, Merton and Baker couldn’t be seen to be on side with a rambling Tory and ridiculing a ‘popular’ Left wing movement, opposing the bankers and Coalition. But I’m sure one of them would have slipped in the Starbucks line had it panned out differently and everyone would have loved it…

Not sure what the Leftists on the internet would think though, they wouldn’t have been so quick to tweet their derision. They’re happy to gloss over their contradictions when they’re on the front foot against a bumbling Tory; very much like their current opposition to the coalition, happy to overlook their failings in government over 13 years that has lead us to this situation.

The confusion on the programme was clear, Louise Mensch saying being anti-capitalist you shouldn’t enjoy any of its benefits while campaigning against it and Hislop saying you can buy a coffee and still protest against banks, corporate greed, etc. But they want so much more than that, more fundamental than just wanting to stop cuts and make bankers cough up, and Mensch was just all over the place.

The global movement has gained some support and of course the anti-cuts protests already have massive support in this country, and more so the action against banking and corporate greed. But I doubt there’s much popular support for communism or anarchism, particularly in the US. People want a fairer system and representation but I don’t believe they want a true revolution. What exactly would that involve? (Historically speaking, armed conflict)

I don’t think people really understand what they want and that includes many involved in the movement. What kind of system do they actually see being created? One where everyone will have smart phones and there are still companies (or collectives?) producing them in abundance…?

We’d all love to see the plan…

If they wanted some clear effective action then shouldn’t they boycott Starbucks and other such companies? They might actually hurt the system that way. If a worker’s main power is (or was) to remove their Labour, then so to a consumer’s most significant power is their choice of consumption. At least it would be have greater symbolism, surely the Left place some significance on such action…

UKUncut are all about boycotting and picketing companies ‘guilty’ of the legal activity of tax avoidance. Topman, Vodafone, Boots and God knows many more, they’re all at it and all have them have been caused tremendous inconvenience by hordes of UKUncut and anti-cuts activists.

Outside


And in


It seems to have quietened down recently, maybe building up for further action, such as Occupy or combining with the strikes in November.

But maybe they realised they could no longer buy anything (and live without feeding the capitalist pigs..!) because all these c**ts are screwing over their tax, off-shoring their activities and where would one shop if one stuck religiously to your ideals…?

I imagine Starbucks must be alright with their tax (?), though judging by the Guardian example that can’t be certain, they like the coffee just as they like the media support…

They certainly couldn’t boycott Apple. Where would a revolution be without iPhones, iPads and all the other smart devices on the capitalist market? Along with the social media on the internet, they’ve revolutionised revolutionary movements and the organisation of protests. Although guns and/or military backing still seem to be the main difference with a successful revolution.

Throughout this (points 2 and 7) and previous action the participants and advocates have tried to claim solidarity with protests and revolutionary movements around the world, many of which have used social media, but many more that have guns as actual concern, whether it be using them or facing them.

The Occupy movement claim ‘We are the 99%’ and of course right wing commentators have mocked them for this and to be honest it’s quite fair. They are claiming to represent 99% of the population that suffer because 1% control the majority of the wealth and resources.

But they don’t represent all of the 99%, not even a fraction of it. They are just part of the 99%, but that’s not as snappy. There’s no point in even dissecting all of the groups they clearly do not represent in this nation alone, but with a core of anti-capitalism and revolutionary beliefs they are far from representing the majority of the world’s people, across a vast array of cultures and beliefs.

Even in America (where the slogan originated), with an underlying right wing or conservative sensibilities, does the Occupy Wall Street movement really represent 99% (or should the percentage be adjusted nationally for the number included in the 1% of the world’s population? It gets complicated…)?

This article suggests a majority of Americans supports Occupy Wall Street - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/21/MNFI1LKTTN.DTL

But what change would this huge and diverse number of people want?

The 99% are a lot of people wanting a lot of different things and most do not see the overthrow of the ‘system’ as a solution. Reform, yes and overthrow of particular governments, that’s a different subject.

When the student and anti-cuts happened there was a commonplace comparison with the uprising of the Arab spring, as mentioned above with Laurie Penny.

Gets me everytime…


But what does the occupy movement really have in common with the Arab people of North Africa and the Middle East? They have been trying to overthrow dictators and genuine oppression.

Do these people have similar ideas on freedom and do they want the same outcomes as the Occupy movements? The new rulers of Libya have recently declared that they will use the Sharia code as a basis for their law, not quite what the protesters have in mind…

As I have mentioned before a lot of the Arab political movements that ended in Dictatorships have had ‘Socialist’ principles, including Gaddafi, and Hugo Chavez, a hero of the world’s Left says Gaddafi was a martyr..! So where does the solidarity with the Libyans lie?

Do they really have much in common with the protests in Greece? There are a lot of Left wing revolutionaries there and there is action opposed to austerity, but the Greeks lived far beyond their means and too great a proportion of the population have problems with paying their taxes, so again where is the solidarity?

How about in Eastern Europe where they spent years trying to rid themselves of tyrannical Socialist governments? Now I know this lot will be professing inclusion and fairness, not the kind of centralist authoritarian governments that Eastern Europe endured but many of them do want socialism/communism. I’m not sure how that sits with those that lived in under these regimes and fought so hard against them.

Apparently Lech Walesa, the Polish solidarity hero, changed his mind about visiting Occupy Wall Street, due to the underlying influences from anti-capitalists and the hard Left.

So many of the current activists are too young to remember what happened, but don’t they research their history?

However much the current system is reformed, how will the new system work? In the globalised economy nothing works in isolation, either in a system of taxing the rich or pure communism, do they see it working in isolation? Like North Korea or Cuba (blockades and sanctions aside…)? Or like the USSR and its allies (obviously a much bigger scale)?

The Left often use the examples of much smaller countries that have successful higher tax economies (e.g. Scandinavia), but a vital difference is the population size, as well as cultural differences.

If the protesters had a proposition for some sort of global agreement on higher tax (or just equal tax levels) it might at least provide clarity. Getting agreement on it would be another thing, but a clear proposal would be a start (demanding an end to 'global tax injustice' is not the same thing).
Certainly the idea of eliminating tax havens was proposed from an early stage after the 2008 financial crisis and it did seem to have widespread support, at the G20 summit in the April 2009 for instance. However, I’m not sure how much effective action was taken, despite every UK Uncut have had to say on the matter, as this article suggests - G20 has failed to crack down on tax havens

A higher tax world economy would of course effectively be a socialist revolution. Some of the activists clearly want a world revolution of sorts, many will indeed claim to be Trotskyists and maybe some of them believe it could happen. But they must envisage stern opposition surely?

Really when you look at it closely all you’re left with is a lot of questions and if they were asked you’d more than likely get a lot of very different answers.

On a recent Newsnight programme ‘film maker’ and ‘writer’ Michael Moore compared the movement to the Suffragettes in terms of the attitude towards new movements and political concepts. But as Paxman pointed out the suffragettes had a clear and achievable goal, the Occupy movement has nothing of the sort.

People do want change and if there were some clear and considered ideas, then maybe there’d be more momentum. And it could enter the political arena and create change that way. I’m sure most of them would agree with the need for electoral reform (except maybe rabid ‘anarchists’), but following this years referendum on AV that has been set back years in some part because of the Labour party, the party that led us to the current state we’re in. The Left’s aims and objectives often differ greatly.

There needs to be economic change, though not necessarily of the nature the Occupy movement are suggesting, and maybe some change will stem from this action, it has a powerful voice when combined with its internet and media presence.
Protest movements often do cause change and pressure governments, though not quite the change that some would like. There have been comparisons with the political protests of the 1960s, particularly 1968 and how they caused political change.

The fact is in 1968 it was a different world, there were different circumstances and they had different goals.

1968


But then whatever change occurred we still ended up in the current situation. It always settles back to the old routine…

2003


You should learn from history (as the activists should about Eastern European socialism), but you need to understand circumstance and context, situations are rarely exactly the same. There are massive differences in the world today, already there is a huge amount of upheaval in the world economic system and the world’s powerbases and that should be the topic of my next post.

China and India are rising and while their poor populations still desire further change, the economic growth has already delivered for many. This has already affected and will further alter the West’s standard of living and it is not clear that these people want exactly the same things as the “99%” parked outside St. Paul’s Cathedral in London.

The location of the camp might be adding further ambiguity to the message; they were unable to ‘occupy’ London Stock Exchange so they’re outside the nearby cathedral. So St. Paul’s closing their doors has become major news and there is no issue with the Church as an organisation, as far as anyone can tell.

But they’re always sending out mixed messages.

For example; Billy Bragg’s tweet on the 22nd October

"Now #occupyLSX have shown how easy it is, thousands of atheists will be buying tents today and camping outside their local CofE church" ???


'What the f**k are you on about Billy?!'