The Martyrdom of Bobby Sands

"I was only a working-class boy from a Nationalist ghetto, but it is repression that creates the revolutionary spirit of freedom. I shall not settle until I achieve liberation of my country, until Ireland becomes a sovereign, independent socialist republic." ~Bobby Sands

On this day, 32 years ago, Bobby Sands died after 66 days of hunger striking. After the news of his death broke out rioting spread throughout Northern Ireland in outrage over the death of the people's MP. Over 100,000 mourners attended his funeral procession. The news of his death spread throughout the world, from France to Italy people took the streets in violent protest against the British occupation of Ireland, embassies were set on fire and the Queen of England was attacked in Oslo. Nelson Mandela referred to Bobby as one of his greatest influences. Margret Thatcher was not amused. When asked about Bobby's death she said "Mr. Sands was a convicted criminal. He chose to take his own life. It was a choice that his organisation did not allow to many of its victims". Of course, the Irish people never chose to be butchered by the English, nor did the people of Africa chose bondage as their fate. But alas the Iron Lady never could see the irony in her words. Bobby Sands will be remembered as history goes by as one of the finest men of the 20th century. Despite his martyrdom despite the defeat of the Irish Republican Movement, few of the great revolutionaries of our era can lay claim to the same grace and dignity as the great Bobby Sands. When the people of Ireland and the people of the world finally have their day, they will not spend the rest of history angry at Margret Thatcher.She never anything but the regime she represented and her face is not worth remembering. She will be wiped from the history books and when our children ask who was the prime minster of Britain was in the 70's we will reply that it was the murder of the heroic Bobby Sands.

The Dangers of Markets and Capitalism, a response to David Nicolas

Recently the Future Voices of America posted a piece on revolutionary socialism entitled The Dangers of Marxism and Socialism that echos a few of the common myths that circulate in the American ethos. So I thought it would prove productive to refute the article in it's entirety. It would also give me some time to take a break from writing that piece on Pham Binh's recent work over at the Northern star. So without further adieu.

"The evil of socialism, marxism, statism, is not it’s calculable material inefficiency, but it’s INCALCULABLE damage to the soul. Central economic planning has given way to a new type of socialism achieved through a different means."

I'd like to contest this idea. Under capitalism individuals are presented with a massive world around them that they have no control over. Every sphere of activity and the very direction of civilization it's self is manipulated by market forces far beyond our control. Capital removes the human element from all economic acvity and economics it's self becomes the science of perfecting the economy for the well-being of capital rather than perfecting capital for the well being of mankind. Capitalism redefines our entire value system based upon cost and profit; Poverty and unemployment is no longer an unfortunate result but rather becomes desirable insofar that they are necessary for the maintenance of capitalism and our whole body of economics revolves around maintenancing this economic system instead of alleviating it's symptoms. No longer do economists seek to discover the magic formula for the 5 hour work day like they did in Keynes era, instead they preach austerity in Greece, Ireland, and other countries in the name of preserving this system without asking the essential question of if it should be preserved in the first place. The very spirit of austerity, that is the glorification of scarcity in the name of safekeeping the well being of capitalism has become one of the most sacred values of capitalism. It has changed the entire human outlook over how he views his own role within the world, and creates a set of values where the value of human activity is reduced to serving profit and nothing more.

Invisible Tyranny of Capital and Always Be Critiquing

A well known term bandied about when discussing Capitalism is "Invisible Hand", coined by the father of modern capitalist economics, Adam Smith.

If you don't know the term (I don't want to insult your intelligence, but neither do I want newcomers who haven't heard of the term to not know what it refers to), it means

"the invisible hand of the market is a metaphor conceived by Adam Smith to describe the self-regulating behavior of the marketplace.^[1] The exact phrase is used just three times in Smith's writings, but has come to capture his important claim that individuals' efforts to maximize their own gains in a free market benefits society, even if the ambitious have no benevolent intentions."

In other words the idea is that every individual combining their own selfish interests in the end maximizes benefits for all of society, even if they didn't mean to be doing a good thing for society.  It's the "invisible hand" that distributes the "blessings" of Capitalism.

I used the word "blessings" in quotes, because it's important to my next concept.

In Capitalism, oppression attempts to be as invisible as possible, at least, ever since the reforms of Social Democrats and Liberals that attempted to make things better for the workers in the first world.  So you no longer have the visible hand of the slavemaster striking you down.  You have Wage Slavery, chaining the worker to their job in order to make them comply with being a worker struggling to survive.  The concept of Wage Slavery is not a new concept, and is as old as Marxism itself, if not older.

The workers, are bound by the invisible hand, with invisible chains.  Keep this in mind.  The chains that keep us down (in the first world, at least) are invisible.  In the third world where more concrete oppressive situations exist, we see more visible draconian factors chaining people down.  Still invisible, there are no literal chains, but the sense of servitude is even more apparent there than it is in the first world, which casts a veil of illusion over the whole social structure to keep those chains hidden in the first world.

In fact, those chains are hidden in the first world as a web of social relations between the employer and employees.  And they are also hidden away towards oppression of the developing countries.

This is the next invisibility.  When Capitalists excoriate Authoritarian versions of Communism, the first thing they will attempt to do is talk about the brutal horrors of "Communism".  All the deaths and other associated ills that supposedly were brought about solely through Communism as embodied in whatever particular Communist Leader they wish to detract from (Mao, Stalin are of course, the two big names).  However, they will always overlook the evils of Capitalism, because it is hidden from their sight.  As mentioned, sweatshops in developing countries areas, shitty conditions for miners in rural areas, toxic factories in poor neighborhoods, etc, etc, etc...  It is not the bourgeoisie who suffer, but the working class of the world.

But even more so, when looking at the concept of language and how we think, and propaganda that surrounds us...  I was reading about the language differences between North and South Korea, and the particular article in question brought up propaganda of the North Korean regime which has affected their language.  So I commented thusly:

Concerns about Producerist undercurrents within the Communist Philosophy

The other day I was trying to reconcile a seeming contradiction as I was thinking about the issue of extraction of surplus value.  I am sure that amongst the volumes of literature, there is discussion about this and I hope that some comrades would point me in the proper direction if possible.

So, one of the defining terms of Capitalism (as I understand it as defined by Marx) is that Profit is the extraction of Surplus Value out of a product.  That is, the extra value that is given in the market above and beyond the "socially necessary labor time" embedded in the product.

When I was thinking about this the other day I tried to reconcile this issue of Capitalist basically taking what is rightfully the worker's share of "wealth" or "profit".  So I began to wonder if socialism is merely distribution of profits away from singular Capitalists and into the collective ownership of a given enterprise (that is to say, things like Syndicates, Soviets, Collectives, Co-ops, etc...)  But then, this gets into the question that I, as one who sees themselves as a Communist first and foremost in a Humanist light; that is I believe in removal of oppression against the dispossessed, not just in a liberation for "the Workers" but for all various classes in society.  This includes those who are differently abled.  But how does this coincide with the stance against surplus value?

If it is the workers who deserve the just fruits of their labor, then, how do Communists allow for proper care for the sick and infirm, the elderly, etc...?

In other words, I see a potential split here between what is Communism and what could be seen as Producerism.  What I am concerned with is how Communism moves from "From Each According to Their Ability to Each According to Their Work" to "From Each According to Their Ability to Each According to Their Need."  It is this latter stance that makes me call myself a Communist.  I guess one starting point I need to look at is The Critique of the Gotha Program.

So, do we really need to cuddle white men?

There's a common argument in the vulgar Marxist circles that since heterosexual white people constitute the majority of the working class that we therefore must reject identity politics because identity politics are just bourgeois, the argument going that since they are not relevant to the majority of the working class that therefore they are not proletarian and hence have to belong to class alien elements. But before we get into the crux of the matter I think it's important to look at this argument from a statistical point of view to see if  this point corresponds with the reality of the working class.

According to the 2011 census, African Americans represent 13% of the population and Asian Americans represent 5% of the population while Whites represent about 78% of the American population. Hispanic whites (that is, Latinos, Mexicans, South Americans, and peoples we would not consider members of the mainstream white community) are approximately 16% of the American population so with a bit of basic math we can determine that the percent of European Whites is about 63%. A wee little bit over 50% of Americans are woman so we can cut that number down to about 31%. According to the Telegraph, about 3% of white males are gay so therefore we can state with some confidence that around 28% of Americans are heterosexual cisgendered white males. Making them an ethnic minority just like every other ethnic group in America.

So why do we focus so much on white people? Why does the Socialist Equality Party insist that the Trayor Martin shooting was not a racist act and insist that these sort of assertions are necessary to win over the working class?

The hard truth is that we can't help but to assume that people around us see things from our perspective. When we are trying to emphasize with some one, we are imposing our ego on them by asking how would I feel in that situation, and for many white people that means that we simply can't understand why anyone would care about minority politics. After all, isn't the whole realm of politics based on subjecting the minority (whether rightfully or wrongfully) to the majority opinion? Isn't Marxism just the logical extension of politics because it seeks to assert the hegemonic of the working class over the entirety of politics and economics? So then by nature isn't the concept of minority politics an abstraction and an oxymoron? The answer, simply put, is no.

Yes, the primary contradiction is between the working class and the bourgeois, but such a mechanical view of things neglects the fact that there are also contradictions within these classes. The mechanical school of thought trys to explain that racism is just a tool for dividing the working class and that therefore the best approach is a color blind one, but this neglects the fact that the working class is inherently divided; that there are layers of the working class each with their own subsets of interests. The problem with this argument is that it sees the working class solely through the frame of class and fails to see the fact that proletarians as well as bourgeois can be gay or black, and that these identities interact and intermingle with each other to create multifaceted forms of oppression.

This is why Marxists in my opinion need to take up intersectionaility theory. While class might be the primary contradiction and other forms of oppression are simply expressions of capitalist social relations in the realm of society. It seems that most Marxists reduce capitalist relations to economic activity while neglecting the social relations that capitalism creates in all spheres of life. Engels made it very clear in his work On the Origins of Private Property, The Family, and The State that all of these intersecting forms of oppression are an essential part of capitalism and that what we know as the economic system of capitalism expresses it's self through all spheres of activity and in all social relationships. So by reducing class struggle to white union members going out on strike (not that we should belittle this form of class struggle) we are reducing capitalism to a mere economic system when in fact it encompasses a much wider range of activities and relationships.

This sort of reductionism, as I've already said, neglects the fact that to some extent a form of identity politics is relevant to almost every section of the working class. I've interacted with proletarians before, quite a few times actually since I try to be an agitator, and from my experience they find non-dogmatic Marxist perspectives extremely refreshing. Heck,even I have to admit that there was even a time where I talked about privilege politics in the Occupy movement in regards to defending Latin America from imperialism to successfully flirt with a cute Hispanic girl. And although this was a disgusting act of opportunism on my behalf, I can tell you that, to use cliche Marxists terminology, the popular masses really are enthusiastic about revolutionary politics! I mean, really enthusiastic. Probably because proper revolutionary politics that address the working class as a subject is refreshing in comparasion to politics that only see the working class as a component or a talking point. There was even one time when a member of the white working class (I mean the hardcore proletariat, what some vulgar Trotysitites would label the lumpen) told me off once when I was being chauvinistic and mechanical. It just goes to show that if we acknowledge that there are contradictions in the class, then we have to realize that the most progressive element of the working class is the one that experiences oppression on multiple levels. And that it will be this section of the working class, not the backward white section of the working class, that is the true vanguard of the proletariat and the true subject of revolutionary politics.

Sources:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220120/White-people-likely-gay-Huge-study-reveals-highest-proportion-homosexual-people-African-American-community.html

Communization as a Protracted Process

First of all, before going into this piece I want to clarify that this is not a critique. While I might say a few things here and there that are critical overall, the intent of this piece is to simply engage Communization from a theoretical perspective. There is alot of good content in the idea of Communization, but I don't feel like there is any need to either negate or uphold it in a sectarian manner since this theorization doesn't represent a major split withing the socialist movement. Likewise, while it is not worth rejecting, at the same time it doesn't represent a significant rupture to be accepted in it's entirety simply for it's own sake. Because Communization, in my opinion, does not represent a theoretical break when incorporated within the wider framework of Marxist-Leninist-Maoism.

Communization And the Revolutionary Process

Recently, libcom.com posted an article on the gender question from a Tiqquinist perspective that contains a quote which adequetly summarizes their view on the revolutionary process:

"Communization is not a revolutionary position. It is not a form of society we build after the revolution. It is not a tactic, a strategic perspective, an organization, or a plan. Communization describes a set of measures that we must take in the course of the class struggle if there is to be a revolution at all. Communization abolishes the capitalist mode of production, including wage-labor, exchange, the value form, the state, the division of labor and private property. That the revolution must take this form is a necessary feature of class struggle today. Our cycle of struggles can have no other horizon, since the unfolding contradictions of capitalism annihilated the conditions which other forms of revolution required. It is no longer possible to imagine a situation in which social divisions are dissolved afterthe revolution"~Communization and the Abolition of Gender

There is another quote from a work called "Communization" by Gilles Dauvé et Karl Nesic that is useful for our purpose

“Those who developed the theory of communisation rejected this posing of revolution in terms of forms of organisation, and instead aimed to grasp the revolution in terms of its content. Communisation implied a rejection of the view of revolution as an event where workers take power followed by a period of transition: instead it was to be seen as a movement characterised by immediate communist measures (such as the free distribution of goods) both for their own merit, and as a way of destroying the material basis of the counter-revolution." ~Communization

Oil as the Foundation of Keynesian Capitalism

I recently read a paper by George Caffentzis, titled "A Discourse on Prophetic Method: Oil Crises and Political Economy, Past and Future."  It was a fascinating read, and argued that oil prices--and consequently, the class struggles around oil production--are intimately tied to the dynamics of capitalism as a whole.  There were some gaps in logic, as well as some obvious omissions, but for the most part the essay persuasively conveyed the dependence of Keynesian political economy on a particular type of global oil regime.      

First, one has to understand what Keynesianism actually is--especially through a Marxist (or at least, a semi-Marxist) analysis.  Caffentzis defines Keynesianism along two major lines:

1. The recognition that labor is not simply a mindless commodity, but an autonomous entity,     both "an antagonist and a motor of capitalist development."  While Labor was crucial to capitalism, it could also overthrow it, and thus pacifying measures must be undertaken to prevent a repeat of the Russian Revolution on American soil.    
2. The perception economic growth in consumer capitalism is dependent on the increasing        purchasing power of the working class.  This perception manifested in a type of "compromise"       between Labor and Capital, in that wages would increase proportionally with increased     productivity.  Thus, the State became the moderator of this deal. 

It's not a bad state of affairs (compared to the usual capitalist affair, and if one only looks at the compromise from the standpoint of Western society).  Both the workers and the capitalists get a "guarantee" of increased income and standard of living as long as the deal holds out.

But as Caffentzis argues, there is a hidden dependency of energy in Keynesian political economy.  Since the compromise is built on "increased productivity, increased wages", development must focus on automation and mechanization.  This tactic, in turn, requires an ever-increasing amount of energy--lots of it, at a relatively cheap price.  And in order to guarantee this type of price stability, there had to be some degree of control over global oil production. 

Topic: Discuss Amongst Yourselves

An idea:  We are currently in the process of Primitive Accumulation for a Post-Climate Change World.

Imperialism in Senegal: The Coming Storm

The Destruction of the Senegalese Fishing Industry

Fishing employs between 20-10%.1 of  people in Senegal and represents the staple of meat in an area that is currently suffering a protein deficiency. In 2007 seafood represented a quarter of Senegal’s total exports, generating over $307m in national income and 2.5% of GDP In addition to the people that the industry directly employs, manufacturing materials and other industries that depend on fishing account for a significant part of the Senegalese economy. According to the Guardian "approximately 1 million people depend on fish as a primary source of food".Local consumption is 28kg per person per year, twice the world average, and 75 percent of protein in the diet comes from fish.Naturally a crisis in this sector would be disastrous considering that already 20% of households are vulnerable to food shortages. Traditionally, the coasts of Africa have been home to one of the most abundant populations of fish in the world, however recently the supply of fish is decreasing quickly. Catches are down 75% from 10 years ago, and in the fishing town of Joal, catches went down from 220,000 tonnes in 2004 to 120,000 tonnes in 2012. At this rate the industry may no longer be able to function in 10 years. This will take a major toll on the Senegalese economy and will result in the distabilization of the region. In an interview with the Guardian  Abdou Karim Sall, president of the Fishermen's Association of Joal and the Committee of Marine Reserves in West Africa said:"People are getting desperate. For sure, in 10 years' time, we will carry guns. The society here destabilises as the fishing resource is overexploited. As the situation becomes more difficult, so it will become more and more like Somalia."

So, this begs the question, how did this happen?

Spree Killing and the Implicit Violence of the Middle Class

As I write this post, a few miles away from my house a tragedy is underway. Once again, another middle class white male has gone on a killing spree. This time it occurred at a shopping mall. We do not yet know much about the suspect (who was "neutralized"), but I'm willing to bet he is both white and middle class. While my thoughts go out to those harmed by this man, I thought I'd say a few things about middle class violence.Those of you who have read my previous posts probably noticed the theme in my writing: violence. It's a topic that both disgusts and fascinates me. I'm very interested in how societal values and the dominant mode of production show themselves through acts of violence. Today I'd like to look at spree killings and the hidden values behind them.