6 Billion Ways – Keeping up the momentum

Posted on March 18, 2011 by Jonathan Stevenson

The day after the main 6 Billion Ways event, we held an open space session at Toynbee Hall on building the movement for global justice.

The meeting used open space facilitation, which meant that the agenda was constructed by the people who came based on what they wanted to discuss, and people were free to move around to different discussions at any point. About 60 people came, most of whom had been the previous day. Many more made excuses based on too much partying the previous night…

Hot topics
There were a variety of issues raised, from carbon trading to housing, fixing the financial system to what UK Uncut should do next, and what to do about arms company Lockheed Martin running the census. One of the most popular discussions was about plans for the 26 March anti-cuts demonstration in London, which led to a callout for a national day of publicity for the demonstration on Saturday 19 March, on high streets and on Facebook and Twitter (use #March26 #whyiammarching #demo2011).

Keeping up the momentum
Another popular session was on ‘Keeping up momentum after 6 Billion Ways’. As one of the organisers of 6 Billion Ways, I was particularly interested in this one. So far 6 Billion Ways has been an event we’ve held twice to bring together lots of different strands of the movement and encourage cross-fertilisation to make it stronger. But this session indicated an appetite for more than that. Some of the suggestions that came up in the session were:

  • Holding 6 Billion Ways once a year not every two years (the first event was in 2009)
  • Regular meet-ups in London every two or three months. These could be public meetings in the manner of the sessions at 6 Billion Ways or open-space sessions like the Sunday event.
  • Organiser training for global justice activists around the country, perhaps with a focus on making links between issues and networks as at 6 Billion Ways
  • A web portal where people can find out about global justice campaigns, including being able to filter by region and issue. Like False Economy but not just on the cuts. It could be a list of existing campaigns and maybe aggregate from other sources like Google News.
  • More co-ordination at national level between all global justice organisations, so that people feel part of something bigger (Make Poverty History, Stop Climate Chaos and Put People First were examples of where this has been/is being done before, in different ways)
  • Using the 6 Billion Ways Facebook page to build up a network of global justice activists and discuss the issues raised. Also perhaps to identify some priority global justice issues for people to work on together

What do you think?
Some of these things, or things along the same lines, may be happening already, but not everyone might know about them. Some of them might not be useful, and some of them might be easier said than done!

As the 6 Billion Ways organisers we’re thinking about what we do next, and we want to know what you think. So let us know in the comments.

Posted in Activism | View Comments

Biosphere crisis provides single channel for humane organisations

Posted on March 11, 2011 by Van Poynton

Some thoughts evoked by 6 Billion Ways 2011:

Deep ecologist, monk, and all round wonderful man Thomas Berry (1914–2009) reminded an audience in 1991 of something with which we’re all intimately familiar, nothing less than the unifying Golden Rule, which has probably been around as long as we have, certainly predating many of the recent mainstream religions–Berry’s own Catholicism, etc–with which one might be quick to associate it. Berry put it thus:

“Confucius was a teacher and, naturally, did a lot of talking. His students got a bit overwhelmed with what he was saying, and so they got together with him one day and said, ‘Could you please put it to us more simply?’
And Confucius said, ‘Sure, why not. I’ll give it to you in a single word – reciprocity.’
What’s it all about? Reciprocity – if you take, you must give. That is the primary law of existence.”

Susan George (who graced Rich Mix in 2009) has articulated the need for greater, concentrated unity and the (re)establishment of “the Superpower that the New York Times said on the 16th February [2003] we were”, referring to the unprecedented, extraordinary global peace marches that greeted Bush-Blair’s plan to invade Iraq for oil and U.S. regional domination. Unfortunately the awesome sight proved a mere reminder of the Superpower, which promptly went back into hibernation.

In her latest book, George defines the issue facing us. We have allowed the casino economy of finance to become central. The real economy takes second rung, society next, and finally, least important, is poor old planet Earth. George–crazy as it may sound–suggests the only way forward (as in, to survive) might be to reverse that order.

The follow-up session for 6 Billion Ways attendees took place Sunday 6th and was stimulating and informative. It was striking how plain straightforward most ideas were, highlighting a distinct absence of any crazy or overtly unworkable plans to improve the world. Most seemed derived from a rather common sense of decency and values. I had the pleasure of chatting briefly with Nick Dearden afterwards and we agreed on that same point, that there’s nothing outlandish about being reasonable, nor asking it of others. There’s nothing radical, left or right, about compassion.

As for the outstanding sessions of March 5th, of which there were many, this writer must nonetheless confess to having peaked in the AM at first session What is Climate Justice?, chaired by Kirsty Wright, with Patrick Bond, Ricardo Navarro and Larry Lohmann, all of whom shared so generously from their abundant knowledge of global climate affairs, and no doubt left the audience thoroughly unsettled by the end of the session. Lohmann’s work has specialized in the appalling phenomenon of carbon trading, whereby the financial sector capitalizes on the same particles known to be leading to global upheaval and mass-extinction. Needless to say, such practices represent some of the darker reaches of our species. And yet how unsurprising such profiteering has become. Capitalism causes it, then cashes in on it. Nature of a manmade beast.

Thanks to the organizers and participants who made 6 Billion Ways so memorable this year. Special thanks to that fellow concerned citizen encountered between sessions, who put it so trenchantly when she identified the single common value of everyone assembled for 6BW 2011 as being “anti-greed”. Catchy, and soon it clicked that anti-greed is a simple definition of reciprocity, the primary law of existence. How radical.

Posted in Uncategorised | View Comments

What can the media do for democracy?

Posted on March 8, 2011 by Alexandra Simits

The News Corporation’s bid to acquire the 60.9% of BSkyB it does not already own has started a war in the world of media. It has also inspired considerable resistance from civil society. This was clear to see from the session entitled ‘Rupert Murdoch vs. Democracy’ at 6 Billion Ways. The room was full to overflowing, and the speakers didn’t hold back.

Jeremy Dear, General Secretary of the National Union of Journalists, took to the microphone, to deliver one of the soundbites of the day: “commercial media is not based on the selling of programmes to audiences but the selling of audiences to advertisers”. Focusing in on the specific subject at hand, Dear described Rupert Murdoch as a vicious, money-hungry shark that sees news only as a commodity.

On that point, I have to disagree. In my view, Rupert Murdoch realises that there is something more important than profits, namely the protection of the power system as it stands. And in that respect, the News Corporation is not much different than the rest of the major media outlets.

The truth is that although the public knows they can expect to hear differing views from different news agencies, they are very much aware that this is due to the multitude of business interests the agencies serve. Hence the state-owned BBC will undeniably be biased in its coverage of the war in Iraq or the recent student protests. Another example of this was seen more recently with the news that BBC Journalists have been ordered to use the word ‘Savings’ rather than ‘Cuts’ in their reports. . Meanwhile, the private television and radio sector, which gets almost 100% of their income from advertising, will do everything to keep their true clients -the advertisers- happy. The same is also true for newspapers as 75% of their profit comes from advertisments.

One great example which disputes the myth that “newspapers depend on readership” is that of the Daily Herald. At the time of its “death” The Herald had almost double the readership of The Times, the Financial Times and the Guardian combined, making it one of the 20 most circulated daily newspapers in the world. It was one of the most highly regarded newspapers with a devoted and involved audience. But because it was representing the rights of the wider working class, it did not get the support of the capital. Therefore it was sold off to Murdoch, who made it in to The Sun that we know today. And as much as this can be outrageous, it is completely logical as no institution of power will ever undermine itself by educating people against it.

I am sure that there are journalists who want to do the right thing and serve the public by giving them a true and unbiased view of the world, but they will able to do that only as long as what they say is not harming the interests their funders. So there might be debate between the different media outlets, but it is strictly limited within the boundaries specified by the ruling capital. We could be romantic and say that Rupert Murdoch is the arch-villain in the media world but the truth is all of the major news providers are owned by wealthy individuals or big corporations which might not be the size of Murdoch’s conglomerate but they are actively pushing forward the agenda set by other mega-corporations.

All of the above might be painting a bleak picture of the reality but there is actual, tangible change that is driving society away from the standards of the past. With the help of the internet, people are already getting increasingly aware of the situation and they are creating alternatives. Tim Hunt brought a breath of fresh air into the debate with his story of how a community of journalists in Manchester founded the Manchester Mule in reaction to the continuously growing practice of churnalism in their area. They are providing opportunities along with training to enthusiastic volunteers who want to cover the burning issues of society that get filtered out from the mainstream media. As any internet savvy individual can observe, similar projects, blogs and podcasts that aim to provide independent news channels are popping up like mushrooms all over the globe.

Of course, the mainstream media in accordance with their intellectually elitist agenda are mostly scornful of bloggers characterising them as unqualified ranters. But what makes somebody qualified to talk on global matters? An unaffordable Bachelor’s degree or maybe a job in a media institution that does not allow any dissident thought? The public is giving a loud answer to that – newspapers sales are plummeting and TV networks are constantly losing ratings with more and more people getting informed online. Now in order to support this shift in public trust, it is the responsibility of bloggers, activists and all other new media agents to push for better quality, to do more extensive research and provide ample references for their facts. We should all aim for quality when we voice our opinions online and as Tim Hunt put it, “a blog post a month is better than a blog post a day if it gives you the time to do the necessary research and analysis of a subject”.

To conclude, I want to address the question Natalie Fenton put forward during the debate: What can the media do for democracy? From my point of view, if we keep defining democracy the way it is manifested in Western and British society then the media can do quite a lot for it. If by democracy we mean a capitalistic system where business institutions are allowed and even rewarded for seeking constantly higher profits and totalitarian power at the cost of people, communities and the environment then definitely the media can help by promoting the indoctrination of the ruling class, limiting the voices admitted into mainstream discussion and setting the framework of acceptable political and cultural thought. If we want to move forward, I think that we should ask ourselves a more appropriate question: How can the people create new media to achieve a truly democratic and libertarian society? And there are many valid and viable answers to that. You just have to find the one suitable for you and pursue it.

Posted in Uncategorised | Tagged , , , , , | View Comments

Accumulation by African Dispossession

Posted on March 7, 2011 by Nishma Doshi

This post is based on the panel discussion on Africa. It is a cross-posting from the grassroots-based blog, Topsoil.

Capitalism has been spurred on by dispossession. Every accumulation of capital is not free, but a debt to that which has been dispossessed. Our capital accumulation is a blood debt. A debt that we’ve incurred through colonialism and resource exploitation.

It’s a shame Samir Amin could not attend this session on Africa; capital accumulation by dispossession was the underlying thesis of this discussion, with supporting evidence provided by Nnimmo Bassey and Patrick Bond. Introduced by Firoze Manji of Pambazuka Press, the session was a clear move away from the standard aid versus trade discussion, instead accepting that capitalism was the root of current social, political and environmental crises. In all senses, capitalism had exploited Africa, tearing its roots apart through enslavement of labour, the consumption of all natural resources and the continued robbery of human rights.

This crisis of capital is not new. Where growth had reached its peak in the late 1800s, drastic changes were made to ensure European hegemony. That change was the carving out of Africa – the slicing of homelands and peoples that resulted in blood, death and more blood. And it was black blood that was spilt, and that history is forgotten. All this for capital accumulation? If it can be said without connotations – the true time for change is now.

Nnimmo Bassey explained how it was in 1895 that the first Nigerian people were massacred for access to Palm Oil. Now, over a century later – there has been no change, except now it’s crude oil.

Even with postcolonialism, structural adjustment has ensured exploitation has been institutionalised. The state is merely the shoeshine boy for the corporation. Democracy is a farce – it is a ballot box dream where you think you have some choice, some power. We have sold out. We have sold our sovereignty to state power.

But we can win the war. The way to win any battle is through international solidarity. Because our struggles are the same. In Egypt, our struggle can be found within. The same in Tunisia and Algeria. We’re fighting for true sovereignty and democracy, all of us.

And it is the idea of capital accumulation that has blinded us. Even in the richest African national, wealth creation in real figures only shows that the average person is only paying for the resources they produce. Patrick Bond’s presentation was clear – capitalism has whiplashed so-called developing nations into paying a bill for a debt they never caused. And it’s a debt like bonded labour – there is no end to the payment and dependency.

There is a way out, and we’ve seen that way out in North Africa. This struggle has started well before the uprisings we see now. And it will still take time for that to come through. But we cannot let this opportunity to pass. We must work together on this – work with solidarity in our minds. Austerity and African exploitation are part of the same doctrine. And that is NOT our doctrine.

There is a better world and there are 6 billions ways to achieve that. Let’s use those ways together.

Posted in Uncategorised | Tagged , , , , , | View Comments

Decolonising our minds

Posted on March 6, 2011 by Tim Gee

“I wish you Egypt so you can decolonise your minds” says the Palestinian Human Rights Campaigner Omar Barghouti, to a packed plenary in Shoreditch Town Hall. It is the final rally of the 6 Billion Ways Conference, a day of workshops, speakers and music from across the world. In so doing he captures the mood of a day in a single sentence. Both decolonisation of the mind and the revolution in Egypt have proven central themes of 6 Billion Ways conference as a whole, as they will during the final rally.

Part of the challenge is simply believing that change is possible at all. As Egyptian Revolutionary Gigi Ibrahim expains – before it happened many people did not believe what happened in Egypt possible. But then there was a turning point: “In Tahrir Square I saw an army of soldiers running towards the people. Then just for a moment, a split moment, people looked at each other and the next thing, people were chasing state security away”.

Jubilee Debt Campaign Director Nick Dearden hopes we can learn something in the UK, declaring “We need movements that are capable of challenging why the powerful are powerful”. Former Red Pepper editor Hilary Wainwright also looks at the UK movement which she compares to a souffle (“You never know if it is going to rise or not”) or a jazz group (“We need to respond creatively to uncertainty, but we still need an underlying structure”)

A word of warning however is offered by Meena Rahman of Friends of the Earth Malaysia: “When we won our independence we thought we were rid of the British. We had political independence but not economic independence. Our Government had black skins but white minds.” She was part of the 1985 revolution in the Phillippines when the Marcos dictatorship was overthrown by the people, only to be replaced by someone not so politically ruthless, but equally as neo-liberal.

The advice is taken, but doesn’t take a way from the positive mood. In line with the way that struggles against neo-liberalism in Tunisia and Egypt are inspiring others, the presence of Middle Esatern revolutionaries brings something of their spirit to London’s East End.

The final word however goes to Friends of the Earth International chair Nnimmo Bassey, who was recently awarded the ‘alternative Nobel Peace Prize’ the Right Livelihood Award for his work in Nigeria. Drawing links between struggles against neo-liberalism and for democracy across the world, he declares “the context may be different, but the content is the same. My struggle is your struggle, my humanity is your humanity, my fight is your fight…when we have had a good dream, it is not the time to sleep…we must resist, mobilise and transform”.

Tim Gee’s first book Counterpower, is available for pre-order.

Posted in Featured | Tagged , | View Comments

Searching for happiness at the bottom of a shopping bag

Posted on March 6, 2011 by Dee McConville

It’s a Saturday afternoon in March, and tens of thousands of citizens gather at the Amnesty International Action Centre to consider the insidious issue of overconsumption. Meanwhile, across town 450 consumers are doing what they do best on Oxford Street.

Okay, so I got those numbers the wrong way round, but I can dream. I also got the sense that the 449-ish others with me at the ‘Buying Useless Sh*t’ talk, shared this dream. The subtitle of the talk was ‘Why we do it and how we can stop’. Our speakers Neal Lawson, Kate Soper, Patrick Bond and Kate Pickett did their best to enlighten us on this matter.

The reasons why we do it are numerous, and complex. We are being told to consume everywhere we look and it is a very seductive option. We work long hours, we are stressed, and we believe that retail therapy can assuage this. We define each other using judgements based on the material. We also have a high level of inequality of income in the UK and this drives us to consume more. But this way of operating isn’t sustainable. Especially not within society as a whole. As the population grows and grows and we consume more and more…it doesn’t look as though it will end well, does it?

So, how in the name of Nike can we stop?

Well, we could downsize, use local currency, walk not drive, get involved in a skill share program, seek more fulfillment in our relationships with friends and family. If you’re too busy for all that then perhaps a reduction in the working week would help.

We also need to make consumerism distasteful to those who worship at its altar. One way of doing this, it is suggested, is using art. I would argue that one very famous artist, Banksy, is already well known and loved for doing this. But in this contradictory world we live in, he is also a commodity. There is also the artist Barbara Kruger. But she herself got in bed with the big boys in a collaboration with Selfridges. So we’ve been out-double-thunk again. It’s a wicked web they weave!

But I digress. Our speakers go on to tell us that a shift isn’t going to be easy. And it’s made all the more difficult as mainstream thinking is in denial about this problem. What we need is a vision, and not one dreamed up by an advertising agency for evil means. We need an alternative model of prosperity. We also need to go to the mode of production itself. It’s beginning to sound trickier. Like ‘turning a tank in a goldfish bowl’ in fact. And one of the issues staring right back at us in the reflection of our shiny appliances, is that we ourselves are a huge part of the problem. So the change needs to start with each and every one of us.

As we near the end of the talk, Kate Pickett tells us that she would happily exchange a jar of her home made marmalade for a Thai massage, when a member of the audience states he possesses that particular skill to share. Well, I think to myself, it’s a start.

Posted in Uncategorised | View Comments

Power to the People: Rethinking Democracy

Posted on March 6, 2011 by Eva Baker

This meeting, as you might expect, was rich in abstract talk of bottom-up, not top-down, grassroots, horizontal organisation, rethinking democracy, subsidiarity, ‘totalising underviews’ and other wonderful ideas; thankfully, though, we managed to touch on practicalities and examples too. The first question was excellent: where do right-wing grassroots movements, such as the EDL or the Tea Party, fit in with our (presumably) left-wing conception of direct democracy? Answers from the panel were understandably convoluted, but centred around a recognisable radical optimism that hopes these movements are at least in part caused by stagnation of political debate and disenfranchisement, and so might be made untenable or obsolete by rigorous direct democracy and the necessary free discourse that must accompany it. Another recurring example, with caveats, was Bolivia. The popularly controlled Council of Social Movements generated a great deal of head nodding due to its neat fit within the aforementioned theoretical demands; while the contradictions of the Bolivian experience generated by existing within a global market economy led discussion nicely to elusive but essential question: can we ‘take control of capitalism’? Or does the market corrupt absolutely?

One of the strongest themes of the meeting for me was this tension between democracy and economy, and I briefly pushed Trapese.org’s Alice Cutler on the issue, the video of which can be seen here.

The meeting was a great diving board for the future of radical democracy. No concrete answers emerged – but that was acknowledged as part of the point – there are no bite-sized answers that can be squeezed in to an hour’s debate, except that we must all take control of our surroundings, our workplaces, or communities.

Look out for videos of this event coming very soon.

Anthony Barnett is from OpenDemocracy.net, who recently published ‘Fight Back! A Reader on the Winter of Protest’, available for free here.

Alice Cutler is from the Trapese Collective. They have released a pamphlet, ‘Space for Movement? Reflections from Bolivia on climate justice, social movements and the state’, available for free in pdf here.

Hilary Wainwright is from Red Pepper Magazine.

Posted in Uncategorised | Tagged , | View Comments

Rupert Murdoch versus democracy

Posted on March 5, 2011 by Rob Safar

So, yeah. Murdoch’s been given the go-ahead on his buyout. It was Vince Cable’s decision until he said on record that he was ‘declaring war’ on Murdoch, then it was passed on to Jeremy Hunt who has summarily waved through the deal.

Murdoch’s made a bit of a concession, that he’ll only maintain ownership 39% of Sky News (as distinct from BSkyB), making sure that the news service is as balanced and impartial as it is at the moment. Huh. Kinda conceding that his ownership would indeed affect it’s impartiality?

 

Hang on, step back a bit. What’s the problem? Murdoch’s a good businessman. He makes his money by people’s advocating the services he facilitates, like voting in confidence with your wallet. Y’know, there must be a good reason why he’s got so much power. It’s the way it is for a reason.

The most cogent, simplest and elegant argument voiced (amongst, I must say, many truly rigorous analyses and incisive dissections) went along the lines of:

“Bollocks.”

Promising greater media freedom, Murdoch has instigated greater media homogenisation and reinvented media as an assortment of corporations and accountants, not investigators and truth-tellers. He buys political favours to suit his corporate interests. Instead of investing in quality journalism, we see profits being prioritised and streamlining resulting in more deskwork, second-hand facts. Corporate and celebrity PR trumps quality journalism. We’re seeing investigative journalism being cut away by the pound because it’s expensive. Murdoch and his legacy are cropping journalism at the expense of the truth.

 

And now we’re seeing greater marginalisation of competition broadcasters.

 

How do you encourage private healthcare? Fail to provide the necessary resources in public healthcare.

How do you encourage private education? Fail to provide the necessary resources in public education.

How do you encourage private broadcasting? Fail to provide the necessary resources in public broadcasting.

I hate to be repetitive, but the pattern is clear.

 

And it’s not as though David Cameron met with the Murdoch Dynasty before even being voted into office (however tenuously).

 

The conceptual relationship between news and democracy is hugely important. There is a common misconception, perpetuated by I’ll-bet-you’ll-never-guess-who, advocating that the notion of a free market in news media is interchangeable with the notion of freedom of the press. The discourse is at the stage where it’s difficult to argue that anything but the market can deliver freedom for journalists. And this is a dualism that we need to break down.

We know what Murdoch’s advocating. What he’s always advocated. He wants the power to do and say what he wants. If he wasn’t the biggest media mogul in the world, that would be fine. But he’s not just a successful businessman – never believe that – he’s also in absolute and unequivocal control over one of the most influential networks of information exchange.

That’s a social responsibility, right there, if ever I heard one. Our news media is as influential as our education system, especially amongst particular age brackets.

We still have 15 days before the deal goes through completely. Have a look at Avaaz’s latest petition. Keep on shouting until your throat is sore. This is important stuff. Some of the most important stuff.

It all depends, ultimately, on whether you think that the truth is less important than what sells.

Posted in Uncategorised | View Comments

Power to the People: Rethinking Democracy

Posted on March 5, 2011 by simon.thorpe

This meeting, as you might expect, was rich in abstract talk of bottom-up, not top-down, grassroots, horizontal organisation, rethinking democracy, subsidiarity, ‘totalising underviews’ and other wonderful ideas; thankfully, though, we managed to touch on practicalities and examples too. The first question was excellent: where do right-wing grassroots movements, such as the EDL or the Tea Party, fit in with our (presumably) left-wing conception of direct democracy? Answers from the panel were understandably convoluted, but centred around a recognisable radical optimism that hopes these movements are at least in part caused by stagnation of political debate and disenfranchisement, and so might be made untenable or obsolete by rigorous direct democracy and the necessary free discourse that must accompany it. Another recurring example, with caveats, was Bolivia. The popularly controlled Council of Social Movements generated a great deal of head nodding due to its neat fit within the aforementioned theoretical demands; while the contradictions of the Bolivian experience generated by existing within a global market economy led discussion nicely to elusive but essential question: can we ‘take control of capitalism’? Or does the market corrupt absolutely?

One of the strongest themes of the meeting for me was this tension between democracy and economy, and I briefly pushed Trapese.org’s Alice Cutler on the issue, the video of which can be seen here.

The meeting was a great diving board for the future of radical democracy. No concrete answers emerged – but that was acknowledged as part of the point – there are no bite-sized answers that can be squeezed in to an hour’s debate, except that we must all take control of our surroundings, our workplaces, or communities.

Look out for videos of this event coming very soon.

Anthony Barnett is from OpenDemocracy.net, who recently published ‘Fight Back! A Reader on the Winter of Protest’, available for free here.

Alice Cutler is from the Trapese Collective. They have released a pamphlet, ‘Space for Movement? Reflections from Bolivia on climate justice, social movements and the state’, available for free in pdf here.

Hilary Wainwright is from Red Pepper Magazine.

 

Posted in Uncategorised | Tagged , , , | View Comments

Capitalism and class – don’t mention the C words?

Posted on March 5, 2011 by Rob Safar

How relevant are the above terms in progressive discourse today? How useful can they be?

(Check out the profile and speakers here)

My crucial fear in this debate centred around Godwin’s Law, normally applied to the likelihood of Hitler or the Nazis cropping up in any given internet discussion. Out of politeness, any discussion should end as soon as Hitler is mentioned.

I would be inclined to apply this rationale to Marx in progressive discourse. I mean – really – if this was plain old leftist discourse then surely we’d just call it leftism? But we opt to call it progressivism, at least slightly implying that the tenets of communism are growing maybe a little bit dated and that Marx wasn’t the only critic of capitalism. Frankly, I have a lot of respect for Marx but I’m sick of him being quoted like Jesus.

Anyway. The arguments voiced, for the most part, were concerned with how useful it is to talk about sociological abstractions in order to actualise the social change we want to see. And rather than write too much about the round-the-bush-beating that went on, I’m just going to get straight to the point. No statistics. Just bush-beating. Just what it is. Yeah, I might be a little drunk.

To indicate, or even to utilise language that implicitly leads to the notion, that political philosophy should be used in order to bring about the kind of social change-we-want-to-see is simply a confusion. It’s a ‘problem’ akin to the flawed grammar that lead to the centuries-long confusion around the mind-body ‘problem’.

Political philosophy is practically utilised by academics and philosophers to argue about exactly what the change-we-want-to-see  is. They throw their terms around and debate amongst themselves in a broadly disinterested sense (disinterested, as in they seldom have an invested interest in the outcome of their debate, or at least shouldn’t have such an interest in order to be taken seriously as a philosopher).

Then, interested parties survey the debate, at another completely different level of discourse and social interaction. They choose the arguments they see and like (very few members of the bourgeoisie encountered Das Kapital and decided to give away their wealth to join and organise the proletarian uprising) and utilise them for their own purposes. This involves an intricate translation activity of one type of discourse into another.

Another level of discourse takes place where interested parties try to influence the verisimilitude, the zeitgeist, the ‘public opinion’, to accept their interested views.

It might seem a little cold, but that’s how the discourse operates. In the interests of intellectual rigour, please comment and highlight as many anomalous examples against this geography of discourse as you can.

Nonetheless, it’s simply not useful to even consider that the semantics of one sector of discourse will be applicable to another without any translation. You change the context of what you say when you say it, just because there is an audience to whom you address.

Anyway. The discussion progressed. Some people thought that capitalism was an influential factor and a useful thing to think about. They were generally from a vaguely ‘disinterested’ sector. Some people thought that the terminology wasn’t really useful. Their discourse took place in a different sector, their level of interestedness was perhaps a little more involved. Indeed, their careers were based on translating these political philosophies into an appropriate method of discourse. That strikes me as an interest in the matter.

Anyway. I was thinking about all this and then someone quoted Jesus. I mean Marx. 40 minutes in. So I left, as my cultural etiquette dictated.

But crucially, and this is pretty crucial, our political philosophy is concerned with deciding what kind of change-we-want-to-see we want to see. Making that change is a different matter and requires a different discourse. I mean, yes, an architect makes a plan for a piece of architecture and then the people who actualise this building use the architect’s plans as a template. The plans are actively involved in making the building happen. But we’re not talking about a building, we’re talking about linguistic and behavioural reforms. Put it in the context of another behavioural/linguistic intervention technique – hypnosis. If you explain to a subject of hypnosis that their belief in the hypnosis is the only thing that makes it effective, it will lose all effectiveness. When dealing with socio-linguistic change, the message is the medium.

Anyway. I wish people threw around Foucault or Chomsky quotes like they do Marx.

Posted in Uncategorised | Tagged , , , , | View Comments


<< Newer posts | Older posts >>