Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags

[butchersapron]

Ahhh sigh I wrote a big reply and it just got back-button destroyed, oh noes.

I was reading this pretty late, and I mainly objected to the points in this thread where the (perhaps legitimate) criticism, cynicism and character assassination instead turned into a "look at her pic, what an ugly cunt" or "what a posh clueless cunt, being called Tamsin says it all" blah blah blah. Pretty nasty kinda undertone imo. I do think her articles are at times pretty shitty; the lolsome lies about singing the Internationale and harping on about her 'living in poverty' etc, the sense of proportion is really not there, but also is she really claiming to be a 'voice of the yoof'? I guess newspaper editors do genuinely think like that, which is pretty fucking sad really.

Making a quip about the SWP (and essentially their 'marketing' at protests) isn't exactly the end of the world, personally the whole facebook/CIF handbags-out debate wankery just makes me chuckle (or even eye-roll like the evil green smilie). She's only 22 or something though isn't she, maybe i'm naive and over-optimistic but writing someone off as a useless liar future lib dem abuser of their class privileges is just as snidey as her SWP comments; compared to Richard Littlejohn or someone her articles are hardly the inadvertent evil some are making them out heh.

Penny's petty sectarian comments are exactly what some people are replicating (here and elsewhere) on some level, in some ways she's a non issue, a her few CIF pages is not going to either make or destroy how young adults in protest movements are viewed imo, and to say this will buys into a pretty low opinion of people in society as a whole, and their ability to read around, and y'know... think for themselves a bit.

You've mixed up two different people and have the chronology back to front there. LP has already variously done the Labour party, then the lib-dems, then back to labour now to full fledged revolutionary blah blah.

The point isn't so much about the content or effects of her writing, but

a)how you really cannot find a better example of the use of cultural capital based on privilege to extend and transmit that privilege into the future

b) how certain people attempt to recuperate social movements for their own careerists ends (some journos) and how other groups of people help/make this happen (editors, media bosses) and

c) how politics is reduced in this game to just another fashion, this years fad. In short how the media and the culture they create and reflect works

d) personal annoyance at the sort of barely disguised pushy middle class self-obsession that we've all seen in our social or work lives being (self) promoted as the voice of a generation (without even going into the infantile divisions this sort of crap assumes).

 

[killer b]

Do we know what her leg up was yet? Strikes me that it must be more than just oxbridge contacts & savage ambition. Is her dad on the board or something?

 

[frogwoman]

You've mixed up two different people and have the chronology back to front there. LP has already variously done the Labour party, then the lib-dems, then back to labour now to full fledged revolutionary blah blah.

The point isn't so much about the content or effects of her writing, but

a)how you really cannot find a better example of the use of cultural capital based on privilege to extend and transmit that privilege into the future

b) how certain people attempt to recuperate social movements for their own careerists ends (some journos) and how other groups of people help/make this happen (editors, media bosses) and

c) how politics is reduced in this game to just another fashion, this years fad. In short how the media and the culture they create and reflect works

d) personal annoyance at the sort of barely disguised pushy middle class self-obsession that we've all seen in our social or work lives being (self) promoted as the voice of a generation (without even going into the infantile divisions this sort of crap assumes).

Yeah, all of that really, and I think point c) is one that's very important and sort of been missed ... even on the discussions on here.
also there's no reason why we can't discuss people/phenomenons that annoy us - that's not the be and end all of our political activity, is it?

 

[LLETSA]

Cynicism and abuse, from the self appointed representatives of the 'real people'. Just what's needed at this time.

If you want cynicism and abuse, I'm your man.

(Not that saying that you've never heard of some kid who writes a blog and a few columns is all that strong. Perhaps you need to get out more.)

 

[audiotech]

If you want cynicism and abuse, I'm your man.

(Not that saying that you've never heard of some kid who writes a blog and a few columns is all that strong. Perhaps you need to get out more.)

What does it matter about some blogger, giving all this attention and wasted energy to? I'd get more out of reading 'Dennis the Menace' and having a larf at 'Lord Snooty'.

Some comment elsewhere I came across, which cuts to the chase about the supposed "new politics".

"....the establishment is quaking in its boots at the threat from activists whose political nous extends to thinking that Topshop "caused the crisis".

I went out last night thanks.

 

[Proper Tidy]

So we need to cut across this new politics guff but we shouldn't do that by pointing out the idiocy and hypocrisy of one of it's primary figureheads?

 

[audiotech]

Primary figurehead? Not sure about that, but let's accept that premise.

First, there is a need to be clear to Penny and others who believe these developments to be a "new kind of politics" and think there should be a rejection of the "old politics".

What is happening of course is as it always has been, a class war, now open and intensive.

David Harvey, gives a quote from Warren Buffett, industrialist and the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, which makes clear it's the same "old politics" as its always been. This is the quote:

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” Here's the original source for that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html?_r=2

The assessment is that the organised working class is weak and it clearly is. Again, I'll quote Serwotka:

The union movement today is different to that of the early 1980s – the last time we faced such an attack on the public sector and the welfare state. Membership is barely over half what it was and anti-union laws constrain us.

This is a reality and that needs to be recognised, however, he continues:

...[that] does not fatally undermine the potential for resistance.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/30/unions-cuts-protest

Of course the problem here is not only weakness of the organised working class, but also the lack, or little, if any class politics in these apparent "new" types of politics - social networks/ anti-cuts movements emerging and there also lies a weakness. If a movement develops only so far, then no prizes for guessing what comes next? Certainly a reaction of some kind, with workers organisations weakened further and the anti-cuts movement nowhere to be seen. Those left resisting can become especially odious figures during these developments, bearing the brunt of the reaction.

It's a funny old world and a brutal one at that.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Primary figurehead? Not sure about that, but let's accept that premise.

Okay, but we don't really need to. All we need accept is that Penny is being represented as a "primary figurehead" by some elements of the media. All else will tend to lead from how well that representation is taken up by those the media want this representation disseminated to.

First, there is a need to be clear to Penny and others who believe these developments to be a "new kind of politics" and think there should be a rejection of the "old politics".

What is happening of course is as it always has been, a class war, now open and intensive.

Unfortunately, the "style" of the "new politics" is what is being most strongly presented in parts of the commercial media, not the substance of the ongoing class conflicts.

David Harvey, gives a quote from Warren Buffett, industrialist and the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, which makes clear it's the same "old politics" as its always been. This is the quote:

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” Here's the original source for that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html?_r=2

The assessment is that the organised working class is weak and it clearly is.


Again, I'll quote Serwotka:



This is a reality and that needs to be recognised, however, he continues:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/30/unions-cuts-protest

Of course the problem here is not only weakness of the organised working class, but also the lack, or little, if any class politics in these apparent "new" types of politics -

Hardly surprising in and of itself, given the finessing of any overt class politics from mainstream political discourse, with what would generally be perceived as class issues re-classified as "social exclusion" and "welfare" issues, for example, and issues about wealth disparity marginalised almost to a binary opposition between being deserving or undeserving.

social networks/ anti-cuts movements emerging and there also lies a weakness. If a movement develops only so far, then no prizes for guessing what comes next? Certainly a reaction of some kind, with workers organisations weakened further..

How much further can be gone? I noticed the proposals that some on the Tory right are pursuing (lifting the participation and vote-percentage thresholds for a successful strike vote, for example), but how far before the TUC and the individual union boards realise they're being legislated out of existence and actually get off their arses?

and the anti-cuts movement nowhere to be seen. Those left resisting can become especially odious figures during these developments, bearing the brunt of the reaction.

I suspect that'll depend on how much of a common purpose the disparate elements will have realised that they share by the time something like this happens, and you're partly pre-supposing that the "anti-cuts movement" in general doesn't already intersect and cross-cut "workers organisations" in particular.

It's a funny old world and a brutal one at that.

Always has been and always will be.

 

[LLETSA]

I suspect that'll depend on how much of a common purpose the disparate elements will have realised that they share by the time something like this happens, and you're partly pre-supposing that the "anti-cuts movement" in general doesn't already intersect and cross-cut "workers organisations" in particular.

Always has been and always will be.

For once Audiotech is correct. No matter how militant the anti-cuts campaigns, without being able to answer the question of political power, the most that can be hoped for (by those who do this kind of thing) is another Labour government. And then the whole thing begins again except with, as he says, a weakened anti-cuts movement and no real reason to think that workers organisations will have been significantly strengthened.

Sad but true.

 

[audiotech]

I dispute the 'for once'.

Anyway, it's not about getting it right, or wrong, but looking reality hard in the face and developing tactics to achieve an overall strategy. These can be either defensive, or offensive positions. 'War of position' (analogous to trench warfare); and the 'war of movement' (or frontal attack). - Antonio Gramsci.

 

[butchersapron]

Those positions are nothing whatsoever to do with offensive or defensive positions - he was explicitly arguing the second is a worthless approach in countries like the UK. And what's the point in throwing them in this context free form anyway?

 

[LLETSA]

Those positions are nothing whatsoever to do with offensive or defensive positions - he was explicitly arguing the second is a worthless approach in countries like the UK. And what's the point in throwing them in this context free form anyway?

That's what I was wondering. Not being deliberately antagonistic, but A/tech has always had a penchant for content-free sloganeering. It's as bad as the over-optimism he warns against.

 

[audiotech]

To bring the ideas of Gramsci to this thread, for those who may have heard of him, but haven't read that much about him and his ideas? Then perhaps to go away and study further? Perhaps a discussion, clarification and of what position is relevant to the UK? Why do you two in particular come out with negative comments all the time, thinking the worst of posters and in the process demonstrating how really intelligent you both are? It's pathetic.

 

[audiotech]

Cat>>>>>>>>>>Pigeons.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I dispute the 'for once'.

Anyway, it's not about getting it right, or wrong, but looking reality hard in the face and developing tactics to achieve an overall strategy.

This is something I mention time and again. Unfortunately, too many people don't actually differentiate between tactics and strategy, and even if they do, prefer grand gestures and set pieces in their tactical armoury rather than stuff that enables them to apply pressure through struggle.

These can be either defensive, or offensive positions. 'War of position' (analogous to trench warfare); and the 'war of movement' (or frontal attack). - Antonio Gramsci.

Much as I like Signor Gramsci and respect his writing, I prefer Sun Tzu.
It's not about defensive or offensive, it's about realising that both are necessary, and that you fit your tactics to your situation (location, manpower, materiel) and deploy accordingly.

 

[ViolentPanda]

For once Audiotech is correct. No matter how militant the anti-cuts campaigns, without being able to answer the question of political power, the most that can be hoped for (by those who do this kind of thing) is another Labour government. And then the whole thing begins again except with, as he says, a weakened anti-cuts movement and no real reason to think that workers organisations will have been significantly strengthened.

Sad but true.

Which is why Penny's much-publicised oscillations between two of the mainstream parties are risible. They offer no alternative, or even the hope of one, especially given the assumption in some sections of the media that any codified anti-cuts movement will eventually be subsumed into Labour.

 

[LLETSA]

Which is why Penny's much-publicised oscillations between two of the mainstream parties are risible. They offer no alternative, or even the hope of one, especially given the assumption in some sections of the media that any codified anti-cuts movement will eventually be subsumed into Labour.

When it comes to the lack of a political alternative, Penny's 'oscillations' are the least of the problem, though, aren't they?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Those positions are nothing whatsoever to do with offensive or defensive positions - he was explicitly arguing the second is a worthless approach in countries like the UK. And what's the point in throwing them in this context free form anyway?

There's a point if what you're doing is acknowledging that if you strategise, it needs to be for an offensive against the political elite/the establishment/the ruling classes.

because otherwise we (the working classes) will be caught between the hammer and the anvil. Again.

 

[Sue]

To bring the ideas of Gramsci to this thread, for those who may have heard of him, but haven't read that much about him and his ideas? Then perhaps to go away and study further? Perhaps a discussion, clarification and of what position is relevant to the UK?

Or possibly to make yourself look super-smart/exclude those who haven't read Gramsci? (Perhaps not your intention but that's how it comes across to me anyway.)

 

[ViolentPanda]

When it comes to the lack of a political alternative, Penny's 'oscillations' are the least of the problem, though, aren't they?

Maybe so, but they're a visible sample of a phenomenon that I'd expect to be taking place with many people: A search for "truth" that is confined to those two choices because people have been educated away from believing they have the power to organise. The one is possible, and occurs, partly because of the other.

 

[ViolentPanda]

To bring the ideas of Gramsci to this thread, for those who may have heard of him, but haven't read that much about him and his ideas? Then perhaps to go away and study further? Perhaps a discussion, clarification and of what position is relevant to the UK? Why do you two in particular come out with negative comments all the time, thinking the worst of posters and in the process demonstrating how really intelligent you both are? It's pathetic.

You could be accused of the same attempt at "demonstrating how really intelligent you are" by mentioning him in the first place though, surely?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Or possibly to make yourself look super-smart/exclude those who haven't read Gramsci? (Perhaps not your intention but that's how it comes across to me anyway.)

Probably wasn't intentional on audiotech's part, but could be interpreted like that, and as Butch said, the ref was not really contextually germane anyway.

 

[Sue]

Ach, fair enough. Just a pet hate like.

 

[Riklet]

You've mixed up two different people

I haven't, both were refered to in this thread, and both in ways that at the time I thought was a bit lame at best, and downright misogynistic unpleasantness at worst, especially with Laurie Penny's pic.

...and have the chronology back to front there. LP has already variously done the Labour party, then the lib-dems, then back to labour now to full fledged revolutionary blah blah.

Fair play that seems clearer to me now.

The point isn't so much about the content or effects of her writing, but

a)how you really cannot find a better example of the use of cultural capital based on privilege to extend and transmit that privilege into the future

b) how certain people attempt to recuperate social movements for their own careerists ends (some journos) and how other groups of people help/make this happen (editors, media bosses) and

c) how politics is reduced in this game to just another fashion, this years fad. In short how the media and the culture they create and reflect works

d) personal annoyance at the sort of barely disguised pushy middle class self-obsession that we've all seen in our social or work lives being (self) promoted as the voice of a generation (without even going into the infantile divisions this sort of crap assumes).

This is the kind of reply I was hoping for really, some very interesting and enlightening points, ta. I find it hard to disagree much with any of that when I think about it. The "leg up" theory/speculation is also interesting and who knows what might come out in that department.

I saw the F.B. bunfight is still going strong with Alex Callinicos' class/wealth being bought into it (not by Laurie Penny though) as well as the rights and wrongs of the soviet oppression of revolution from Kronstadt through to action against the non-communist left in Spain. Divided left, no it aint... haha.

 

[audiotech]

You could be accused of the same attempt at "demonstrating how really intelligent you are" by mentioning him in the first place though, surely?

I've been posting here since since 2003 and I believe that's the first time I've mentioned his name. If someone wanted to demonstrate how really smug and intelligent they are, the name would have been posted long ago. Anyway, I mentioned Dennis the Menace and Lord Snooty a bit earlier, both Beano comic characters, I read as a child and would still do today if I came across a copy.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I've been posting here since since 2003 and I believe that's the first time I've mentioned his name. If someone wanted to demonstrate how really smug and intelligent they are, the name would have been posted long ago.

Ah, but what other names have you mentioned, the whole Gramsci issue could be a ruse to throw people off the scent of your having previously referred to other historical political theorists and philosophers!

Anyway, I mentioned Dennis the Menace and Lord Snooty a bit earlier, both Beano comic characters, I read as a child and would still do today if I came across a copy.

Ah, but Dennis and Gnasher are foot-soldiers in the class war. it's okay to mention them, and Lord Snooty is a useful tool (in both senses of the word) for revealing the inbred foolishness of the ruling classes!

 

[DotCommunist]

Dennis is a footsoldier in the BUF more like- I simply won't have this appalling revisionist take on the beano.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Dennis is a footsoldier in the BUF more like- I simply won't have this appalling revisionist take on the beano.

Piss off with your Dennis was a homophobe guff. He was a class warrior.

 

[butchersapron]

The bash street kids were the real class warriors - Leo Baxendale being an anarchist of course.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Dennis is a footsoldier in the BUF more like- I simply won't have this appalling revisionist take on the beano.

Nonsense, Dennis is actually meant to be Jewish thanks to his mother, indeed I remember a story in the eighties where Walter is reciting a letter from Chesterton to Belloc about the Jewish problem in Europe, and the necissity of action, and Dennis soundly landing a large dried pea from his catapault (directly inspired by David's slingshot) on the Softy's rump in response, accompanied by a hearttfelt shout of 'rotter'.