Crack Capitalism
By John Holloway
Pluto Press
Pbck £17.99
Since the ideas of socialism were first debated there has been conflict between reformist and revolutionary advocates; those who feel justice and equality can be achieved through piecemeal reform and those who argue that only a single momentous revolution can accomplish that goal. Holloway tries to bridge this apparent contradiction. He maintains that we need to create pockets of resistance, islands of alternative life styles or, as he prefers to put it, create ‘cracks’ in the system. In a sense he is also advocating what has been termed the ‘second culture’, ie a culture in opposition to and alongside the hegemonic capitalist one.
He offers 13 theses in what he hopes is a clear and accessible guide to moving beyond capitalism by creating mini-revolutions in our own individual lives, in our localities and communities. He argues that the dangers facing humanity are so urgent that we can’t wait (do revolutionaries wait?) for the revolution but must work to undermine the system where we are. He says ‘…the idea of a future revolution has become the enemy of emancipation.’ The practice of the left has been ‘to repeatedly commit suicide …by ignoring or destroying lines of continuity [between small victories and the chief goal]; by condemning reformism, by using language that only the initiated understand, by the use of violence in a way that alienates many people.’ While that may be partially correct, it is certainly not the whole picture; most revolutionaries I know fight actively for local and partial victories, but these don’t lead irreversibly or smoothly to the overthrow of the system.
We have to think the world through our ‘misfitting’, he argues. We must see capitalism not as something solid, as dominant, but in terms of its cracks, its crises, contradictions and weaknesses. Of course we have to protest against the system, he says, but if we only protest, we allow the powerful to set the agenda.
The long section on abstract labour is unfortunately very complex and highly theoretical and will have little relevance for the reader looking for concrete ways forward. Although it is a valid discussion, it seems that Holloway is advocating opting out of the labour process altogether as the only real means of challenging and overcoming capitalism. In today’s complex society in which we rely on sophisticated commodities this may seem utopian. It could be better discussed in terms of alienation, I feel.
This book is an attempt to answer the question: what can we do? We know taking state power is not an option at the present time. We cannot hope for the great revolution, we have to start creating something different here and now. Moving from capitalism to socialism is qualitatively different from that of feudalism to capitalism. Socialism cannot arise within the interstices of capitalism but only when the world of capitalism is overthrown. It seems, however, that Holloway is arguing for building the new system within the interstices or cracks in the system. A challenging and useful book, but does it offer a solution?
END
Wednesday, 4 August 2010
Sunday, 25 July 2010
No time to sit and wait - countering the Tories
It is no exaggeration to state that working people and the trade union movement under this government are facing the most ferocious onslaught in recent history. However, while the Tory-Lib coalition unleashes its Blitzkrieg with incredible ferocity, the public appears to be mesmerized like rabbits caught in car headlights. Of course, that’s not entirely true. There are those who saw this coming and who are now desperately sounding the reveille, but the government has stolen a march on us.
How has this Eton crowd been allowed to get away with diverting the widespread public outrage at their banking friends for dragging us into the present financial mess? All of a sudden the solution to the crisis, they say, is to be found in attacking public sector pay and pensions, welfare and benefits. While the previous Labour government was complicit, it was the finance capitalists who engineered the crisis, but the Tories are managing to make Labour the scapegoat. So, how can we mount an effective resistance against their attacks?
There is a widespread awareness that old methods of struggle either on an individual workplace or single union basis will not be sufficient to withstand this rogue wave of Tory policies that threatens to engulf us.
Despite the transformed social and political tapestry, trade unions, by and large, are still dependent on the same well-worn last resort method to fight their corner: the strike. While these can still be effective, they lost much of their clout once sympathy and solidarity action was outlawed under Thatcher’s anti-union legislation. The other downside is that – particularly those strikes involving the public sector – they can very often become counter-productive, as they involve inconveniencing ordinary citizens, causing anger and irritation. Methods of struggle need a thorough rethink in the present climate. We can’t afford to alienate large sections of the general public – our potential allies. We may also have to face even more restrictive anti-union legislation if the Tory right-wing gets its way.
A transport strike or one by local government workers hit the general public hardest; they impinge on their daily commute to work, their holiday plans or mean their benefits are not paid etc. Even if there is initial sympathy with the striking workers, this can soon wear thin, the more the public’s lives are affected and the longer time the media have to implement their insidious work.
Can we try subtler methods? During a recent rail strike in France workers chose to let people travel but refused to collect ticket money or check passengers’ tickets. This was very popular with the public and very effective in bringing the employer back to the negotiating table. Could such action be taken here?
One thing is certain, and a number of union leaders have realised this and are already taking action, that in trying to reverse the devastating attack on the welfare state and our other social achievements, action by individual unions alone will not be effective. There needs to be much more widespread and better co-ordination of action against Tory policies, despite the trammel of anti-union legislation. There is an urgent need for a unifying strategic programme in the form of a pro-active defence. We are, though, still somewhat hamstrung by a legacy of inter-union rivalries and, on the left, a clash of personalities and sectarianism that renders us effectively leaderless. The TUC should be playing the central role here, but don’t hold your breath. Trade Councils, too, can play unifying and co-ordinating roles.
Individual unions are of course already mounting their own campaigns but these will necessarily remain limited in their effectiveness. In this connection our trade union movement could learn something from our brothers and sisters in the USA who have had to fight even more draconian anti-union legislation than we have over many decades. They were forced to look at methods of struggle other than strike action. They have actively sought support and solidarity in their communities and from the general public which has usually worked. If you can get the public on your side, half the battle is won. Without the widest possible alliances, an effective riposte to the Tory coalition government will be impossible. Allies can be found in the churches, among activist groups, the left in the Labour Party, the Greens and even those leftists among the Liberals as well as progressive celebrities as long as we are prepared to accept difference as something not necessarily negative, and reject sectarianism and vanguardist ambitions; we cannot afford to be exclusive. The miners’ strike in 1984/85 demonstrated how communities and individuals could be mobilised across an enormously wide spectrum to support what was clearly seen as a monstrous injustice.
Unite’s Health B4 Profit Campaign is aimed at educating and empowering local health sector activists to challenge the fragmentation and privatisation of the NHS. The union says: ‘The NHS ‘should not be carved up for the benefit of private profit and this must be the time for us to fight for our Health Service and ensure that people come before profit. We want NHS staff, service users and the wider community to work together to challenge the policies that will lead to large amounts of public money being siphoned off into private company profits, rather than on delivering health care.’
UNISON’s library workers are defending their jobs and library provision by recruiting support from their local communities and readers, rather than closing the libraries with strike action. UNISON has its own campaign. ‘Everyone needs libraries for facts, for fun and for the future,’ it says. ‘A good public library service is at the heart of the community.’ It has won well-known writers like Dame Jacqueline Wilson, Alan Gibbons and Roger McGough to sign up to its campaign.
Unite has joined forces with PCS, and other unions and political organisations to call on the government to urgently rethink its welfare reform plans. It also has ongoing campaigns on house building and similar issues. The RMT is campaigning for rail renationalisation. Other unions are doing similar things, but they are mostly one-offs, not part of an overall and co-ordinated strategy, often by single unions. Outside the confines of a small activists’ circle they are often unknown.
Unions also need to utilise the media more effectively. It is no use simply putting out press releases and hoping newspapers will print them or offering sound bites to TV interviewers. The need is to be pro-active and win over the public before the establishment can put over its case and queer the pitch. The case for defending jobs, pay and public services needs to be communicated clearly and effectively, addressing public concerns and emphasising trade unionists sense of social responsibility. Campaigns need to be imaginative and events need to be eye-catching and headline-grabbing. There have been some very effective advertising campaigns in the past, particularly by UNISON, in defence of public services, but we should have more of these. They can be expensive to mount, but their impact is significant. More use could also be made of sympathetic celebrities, musicians and artists.
Above all, though, union activists have to ensure that they achieve or maintain a strong density of membership in all workplaces, but particularly in the public services. Without high union membership densities the government and employers will not listen as readily. Now is an ideal time to recruit when jobs, wages and conditions are under serious threat. That should become the number one priority for all union members.
END
It is no exaggeration to state that working people and the trade union movement under this government are facing the most ferocious onslaught in recent history. However, while the Tory-Lib coalition unleashes its Blitzkrieg with incredible ferocity, the public appears to be mesmerized like rabbits caught in car headlights. Of course, that’s not entirely true. There are those who saw this coming and who are now desperately sounding the reveille, but the government has stolen a march on us.
How has this Eton crowd been allowed to get away with diverting the widespread public outrage at their banking friends for dragging us into the present financial mess? All of a sudden the solution to the crisis, they say, is to be found in attacking public sector pay and pensions, welfare and benefits. While the previous Labour government was complicit, it was the finance capitalists who engineered the crisis, but the Tories are managing to make Labour the scapegoat. So, how can we mount an effective resistance against their attacks?
There is a widespread awareness that old methods of struggle either on an individual workplace or single union basis will not be sufficient to withstand this rogue wave of Tory policies that threatens to engulf us.
Despite the transformed social and political tapestry, trade unions, by and large, are still dependent on the same well-worn last resort method to fight their corner: the strike. While these can still be effective, they lost much of their clout once sympathy and solidarity action was outlawed under Thatcher’s anti-union legislation. The other downside is that – particularly those strikes involving the public sector – they can very often become counter-productive, as they involve inconveniencing ordinary citizens, causing anger and irritation. Methods of struggle need a thorough rethink in the present climate. We can’t afford to alienate large sections of the general public – our potential allies. We may also have to face even more restrictive anti-union legislation if the Tory right-wing gets its way.
A transport strike or one by local government workers hit the general public hardest; they impinge on their daily commute to work, their holiday plans or mean their benefits are not paid etc. Even if there is initial sympathy with the striking workers, this can soon wear thin, the more the public’s lives are affected and the longer time the media have to implement their insidious work.
Can we try subtler methods? During a recent rail strike in France workers chose to let people travel but refused to collect ticket money or check passengers’ tickets. This was very popular with the public and very effective in bringing the employer back to the negotiating table. Could such action be taken here?
One thing is certain, and a number of union leaders have realised this and are already taking action, that in trying to reverse the devastating attack on the welfare state and our other social achievements, action by individual unions alone will not be effective. There needs to be much more widespread and better co-ordination of action against Tory policies, despite the trammel of anti-union legislation. There is an urgent need for a unifying strategic programme in the form of a pro-active defence. We are, though, still somewhat hamstrung by a legacy of inter-union rivalries and, on the left, a clash of personalities and sectarianism that renders us effectively leaderless. The TUC should be playing the central role here, but don’t hold your breath. Trade Councils, too, can play unifying and co-ordinating roles.
Individual unions are of course already mounting their own campaigns but these will necessarily remain limited in their effectiveness. In this connection our trade union movement could learn something from our brothers and sisters in the USA who have had to fight even more draconian anti-union legislation than we have over many decades. They were forced to look at methods of struggle other than strike action. They have actively sought support and solidarity in their communities and from the general public which has usually worked. If you can get the public on your side, half the battle is won. Without the widest possible alliances, an effective riposte to the Tory coalition government will be impossible. Allies can be found in the churches, among activist groups, the left in the Labour Party, the Greens and even those leftists among the Liberals as well as progressive celebrities as long as we are prepared to accept difference as something not necessarily negative, and reject sectarianism and vanguardist ambitions; we cannot afford to be exclusive. The miners’ strike in 1984/85 demonstrated how communities and individuals could be mobilised across an enormously wide spectrum to support what was clearly seen as a monstrous injustice.
Unite’s Health B4 Profit Campaign is aimed at educating and empowering local health sector activists to challenge the fragmentation and privatisation of the NHS. The union says: ‘The NHS ‘should not be carved up for the benefit of private profit and this must be the time for us to fight for our Health Service and ensure that people come before profit. We want NHS staff, service users and the wider community to work together to challenge the policies that will lead to large amounts of public money being siphoned off into private company profits, rather than on delivering health care.’
UNISON’s library workers are defending their jobs and library provision by recruiting support from their local communities and readers, rather than closing the libraries with strike action. UNISON has its own campaign. ‘Everyone needs libraries for facts, for fun and for the future,’ it says. ‘A good public library service is at the heart of the community.’ It has won well-known writers like Dame Jacqueline Wilson, Alan Gibbons and Roger McGough to sign up to its campaign.
Unite has joined forces with PCS, and other unions and political organisations to call on the government to urgently rethink its welfare reform plans. It also has ongoing campaigns on house building and similar issues. The RMT is campaigning for rail renationalisation. Other unions are doing similar things, but they are mostly one-offs, not part of an overall and co-ordinated strategy, often by single unions. Outside the confines of a small activists’ circle they are often unknown.
Unions also need to utilise the media more effectively. It is no use simply putting out press releases and hoping newspapers will print them or offering sound bites to TV interviewers. The need is to be pro-active and win over the public before the establishment can put over its case and queer the pitch. The case for defending jobs, pay and public services needs to be communicated clearly and effectively, addressing public concerns and emphasising trade unionists sense of social responsibility. Campaigns need to be imaginative and events need to be eye-catching and headline-grabbing. There have been some very effective advertising campaigns in the past, particularly by UNISON, in defence of public services, but we should have more of these. They can be expensive to mount, but their impact is significant. More use could also be made of sympathetic celebrities, musicians and artists.
Above all, though, union activists have to ensure that they achieve or maintain a strong density of membership in all workplaces, but particularly in the public services. Without high union membership densities the government and employers will not listen as readily. Now is an ideal time to recruit when jobs, wages and conditions are under serious threat. That should become the number one priority for all union members.
END
Sunday, 11 July 2010
Re BBC News on One Friday 9 July.
I wish to complain about your news coverage on Friday 9 July BBC1 10.00pm news. You had only three items: the main one (which took up almost a qare of an hour – half the time) being a report on the hunt for Raoul Moat. The second item was on the football world cup and the third on the London Olympic Village. That is, two items on sport and one on the hunt for a lone gunman – hardly ‘news’ in the real sense of the word, whether world or British.
The fact that the police hunt for a lone gunman in Rothbury was given almost half of the total news coverage is pandering to tabloid-type sensationalism and demonstrates a gratuitous infatuation with crime. It may have deserved a mention but surely not more coverage than a major world catastrophe would normally receive. The police were clearly keeping all outsiders away from the focus of their hunt and were divulging few details of what was happening, but such a lack of genuine information did not stop you milking the story even though it was dry. Your journalists talked of being ‘only 100 yards from the scene’ as if this is of relevance to their story. They interviewed ‘experts’ about ‘what might have been happening’ (because no one knew apart from the police officers involved). This is not news but empty speculation and imparts no information or understanding to the viewer.
The fact that a lone gunman on the run after killing one person was now being hunted by a heavily armed police force in an operation almost unprecedented in peacetime outside Northern Ireland or in connection with serious terrorist offences, elicits no interrogation by you is incredible. You don’t question the use of such force; you don’t question the use of draconian powers to close off civilian areas and impose a curfew on ordinary citizens – actions of doubtful legality or legitimacy. Now tht would be proper investigative journalism!
BBC News has become increasingly obsessed with individual acts of crime, giving gratuitous coverage of little informational or educational value. This is ‘bread and circuses’ of the worst kind and not the sort of intelligent news coverage one expects from the BBC with its mandate to inform, educate and entertain.
Let us have real news please!
I wish to complain about your news coverage on Friday 9 July BBC1 10.00pm news. You had only three items: the main one (which took up almost a qare of an hour – half the time) being a report on the hunt for Raoul Moat. The second item was on the football world cup and the third on the London Olympic Village. That is, two items on sport and one on the hunt for a lone gunman – hardly ‘news’ in the real sense of the word, whether world or British.
The fact that the police hunt for a lone gunman in Rothbury was given almost half of the total news coverage is pandering to tabloid-type sensationalism and demonstrates a gratuitous infatuation with crime. It may have deserved a mention but surely not more coverage than a major world catastrophe would normally receive. The police were clearly keeping all outsiders away from the focus of their hunt and were divulging few details of what was happening, but such a lack of genuine information did not stop you milking the story even though it was dry. Your journalists talked of being ‘only 100 yards from the scene’ as if this is of relevance to their story. They interviewed ‘experts’ about ‘what might have been happening’ (because no one knew apart from the police officers involved). This is not news but empty speculation and imparts no information or understanding to the viewer.
The fact that a lone gunman on the run after killing one person was now being hunted by a heavily armed police force in an operation almost unprecedented in peacetime outside Northern Ireland or in connection with serious terrorist offences, elicits no interrogation by you is incredible. You don’t question the use of such force; you don’t question the use of draconian powers to close off civilian areas and impose a curfew on ordinary citizens – actions of doubtful legality or legitimacy. Now tht would be proper investigative journalism!
BBC News has become increasingly obsessed with individual acts of crime, giving gratuitous coverage of little informational or educational value. This is ‘bread and circuses’ of the worst kind and not the sort of intelligent news coverage one expects from the BBC with its mandate to inform, educate and entertain.
Let us have real news please!
Monday, 28 June 2010
It is a total nonsense to demand that people move where jobs are. This destroys families, communities, local solidarity and friendships. In a rational world, jobs should move to where people are, not vice versa. This is what happened under socialism and should happen here. Of course, as society progresses, industries and jobs disappear or change but they should be replaced by other jobs. It is up to governments to regulate and organise such processes and to provide retraining where necessary. Moving people and families to where jobs are is disruptive, cruel and counter-productive, as people may have to move again and again as jobs vanish, particularly in recesssions. Economics needs to serve people not vice versa. We have been cajoled and brainwashed to accept that we are servants to economic forces. That attitude only serves the wealthy elite who are protected. Duncan Smith's post Tebbit demands must be resisted.
John Green
John Green
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Football - opium of the people
I remember at my secondary school we weren’t allowed to play football. The headmaster had illusions of grandeur and he followed slavishly the examples of the big public schools: one played rugby and cricket - football was a working class sport not suitable for young gentlemen! Yes, in those days football was primarily a working class sport, played and watched by working people. The teams – even at the top of the league – were made up largely of men from the locality and their wages were little better than a well-paid manual worker. The game was followed avidly but not with the fanaticism and obsessional fervour of today.
The pundits invariably resort to the terminology of world war and national destiny, whipping up xenophobia and confirming national stereotypes. The Sun writes about ‘Krauts’ and features Nazi helmets when discussing German teams – beloved targets. Even Alex Ferguson, Manchester United’s manager, responded to United’s elimination from the Champions League by branding Bayern Munich’s players as "typical Germans" for what he saw as deliberate attempts to injure Wayne Rooney.
Football today has nothing in common with the game of those days apart from it being a game where eleven men kick a ball around. It has been hijacked by big business and turned into a money-spinner as well as a convenient soporific for the masses. It is today what ‘bread and circuses’ were for the Romans: a refuge from life’s problems, from serious discussion and real politics. It substitutes for clan, community and national spirit. Even presidents and prime ministers are obliged to acknowledge its hold on the masses and worship at its shrine. Football has become Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World ‘happiness drug’. It rules many men’s lives (yes, it is invariably men), can give them their orgasms, their highs and lows and transport them out of their mundane lives onto the fairy-tale world of the soccer pitch.
The excessively rewarded top stars have nothing to do with the teams they play for or the places in which they are based. They too are in it for the money and will go where they are highest paid. Clubs once firmly rooted in their localities and supported by small businesses and individual fans are now the play-things of the super wealthy. Two of our top teams are now owned by US businessmen who have been deprived of such opportunities in soccer-starved USA. The Glazer brothers own Manchester United and Gillet and Hicks own Liverpool.
Most of the cash used by Glazers to purchase Manchester United came in the form of loans, secured against the club's assets, incurring interest payments of over £60 million per annum. The remainder came in the form of loans, which were later sold to hedge funds. The club has a gross debt of £520 million with £45 million in annual interest payments. It is argued that they are milking the club and will leave it heavily indebted and in a parlous state.
Gillet and Hicks acquired Liverpool in 2007. The deal valued the club and its outstanding debts at £218.9 million. There have been rumours since that a Dubai company was also interested in buying it. Kenneth Huang, a former Wall Street broker, is at the head of a group who also want to buy the club for around £500m. In May, accounts were released showing the club to be £350 million in debt with losses of £55m and its auditor warning 'This fact indicates the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt upon the club’s ability to continue as a going concern.' Belatedly, greedy individuals and companies are now vying with each other to tap into this incredibly lucrative global money-maker.
In April 2008, Forbes business magazine ranked Liverpool as the fourth most valuable football team in the world, after Manchester United, Real Madrid and Arsenal. The club was valued at £605m, excluding debt.
The concentration of wealth among the few top teams in the world is distorting and in fact ruining the game as a truly national sport. Money is being siphoned off in dividends and inflated pay for players, leaving the smaller and less renowned clubs struggling to survive. Money for the training of new generations of players and for essential sports facilities where young people can train and enjoy playing as amateurs is almost impossible to come by. In South Africa we can see magnificent new stadiums and a country celebrating its selection as World Cup venue, but afterwards the kids from the townships will still be barefoot, kicking around a ragged ball on a dry strip of township land. The wealth generated by the spectacle will not filter down to them.
This year’s World Cup again underlines the psychosis gripping the nation. It was calculated that, at its peak, over 20 million people watched England’s first game on ITV – an unprecedented audience for any programme. On big game nights the cities and streets throughout the country become dead as if the population had been wiped out. Pennants fly from every second car and flags hang from windows, as if we really were at war, as if the destiny of our country depended on the outcome of the world cup. When England’s goalkeeper fumbles the ball it is front page news in almost every paper and football pitches of newsprint and hours of television time are devoted to the game – the real world ceases to exist. Everyone is sucked into this hyped-up hysteria. Conversations revolve around little else.
Football is a great game, but it is only a game for god’s sake! Its links to the working class are, today, as close as those of Tesco to a community corner shop. How aficionados can maintain interest and loyalty to teams divorced from their communities and in the face of the game’s clear manipulation by a wealthy capitalist elite is beyond me.
END
The pundits invariably resort to the terminology of world war and national destiny, whipping up xenophobia and confirming national stereotypes. The Sun writes about ‘Krauts’ and features Nazi helmets when discussing German teams – beloved targets. Even Alex Ferguson, Manchester United’s manager, responded to United’s elimination from the Champions League by branding Bayern Munich’s players as "typical Germans" for what he saw as deliberate attempts to injure Wayne Rooney.
Football today has nothing in common with the game of those days apart from it being a game where eleven men kick a ball around. It has been hijacked by big business and turned into a money-spinner as well as a convenient soporific for the masses. It is today what ‘bread and circuses’ were for the Romans: a refuge from life’s problems, from serious discussion and real politics. It substitutes for clan, community and national spirit. Even presidents and prime ministers are obliged to acknowledge its hold on the masses and worship at its shrine. Football has become Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World ‘happiness drug’. It rules many men’s lives (yes, it is invariably men), can give them their orgasms, their highs and lows and transport them out of their mundane lives onto the fairy-tale world of the soccer pitch.
The excessively rewarded top stars have nothing to do with the teams they play for or the places in which they are based. They too are in it for the money and will go where they are highest paid. Clubs once firmly rooted in their localities and supported by small businesses and individual fans are now the play-things of the super wealthy. Two of our top teams are now owned by US businessmen who have been deprived of such opportunities in soccer-starved USA. The Glazer brothers own Manchester United and Gillet and Hicks own Liverpool.
Most of the cash used by Glazers to purchase Manchester United came in the form of loans, secured against the club's assets, incurring interest payments of over £60 million per annum. The remainder came in the form of loans, which were later sold to hedge funds. The club has a gross debt of £520 million with £45 million in annual interest payments. It is argued that they are milking the club and will leave it heavily indebted and in a parlous state.
Gillet and Hicks acquired Liverpool in 2007. The deal valued the club and its outstanding debts at £218.9 million. There have been rumours since that a Dubai company was also interested in buying it. Kenneth Huang, a former Wall Street broker, is at the head of a group who also want to buy the club for around £500m. In May, accounts were released showing the club to be £350 million in debt with losses of £55m and its auditor warning 'This fact indicates the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt upon the club’s ability to continue as a going concern.' Belatedly, greedy individuals and companies are now vying with each other to tap into this incredibly lucrative global money-maker.
In April 2008, Forbes business magazine ranked Liverpool as the fourth most valuable football team in the world, after Manchester United, Real Madrid and Arsenal. The club was valued at £605m, excluding debt.
The concentration of wealth among the few top teams in the world is distorting and in fact ruining the game as a truly national sport. Money is being siphoned off in dividends and inflated pay for players, leaving the smaller and less renowned clubs struggling to survive. Money for the training of new generations of players and for essential sports facilities where young people can train and enjoy playing as amateurs is almost impossible to come by. In South Africa we can see magnificent new stadiums and a country celebrating its selection as World Cup venue, but afterwards the kids from the townships will still be barefoot, kicking around a ragged ball on a dry strip of township land. The wealth generated by the spectacle will not filter down to them.
This year’s World Cup again underlines the psychosis gripping the nation. It was calculated that, at its peak, over 20 million people watched England’s first game on ITV – an unprecedented audience for any programme. On big game nights the cities and streets throughout the country become dead as if the population had been wiped out. Pennants fly from every second car and flags hang from windows, as if we really were at war, as if the destiny of our country depended on the outcome of the world cup. When England’s goalkeeper fumbles the ball it is front page news in almost every paper and football pitches of newsprint and hours of television time are devoted to the game – the real world ceases to exist. Everyone is sucked into this hyped-up hysteria. Conversations revolve around little else.
Football is a great game, but it is only a game for god’s sake! Its links to the working class are, today, as close as those of Tesco to a community corner shop. How aficionados can maintain interest and loyalty to teams divorced from their communities and in the face of the game’s clear manipulation by a wealthy capitalist elite is beyond me.
END
Thursday, 10 June 2010
Shortly before it was announced that Barbara Kingsolver had won this year’s Orange Prize for her novel, The Lacuna, on the McCarthy period she told me what motivates her as a writer.
Kingsolver is one of the leading social-realist writers in the English language today and has written, or collaborated on, 13 books, most of which are novels, but she has also written poetry, short stories and essays. Kingsolver established the Bellwether Prize for ‘literature of social change’.
Her books have been widely praised both for their passionate moral commitment and for their evocative writing style. Every one, since Pigs in Heaven, has been on The New York Times bestseller list.
At the outbreak of the first Gulf War in 1990, she was so horrified by the gung-ho militarism gripping the nation that she emigrated temporarily to retain her sanity.
She agreed to answer a few questions exclusively for the Morning Star.
Her novel The Poisonwood Bible (1998) won her international acclaim. It is a story told by the wife and four daughters of Nathan Price, a fanatical evangelical minister who takes his family and mission to the Belgian Congo in 1959.
This was a time of great turmoil for Africa –the height of the Cold War – with the collapse of colonialism, revolutionary movements were determined to win control of their countries. It is the time of Lumumba’s murder and the suppression of a genuine anti-colonial movement. The West was determined to stop ‘the spread of Communism’ and the Eastern Bloc was supporting the revolutionary forces. The book’s complex and compelling characters clarify, as scarce another novel has been able to, the processes that unfolded there. By placing a US missionary family centre stage it also ensured that the reader in the West was obliged to recognise the links (and perhaps a certain responsibility too) between his/her privileged and sheltered way of life and the oppression, inhumanity and war unfolding in the Congo.
Kingsolver’s other books have taken up similar controversial social issues. Holding the Line: Women in the Great Arizona Mine Strike (1989) is based on interviews with strikers and their families. It is an account of eighteen months, during the 1980s, of a strike against the Phelps Dodge Copper Corporation. In particular, the book is about the women in these towns: how they answered the challenge set before them, and how they changed.
In The Bean Trees, she tells the story of a family of Guatemalan immigrants whose daughter is taken by the government in an effort to force them to speak out about their underground teaching circle. They were forced to escape torture and death in their home country, but forced to evade the authorities in the United States. The sequel to this novel, Pigs in Heaven, examines the conflicts between individual and community rights, through a story about a Cherokee child adopted out of her tribe.
In Animal Dreams (1990), the American sister of the main protagonist is kidnapped by US-backed Contras while working to promote sustainable farming in Nicaragua. It intertwines the issue of indigenous culture and its marginalisation in the USA and that country’s support fro the Contras in Nicaragua.
I asked her about her latest novel, The Lacuna, which continues the tradition set by her previous ones of tackling large social themes. It takes as its subject matter perhaps one of the most politically controversial periods in US history – that dominated by the activities of The House Committee on Un-American Activities and Senator McCarthy. What led her to choose this subject matter now, I wondered. Does she see any parallels in today’s society or was she simply interested in that period for its own sake or because of its impact on the lives of so many creative and progressive individuals?
“I don’t think of myself as having established a tradition of ‘tackling big social themes,’ she replies, ‘I construct novels around questions that seem compelling to me, but they need not be ‘big’ or ‘social’. Sometimes I write about family and community. My previous novel, Prodigal Summer, explained in fictional terms a handful of crucial biological principles that are confusing for non-scientists. My only persistent tradition is to keep working at the edge of my powers, in terms of both theme and craft. I love challenges.”
“I’ve wondered for many years about why art and politics have such an uncomfortable relationship in the U.S. I suspected that if I looked deeply into the events surrounding the so-called ‘McCarthy era’, I would find some interesting fictional territory. That period has left a strong imprint on the political identity of my country, in which patriotism is now widely defined as resistance to change. That seems a strange position for a nation founded by revolutionaries. I wondered when and why we made that huge shift. I assumed others would also be interested in that question, and it seems to be so.”
She has expanded this idea in her collection of essays, High Tide in Tucson, where she writes: “We’ve created for ourselves a culture that undervalues education (compared with the rest of the industrialized world, to say the least), undervalues breadth of experience (compared with our potential), downright discourages critical thinking (judging from what the majority of us watch and read), and distrusts foreign ideas. “Un-American,” from what I hear, is meant to be an insult…If there is a fatal notion on this earth, it’s the notion that wider horizons will be fatal.”
I mention her most acclaimed novel The Poisonwood Bible and wonder if, as a writer, she feels that her role (as well as crafting good stories, believable characters and providing an enjoyable read) is to make a social/political intervention.
She replies: “The sole pact I’ve sworn with myself is to be the best literary writer I can be. The greatest work will always come from passion – writers work hardest at whatever thrills and intrigues us. That might be murder or romance or whatever, artists pursue what we love. In my case, I happen to be a person with strong convictions about human justice and more than an average curiosity about how things get to be the way they are. Like every other writer on earth, my work reflects my world view. Why critics want to make hay over that, I’ll never know.”
“It’s a curious risk, fiction,” she writes in an essay, “Some writers choose fantasy as an approach to truth, a way of burrowing under newsprint and formal portraits to find the despair that can stow away in a happy childhood, or the affluent grace of a grandfather in his undershirt. In the final accounting, a hundred different truths are likely to reside at any given address. The part of my soul that is driven to make stories is a fierce thing, like a ferret: long, sleek, incapable of sleep, it digs and bites through all I know of the world. Given that I cannot look away from the painful things, it seems better to invent allegory than to point a straight bony finger at Scrooge’s mute Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, declaring: ‘Hee you will end, if you don’t clean up your act.’ By inventing character and circumstance, I like to think I can be a kinder sort of ghost, saying: ‘I don’t mean you, exactly, but just give it some thought, anyway.’”
Kingsolver doesn’t usually receive the sort of publicity that some of her more esoteric and cynical counterparts despite being an international best-seller. This is perhaps not altogether surprising as she doesn’t fit comfortably into any mould but is very much a mould-breaker, particularly those so beloved of the mainstream media. She cannot be labelled or put into any easy category; she stays true to herself and her deeply held principles. She is a somewhat ‘old-fashioned’ writer in a positive sense. She writes tightly structured, allegorical novels, without readers feeling they are being lectured at. Her characters are believable and well-rounded; her stories grip. She has an eloquence of language and keen sense of humour, a powerful and vividly descriptive style combined with an unfettered imagination, but rooted firmly in reality. Community, economic injustice and cultural difference and a strongly feminist stance inform the themes of her work.
The majority of Western novelists today have adopted a largely post-modernist, disengaged or solipsistic position in their writing. I ask her if she feels that the fact that she takes on important social and political subject matters (e.g. the rights of indigenous people, responsibility for a sustainable world, international solidarity and the wider role of the USA in the word) could be considered ‘old-fashioned’ harking back to writers like Upton Sinclair, Irving Stone, Howard Fast and Theodore Dreiser. Would she reject such an association or is she comfortable with it?
“I agree with you, as a writer I might claim more kinship with Upton Sinclair and Theodore Dreiser than with many modern novelists in the U.S. But I’m disinclined to call that “old fashioned,” because I labor to belong to a tradition that’s absolutely alive elsewhere in the world, a wildly diverse club that’s anything but antique. Let me name a few names: Nadine Gordimer, Arundhati Roy, José Saramago, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, J.M. Coetzee. Let’s throw in the graphic novelist Marjane Satrapi, just for good measure, and I’ll rest my case. Worldliness may go out of fashion in the U.S., but that doesn’t concern me. I’ve lived in a lot of other countries.”
In a world increasingly dominated by the electronic media, of sound bites, ‘junk food’ culture and the demand for quick and easy fixes, can literature such as Kingsolver’s have any discernible impact on the politics, thinking and attitudes of the present generation, I wonder.
“Can ‘literature such as mine’ still have an impact in a sound-bite world? You may as well ask that question about literature in general. Does anyone under 30 still read literary fiction? As it happens, the answer is yes, I hear from younger readers all the time. A small but impressive cadre.”
“I would venture to guess that the percentage of the population that reads literature has held fairly steady since the days of Cervantes. Centuries ago, few people read great books because few had the privilege of education and literacy. Now we have a higher literacy rate, and also more options, so it evens out. But the novel, as a form, has remained basically the same for 400 years, which suggests it will persist as long as humans do. I don’t mean the paper or electronic pad or whatever it’s delivered on, that’s immaterial, I mean the novel itself: the word charged with purpose, the narrative arc, the taste of connotation on the palate, the capacity of a reader to enter other lives and come away changed. Some portion of us will always need that.”
She questions accepted US shibboleths and interrogates lazy thinking and simplistic philosophies. Her essays are particularly illuminating and outspoken, often laced with a winning self-deprecatory humour. She has said, ‘If we can't, as artists, improve on real life, we should put down our pencils and go bake bread.’ And you feel she would genuinely be happy to go down this road if she felt her books really made no difference.
She is clearly a writer of the left and unusually for US writers doesn’t even shy away from mentioning Marx or Engels with whom she is clearly familiar. In another of her essays she explains the significance of Engels with relation to property ownership:
“Engels,” she says, “examined our history under the lamp of a new paradigm set forth by his contemporary Charles Darwin. Engels also had access to the prodigious work of the anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan. Countless modern scholars have addressed the history of private property, but it’s hard to beat the elegance of Engels’s simple outline of social evolution, laid out in his wonderful classic The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.” And later, she adds: “What a relief, to relinquish ownership of unownable things. Engels remarked at the end of his treatise that the outgrowth of property has become so unmanageable that ‘the human mind stands bewildered in the presence of its own creation.’ But he continues on a hopeful note: ‘The time which has passed since our civilisation began is but a fragment of the past duration of man’s existence; and but a fragment of the ages yet to come…A mere property career is not the final destiny of mankind’.”
Despite all the deeply divisive and threatening issues she deals with in her books, Kingsolver, too, retains hope for humanity and that is what comes through forcefully in all her novels. Her characters may be up against enormous odds, but they remain resilient and that also gives the reader hope.
The Lacuna – her first novel in nine years – is now out in paperback.
END
Kingsolver is one of the leading social-realist writers in the English language today and has written, or collaborated on, 13 books, most of which are novels, but she has also written poetry, short stories and essays. Kingsolver established the Bellwether Prize for ‘literature of social change’.
Her books have been widely praised both for their passionate moral commitment and for their evocative writing style. Every one, since Pigs in Heaven, has been on The New York Times bestseller list.
At the outbreak of the first Gulf War in 1990, she was so horrified by the gung-ho militarism gripping the nation that she emigrated temporarily to retain her sanity.
She agreed to answer a few questions exclusively for the Morning Star.
Her novel The Poisonwood Bible (1998) won her international acclaim. It is a story told by the wife and four daughters of Nathan Price, a fanatical evangelical minister who takes his family and mission to the Belgian Congo in 1959.
This was a time of great turmoil for Africa –the height of the Cold War – with the collapse of colonialism, revolutionary movements were determined to win control of their countries. It is the time of Lumumba’s murder and the suppression of a genuine anti-colonial movement. The West was determined to stop ‘the spread of Communism’ and the Eastern Bloc was supporting the revolutionary forces. The book’s complex and compelling characters clarify, as scarce another novel has been able to, the processes that unfolded there. By placing a US missionary family centre stage it also ensured that the reader in the West was obliged to recognise the links (and perhaps a certain responsibility too) between his/her privileged and sheltered way of life and the oppression, inhumanity and war unfolding in the Congo.
Kingsolver’s other books have taken up similar controversial social issues. Holding the Line: Women in the Great Arizona Mine Strike (1989) is based on interviews with strikers and their families. It is an account of eighteen months, during the 1980s, of a strike against the Phelps Dodge Copper Corporation. In particular, the book is about the women in these towns: how they answered the challenge set before them, and how they changed.
In The Bean Trees, she tells the story of a family of Guatemalan immigrants whose daughter is taken by the government in an effort to force them to speak out about their underground teaching circle. They were forced to escape torture and death in their home country, but forced to evade the authorities in the United States. The sequel to this novel, Pigs in Heaven, examines the conflicts between individual and community rights, through a story about a Cherokee child adopted out of her tribe.
In Animal Dreams (1990), the American sister of the main protagonist is kidnapped by US-backed Contras while working to promote sustainable farming in Nicaragua. It intertwines the issue of indigenous culture and its marginalisation in the USA and that country’s support fro the Contras in Nicaragua.
I asked her about her latest novel, The Lacuna, which continues the tradition set by her previous ones of tackling large social themes. It takes as its subject matter perhaps one of the most politically controversial periods in US history – that dominated by the activities of The House Committee on Un-American Activities and Senator McCarthy. What led her to choose this subject matter now, I wondered. Does she see any parallels in today’s society or was she simply interested in that period for its own sake or because of its impact on the lives of so many creative and progressive individuals?
“I don’t think of myself as having established a tradition of ‘tackling big social themes,’ she replies, ‘I construct novels around questions that seem compelling to me, but they need not be ‘big’ or ‘social’. Sometimes I write about family and community. My previous novel, Prodigal Summer, explained in fictional terms a handful of crucial biological principles that are confusing for non-scientists. My only persistent tradition is to keep working at the edge of my powers, in terms of both theme and craft. I love challenges.”
“I’ve wondered for many years about why art and politics have such an uncomfortable relationship in the U.S. I suspected that if I looked deeply into the events surrounding the so-called ‘McCarthy era’, I would find some interesting fictional territory. That period has left a strong imprint on the political identity of my country, in which patriotism is now widely defined as resistance to change. That seems a strange position for a nation founded by revolutionaries. I wondered when and why we made that huge shift. I assumed others would also be interested in that question, and it seems to be so.”
She has expanded this idea in her collection of essays, High Tide in Tucson, where she writes: “We’ve created for ourselves a culture that undervalues education (compared with the rest of the industrialized world, to say the least), undervalues breadth of experience (compared with our potential), downright discourages critical thinking (judging from what the majority of us watch and read), and distrusts foreign ideas. “Un-American,” from what I hear, is meant to be an insult…If there is a fatal notion on this earth, it’s the notion that wider horizons will be fatal.”
I mention her most acclaimed novel The Poisonwood Bible and wonder if, as a writer, she feels that her role (as well as crafting good stories, believable characters and providing an enjoyable read) is to make a social/political intervention.
She replies: “The sole pact I’ve sworn with myself is to be the best literary writer I can be. The greatest work will always come from passion – writers work hardest at whatever thrills and intrigues us. That might be murder or romance or whatever, artists pursue what we love. In my case, I happen to be a person with strong convictions about human justice and more than an average curiosity about how things get to be the way they are. Like every other writer on earth, my work reflects my world view. Why critics want to make hay over that, I’ll never know.”
“It’s a curious risk, fiction,” she writes in an essay, “Some writers choose fantasy as an approach to truth, a way of burrowing under newsprint and formal portraits to find the despair that can stow away in a happy childhood, or the affluent grace of a grandfather in his undershirt. In the final accounting, a hundred different truths are likely to reside at any given address. The part of my soul that is driven to make stories is a fierce thing, like a ferret: long, sleek, incapable of sleep, it digs and bites through all I know of the world. Given that I cannot look away from the painful things, it seems better to invent allegory than to point a straight bony finger at Scrooge’s mute Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, declaring: ‘Hee you will end, if you don’t clean up your act.’ By inventing character and circumstance, I like to think I can be a kinder sort of ghost, saying: ‘I don’t mean you, exactly, but just give it some thought, anyway.’”
Kingsolver doesn’t usually receive the sort of publicity that some of her more esoteric and cynical counterparts despite being an international best-seller. This is perhaps not altogether surprising as she doesn’t fit comfortably into any mould but is very much a mould-breaker, particularly those so beloved of the mainstream media. She cannot be labelled or put into any easy category; she stays true to herself and her deeply held principles. She is a somewhat ‘old-fashioned’ writer in a positive sense. She writes tightly structured, allegorical novels, without readers feeling they are being lectured at. Her characters are believable and well-rounded; her stories grip. She has an eloquence of language and keen sense of humour, a powerful and vividly descriptive style combined with an unfettered imagination, but rooted firmly in reality. Community, economic injustice and cultural difference and a strongly feminist stance inform the themes of her work.
The majority of Western novelists today have adopted a largely post-modernist, disengaged or solipsistic position in their writing. I ask her if she feels that the fact that she takes on important social and political subject matters (e.g. the rights of indigenous people, responsibility for a sustainable world, international solidarity and the wider role of the USA in the word) could be considered ‘old-fashioned’ harking back to writers like Upton Sinclair, Irving Stone, Howard Fast and Theodore Dreiser. Would she reject such an association or is she comfortable with it?
“I agree with you, as a writer I might claim more kinship with Upton Sinclair and Theodore Dreiser than with many modern novelists in the U.S. But I’m disinclined to call that “old fashioned,” because I labor to belong to a tradition that’s absolutely alive elsewhere in the world, a wildly diverse club that’s anything but antique. Let me name a few names: Nadine Gordimer, Arundhati Roy, José Saramago, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, J.M. Coetzee. Let’s throw in the graphic novelist Marjane Satrapi, just for good measure, and I’ll rest my case. Worldliness may go out of fashion in the U.S., but that doesn’t concern me. I’ve lived in a lot of other countries.”
In a world increasingly dominated by the electronic media, of sound bites, ‘junk food’ culture and the demand for quick and easy fixes, can literature such as Kingsolver’s have any discernible impact on the politics, thinking and attitudes of the present generation, I wonder.
“Can ‘literature such as mine’ still have an impact in a sound-bite world? You may as well ask that question about literature in general. Does anyone under 30 still read literary fiction? As it happens, the answer is yes, I hear from younger readers all the time. A small but impressive cadre.”
“I would venture to guess that the percentage of the population that reads literature has held fairly steady since the days of Cervantes. Centuries ago, few people read great books because few had the privilege of education and literacy. Now we have a higher literacy rate, and also more options, so it evens out. But the novel, as a form, has remained basically the same for 400 years, which suggests it will persist as long as humans do. I don’t mean the paper or electronic pad or whatever it’s delivered on, that’s immaterial, I mean the novel itself: the word charged with purpose, the narrative arc, the taste of connotation on the palate, the capacity of a reader to enter other lives and come away changed. Some portion of us will always need that.”
She questions accepted US shibboleths and interrogates lazy thinking and simplistic philosophies. Her essays are particularly illuminating and outspoken, often laced with a winning self-deprecatory humour. She has said, ‘If we can't, as artists, improve on real life, we should put down our pencils and go bake bread.’ And you feel she would genuinely be happy to go down this road if she felt her books really made no difference.
She is clearly a writer of the left and unusually for US writers doesn’t even shy away from mentioning Marx or Engels with whom she is clearly familiar. In another of her essays she explains the significance of Engels with relation to property ownership:
“Engels,” she says, “examined our history under the lamp of a new paradigm set forth by his contemporary Charles Darwin. Engels also had access to the prodigious work of the anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan. Countless modern scholars have addressed the history of private property, but it’s hard to beat the elegance of Engels’s simple outline of social evolution, laid out in his wonderful classic The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.” And later, she adds: “What a relief, to relinquish ownership of unownable things. Engels remarked at the end of his treatise that the outgrowth of property has become so unmanageable that ‘the human mind stands bewildered in the presence of its own creation.’ But he continues on a hopeful note: ‘The time which has passed since our civilisation began is but a fragment of the past duration of man’s existence; and but a fragment of the ages yet to come…A mere property career is not the final destiny of mankind’.”
Despite all the deeply divisive and threatening issues she deals with in her books, Kingsolver, too, retains hope for humanity and that is what comes through forcefully in all her novels. Her characters may be up against enormous odds, but they remain resilient and that also gives the reader hope.
The Lacuna – her first novel in nine years – is now out in paperback.
END
Monday, 3 May 2010
In A Strange Room
By Damon Galgut
Atlantic Books
Hdbck £15.99
A young, diffidently gay man wanders through Africa, to Europe and India seeking companionship and perhaps even love. On his way, he tags on to various individuals or groups of white tourists, but the encounters remain fleeting and fruitless. The protagonist, also called Damon (perhaps the author himself?) and of whom we learn little, laconically describes the landscapes through which he travels, the small towns and hotel rooms in which he finds himself during these rather aimless peregrinations. It is a solipsistic post-modernist novel, dovetailing into our contemporary pre-occupation with self. In this novelistic tourist diary, the author/protagonist irritatingly interchanges the ‘I’ form with the ‘he’ form as a means, one assumes, of self-alienation. The author is a white South African, but apart from a few obligatory references to poverty and post-colonial arrogance on the part of white European tourists, he reveals little of the pulsating life-blood of Africa.
END
The Long Twentieth Century – Money, power and the Origins of Our Times
By Giovanni Arrighi
Pubs Verso
Pbck £14.99
Arrighi was professor of Sociology at Johns Hopkins University and an authority on world systems analysis and historical sociology. In this volume he attempts to demonstrate the origins of modern capitalism as a logical development from the rise of the city states, through nation states, colonialism and imperialism.
He makes three main propositions: 1. that the financial expansion characterising the global economy at the end of the twentieth century is not a new phenomenon but a recurrent tendency of historical capitalism from its very beginnings; 2. Financial expansions are not merely recurrent but also moments of fundamental re-organisation of the regime of accumulation, and 3. The dynamic of world capitalism has not only changed over time but has made the financial expansion of the twentieth century anomalous in key respects, one being the bifurcation of military and financial power. These theses may be controversial, but Arrighi arrays a mass of factual evidence. The more relevant question is, though, how far such ideas could enable us to better comprehend the present impasse and, perhaps, help us predict probable outcomes.
He argues that US dominance and hegemony is now on the wane and the centre of global equilibrium is shifting to South-East Asia, primarily China. He suggests that the USA could possibly recover its position if it were prepared to adapt (as it did after the cataclysmic thirties crash) but the examples set by the policies of the Reagan, Clinton and Bush regimes would indicate the opposite – rather an ossification.
Although this is an updated version of his 1994 book, with a new postscript, it is unfortunately still couched in dense academic language with copious references and will be off-putting for the general reader. The author takes 400 odd pages to put forward a relatively straightforward thesis that could have been done much more succinctly. Harry Shutt’s book ‘Beyond the Profits System’ (Zed Books) is a much more accessible and clearly argued book examining the options for the global economy today.
END
By Damon Galgut
Atlantic Books
Hdbck £15.99
A young, diffidently gay man wanders through Africa, to Europe and India seeking companionship and perhaps even love. On his way, he tags on to various individuals or groups of white tourists, but the encounters remain fleeting and fruitless. The protagonist, also called Damon (perhaps the author himself?) and of whom we learn little, laconically describes the landscapes through which he travels, the small towns and hotel rooms in which he finds himself during these rather aimless peregrinations. It is a solipsistic post-modernist novel, dovetailing into our contemporary pre-occupation with self. In this novelistic tourist diary, the author/protagonist irritatingly interchanges the ‘I’ form with the ‘he’ form as a means, one assumes, of self-alienation. The author is a white South African, but apart from a few obligatory references to poverty and post-colonial arrogance on the part of white European tourists, he reveals little of the pulsating life-blood of Africa.
END
The Long Twentieth Century – Money, power and the Origins of Our Times
By Giovanni Arrighi
Pubs Verso
Pbck £14.99
Arrighi was professor of Sociology at Johns Hopkins University and an authority on world systems analysis and historical sociology. In this volume he attempts to demonstrate the origins of modern capitalism as a logical development from the rise of the city states, through nation states, colonialism and imperialism.
He makes three main propositions: 1. that the financial expansion characterising the global economy at the end of the twentieth century is not a new phenomenon but a recurrent tendency of historical capitalism from its very beginnings; 2. Financial expansions are not merely recurrent but also moments of fundamental re-organisation of the regime of accumulation, and 3. The dynamic of world capitalism has not only changed over time but has made the financial expansion of the twentieth century anomalous in key respects, one being the bifurcation of military and financial power. These theses may be controversial, but Arrighi arrays a mass of factual evidence. The more relevant question is, though, how far such ideas could enable us to better comprehend the present impasse and, perhaps, help us predict probable outcomes.
He argues that US dominance and hegemony is now on the wane and the centre of global equilibrium is shifting to South-East Asia, primarily China. He suggests that the USA could possibly recover its position if it were prepared to adapt (as it did after the cataclysmic thirties crash) but the examples set by the policies of the Reagan, Clinton and Bush regimes would indicate the opposite – rather an ossification.
Although this is an updated version of his 1994 book, with a new postscript, it is unfortunately still couched in dense academic language with copious references and will be off-putting for the general reader. The author takes 400 odd pages to put forward a relatively straightforward thesis that could have been done much more succinctly. Harry Shutt’s book ‘Beyond the Profits System’ (Zed Books) is a much more accessible and clearly argued book examining the options for the global economy today.
END
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
