practically insurgent http://jackray.co.uk/ Jack Ray is a luddite, libertarian communist and teaches English to foreigners. en Copyright 2008 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:22:19 +0000 http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Insane Tory thinktank flipside good standard of living. But think about it really, which is more disgusting, the Tories giving voice to the utter sham that we all know regeneration to be and coming up with obnoxious 'solutions' or the fingers-in-their-ears complacency of the various Labourites pretending it's all going swimmingly?
Labour MP Peter Kilfoyle described the report as "utter nonsense". "It doesn't ring true economically, socially or politically," added the Liverpool Walton MP. A spokeswoman for the Department for Communities and Local Government spokesperson said: "We totally disagree with the conclusions of this report. "No government has done more to turn around decades of neglect, and since 1997 cities like Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle have benefited from thousands of new jobs, lower crime rates and better living standards thanks to our sustained commitment to regeneration, and investment in public services. "
The fundamental truth is that their is no hope of tackling poverty in de-industrialised areas with economic policy biased toward London-centred finance capital, that only finds its way up North through the kind of cosmetic regeneration that afflicts Manchester. Sure we get nice new shops and a load of flats that the people you're supposed to help can't buy, but the impact on poverty is fuck all (check some of the stats in the piece I wrote for Black Flag earlier in the year). With no prospect of any serious strategy to combat poverty and inequality in the near future (ie. any significant change in economic policy whatsoever), whose comments are really the most damaging for the North? ]]> http://jackray.co.uk/2008/08/insane_tory_thinktank_flipside.html http://jackray.co.uk/2008/08/insane_tory_thinktank_flipside.html manchester north and south poverty regeneration Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:22:19 +0000 dunno really... Dave, it's a sort of classic inter-imperialist spat that you'd hope would finish as quickly as possible, with the smallest number of people and homes destroyed as is possible. I suppose if I were a Russian dissident I want them to lose, because any damage to the Kremlin's prestige is all good shit. On the other hand, since Georgia are the NATO/EU proxy state in the region, them winning just moves the boundaries in the other direction, strengthening their reach over the various regions in the former Soviet bloc/Warsaw Pact. But let's face it, how many people is this going to exercise enough to actually do anything? One of the fucking weird things about the internet is that everybody's opinions interact without them leaving their room, they fire off their missives into cyberspace assuring themselves that they've fought the good fight into the global opinion war. There's never a question about a practical outcome from anything. It's enough to fire off your salvo, you don't have to do anything. I mean, try telling your friends down the pub that it's important they condemn Russian atrocities in Guli, or note that Georgia initiated the conflict by shelling Tskhinvali (are Georgian 'T's silent by the way? I'm sure their UN Envoy was saying Bilisi the other day). Why should they have an opinion, it doesn't affect them and there's nothing they can do about it. It's not like NATO can go to war with Russia over one of their little gangsters doing something stupid. But how then can I justify an interest in the goings on of the Middle East, or Haiti, Venezuela, Bolivia or any other million and one topics I get exercised about? I suppose because there's an obvious side to take, an obvious global process to oppose/support. I dunno, maybe just that they relate better to arguments we make at home about living under Empire or existing in capitalism. Probably they're just as irrelevant to changing the world, which depends more on our everyday politics, on building communities of resistance, than it does on documenting the struggle in far off places. ]]> http://jackray.co.uk/2008/08/dunno_really.html http://jackray.co.uk/2008/08/dunno_really.html Empire Georgia Russia internationalism Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:26:57 +0000 What was the point? Indymedia inform us, protesters attempted to storm the camp by land, air (?) and sea. Four of them actually made it inside the camp, and managed to hang a banner! Christ, the British state must be quaking in its boots, they can't even shut the thing down for one day. E.On boasted that the site was running perfectly fine for the duration. Which is strange because they were promising to shut the thing down for good, like permanently. Is this charade really going to be repeated year on year, in the hope that it's somehow having an effect on government policy? This year with ever more lurid promises not to fulfil? Will there never be any attempt to actually think coherently about exactly what activists do with their limited resources? Judging by some of self-congratulatory crap quoted on the BBC about this being a success, I'd guess they'll be back next year in slightly diminished numbers. Personally I can't see any single way in which you could describe climate camp as having an obvious benefit to the world. Inconvenience to the government? None, besides paying for the police. Just by way of banging my head against the same brick wall, a few things to note: 1) DIRECT ACTION IS COERCION Not everything that involves doing stuff rather than just saying stuff is 'Direct Action'. Direct Action is when the things that you do (or threaten to do, or don't do) causes such inconvenience to your opponents that they are forced to agree to your demands (in part or in full). Hanging a banner is not Direct Action, it is a publicity stunt, you are hoping that through increased exposure the justice of your cause will be apparent and change will follow. It has a place in politics, but it is not Direct Action. If you are convinced that the powerful will do whatever they like regardless of morality or what the public wants, then it would be wise to learn the difference between these things, and think about how much effort you want to put into gaining publicity for your cause, as opposed to finding other ways to change things. 2) CAMPING ACTIONS ARE EASY TO SUPPRESS The police fucking love camping actions, they have free reign to harass hippies and earn loads of overtime for doing something of very little actual danger to themselves. They wait around for a few days, their informants tell them what's gonna happen (and there will always be informants), then they stop it. Or they just watch you all with a helicopter, then stop it. Either way, they will stop it before you can do anything seriously naughty. Set-pieces are what the state does best, if you march everybody out into a field and tell them you'll do something big on Saturday they will be ready, just like they are every May Day. That's why the "get all the activists together and do something" model is such shit, because they lack organic connections it has to be essentially a leisure activity rather than part of their everyday lives, so continuity can't exist, none of these campaigns lay down any actual roots, so all they do is square off to the police and go home again. 3) DO A COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS FIRST Next time whoever it is that gets together to decide these things gets together I want you to work something out for me. I want you to think about the number of people you expect to come and the total number of hours they will probably be engaged in activism over the whole period of the camp. Then I want you to add up all the money you will spend on publicity, equipment, legal fees when people get busted and all the rest. Then think about what kind of bang for your buck you get from these camps, how many column inches, how much the debate will change what you want to change. Then think what else you could do with those resources, what things you could build, what you could buy with the money, and consider whether camp is really the best use of those resources that you can imagine. If the answer is "I can think of lots of ways of better using those resources, but I still thought climate camp was great", I want you to think about what exactly is your motivation for doing these things. Have a think. Could it be that you prefer sitting around with your mates in a field whilst feeling heroic about your commitment to environmental justice, and all the alternatives are a kinda boring and lame. 4) THINK ABOUT WINNING When I say 'think about winning', I don't mean think about how four of you might be able to breach the site and hang a banner, because frankly if a small group of you thought about it together and didn't tell anyone you could probably do that more easily without the camp and all the police extra-specially brought in from Wales for the week. What I mean is think about a successful outcome that your actions could have in practical terms and then put together a plan to make it happen. Remember to set achievable, realistic goals that go towards achieving what you want to achieve. Vague bullshit about "raising awareness" or "symbolic victories" does not count. You may discover that these new goals change the type of activism that you need to engage in and will mean no more poncing about in fields. So I suppose I mean we need to stop playing at activism and put the skills that are obviously on display at Kingsnorth (into which went a lot of good organisation, hard work) and think about what else you could do with it. Because we're supposed to be in the business of conflict, not theatre. ]]> http://jackray.co.uk/2008/08/what_was_the_point.html http://jackray.co.uk/2008/08/what_was_the_point.html do somethingists environment Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:55:44 +0000 Islamism as liability One of the assumptions behind Internationalism is that the majority of people (the working class) around the world share the same interests, the same broad needs. This leads to the conclusion that wars between peoples and nations are wrong, because they force the majority to fight for the interests of their respective ruling classes, rather than fighting together for their own. Part of making that argument is asserting that foreign peoples and cultures are not so alien from our own. The enemy are not all blood-thirsty murderers who want to kill and enslave you, they are people with families and communities, who want what is best for themselves and the people around them. They want economic security and the freedom to live their lives. So, part of the empathy that makes people oppose conflict comes from the presumption of shared values. I don't like my government for a variety of reasons, but if another nation changed it by force, imposed their own model of government, deliberately bankrupted the entire economy, forced everyone out of work, wrecked the electricity, health and education systems, allowed big multi-national corporations to corruptly run everything on massive cost-plus contracts that benefited nobody but themselves, sold-off our natural resources and finally had a few hundred thousand soldiers running around the place telling me what to do, dishing out arbitrary violence... I'd be pissed. So I oppose regime change. On the other hand, I like to live in freedom from religion, and even if I know others don't, I think they personally want to be free to believe in what they want to believe. They don't want to be told how to live by some bearded dude with a kalashnikov who evidently isn't getting enough. I don't want to be told that the cinema is sinful, or holding my girlfriend's hand is abhorrent before God, I don't want to worry that between my house and the corner shop I might offend the wrong person and get a bit of a kicking. So I don't imagine for one moment that I want to live under a religious autocracy. Let's imagine for a moment that the people of Iraq, at least in some respects, are like me. They overwhelmingly reject the continued occupation because basically the Americans are looting their country (this they have confirmed in poll after poll). Yet the last few months seem to have confirmed something else, they don't find living under sectarian militia very pleasant either. So, Political Islam seems to be becoming the millstone around the necks of would be resistance movements. Whilst the goal of removing the occupation remains an aspiration of most Iraqis, their specific political project, a hardline Islamic state becomes more unpopular as people come to know what it means in practice (as Iran proves, the worst advert for an Islamic Republic is actually having to live in one). I'm putting this forward as a hypothesis for something that the 'victory to the resistance' Left has shown little appetite to analyse, namely exactly why their chosen horse is losing ground and the combined forces of the occupation and the Iraqi government have been so successful over the past year. Doing so involves putting aside various viewpoints that I've personally adhered to at one point or another; that insurgencies inevitably continue until their original political basis alters (where other factors, intrinsic to their organisations can play a part, they can squander initial support and die off - see the Greek civil war, The Shining Path, the FARC for details), that the occupation will necessarily continue to spawn violence (it will only do so where the population see a favourable end-game to such violence) and that this is the primary reason to promote it's withdrawal. I won't claim to have any massive insight into why the civil war continues to dampen. I wish there were some sort of analysis that lacked the crowing of the pro-war lobby and the defensiveness of the antis (more than enough have passed to classify the war as an abject disaster, more than enough issues make opposition to the continued occupation a no-brainer), but I've not seen one. Yet I think from the perspective of critical support for the resistance (or in my case, support for the concept of resisting an invader, but at no point any faith in the groups actually undertaking those actions), this would be the moment for the 'critical' part of that phrase to come into play. If the ousting of the occupation was righteous, necessary and popular, why have the groups that undertook to do so failed so badly? Is it completely unrelated to the political nature of these groups? Their sectarianism, their brutality, their comprised (non-existent?) notion of political and national freedom, their links to other ruling regimes and groupings in the region? Was ultimately their wider political project, rather than resistance per se, the source of their failure? If some of these are the case, it is not a bad thing that their power is on the wane. Civil wars are horrendously brutal things to live through, and anyone with much compassion can only hope that conflicts are resolved and people can live their lives in peace. If the culmination of the armed rebellion was to be a regime like Iran's, then it scarcely seems worth paying the price of more bloodshed for. Moreover as the war profiteering and looting on the part of the coalition continues, some sort of project to oust them remains a necessity. Rather than a futile contest of arms with the invader, perhaps as the insurgency dies down it will be superseded by a political project more appropriate to the task of finally forcing them out? http://jackray.co.uk/2008/08/islamism_as_liability.html http://jackray.co.uk/2008/08/islamism_as_liability.html Iraq empire occupation Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:00:11 +0000 Apologies As you might have noticed I've not contributed anything for a month. It's not the death of this place, I'm just continuing the long tradition of this place being a bit up-and-down. It's a bit like my life in that respect, I've not been in a steady job for too long, so there have been bits and pieces of moving hither and thither. In the last instance, a particularly nasty combinations of utility bills and council tax bills forced me to take the first thing that was on the table, which was doing TEFL at a Summer School in Gloucestershire, where I was pulling 11-12 hour days, 6 days a week and never in a fit state to contribute to this. Having a little rest period before hopefully taking up something a little more sedate back in Manchester, which will be followed by another upheaval as I pack up and leave for Madrid, we're I've got a job starting at the end of September! http://jackray.co.uk/2008/08/apologies.html http://jackray.co.uk/2008/08/apologies.html personal Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:28:35 +0000 no-one asked me... An overwhelming majority of historians will tell you that protectionism and isolationism were a major factor in one of the greatest depressions in the modern history for this country. I am not going to sit by and see that happen I mean, firstly, he's got the discipline wrong, I would imagine that anyone claiming a link between economic protectionism and economic recession would be some sort of economist, or at least an economic historian. As to the 'overwhelming majority', do you suppose he conducted a poll? As far as aware the academy, certainly in the humanities, has a bias to the left, and I doubt many would echo the above. Finally, I wonder if McCain is aware that protectionism has been a major factor in the industrial development of the entire rich world? ]]> http://jackray.co.uk/2008/07/noone_asked_me.html http://jackray.co.uk/2008/07/noone_asked_me.html John McCain US elections economy Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:16:16 +0000 the crisis enters popular culture 'inflation busting'. Forget the statistics, if the advertising executives think that the hard times are a buzzword, we all must be really feeling it. What is it? Ten per cent on foods prices? 15% on petrol prices? We're told there must be belt-tightening, but it's always ours, never theirs', and it always assumes we were living the high life since the last crisis, instead of just racking up debts and earning more or less the same we always did. ]]> http://jackray.co.uk/2008/07/the_crisis_enters_popular_cult.html http://jackray.co.uk/2008/07/the_crisis_enters_popular_cult.html UK economy inflation work Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:58:00 +0000 pots refrain from calling kettle black I saw a little trail for the African Union Conference on BBC News 24 the other day and the state of nonsense that embroiled the media came into sharp focus. As the camera panned across the room it flashed across delegates from various countries; in a few seconds we'd gone past the leaders of Angola, Egypt and Algeria. Had we kept watching the number of delegates that could plausibly claim to be from countries that conduct even relatively peaceful, free and fair bourgeois elections could be counted on one hand. The number from one-party states, from countries where elections are more or less entirely rigged, where governments are co-operative lash-ups between warring factions could not be counted on one hand. So this was the hope of Mr.Tsvangirai? That Hosni Mubarak would have the chutzpah to tell Mugabe to hold free and fair elections? To refrain from meeting out to his opponents the same treatment that he routinely inflicts on his own people? Levy Mwanawasa, the Zambian President, a prominent critic of Mugabe was himself mired in an election rigging scandal just two years ago when very strong questions were asked about his victory over Mugabe ally Michael Sata. From where does the expectation come that the majority of these leaders would be likely allies of the MDC? It is about time that the opposition in Zimbabwe came to terms with the reality that the international community cannot and will not ride to its rescue. Their movement will have to stand or fall on its own strength, it must plan to remove the Mugabe with whatever resources are available to it. The longer it holds its collective breath in expectation of salvation from outside the greater the chance it will pass out and die before even attempting to wrest control of their country away from Mugabe. http://jackray.co.uk/2008/07/pots_refrain_from_calling_kett.html http://jackray.co.uk/2008/07/pots_refrain_from_calling_kett.html Africa MDC Zimbabwe Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:07:28 +0000 how much the government cares about human rights in Iran... Stroppyblog:
"We recognise that the conditions for gay and lesbian people in Iran – and many other countries – are such that some individuals are able to demonstrate a need for international protection... With particular regard to Iran, current case law handed down by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal concludes that the evidence does not show a real risk of discovery of, or adverse action against gay and lesbian people who are discreet about their sexual orientation."
So, when convenient, the Iranian regime's treatment of homosexuals is an outrage, an example of its atrocious human rights record and a reason why our government and others should continue to attack the regime through aggressive diplomacy, sanctions and potentially war. However, when it comes to actually taking responsibility for defending people under threat of persecution, when it comes to committing resources to ensure that people are safe to express their sexuality however they like, that they don't have to hide away to practise their basic human rights, we say "oh, it's not so bad, so long as you're quiet about it". Presumably that goes for everything? Darfur's not so bad so long as you don't let on that you might not be Arab, I bet Zimbabwe's perfectly fine if you're discreet about opposing Mugabe, even Rwanda was great, if you kept being a Tutsi to yourself. Our asylum policy these days is more or less as follows: you must prove not just that you are part of a persecuted group under a brutal regime (so, for instance, being gay and Iranian doesn't cut it, being an MDC member in Zimbabwe, nuh-uh), but that you, and you specifically are targeted for persecution, this has to be beyond doubt, and stories of previous persecution don't count. I swear to God, the motherfucking SAVAK could fax through a death warrant and these bastards would still find a reason to send someone back. How the fuck can our government continue to lecture the world on human rights and still pull the bullshit?]]> http://jackray.co.uk/2008/06/how_much_the_government_cares.html http://jackray.co.uk/2008/06/how_much_the_government_cares.html Iran Labour asylum seekers immigration Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:22:24 +0000 Penalties? At every tournament you can always sort of guess the instructions the referees have had beforehand, as if they all get sat down beforehand and told something monumentally stupid like "yellow cards for all late tackles" or something equally daft. And this European Championship it seemed like someone had told them; 'less is more'. It has been a tournament of basically zero contentious decisions. Off the top of my head I can recall three penalties, the one that Luka Modric scored for Croatia, the one that Adrian Mutu missed for Rumania and the one with Eric Abidal being punished for having a stupid coach. Any more? Since those I've seen plenty of good shouts waved away, one's you would've had down at 50/50 or better, poor Fernando Torres even got punished for being fouled this evening! It's been elsewhere in the pitch too, a lot of physical stuff has been let go, throw-ins even, I've lost count of the number of foul throws that they've let slide. Actually, I think the entertainment in the tournament has reflected that - no matter how much the Christiano Ronaldo's of this world might complain, football is a far better game with a good helping of physicality and if referees let it flow as far as possible, not if players like him are mollycoddled into thinking they can dance around without someone occasionally putting a foot in. (congratulations to the Spanish, I tipped them at the start and they outclassed the Russians this evening. Little thing, did anyone notice the Russian midfield suddenly pressing much higher up the pitch after half-time? Thought it killed them, they looked ok sitting back and relying on the dinky Spanish centre-halves to eventually fuck up, they pushed on the Spanish midfield, who were good enough to pass through them, full backs isolated they looked a lot weaker...) http://jackray.co.uk/2008/06/penalties.html http://jackray.co.uk/2008/06/penalties.html EURO2008 Russia Spain football Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:41:47 +0000 The bankruptcy of bourgeois feminism We were so outraged by Hillary Clinton's defeat in the Democratic Primaries, that some of us going to vote for a man who called his partner a cunt and a trollop in public. The shithouse identity politics in this American election round hits a new low. You couldn't make it up. ]]> http://jackray.co.uk/2008/06/the_bankruptcy_of_bourgeois_fe.html http://jackray.co.uk/2008/06/the_bankruptcy_of_bourgeois_fe.html feminism identity politics. us elections Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:09:32 +0000 Posts you should probably read... Baseball and Capitalism was fascinating even if my interest in the sport is pretty limited. It was a profound insight into sporting culture nevertheless. A pretty vital contribution to discussion of the pogroms in South Africa from Black Looks, going beyond a liberal expression of outrage towards understanding the systemic violence in that country. Somewhere else I saw a post, entitled 'South Africa at the crossroads', which got me thinking that the 'crossroads' was 10-15 years ago and the ANC government chose the path marked 'expand social inequality, suppress the poor and entrench the new political and economic elite'. ]]> http://jackray.co.uk/2008/06/posts_you_should_probably_read.html http://jackray.co.uk/2008/06/posts_you_should_probably_read.html blogs south africa sport Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:06:25 +0000 And now for something different. Inveresk Street Ingrate and make this a sort of politics/football kinda website. This could be because I lack the originality to come up with quality political blogging themes (last night's bad idea was 'a male feminist's guide to dating' eugh) or it could just be the temptation of EURO2008 - though will come to expect inexplicable posts about my true love, Ipswich Town FC. Last night upset me. Not just because Turkey play fucking horrible football, nor even because all of the class players on the pitch last night were playing for Croatia. Even though the Croats play in those Ustashe colours and sport some of the nastiness nationalism on the continent. It upset me because Slaven Bilic is the fucking daddy. Just everything about him is what a football manager should be. There's a point at which self-assured comes out the other side of arrogance and takes on the qualities of 'he who has attained nirvana, understands all things and knows all things'. He has this, he instilled this in his team, he got them playing intricate but adventurous football, he out-thought managers across Europe, and he had the nerve to tell us lot that our team was a load of shit, rather than throw some platitudes out there. Outspoken, god-like self-possession. Not enough to prevent your centre-half getting under a long-ball and a swung left-leg someone sticking the ball in the top-corner. Till next time Mr.Bilic. For tomorrow. I can't see Italy winning. Really, not even with Spain's record of choking. They're too good for this Italian side, which in the regular order of things is slow and pedestrian, but without Pirlo will lack anything resembling creativity, and without Gattuso will be without much bite. Plus, the defence looks ropey, and the best two strikers in the tournament will stretch them (as they have everyone else). What the hell is an Italy side without a well-organised back line anyway? I want it to happen anyway, I hate the idea that football teams somehow have this eternal soul that dictates their fortunes, like Spain will always manage to fuck it up, or Italy will always play shit and spawn their to the final. And remember, these days.... ser español ya no es excusa: es una responsabilidad! e2a: whoops, changed it to tomorrow, coulda swore it was Spain v Italy tonight... ]]> http://jackray.co.uk/2008/06/and_now_for_something_differen.html http://jackray.co.uk/2008/06/and_now_for_something_differen.html croatia euro2008 football international italy slaven bilic spain turkey Sat, 21 Jun 2008 15:33:44 +0000 Oh look! completely uncritical article about New East Manchester, that makes a change! Come marvel at the all the wonderful new houses, transport links and jobs they've created! Aren't they so fucking brilliant. I wish I was on the board of New East Manchester, so I could be so awesome, and maybe get some help setting up my £5m posh restaurant, so all my fellow board members could have a jolly and chat about how fantastic it is that we've built all these wonderful new houses and bestowed our wondrous talents on the good people of East Manchester. HAPPY DAY!]]> http://jackray.co.uk/2008/06/oh_look.html http://jackray.co.uk/2008/06/oh_look.html gentrification local government manchester regeneration Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:27:09 +0000 Tell me Has anyone seen any mention of the Obama's campaigns racist treatment of two muslim women on any of the liberal American blogs, any of the anti-racist activist blogs, anything like that? Apparently it wasn't politically correct (ah, an accurate way to use that term!) to have two women in hijabs (the headscarf, not the niqab, the face covering) in the background of a campaign speech, so he had them moved out of shot. Because at the moment the only coverage I've seen has been LGF, reproducing the argument for political point-scoring purposes. Does Obama gets a pass on this shit, because, despite all the evidence to his reactionary politics, his support for imperialist foreign policy, his domestic agenda, his lack of any left-wing policy of note (but he opposes the war! you fucking wait), he's still being pushed as some kind of progressive martyr? http://jackray.co.uk/2008/06/tell_me.html http://jackray.co.uk/2008/06/tell_me.html barack obama islamaphobia left us elections Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:09:45 +0000