Dark satanic mills

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

3 July 2013

ART AND POLITICS

The English painter, L. S.  Lowry, is famous for his myriad paintings of relentlessly working-class streetscapes populated by matchstick factory hands and overshadowed by dark satanic mills.

Born at Stretford in Lancashire, Laurence Stephen Lowry (1887-1976) lived all his life in or near the cradle of the industrial revolution in the Manchester area of north-west England.

His paintings, such as “The Pond”, “The Fever Van” or “Huddersfield”, have always seemed to present a visual counterpoint to the sociological lucubrations of Karl Marx or Friedrich Engels on England’s industrial working-class –  an aesthetic concretization of Marx’s “Capital”, for instance, or of “The Condition of the Working Classes in England in 1844” by Engels. Engels himself was a Manchester businessman.

Most people must surely have assumed, therefore, that Lowry was able to create his paintings on the basis of, at the very least, a deep empathy with the cloth-capped environment he depicted so vividly and with such apparent feeling.

What a surprise, therefore, it was to read the following letter by reader Mary Stableford in the London Guardian on 2 July 2013:

As a teenager, in the 1940s, I asked L. S. Lowry why he didn’t help poor people, rather than just painting them…He said he believed the working class were quite happy as they were, and that there was ‘no need to interfere’ with them….”

Lowry did his painting mainly at night after his day’s work. In his day job he worked as rent collector for a property company.

Which may go some way to explaining the discrepancy between his aesthetics and his politics.

After all, rent collection is not a profession which is generally associated with the political left.

On the other hand, maybe Lowry had a point.

Although people were generally poor in working-class parts of Britain in the period (1918-1939)  between the first and second world wars when Lowry did a lot of his painting, this poverty was counterbalanced, to some extent, by widespread solidarity. Millions of people lived in insalubrious mice-ridden back-to-back terrace houses of the kind that Lowry often featured in pictures such as his “Hillside in Wales“, but when they were in trouble, often because they had run out of money, neighbours often mucked in to help them out, giving them food and clothing and generally trying to buck up their morale.

After the second world war (1939-1945), however, public authorities wanted to modernise the country’s war-damaged and ageing infrastructure, including its housing stock, so local planners were often given carte blanche to demolish the old rows of terrace houses and decant their occupants into flats in soulless new tower blocks. The new accommodation had better bathrooms and kitchens than the individual houses people had left, but many of those forced to move into the tower blocks felt they were bleak and isolating. The old spirit of solidarity was inevitably destroyed when large close-knit communities that had lived for generations in the terraced streets were broken down into the much smaller groups transplanted to separate floors in the new blocks.  Whereas previously people had been able to meet their neighbours by walking along the streets of terraces, popping in and out of each other’s homes as the fancy took them, now they were confined to floors containing groups of perhaps four to six flats. People living on diffferent floors rarely saw their neighbours, except in the lifts, and the socialising habits that had held the old communities together died away.

Perhaps this is what Lowry foresaw when he warned against “interfering” with the way the working-class lived.

Works by Lowry can be seen at the Lowry Centre in Salford (Lancashire),  at Manchester City Art Gallery, at the Walker Art Gallery in Liverpool and at the Tate Gallery in London.

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

Posted in Art, Politics, UK | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

I spy with my little eye…

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

2 July 2013

PARTURIUNT MONTES, NASCITUR RIDICULUS MUS

There’s an old saying that goes “Don’t believe everything you read in the newspapers”.

We think we can improve on that: “Don’t believe anything you read in the newspapers – unless you have independent evidence that what you are reading corresponds to the facts.”

Anyone who happens to be personally familiar with the subject of a newspaper report can usually point to a myriad glaring mistakes.

All the above applies to the smugly self-righteous highbrow newspapers.

As to the pulp that is churned out by the red-tops, it is fit only for recycling.

And let us not get started on the garbage that passes for news on electronic media…

Yesterday 1 July 2013 the London Guardian newspaper began its lead front-page story with the following paragraph:

“Transatlantic relations plunged at the weekend as Berlin, Brussels and Paris all demanded that Washington account promptly and fully for new disclosures on the scale of the US National Security Agency’s spying on its European allies.”

This is bullshit.

The story concerns the revelation by US whistleblower Edward Snowden – now a hunted man holed up at Moscow airport –  that the US Government, reportedly aided and abetted by its British lapdog, has for years been spying on friendly allied governments in Europe and around the world.

The fact that the US has been spying on its allies is hardly news in itself.

The US is the global sheriff swaggering about the world setting wrongs to right with its drones, its humvees, its helicopters and its aircraft carriers.

What did they expect, these puny US satrapies in Europe and elsewhere?

“Theirs not to question why, theirs but to do and die,” to quote Tennyson.

If we want to spy on you, we will – and there is nothing you can do about it. That is how it looks on the Potomac.

One of the main arguments for establishing the European Union after the Second World War was to give the nations of Europe greater clout on the world stage.

Individually, European states were small fry compared to the behemoths of world politics such as the US. Once assembled together, however, in their famous “ever closer union”, what a power they would be!  How the erstwhile masters of the universe would tremble when they heard the stirring notes of the European anthem, the Ode to Joy (Ode an die Freude) written by Friedrich Schiller and set to music by Beethoven in his Ninth Symphony!

Only it didn’t turn out like that.

Yesterday 1 July 2013 tiny Croatia joined the European Union, bringing the number of EU member states to 28, its population to around 512 million, its land mass to 4.4 million km₂ and its GDP to $ 15.8 trillion (2011 estimate).

Big enough, you might have thought, to give Washington a run for its money.

The US, by comparison, has 50 member states, a population of around 316 million, a land mass of 9.4 million km₂ and GDP of around $ 15.5 trillion (2011 estimate).

So how did the mighty EU and its constituent states react to the news that the US had been bugging its HQ in Brussels, the offices of its UN Delegation in Manhattan and its Delegation to the US in Washington? To say nothing of the mass interception of personal and official data in Germany, France, Italy and Greece – to pick out just a few of the 38 states reportedly spied on by Washington in the latest batch of disclosures.

Well, the EU reacted like this.

According to today’s Le Monde, Catherine Ashton, the EU foreign minister, spent the whole of Sunday 30 June 2013 mulling over the revelations. She concluded that “urgent clarification” was needed.

Karel de Gucht, Europe’s trade commissar, is quoted in Le Monde as saying: “If this information is confirmed, the situation will be very serious”. However, now was not the time, he thought, to suspend the major free trade talks between the US and the EU that are due to open on 8 July 2013.

Paris is reported to have requested an explication “as soon as possible”. According to Laurent Fabius, French Foreign Minister, “If these facts were confirmed, they would be quite unacceptable”.

Peer Steinbrück, leader of the opposition social democrats in Germany, is quoted as saying: “If the suspicions turn out to be true, these activities would go well beyond legitimate security concerns.”

As for the German Chancellor (Prime Minister), Angela Merkel, whose own communications are said to have been bugged by the Americans, she has maintained a Sphinx-like silence.

Clearly, the spook handlers in Washington are not going to be quaking in their boots in the face of such timidity and circumspection. Yes, Washington will give the EU a “prompt and full” justification for the special security measures – ie the global espionage programme – that it had no alternative but to implement as a result of the need to protect the American homeland.  And it will mean nothing.

Wake up, guys. This is spying we are talking about, not washing dishes. You don’t give details of your spying activities to the people you are spying on. The Americans, accordingly, will admit nothing and apologise for nothing.

The Europeans will be presented with vague and meaningless fact-free statements  – and they will accept them, as they have always done, bowing and scraping and tugging their forelocks.

The free trade talks between Washington and the EU will go ahead, more or less as planned, not least because Washington intends to use them to prise open European markets for the benefit of predator US corporations.

And the Europeans will accept this, too, namely the walmartisation of their economies.

Only two European statesmen have ever stood up to Washington and both were French. President Charles de Gaulle took France out of NATO’s military command in 1966 in reaction against its domination by the United States.  In 2003 President Jacques Chirac foiled attempts by the US and Britain to get UN Security Council approval for their subsequent invasion of Iraq.

Unfortunately, the current French President, François Hollande,  is not made of the same mettle.

And as for the European Union, it has never stood up to anyone.

The old nations of Europe have, one by one, surrendered their sovereignty to Brussels. The result is unending economic depression – and the greater clout they were promised on the world stage, that was for the birds.

Parturiunt montes, nascitur ridiculus mus.

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

Posted in Europe, France, Germany, UK, USA | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Guantanobama

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

1 July 2013

 

GUANTANOBAMA VISITS AFRICA

US President “Guantanobama” is in Africa. Great stuff.

His tour, from 26 June to 3 July, takes in Senegal, South Africa and, lastly, Tanzania where he is today.

A highlight of the trip was his visit yesterday 30 June 2013 to the former prison on Robben Island off Cape Town, South Africa, where Nelson Mandela, the country’s first black president from 1994 to 1999, was jailed for 18 years under South Africa’s previous white-supremacist apartheid regime.

In the prison’s guest book, the US President wrote: “On behalf of our family, we’re deeply humbled to stand where men of such courage faced down injustice and refused to yield. The world is grateful for the heroes of Robben Island, who remind us that no shackles or cells can match the strength of the human spirit.”

Meanwhile, back in Guantánamo Bay, the Cuban enclave occupied since 1903 by the United States and currently serving as a concentration camp for Muslim detainees, the United States Government headed by Barack Obama is holding 166 prisoners in indefinite detention without trial.

Most of the prisoners are from Yemen, where the US has been engaged in a “programme” of personal assassination using drones, and from Afghanistan, a country which the US military has occupied since 2001.

A total of around 800 prisoners are reported to have passed through Guantánamo since it opened in 2002.

More than 100 of the current detainees have been on hunger strike since early February this year in protest against the failure to end their detention without charge. Many have been held for more than a decade. Forty-four of the hunger-strikers are being force-fed through nasal tubes.

 

In 2004 the International Committee of the Red Cross – referring to the beating of detainees, their prolonged exposure to extreme temperatures and other humiliating treatment –  condemned conditions at Guantánamo as torture. Other reports have criticised sleep deprivation, prolonged constraint in intolerable postures, prolonged hooding and forced injections as well as sexual, psychological and cultural abuse.

 

Antigone1984:

 

The so-called western democracies, led by the United States, never tire of flaunting their absolute commitment to freedom based on the rule of law. This includes the right to a fair trial for defendants, who are deemed innocent until proved guilty on the basis of evidence presented in a court of law. In countries such as the United States, whose government and laws owe much to the development over centuries of the English constitution, arbitrary detention without trial is theoretically anathema. This principle was first formally codified in English law at Runnymede in 1215 when, at the behest of his barons,  “Bad” King John reluctantly signed Magna Carta, the fundamental charter of English liberties. According to Clause 39 of Magna Carta,  “No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.” Clause 40 adds: “To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay, right or justice.”

 

All this is well-known to Barack Obama, who  studied at Harvard University Law School and subsequently taught constitutional law at Chicago University Law School. He also practised as a lawyer. It is perhaps reasonable to assume that the guy knows a thing or two about the law.

 

Which makes the US Government’s decade-long detention of prisoners without trial at Guantánamo all the more heinous.

 

Obama intimated recently that Guantánamo “is not who we are” – “we” being the American people. Right on. Fine words.

 

In 2009, at the start of his first term as US President, Obama vowed to close Guantánano within a year.

 

It is now 2013. The gulag is still open for business.

 

Sure, the President can cite opposition in Congress to the closure of Guantánamo.

 

However, as President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States, Barack Obama is the most powerful politician on the planet. The buck stops with him. After all, this is the President who ran his successful 2008 presidential election campaign under the slogan “Yes, we can”.

 

This President can certainly talk the talk.

 

Witness his comments at Robben Island.

 

His speech-writers are magnificent.

 

The more important question, however, is whether he can walk the walk.

 

And, unfortunately, the answer has long been blindingly clear.

 

No, he can’t.

 

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Justice, Politics, USA | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Haiku

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

18 May 2013

Just because no dissatisfied customer has ever complained does not mean that all parachutes are fit for purpose.

Paraphrase of a thought for today posted up at underground stations by the London transport authority.

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

Posted in Economics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Food for thought

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

11 May 2013

The scams to which the free market will stoop to turn a fast buck are endlessly ingenious.

Take that nice meal you had recently in your favourite restaurant.

You remember. Last Saturday night. You started with chestnut and chorizo soup, followed up with duck confit and mange-tout, and ended with sticky toffee pudding. You’d hardly call it the meal of a life-time but it passed muster. In any case, you didn’t pay too much attention to the food as you were focusing rather more on that bottle and a half of very passable Côtes de Blaye that you shared with your companion.

Which is just as well.

Because your meal was not cooked in the restaurant at all.

The starter, main course and dessert were cooked several days ago in a giant warehouse on an industrial estate three hundred miles away.

All that your restaurant did was to provide high-class white napery, cutlery and glasses. The food, all supplied by the mass caterer, was simply heated up in a microwave and delivered to the table.

And, what is more, there is nothing illegal about this practice.

You may have made the assumption – the vast majority of diners do – that the cook in the restaurant’s kitchen has prepared your meal from scratch.

That is simply your assumption.

There is nothing on the menu which states that your meal will be cooked on the premises.

Of course, it would be wrong to suggest that all restaurants are involved in this scam.

But reports in the London press this weekend suggest that it is much more common than the foodie public might imagine.

After all, it means that the restaurant no longer needs to hire skilled cooks in order to trouser a tidy profit. All it needs to employ are people who know how to turn on a microwave.

And the punters fall for it every time.

“Home-made” ice-cream? You must be joking.

The only defence of the dining public against these con artists is our old friend “caveat emptor”.

For instance, you are quite within your rights to ask the maître d’ whether your meal has been cooked on the premises.

However, lots of people would be too embarrassed to do that.

In which case, they are entirely at the mercy of a business which is seeking, like all businesses, to maximize its returns.

Bon appétit!

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

Posted in Economics, France, UK, USA | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Conviction politics

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

10 May 2013

One definition of insanity is to continue to believe in stuff even when evidence proves you wrong. In politics, however, this is called conviction.

Aperçu by columnist Suzanne Moore in the London Guardian yesterday 9 May 2013. Moore was panning the UK Government’s pig-headed determination to continue slashing public expenditure despite overwhelming evidence that this is precisely what has mired the country in the current economic quagmire.

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

Posted in Economics, Politics, UK | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Contra poenam capitalem

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

9 May 2013

Editorial note:  We have removed this post for technical reasons.

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Those pesky natives

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

8 May 2013

…the colonists say that the natives want to go too quickly in their bid to shake off the chains of colonialism. Now let us never forget that only a very short time ago these same colonists complained of the natives’ slowness, laziness and fatalism.

Paraphrase of a passage on page 59 of the 1970 Penguin reprint of the Constance Farrington translation of “The Wretched of the Earth” by Frantz Fanon (1925-1961). The book was originally published in France in 1961 as “Les damnés de la terre”. Born in the French Caribbean department of Martinique, Fanon studied medicine at Lyon and subsequently worked as a psychiatrist in Algeria during the national liberation struggle against France (1954-1962), which ended with Algerian independence.

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Algeria, France, Politics, Revolution | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Greening of America

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

7 May 2013

Older people are inclined to think of work, injustice and war, and of the bitter frustrations of life, as the human condition. Their capacity for outrage is consequently dulled. But to those who have glimpsed the real possibilities of life, who have tasted liberation and love, who have seen the promised land, the prospect of a dreary corporate job, a ranch-house life, or a miserable death in war is utterly intolerable.

Extract from “The Greening of America”, a paean to the counter-culture of the 1960s, written by Charles A. Reich (b. 1928), US lawyer and academic. The book was first published in 1970. The passage quoted is taken from page 186 of the 1974 Penguin reprint.

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Politics, Revolution, USA | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Those were the days!

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

6 May 2013

Be realistic: demand the impossible.

Slogan of moderate student demonstrators in the Golden Age of proto-revolutionary insurrection during May 1968 in Paris.

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)

2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)

3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)

4. Capitalism in practice  (4 July 2012) 

5.Ladder  (21 June 2012)

 6. A tale of two cities (1)  (6 June 2012)

 7. A tale of two cities (2)  (7 June 2012)

 8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

Posted in France, Politics, Revolution, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment