Through Facebook with give our opponents the data they need to exploit and hang us.
I have been rather nonplussed about the whole Cambridge Analytica / Facebook affair. It always seemed obvious to me that Facebook compiled a massive database on its users, which constituted an asset of huge commercial and political value. And it is obvious that the state along with the rich and powerful would acquire that asset for their own political purposes, legally or otherwise. Facebook users, for their part, have quite literally donated hours of their free time to providing information for market research, advertising profiling, and of course filling in state security and police records to overflowing.
A couple of years ago, I developed the idea that the progressive left should not be doing this. After all, back in the day, the idea that a recording of every left-wing meeting would be systematically handed in at the police or Tory party offices would have horrified us. I sought out a number of open-source encryption tools and services that might be of interest to us. I can safely say that the interest in such things beyond a few techies was non-existent. I saw my left-wing friends blooming on Facebook and I reluctantly continued to follow suit.
Apart from the fact that through Facebook you can actually reach a lot of people with your messages, there are two further reasons why the left is addicted to the platform. The first is simple laziness. With a quickly written message you can in a single click make it available to many of the people whom you wish to see it. Facebook works. People are on Facebook, so we post there, so do others and that keeps Facebook as the place to be.
The second reason is that many of us use Facebook to project our personalities. We wish to radiate the trivia of our lives: that sweet poodle we saw with a pink ribbon, the stone we just fell over, etc. How much more jolly it is to have our political analysis and comments intermingled with all this. And, as so many argue, what does it matter if PC Plod and the Labour Party compliance unit knows our politics? The reality is that the left is both legal and weak. It seems not to matter that our enemies know everything about us: who we are and what we do and say. But I think it does matter.
24 March 2018
15 March 2018
The Salisbury chemical attack: whatever the truth socialists should not support Putin
Russian society and politics should not be supported by socialists, irrespective of whether Putin is responsible for the Salisbury chemical attack.
I have little more than contempt for those so-called socialists who are using the Salisbury chemical attack to paint Russia as a paragon of virtue vis-a-vis the western capitalist states.
Russia under Putin is a politically corrupt kleptocracy which promotes a chauvinistic foreign policy. It seeks to undermine the western capitalist countries, not by promoting socialism, but by feeding the poison of the fascist right: support for Brexit and Trump, support for ultra-right wing parties in Europe, and hostility to lesbian and gay rights at home and abroad. Put simply everything that is wrong in North America and the EU is more wrong in Russia. Thus the argument for backing Putin rests on nothing more than the false argument that our enemy’s enemy is our friend.
Received wisdom says the Russian state was responsible for the Salisbury attack. And on the balance of probabilities that is true. Yet an element of doubt must remain: what reason did Russia have to mount a clumsy assassination attempt against a retired Russian spy in exile? And why was it done in such a way as to obviously implicate Russia?
Jeremy Corbyn is right in saying that this incident needs thorough independent investigation.There is nothing to be gained in unnecessary confrontation with Russia - even more so if it turns out that Russia is not responsible and has been set up.
I have little more than contempt for those so-called socialists who are using the Salisbury chemical attack to paint Russia as a paragon of virtue vis-a-vis the western capitalist states.
Russia under Putin is a politically corrupt kleptocracy which promotes a chauvinistic foreign policy. It seeks to undermine the western capitalist countries, not by promoting socialism, but by feeding the poison of the fascist right: support for Brexit and Trump, support for ultra-right wing parties in Europe, and hostility to lesbian and gay rights at home and abroad. Put simply everything that is wrong in North America and the EU is more wrong in Russia. Thus the argument for backing Putin rests on nothing more than the false argument that our enemy’s enemy is our friend.
Received wisdom says the Russian state was responsible for the Salisbury attack. And on the balance of probabilities that is true. Yet an element of doubt must remain: what reason did Russia have to mount a clumsy assassination attempt against a retired Russian spy in exile? And why was it done in such a way as to obviously implicate Russia?
Jeremy Corbyn is right in saying that this incident needs thorough independent investigation.There is nothing to be gained in unnecessary confrontation with Russia - even more so if it turns out that Russia is not responsible and has been set up.
9 March 2018
Brexit: the physics of political power
The Brexit negotiations demonstrate the physics of political power - simple facts the Brexiteers don't like.
Brexit is a catastrophe in the making: a human tragedy for the 3-4 million people caught on the wrong side of the Channel, and an economic disaster for Britain waiting to happen.
Yes, the British electorate voted to leave the EU, but it was the choice of the Tory government to go further and decide to exit the Single Market and the Customs Union. Instead, they want a trade deal on their terms, but they should first of all recognise two things.
First, they need to acknowledge that politics is in large part the physics of power. And here the simple fact is that the economy of the remaining EU27 is six times the size of Britain's. Future impediments to trade as a result of Brexit threaten a massive 15% of British GNP, the proportion earned from exporting to the the EU27. But for the EU27 only 3% of their GNP is derived from exports to Britain. Thus London needs a transitional deal in the short term and a trade agreement in the long run much more than Brussels does.
Second, the EU27 are not going to do Britain any favours. In the first instance, they are acting to protect their interests as their declaration makes clear:
“European integration has brought peace and prosperity to Europe and allowed for an unprecedented level and scope of cooperation on matters of common interest in a rapidly changing world. Therefore, the Union’s overall objective in these negotiations will be to preserve its interests, those of its citizens, its businesses and its Member States.”
But it is not just that Britain is weaker than the EU27 and that the states remaining in the EU will not sacrifice their economic advantages for Britain's sake. There is another underlying asymmetry in the negotiations. The British government is desperate to show that Brexit will be a success and that leaving the EU does not carry huge economic costs. The EU, on the other hand, even if it doesn't admit it, wants to demonstrate that withdrawal confers no advantage on the leaving state.
The Brexiteers can say what they wish and pretend that the negotiations are between two equal teams: team UK and team EU27. They can convince themselves of anything for the right-wing populist press, but nothing changes the underlying structure of the power situation.
And to add to that, Mssrs. Davis, Johnson and Fox can hardly complain of the EU27 serving their own self-interest (acting as gang in their terms) as their own reasons for supporting Brexit, however miscalculated, are based on making a virtue of selfishness. So when Minister Liam Fox complains of ‘blackmail’ by the EU27, he has no moral case; all he is doing is recognising that the UK, as the weaker party, is losing out.
Brexit is a catastrophe in the making: a human tragedy for the 3-4 million people caught on the wrong side of the Channel, and an economic disaster for Britain waiting to happen.
Yes, the British electorate voted to leave the EU, but it was the choice of the Tory government to go further and decide to exit the Single Market and the Customs Union. Instead, they want a trade deal on their terms, but they should first of all recognise two things.
First, they need to acknowledge that politics is in large part the physics of power. And here the simple fact is that the economy of the remaining EU27 is six times the size of Britain's. Future impediments to trade as a result of Brexit threaten a massive 15% of British GNP, the proportion earned from exporting to the the EU27. But for the EU27 only 3% of their GNP is derived from exports to Britain. Thus London needs a transitional deal in the short term and a trade agreement in the long run much more than Brussels does.
Second, the EU27 are not going to do Britain any favours. In the first instance, they are acting to protect their interests as their declaration makes clear:
“European integration has brought peace and prosperity to Europe and allowed for an unprecedented level and scope of cooperation on matters of common interest in a rapidly changing world. Therefore, the Union’s overall objective in these negotiations will be to preserve its interests, those of its citizens, its businesses and its Member States.”
But it is not just that Britain is weaker than the EU27 and that the states remaining in the EU will not sacrifice their economic advantages for Britain's sake. There is another underlying asymmetry in the negotiations. The British government is desperate to show that Brexit will be a success and that leaving the EU does not carry huge economic costs. The EU, on the other hand, even if it doesn't admit it, wants to demonstrate that withdrawal confers no advantage on the leaving state.
The Brexiteers can say what they wish and pretend that the negotiations are between two equal teams: team UK and team EU27. They can convince themselves of anything for the right-wing populist press, but nothing changes the underlying structure of the power situation.
And to add to that, Mssrs. Davis, Johnson and Fox can hardly complain of the EU27 serving their own self-interest (acting as gang in their terms) as their own reasons for supporting Brexit, however miscalculated, are based on making a virtue of selfishness. So when Minister Liam Fox complains of ‘blackmail’ by the EU27, he has no moral case; all he is doing is recognising that the UK, as the weaker party, is losing out.
Brexit: Britain humbled
Far from ‘taking back control,’ Brexit has humbled Britain.
From an establishment point of view, Brexit has diminished Britain. Before the referendum, the UK, in equal standing with Germany and France, was one of the three hard-hitters in the EU. The UK had a tailor-made EU membership, with exemptions, dispensations and a budget rebate. It was the ‘respected’ representative of US interests inside the EU; and the UK was a vehicle for the City and International firms passporting into Europe. All of that is now going or has already gone.
Today, the British elite, along with the electorate, is severely divided about what to do with referendum result. Very few are still holding out hope for retention of full EU membership. Most of business, the trade unions and a majority of popular opinion want to cling to the European Union through a ‘soft Brexit.’ That means retaining membership of the Customs Union and the Single Market. But while this option is to be much preferred to to any hard withdrawal, it would inevitably mean Britain becoming a mere rule-taker; i.e. accepting EU law without having a say in its creation.
But a soft Brexit is an anathema to the Tory Brexit elite, who have the whip hand in the May Government. They want the UK to spurn the European social-market model all together and fall into step with the US economy. After the shocks of a hard withdrawal, they desire the creation of a society of low taxes, minimal rights for workers and consumers, with little or no social welfare - a European America or a Singapore on the Thames.
Nevertheless, such a long-term ‘pro-capitalist’ project is a shaky policy for the Tory Party to adopt, because it commands little electoral support and is the mirror opposite of what most working-class Leave voters want. In addition, such a strategy is of little immediate benefit to a great deal of business, which today is struggling not to be impeded in European markets.
But to understand the Brexit elite, we have to realise that for these Tories economic calculation is not everything. The Tory Brexiters are also driven by a Europhobic nationalism, which has always balked at the idea of the UK being an equal partner of other European states, let alone being subject to pan-European law. They cling to a delusional sense of their own ‘Anglo-Saxon’ superiority come what may.
One thing is clear, Brexit entails a loss of power and influence for Britain. The UK is no longer a leading partner in the EU but an isolated medium-sized country being forced to chose to which economic superpower it subordinates itself - the EU27 or the US. For the country’s institutions it's not about taking back control but about national humiliation.
From an establishment point of view, Brexit has diminished Britain. Before the referendum, the UK, in equal standing with Germany and France, was one of the three hard-hitters in the EU. The UK had a tailor-made EU membership, with exemptions, dispensations and a budget rebate. It was the ‘respected’ representative of US interests inside the EU; and the UK was a vehicle for the City and International firms passporting into Europe. All of that is now going or has already gone.
Today, the British elite, along with the electorate, is severely divided about what to do with referendum result. Very few are still holding out hope for retention of full EU membership. Most of business, the trade unions and a majority of popular opinion want to cling to the European Union through a ‘soft Brexit.’ That means retaining membership of the Customs Union and the Single Market. But while this option is to be much preferred to to any hard withdrawal, it would inevitably mean Britain becoming a mere rule-taker; i.e. accepting EU law without having a say in its creation.
But a soft Brexit is an anathema to the Tory Brexit elite, who have the whip hand in the May Government. They want the UK to spurn the European social-market model all together and fall into step with the US economy. After the shocks of a hard withdrawal, they desire the creation of a society of low taxes, minimal rights for workers and consumers, with little or no social welfare - a European America or a Singapore on the Thames.
Nevertheless, such a long-term ‘pro-capitalist’ project is a shaky policy for the Tory Party to adopt, because it commands little electoral support and is the mirror opposite of what most working-class Leave voters want. In addition, such a strategy is of little immediate benefit to a great deal of business, which today is struggling not to be impeded in European markets.
But to understand the Brexit elite, we have to realise that for these Tories economic calculation is not everything. The Tory Brexiters are also driven by a Europhobic nationalism, which has always balked at the idea of the UK being an equal partner of other European states, let alone being subject to pan-European law. They cling to a delusional sense of their own ‘Anglo-Saxon’ superiority come what may.
One thing is clear, Brexit entails a loss of power and influence for Britain. The UK is no longer a leading partner in the EU but an isolated medium-sized country being forced to chose to which economic superpower it subordinates itself - the EU27 or the US. For the country’s institutions it's not about taking back control but about national humiliation.
1 March 2018
The diminution of community
Decades of privatisation and its rhetoric have left us with a community that struggles to conceptualise its real collectivity.
It is correct to point out that the role of geographical community has been significantly weakened in the three decades of market fundamentalism. The last of the great working-class struggles, the miners strike 1984-85, grew out of an identification with community. Those communities are now fractured.
I will list here without comment what I regard as the major reasons for the diminution of geographical community in the age of market fundamentalism:
1. Geographical mobility (people moving from one location to another with little commitment to where they live)
2. Economic inequality (financial segregation of the working class with minimal shared existence.)
3. Stress through insecurity (flexible insecure work, with little time left to devote to the clubs and societies that comprise community.)
4. Altered consumer consumption patterns (from the public market to the private shopping mall, where trespass laws prevent any non-authorised meeting)
5. Break-down in family structures (Isolated individuals spending more time with self-maintenance than reaching out to others in the community)
6. De-homogenisation of culture (Immigration can enrich a local community, but it can also divide it)
New Labour in government (1997-2010) in its spin recognised the loss of community by creating the post of community secretary in the government. The main thrust, though, was to try to re-invent artificial, illiberal and undemocratic religious “communities” by co-opting right-wing clerics. Segregated education became the main tool of bringing this about. Of course, all this served to further break up secular geographical communities (e.g. the loss of local comprehensive school)
It is correct to point out that the role of geographical community has been significantly weakened in the three decades of market fundamentalism. The last of the great working-class struggles, the miners strike 1984-85, grew out of an identification with community. Those communities are now fractured.
I will list here without comment what I regard as the major reasons for the diminution of geographical community in the age of market fundamentalism:
1. Geographical mobility (people moving from one location to another with little commitment to where they live)
2. Economic inequality (financial segregation of the working class with minimal shared existence.)
3. Stress through insecurity (flexible insecure work, with little time left to devote to the clubs and societies that comprise community.)
4. Altered consumer consumption patterns (from the public market to the private shopping mall, where trespass laws prevent any non-authorised meeting)
5. Break-down in family structures (Isolated individuals spending more time with self-maintenance than reaching out to others in the community)
6. De-homogenisation of culture (Immigration can enrich a local community, but it can also divide it)
New Labour in government (1997-2010) in its spin recognised the loss of community by creating the post of community secretary in the government. The main thrust, though, was to try to re-invent artificial, illiberal and undemocratic religious “communities” by co-opting right-wing clerics. Segregated education became the main tool of bringing this about. Of course, all this served to further break up secular geographical communities (e.g. the loss of local comprehensive school)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)