Today's Topics:
1. US, WSA, ideas and action: What is Socialism? What is
Anarchism? By Sam Mainwaring (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement: Hong Kong: Anarchists
in the resistance to the Extradition Bill (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. ait russia, The 32nd act of "Yellow vests": "We block
France!" [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. Britain, AFED, organise magazine: A Review of Alexander
Boris de Pfeffel Johnson: Nepotism and Self-Entitlement
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
I saw my grandfather Pop, last week at our family poker night. He can be a curmudgeon at
times, and after about two hours of our usual chit-chat, after sports and before religion,
he brought up his frustrations with so-called ‘socialists' in the Democratic party. ----
Even if I don't agree with Pop, I think his perspective is honorable. He actually calls
himself a socialist, after years working in the box factory industry. He's always been a
working class intellectual, interested in politics. He didn't say that socialism is bad,
but that the Democrats going too far left will hurt them, and that the country overall
isn't ready for these politics. Even though Bernie and Ocasio-Cortez maybe have good
points, the further left they go, they'll only help conservatives and Trump.
During a break after pizza, my cousins and uncles went out to smoke and vape. Pop
continued talking. He said part of the problem is that no one seems to agree about what
the word ‘socialism' means.
At poker night, I'm the resident anarchist, so I knew he was going to ask me for my
opinions. He doesn't suffer fools lightly, and he's pretty clear he thinks my politics are
kind of out there, but we're on the same page when we argue against conspiracy theories,
which some at the poker table believe in. We're also on the same page arguing for science
and things like that. In a way, while he doesn't think my beliefs are practical, he's
expressed some admiration from time to time.
When everyone came back to the table, he said, "Ok, I'm going to ask each of you what the
word ‘socialism' means to you? And is it a good thing or a bad thing?"
Surprisingly, no one seemed hostile to the word, but everyone said it depends on who's
doing it, and how it's done. It means probably being against a big gap between rich and
poor, and in favor of things like Social Security and Medicare.
I knew that he planned to end with me, wanting to know what socialism means to an
anarchist, and why I don't think Bernie Sanders is a socialist. This is always a point of
contention with us. So I tried, and even though I didn't have charts and a pointer, I
probably sounded like I was giving some kind of presentation.
I did the spectrum thing, I said, "Socialism? Well there's what I'd call social
liberalism, and it probably includes moderate Democrats and liberal Republicans. Not
socialism. A good amount of government involvement in the economy and a social satiety net
of some kind.
"Then further over, there's social democracy, Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez. More
progressive politics, even more government intervention into the economy and things like
universal health care, and there's upset about income inequality. By European standards
it's not that radical at all, and I don't agree that it's even democratic socialism. It's
a more stable and regulated form of capitalism. But I LIKE that people are using the word
‘socialism' positively, even if I don't see it as socialism.
"Ok, democratic socialism, and then anarcho-syndicalism, where I am. (I could see Pop
mouthing the words to himself: "anarcho-syndicalism?")
Democratic socialism is democratically elected and accountable to the electorate, but it's
not just a more stable form of capitalism, it's not a welfare state. It's actually
changing the capitalist economy to a more democratic economy where industries are run
democratically for everyone's benefit. It would be working class democracy. Still not my
tradition of socialism, but I believe it's a form of socialism.
Finally, anarcho-syndicalism, which is what I believe in, is even more democratic than
democratic socialism, even more socialist. Workers would run the industries
democratically, without class hierarchy, and the resources would be shared by everyone.
All the decisions that workers make would be made locally, and then regionally, then
nationally, and internationally-get it? So there wouldn't be a top down government
anymore, workers' democracy would move upward from the local level, no politicians, no
bureaucrats.
One of the cousins asked, "What about communism?" I could see Pop was getting impatient
with how long this was dragging out. "If you mean Soviet Communism, what I call Red
Capitalism, no way, where bureaucrats are the new ruling class and workers have no rights,
not even the right to organize or strike, no way, that's not socialism."
Pop was clear it was time to get back to poker, and that my soapbox opportunity took way
too long: "Ok, enough, where are we, is the pot straight? I call."
Later in the night, religion was debated. And at the end of the night, Pop said he thought
I'd done a good job, and that it was interesting. He said he could see where I was coming
from, even if the ideas weren't practical. And he said next time, maybe I could be more
concise.
From Pop this is about the highest praise I could hope for. it was a good night for
anarcho-syndicalism at poker.
http://ideasandaction.info/2019/06/socialism-anarchism/
------------------------------
Message: 2
Since 1997, when it ceased to be the last major colonial holding of Great Britain, Hong
Kong has been a part of the People's Republic of China, while maintaining a distinct
political and legal system. In February, an unpopular bill was introduced that would make
it possible to extradite fugitives in Hong Kong to countries that the Hong Kong government
has no existing extradition agreements with-including mainland China. On June 9, over a
million people took the streets in protest; on June12, protesters engaged in pitched
confrontations with police; on June 16, two million people participated in one of the
biggest marches in the city's history. The following interview with an anarchist
collective in Hong Kong explores the context of this wave of unrest. Our correspondents
draw on over a decade of experience in the previous social movements in an effort to come
to terms with the motivations that drive the participants, and elaborate upon the new
forms of organization and subjectivation that define this new sequence of struggle.
In the United States, the most recent popular struggles have cohered around resisting
Donald Trump and the extreme right. In France, the Gilets Jaunes movement drew anarchists,
leftists, and far-right nationalists into the streets against Macron's centrist government
and each other. In Hong Kong, we see a social movement against a state governed by the
authoritarian left. What challenges do opponents of capitalism and the state face in this
context? How can we outflank nationalists, neoliberals, and pacifists who seek to control
and exploit our movements?
As China extends its reach, competing with the United States and European Union for global
hegemony, it is important to experiment with models of resistance against the political
model it represents, while taking care to prevent neoliberals and reactionaries from
capitalizing on popular opposition to the authoritarian left. Anarchists in Hong Kong are
uniquely positioned to comment on this.
The front façade of the Hong Kong Police headquarters in Wan Chai, covered in egg yolks on
the evening of June 21. Hundreds of protesters sealed the entrance, demanding the
unconditional release of every person that has been arrested in relation to the struggle
thus far. The banner below reads "Never Surrender." Photo by KWBB from Tak Cheong Lane
Collective.
"The left" is institutionalized and ineffectual in Hong Kong. Generally, the "scholarist"
liberals and "citizenist" right-wingers have a chokehold over the narrative whenever
protests break out, especially when mainland China is involved.
In the struggle against the extradition bill, has the escalation in tactics made it
difficult for those factions to represent or manage "the movement"? Has the revolt
exceeded or undermined their capacity to shape the discourse? Do the events of the past
month herald similar developments in the future, or has this been a common subterranean
theme in popular unrest in Hong Kong already?
We think it's important for everyone to understand that-thus far-what has happened cannot
be properly understood to be "a movement." It's far too inchoate for that. What I mean is
that, unlike the so-called "Umbrella Movement," which escaped the control of its founding
architects (the intellectuals who announced "Occupy Central With Love And Peace" a year in
advance) very early on while adhering for the most part to the pacifistic, citizenist
principles that they outlined, there is no real guiding narrative uniting the events that
have transpired so far, no foundational credo that authorizes-or sanctifies-certain forms
of action while proscribing others in order to cultivate a spectacular, exemplary façade
that can be photographed and broadcast to screens around the world.
The short answer to your question, then, is... yes, thus far, nobody is authorized to
speak on behalf of the movement. Everybody is scrambling to come to terms with a nascent
form of subjectivity that is taking shape before us, now that the formal figureheads of
the tendencies you referenced have been crushed and largely marginalized. That includes
the "scholarist" fraction of the students, now known as "Demosisto," and the right-wing
"nativists," both of which were disqualified from participating in the legislative council
after being voted in.
Throughout this interview, we will attempt to describe our own intuitions about what this
embryonic form of subjectivity looks like and the conditions from which it originates. But
these are only tentative. Whatever is going on, we can say that it emerges from within a
field from which the visible, recognized protagonists of previous sequences, including
political parties, student bodies, and right-wing and populist groups, have all been
vanquished or discredited. It is a field populated with shadows, haunted by shades,
echoes, and murmurs. As of now, center stage remains empty.
This means that the more prevalent "default" modes of understanding are invoked to fill
the gaps. Often, it appears that we are set for an unfortunate reprisal of the sequence
that played itself out in the Umbrella Movement:
appalling show of police force
public outrage manifests itself in huge marches and subsequent occupations, organized and
understood as sanctimonious displays of civil virtue
these occupations ossify into tense, puritanical, and paranoid encampments obsessed with
policing behavior to keep it in line with the prescribed script
the movement collapses, leading to five years of disenchantment among young people who do
not have the means to understand their failure to achieve universal suffrage as anything
less than abject defeat.
Of course, this is just a cursory description of the Umbrella Movement of five years
ago-and even then, there was a considerable amount of "excess": novel and emancipatory
practices and encounters that the official narrative could not account for. These
experiences should be retrieved and recovered, though this is not the time or place for
that. What we face now is another exercise in mystification, in which the protocols that
come into operation every time the social fabric enters a crisis may foreclose the
possibilities that are opening up. It would be premature to suggest that this is about to
happen, however.
In our cursory and often extremely unpleasant perusals of Western far-left social media,
we have noticed that all too often, the intelligence falls victim to our penchant to run
the rule over this or that struggle. So much of what passes for "commentary" tends to fall
on either side of two poles-impassioned acclamation of the power of the proletarian
intelligence or cynical denunciation of its populist recuperation. None of us can bear the
suspense of having to suspend our judgment on something outside our ken, and we hasten to
find someone who can formalize this unwieldy mass of information into a rubric that we can
comprehend and digest, in order that we can express our support or apprehension.
We have no real answers for anybody who wants to know whether they should care about
what's going on in Hong Kong as opposed to, say, France, Algeria, Sudan. But we can plead
with those who are interested in understanding what's happening to take the time to
develop an understanding of this city. Though we don't entirely share their politics and
have some quibbles with the facts presented therein, we endorse any coverage of events in
Hong Kong that Ultra, Nao, and Chuang have offered over the years to the English-speaking
world. Ultra's piece on the Umbrella Movement is likely the best account of the events
currently available.
Our banner in the marches, which is usually found at the front of our drum squad. It reads
"There are no ‘good citizens', only potential criminals." This banner was made in response
to propaganda circulated by pro-Beijing establishmentarian political groups in Hong Kong,
assuring "good citizens" everywhere that extradition measures do not threaten those with a
sound conscience who are quietly minding their own business. Photo by WWS from Tak Cheong
Lane Collective.
If we understand "the left" as a political subject that situates questions of class
struggle and labor at the center of its politics, it's not entirely certain that such a
thing even properly exists in Hong Kong. Of course, friends of ours run excellent blogs,
and there are small grouplets and the like. Certainly, everybody talks about the wealth
gap, rampant poverty, the capitalist class, the fact that we are all "???" (jobbers,
working folk) struggling to survive. But, as almost anywhere else, the primary form of
subjectivity and identification that everyone subscribes to is the idea of citizenship in
a national community. It follows that this imagined belonging is founded on negation,
exclusion, and demarcation from the Mainland. You can only imagine the torture of seeing
the tiresome "I'm a Hong Konger, not Chinese!" t-shirts on the subway, or hearing "Hong
Kongers add oil!" (essentially, "way to go!") chanted ad nauseam for an entire afternoon
during recent marches.
It should interest readers from abroad to know that the word "left" in Hong Kong has two
connotations. Obviously, for the generation of our parents and their parents before them,
"Left" means Communist. Which is why "Left" could refer to a businessman who is a Party
member, or a pro-establishment politician who is notoriously pro-China. For younger
people, the word "Left" is a stigma (often conjugated with "plastic," a word in Cantonese
that sounds like "dickhead") attached to a previous generation of activists who were
involved in a prior sequence of social struggle-including struggles to prevent the
demolition of Queen's Ferry Pier in Central, against the construction of the high-speed
Railway going through the northeast of Hong Kong into China, and against the destruction
of vast tracts of farmland in the North East territories, all of which ended in
demoralizing defeat. These movements were often led by articulate spokespeople-artists or
NGO representatives who forged tactical alliances with progressives in the pan-democratic
movement. The defeat of these movements, attributed to their apprehensions about endorsing
direct action and their pleas for patience and for negotiations with authority, is now
blamed on that generation of activists. All the rage and frustration of the young people
who came of age in that period, heeding the direction of these figureheads who commanded
them to disperse as they witnessed yet another defeat, yet another exhibition of
orchestrated passivity, has progressively taken a rightward turn. Even secondary and
university student bodies that have traditionally been staunchly center-left and
progressive have become explicitly nationalist.
One crucial tenet among this generation, emerging from a welter of disappointments and
failures, is a focus on direct action, and a consequent refusal of "small group
discussions," "consensus," and the like. This was a theme that first appeared in the
umbrella movement-most prominently in the Mong Kok encampment, where the possibilities
were richest, but where the right was also, unfortunately, able to establish a firm
foothold. The distrust of the previous generation remains prevalent. For example, on the
afternoon of June 12, in the midst of the street fights between police and protesters,
several members of a longstanding social-democratic party tasked themselves with relaying
information via microphone to those on the front lines, telling them where to withdraw to
if they needed to escape, what holes in the fronts to fill, and similar information.
Because of this distrust of parties, politicians, professional activists and their
agendas, many ignored these instructions and instead relied on word of mouth information
or information circulating in online messaging groups.
1
It's no exaggeration to say that the founding myth of this city is that refugees and
dissidents fled communist persecution to build an oasis of wealth and freedom, a fortress
of civil liberties safeguarded by the rule of law. In view of that, on a mundane level, it
could be said that many in Hong Kong already understand themselves as being in revolt, in
the way they live and the freedoms they enjoy-and that they consider this identity,
however vacuous and tenuous it may be, to be a property that has to be defended at all
costs. It shouldn't be necessary to say much here about the fact that much of the actual
ecological "wealth" that constitutes this city-its most interesting (and often poorest)
neighborhoods, a whole host of informal clubs, studios, and dwelling places situated in
industrial buildings, farmland in the Northeast territories, historic walled villages and
rural districts-are being pillaged and destroyed piece by piece by the state and private
developers, to the resounding indifference of these indignant citoyens.
In any case, if liberals are successful in deploying their Cold War language about the
need to defend civil liberties and human rights from the encroaching Red Tide, and
right-wing populist calls to defend the integrity of our identity also gain traction, it
is for these deep-rooted and rather banal historical reasons. Consider the timing of this
struggle, how it exploded when images of police brutalizing and arresting young students
went viral-like a perfect repetition of the prelude to the umbrella movement. This
happened within a week of the annual candlelight vigil commemorating those killed in the
Tiananmen Massacre on June 4, 1989, a date remembered in Hong Kong as the day tanks were
called in to steamroll over students peacefully gathering in a plea for civil liberties.
It is impossible to overstate the profundity of this wound, this trauma, in the formation
of the popular psyche; this was driven home when thousands of mothers gathered in public,
in an almost perfect mirroring of the Tiananmen mothers, to publicly grieve for the
disappeared futures of their children, now eclipsed in the shadow of the communist
monolith. It stupefies the mind to think that the police-not once now, but twice-broke the
greatest of all taboos: opening fire on the young.
In light of this, it would be naïve to suggest that anything significant has happened yet
to suggest that to escaping the "chokehold" that you describe "scholarist" liberals and
"citizenist" right-wingers maintaining on the narrative here. Both of these factions are
simply symptoms of an underlying condition, aspects of an ideology that has to be attacked
and taken apart in practice. Perhaps we should approach what is happening right now as a
sort of psychoanalysis in public, with the psychopathology of our city exposed in full
view, and see the actions we engage in collectively as a chance to work through traumas,
manias, and obsessive complexes together. While it is undoubtedly dismaying that the
momentum and morale of this struggle is sustained, across the social spectrum, by a
constant invocation of the "Hong Kong people," who are incited to protect their home at
all costs, and while this deeply troubling unanimity covers over many problems,
2
we accept the turmoil and the calamity of our time, the need to intervene in circumstances
that are never of our own choosing. However bleak things may appear, this struggle offers
a chance for new encounters, for the elaboration of new grammars.
Graffiti seen in the road occupation in Admiralty near the government quarters, reading
"Carry a can of paint with you, it's a remedy for canine rabies." Cops are popularly
referred to as "dogs" here. Photo by WWS from Tak Cheong Lane Collective.
What has happened to the discourse of civility in the interlude between the umbrella
movement and now? Did it contract, expand, decay, transform?
That's an interesting question to ask. Perhaps the most significant thing that we can
report about the current sequence that, astonishingly, when a small fringe of protesters
attempted to break into the legislative council on June 9 following a day-long march, it
was not universally criticized as an act of lunacy or, worse, the work of China or police
provocateurs. Bear in mind that on June 9 and 12, the two attempts to break into the
legislative council building thus far, the legislative assembly was not in session; people
were effectively attempting to break into an empty building.
Now, much as we have our reservations about the effectiveness of doing such a thing in the
first place,
3
this is extraordinary, considering the fact that the last attempt to do so, which occurred
in a protest against development in the North East territories shortly before the umbrella
movement, took place while deliberations were in session and was broadly condemned or ignored.
4
Some might suggest that the legacy of the Sunflower movement in Taiwan remains a big
inspiration for many here; others might say that the looming threat of Chinese annexation
is spurring the public to endorse desperate measures that they would otherwise chastise.
On the afternoon of June 12, when tens of thousands of people suddenly found themselves
assaulted by riot police, scrambling to escape from barrages of plastic bullets and tear
gas, nobody condemned the masked squads in the front fighting back against the advancing
lines of police and putting out the tear gas canisters as they landed. A longstanding,
seemingly insuperable gulf has always existed between the "peaceful" protesters
(pejoratively referred to as "peaceful rational non-violent dickheads" by most of us on
the other side) and the "bellicose" protesters who believe in direct action. Each side
tends to view the other with contempt.
Protesters transporting materials to build barricades. The graffiti on the wall can be
roughly (and liberally) translated as "Hong Kongers ain't nuthin' to fuck wit'." Photo by
WWS from Tak Cheong Lane Collective.
The online forum lihkg has functioned as a central place for young people to organize,
exchange political banter, and circulate information relating to this struggle. For the
first time, a whole host of threads on this site have been dedicated to healing this
breach or at least cultivating respect for those who do nothing but show up for the
marches every Sunday-if only because marches that number in the millions and bring parts
of the city to a temporary standstill are a pretty big deal, however mind-numbingly boring
they may be in actuality. The last time the marches were anywhere close to this huge, a
Chief Executive stepped down and the amending of a law regarding freedom of speech was
moved to the back burner. All manner of groups are attempting to invent a way to
contribute to the struggle, the most notable of which is the congregation of Christians
that have assembled in front of police lines at the legislative council, chanting the same
hymn without reprieve for a week and a half. That hymn has become a refrain that will
likely reverberate through struggles in the future, for better or worse.
Are there clear openings or lines of flight in this movement that would allow for
interventions that undermine the power of the police, of the law, of the commodity,
without producing a militant subject that can be identified and excised?
It is difficult to answer this question. Despite the fact that proletarians compose the
vast majority of people waging this struggle-proletarians whose lives are stolen from them
by soulless jobs, who are compelled to spend more and more of their wages paying rents
that continue to skyrocket because of comprehensive gentrification projects undertaken by
state officials and private developers (who are often one and the same)-you must remember
that "free market capitalism" is taken by many to be a defining trait of the cultural
identity of Hong Kong, distinguishing it from the "red" capitalism managed by the
Communist Party. What currently exists in Hong Kong, for some people, is far from ideal;
when one says "the rich," it invokes images of tycoon monopolies-cartels and communist
toadies who have formed a dark pact with the Party to feed on the blood of the poor.
So, just as people are ardent for a government and institutions that we can properly call
"our own"-yes, including the police-they desire a capitalism that we can finally call "our
own," a capitalism free from corruption, political chicanery, and the like. It's easy to
chuckle at this, but like any community gathered around a founding myth of pioneers
fleeing persecution and building a land of freedom and plenty from sacrifice and hard
work... it's easy to understand why this fixation exerts such a powerful hold on the
imagination.
This is a city that fiercely defends the initiative of the entrepreneur, of private
enterprise, and understands every sort of hustle as a way of making a living, a tactic in
the tooth-and-nail struggle for survival. This grim sense of life as survival is
omnipresent in our speech; when we speak of "working," we use the term "??," which
literally means looking for our next meal. That explains why protesters have traditionally
been very careful to avoid alienating the working masses by actions such as blockading a
road used by busses transporting working stiffs back home.
While we understand that much of our lives are preoccupied with and consumed by work,
nobody dares to propose the refusal of work, to oppose the indignity of being treated as
producer-consumers under the dominion of the commodity. The police are chastised for being
"running dogs" of an evil totalitarian empire, rather than being what they actually are:
the foot soldiers of the regime of property.
What is novel in the current situation is that many people now accept that acts of
solidarity with the struggle, however minute,
5
can lead to arrest, and are prepared to tread this shifting line between legality and
illegality. It is no exaggeration to say that we are witnessing the appearance of a
generation that is prepared for imprisonment, something that was formerly restricted to
"professional activists" at the forefront of social movements. At the same time, there is
no existing discussion regarding what the force of law is, how it operates, or the
legitimacy of the police and prisons as institutions. People simply feel they need to
employ measures that transgress the law in order the preserve the sanctity of the Law,
which has been violated and dishonored by the cowboys of communist corruption.
However, it is important to note that this is the first time that proposals for strikes in
various sectors and general strikes have been put forward regarding an issue that is, on
the surface of it, unrelated to labor.
Our friends in the "Housewives Against Extradition" section of the march on September 9.
The picture shows a group of housewives and aunties, many of whom were on the streets for
the first time. Photo by WWS from Tak Cheong Lane Collective.
How do barricades and occupations like the one from a few days ago reproduce themselves in
the context of Hong Kong?
Barricades are simply customary now. Whenever people gather en masse and intend to occupy
a certain territory to establish a front, barricades are built quickly and effectively.
There is a creeping sense now that occupations are becoming routine and futile, physically
taxing and ultimately inefficient. What's interesting in this struggle is that people are
really spending a lot of time thinking about what "works," what requires the least
expenditure of effort and achieves the maximum effect in paralyzing parts of the city or
interrupting circulation, rather than what holds the greatest moral appeal to an imagined
"public" watching everything from the safety of the living room-or even, conversely, what
"feels" the most militant.
There have been many popular proposals for "non-cooperative" quotidian actions such as
jamming up an entire subway train by coordinating groups of friends to pack the cars with
people and luggage for a whole afternoon, or cancelling bank accounts and withdrawing
savings from savings accounts in order to create inflation. Some have spread suggestions
regarding how to dodge paying taxes for the rest of your life. These might not seem like
much, but what's interesting is the relentless circulation of suggestions from all manner
of quarters, from people with varying kinds of expertise, about how people can act on
their own initiative where they live or work and in their everyday lives, rather than
imagining "the struggle" as something that is waged exclusively on the streets by masked,
able-bodied youth.
Whatever criticisms anybody might have about what has happened thus far, this formidable
exercise in collective intelligence is really incredibly impressive-an action can be
proposed in a message group or on an anonymous message board thread, a few people organize
to do it, and it's done without any fuss or fanfare. Forms circulate and multiply as
different groups try them out and modify them.
In the West, Leninists and Maoists have been screaming bloody murder about "CIA Psyop" or
"Western backed color revolution." Have hegemonic forces in Hong Kong invoked the "outside
agitator" theme on the ground at a narrative level?
Actually, that is the official line of the Chief Executive, who has repeatedly said that
she regards the events of the past week as riotous behavior incited by foreign interests
that are interested in conducting a "color revolution" in the city. I'm not sure if she
would repeat that line now that she has apologized publicly for "creating contradictions"
and discord with her decisions, but all the same-it's hilarious that tankies share the
exact same opinion as our formal head of state.
It's an open secret that various pro-democracy NGOs, parties, and thinktanks receive
American funding. It's not some kind of occult conspiracy theory that only tankies know
about. But these tankies are suggesting that the platform that coordinates the marches-a
broad alliance of political parties, NGOs, and the like-is also the ideological spearhead
and architect of the "movement," which is simply a colossal misunderstanding. That
platform has been widely denounced, discredited, and mocked by the "direct action"
tendencies that are forming all around us, and it is only recently that, as we said above,
there are slightly begrudging threads on the Internet offering them indirect praise for
being able to coordinate marches that actually achieve something. If only tankies would
stop treating everybody like mindless neo-colonial sheep acting at the cryptic behest of
Western imperialist intelligence.
That said, it would be dishonest if we failed to mention that, alongside threads on
message boards discussing the niceties of direct action tactics abroad, there are also
threads alerting everyone to the fact that voices in the White House have expressed their
disapproval for the law. Some have even celebrated this. Also, there is a really wacky
petition circulating on Facebook to get people to appeal to the White House for foreign
intervention. I'm sure one would see these sorts of things in any struggle of this scale
in any non-Western city. They aren't smoking guns confirming imperialist manipulation;
they are fringe phenomena that are not the driving force behind events thus far.
Have any slogans, neologisms, new slang, popular talking points, or funny phrases emerged
that are unique to the situation?
Yes, lots, though we're not sure how we would go about translating them. But the force
that is generating these memes, that is inspiring all these Whatsapp and Telegram stickers
and catchphrases, is actually the police force.
Between shooting people in the eye with plastic bullets, flailing their batons about, and
indiscriminately firing tear gas canisters at peoples' heads and groins, they also found
the time to utter some truly classic pearls that have made their way on to t-shirts. One
of these bons mots is the rather unfortunate and politically incorrect "liberal cunt." In
the heat of a skirmish between police and protesters, a policeman called someone at the
frontlines by that epithet. All our swear words in Cantonese revolve around male and
female genitalia, unfortunately; we have quite a few words for private parts. In
Cantonese, this formulation doesn't sound as sensible as it does in English. Said together
in Cantonese, "liberal" and "cunt" sounds positively hilarious.
Does this upheaval bear any connections to the fishball riots or Hong Kong autonomy from a
few years ago?
A: The "fishball riots" were a demonstrative lesson in many ways, especially for people
like us, who found ourselves spectators situated at some remove from the people involved.
It was a paroxysmic explosion of rage against the police, a completely unexpected
aftershock from the collapse of the umbrella movement. An entire party, the erstwhile
darlings of right-wing youth everywhere, "Hong Kong Indigenous," owes its whole career to
this riot. They made absolutely sure that everyone knew they were attending, showing up in
uniform and waving their royal blue flags at the scene. They were voted into office,
disqualified, and incarcerated-one of the central members is now seeking asylum in
Germany, where his views on Hong Kong independence have apparently softened considerably
in the course of hanging out with German Greens. That is fresh in the memory of folks who
know that invisibility is now paramount.
What effect has Joshua Wong's release had?
A: We are not sure how surprised readers from overseas will be to discover, after perhaps
watching that awful documentary about Joshua Wong on Netflix, that his release has not
inspired much fanfare at all. Demosisto are now effectively the "Left Plastic" among a new
batch of secondary students.
Are populist factions functioning as a real force of recuperation?
A: All that we have written above illustrates how, while the struggle currently escapes
the grasp of every established group, party, and organization, its content is populist by
default. The struggle has attained a sprawling scale and drawn in a wide breadth of
actors; right now, it is expanding by the minute. But there is little thought given to the
fact that many of those who are most obviously and immediately affected by the law will be
people whose work takes place across the border-working with and providing aid to workers
in Shenzhen, for instance.
Nobody is entirely sure what the actual implications of the law are. Even accounts written
by professional lawyers vary quite widely, and this gives press outlets that brand
themselves as "voices of the people"
6
ample space to frame the entire issue as simply a matter of Hong Kong's constitutional
autonomy being compromised, with an entire city in revolt against the imposition of an
all-encompassing surveillance state.
Perusing message boards and conversing with people around the government complex, you
would think that the introduction of this law means that expressions of dissent online or
objectionable text messages to friends on the Mainland could lead to extradition. This is
far from being the case, as far as the letter of the law goes. But the events of the last
few years, during which booksellers in Hong Kong have been disappeared for selling
publications banned on the Mainland and activists in Hong Kong have been detained and
deprived of contact upon crossing the border, offer little cause to trust a party that is
already notorious for cooking up charges and contravening the letter of the law whenever
convenient. Who knows what it will do once official authorization is granted.
Paranoia invariably sets in whenever the subject of China comes up. On the evening of June
12, when the clouds of tear gas were beginning to clear up, the founder of a Telegram
message group with 10,000+ active members was arrested by the police, who commanded him to
unlock his phone. His testimony revealed that he was told that even if he refused, they
would hack his phone anyway. Later, the news reported that he was using a Xiaomi phone at
the time. This news went viral, with many commenting that his choice of phone was both
bold and idiotic, since urban legend has it that Xiaomi phones not only have a "backdoor"
that permits Xiaomi to access the information on every one of its phones and assume
control of the information therein, but that Xiaomi-by virtue of having its servers in
China-uploads all information stored on its cloud to the database of party overlords. It
is futile to try to suggest that users who are anxious about such things can take measures
to seal backdoors, or that background information leeching can be detected by simply
checking the data usage on your phone. Xiaomi is effectively regarded as an expertly
engineered Communist tracking device, and arguments about it are no longer technical, but
ideological to the point of superstition.
This "post-truth" dimension of this struggle, compounded with all the psychopathological
factors that we enumerated above, makes everything that is happening that much more
perplexing, that much more overwhelming. For so long, fantasy has been the impetus for
social struggle in this city-the fantasy of a national community, urbane, free-thinking,
civilized and each sharing in the negative freedoms that the law provides, the fantasy of
electoral democracy... Whenever these affirmative fantasies are put at risk, they are
defended and enacted in public, en masse, and the sales for "I Am Hong Konger"[sic]go
through the roof.
This is what gives the proceedings a distinctly conservative, reactionary flavor, despite
how radical and decentralized the new forms of action are. All we can do as a collective
is seek ways to subvert this fantasy, to expose and demonstrate its vacuity in form and
content.
At this time, it feels surreal that everybody around us is so certain, so clear about what
they need to do-oppose this law with every means that they have available to them-while
the reasons for doing so remain hopelessly obscure. It could very well be the case that
this suffocating opacity is our lot for the time being, in this phase premised upon more
action, less talk, on the relentless need to keep abreast of and act on the flow of
information that is constantly accelerating around us.
In so many ways, what we see happening around us is a fulfillment of what we have dreamt
of for years. So many bemoan the "lack of political leadership," which they see as a
noxious habit developed over years of failed movements, but the truth is that those who
are accustomed to being protagonists of struggles, including ourselves as a collective,
have been overtaken by events. It is no longer a matter of a tiny scene of activists
concocting a set of tactics and programs and attempting to market them to the public. "The
public" is taking action all around us, exchanging techniques on forums, devising ways to
evade surveillance, to avoid being arrested at all costs. It is now possible to learn more
about fighting the police in one afternoon than we did in a few years.
In the midst of this breathless acceleration, is it possible to introduce another rhythm,
in which we can engage in a collective contemplation of what has become of us, and what we
are becoming as we rush headlong into the tumult?
As ever, we stand here, fighting alongside our neighbors, ardently looking for friends.
Hand-written statements by protesters, weathered after an afternoon of heavy rain. Photo
by WWS from Tak Cheong Lane Collective.
Further Reading
Other Voices from the Anti-Extradition Movement
After discussing the preliminary draft of this article, one of us raised reservations
about this statement, stating that it wasn't an entirely accurate representation of
events. While quite a few people ignored the directions of those holding the microphones,
others were receptive to them, taking them into account while also receiving information
streams from various messaging channels. One must remember that a significant proportion
of people who have taken to the streets are out there for the first time, and quite often
can be overwhelmed by panic-there were scenes, for example, of young people who broke down
in fits of tears in front of the police lines, and had to be taken out of the line of fire
by others. It is also worth describing our own experiences on June 21, when several
blockades of government buildings were organized by protesters following the failure of
the chief executive to respond to a popular ultimatum. That afternoon involved hundreds of
protesters who were quick to propose, discuss, evaluate, and make decisions in a
spontaneous fashion, giving the lie to suggestions that this new generation simply spurns
discussion for fear of co-optation. Of course, there are dubious phenomena in this
endeavor to create decision-making forms in a popular struggle-the occupation of the
entrance of the Hong Kong police headquarters, which stretched into the evening, turned
into a bit of a debacle when a debate over whether the occupation should continue was put
to a contested vote. Also, one wonders whether the acephalous, amorphous nature of the
movement, composed of novices who are making things up as they go, renders it vulnerable
to capture-on the afternoon of the 21st, it was Joshua Wong who gathered scattered units
of protesters together to assemble in front of the police headquarters. We suspect that
this had more to do with the fact that everybody had showed up to the area without any
clear idea of what they could do, rather than the person of Joshua Wong himself, but one
still wonders.
In reflecting on the problems concealed by the apparent unanimity of the "Hong Kong
people," we might start by asking who that framework suggests that this city is for, who
comprises this imaginary subject. We have seen Nepalese and Pakistani brothers and sisters
on the streets, but they hesitate to make their presence known for fear of being accused
of being thugs employed by the police.
"The places of institutional power exert a magnetic attraction on revolutionaries. But
when the insurgents manage to penetrate parliaments, presidential palaces, and other
headquarters of institutions, as in Ukraine, in Libya or in Wisconsin, it's only to
discover empty places, that is, empty of power, and furnished without any taste. It's not
to prevent the "people" from "taking power" that they are so fiercely kept from invading
such places, but to prevent them from realizing that power no longer resides in the
institutions. There are only deserted temples there, decommissioned fortresses, nothing
but stage sets-real traps for revolutionaries." -The Invisible Committee, To Our Friends
Incidentally, that attempt was a good deal more spontaneous and successful. The police had
hardly imagined that crowds of people who had sat peacefully with their heads in their
hands feeling helpless while the developments were authorized would suddenly start
attempting to rush the council doors by force, breaking some of the windows.
On the night of June 11, young customers in a McDonald's in Admiralty were all searched
and had their identity cards recorded. On June 12, a video went viral showing a young man
who was transporting a box of bottled water to protesters being brutalized by a squad of
policemen with batons.
To give two rather different examples, this includes the populist, xenophobic, and
vehemently anti-Communist Apple Daily, and the "Hong Kong Free Press," an independent
English online rag of the "angry liberal" stripe run by expatriates that has an affinity
for young localist/nativist leaders.
https://awsm.nz/?p=3010
------------------------------
Message: 3
The 32nd act of protest of the "yellow vests", which gathered more than 26 thousand
participants on June 22, was marked by the "return to basics" sign. As in November last
year, the protesters organized a blockade of roads, intersections and toll stations, where
cars were allowed free of charge. The goal, "to block the country," pursued the task of
delivering the greatest possible blow to the economy. ---- Promotions "yellow jackets"
were held in Avignon, Avranches, Agen, Angouleme, Anday, Angers, Annecy, Ancenis, Antibes,
Bezansone, Belfort, Blagnac, Bordeaux, Brumate, Bouville, Buchles, Valance, Dijon, Givore,
Ile de Re , Canet, Kroll, Lanester, Le Muy, Lille, Lyon, Marne-La-Vallée, Marseilles,
Montpellier, Montelimar, Nice, Oni, Paris, Perpignan, Rouen, Saint-Avoldé, Saint-Arnaud,
Senlis, Saint-Malo , Somene, Thiers, Toulouse, Frejus, Charleville, Edebouville
Dozens of blockades were organized throughout the country on that day. At night, the port
in Marseille was almost completely disturbed. In Toulouse, picketers blocked the Logistics
Platform of Sokamil; truck traffic stopped. The blockade action was arranged on the
Belgian border. At 7.30 am it was reported about the opening of toll collection points for
free in Kroll (between Chambery and Grenoble), Gallargue, Antibes, Gay, Ancenies, Virsack,
Senlis and major interferences in the traffic on the A7 highway in Avignon. At 9.30 am -
about the blockades in Lyon and Givory ... In total, by 15.47, more than 60 checkpoints
were open for free passage; border crossings slowed down; shares seized roundabouts ...
In addition to operations to slow down traffic, several roads were blocked, forcing
motorists to look for other ways. This happened, for example, in Avignon. In Ariege,
Moselle, Herault, and Normandy, the "yellow vests" organized a slowdown in traffic. In
Eero, picketers let cars pass through toll roads for free.
In the south, "yellow vests" blocked the 20th highway at the Tarracona roundabout in
Ariege. Other activists staged a blockade of Toulouse. At 8 am, activists gathered at the
Cesquières parking lot, next to the Esmeralda night club, and at the Carrefour parking lot
in Labege. On the 62nd highway north of Toulouse, dozens of "yellow vests" let cars pass
through the toll station for free. Displaced by the guards of the capitalist order, at
13.00 they blocked access to the Blagnac shopping center near Toulouse.
In the Gers department, in the morning, actions were organized to slow down traffic on the
124th highway from the roundabout on Il-Jourdain in the direction of Gimont.
In Saint-Malo (Il-é-Vilen department), where the "yellow vests" blocked the port and the
sea terminal, hundreds of Britons were stuck for 3 hours; they had to be redirected to
Caen, Roscoff and Cherbourg. The arriving gendarmes finally unblocked the port.
In Paris, "yellow vests" blocked Disneyland.
Not without incident. Thus, in the Moselle department, one of the protesters was seriously
injured by a motorist who broke through a picket at a roundabout in Saint-Avold.
In Marseille, the central manifestation began in the Old Port, framed by massive police
forces. Soon the first incidents occurred. At 14.30, at the reformist church, when
demonstrators were climbing up La Cannebiere, police seized 8 masked men dressed in black.
An hour later, another 4 people were arrested at the corner of Liberation Boulevard and
Marx-Dormua Street: they threw stones and bottles at the police. The demonstrators
followed a large black and red banner with the inscription: "If people stand up, the game
will be over." Participants chanted: "Justice is nowhere, police are everywhere";
"Citizens of Marseille, it's time to wake up!" and "Marcel, Marcel, get up!" Protesters
gathered from across the department. Some wore T-shirts "13th in anger" or "Checkpoint La
Ciotat". Others came from even more distant places, under the banners: "Bandol-83" or
"Bray-sur-Roui, we will not back down", from the Maritime Alps. It was possible to read on
the banners: "Less kings, more cookies", "Life stands behind each yellow vest" ... Various
things were written on the yellow umbrella, outraging the protesters: "VAT", "Taxes",
"Gasoline", "Fee" for the fare, "Electricity Charge" ... The police closed all streets
perpendicular to La Cannabière for traffic. The column, in which there were also quite a
few women, pensioners and radical young people, went to the Liberation Boulevard, then to
Zharrett, blocking traffic on the highway for half an hour. Tensions with the police were
repeatedly raised: the demonstrators shouted to the police: "
The demonstration in Toulouse began at 14.00 from Jean Jaures. Authorities said no wounded
during her, and 1 person was detained on Capitol Square for non-compliance with the ban.
In Paris, the demonstration in the city went quietly and ended at 16.30 in the 9th
arrondissement.
In Belfort, the activists of the "yellow vests" joined in demonstrating solidarity with
the employees of General Electric.
https://aitrus.info/node/5286
------------------------------
Message: 4
As the private election inside the the Tory party comes closer and it looks to everyone
like our next PM will be Boris Johnson, we thought we'd ask an international comrade whose
knows very little about the man to do a little research and let us know what conclusions
fresh eyes come to. These are his results... ---- Introduction and Explanation of Purpose
---- It should be noted that this analysis has been written by an American
Anarcho-Syndicalist, and that while I did complete my MA in international relations and
diplomacy in Paris, France, I had known very little aside from the major news articles
printed about him back in 2012-2016. That being said, my pre-existing beliefs about
Johnson have largely proven true, though, many things about the man have surprised me. In
writing this, I hope to give as close to a neutral perspective as can be afforded to the
topic and person of Boris Johnson. In this work I have learned far more about this
dividing figure in UK politics, and while I find myself filled with contempt for his
policies, public lies, and general character, I also found what one might call pity for
the poor fool. Though I must confess I am perhaps the most incensed by him making any
claim to him being an Anarchist (in the political philosophy sense), in statements such as
"a libertarian Anarcho-Tory like me,"1 because that is just infuriating.
Methodology
I began this search by checking NNDB, Wikipedia, his own website, and a Google search for
"Boris Johnson," with the dates set between the 1st of January 1980, and the 11th of
September 2001. I then cross-referenced everything between one another. I chose the cutoff
for 9/11 because I hypothesized his xenophobia and Islamophobia were either nonexistent or
not publicly expressed. After I had compiled an outline of his early life, career, and
such I started a search on "Boris Johnson," with the date tool set to Sept 11, 2001 -
01/01/2015. This period allowed me to see what he said, how his beliefs are reflected, and
avoid the proliferation of news about both his relationships and the potential to be
charged with lying and misleading the public during the lead up to the Brexit vote.
Finally, I focused on his voting record, at least what I could scrape up from secondary
sources. Apologies to the subjects, time periods, and areas of focus that I as an outsider
have neglected. I invite others to give a more complete picture, to challenge conclusions
I draw, and the evidences I offer, let us talk and debate.
I largely eschew academic style citations, given that this piece relies largely on
information available and digitized online, and its target audience is not academia. The
purpose of a citation is to allow one to research the claim at its source, a hyperlink in
this case will do the job nicely. Where citations were provided, and the information
confirmed, such as on the Wikipedia entry, I use their citation, and quote the
paraphrasing. I do my best to wade past any unsubstantiated claims, personal attacks, or
political disagreements, even from my own basis in Anarcho-Syndicalism or leftist
critiques. As such, my search was very successful, though, I had to amend the searches to
remove the word "affair," as I didn't care about his relationships beyond how he used
connections to further his own aspirations, and/or what connections he used and positions
he was afforded from them. I will attempt to avoid rhetoric, speculation, or other
irrelevant discussion topics. My goal is to describe the trends, baseline, and tendencies
of the man, nothing more. I attempt to inform the reader of what I previously about
Johnson during periods in which I have memories of him for full transparency.
Early Career: A Study in Nepotism and Connections
Throughout his working career he has attained positions through nepotism and family
connection, at least until he became well known enough to have his own public following.
From his earliest jobs it was connections that brought him income and security. While an
NBC piece recently said he had a "brief stint" as a consultant, his time with L.E.K
Consulting was a grand total of a week, not even enough time to learn one's colleagues' names.
He was able to get employment at The Times as a graduate trainee due to "family
connections, in late 1987;"2 now this is important to note that even as a graduate
trainee, it was through connections and not his demonstrable skill or study in the field
that brought employ. This job lasted only a short while as he made up a quote for an
article, citing his grandfather as the source for a fake quote from an English King. Next,
he leverages his Oxford connection to Max Hastings, Editor of the Daily Telegraph to
become the "leader-writing desk of The Daily Telegraph;"3 once more connections are his
only resource for employment early on. It should be noted that he studied the classics,
and not journalism in university.
I have found no digitized records relating to his grades or what levels he graduated with,
but it is apparent that even early in his life that his school years were spent in schools
known for their elite membership. It should be noted that he attended those schools on
scholarships, which I cannot find enough information to draw any conclusions. There were
plenty of quotes to choose from, but I found the sentiment in the quote below repeated
throughout his life, and thereby the best suited to express his personality.
"Martin Hammond, who was Johnson's housemaster and taught him classics, was also at times
unamused, writing of him in a school report in April 1982: ‘Boris really has adopted a
disgracefully cavalier attitude to his classical studies . . . Boris sometimes seems
affronted when criticised for what amounts to a gross failure of responsibility (and
surprised at the same time that he was not appointed Captain of the School for next half):
I think he honestly believes that it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception,
one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else.'"4
It is during these years are the Daily Telegraph, that there are some shifts in Johnson.
Notably that he becomes more socially progressive, I highly suspect that it was due to
living among the UK's liberal intelligentsia, and no doubt partly from his
wife-at-the-time's input. Which as you will note later in this piece, makes his positions
and voting a bit of a hodge-podge.
Johnson in Politics - What a World.
In 2003 he came out strongly against the war in Iraq, which to my memory (as a young and
ignorant American) made him seem like the caricature of lefty-Europeans that my
overwhelmingly Protestant-Republican area and upbringing had indoctrinated me against.
Granted, in the end he conceded and voted for the war, following the neo-liberal line
within the Conservative party. I didn't learn about the Blair-Bush conspiracy for the Iraq
war until my time during my MA degree, so between the 2003 and 2012 I heard and thought
nothing of Johnson. Which is when his political career and persona began to take shape
into the man we see today.
In 2004 when he lost his job for lying publicly about an affair he had. As an outsider, a
sex positivist, and an Anarchist I am not sure what to make of the political and economic
ramifications he faced, but it certainly wasn't first nor last of his private affairs
becoming very very public. Then in 2007 he blamed Liverpool for choices made by others,
the impacts of policy choices, and continued a tradition of blaming others for their
circumstances, but excusing his own choices as circumstantially influenced. And I quote,
"The article, on 16 October, said people in Liverpool ‘cannot accept that they might have
made any contribution to their misfortunes, but seek rather to blame someone else for it,
thereby deepening their sense of shared tribal grievance about the rest of society'."5
In order to prepare this to my satisfaction and to ensure I was taking nothing out of
context, I read volumes of things written and said by Johnson. I most looked forward to
reading The Telegraph's 2013 piece "Boris Johnson's speech at the Margaret Thatcher
lecture in full." First because it was a day that inspired hope in at least a number of
circles, as it seemed with the harbingers of neo-liberalism fading that we could perhaps
change things for the better. And second because I had presumed in such a long piece he
would produce a number of absurdisms. Unfortunately, this was not the case. While he
references some bits I have already mentioned, it is a hard-hitting speech. The quote
below hit me the hardest, and I am sure you will understand why.
"and what has been really striking about the last five or six years is that no one on the
left - no one from Paul Krugman to Joe Stiglitz to Will Hutton, let alone Ed Miliband -
has come up with any other way for an economy to operate except by capitalism. We all
waited for the paradigm shift, after the crash of 2008. The left was ushered centre stage
and missed their cue; political history reached a turning point, and failed to turn."6
His point here is obviously partially false, but it isn't technically incorrect. We
weren't given any chances, there was austerity, and shout-downs filled with red-baiting,
politicians and lay people alike sought to contain the suffering to those who could least
handle being pushed further down the ladder. Granted, with decades of suppressing the
left, unions, and using education as an indroctrination route, the neo-liberal experiment
did partially suceed in severely hampering leftism in general, and he is right, we had a
golden opportunity to make changes, one we missed. While it is possible to still pull
ourselves back, the rise of the Greens giving some hope, the loss of leftist critiques,
genuine knowledge and ideas for how to make it work, it has been hard not to lose hope.
In 2013 Johnson opened up a bit about his personal view of society, justice, and how he
thinks humanity progresses. In short he believes that while life is cruel, unfair, and
that competition accentuates inequality, he sees this essential as the crucible of life.
Moreover it are his social Darwinist views that explain a lot about the man, his voting
records, and of course self-righteous pomposity. Unlike similar contempory world
politicians, like the Orange one, Johnson's primary ideological drive is at least one
which is coherent, even if abhorrent, and is sadly reflected in political theory
historically. So one may see what I mean, allow me to profer the following quotation:
"No one can ignore the harshness of that competition, or the inequality that it inevitably
accentuates; and I am afraid that violent economic centrifuge is operating on human beings
who are already very far from equal in raw ability, if not spiritual worth. Whatever you
may think of the value of IQ tests, it is surely relevant to a conversation about equality
that as many as 16 per cent of our species have an IQ below 85, while about 2 per cent
have an IQ above 130."7
Moving on, as pretty much every UK resident knows, Johnson is being sued for the bus add
campaign he put out before the Brexit vote. Specifically, "Boris Johnson could be
prosecuted over claims that the U.K. sends £350 million a week to the EU that were
plastered all over a bus that toured Britain during the Brexit referendum campaign."8
While time will tell if the courts agree, it is emblematic of his personal and political
style to be vague, or conversely incorrectly specific. In this case he took something he
thought and pasted it on buses.
Confusingly he defended May's decision to join the U.S. and France against Syria in April
2018, which unlike his Iraq war position shifting he was all hawk.9 Not but a month later
he became the target of a prank, "thought to have been perpetrated by Russia-when a
recording was made of a telephone conversation between him and a pair of individuals, one
of whom fooled Johnson by pretending to be the new prime minister of Armenia."10
Hypothetical question, if the man can be fooled into thinking he is talking to the
Armenian P.M., does that speak particularly highly of his ability to make judgements, or
ability to discern reality? I know that there are a plethora of things to dig through in
18 years of public life, but my space grows short and I feel like a view at his voting
record before closing is appropriate. Please do feel free to add other details, I think
that a series of such articles, perhaps shorter and more focused on specific time periods
would be useful in a longer and more comprehensive final piece, maybe a book... I bet he
would be willing to even add a foreword.
Votes Recorded11
War:
Despite originally being quite vocal about not wanting to enter the Iraw war, he
consistently voted for the Iraq war, and at the same time almost always voted for
investigations into the Iraq war. In general he voted against Labour's anti-terrorism
laws, while also consistently voting for military action against ISIL (Daesh). While he is
off talking about unnecessary government spending, "seeking" investigations into wars he
voted to have, and cutting welfare. Despite this he almost always voted for use of UK
military forces in combat operations overseas, so war is good to spend on, because
apparently he thinks money is best spent on killing other peoples' poor, while also
defunding your own poor is the way to go in politics. I am sure after looking at this that
he mostly uses his public talking points as cudgels against other parties, and not because
he actually cares about people or their well being.
Welfare & Taxation:
Johnson almost always voted against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those
unable to work due to illness or disability, and a reduction in spending on welfare
benefits. Which of course follows the Tory narrative of "welfare makes people lazy," the
nonsense of it. My thesis adviser during my M.A. program told me what it was like growing
up poor, and how much of an impact it had in Manchester, and on his (my MA thesis
Adviser's) education.
In a strange series of votes he consistently voted to raise the threshold at which people
start to pay income tax, at first I would have thought it to be some sort of recognition
that the poor don't have enough as it is, but I am fairly certain it has to do with his
anti-tax Mises-style economic preferences. I base this suggestion on several other votes:
no higher taxes on banks, stricter regulations for trade unions, reduce the capital gains
tax, and reducing corporate taxes. His voting record in the economic world reads like an
American "Tea Party" pamphlet. Remember early in his career when he kept open the air
ambulance and the nearish hospital? In parliament he has almost always voted against
introducing foundation hospitals, which says to me that his is less able to dehumanize
when not presented with physical and emotional distance. Basically, if needed literally
present him the carnage, humanize victims, and it may just get through once in a while if
done right. While theyworkforyou.com says he generally voted against university tuition
fees, his record is not so clear with 3 votes for, 4 votes against, 3 absences, between
2004-2017. A semi-related note is that he follows conservatives everywhere in voter
suppression and disenfranchisement, restricting the vote keeps conservatives in power, and
they know it. Which explains why he generally voted against a lower voting age.
Surveillance:
Despite not wanting to spend money on the poor, Johnson consistently voted for mass
surveillance of people's communications and activities and requiring the mass retention of
information about communications. Additionally, he generally voted against introducing ID
cards, which at first confused me given his pro-surveillance voting, until I remembered
that a required ID may be paid for (in part of fully) by the state, and then it made sense.
Immigration:
Johnson generally voted for stronger enforcement of immigration rules and he also
generally voted for a stricter asylum system; though with 8 votes for, and 20 absences, it
seems he might not be completely ideologically driven in this.
Climate Change:
Johnson has almost always voted against measures to prevent climate change, which doesn't
surprise me after getting this far, it matches his "let profit rule" mentality.
A Summary
My personal way of explaining Johnson, in a nutshell is that he is lazy, ignorant, power
hungry, and a genuinely self-entitled piece of work. Mind you, I am not using those as
insults, rather, as descriptions of behaviors that literally match the definitions. I
should also mention that his votes, as far as I could find, were somewhat confusing. In
some instances he voted 3 times for something, but also had 20 absences, it makes me
question what he actually believes versus when he is voting to follow through with what he
thinks the electorate or party wants. Additionally, I can see why he would become popular,
the insensitive style, unrestrained remarks, and forgetfulness make him approachable. With
his ability to discuss philosophy and history, though from a lens I find abhorrent and
empty, in his longer pieces he shows that he does understand that inequality is an
increasingly growing problem, but his worldview is basically that life sucks and suffering
happens - more or less. While his positions often rankle me, and are quite far from
anything I would consider ethical or moral, often it seems to me that he supports or votes
specifically to satiate the desires of others, specifically those who support him.
It should also be noted that politics and privilege is a major part of his family,
formerly and currently. For example, his younger brother Leo works for PwC, a professional
services firm, and co-presents a series on Radio 4. While Jo his other brother is also a
Conservative MP, who also resigned due to negotiations for "Brexit." Their sister Rachel
is an editor, journalist, and television presenter in London, and lead candidate for
Change UK in 2019. Their father, Stanley Johnson, was also a politician.
Johnson is culturally and socially insensitive, demeaning others for their clothes, norms,
and regularly commits fallacies when describes those he considers outsiders. Additionally,
he deeply believes that people desire to be governed, which does follow an old English
tradition in political philosophy, and also reflects on his worldview and outlook that can
be seen both in his mannerisms and policy preferences. He blames has internalized and
subscribes to the belief that it is through "moral weakness" and a "weak will," that
addition, obesity, and emotional disturbances arise. Given his presumptive nature, he vast
privilege, it is no wonder that he completely lacks empathy or understanding of the impact
that poverty, 0-hour contracts, overworking, and high rent takes on physical and emotional
well-being. Consider this, he has a single weekly column, for which he is paid £250,000
annually; it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that he believes anyone who tries can make it,
because he never has had to try and he has been well rewarded for not trying. I would like
to mention that his belief that everyone else's woes originate from weak wills, moral
weakness, and lack of self-control; that in a 2012 interview with Vainty Fair, he was
asked "What is the trait you most deplore in yourself?" to which he replied "Akrasia[lack
of self-control],"12 and is a rather classic case of projection. As an Anarchist I hate
his vision for the world, his willingness to blame the sick and poor for society's ills
and his readiness to sacrifice others as scape goats for his ambitions. I have thus far
attempted to avoid rhetoric and using my personal preferences to judge the actions and
character of a man I knew very little about, I hope that I have done so as fairly and
justly as is possible given the subject and topic of Boris Johnson.
Addendum:
For the periods of 2005-2006 and 2007-2013 I simply either found nothing noteworthy, could
not sift through the massive piles of articles. As someone almost entirely unfamiliar with
the man or his public record before researching this, I did about as well as I could given
the circumstances. Feel free to fill in the gaps though! ?
Seskef De Rishton is an American Anarcho-Syndicalist, who studied in France, and
volunteered with the CNT Syndicate du Presse. Since then has been forced due to this thing
called borders to go back to the Neo-Liberal dystopia called America. They are currently a
researcher, writer, and a DM for D&D 5e.
Citations
www.nymag.com/news/intelligencer/encounter/boris-johnson-2012-6/
Purnell 2011, pp. 95-99; Gimson 2012, pp. 88-90. Emphasis added.
Purnell 2011, pp. 102-103; Gimson 2012, p. 97. Emphasis added.
www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/10/boris-johnson-man-who-would-be-king
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1557548/Boris-Johnson-in-quotes.html
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/london-mayor-election/mayor-of-london/10480321/Boris-Johnsons-speech-at-the-Margaret-Thatcher-lecture-in-full.html
Ibid
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/london-mayor-election/mayor-of-london/10480321/Boris-Johnsons-speech-at-the-Margaret-Thatcher-lecture-in-full.html
www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-could-be-prosecuted-over-brexit-bus-claim/
www.britannica.com/biography/Boris-Johnson
Ibid www.britannica.com/biography/Boris-Johnson
As Assembled by TheyWorkForYou.com
www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10999/boris_johnson/uxbridge_and_south_ruislip/votes
www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/06/boris-johnson-proust-questionnaire-summer-olympics-life-in-london
http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/encounter/boris-johnson-2012-6/2 Purnell 2011, pp.
95-99; Gimson 2012, pp. 88-90. Emphasis added.
http://organisemagazine.org.uk/2019/07/01/a-review-of-alexander-boris-de-pfeffel-johnson-nepotism-and-self-entitlement/
------------------------------
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten