it shines through the editing and attitudes of the news and media.
part but fortunately of the morass of ideas that ake up the ideologies/y of british society,has too often included negative attitudes about foreigners.there seems to be a relationship betweeen distance from britain,degree of foreigness or exoticism and the negative attribtions.
but then it seems that even through the distorting lenses of the media what shines through is alot of positives-courage and backbone,intelliegence and the abilities of those in revolt.
the bulk of the media quickly ask what or who will feel the vacuum left by the departing brutal dictators.this question is partly driven by notions of pwer,politics and huan society that casts what is acceptable or reasonable within a quite narrow band that includes abstractions or perhaps even vacuous notions of democracy and huan ability.it is also driven by the pragmatic needs of journalists who see to find it more difficult to identify the real,social forces behind the demonstrators-demonstrations are highly visible,the organising and relationships in factories,workplaces and communities are less eassy to identify and show.
what also underlies what passes for analysis is a notion that those in power are somehow specially equipped for those positions.this of course overlooks that the rest of us who don't own or rule,are the ones who through our labour actually keep the system,the society working.we have abilities,which even if not formally educated provide the basis of production.we can extrapolate,and interrogate our social organistaion.we can transform it to meet our and socisal needs.
it is clear that the brutal and authoritarian regimes in north africa,never consults their peoples nor asks opinion or advice about organising those societies.and here in the metroplitan/west,we are less involved or engaged in and by the social or political processes.for aoll the advances in technology it has not been accompanied by genuine interactivity or involvement.as a public service worker,i note that consultation seems to occur after the decions have been made,the plans laid and the pilot programme has already started.its like pattting a dog on the head,and effectively turns us,the human workers not only into extensions of cogs in the machine but the very cogs themselves.
i muwst admit,to go back to unfolding events in north africa,i begin to have anseaking suspicion that actually those social forces now in forward movement,actually might be more sophisticated than us in the traditionally oh-so-advanced west.they are all communities built on the shoulders of giants,of ancient and important societies that have major contributions to history and civilisation.
in the here and now,i suspect that workers and others are already campoaigning and organising the particular details of any group organising anything.of course there are never4 any guarantees about outcomes but there is unlikely to be the vacuum that the press and others assume.rather the vacuum is in the xplanations offerred by that press and in the hypocritical vacuous outlook of the western powers.
among the pantheon of giants that hopefully workers here and in north africa share,is the marxist tradition.one of the key things i learned in exploring and relying on that tradition,is that it helps to generate questions with which to interrogate the reality and materiality with which we have to contend.
it also seems to me that events in north africa raise a lot of key questions that marxists need to continue to explore;of the nature and functioniung of the political economy that is capital(ism)in its variety of forms,of cobined and uneven development,on the relationship and role of social classes,of permanent r evolution,imperialism and a lot more.
it is right that we shouldask these questions again and explore them anew.whilst it is not resolved whether arxism is a guide to action or a science,what it should not be is a secular or religious theology,at least in the accepted sense.we should not be applying a dogma.we should not be quoting marx or those who followed as holy writ but because it still bear some relevance to describing and analysing the world or part of it,our materiality now.
yet sometimes we can be own own worst enemies-writing and thinking in such an arcane manner that it reads exactly like theological dogmareproduced in such archaic and sectarian style as to attract,interest or influence no-one and to explain nothing.
now speaking entirely personally,as someone drawn to rexplore the classics in the marxist tradition and its inheritance and seekingt to redirect and reconnect my own journey,i can aoso speak as aporactised heretic.
it is clear to me that marxist humanism,libertarian and left communism,council communism,luxemburgism and other traditions all have contributions to make to the tradition.so i would ask whether these lessons need stand in neccessary opposition to each other or whether they can all be learned from and developed in a unified tradition?