JUSTICE
Most of us have a sense of ‘justice’. We can all be outraged if we personally suffer from what we consider to be an injustice. Socialists are often surprised by just how shocked people can be when the inherent injustice of the capitalist system impacts on them as individuals. For many politics is felt to be remote from their personal lives. It is only when an individual tragedy is suffered that some become politically aware and ‘active’. An obvious example is when innocent bystanders are injured or killed in a ‘terrorist outrage’ of some kind. The irony is, of course, that such acts are invariably motivated by someone else’s sense of injustice. As ever there are at least two ways to approach any analysis of what the concept of justice means to us; cultural and biogenetic. By biogenetic I mean in the sense of us being a social species and so being predisposed to finding ways of coexisting for mutual survival. Of course this is a cultural concept in itself, and as such I will include it in the analysis, but it is always worth reminding ourselves of our biological origins and needs. Whatever it means to be human, it might just include the desire for social justice and it is this we will seek to define.
Children are often heard declaring the unfairness of this or that. Amongst siblings any perceived parental preference for one over the other is felt as an intense injustice. In nature this battle for parental attention is a matter of life and death. In humans it is more often a matter of emotional validation for the child. A childhood without the expression of love from the parents is a lonely and terrible place. Any reasonable person would expect a parent to maintain some kind of equality in their response to all of their children. That this is impossible should make the attempt all the more important. And here is the basis of any concept of justice – social equality. We expect to be treated by others the way we attempt to treat them. The fact that our insecurities and ignorance sometimes make this impossible only increases its importance as a social necessity. Of course I speak here as a 21st century European and these sentiments have not always been, and in some parts of the world are still not, accepted. For intance it is only in relatively recent times that a female child is considered the equal of a male child. Furthermore the whole concept of social equality is considered an anathema in hierarchical societies and in Western Europe it is morally acceptable but considered impractical as a political reality. The question as to whether all societies follow a similar cultural evolution to fulfil their humanity is as controversial as it gets. Socialists believe that history has a meaning and we believe such a convergence of social values is an important part of that meaning. As to why there should be such a contradiction between the declared values of a society and its political reality we must now try to explain.
To an impartial observer, perhaps an alien tourist, there is a glaring contradiction between the values expressed by those in power and the social reality. Nowhere is this more exemplified than in capitalism’s legal system. The power of the state is justified by the claim that the law is applied equally to every citizen. Theft in all its forms, with one glaring exception, is ruthlessly condemned and its practitioners hunted down. But profit is the ‘raison d’être’ of the whole system and what is this if not legalised theft? The exploitation of labour may be legal but isn’t the taking of wealth from someone without exchanging something of equal value the definition of theft? A similar hypocrisy exists concerning the crime of murder. The intentional killing of one person by another is illegal and immoral unless committed during a war when the offender is quite likely to receive a medal. Even if we concede the illogicality of the system can it be said that it is applied equally to all? Only the most naïve of us can maintain this when a ‘good lawyer’ can cost a fortune in contrast to one appointed via legal aid. When the capitalist class began its conquest of political power during the English Revolutions of the 17th century they converted not only the mode of production but also the theory of justice that rationalised its ubiquity. The enclosure of the common land already begun by the old regime was accelerated until wage slavery became the only option for the majority to sustain itself. So like all the subsequent ‘bourgeois’ revolutions, the capitalist system was created through acts of theft and murder. This new reality was continually defended by theories of justice, which sought only to legitimise the new rulers, and their scource of wealth and power – the exploitation of labour for the extraction of profit. Although many were aware of this hypocrisy and sought to redress the injustice of the realities of their lives via trade unions etc., historically there was no alternative to the capitalist mode of production – until now. When the old mode of production starts to inhibit economic progress then the whole edifice begins to crumble, including the theories of justice inherent in its ideology. If people begin to take seriously theories of political equality and start to demand, for example, the reform of the House of Lords then the glaring contradictions of the system are evident in its complete failure to find a logical replacement. That the ‘law lords’ represent the highest court in the land and that this very institution is seen to be illegitimate can only confirm the failure of the reforming approach to the whole system. The endeavours of successive governments to ‘paper over’ the cracks of the regime have all failed and will continue to fail to convince many of the justice of the system. However they have been extremely successful in continuing the survival of capitalism through provoking the left and others into an endless debate about the ‘best way’ to govern capitalism.
Someone once said that a child has no understanding of justice because it will readily condemn the weather, when it prevents some activity or other, as unfair. It is the same with socialists, he said, the system is like the weather and we have no power over it - it is the only reality and when socialists complain of its injustice we are like children shaking our fists at the elements. History is undermining that identification of capitalism with nature as the only reality. Humanity now has the power to feed the world several times over and it is only the law of production for profit that prevents it. Capitalism has evolved the mode of production to a point where it has become an anachronism as a political system. It has indeed created the nails for its own coffin. Theories of justice evolve and change in response to the economic realities of human life and that history might represent the redemption of humanity from its invention of private property is a seductive idea. That the quest for social justice might be the very definition of what it is to be human is another. What the writer knows for sure in his humble role as a socialist propagandist is that capitalism and its defenders are now dealing with a remorseless tide of discontent fuelled, amongst many other things, by the tension between its promises and its reality.
EDUCATION
Our species is unique in terms of the length of our childhood. Most believe this to be so because of the advantages of learning at the expense of instinct. In the cultural human environment as opposed to the natural one we would not progress very far if we had to learn through personal experience how to create the technological world in which we live. It seems that we have an ‘instinct’ that suppresses instinct so we can learn the elements of our culture which are relevant to the context of the time in which we live. Vital in this process is an efficient way in which to communicate the lessons of the past – language. As a child grows it exhibits a skill for language that still amazes those who study and analyse the process. Capitalism depends on an authoritarian social structure that seeks to justify and protect the minority who currently have social power. It is not surprising to socialists, then, that these values are also communicated within the process of the ‘education’ of the young. Together with the more obvious forms of coercion: continual testing to destroy communal feelings by presenting others as competition; enforcement of uniformity in appearance to suppress individuality; living by the clock to impose the illusion of the normality of life as a wage slave; the presentation of ‘careers’ such as in the military or banking as being acceptable rather than lives celebrating murder or the exploitation of their fellow man – there is also a far more powerful and subversive use of language that this essay will seek to illustrate.
Before continuing this analysis we must mention the other type of education that exists within capitalist societies – what, in this country are called public schools. They possess, unsurprisingly, a very different ethos than that described above. For the children of the elite who are not taught at home these institutions exist to prepare their pupils for university where they learn the techniques needed for the City, Westminster, Inns of Court or any of the other institutions dedicated to the suppression and exploitation of the majority class. That this is self evident to socialists but is seen as an expression of envy and class ‘hatred’ by the establishment and even by many members of the working class itself is testament to the power of education and its social values (on both sides). To the powerful, of course, a socialist education is political manipulation based on propaganda. That to many the education system is seen as preparation for a ‘career’ rather than political conditioning is evidence of the subversion of the very language used to describe the world. In an effort to present the current social structure the language used presents it as the only possible world and any alternative as either naïve or dangerous fantasy. Why else would it be considered reasonable to debate the existence of a supernatural entity that created the universe (God) but ridiculous to explore the possibility of a stateless and money-less rational society?
Speaking of money – a great way to start an analysis of the subversion of language in this society. How many times have we heard that money can give us ‘independence’ and ‘choice’? For instance it is said that it gives us the ability to travel. Apparently we don’t need the labour and talent that produces cars, boats, trains and planes. What need do we have of shoes, food, clothes and maps to get to our destination? The idea that money can create these things is one of the great illusions implicit within our language. All the coloured paper and shiny coins in the world will not get you across water unless someone builds you a boat – and not just someone but hundreds and even thousands are involved in producing the possibility of travel. Money represents an involuntary contract that involves an interdependence of, sometimes, global labour – the complete opposite of ‘independence’. And how many times have you heard it said that King Henry built this castle and Lord Muck built that stately home? No designers, masons, architects or carpenters were apparently involved. For many it is money that creates our world and not the interdependent labour of us all. What is this if not a political subversion of language?
Perhaps the ultimate triumph of this kind of linguistic perversion is the contemporary view of what constitutes ‘politics’ itself. We are told that we live in a ‘democracy’ in which we are free to choose what kind of society we live in. But the most important of all political decisions – what the community produces – is never subjected to any kind of democratic process. Instead the city brokers merely decide which commodities will deliver the greatest or most reliable profits. In other words these decisions are made by a tiny elite minority in the interests of an even smaller minority. In capitalist society the only ‘choice’ voters have is who will decide how taxes are distributed to create and maintain the state infrastructure – armies, police, road, rail, law, health & social security system and, of course, the education system. Even this choice is only ‘given’ to the people once every five years between two political parties with no important differences in ideology. And this is political democracy? Apart from its obvious farcical and unjust nature it makes politics so boring. Its not just cynicism that turns people off from this ‘media politics’ it is that it’s been sucked dry of meaning and now only represents platitudes and repetitious clichés. But this is the way our rulers like it. Their media continues to produce meaningless garbage about political celebrities (leaders) and evil foreigners or unions, knowing that while their readers are obsessed with such trivia nothing will ever change. This is the primary aim of our education system – the inculcation of language without political meaning.
For over one hundred years the task of the socialist party has been to counter the propaganda of the status quo. Not just in ideological terms but in trying to restore meaning to political language. Even our opponents have to admit that the meaning they give to words like socialism, democracy, human nature, economics, history and politics itself is very different from ours. Although socialists grow weary of redefining the very language of politics for every individual new to our perspective it is quite possible that when we find we do not have to do so, then change is close. For although the ruling class seek to own the language as they own everything else, the needs of a highly technical means of production necessitate a higher and more flexible education system. Their wealth may give them power but it cannot give them intelligence or talent – for that they need us. It may be that the days of a narrow education to fit the needs of a narrow division of labour are past. More of us are not able to tolerate the public school, university ‘experts’ pontificating on politics any more. They must take responsibility for the dire state of the world. The majority are taking possession of knowledge and do not need politicians, priests, doctors, scientists, prime ministers or any other type of ‘leader’ to make political decisions on our behalf.
Whose News?
We are all used to hearing from the TV or radio that what we are about to experience is the ‘news’. Proceeded by a little tune supposed to promote gravitas and/or imply the very latest fast technological process of newsgathering we are presented with a sober middle class gent or couple sporting sensible hair, grey suits and dazzling white smiles. A stranger to our culture may be very surprised that whichever channel is chosen the content of the news is almost identical. Indeed the choice of headlines is nearly always the same; a little odd considering that in this country we have over 100 digital channels! What can be the reason for such a strange phenomena? Could it be that there is total unanimity concerning what is important in human behaviour (this would be the only example of such total agreement within our species) or is there some agenda shared by those who own and operate our media? It would be fair to say that the mainstream media in this country (TV, radio and newspapers) are owned by a tiny minority. Socialists have always maintained that the media’s obsessions reflect those of the ruling class who own them. The fact that high house prices and high profits are considered good news when it is the majority who are exploited even more as a result gives you an idea of the values shared by the owners of the media. The main disagreements (at least within the newspapers) concern the different commercial interests within the owning class – the dreary and unending European Union debate being an obvious example.
Another element that is thought to contribute to the ‘news’ is topicality – the story should reflect a perspective on a contemporary value or popular obsession. My own editors have recently requested such content in my articles for this publication. For our general readers it is obviously important that our analysis should begin with a reflection on contemporary events. However part of that analysis for us is a proof of the illusion of novelty/topicality of events within the anachronistic culture of capitalism. A friend of mine has recently given up his subscription to a newspaper on the grounds that it merely repeats the same old propaganda values whatever the story. This is the essence of ‘the news’ in today’s media. It seeks only to find different stories to ‘prove’ its own value system. The ‘credit crunch’ is either the result of greedy bankers or lack of government supervision of the financial services. It could never be a proof of the instability and irrational nature of capitalism itself. There arises an inevitable contradiction within journalism between the observation of change and its reporting when restricted by the use of reactionary values and language. It is the nature of language to struggle to find new concepts and metaphors to describe the changing world we live in. When change is accelerated during a revolutionary period this tension can create linguistic confusion and creativity (Christopher Hill’s book ‘The World Turned Upside Down’ illustrates this wonderfully using examples from the English Revolution).
It is important to emphasise that propaganda is not always consciously produced by a conspiracy of journalists and press barons. I remember Michael Parkinson saying that he never experienced owner/editorial interference during his journalistic career. This, of course, merely emphasises the care taken to employ only political ‘fellow travellers’ rather than proof of the non-propagandist nature of the media. Here at the Socialist Standard we are proud of, and honest about, the propaganda element within its content. Whether this essay is printed or not is dependent on our elected editorial committee with whom I have had an interesting relationship over the years. A very different relationship is in action within the commercial media – the usual worker and owner tension that can destroy real journalism under the profit and propaganda imperatives of our authoritarian culture. What is really corrosive to good journalism is to be completely unaware of the political bias that is inherent in any interpretation of events (the news). Of course this is to give the benefit of the doubt to journalists and not to accuse them of downright lies. My father once found himself, in his role as a union shop steward, in the centre of a local news story. After an interview he gave to a journalist he was outraged by what was subsequently printed. This was, in part, testament to his political naivety but it also emphasises that what is printed must fit within the propaganda value of 'the story' even if this necessitates downright lies.
What would qualify as news for a future socialist media? Of course when we are in a position to produce stories for the mass media the world will begin to be a very different place. Reporting will surely emphasise the relationship between the rising political awareness of the population and the activities this provokes. Presumably what remains of the present media will portray the changing political landscape as a disaster for the world and everyone in it. A socialist media will initially have to counter this increasingly hysterical propaganda. Then the production of a forum for debate will become ever more important as the need for information to make democratic decisions becomes vital. As the need to counter reactionary propaganda recedes then the media will transform itself into a vehicle of information and entertainment. Because the need for 'escapist' entertainment will also recede I suspect a different, possibly more 'mature' kind of fiction will replace it. I hope to live to see a world where fictional characters deal with important political dilemmas rather than personal and romantic ones. And what of sports? I hear the reader say fearfully. Perhaps, at last, competition between those who wish to compete will be confined to the sports arena where they belong. By this time your writer will be enjoying a cricket game in Jamaica in his role as your Caribbean sports reporter (editors permitting).
Alien America
Twentieth century American culture – the media context of my generation. Rock n’ roll, jazz, blues, soul, hotrods, superheroes, fast food and, of course, Hollywood. Monsters, gangsters, westerns and science fiction; I have loved them all. That all of this was and is generated by the profit system which exploits us is only part of the story. To see our generation as purely the victims of a remorseless marketing campaign is to overlook the dialectical forces that lie beneath the empty glamour and desperate novelty of American culture. Human imagination itself is defined by its economic context and the capitalist context is rich in deep and unresolvable contradictions. Hollywood’s fantasies are powerful examples of the need to both defend and celebrate its cultural values and also to escape from them.
To illustrate this let us consider the science fiction genre and its escapism which, in its better incarnations, is always combined with a political/cultural narrative. These themes are sometimes personified in the character of the ‘alien’. Star Trek was a series that began as a t.v. drama in the sixties and subsequently spawned many movies and other t.v. spinoffs. Its menagerie of aliens can be seen as expressions of American characteristics; the naïve ‘gung-ho’ Klingon warriors, the inhuman logicians of Vulcan, the business greed of the Ferengi and, not least, the fascistic militarism of the Borg. Most intriguing of all is the alien ‘Q’ who is an omnipotent tragic fool (God in man’s image). All of these aliens are contrasted with the crew of the ‘Enterprise’ (the future Americans) who, amazingly, have no money, no gods and no prejudices! It is as if this is one of the few arenas where Americans can truly see themselves, not as the human characters but as their alien incarnations. This perverse identification does not stop there; it has evolved into a full blown ‘post-modern’ cultural synthesis aided in no small part by the high priest of alien iconography – Steven Spielberg.
‘Close Encounters of the Third Kind’ was my first encounter with the subsequently ubiquitous ‘grey’ aliens. Whether or not it was Spielberg who actually invented them, his mystical insect-eyed, monochromatic, androgynous extra- terrestrials have come to dominate the science fiction of the past few decades. Countless books, movies and t.v. dramas have featured this species of alien all over the world – yet another example of U.S. cultural imperialism. No longer confined to ‘fiction’ they now feature in the symbiotic cultural phenomena of alien abductions. One is reminded of the appearance of witches and demons to people immersed within the Christian cultures of the past. Surrounded as they were by paintings, sculptures and stained-glass representations of angels and devils we can see that such media inspired experiences are nothing new. Even the Christ himself seems to have been inspired by Old Testament prophecies of the coming of a Jewish ‘messiah’. But, some might legitimately inquire, how do we know that at least some of these events are not ‘real encounters’ instigated by the activities of extra terrestrials? This is precisely the subject of Spielberg’s latest t.v. series.
‘Taken’ is the story of alien abductees and their struggle to be taken seriously. These characters are continually thwarted in this by the conspiratorial activities of a U.S. government agency. With references to previous media versions of this story within the narrative we have a series that feeds on both its own predecessors and the cultural experiences they helped to create. Just as religion was once ‘the opiate of the people’ now it is the media that provides the escapism from the day to day realities of the class struggle. It also provides that other ingredient so crucial for successful escapism – justice. No other culture has been so obsessive in its zeal for ‘freedom and justice’ and so fearful of its reality as America. In the character of the child-alien in the series we have yet another example of a messianic figure complete with miracles. Why does the land of technological miracles need the super-natural variety as well in its stories? Only because technology has failed to deliver the human necessity of social justice in its capitalist context. As with religion these stories are a projection into another realm of this basic human need. The greys and their ‘hard-ware’ represent both the fear and disappointment associated with technology and its still unfulfilled promise of a better world. It is hard not to conclude that the greys are the actual cultural incarnation of man’s alienation from his own technical creations. Socialists are often told to just enjoy the story and stop analysing everything – but to us this is the story. Once you’ve seen the world through the lens of a new consciousness you cannot see the ‘Emperor’s new clothes’ ever again. Although the owners of the media allow the telling of these stories, they do so because of their popularity and so profit potential. Quite possibly they are as unaware as their public as to the underlying political/dialectical reasons for its success. Where the politically naïve see evidence of aliens, socialists see evidence of alienation – I leave it to the reader to decide which is more plausible.