Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
c
h
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
h
o
r
d
w
o
r
k
.
o
s
k
t
h
e
m
:
G
L
&
5
5
.
fNNfNG-'
&N
T
N
&
T
'5M
&
K
f
N
G
&
R
.
R
f
G
N
T
N
E
M
Y
G
L
&
5
5
.
BMT
fT'5
&
L
R
f
G
N
T
.
GL&55
&
R
F
&
R
E
.
'TN
ER
E'5
- Warren E. Buett, second richest man in
the United States, in The New York Times,
26 November 2006. http://nyti.ms/jcqlBR
IWW
I WI L L WI n
IWW.ORG.AU
E
'
R
E
14 Direct Action
Why do the Industrial Workers of the World call for the abolition of the wage system? Is the
IWW proposing that workers NOT get paid? Arent the capitalists giving us our jobs? How does
the IWW propose to get the good things of life without working for wages? Why dont socialists
ever talk about abolishing the wage system?
by FW Mike Ballard
W
age-labourers are alien-
ated from the product of
their work. The fact that
10% of Australian households own
45% of Australia's wealth while
50% of Australian households own
only 7% of Australia's wealth is in-
formation which is unknown to
most Australian workers. The
wealth wage-labourers produce is
not theirs to control or own. What
wage-labourers own is their power
to work at some task. Labour
power becomes a commodity for
sale under regimes of wage-labour.
The wealth which wage-labourers
produce becomes commodified.
Thus, wealth is primarily for sale
and like all commodities, its sale
benefits its seller-owners. It be-
comes useful to them.
Money is also a commodity.
Trading on money markets is common today. Most times though, money
is found useful for trading one commodity for another, thus facilitating mar-
ket movement and sale. The market is buyers and sellers meeting to ac-
quire and relinquish commodities using money, the universal equivalent
for all commodities. A buyer uses the money-commodity to trade it for
some good or service he or she finds useful. A capitalist buys labour power
when it becomes useful to do so, which is when there are potential buyers
for the goods and/or services which the capitalists hireling wage-slaves
can produce. Thus, the capitalist employs workers skills to do a job for
wages. Again, the wages the employer pays the worker for the use of his
or her skills over a certain agreed upon period of labour time is based on
what that workers abilities to do the job, not on the amount of wealth the
worker in the division of labour with other workers will produce as a whole.
Also, it should always be remembered that a workers sells the skills to do
this or that job to an employer, the skills being purchased arent necessarily
the highest skills which the worker possesses, abilities which might fetch
a higher price in the marketplace for commodities because of their greater
value. Value is determined by the amount of socially necessary labour time
embodied in a commodity. This applies to labour power as much as it does
to canned tuna fish, oil or electric power in short, any good or service which
is being sold. Sometimes a person with a doctorate ends up selling abilities
to drive a taxi. You cant always get what you want; but sometimes you
get what you need and what highly skilled individuals need is sometimes
just to make a living when the market for their particular skills is saturated.
So, they sell themselves into wage-slavery for a lower price.
We workers are in one class
within a division of labour, even out-
side our immediate work areas and
our class is employed by members
of the capitalist class to produce
the wealth of nations. As such, cap-
italists are dependent on workers
and workers are dependent on
each other to do their parts within
the division of labour. The capital-
ists are dependent on the working
class to get the wealth of nations
out into the marketplace for sale. A
doctor depends on other workers to
provide useable means of trans-
portation, quality food and even
health, among thousands of other
goods and services which make up
the wealth of nations. The future
generation depends on the stu-
dents being trained to become doc-
tors, engineers and truck drivers in
various learning places and schools. The working class is an inter-locking
wealth producer. However, it should be understood that under the wage
system, a worker who has spent time learning more complex skills will gen-
erally fetch higher wages on selling those skills on the labour market than
a worker who has spent less time developing his or her skills or who has
had less experience at doing the job the employer needs doing. It always
has to be remembered though that this commodity must be sold on the
labour market and like any other commodity, if the market is flooded with
these skills, its price will plummet and sometimes be left unbought, unem-
ployed. Such are the contingencies of making a living in a commodified
society of buying and selling.
I maintain that the left lost its way sometime after 1910, fishing in the
vote getting markets of liberal reformism and shutting out the revolution-
aries who spoke of common ownership of the collective product of labour
and the abolition of the system of exploitation known as wage labour. In
the aftermath of WWI, the official Marxist-Leninist and Social Democratic
left replaced any talk of the 'abolition of the wage system' with liberal re-
formism i.e. with accepting, 'a fair day's wage for a fair day's work' all in the
name of being realistic of 'borng from within' the business unions and the
established political States, sometimes running a left-wing version of a
wage system for the employing class. Like pure and simple reformism,'bor-
ing from within' was meant as a reasonable tactic; but soon it became the
strategic goal of leftists, to get pre-selected then, elected to bourgeois or
Marxist-Leninist institutions of political power over the wage slaves of the
world. To historically examine the degree that this point of view triumphed
the wealth of nations:
class divided
ECONOMICS
Direct Action 15
is to appreciate the political amnesia which
struck the workers' movement. Forgetting that
the abolition of wage-labour was the goal of the
social revolution, along with common ownership
of the collective product of labour, has gotten
workers movement from a revolutionary position
to where it is today i.e. with a left composed of
radical liberal moralists waiting for a Castro (or
fill in some other messiah) to save them, a left
that has lost all sense of being a radical subjec-
tive part of a social revolution made by them-
selves and their fellow workers, for themselves
as a class.
SOCIAL REVOLUTION SEEN AS THE ABOLI-
TION OF CLASSES
As Marx and Engels put it in THE COMMU-
NIST MANIFESTO:
"When, in the course of development,
class distinctions have disappeared, and
all production has been concentrated in
the hands of a vast association of the
whole nation, the public power will lose its
political character. Political power, prop-
erly so called, is merely the organized
power of one class for oppressing another.
If the proletariat during its contest with the
bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of
circumstances, to organize itself as a
class; if, by means of a revolution, it
makes itself the ruling class, and, as such,
sweeps away by force the old conditions
of production, then it will, along with these
conditions, have swept away the condi-
tions for the existence of class antago-
nisms and of classes generally, and will
thereby have abolished [hebt auf
(aufheben is actually translated more
closely with the English term sublation)]
its own supremacy [Herrschaft, rule] as a
class."
Class distinctions disappear as soon
as the need for classes has disappeared.
The need for classes is related in Marxs mind to
history, class consciousness and the develop-
ment of the means of production, the means to
satisfy the needs of a society and societys com-
prehension of what constitutes it needs. This
historical process would vary in accord with the
uneven development of the means of production
and class consciousness in the world at large.
But what would replace the wage system?
Heres a relevant dialogue which took place be-
tween Daniel DeLeon and some curious workers
of pre-WWI America:
QUESTION NO. I.
"How will the Co-operative Commonwealth
determine the income of each worker?"
ANSWER: --
In order that the answer to the question be
understood, two things must first be grasped,
and kept in mind. One is the factor which deter-
mines the worker's income today; and that in-
volves the worker's status under Capitalism. The
other thing is the worker's changed status in the
Co-operative Commonwealth; from which status
flows the factor which will then determine the
worker's income.
How is the worker's income determined
today, under Capitalism?
The income of the worker is his wages. That
which determines the wages of the worker today
is the supply and demand for Labor in the Labor
market. If the supply is relatively large, the price
of labor-power, that is, wages, which means in-
come, will be relatively low. If the demand is rel-
atively large, then the income, that is, wages, will
rise. As the Law of Gravitation may be, and is,
perturbed by a number of perturbing causes, so
with the Law of Wages: -- combinations of work-
ers, on the one hand, may counteract an exces-
sive supply of Labor in the Labor market, and
keep wages up; on the other hand, capitalist out-
rages, such as shanghaing, not to mention innu-
merable others, may counteract a small supply
of Labor in the Labor market, and keep wages
down. In the long, run the perturbing causes
cease to be perceptible factors, and the Law of
Supply and Demand re-asserts itself.
It follows that, under Capitalism, the status
of' the worker is not that of a human. His income
being his price, and his price being controlled by
the identical law that controls the prices of all
other articles of merchandise, under Capitalism
the worker is a chattel. In so far as he is a
"worker" he is no better than cattle on the hoof -
- all affectation to the contrary notwithstanding.
What, on the contrary, is the worker's status
in the Co-operative Commonwealth ?
"Co-operative Commonwealth" is a technical
term; it is another name for the Socialist or In-
dustrial Republic. He who says "Co-operative
Commonwealth" means, must mean, a social
system that its advocates maintain flows from a
previous, the present, the Capitalist regimen ; a
social system that its advocates maintain is
made compulsory upon society by the impossible
conditions which the Capitalist regimen brings to
a head; finally, a social system which its advo-
cates maintain that, seeing it is at once the off-
spring of Capitalism and the redress of Capitalist
ills, saves and partakes of the gifts that Capital-
ism has contributed to the race's progress, and
lops off the ills with which Capitalism itself can-
cels its own gifts. The issue of wages, or the
worker's income, throws up one of the leading ills
of Capitalism.
The Co-operative Commonwealth revolution-
izes the status of the worker. From being the mer-
chandise he now is, he is transformed into a
human. The transformation is effected by his
pulling himself out and away from the stalls in
the market where today he stands beside
cattle, bales of hay and crates of crockery,
and taking his place as a citizen in full en-
joyment of the highest civic status of the
race.
The means for the transformation is
the collective ownership of all the neces-
saries for production, and their operation
for use, instead of their private ownership
by the Capitalist, and their operation for
sale and profits.
The worker's collective ownership of
that which, being stripped of under Capi-
talism, turns him into a wage-slave and
chattel, determines his new status. The
revolutionized status, in turn, determines
his income.
Whereas, under Capitalism, the very
question whether the worker shall at all
have an income depends upon the judg-
ment, the will or the whim of the Capital-
ist, whether the wheels of production
shall move, or shall lie idle, -- in the Co-op-
erative Commonwealth, where the worker
himself owns the necessaries for produc-
tion, no such precariousness of income
can hang over his head.
Whereas, under Capitalism, a stop-
page of production comes about when
the capitalist fears that continued produc-
tion may congest the market, thereby forc-
ing profits down, and never comes about
because there is no need of his useful articles, -
- in the Co-operative Commonwealth, use and
not sale and profits being the sole purpose of
production, no such stoppage of production,
hence, of income, is conceivable.
Whereas, under Capitalism, improved meth-
ods of production have an eye solely to an in-
crease of profits, and therefore are equivalent to
throwing workers out of work, -- in the Co-opera-
tive Commonwealth, use and not sale and prof-
its, popular wellbeing and not individual
richness, being the sole object in view, improved
methods of production, instead of throwing work-
ers out of work, will throw out hours of work, and
keep steady, if they do not increase, the flow of
income.
Consequently, and finally --The Co-operative
Commonwealth will not determine, the Co-oper-
ative Commonwealth will leave it to each worker
himself to determine his income; and that in-
come will total up to his share in the product of
the collective labor of the Commonwealth, to the
extent of his own efforts, multiplied with the free
natural opportunities and with the social facili-
ties (machinery, methods, etc.) that the genius
of society may make possible.
In other words -- differently from the state of
things under Capitalism, where the worker's fate
is at the mercy of the capitalist -- in the Co-oper-
ative Commonwealth the worker will himself de-
termine, will himself be the architect of his fate.
Excerpt from the pamphlet
"Fifteen Questions About Socialism"
by Daniel De Leon (1914)
As Karl Marx appealed to German Social De-
mocrats in his Critique of the Gotha Pro-
gramme about what first emerges from a social
revolution:
What we have to deal with here is a com-
munist society, not as it has developed on its
own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it
emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in
every respect, economically, morally, and intel-
lectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the
old society from whose womb it emerges. Ac-
cordingly, the individual producer receives back
from society -- after the deductions have been
made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has
given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For
example, the social working day consists of the
sum of the individual hours of work; the individ-
ual labor time of the individual producer is the
part of the social working day contributed by
him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from
society that he has furnished such-and-such an
amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the
common funds); and with this certificate, he
draws from the social stock of means of con-
sumption as much as the same amount of labor
cost. The same amount of labor which he has
given to society in one form, he receives back in
another.
Here, obviously, the same principle prevails
as that which regulates the exchange of com-
modities, as far as this is exchange of equal val-
ues. Content and form are changed, because
under the altered circumstances no one can give
anything except his labor, and because, on the
other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership
of individuals, except individual means of con-
sumption. But as far as the distribution of the lat-
ter among the individual producers is
concerned, the same principle prevails as in the
exchange of commodity equivalents: a given
amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an
equal amount of labor in another form.
Note the terms individual quantum of labor
and how commodities are exchanged for equal
values. In this sense, the old capitalist system
has left its birthmark on a new classless soci-
etys social relations. So and so many socially
necessary hours of labour are embodied in some
use value and traded for another use value on
the basis of how many socially necessary hours
are contained in it. Value has to be equivalent
to be traded as a commodity. The important
matter settled after a social revolution is that the
separation of the product from the producer has
been abolished with the abolition of wage-labour
because wage-labour is the mere price of the
producers labour power on the labour market,
which is for sale like any other commodity and
not connected to the amount of wealth being pro-
duced as commodities for sale on the market,
commodities owned by the employing class. The
total of socially necessary labour hours equals
the total sum of the societys wealth. Wealth in
the lower stage of communism is distributed ac-
cording to the socially necessary labour time put
in by each producer.
As Marx pointed out labour vouchers are not
money:
On the basis of socialised production the
scale must be ascertained on which those oper-
ations which withdraw labour-power and
means of production for a long time without sup-
plying any product as a useful effect in the in-
terim can be carried on without injuring
branches of production which not only withdraw
labour-power and means of production continu-
ally, or several times a year, but also supply
means of subsistence and of production. Under
socialised as well as capitalist production, the
labourers in branches of business with shorter
working periods will as before withdraw products
only for a short time without giving any products
in return; while branches of business with long
working periods continually withdraw products
for a longer time before they return anything.
This circumstance, then, arises from the mate-
rial character of the particular labour-process,
not from its social form. In the case of socialised
production the money-capital is eliminated. So-
ciety distributes labour-power and means of pro-
duction to the different branches of production.
The producers may, for all it matters, receive
paper vouchers entitling them to withdraw from
the social supplies of consumer goods a quantity
corresponding to their labour-time. These vouch-
ers are not money. They do not circulate.
CAPITAL Volume II, chapter 18, page 358
Contrary to official Trotskyist doctrine, com-
munism can be organised in one country, if that
country is as industrialised as the USA was in
1905 or Australia is today. Lots of countries
today could be socialist. None of them are.
Here's Marx again on using labour time as a
means of distribution:
"The total product of our community is a so-
cial product. One portion serves as fresh means
of production and remains social. But another
portion is consumed by the members as means
of subsistence. A distribution of this portion
amongst them is consequently necessary. The
mode of this distribution will vary with the pro-
ductive organisation of the community, and the
degree of historical development attained by the
producers. We will assume, but merely for the
sake of a parallel with the production of com-
modities, that the share of each individual pro-
ducer in the means of subsistence is determined
by his labour time. Labour time would, in that
case, play a double part. Its apportionment in ac-
cordance with a definite social plan maintains
the proper proportion between the different
kinds of work to be done and the various wants
of the community. On the other hand, it also
serves as a measure of the portion of the com-
mon labour borne by each individual, and of his
share in the part of the total product destined for
individual consumption. The social relations of
the individual producers, with regard both to
their labour and to its products, are in this case
perfectly simple and intelligible, and that with re-
gard not only to production but also to distribu-
tion."
from CAPITAL volume I, chapter one
In future, as the classless industrialised so-
ciety matures, the need for measuring an indi-
vidual producers time doing socially necessary
labour disappears and free access to the social
store of goods and services becomes the norm.
As Marx puts it:
"In a higher phase of communist society,
after the enslaving subordination of the individ-
ual to the division of labor, and therewith also
the antithesis between mental and physical
labor, has vanished; after labor has become not
only a means of life but life's prime want; after
the productive forces have also increased with
the all-around development of the individual,
and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow
more abundantly -- only then then can the nar-
row horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its
entirety and society inscribe on its banners:
From each according to his ability, to each ac-
cording to his needs!"
from the Critique of the Gotha Programme
Humans are subjects who make history.
Subjects create objects which in turn affect sub-
jects. Objects include ideas. Human subjects
who are, by force of circumstance, obliged to sell
themselves into wage-slavery in order to make a
living are in bondage in both mind and body. But,
the desire for more freedom drives social rela-
tions at the same time. Capital is the creation of
wage-labour, although most workers are not re-
minded of this relation in their daily lives. Where
there is wage-labour, there is Capital. Capital is
a social relation of unequal power, of one class
subjecting another to its rule and the ideas
which underpin that rule in order to reap the
lions share of societys wealth. Thus, Capital is
a systemic political power over its employees
based on wage labour, a system for extracting
wealth from producers and legalising its appro-
priation by the employing class through laws
passed by pre-selected politicians, workers elect
to run the political State. When we become con-
scious of this relation between ourselves and
what we create, we take the first step toward
freedom from rule by others; we start to shed the
social psychology of authoritarian character
structure which stamps our minds with the label
subaltern, a label which translates into accept-
ing TINA. There is an alternative to capitalism.
It involves the abolition of the wage system and
common ownership of the collective product of
labour under the auspices of a free association
of producers.
The alienation of the subject and object is
fundamental to class society, to exploitation of
the many by the few. Any proposition for ending
wage labour has to deal with the alienation of
the product from the producer and include a
plan for the sublation of Capital, a plan which
does not replicate the old social relations which
alienate socially generated wealth from its pro-
ducers.
16 Direct Action
Direct Action 17
T
he brutal massacre perpetrated by the Norwegian right winger An-
ders Behring Breivik has been met with shock and puzzlement, not
least amongst pundits struggling to come to terms with a terrorism
not committed by Muslims, but by a vehemently anti-Muslim rightwinger.
It is not enough to dismiss Breivik as a 'madman', or a 'nut'. His was
a carefully planned, reasoned and executed strike. Moreover, it was a
thoroughly political act, politically motivated and with political content.
Breivik's rationale was not born in a vacuum, nor was it a post-hoc ratio-
nalisation of his actions. It is telling that psychological explanations are
reserved for white terrorists, wheras the rhetoric of jihadis is taken at face
value.
Breivik's thinking is part of an identifiable current, and he says as
much, calling it the Vienna school of thought in his 1500 page mani-
festo, A European Declaration of Independence, 2083.1 When he refer-
ences Robert Spencer and Melanie Phillips, he nails his colours to the
flag of a new right-wing movement; an international conservative move-
ment which has been gestating for the past decade, facilitated primarily
by the internet. Since then, it has exploded onto the streets in the form
of the English Defence League, and entered parliament in the form of
Geert Wilders.
While the media, when critical, is content to describe this school of
thought as far-right, it stumbles when it encounters the fervent public de-
nunciations of Nazism and biological racism that are a hallmark of this
strain of rightism. Leftists, too, frequently cannot articulate what they're
about without falling back on the label of fascist. This isn't enough.
In this article, we attempt to articulate the premises, ideology and
composition of this new, radically right-wing movement. For the purposes
of argument, we call it Integralist conservatism..
Why 'integralism'?
We have already stated that it would be a mistake to define the pol-
itics of the groups under discussion as fascist. However, the movement
we describe is expanding by filling an ideological gap on the far-right,
which has been left open by an outmoded and unpalatable fascism re-
liant on biological racism and anti-semitism. By replicating enough of fas-
cism's basic assumptions and tenets primarily it's fixation on an
essential nation corrupted by both leftism and a vilified ethnic-religious
group it supercedes it in the task of providing an organisational space
for an anti-cosmopolitan, anti-'modern'2 and anti-immigration reaction.
Importantly, it has concocted a far-right ideology which is not reliant on
outmoded racial nationalism. The political toxicity of anti-semitic conspir-
acy theories based is certainly intact, but similar conspiracy theories can
be freely applied to Muslims, and frequently are in semi-mainstream po-
litical discourse and in the pages of mass-circulation newspapers like the
Daily Mail.
Similarly, students of fascist thought will sense a disturbing familiarity
with the kind of argument which blurs together Marxism, a sinister eth-
nic-religious 'enemy' and, sometimes, finance capital as an existential
threat to the nation. They will also see obvious comparisons between
proto-fascist antisemites such as Edouard Drumont, author of La France
the new integralist
conservatism
Jon Gaynor provides an introduction to the right-wing current of thought which encompasses
groups like the English Defence League, anti-Muslim bloggers and authors, and populist politi-
cal parties.
CURRENT AFFAIRS
18 Direct Action
juive (Jewish France), which claimed an ongoing
conspiracy by Jews to subjugate France, and
contemporary rightists who paint nightmarish
pictures of an imminent Sharia-dominated,
Muslim Europe. Paranoid themes of national
decline as a result of cosmopolitan decadence
and mass immigration obviously echo the prop-
aganda of fascism through the years.
However, there are significant differences
with classical fascism which sets such thought
apart. Biological racism is invariably rejected.
Similarly. rather than promulgating anti-semi-
tism, Zionism and strong support for Israeli for-
eign policy is the order of the day amongst this
new right, logically leading to a rejection of
Palestinian aspirations and often the idea that
they exist as a 'people' at all. Attempts to form
centralised, programmatic parties are rare;
rather Integralist conservatives attempt to
make their ideas the dominant ones within
right-wing discourse. When economic policy ex-
ists, it is invariably a form of idealistic neoliber-
alism, as opposed to the monopolistic
corporatism of fascist capitalism. Most impor-
tantly, the idealised, essential 'nation' being de-
fended from the Muslim-Marxist threat is not
the romantic, pre-industial racist fantasy of neo-
Nazis, but liberal democracy before the advent
of mass immigration in the late 1950s. These
new rightwingers frequently make much of their
anti-Nazi credentials, identifying Western Civili-
sation before the current fall with the western
democracies which took part in the second
world war.
For this reason, we argue here that this new
right should be defined on its own terms. We
call it 'integralist conservatism'. The rationale
for this is twofold. Firstly, it has its origins in the
fringes of the mainstream right, rather than fas-
cist circles (although it is successfully penetrat-
ing and supplanting classical fascism within the
far-right, especially online). It's tenets are the
subject of bestselling books by the likes of
Robert Spencer and Melanie Phillips, it's Mus-
lim-baiting is mirrored in the pages of the Daily
Mail and Express. Secondly, we use 'integralism'
not in the sense of fascist economic integral-
ism, but rather the viewpoint which sees an es-
sential, unitary nation corrupted by external
conspiracy. In the case of fascism, this was an
alliance of Jews, Marxists and cosmopolitan po-
litical elites . The new right finds this alliance in
Muslims, multiculturalists and leftists.
Integralist conservatism is not a moniker
that has been used by any of the groups or
thinkers under discussion, nor is it likely ever to
be, but it is an appropriate enough term to de-
scribe the politics of the movement.
As with classical fascism, the new integral-
ist conservatism has no central codification in
the writings of a founding intellectual, and its
lack of enshrinement in party platforms (with
limited exceptions) means that there is no writ-
ten set of tenets to refer to. However, it exists
as a recognisable body of thought, and was
identifiable enough to Breivik as the Vienna
school of thought. Its basic assumptions and
propositions are:
* Identification of a monolithic 'Islam' as an im-
mediate and existential threat to 'the West'.
* Clash of civilisations thesis.
* Belief in an ongoing Islamification of Western
culture, as both a conscious effort by Muslims
and a result of Muslim immigration.
* Opposition to multiculturalism as the facilita-
tor of Islamisation.
* Inability to explain the explain the advent of
multiculturalism without recourse to conspiracy
theories about Marxist seizure of academia and
political institutions (as opposed to, for in-
stance, the precedent of communalism in the
British Empire).
*Hostility to Marxism, in both its real and per-
ceived manifestations.
* Where an economic outlook exists, it is invari-
ably a form of laissez-faire neoliberalism
We will next outline the actual composition
of this movement.
The integralist axis: rightist authors, Defence
leagues, the populist parties
Modern integralist conservatism exists pri-
marily as an internet-facilitated axis between
rightwing authors and bloggers, street-based,
hooligan-orientated street outfits such as the
English Defence league, and the rightwing pop-
ulist parties and politicians espousing it's
tenets. Primary amongst these parties is Geert
Wilders' Party for Freedom in Holland.
We will here provide short briefings on
these actors:
1. Rightist authors
Robert Spencer. The American founder of
the Jihadwatch and Dhimmiwatch websites,
and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to
Islam, Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Sub-
verting America without Guns or Bombs and
The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Ad-
ministration's War on America with Pamela
Geller (see below) amongst other texts. Founder
of Stop the Islamisation of America and Free-
dom Defense Initiative with Pamela Geller. His
core argument is that Islam is monolithic, inher-
ently violent and is engaged in a conspiracy to
Islamise the West. Quoted extensively by mass
murderer Anders Breving Breivik in his mani-
festo.
- Pamela Geller. American author, founder
of the Atlas Shrugs blog, co-founder of Stop the
Islamisation of America and co-author of The
Post-American Presidency: The Obama Admin-
istration's War on America with Robert Spencer.
Best known for her role in whipping up the con-
troversy around the so-called ground zero
Mosque, an Islamic community centre two
blocks away from the World Trade Centre. Ar-
gues that Muslims are actively imposing Sharia
law on the United States. Strong supporter of Is-
raeli foreign policy, claims that Palestinians do
not exist, advocates annexation of Gaza, the de-
portation of anti-war and civil rights activists
from Israel, etc. Supports the EDL and mur-
dered South African white supremacist Eugene
Terrre'Blanche. Has connections with the US
Tea Party and the birther movement, contin-
ues to claim Obama is not an American despite
the release of his long-form birth certificate, etc.
- Gisle Littman, aka Bat Ye'or. Egyptian-
born British writer, author of eight books. Cen-
tral focus on the condition of non-Muslims in
Muslim-majority countries. Founder of term
'dhimmitude', ubiquitous amongst the conser-
vative integralist movement and used in refer-
ence to the supposed aim of Muslims in the
west to subjugate the 'native' populations under
Sharia law. Similarly the originator of the term
'Eurabia', which she claims is a conspiracy be-
tween European and Arab establishments to
isolate Israel and contend with the United
States; however it is also frequently used in in-
tegralist conservative circles to refer to the sup-
posed immediate future of a Europe dominated
by Islam.
- Oriana Fallaci. Deceased Italian journalist
who authored a number of stongly anti-Muslim
books after retirement, claimed that Europe
had already become Eurabia, paints Euopean
Muslims as dangerous parasites on the body of
Western civilisation, foreign Muslim populations
as engaging in a seige of Europe and calls for
Western governments to enact harsher policies
against Islamofascism frequently defined as
Islam generally.
- Other writers popular amongst Integralist
Conservatives include, Ibn Warraq, Bruce
Bawar, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Daniel Pipes, Melanie
Phillips and Christopher Hitchens (his later, pro-
war and anti-Islamist writing).
Street Movements
- English Defence League. Loosely-organ-
ised, street-based counter-Jihad movement.
It has no formal membership structures, and
has been organised almost entirely through the
internet, primarily using Facebook. It has a self-
appointed leadership, with Tommy Robinson
- a.k.a. tanning salon proprietor Stephen Yaxley-
Lennon - at it's head. The EDL generally claims
membership on the basis of users of its Face-
book group and forums, but actual attendence
at its national demonstrations does not appear
to have ever exceeded 3,000. Considerably
smaller numbers have appeared when it has
called simultaneous local demonstrations with-
out national mobilisation in advance.
The EDL has no clear policies or positions
on anything other than opposition to Islamic
extremism. However, it's website and spokes-
people nearly always present a monolithic
'Islam' as the problem.4 Thinly-veiled Muslim-
baiting forms the basis for most of their activi-
ties, and they present everything from the
existence of British-Pakistani drug dealers, the
targeting of white teenagers for grooming by
Asian sex offenders, the serving of halal meat
at some fast food outlets and hit-and-run
deaths by Asian drivers as part of a Jihad
against the UK.
Their demonstrations have frequently led to
rampages through Asian areas, and attacks on
local residents. An EDL march in Leicester led
to an attack on a local fast food restaurant
called Big John's, which was filled with terrified
dining families5, and other Asian-owned busi-
nesses6. Asian taxi drivers, and even passing
Direct Action 19
motorists have been on the receiving end of
mob attacks by EDL demonstrators.
The EDL are also increasingly taking an
agressively anti-leftist stance, initially it appears
as a response to the ubiquitous counter-demon-
strations by the SWP front group Unite Against
Fascism, but now taking the form of opposition
to a conspiratorial alliance between 'commu-
nists' and Islamism.7 This has also led to the
EDL carrying articles attacking trade unions
and the labour party as part of an ongoing and
covert Marxist campaign against Britain.
This opposition to the left has manifested
itself in a number of violent attacks on left-wing
and anti-racist events. In the wake of the stu-
dent protests of 2010-2011, which saw the oc-
cupation of the Conservative party's Millbank
offices in November 2011, Yaxley-Lennon
threatened that further student
protests would be opposed by the
EDL. This opposition did not appear.
However, EDL groups have organ-
ised attacks on smaller, softer tar-
gets instead. April saw an attack by
40 chanting EDL supporters on an
anti-racist meeting in Brighton,
though they were unable to force the
doors. In May 2011 EDL members
threw bricks at the windows of a
community centre in Barking while
an anti-racist meeting took place in-
side. June saw them attack an anti-
racist gig in Leeds, while in July
2011 EDL plans to attack a Sre-
brenica Massacre memorial event in
Manchester were foiled partly due to
the police noticing its public organi-
sation on Facebook, as well as mili-
tant antifascist opposition from
Manchester Anti-Fascist Alliance and Irish Re-
publicans on the day.
However, none of this is to gift them the
'hard man' image they desperately desire. On a
number of occasions they have come seriously
unstuck when dealing with militant anti-fascist
groups and other physical opposition. They were
driven off in their aforementioned attack on the
Rage against Racism event in Leeds, with a
leading Bradford EDL 'celebrity' requiring urgent
medical attention. A marauding group of of EDL
members ran into difficulty in Bristol last year
when they mistook militant anti-fascists for UAF
members, and were forced to seek sanctuary
behind police lines and in the back of ambu-
lances. On numerous occasions the EDL have
not fared well when they come up against de-
termined opposition by local Asian youths.
The EDL have also attempted to cultivate
links with loyalist terrorist organisations in
Northern Ireland, as well as with Ulster Loyalism
in general.8 This has led to increased interest
in them from Irish republican groupings.
- EDL splinter groups.
Partly as a result of internal power struggles
between local top boys and the self-appointed
EDL leadership, and partly as a result of conflict
between more classically racist elements in the
EDL and those who want to promote a multira-
cial image, a number of splinter groups have
been set up in the north of England which have
an uneasy relationship with the EDL 'main-
stream'. Members also go by the moniker 'UAF
hunting club'.
The main groups are the North West and
North East Infidels. They are more openly vio-
lent and racist in their public posturing, but it is
yet to be seen whether they have the capacity
to back this up with actions. They have fewer
reservations about working with openly Neo-
Nazi elements, and members have been impli-
cated in the relaunch of the notorious Redwatch
website.9
Due to the EDL having no formal member-
ship structure, the 'infidels' still attend EDL
events and demonstrations, leading in some in-
stances to infighting between factions. This was
the case during their botched demonstration in
Blackburn in 2011.
-Other 'defence leagues'.
Following the success and publicity enjoyed
by the EDL, there have been attempts to set up
copycat organisations in various European
countries. None of these have seen any suc-
cess, partly because of concerted opposition
from the get-go. The first event organised by the
Norwegian Defence League, for instance, saw
overwhelming opposition from anti-Fascists less
squeamish about physical confrontation than
Unite Against Fascism.
The EDL have also attempted to cultivate
links with elements within the right-wing Tea
Party movement in America. The orginal 'de-
fence league', the far-right, terrorist Jewish De-
fence League have also voiced support for the
EDL.
European Right-wing populism
The third element of the integralist conser-
vative axis is an increasing section of populist
right-wing parties in Europe. In an atmosphere
of anti-Muslim populism manifested in bans on
minarets and veils, fertile space is being cre-
ated in the mainstream for Integralist conserva-
tive politics. Far-right parties with roots in
classical fascism, such as the BNP, are moving
over to a much more marketable Conservative
Integralist position. Due to the shades of influ-
ence such thinking enjoys in various parties in
different countires, we will only concentrate on
the leading example here.
- Geert Wilders and the Party for Freedom
Geert Wilders has rapidly become a figurehead
and talisman for Conservative Integralists. Bre-
vik described Wilders' party as the only one fit
for conservatives, while the EDL have organised
solidarity demonstrations with Wilders,
The flamboyant Wilders has built a career
around his crusade the halt the Islamisation of
Europe, and his positions have become the
bread and butter of contervative integralist
thought: a ban on the Koran, a halt to the build-
ing of Mosques, and the end of immigration
from Muslim countries. In as far as his policies
are shared throughout the movement, his
canny opposition to the traditional Eurofascist
right and its leaders such as Jean-Marie Le Pen
and Jorg Haider has been replicated in the pub-
lic distancing of the BNP by the EDL, despite
many hushed-up links between the
two.10 The success of Wilders' Party
for Freedom, which is now the third-
largest opposition party in Holland,
may well be a glimpse into the future
for other countries.
Opposition
In discussing the advent of what we
call here integralist conservatism,
the obvious point of what we want to
achieve by doing so arises.
Firstly, tactical knowledge is impor-
tant. We can expect to be confronted
by these people; EDL activists are now
attempting to press the left and anti-
fascists in a way similar to NF activists
in the 1970s. They have made it clear
that socialists of all kinds and anti-
racist organisers are now targets, as a
result we will need to actively defend
ourselves. We need to be clear who we are deal-
ing with, especially to inform propaganda, as it
is not enough to shout 'Nazi' at an opposition
who are overwhelmingly not Nazis.
Secondly we can expect this mode of
thought to be at the leading edge of any reac-
tionary movements which may emerge in the
near future. Given the stated hostility of the
EDL, for example, towards strikers, trade
unions, anti-cuts and student protestors we can
expect these people to be the unofficial street
wing of reaction should any large scale strug-
gles arise.
Lastly, these ideas are nowhere near as far
from the mainstream as, for example, the fas-
cism of the National Front. Hostility to Muslims
permeates political discourse, the official
enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan is Muslim, the
terrorist we are supposed to be constantly vigi-
lant against is always presumed to be a Muslim,
the examples are countless. In a climate of re-
action, we should not be surprised to see these
kinds of ideas to form the ideological cover for
a general assault by capital, with the enemies
of 'freedom' in the unions, the 'Muslim commu-
nity' and the left taking the role of public enemy,
and the working class divided on communal
lines.
20 Direct Action
The practical everyday activity of wage-workers reproduces wage
labor and capital. Through their daily activities, "modern" men, like
tribesmen and slaves, reproduce the inhabitants, the social relations
and the ideas of their society; they reproduce the social form of daily
life. Like the tribe and the slave system, the capitalist system is neither
the natural nor the final form of human society; like the earlier social
forms, capitalism is a specific response to material and historical con-
ditions .
- Fredy Perlman
Workers are human beings, and human beings are sexual beings.
Thus sexuality forms an aspect of social reproduction. Yet frequently
when sexuality is discussed on the left, recourse is made to theories
which date, at best, from the 1960s, as if there have been no histor-
ical developments in the intervening decades.
The repression thesis: Reich, and Brinton
Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957) was a psychoanalyst who fused Freud
with Marx, before going a bit batshit and claiming to have discovered
a 'primordial cosmic energy' called 'orgone' that caused weather
events, the colour of the sky, gravity and the formation of galaxies.
And orgasms. Reich's earlier work was repopularised during the
1960s, primarily by Solidarity member Maurice Brinton's pamphlet
'The Irrational in Politics' (I'm using '60s' figuratively here in the collo-
quial sense for the period 1968-72, rather than literally. This pamphlet
was published in 1970). Solidarity's introduction to the pamphlet de-
scribes its central thesis as follows:
...an attempt to analyse the various mechanisms whereby modern
society manipulates its slaves into accepting their slavery and - at
least in the short term - seems to succeed. It does not deal with 'po-
lice' and 'jails' as ordinarily conceived but with those internalised pat-
terns of repression and coercion, and with those intellectual prisons
in which the 'mass individual' is today entrapped (...) It looks at the
family as the locus of reproduction of the dominant ideology, and at
sexual repression as an important determinant of social conditioning,
resulting in the mass production of individuals perpetually craving au-
thority and leadership and forever afraid of walking on their own or
of thinking for themselves.
Consequently Reich linked the predominant sexuality with the pre-
dominant social relations, and saw the mechanism for this linkage as
being sexual repression; the behaviours promoted by traditional
Judeo-Christian morality - monogamous marriage, kids disciplined for
wanking etc. The prevailing material relations of society - in particular
the family - were seen to produce certain ideas - in particular craving
authority - which in turn reproduced authoritarian society in a dialec-
tical interaction. This idea had an obvious resonance with libertarians,
who saw a clear political implication; the Man doesn't want you to have
fun, so fun is subversive in itself and you can fuck your way out of cap-
italist society. The most hilarious contemporary example of this comes
from the lifestyle anarchist group CrimethInc, who in their article
"washing... and brainwashing" list the first of "eight reasons why cap-
italists want to sell you deoderant" as:
Body smells are erotic and sexual. Capitalists don't like that be-
cause they are impotent and opposed to all manifestations of sensu-
ality and sexuality. Sexually awakened people are potentially
dangerous to capitalists and their rigid, asexual system.
While this is only the most ridiculous example, these sentiments
are not restricted to lifestylist muppets, and crop up during many dis-
cussions with class struggle anarchists too, attracted by the libertine
slogan 'it is forbidden to forbid.' For example an article by the Anarchist
Federation concludes that:
When people are really being sexually honest, some weird shit can
start to happen. And that, in its own way, can be quite revolutionary.
by Joseph Kay
This article is partially the product of ongoing discussions within the Solidarity Federation (UK
sister organisation of the IWW) over the relationship of 'Anarchy, Sex and Freedom,' but also
the reliance among the wider left on dated theories from the 1960s whenever the question of
sexuality is raised. The following is a speculative attempt to fill in some of the gaps.
RePRODUCtION: SOCIal
aND SexUal
THEORY
Direct Action 21
There are two reasons this is problematic;
the first is the speculative nature of Reich's
theories in the first place, the second is the
massive social changes that have taken place
since 1960s which would render them of pri-
marily historical interest even if the theories
themselves were shown to be sound. How-
ever, for the purpose of this blog there is one
thing we can take from Brinton; the thesis
that prevailing sexuality and prevailing social
relations are not independent phenomena.
Before leaving the 60s, we should consider
the theories of Mariarosa Dalla Costa and
Selma James, who addressed this question
from the point of view of housewives.
The power of women... and the subversion of
the community?
Dalla Costa and James adopted a sim-
ilar framework to Brinton, writing that:
The women's movement has gone
into greater detail about the capitalist
family. After describing how women are
conditioned to be subordinated to men,
it has described the family as that insti-
tution where the young are repressed
from birth to accept the discipline of
capitalist relations-which in Marxist
terms begins with the discipline of cap-
italist work.
For Dalla Costa and James, it is
"worth pointing out that women for
whom sexual exploitation is the basic
social contradiction provide an ex-
tremely important index of the degree
of our own frustration, experienced by
millions of women." Unlike the prevail-
ing (Althusserian) Marxist orthodoxy of
the day, they did not set up an a priori
privileging of the economic 'base' over
the socio-cultural 'superstructure,' but
instead set out to critically investigate
the prevailing structures of gender and
class from the starting point of the ex-
perience of proletarian women.
This led them to describe a growing rejec-
tion of sexual relations that were at once
power relations - typified by the lesbian move-
ment which rejected relations with men alto-
gether as inherently hierarchical, at least
under prevailing social relations. They con-
tinue that:
In order to understand the frustrations of
women expressing themselves in ever-in-
creasing forms, we must be clear what in the
nature of the family under capitalism precip-
itates a crisis on this scale. The oppression
of women, after all, did not begin with capi-
talism. What began with capitalism was the
more intense exploitation of women as
women and the possibility at last of their lib-
eration.
Consequently, the experiences of women
increasingly challenging the prevailing 'wom-
ans place' in society were situated historically
within the framework of capitalist social rela-
tions. Overwhelmingly at the time, this was
the experiences of housewives, long-ignored
by Marxist theorists busy fetishising their
blue-collar husbands in the vast car factories
that formed the backbone of global value pro-
duction for most of the 20th century (see Bev-
erly Silver's 'Forces of Labour'). From this
point of departure they go on to describe in
much more detail the way in which the hidden
reproductive labour of housewives (cooking,
washing, childcare...) is indispensible to the
reproduction of labour power, and thus capi-
talist production, since without it their hus-
bands could not return refreshed and ready
to work the next day and there wouldn't be a
new generation of workers to replace them
once capital had exhausted their productive
capacities. They conclude that:
The housewife's situation as a pre-capitalist
mode of labor and consequently this "femi-
ninity" imposed upon her (...) So when we say
that women must overthrow the relation of
domestic-work-time to non-domestic-time
and must begin to move out of the home, we
mean their point of departure must be pre-
cisely this willingness to destroy the role of
housewife.
Leaving the 60s...
Reich/Brinton's thesis is not entirely histori-
cal, nor entirely speculative; one only need
consider Iran where homosexuality is punish-
able by death and all sexual relations outside
marriage are prohibited to see that sexual re-
pression can be used as a form of social con-
trol. It's not just Iran either; abortion remains
illegal in Northern Ireland. Similarly, Dalla
Costa/James' exposition of the indispensibil-
ity of unwaged, domestic labour to the repro-
duction of industrial workers remains a
compelling argument. But what stands out
about Iran (and only slighly less so for North-
ern Ireland wink ) is precisely its status as a
reactionary, religiously backwards anachro-
nism in relation to the contemporary liberal
west (which is my point of reference for this
discussion). Similarly, the arguments about
the housewife-factory worker dyad are a vic-
tim of their own insistence that the role of
women can only be understood in its his-
torical context; the very societies at which
the critique was aimed have since moved
from 70% male-dominated, primary and
secondary industries to over 70% tertiary
sector with an increasingly causalised,
mixed-sex workforce.
To a certain extent, this shift can be seen
as a success of the very rejection of the
role of the housewife Dalla Costa and
James called for. Women have struggled
for legal equality and to a large extent this
has been achieved de jure, although rarely
yet de facto. On the other hand it can be
seen as a reflection of the economic re-
structuring required to maintain capital ac-
cumlation in the face of militant workforces
in the mines and factories of the first world;
these industries were outsourced overseas
(recreating the same contradicitons there
- again Beverly Silver's book is instructive),
and consequently the role of the housewife
became expendable and womens de-
mands to leave the home could be acco-
modated within the new 'post-industrial'
mode of accumulation (the term 'post-in-
dustrial' is problematic because industry
has only gone away in a geographic sense,
but it's workable for dealing with societies
such as our own as entities in their own
right, although their global interconnection
can't be forgotten). Thus the relation between
family structures and class composition is a
dialectical one - there's a feedback loop, but
unpicking causality even retrospectively is a
matter of chicken and egg.
The important thing for the discussion at
hand however is that this shift has occured,
both in the mode of accumulation and the
prevailing family and sexual norms. Conser-
vatives lament the decline of 'family values'
by which they mean the marriage as a patri-
archal, proprietory institution in much the
same way as leftists lament the 'disappear-
ance' of the blue collar working class to whom
their affirmative fetishes of social change
were so closely tied. Consequently, attacking
conservative, repressed religious morality
misses the boat - by several decades. After all
I'd wager far more people queue for clubs on
22 Direct Action
a Saturday night in the hope of a casual fuck
with a stranger than roll into church the next
day to be lectured about such behaviour. The
lesson of the past decades is there's nothing
subversive about who or how you fuck. In fact
promiscuous sexuality provides the perfect
foil to 'tolerant' post-industrial liberal multicul-
tural consumer capitalism, in much the same
way as conservative religious morality compli-
mented a society of factory discipline and nu-
clear families with its roles of the
breadwinner and the housewife.
...And arriving in the present
Just think of the proliferation of gay pride
marches, the pink pound etc. Demographics.
Target markets. Far from being a "rigid, asex-
ual system", if going out on the weekend and
engaging in whatever sexual activity floats our
boat helps us distract/recharge ourselves
ready to return to work on Monday morning,
then capital's all for it. I think the most useful
theorist for the post-60s context is Slavoj
iek. iek argues that sexual repression
has largely been replaced by 'jouissance' ('ex-
cess enjoyment') in consumer capitalism.
Capital has fully endorsed the slogan 'it is for-
bidden to forbid', and the injunction is now to
indulge to excess (for iek the commodity
that epitomises this is chocolate laxatives).
Under the dictum 'sex sells' the universal
commodification that characterises capitalist
development is accompanied by a universal
sexualisation. So we read articles perving
about the 15 year-old Charlotte Church's tits
opposite an article decrying satire of pae-
dophile hysteria as 'sick'; jouissance overleaf
from repression. In fact arguably anti-pae-
dophile hysteria can only be understood as a
product of a society that pervasively sexu-
alises its pre-pubescents (Bratz etc); specta-
cle aghast at its own reflection?
iek would argue todays 'sexual revolu-
tionaries' are the 'Silver Ring Thing' kids,
since they defy todays injunction to 'be sexual'
in much the same way as 60s sexual rebels
defied prudish 'square' society. Of course
such knee-jerk opposition to social norms is
another example of the slave morality I like to
bang on about on the pages of this blog. And
here's the twist in iek. He argues that the
permissiveness of modern society in many
ways represents a more autocratic mode
than good old fashioned prohibition, which
was at least honest about it. He uses the ex-
ample of US Amish communities, who raise
their kids in rural isolation for 18 years then
let them loose in the cities with the flurry of
drugs, sex and rock'n'roll that entails. But the
'permissiveness' of the community towards
its new adults represents a hidden autocracy;
unprepared for urban society, after a few
years of excess most kids return to the com-
fort of the rural community, to raise their kids
the same way in turn. for iek this is an alle-
gory of the empty freedom of consumer cap-
italism.
Does the allegory hold for contemporary
'liberated' sexuality? Certainly the patriarchal
family seems to have declined in utility to cap-
ital, as mothers are coerced back into the
labour market - where they have become an
essential part of the waged labour force - as
soon as possible. However, government plans
to cement this tendency by extending school
hours have so far come to nothing. It would
appear capital cannot afford to supplant the
family as the basic unit of child-raising, for the
time being at least. Consequently, contempo-
rary sexuality does bear some resemblance
to iek's allegory; caught between sexual
freedom and the necessities of child-raising,
the nuclear, patriarchal family no longer oc-
cupies as central a role as it once did as a
plethora of roles proliferate, but yet neither
are gender roles abolished altogether in a
movement to make all concrete labour ab-
stract.
Some further speculations
In light of this discussion, certain theoretical
speculations come to mind. The lesson
seems to be that the prevailing sexualities of
industrial and post-industrial capitalism - re-
pressive and permissive respectively - are
mirror images of one another. Both appear to
be based on a separation of physical and
emotional intimacy. Whilst the repressive/in-
dustrial mode, via religious morality frames
sex as simply a procreative necessity, the per-
missive/post-industrial mode presents it as a
pleasurable end in itself. Both separate sex
from emotional content, but in different ways.
Whilst under the repressive mode, sex be-
comes a proprietory right of the husband
(marital rape in the UK was only criminalised
in 1991), under the permissive mode casually
fucking strangers is best practiced in the
manner iek describes as "only masturba-
tion with a real partner."
Of course it must be stressed that to re-
duce the breadth of contemporary sexuality to
these two mirrored poles would be to gravely
misrepresent reality. Pre-60s sexual life wasn't
uniformly functional and monogamous, and
post-1960s there hasn't been one long orgy of
promiscuity (at least outside the deluded
nightmares of social conservatives). It should
also be stressed that none of these categories
are making moral judgements, merely analyt-
ical ones. I don't particularly care who or how
you like to fuck, I'm more concerned with how
the construction of dominant sexualities re-
flects and is reflected in the social relations of
which they form a part. Furthermore, the
posited separation of emotional and physical
intimacy on which I speculate these repres-
sive/permissive modes are based is far more
conceptual than actual, as anyone with a rea-
sonably active sex life will tell you. More what
I'm describing is two ideal types that exist as
real tendencies and to some extent express
the dialectical relationship between sexuality
and social reproduction.
So to try and conclude things; this blog is
necessarily speculative, But it does beg sev-
eral questions theoretical and empirical. How
does this cultural reproduction take place, if
not by Reichian repression of childhood sex-
uality centred on the family? By what means
are sexual norms reproduced, and by what
means do they come to reflect - or indeed be
reflected by - the prevailing regime of accu-
mulation? Empirically, do attitudes to sex and
sexual practices (which are not the same
thing) actually reflect the prevailing mode of
accumulation? If hegemonic sexuality does
reflect the needs of the prevailing mode of ac-
cumulation, do sexual counter-cultures there-
fore have revolutionary potential after all? On
this last point I feel confident enough to an-
swer: No. Such counter-cultures simply signify
the inadequacy of the prevailing mode of so-
cial reproduction to guarantee social stability;
they'd need to be a reflection of class struggle
to imply revolutionary potential. For example
a massive growth of the 'Silver Ring Thing'
would signify social production based on
norms of sexual promiscuity is breaking
down, but would pose no threat to capital per
se unless the birth rate fell so low as to
threaten the future reproduction of labour
power. In any case abstinance-only programs
don't tend to reduce the pregnancy rate, for
example according to the American Academy
of Pediatrics teen pregnancy policy:
Even though there is great enthusiasm in
some circles for abstinence-only interven-
tions, the evidence does not support absti-
nence-only interventions as the best way to
keep young people from unintended preg-
nancy.
Consequently, the lesson of the past
decades is that who or how you fuck is in the
final analysis apolitical. While open homosex-
uality is a political (and perhaps suicidal) act
in Iran, this is because it is in contradiction to
a particular mode of accumulation, not capi-
tal accumulation per se. At most, changes in
attitudes to sexuality will accompany up-
surges in class struggle - indeed they must.
But it's only in connection with class struggle
that such struggles can take on a revolution-
ary aspect rather than altering the configura-
tion of capitalist reproduction (not necessarily
a bad thing as Iranian gays will be the first to
tell you); you can't fuck - or abstain - your way
out of social relation based on material dis-
possession. Equally, fun doesn't have to be
revolutionary, and like most things sex is
more fun when you leave the politics out of it.
Read more from Joseph Kays blog
at http://libcom.org/blog/1768
Direct Action 23
How did The MOLOTOV get started and what
was the impetus behind getting the band to-
gether?
SCART: The MOLOTOV started as a solo proj-
ect really. I hadn't done any serious song writ-
ing for years since my original band, Berzerk
Surgeons, had split. The more the (John
Howard Government took away freedoms,
took part in wars to appease the U.S.A & took
peoples rights away, the more I started get-
ting pissed off & feeling the need to write
things down, which in turn became songs on
different issues. It was mostly me & my guitar
playing over backing tracks at the start, gigs
at parties, rallies, anti-war protests, etc. A
mate of mine, Stef Petrik, then came on
board & we added fem vocals to the writing
on songs like Mother & Terror Nullius. She
left (she had a UK poetry tour & some health
issues that came up) just after Matt (Bass)
joined, then KT (fem vocalist) found us, then
Stu (drums) & about a year later Dan (key-
boards/guitar) joined us.
Does the fact that Howard is no longer in
power make a significant difference to the
MOLOTOV, or are there reasons for you to
continue tackling the kind of issues in your
songs that you do?
SCART: Howard was just one nasty little
speed bump on the road to a better world &
gimps like him are always going to pop their
ugly little heads up. We had one song about
him (Howard the Coward) but like most of his
kind, once out of power, they quickly become
irrelevant. Although hearing that that mon-
grel in Norway touted him as a "great leader"
for his racist policies did kind of place him in
context. Howard's "Elmer Fudd" protege, Tony
Abbott is nearly as annoying but there's not
enough to him to write a song about really
aside from a few half-witted lines & his knee
jerk populist bullshit. I'm hoping an adult has
taken over the LNP by the time the next elec-
tion rolls up.
Tell us a bit more about the issues you talk
about in your songs and what is it about
them that you consider worth turning into
songs.
SCART: I guess we bring up things like the
Iraq War (The Common), the Palestine/Israel
struggle (Mother & Star), the whole Socialism
vrs Capitalism debate (In The Red, Class
Enemy), the media & industries attempts to
control women & the way they think & view
themselves (Doll) & a variety of others includ-
ing racism, war, personal & political freedom.
It's usually a case of whatever we feel
strongly about, whether those ideas are
classed as political, personal or social. Some-
times the topics might be serious but not al-
ways the way we say it. We're not really a
"dead serious band" in a dogmatic sense so
some songs, like Go Back To Sleep, Cannibal
Bar & Grill, ToyTown etc are done with hu-
mour & a good dose of aussie punk irrever-
ence. As we've said before, we intend to rock
the f*ck out & change the world at the same
time.
rom a writing point of view for me, the
truth is it's usually not a conscious "topic
driven" thought like "I want to write about this
issue". It's more a case of you feel strongly
about certain things & your ideas, opinions
& thoughts on it ferment. Sometimes they
start as a line, a riff, a vague idea or some-
times you wake up & the entire thing is fully
formed in your head like "FREE". I can't imag-
ine sitting down with a set idea of a topic
would result in much useful.
Why is it important for the MOLOTOV, indeed
for any band, to comment on political and so-
cial issues?
Interview:
the molOtOv
by Direct Action
The MOLOTOV are an energetic 5-piece from the Gold Coast, Queensland. Their music invites
comparions with such greats as Rage Against the Machine, Nine Inch Nails, Crass and the
Dead Kennedys while their lyrics offer highly principled perspectives on a range of social
issues. Direct Action spoke to lead singer SCART via email.
CULTURE
SCART: I'll be honest: I don't like Politics. But
the bottom line is that POLITICS is the name
of the system that they use to control us. It's
how they control our lives & our world. If po-
litical & social opinions are only kept in the
narrow & rigid structure that media moguls
like Murdoch, academics & politicians want
so they can control them, then they'd shut
down all real debate in the public. When I
write about workers rights or human rights
it's not abstract, I'm writing about my rights
& about the rights of those around me.
When KT writes about the pressure on
young women to conform, it's not an abstract
idea, it's the reality that's on the front of every
Vogue & Cleo. It's on every anorexia prone
model catwalk & it's there every day.
Musicians, poets, artists, film makers,
etc have always commented, illustrated &
highlighted different social & political ideas
for hundreds of years. I think sometimes it's
our job to bring the emotion back to some of
these dry, formal topics & remind people that
all of these "issues" affect real people in the
real world & have real impact on human be-
ings like ourselves. Without bands & artists
like Dead Kennedys, Rise Against, Rage
Against The Machine, Green Day, Midnight
Oil & the thousands of other artists that bring
a more human lens to some issues & situa-
tions, we'd only have corporate media ram-
ming the opinions of the rich down out
throats every night (masquerading as impar-
tial news), bland pop songs & empty eye-
candy movies.
Having every song as a political or social
message would be equally as dull but without
artists singing about the realities of our lives
& the world around us sometimes, all we'd
have is corporate lullabies to lull us back to
sleep while the machine grinds away.
What sort of sound does the MOLOTOV aim
for? Who do you look up to?
Don't know if we really aim for a particular
sound, it's more an evolutionary process
where bring bring all our influences together
and try to give each song whatever it needs
to work, regardless of it's style or feel,
whether it be metal, reggae, rock, punk, elec-
tro etc. I guess the clearest sound possible
is the best we can hope for. Inspiration wise,
a lot of the music artists I mentioned before
as well as people like Bill Hicks, Diego Rivera,
Arundhati Roy. A lot of the time some of the
most inspiring things can be just seeing nor-
mal people coming together, giving up their
time, money & energy to change things,
protest injustice & stand up for that they be-
lieve. They could be sitting home, watching
the footy, out drinking etc but they choose to
work hard to make a difference in the world.
Then hopefully, they go out for a beer &
watch the footy or a band later, otherwise
they'll burn out.
Describe your ideal gig.
An "ideal" gig would probably be thousands
of people that get what you're saying & are
just rockin their arse off to your music. Gerry
Keaney reminded me not long ago that what
you want, especially with our kind of music,
is a quality audience over quantity. 10,000
people half listening, waiting for the next
band or just not "getting you" isn't worth
1,000 people going off chops, with you %100
and singing along.
Describe your best gig.
We've had a lot of good gigs, love playin Shed
5 & had some good gigs at The Wallaby Hotel
amongst others. The Gold Coast is a hard
place to navigate due to it's "long footpath
style" of development but we've had some
great crowds here and in Brisbane. Also had
some gigs are more memorable than others.
I once played about 5 songs at an anti-Iraq
war rally in Brissy years back & playing to
people that are bouncing along with a line of
cops standing behind them tapping their
hand-cuffs in time to "Go Back To Sleep" was
kind of surreal.
Future aspirations/goals?
As I said earlier, to rock the f*ck out &
change the world at the same time.To take
the band as far as possible, sound wise,
music & experimentation wise & success
wise. To continue to write, play, record &
reach as many people as possible & start
people thinking about issues like greed, op-
pression, racism, sexism, nationalism, capi-
talism etc. I don't care if people don't agree
with me on different things, as long as they
actually think things through & not swallow
what they're fed. Eventual success and world
domination on our own terms I guess.
Where can we find you?
We're Gold Coast based but we're happy to
accept tour offers down south or up north &
where ever else things take us. Online you
can find our tunes & pics at http://www.my-
space.com/themolotov1 and talk with us on
FaceBook at http://www.facebook.com/the-
molotov . We can be emailed at themolo-
tov@scart69.net & called for bookings on
0404061699.