Joining the dots
As a consequence of the Warsaw pact unravelling in 1990 bitter rivalries that had been buried by communism resurfaced. Grievances that had never been resolved exploded resulting in ethnic cleansing and mass killings. With political restraints removed tribal blood-letting swept through the Balkans and beyond. Glasnost not only opened up political discourse it opened up old wounds for which the liberal West had no answer.
Consolidatiion of power often brings with it a faux peace. If you can get everyone to repeat the same mantra or buy into a common message you can smother dissent and if you can get the media to buy into your narrative (other than nationalising it), any dissent then becomes treachery. Many concepts around freedom, liberty and justice become distorted within such a paradigm. People develop a kind of Stockholm syndrome identifying with, and trusting, those to whom they are captive politically and economically.
One of those concepts is unity – if only we can come together under a common cause we can fight a common enemy. But oftentimes its the dominating faction or beaurocracy within the organisation that makes the call so its of a conservative nature and calls for normalisation rather than radicalism. Radicals tend to come together behind an objective that is not homogeneous in itself but held together by common ideals. Where nation states and corporations control the flow of goods and capital and rely on economic and political stability the status quo remains in control with a narrow monolithic message.
When the Berlin Wall came down Margaret Thatcher said that where people have the freedom to choose they will choose freedom. While we would like to believe that, its seldom the case in practice. Offer someone stability and creature comforts in exchange for liberty alone and they are very likely to accept the deal. One of the planks of neoliberalism is the freedom to choose but as Tony Benn put it, “people in debt are slaves to their employers”. You only have the freedom to choose when you can afford what’s on offer. The freedom she referred to is largely illusory.
The interesting phenomenon we are seeing now is the media challenging the ruling power (the government) and being critical of both their policies and methods. With people being unsettled by the Coronavirus pandemic they hanker after stability and normality and unsurprisingly want to hear good news. At other times bad news would be entertaining and material for moans and groans but when life is difficult people want someone to tell them the world isn’t going to end and we’ll get through this. So when journalists ask awkward questions and question the competence of the government its unsettling.
There can be little sympathy for the press. If they had consistently held the powerful to account they wouldn’t now be pushing back against a current of their own making. But more importantly this illustrates the inertia that will resist anyone pushing against a government that everyone, for their own sake, wants to succeed. The ether is saturated with conflicting versions of what is happening and what is to come. Social media has given us a plethora of news channels and with everyone on lock down the audience is more captive than ever. Such a scenario is ripe for the dominating forces to drive through their monolithic narrative with dissenting voices drowned amongst the flotsam and jetsam.
Those most vocal in their call for unity may well persue an agenda for change but seek to redress inequalities and injusticies without challenging the roots of either. Radicals, by definition, are less concerned with the fruit and branches which are visible to everyone, and mostly concerned with the roots that very few are aware of. This automatically puts the radicals (on the left) and conservatives (on the right) at odds but gives an advantage to the conservatives because they can more easily appeal to the masses who want sweet apples regardless of how they got them. Nature follows the path of least resistance and prefers equilibrium to inbalance.
Having said that nature also works in cycles. Success isn’t sustainable unless its distributed and challenged. Unchallenged, success will overreach and be self defeating. The crash of 2008 should have brought the world economy to its knees but there was enough resilience in the richest nations to keep economies on life support. CoVID-19 is likely to pile on the pain and pull us into a world recession the likes of which we’ve not seen for nearly 100 years. The New Deal, delivered by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, came about because the only alternative was a nationwide revolt. We’ve seen some of that in the policies introduced by the Tory government because its only alternatives are sky high deaths or abandoning the economy.
We can’t know how we are going to come out of this crisis but you can be certain that those in power or with influence will be planning on saving their own skins before considering the rest of us. They will be happy with general chaos so long as they control the narrative. For that they will need the majority to at least acquiesce to the government line even if they are critical of its performance. They will need the public to resist any suggestion of radical change in favour of a new normal that might look different but won’t be radically changed. The current news soup can only help them.
We are up against a very powerful but loose coalition of world powers and billionaires who will move heaven and earth and stop at nothing to maintain their status. They will sow fear and prejudice and set us up against each other. You have more in common with a factory worker in Bangladesh than a CEO in the City of London though nationalism tells you otherwise. The pressure for institutional unity will be immense but the only way we will come out of this crisis, with anything to show for it, will be an international call to action between working people across the world that demands fundamental change.
After writing this I listened to Chris Hedges, an American journalist and author, on the Jimmy Dore show talking about the current situation specific to America. His analysis is insightful and unapologetic, speaking truth to power – but he is not hopeful. The latest bailout by Congress was the final part in establishing the US as totalitarian, underpinned by a feaudal economy. With the machines of dissent dimantled its virtually impossible to see unrest leveraging the government to abandon its journey to hell.
I believe his pessimism is somewhat compounded by the fact that the Democratic Party itself has crushed dissent to the point that firebrands like AOC are toeing the line, mindful that if she doesn’t she will certainly be shoe horned out of her seat. The caveat to this is that Chris still believes good draws to it good and holding to the truth is not pointless. What is instructive is that the bailout bill was passed unanimously.
I think the key is knowing where to place your hope and what that hope looks like. Bernie Sanders’ bid for presidential candidate in 2016 and Jeremy Corbyn’s bid for government in 2017 were beacons of hope that finally got extinguished in 2019 and will not be relit this coming November. Hope is always alive while we look out for each other and work for a better society but its hard to see where its coming from on a national and international stage. If we are to keep hope alive in our hearts we need to be wise who we share it with.