Before there was Obama there was Haile Selassie: Why Haile Selassie is my political icon!

Every politician has a political hero; someone that inspires them in their ideals and their work. For Obama it was Abraham Lincoln; Boris Johnson sings the praises of Winston Churchill and many radicals speak fondly of Che Guevara; my political hero is Haile Selassie.

Haile Selassie is a controversial figure; hailed as a deity by some and disregarded as a dictator and feudal monarch by other's. Haile Selassie nearly 40 years after his death still inspires heated discussions across the internet and is a permanent fixture in global pop culture with pop icons such as The Weekend, Lupe Fiasco, Bob Marley and other's all paying homage to the life and works of His Imperial Majesty Emperor Haile Selassie I.

Many would ask how an Ethiopian monarch would come to be the political hero of a Londoner? Whilst some would be aware of the religious and spiritual connotations that surround Haile Selassie in the Rastafari tradition but many would not be so aware of the politics of Haile Selassie and his contribution to global politics in the 20th century that inspired me to want to be involved in politics.

Before there was Obama there was Haile Selassie. In 1930 at his Coronation he was the most recognised African face in the world. Descended from an ancient dynasty shrouded in mystery Haile Selassie's presence on the world scene would transform global politics and inspire a wave of transformative events that shaped the modern world.

Haile Selassie was born Tafari Makonen the son of a low ranking aristocrat Ras Makonnen and his wife Yeshimabeth in the Ethiopian city of Harare. At the age of 2 Tafari lost his mother in child birth and at age 13 his father Ras Makonnen died. An orphan at 13 Tafari was summoned to the royal court where he would be tutored by the royal family. Whilst at the royal court he would learn about the politics of the day and observe the men of big affairs.

Tafari was distant from the throne and it was not considered that Tafari would ever become Emperor. Tafari was a small youth; he did not display any of the warrior characteristics of the traditional Ethiopian ruler and his disposition was more that of a theologian and priest than warrior.

 Though Tafari was favoured for his intellect and thought by many to be the future of Ethiopia it was his bigger, but younger cousin that displayed the warrior tendencies that former Ethiopian monarchs had embodied and was considered the natural successor to the ruling Emperor Menelik I.

At the death of the Emperor Lij Yassu Tafari's younger cousin became the defacto leader however his womanising, drunkenness and misguided political diplomacy threatened to destablise Ethiopia. At the behest of the Church Tafari was asked to gather an army to dethrone the yet crowned Yassu from the throne and install a new monarch. In 1916 Yassu was overthrown by the armies of Tafari and the Church and Tafari was made regent and Empress Zauditu was crowned as ruler of Ethiopia. From 1916 to 1930 Tafari served as the second in command to Empress Zauditu and was given the title Ras which inspired the Ras Tafari movement.

As the regent Tafari built the first modern secondary school the Tafari Makonnen School. He lobbied to end slavery; built hospitals and inspired his wife to build girls schools which had previously been a taboo. On one of his trips to Jerusalem Tafari adopted 40 Armenian orphans whose parents had died in war. The orphans were given residence at the palace and taught music; they would eventually become the royal band. Whilst regent Tafari travelled to Europe where he was inspired by the statecraft, technology and modernisation of Europe and vowed to bring Ethiopia into the modern world. He also negotiated Ethiopia's membership in the League of Nations. Many Ethiopians had exceptions to the modern ideas of Tafari; the Church was afraid that he would introduce secular knowledge from Europe; the aristocracy were afraid that he would curtail their power; and government officials feared the introduction of transparency and accountability, nevertheless...

In 1930 after the death of Empress Zauditu Tafari Makonnen was crowned Emperor Haile Selassie I on Nov 2nd. It was a lavish affair with dignitary's from all over the world in attendance. It was perhaps the most significant event in 20th century African history. The coronation was covered by the international media and Haile Selassie instantly became an internationally acclaimed figure; the first African to make the front cover of Time magazine where he was depicted with the title "King of King's". Before there was Obama there was Haile Selassie...

In 1930 the African world was mired in colonialism. On his coronation Haile Selassie became the voice and champion of all Africa and African people across the globe as the head of the only free African state. In the midst of a continent wallowing in colonialism Haile Selassie was a light in a sea of darkness that shone for the whole world to see.

In 1935 not long into his reign Ethiopia was attacked by Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini. Unable to defend themselves against a modern European power Ethiopia was briefly defeated; Haile Selassie sought support of the international community and visited Geneva to deliver a damning anti-fascist speech that has become historic; calling upon the League of Nations to defend their treaty and ideals of collective security. Haile Selassie was booed and most of the nations voted to acknowledge Italy as the rulers of Ethiopia. The speech delivered at the League would be prophetic as Selassie told the audience that "today it us tomorrow it will be you" warning against the rise of fascism in Europe. On delivering the appeal to no avail Haile Selassie was forced into exile in Britain where he stayed firstly in Wimbledon in London and then settling in Bath. After 5 years in Britain with the support of the British army Haile Selassie returned to Ethiopia in 1941 victorious after British and Ethiopian troops reclaimed Ethiopia.

Haile Selassie would preside over Ethiopia for many years introducing a written constitution, abolishing the legal basis for slavery, leading Ethiopia into the UN and attempting to introduce a progressive taxation system. He also restricted legal privileges of the clergy; introduced new land taxes for landowners and challenged traditional church education implementing a modern, secular education system. During his reign Haile Selassie created a civil society and gave birth to an Ethiopian middle class introducing social mobility into a once rigid class system; Haile Selassie was the first African leader to have a women in government.

Haile Selassie in the latter part of his career became a global statesman delivering his classic address to the UN that became the lyrics of Bob Marley's song "War" in 1963. A speech that is possibly one of the most shared speeches in facebook history whose sentiments still ring true today. In 1963 he also convened the founding conference of the Organisation of African Unity in his capital city Addis Ababa in the purpose built Africa Hall where he was dubbed "father of modern Africa" and made the first chair. It was Haile Selassie that gave Nelson Mandela refuge when pursued by the South African government making him an Ethiopian citizen and providing military training to fight apartheid. In 1954 Selassie was recognised by

the British monarchy and given the Order of the Garter, the highest British order, by Queen Elizabeth II. In the US he was acclaimed by JFK as one of his political hero's whose place was assured in history. In 1965 Haile Selassie was recognised by his faith and given the title "Defender of the faith" by the Oriental Eastern Orthodox Churches, the highest title ever bestowed by the Church. 

Haile Selassie has inspired my politics; Haile Selassie was not a militant; a revolutionary or race nationalist but a liberal reformer. A political liberal who drew inspiration from Frederic the Great of Prussia who was referred to as the "Liberal King". Selassie was a vocal champion of internationalism, human rights, collective security and nuclear disarmament; classic liberal values. He championed nature and animal rights long before it was fashionable. In Haile Selassie we find one of, if not the first anti-fascism and anti-racism global advocates. In Haile Selassie I find inspiration for a civil society led liberal politics a politics that combines the kindness of a Christian heart, the pragmatism of a political leader and the idealism of a global statesman. Before there was Obama there was Haile Selassie...

Why I believe in the politics of civil society...

Antonio Gransci the Italian cultural theorist and inspiration behind the Cultural Studies movement; whilst in an Italian prison at the behest of Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini in the 1930's wrote that the battleground for social change was in civil society. For Gramsci it was civil society that formed the trenches where the modern war for the heart of society was taking place. I believe what Gramsci believed; that civil society is the space for struggle for social change.

All great political philosophy identifies an agent, a group in society that can lead the struggle and usher in a new era. For Christianity it was the poor; for Communism it was the worker and I believe that today for liberal politics civil society is that agent that has the power to change the world for the better.

I believe that today we must build a civil society movement that can hold the state and the market to account and give a voice to the voiceless. I believe that those with the heart and soul to want to do good for others through charitable and community work are the ones that should hold the reigns of power in any society; directing the market towards a more ethical economy and the state towards more ethical governance.

Today the domination of the state and the market has led to near economic ruin; forced many people into homelessness and millions into unemployment. The domination of the state and the market has led to the need for food banks in some of the richest countries in the world. The domination of the state and the market in society has led to the breakdown of human relationships and the destruction of community as the state and the market increasingly eroded the civil society sphere. Although civil society is in fact the first sector of human society it has been relegated to the place of the "third sector" by the state and the market and left people unable to come together around the great human ideals that have guided mankind for millenia. It is civil society that has allowed for both the state and the market to flourish. It is civil society that has created the human values that paved the way for mankind to strive for peace, globalisation and human rights. 

Whilst political philosopher's can largely be split into two categories those that are pro-market and those that are pro-state, I and other community organisers are seeking towards a political philosophy that puts civil society at the centre of what the good society is about. To create a powerful political space that seeks to turn us towards working for the common good.

It has been the dream of many liberals for a world without borders and a world where peace reigns, the power of civil society has the power to undermine the barriers that have been created by the state. Through the organisation of global civil society we can transcend the blood and soil philosophy that birthed the nation state and manifest an internationalism that is fundamentally human.

The philosophy of civil society that I espouse transcends race, class and gender. It is not a philosophy of division that excludes on the basis of race, class or gender like the identity politics of the past. It is a philosophy that speaks to the humanity in all people in pursuit of the common good and the spirit of one love.

My people are not the workers or my race but the race and class of angels that have done and continue to work in the trenches for a better world.

That is what I believe.

    

In defence of post-race politics in "black" thought. First Draft

Huey P Newton once said that "revolution is a struggle between the old and the new", for Newton there was always generational struggle between the new and the old order. Today, I am in a revolutionary struggle against the old order of "black" politics in the UK. Lester Holloway a former disgruntled Liberal Democrat and former employee at the 1990 Trust has decided in a frenzied act of spite that my ideas on "race" politics are dangerous and worthy of not only a challenge but an assassination of my character.

Lester Holloway here http://lesterholloway.com/2014/12/16/the-problem-with-post-racial-bloggers/

argues that in my previous blog "the problem with black politics in Britain" I have argued against efforts to improve race relations; that my arguments against "race" specific politics are counter-revolutionary; that I have called for an end to struggle against racial injustice and that I ignore statistics regarding "black" unemployment amongst other things. Mr Holloway has also argued that my political ideals are an attempt to be a slave to the Liberal Democrat party whilst adding that my ideas lack support amongst activists and campaigners and the BME electorate.

It is clear to me that arguing that "race" politics is ineffective and divisive in a multi-racial society is not arguing against an improvement in race relations, on the contrary it is thinking about race relations in the UK with the highest level of idealism and seeking much more improved race relations in the UK. It is my belief that the rhetoric and methods of the older activists is not conjugal to improving race relations and can descend into explosive tirades that border on racial prejudice and inflame wounds rather than try to heal them. I am seeking for Britain to heal itself after Empire and looking towards a new post-racial vision of British identity, to move forward as one nation into the future because it serves all of our self-interests. 

If race-relations in Britain is as bad as Mr Holloway believes then it would seem that the campaigning tactics that he and other's have used are not effective in improving race relations or tackling racism and it is time for fresh thinking on "race". I am arguing that the only enlightened thought that we can have on the issue today is to recognise that the decolonisation of the British mind demands a rethinking of 19th Century "race" ideology. I am looking towards an inclusive British identity that judges one by the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin. I believe that is an enlightened doctrine that if repeated enough will do more to improve race relations than the type of rhetoric that Mr Holloway likes to use and the posture that he uses to share his rhetoric.

In his attack Mr Holloway attempts to paint me as a Conservative and part of a Conservative political tradition that was attacked by Martin Luther King. His statements prove to me that Mr Holloway is a political infant. Mr Holloway is aware that I am a Liberal Democrat; that I believe in the philosophy of John Mill. A liberal cannot be painted as a conservative; it makes no sense. I am open about my support for decriminalisation of cannabis and sex work. I have been clear that I want to tell the story of modern Liberal Britain and the revolution that birthed it. I am not attempting to maintain the political tradition of the "Head Negro in Charge" that Mr Holloway is championing; it is Holloway that is seeking to pursue what is now in the black community a conservative politics that harkens back to the 60's, 70's and 80's.  

Holloway claims that I am calling for withdrawal from the struggle. He wants the world to believe that there is something called "the struggle" that he is the moral guardian of when in fact there are many struggles. Because I am struggling for a post-race mindset it does not mean that it is not a struggle in itself or a contribution to elements of the struggle that Holloway has been engaged in for more than 30 years. For me what I am arguing for is the logical next step towards a better world and racial equality.

Holloway has an issue with the concept of equality of opportunity and wants to pursue a Marxist inspired equality of outcome. I believe that it is not feasible or necessary to ensure that all outcomes are equal; it is possible to try to move towards an equality of opportunity and I believe that there are enough stories such as the story of Sharon White, the newly appointed Head of Ofcom or the story of Lewis Hamilton Britain's Sport's Personality of the Year 2014 to support an argument that equality of opportunity does work and that policy's to ensure equality of outcome are too emotive for consideration in the political climate and environment that we live in.

Holloway falsely claims that I have argued that "race" is a thing of the past when in fact I have argued that "race" specific politics is a thing of the past. I am aware that "race" as an ideology exists but I am challenging that ideology and seeking another way to overcome racism which is to unlearn the racist ideology that we have been taught which weighs on our shoulders like a boulder; to find new ways of classifying mankind that acknowledge human identity is not limited to "race"; to truly decolonise our minds in the spirit of Franz Fanon.

Holloway deceitfully misinterprets my analysis of "race" politics by insinuating that I have argued against cultural community self-organisation. In a multi-cultural society it is accepted that community's self organise and this adds diversity to a city like London. However community self organisation in the spirit of multiculturalism is not the same as "race" specific politics. Cultural communities exist and people in those communities have different politics but they come together for cultural festivals like Diwali or Christmas and I believe that this is a good thing that makes London diverse.

In some African states, in Nazi Germany and in failed states in Eastern Europe ethnic and "race" politics has led to genocide and war. It is not acceptable politics in the 21st century to speak about "race" in such straightforward terms as those that Holloway wants me to use. Public policy, governance and citizenship of Britain must be post-race lest we become a balkanised society with ethnic antagonism that threatens to destabilise peace and security and further erode race relations. 

Politics is about governance and in a multi-racial society one has to govern for all people and not attempt to stir resentment for personal gain. "Black" people are not a British "other", they are British citizens and when we speak about unemployment we are speaking about unemployment on a whole. Any progressive government would have to seek to improve employment for British citizens regardless of their skin colour. They would have to seek better skills training for all citizens. The point for me is that we should accept that we are British citizens and we are already assimilated. 

Holloway takes a dig to claim that I have no support from activists, campaigners or the BAME electorate. I am a British citizen and seek to speak to British people regardless of their skin colour. I have both "black" and "white" relatives and come from Britain and consider my "black" peers to be British and I am very clear that they are not as "race" conscious as previous generations. Today a young "white" girl listens to Fekky or Wiley and relates to it; a "black" boy listens to N-Dubz and relate's to it and they are all British.

Holloway recently left the LibDem's after 8 years in membership; because he was not successful in the party he has decided to ignore other personal factors that could have impacted on his political career or more precisely his lack of one. If Holloway was so interested in "blackness" and seeing "black" people in British politics why would he think it necessary to interfere in my business to attempt to write an article to character assassinate and discredit my politics? It is clear to me that Holloway's posture in his attack is not the one of "black" solidarity... Holloway proves my point that "race" politics is a hollow shell and not the political reality. If he was such a "race" man the proof would be in him stepping away from interfering in my work and trying to discredit it...

If there was unanimity in the "black" politics would Holloway be writing an essay to challenge my ideas? I am a Liberal Democrat and Holloway is not. Lee Jasper supports the Respect Party; David Lammy supports Labour; Sam Gyimah supports Conservatives and Winston Mckenzie supports UKIP?! There is no black voting bloc; it is impossible. We are no different from the host community who support different political parties and political ideals. Holloway is really ignoring the facts. The facts are that we do not all have the same political ideals in the "black" community so therefore we cannot have a "black" voting bloc. 

It is no secret that the Hip-hop Generation have not sought to pursue the "race" politics of the past; they have not created "black" political groups or tried to organise for the "black vote". We have not created organisations for the purpose of "race" politics. We are the generation that have come up with Obama and Jay-Z. We have not grown up in the segregated US. We have grown up in an era where "black" hero's were not only Martin Luther King or Mandela that were struggling for freedom but also some successful people who were not engaged in black liberation. We were not born in the era of anti-colonial struggle; we missed the anti-apartheid struggles; we were not part of the Black Power generation or the Civil Right's generation... 

I believe that the live's of "black" people can be changed through policy that is not "race" specific such as a living wage or migrant's amnesty. I support an overhaul of stop and search and more funding for mental health research as well as mental health waiting times. I support the decriminalisation of cannabis and prison reform; I have argued for a new narrative of British identity that includes all those within the British Empire. All these policies can contribute to tackling issues that impact the "black" community but they do not rely on the racial antagonism that Holloway like's to promote.

Campaigns such as the living wage campaign have lifted millions of people out of poverty many of whom are "black" but it has had no need to fall back into "race" rhetoric to bring about those changes. The campaign to end child detention in migrant case's has impacted the lives of thousands of people many of whom are "black" but it does not depend on trying to gather a following by racialising every issue. The recent Parliamentary Act to commit Britain to spending 0.7% of its income on aid impacts on "black" people but it is not race specific policy. Improving facilities for those experiencing mental illness impacts on the important issue of mental health in the "black" community but it is not framed in "race" terms.

There is no space in Britain for the "race" politics of Lester Holloway. There is no space for those that use the emotive language of "race" to gain a following whether they be BNP, EDL or Nation of Islam. It is divisive and does not work to improve race relations in Britain but only to further fracture them. In the 21st Century the language of "race" that Holloway espouses is only a barrier to racial harmony and togetherness and a thorn in the side for those that desire to create a new identity for a New Britannia that is post-race.

        

In celebration of Human Rights Day 2014: Towards a New Britannia

Today is Human Rights Day, an international day for reflection on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the values enshrined within it. A day where we can acknowledge how far we have come with human rights and what else needs to be done to ensure that human rights is extended to all who have not yet been protected by the declaration. 

For me as a Liberal Rastafarian, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the 10 commandments; the 8-fold path; the Sermon on the Mount of our time. The declaration from its inception was championed by Haile Selassie as the liberational and ethical document of our age that had the power to save humanity from itself. Declared in 1948 out of the ashes of the Second World War and at the heights of the Cold War the declaration was a response to the evils of colonialism, racism, genocide and sexism that plagued the beginning of the 20th Century, and the possibilities of nuclear destruction that loomed over the head of mankind as the world's superpower's stared down the barrel.

Today though we have made great progress human rights violations still continue to abide and there is growing feeling in some circles that the Human Rights Act should be abolished. In Britain for example the Conservative Party have controversially called for the Human Rights Act to be axed something that I believe would be a disaster and hamper the progress that we have made today.

Looking back at some of the harrowing events of the 20th Century I am certain that this is the most enlightened document that humankind have produced, whose values have contributed to making the world a more peaceful, loving and stable environment. Incalculating the values of the declaration into our children today will be the cause of a better world tomorrow and prepare our children to be the first generation that never experienced war.   

That the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not better known and Human Rights Day not universally celebrated is a tragedy; that some would call for the Human Rights Act to be abolished is a sin. In this document we have the values that if adopted by a generation would drastically change the world for the better; but today there is not any scheduled prime-time programming on the BBC about this epoch making declaration; there is not a special Human Rights speech by the Prime Minister over the radio or on TV and local schools have not decided to make a big deal about Human Rights Day as much as they make a big deal out of Halloween, Christmas or Easter. Citizenship classes at secondary schools have not worked as effectively as they should have in engendering human rights values and have more or less been ignored by many schools and teachers who think the subject a secondary one or to be promoting values that could perhaps bring the pupils into conflict with school rules.

Today, in Britain there is some confusion among academics, politicians and citizens on the values and identity of the British public; elected politicians in particular struggle to make sense of who we are whilst many British radicals believe that there is no role that the state can play in shaping British identity and values and to do so would be domineering and colonial. It is my belief that the state has a role in shaping the values of our society through messaging and sharing of values. It is the work of the state to ensure that the human rights of their citizens are protected and to instil in their citizens from a tender age the values and importance of the declaration.

It is my belief that the identity and values of modern Britain, New Britannia, can be found in the Universal Declaration of Rights; it is my belief that we are and must become Human Rights Britain; we are the people of the declaration just as Muslims are the people of the Quran. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights I can hear loudly the echo of the great British liberal tradition spoken about by John Stuart Mill and John Maynard Keynes and nothing would make me more proud of Britain than the wholesale adoption of human rights culture as our national culture.

Today; I would like to call upon all who read this article to do something to make Britain a better place and share and celebrate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with your children, friends and family.

One Love

A note on anti-capitalism

What is often referred to as the "anti-capitalist" movement is born from the accumulation of global discontents with various aspects of the neo-liberal project. The anti-capitalist movement is a radically plural movement made up of many denominations. It is multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi-coloured, with multiple issues. The movement like the neo-liberal project is global in scope with the ability to turn out people anywhere in the world. The anti-capitalist movement has its roots in the global south in the mid 80’s where grassroots movements began to protest against IMF policies in what became known as the 'IMF riots' after the introduction of structural adjustment programmes and development practices in 1980. In 1985 landless workers movements in Brazil began to protest against the transferring of land from the farmers and indigenous people to multinational corporations. In 1988 Europeans entered the struggle when 80,000 people came from across Europe to protest at the IMF meetings in Berlin. In 1990 the first continental encounter of indigenous people was organised in Ecuador. Perhaps the most significant moment of the movement was on January 1st 1994 when the EZLN arose out of Chiapas, Mexico in opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that would make Mexico into a free trade zone and an open market.

EZLN also referred to as the Zapatistas arose from among the indigenous peoples of Chiapas, Mexico who began to protest the destruction of their culture in the face of neo-liberalism. The Zapatistas appeared spouting poetry, Mayan culture and ideas of a new revolution. Hailed as post-modern revolutionaries the Zapatistas captured the imagination of the radical left and are seen by writers such as Naomi Klein as the leaders of the anti-capitalist movement. The Zapatistas are led by the charismatic Subcommandante Marcos, whose image is that of a masked, pipe smoking man, whose identity is hidden but is rumoured to be a Mestizo Marxist lecturer who left the city to organise the rural people of Mexico. The myth goes that when he arrived in Chiapas he attempted to convert the farmers to a standard Marxist theory regarding the workers but was met with blank stares, as the farmers began to express their philosophy of land and nature drawing upon their indigenous culture. Marcos became a student as well as a teacher and began working with the farmers to devise a new philosophy that incorporated Mayan teachings and radical left theory to create Zapatismo. The Zapatistas called upon all to become a Zapatista claiming that, 

‘Marcos is gay in San Francisco, black in South Africa, an Asian in Europe, a Chicano in San Ysidro, an anarchist in Spain, a Palestinian in Israel, a Mayan Indian in the streets of San Cristobal, a Jew in Germany, a Gypsy in Poland, a Mohawk in Quebec, a pacifist in Bosnia, a single woman on the Metro at 10 p.m., a peasant without land, a gang member in the slums, an unemployed worker, an unhappy student and, of course, a Zapatista in the mountains’. In other words, he is simply us: we are the leader we’ve been looking for." 

In 1998 fierce protests took place at the WTO meeting in Geneva at the UN building. In May of the same year 70,000 people joined together to encircle the G8 meetings in Birmingham, England. Protests also took place in 30 countries on 5 continents. In 1999 activists gathered in 43 countries at the time of the G8 summit in Koln and an insurrection took place in the financial sector of London. In November of the same year the most high profile event of the anti-capitalist movement took place on the streets of Seattle in protest to the WTO as thousands took part in battles against the police 20. 

In April 2000 US mobilisation was organised at the spring joint meetings of the IMF and World Bank in Washington DC. In September 2000 protestors mobilised at World Economic Forum meetings in Melbourne and at the Prague joint IMF and World Bank meetings. In August 2001 protestors from across the world hit the streets of Genoa to protest against the G8.   

The World Social Forum (WSF), the single most important institution of the movement, was launched in 2001 as a counter-part to the World Economic Forum meetings. WSF aims to bring together anti-capitalists in dialogue to discuss the possibilities of another world. The meetings have taken place all over the globe but have so far not been anything more than a space for deliberation. The WSF has not formulated any concrete political plans and has more emphasis on process than making progress.

The anti-capitalist movement has captured the world’s imagination through its spectacular acts of direct action. The movement has spawned hundreds of manifestos and beautifully poetic writings. It has lots of energy and they must be credited for identifying the enemy in neo-liberalism and recognizing the emergence of a new global order, however the movement has made no concrete political gains, there are no victories that the movement has under its belt. The anti-capitalist movement has proven itself to be nothing more than a series of global action days that some have referred to as ‘protest tourism’. The movement’s lack of a political institution that represents its interests in the democratic processes that exists or enables it to sit at the table to negotiate for their cause is a problem. Many of the loudest voices in the movement are the most avant-garde, the radical anarchists that totally reject any form of government, discipline or even democracy. As one grassroots movement has stated they “are not working for a place at the global table of negotiation".   

The movement’s lack of a coherent voice means that what the movement actually stands for is not clear to the public. There is not a constructive practice for people to be engaged in beyond attending planning meetings for global action days around massive issues that are disconnected from people’s everyday life. Participants cannot see the light at the end of the protest tunnel and become more disillusioned and cynical, as their demands are not met. Though the carnivalesque spectacle of the action days is amazing to witness it may not be the best tactic for recruiting new members, gaining public sympathy or ensuring that our demands are met.

The most well known slogan of the anti-capitalist movement is ‘another world is possible’, unfortunately the movement has not been able to define a viable alternative political vision beyond neo-liberalism. Neither has it been able to create a political practice beyond direct action. For the movement to become a counter-hegemonic project it must develop a new postmodern political praxis that goes beyond direct action and work to articulate a clearly defined global political vision.

This is what Russell Brand wants to talk about - The Rise of Neo-liberalism!

The rise of neo liberalism has been accompanied by the near total obliteration of the left. Since its adoption by the Chilean, US and UK government’s, neo-liberalism in some form has become the dominant mode of political thinking across the planet. 

The theory of Neo-liberalism has its origins in the writings and ideas of a energetic bunch of economists, philosophers and academics led by the Austrian political philosopher Friedrich Von Hayek and including notable economist Milton Friedman. The group took the name the Mont Pelerin Society in the late 1940's after the Swiss spa at which they regularly met. Those that gathered into the society styled themselves as radical liberals with the professed goal of defending human dignity and freedom. The ideas of the neo-liberals as they termed themselves also gained currency in the 50's at the University of Chicago where Friedman dominated the economics department. This led to neo-liberals being dubbed the Chicago school. The term neo-liberal was coined by the Mont Pelerin Society as a symbol of their commitment to the principles of the free market as defined by the economics of neo-classicism. The neo-liberals set themselves a theoretical mission of debunking ideas regarding state intervention and state planning as had been argued by Keynes. In the beginning neo-liberalism was a marginal philosophy that no one took seriously. After the war the dominant model of economics was the Keynesian model that placed emphasis on the state regulating and guiding the economy. Hayek, Friedman and the neo-liberals vehemently rejected the idea of state planning. Like Adam Smith they glorified the notion of the invisible hand as a regulator of human natures propensity for greed. Although the ideas of neo-liberalism began as obscure Hayek was committed to waging a war of ideas that would take a generation to reach the ears of those pulling the levers of power but would eventually displace the theories of Keynesians regarding state planning and intervention. In the 1970's neo-liberalism began to gain currency outside of the narrow academic circles that it had previously occupied. In 1974 Hayek was awarded the Nobel peace prize in economics followed by Friedman in 1976. This instigated a greater interest in the ideas of neo-liberalism by policy departments around the world. 

The University of Chicago had been training Chilean economists in the principles of neo-liberalism as a cold war tactic and in the late 70's after the military coup led by right wing dictator Augusto Pinochet the Chicago boys were called in to develop the economic policies of the Chilean government. More significantly in 1979 the UK government led by newly elected Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher adopted the ideas of Hayek. As David Harvey has written of Thatcher 'She recognised that this meant nothing short of a revolution in fiscal and social policies' and went ahead in deconstructing the social democratic policies that had dominated the UK politics since immediately after the war. Chinese premier Deng Xiaoping and Ronald Reagan in the US followed Thatcher in 1980.

In the early eighties the neo-liberal idea had become dominant in the US and formed the ideology of the 'Washington consensus', it began to dominate supra-national institutions like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation. These supra-national organisations used their power to spread neo-liberalism further a field restructuring economies and creating free trade blocs. Neo-liberalism was thwarted in its quest for world domination during the eighties by the existence of the communist bloc in Eastern Europe. In the 1990's after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communist economies neo-liberalism was given free reign all over the globe instigating the process now referred to as globalisation. The driving force behind the globalisation of neo-liberalism has been  supranational institutions such as the G8, World Trade Organisation, the IMF and the World Bank. These institutions have pushed neo-liberalism through loan conditions  forcing states to accept structural adjustment programme's through which their economies were restructured to fit the neo-liberal model. Limiting public services, opening up markets to foreign capital and commodities, relaxing labour laws and considerably undermining the national sovereignty of developing countries and increasing inequality.

The 2000’s saw neo-liberalism arrive as the single most dominant political ideology across the globe unchallenged by any other model of political economy. In the last 50 years we have observed neo-liberalism rise from obscurity to hegemony; from a set of theoretical ideas to a hegemonic political project. Bearing this in mind we must think of neo-liberalism as more than an economic theory but a hegemonic project that aims to 'change the soul' of humanity to serve the interests of those that make up the elite. Neo-liberalism is a set of ideas about what the human should be, how they should live and the values that should guide human life.

Unlike traditional liberal economics, that is an idea about the nature of the human, neo-liberalism aims to transform the human through the state. Their views on the human do not constitute a state of nature theory but a vision of what the human should be. Neo-liberalism holds that the most important human value is freedom. For neo-liberalism the culprit of evil is the state. The interference of the state in the affairs of the individual has led to an infringement of the rights of the individual, limiting the human’s ability to flourish. The central belief animating neo-liberalism is the belief in private property and the competitive market. For neo-liberals private property is a fundamental human right. State intervention in the market, they argue, is tainted by the political biases of powerful political bases and interest groups that lobby the state. State decisions on economic issues only lead to tyranny of the majority and inadequate economic decisions that can only be remedied by the signals produced in the market.

Neo-liberalism promotes the freeing of markets from state control and the opening of national markets to global capital and commodities. This includes the reduction of tariffs that protect the national sales of agricultural products. It argues in favour of the dismantling of the welfare state and social provision rejecting the notion of society in favour of the rational, acquisitive individual in pursuit of their self-interest. Private property and the privatisation of state owned utilities such as water, telecommunications and electricity are key policies in the neo-liberal project. It envisions all human activities as being able to fit into the model of the market. Public institutions such as universities and prisons, social welfare provisions like education and healthcare and even war are not seen as off limits from privatisation.  Seeds, genetic materials and cultural, historical forms can all be turned into the private property of individuals. The legal framework of neo-liberalism views the corporation as an individual so the freedom to acquire property is extended beyond the private property of a human entity to the legal entity of an incorporated company. Hence companies have the same rights as human beings to draw limitless natural, intellectual and human resources into their private ownership. In short neo-liberalism aims towards the commodification of everything including the building blocks of life itself. It aims to turn society into one big market made up of consumers free to choose what they buy or to expropriate the common wealth of humanity into their private possession.    

Neo-liberalism is a celebration of the individual over the community. The freedom of the individual to take part in free enterprise even at the expense of the communities and the social world that allows enterprise to flourish.

As David Harvey has pointed out neo-liberalism has constituted a redistribution of the wealth from the public to the rich. What we have witnessed with neo-liberalism is a reconstitution of class power. Although the power may not have been distributed to the old elites it has created a new elite made up of CEO's and high flying bankers. The privatisation of public resources has resulted in the expropriation of the common and institutions built on the taxpayer’s money into private hands.

Neo-liberalism has transferred power from the public realm to corporations, gigantic financial institutions and supra-national organisations seriously weakening the state and undermining democracy. In the neo-liberal utopia un-elected leaders committed to the financial bottom line run our democracies. Governments find themselves indebted to supra-national organisations and held to ransom by finance capital; political parties go in search of rich donors to fund campaigns and keep their parties afloat in exchange for political favours whilst voters drift away from the polls and civil society, and inequality grows.

A short history of community organising

Saul Alinsky coined the term ‘community organising’ in the 1940. Saul Alinsky was a Jewish American criminologist based in Chicago who after becoming disenchanted with social work in the 30's set about developing a method to mobilise low-income communities to build power in order to demand better wages and push corporations and the government to take more social responsibility. Alinsky began his quest by organising communities in Chicago, launching an organisation called 'Back of the yards'. During the 50's and 60's he worked with African American communities setting up the Wood Lawn organisation. Alinsky gained great notoriety as an agitator and communist- something that he denied.

Saul Alinsky established the (Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) in 1940. The IAF was set up to train community organisers and develop affiliate organisations across the US and the world. IAF aimed to build organisations with the purpose of power and the product of social change. To date the IAF has 57 affiliate organisations across the US, in Germany and the UK. Although the organisation was founded by Saul Alinsky the modern methods of the IAF were developed by Ed Chambers an ex seminarian who had worked closely alongside Alinsky. Echo's of Alinsky ideas can still be heard in the teachings of the IAF but the raw organising antics of Alinsky have been quietly put to the background.

After Alinsky's death in the 1970's Chambers began to move the organisation towards a systematic training programme and the professionalisation of community organising and began shifting the focus towards congregation based organising. Chambers worked to develop Alinsky's method and formulated the model of organising that influenced Obama as a young community organiser in Chicago and is the model that IAF affiliate organizations and London Citizens work with.

London Citizens grew out of the Citizens Organisation Foundation (COF) that was set up by the organisations executive director and lead organiser Neil Jameson, and a collection of religious leaders in 1989 after Jameson travelled to the US to undertake training at the IAF. COF styling itself on the IAF attempted to build organisations in Yorkshire, Liverpool and Bradford but was unsuccessful eventually they struck gold with the formation of The East London Community Organisation (TELCO) in 1996. In London the COF started to put more emphasis on training organisers and leaders and began to hold regular training sessions; organisations were started in South and West London that together became the pan London organisation London Citizens. 

London Citizens is described as "a powerful grassroots charity working with local people for local people". It describes its goal as "social, economic and environmental justice" and claims to meet that need by "training people of all ages, faiths and backgrounds to take action together for change" 

In recent years COF, LC and TELCO have all been brought under one banner as Citizens UK. Citizens UK is described as "the biggest community alliance in Britain, bringing together more than 160 faith congregations, schools, universities, trade unions, and community groups with a quarter of a million citizens in our network. We work to end poverty, improve housing and make London safer".

London Citizens has launched numerous campaigns across London; the biggest being the living wage campaign, a campaign to pressure employers to pay staff a living wage rather than the legal minimum wage, the argument being that the legal minimum wage does not secure workers a life above the income poverty line. The organisation worked with economists to find out how much it costs to secure a decent living in the city. In 2004 this was agreed at £7.05 and was adopted by the mayors office, which also set up a living wage unit to examine the issue, annually set the rate and encourage other employers to adopt the policy. London Citizens campaigned against HSBC one of the world's largest banks getting the executives at HSBC to raise the wages of its cleaning staff. London Citizens have also successfully lobbied the London School of Economics and Queen Mary University to implement the policy. The organisation has also launched campaigns for a community land trust, and campaigned for an amnesty for migrant workers amongst other things.

The model of organising utilised by Citizens UK offers an innovative method that can provide answers to re-organising and re-conceptualising the political practice of Progressive politics with a more effective political model. 

Thinking about a New Britannia

Yes Tony, what do you believe a 'new Britannia' entails and what should ultimately be the aim going forward?

Yes fam. That is a BIG question... I'm really thinking about it at the moment...  But, I would say that we cannot have a divided nation. We cannot let the old identity politics keep playing out where people align with "race" rather than Anglophone culture, nationhood and citizenship. there needs to be more internal branding to keep the nation together and politicians should try to take the lead by embracing a level of patriotism the way Obama is patriotic to the US. We cannot have people that are British citizens that hate the nation where they live so much. We need to have a talk about Empire and to heal the wounds of the past so we can move forward as One Britannia. We would need to make a concerted effort to make sure that Parliament and Government look more diverse. The many heritages make it easy for us to connect with the world. People of colour could be doing much more foreign diplomatic work with our roots. I think we need to have a one off amnesty for illegal immigrants and integrate them into the nation and then set limits on our borders and a more difficult criteria for entry. I think the philosophy of Britain needs to be explicit and known. Every child at school should read and understand John Stuart Mill's On Liberty as the basic philosophy of our nation and how it set's us apart from mono-cultural societies and why it is good. The history of the British Empire and how it led to modern Britain should be taught in all schools and the Empire without the Imperialism should form the basis of a multi-coloured Britain. So the story of Sikhs, Hindu's, Muslims, Africans, Caribbean's, Scots, Welsh, Irish and how they fought for Britain and contributed to it's development and were technically British as colonial subjects should be compulsory. Then New Britannia transcends "race", it is not a story of White Englishness but a colourful story that tells the truth about Britain's past and how it shaped it today. That is a bit of what i'm thinking...

London: Cannabis capital

The London Mayor should champion decriminalising Marijuana and an amnesty for all Londoners that hold a cannabis conviction. This would significantly reduce the amount of youth who have criminal records for marijuana possession and are excluded from unemployment because of past convictions. London would become the new Amsterdam with increased tourism in the city and an improved economy. Cannabis Cafe Licences should be made available from City Hall, the money generated could be used to tackle youth violence in the capital.

Community Organising: New politics for a New Britannia

I first came across community organising in 2004, after a friend introduced me to London Citizens and the Community Organising Foundation. After reading their literature I was impressed by their ideas and contacted the founder and lead organiser Neil Jameson. We arranged to meet the next day. On meeting we immediately sparked a political relationship and found points of commonality. By the next week I was on a 5-day residential training programme learning the fundamentals of community organising in Birmingham. On arrival at the training I was unaware of what to expect and was somewhat apprehensive, the other attendees were from very religious backgrounds some were nuns, there were Methodist sisters, Jesuit monks, Imams and veiled Islamic women but there were also some union workers form Community Union and some local community workers from Birmingham's Asian community. There were also some community organisers from the US, so it was quite a diverse group. The training included role-plays, a class based introduction to the principles of community organising, conversations and testimonials and in the evenings we would gather and discuss philosophy, religion and social issues. My initial apprehension began to wear of as I engaged with my fellow participants and I began to fall in love with community organising as a method of engagement. I was intrigued how they had been able to bring such a diverse group together and inspired by the common ground that we were able to find through dialogue and conversation. Previously my idea of politics had been tribal and rooted in the Black power movement, the experience allowed me to begin to view politics through new eyes. It was at this point that I began to think about how the method could be utilised to create a new politics for a New Britannia.

In the following months I took the time to read the writings of Saul Alinsky, who is known as the father of community organising, digesting his books Rules for Radicals and Reveille for Radicals. I began to operate out of South London Citizens (SLC) and over the next four years I spoke regularly at assemblies, represented London Citizens in the media, worked to strategically organise living wage campaigns and took part

in direct actions at the Tate Modern and Hilton hotel amongst others. I visited the US with London Citizens organisers to experience community organising in New York and see first hand the work of IAF organizations, visiting the East Brooklyn Congregations (EBC), the Nehemiah housing project- the flagship housing project of the IAF, and spent time reasoning with full-time organisers. I spent the summer of 2006 working as a community organiser, organising cleaners at the Tate Modern and Kensington hotel and became a trustee in the same year. I attended board meetings and a load of training sessions and worked on strategy with the leadership. This year London Citizens is coming to an end to become Citizens UK and all the former board members will be gathering to say goodbye and share old memories of the organisation. I am indebted to the organisation for some of my political thoughts. My experience working with a broad based community organisation has led me to believe that in the model of broad based community organisations lays the germ of a new politics for a New Britannia.

A note on social roots

Someone said to me today that I am confusing because I am sometimes "middle class" and sometimes "underclass". My understanding is that it is about social roots. Where do you come from? What did you do and where did you go as a youth? What was the environment that you spent your youthful days in? For me I spent those days on council estates with what today would be called "hoodies". We used to smoke weed on the rooftops of Studley Estate, the blocks on Stockwell Park Estate or the corridors of Patmore Estate. We would go to parties on yellow brick estate in Peckham, Aylesbury in Camberwell and Angel Town in Brixton. We would walk in a gang of 20 man strong to go to Notting Hill Carnival; we would go on "steaming" sprees, all the "underclass" youth meeting at Lambeth Town Hall from every area to "steam" McDonalds, that is my roots. These are the spaces and experiences that grew me. If I was an African-American they would say I come from the hood! Your social roots are embedded in you, in the way you speak, the way you walk and your mannerisms. Jay-Z is a multi-millionaire and a grown man but he still raps about his experiences as a youth in Marcy projects, he never forgets it, it is in him... Yes, you can acquire some "middle class" intellect and study the great thinkers of the world but your social roots you carry with you for life, it is what has made you what you are. The question is, can someone with social roots in these spaces, in these experiences, in this culture make it in the political world? Can we tell that story? Is it allowed? Can I live?

My friend Jim

"I live in it, it's more than f***ing believe in it" Dead Prez

This is the life when you come from the "endz". Yesterday, I heard a knock at my door early in the morning about 9 am. I was having a lie in so never went to the door. Later when I was leaving the house, I noticed that there was a Bible and a Quran on my window sill. I figured that one of my many troubled friends may have been having an episode. Today, one of my friends Jim turned up; he had left the books there for me. He is a 39 year old man of Guyanese parentage, he comes from a family 5. He has been in and out of prison from the age of 15. His older brother was in prison for murder for 25 years and his life had been particularly chaotic. His twin brother is a recovering crack addict on methadone. He is not able to read and write functionally. He has been in mental health institution's 13 times since 1996. His troubled mental health evolved from him being imprisoned as a young man. Why did the prison not rehabilitate him and identify that he could not read and write? Why was this not recognised by the school? Where were the elite members of the community to help him? Today he told me that he wanted to enrol to learn sign language and maths because he could not read. I called Lambeth college and he is going to go to enrol tomorrow. The thing is I can see that he is not well, he was speaking about him being the black Jesus. Do you know that black Jesus thing? People of African descent on the "endz" get ill and start calling themselves black Jesus, I have seen a trend with it. He was speaking about devils being on him and how he wanted me to pray for him? Sometime he speaks to someone else not me... He is not the first person I have witnessed this happen to. We need more availability of talk therapies for early intervention like the Lib Dem's have set out; a prison system that rehabilitate's rather than further entrenching criminality; we need more research finance from national government to study mental health in deprived communities like the one in South London my friend Jim grew up in.

Change comes from the outside!

Change never comes from the inside; insiders get co-opted. Proper social change comes from the outsiders. There is no social change when we accept the status quo and elect insiders as change makers. No one who has been in Westminster can bring about social change; they are way to careful about their careers and securing their future. Politics needs organisers who are willing to put their careers on the line to bring about social change. We do not need the sanitised culture of Westminster or the establishment, that is not where change happens; we need the anger and self-interest of the multitude, the political outsiders, that is where the change comes from!

Why London needs a community organising Mayor

Today, there are 3 major parties and none of us are enjoying ourselves. The political process today is dominated by career politicians, none of whom seem to relate to the lives of the people that they represent or actually understand their job role. Most politicians today are more interested in furthering their careers than being servants of the people that elected them. The common sense thinking is that the multitude must straighten up and be on their best behaviour when they meet a politician when the truth is that the politician should be on their best behaviour when they meet with the multitude that elected them and gave them power. It is the role of the politician to educate the voters and their constituents on the political possibilities and options that lie before them and to be advocates in defence of their constituency. It is not proper behaviour to represent a constituency whilst speaking of your next career move and using your elected platform as a constituency MP to promote your next career move. This is not acceptable from Boris Johnson or David Lammy. It is unfair for them to use the platform's that they have been given by the voting constituents to unfairly raise their profile for their next job. We do not need a careerist politician in City Hall but a community organiser that can use the Mayoral role to organise London's civil society for the common good. We need a Mayor of London that will use City Hall as a hub for social justice, organising the various communities of London in order to champion tackling the inequality in this city. The Mayoral role is a limited role that largely involves managing the GLA budget but the role offers the opportunity for the Mayor to champion social justice and promote causes. We need a Mayor that will be a champion of London's civil society that can take the fight for equality to big business in the capital. We need a Mayor who could not care less about being a career politician that is willing to put his neck on the line and fight with the multitude to bring an end to the tale of two cities that exists in our capital. We need a Mayor that has come up from grass-roots campaigning and that can bring the issues and social justice movements into the mainstream by using the Mayoral position as a pulpit to pressure the market and the state to inject ethics into their policies and practices. It is well and good that David Lammy would like to be the first black Mayor of London but the multitude are wise enough to understand the issues that arose from the election of the first black President of the US. The problem was that the Presidency was not used as a pulpit for social justice; it was not used to organise the people of America to tackle local issues through community organising. Obama did not build a sustainable social justice movement but instead abandoned campaigners after his election. Although Organising for America was created Obama did not use the Presidency to share a grand community organising vision for social change. In 2016 we must elect a Mayor who does not get swept up in the climatic campaign trail and the election event but a Mayor that continues to organise for London way past the election date. A Mayor that has organised in the streets rather than spending the last 15 years in cozy Westminster. We do not need a Mayor that has been to the finest universities and been financially comfortable for all their adult life; We do not need a Mayor that has never had to work at a minimum wage job or stand in an unemployment line like so many Londoner's; today we need a Mayor of the multitude a community organising Mayor that does not sell the voters short with dreams and promises but works with Londoners to make a fairer, cleaner and happier city. The London Mayoral role was given a great start with our friend Red Ken who was elected as an independent candidate, 2016 must again become the year of the political outsider, the organising Mayor...