For an âentrepreneurialâ society, we make some bad business decisions
Suppose I had a coffee shop, which you invested in. When I make a profit, youâd expect to get some of that for your investment. What happens if, instead of giving you back your money, I paid myself a huge bonus and gave some to another investor. This continues and even though myself and the other investor have reaped much more reward than risk we put in, you receive nothing. Sounds like a bad business decision, right? You wouldnât be drinking lattes round mine again would you? Well, this is what we do with our ânationalâ rail everyday. A majority of our railways, which were built up by taxpayer funding and hard-working union members, were sold off. It is now owned by various differing companies, including the German and Dutch state, which allows our profits and labour to fund not only private companies but German and Holland state benefits.Â
But who can blame them? Theyâre making good money and why not? It goes to help their young families, students, poor, sick, elderly, repair their roads, pay for Bratwurst etc. Itâs a jolly sweet deal. Youâd think that, being ruled by the âparty of businessâ, George âPencilsâ Osbourne and David âGive me your lunch money, nerdâ Cameron could dream up a ingenious, money-making scheme, almost like a Bullingdon Del Boy and Rodney. But alas, this is one that eluded them; Where was Denzil when you needed him?Â
As well as losing money on rail, we havenât done too well with the sale of public assets either. Royal Mail was sold off last year, undervalued by ÂŁ180m according to a report. Bank bailouts hit over ÂŁ124bil since 2008, which we have failed to claim back. Quantitive Easing pumps billions of âfresh moneyâ into the hands of banking corporations, which pay themselves huge bonuses and donât loan to small companies, because âthey knows bestâ despite failing to be organise a piss up in a brewery. RBS sell off came at a ÂŁ1bn loss to the taxpayer. Tax avoidance is said to cost us up to ÂŁ50bn a year. Youâd think as fiscally frugal people, the Tories would be shocked at this huge cost to the beloved working taxpayer they say they represent.Â
Itâs not just mismanagement. Whilst giving the neoliberal ideology a blowjob and the âfree-marketâ doctrine a reach around, George Osborne has no issue ditching his small-government, low-tax, capitalist-rules principles to have his house mortgaged a few years ago or the huge amount of MPâs who finance their lavish lifestyles with taxpayers money, despite earning well over the national average salary. Because in fact, we donât actually live in a âcapitalistâ society. All this talk of âmarket knows bestâ; the market doesnât know shit. Thatâs why we have to subsidise it, bail it out, cut itâs taxes. For example, we pay laboratories to research and build technology for private companies to reap profit from. We fund education, healthcare and utilities for corporations to duck out of paying back into the system that created them. Iâm not a raving-looney Marxist, Iâm not Jeremy Corbyn in a wig; this is just bad business policy for the state.Â
We are bankrupting the country and living a lie that we are a âsustainable capitalist societyâ. There isnât a âsustainable capitalist societyâ, at least not in pure terms anyway. Using the market to decide the supply and demand of Mars bars and Audiâs seems perfectly fine, but when it comes to needs not wants; democracy and the state must step in. It seems that the private sector does have a huge role to play, and if small enterprises and startups were properly funded they could achieve that. But at the moment, this government isnât committed to an âentrepreneurialâ society, nor is it committed to building a strong British economy. Weâve been hijacked by buccaneers and theyâve took our ship and left us on a raft. Somebody call the sea police.
Rodchenko was among some of the most prolific, and most innovative social artists of the 20th century. His idea of âconstructivismâ, which asserted artâs social principle, is something we love and something that is often over looked. A full article on art and designs social principles today is coming soon!
For many, this election promised the possibility of major change. Whether that was ever the most realistic prospect, the hope and the belief were still there, for young and first time voters especi...
Re-blog from our editor Harriet Clugstonâs personal blog on the âPost-Election Bluesâ.
Written for our buddies over at Peopleâs Resistance.
The first fuckin' issue. A creative cartel of youth expression, social consciousness and challenging art. Featuring articles on voting, mental health & hip hop and climate change as well as art, design and poetry. Limited print runs available soon.
Why not-voting is not the worst thing in the world By Harriet Clugston
A first glimpse of upcoming articles from our genesis issue. Follow Harriet on twitter here and her film blog âFlickspotâ here.
Not voting is a controversial thing in our society. Its pretty hard to argue with thatâpeople who donât vote yet have strong political opinions are considered the height of hypocrisy. As a controversial figure in his own right, itâs pretty fitting that Russell Brand has been spearheading a campaign to convince people not to vote. For someone like me, who believes in the Chomskyan/Bakuninian approach towards political activismâthe belief that we can work within the current system to enact gradual changeâyet an admirer of Brandâs work, this has been a tricky thing to accept.
I recently came across an article from October of last year, in which author Robin McGhee launches a tirade of abuse at poor old Russell, to the usual tune of accusations that he is propagating apathy amongst potential voters, particularly the youth. Bear in mind that McGhee is a Lib-Dem parliamentarian candidate, so it kind of figures that he wouldnât be on board with the whole not-voting idea. However, he makes some grand statements that canât really be excused simply on this basis, such as âwithout voting you have zero chance of changing anything.â So I guess thatâs where the downfall of the suffragette and civil rights movements lay. Oh wait⌠The fact is that this kind of thinkingâwhich is all too pervasiveâwhereby we fall for the illusion that voting is the only way to demand change, that we only get to have a say every five years, is not only dangerous but totally counter-productive to the ability of the people to hold power over politicians. So lets examine, then, why voting doesnât really make you as powerful as you think it does.
Assumed consent
There has been a lot of academic work over the centuries on the dynamics of power in the society-individual relationship. One of the intellectual powerhouses of the modern era in this regard is Judith Butler, who drew on the work of Michel Foucault to examine how power plays a part in the formation of the subject. For Butler, power is paradoxical, for not only are we subjected to power outside of our selves in society, but our formation as a subject is dependent on this very subordination to social powerââsubjection signifies the process of becoming subordinated by power as well as the process of becoming a subjectâ. If we only gain agency through the formation of âIâ, the formation of the psyche, then our subjection to power both âinitiates and sustains our agencyâ. How, then, might we apply this to the state-individual relationship?
In our (democratic) society, we become a voting, participating British Citizen only by our inevitable subordination to a system of power that existed long before our birth. By submitting to the power of the law we become subjects of this system of government to which we didnât necessarily give our consent, consent being assumed by the fact of our being born within the borders of the UK. The idea of democracy is fiercely defended by most. Time and again people spout the rhetoric asserting the importance of voting; people cling to the idea of âone person, one voteâ to feel that they have agency, a voice, freewill. In a nutshell, to feel that they have power. Weâve probably all seen or heard someone dragging up the fact that people across the world have died for the right to vote and be part of a democracy and that we shouldnât disrespect them by wasting ours, which is a pretty reductive way to look at things. Women wanted the right to vote as men did, black people wanted to be able to vote along with whites; but this doesnât necessarily mean to say that the voting process we have right now is the way to go, that there might not be a better system possible, just that everyone deserves to be treated equally under the system that is in place. Is our ârightâ to vote even really a right at all, if you consider the fact that it is automatically forfeited when you are handed a prison sentence? Likewise, lets try to remember the difficulties that can be faced by the traveler community in registering to vote due to the lack of a permanent address. This ârightâ actually looks a little more like a privilege that is afforded only to those individuals that abide by the rules laid down, those who live in the expected and approved manner according to the rules of the law that we did not all help to write.
Returning to the fundamental question of whether or not my use of the vote really gives me proper agency in society, though, itâs a pretty resounding no. In actuality this agency, our status as a subject of the nation whose desires and opinions matter, is false, for it is always contingent on our subordination to those with power. Butler has referred to the matter of whether or not a subject has a âpassionate attachment to those on whom he or she is fundamentally dependentâ and postulates that people would rather âexist in subordination than not existâ. Through our desire to matter and count amongst the citizens of the country, we willingly (but almost unthinkingly) subordinate ourselves to the power of those who dominate usâpoliticians, political parties and big business. The power afforded to an individual through a democracy such as ours is a myth; we cannot have true agency for we are only afforded this minimal power by un-consentingly entering into a pre-existing contract with the law in which we are the governed party. This, hopefully, goes somewhere towards debunking the myth of the transcendental power of the vote
So, whatâs danger of the vote?
Russell Brandâs campaign is ultimately aimed at dissolving the myth that our only means of power lies in voting. Every five or so years the election roles around and for a few weeks we are subjected to largely pointless, disingenuous spectacles of Eton and Oxbridge educated politicians trying to persuade us that they havenât actually screwed everyone over in the previous term quite as badly as we think they have, or else the opposition try to persuade us that, unlike the currently governing party, they promise they definitely wonât screw us over if we put them in government, despite the fact that theyâre basically the same guys that did it on their last go. One way or another, the outcomes is the same for the ordinary British people. But we choose the best of the bad bunch and before long its evident that weâre being shafted again, but oh well, weâve had our say now, weâll just have to wait and try to do a better job next time around. Here we have arrived at the real problem; the voting system in its current form serves merely to placate the population into inaction, to keep us in an endless cycle of prostration to the will of the select few who do not really represent us, that most of us feel donât care for us, and that operate primarily for the benefit of their own small circle of other rich, privileged elites. These elites carry out their work largely unchecked and unaccounted for, for clearly the fact they won the election has given them free reign to do whatever they want, to make decisions on behalf of all of us. Ultimately, the vote makes us forget that there are other ways to change the world.
Silence can be heard, too
So, what if I choose not to vote? If I refute the idea that giving power to a small group of select, barely distinguishable peopleâthat come from the same backgrounds, went to the same schools, mix with the same groupsâsomehow gives me power in return? The thing is, Russell Brandâs abstinence approach is very much about working inside the existing system. Its important to remember that silence can still be heard, and you can send a message just as loudly by not voting.
Historically, change has been brought about many times by those who did not have the vote, such as with the feminist and black rights movement. These people spoke loud enough through other means, through political activism, protests, and community action. Eventually those with power were forced to sit up and listenâor rather, someone realized that here were a group of people that werenât being taken advantage of in the booths, and decided to change that. Its interesting to consider the political system as akin to the consumer market place, in which we, the voting public, are the consumersâsince many people believe the government exists today primarily to serve the interests of corporate giants, the analogy seems fitting. Politicians pitch their product by any means possible to convince us to buy it and, in the same manner as the commercial market, if there is a gap someone will fill it.
By not voting you become the untapped market. The more people choose to not vote, the bigger that market becomes, and eventually the main parties will have to changeâparticularly given that they are now so close to the centre that thereâs less chance of any landslide victories happening anytime soon. Surely over the coming years with growing dissatisfaction with whatâs currently on offer, with smaller parties getting bigger all the time, the main parties are going to have to change their policies if they want to hang on to powerâwhich, lets face it, is all anyone really believes they care about. It has already happened with UKIP, whose surge in membership forced Cameron into promising a referendum on Europe. Its happening with the Green Party, whose massive increase of support is largely on the back of Caroline Lucasâ diligent, consistent and honest conduct as an MP, which stands as a refreshing contrast to the other party leaders.
There is a big difference between not voting out of disinterestedness and laziness, as opposed to making an informed and thoughtful decision to abstain from the voting processâas long as you make enough noise about doing so. Its akin to the difference between Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat as an act of defiance, or because she fell asleep and didnât hear the request. John Stuart Mill has described how the process of electable, revocable and temporary rulers came about through the recognition that this was the only way to âhave complete security that the powers of government would never be abused to their disadvantageâ. Few voters today, I imagine, would be able to say they have confidence that we have achieved such a state of affairs. It seems clear that we still have a way to go. We need a higher level of democracy, more accountability, more frequent voting, referendums on significant issues, more powers to revoke members of parliament, more ability to influence decisions. Hereâs why Russell Brand and his followers are automatically immune from accusations that they simply foster apathy. In fact they do the exact opposite, taking full advantage of the social media era to rouse passionate and evangelical rejection of the status-quo, encouraging voters to realize that they hold power in other ways; that they donât have to sit and wait five years before having their say again; that their voice can be heard when they say, not when parliament does.
More and more people are beginning to recognize that something drastic has to change in our system to bring about real change. So lets not berate those who are actively trying to bring that about. Even if it is through abstinence.
Weâre getting ready to print and launch our first issue. It wonât be long now. You can order a limited edition printed copy soon after the issue is released online. The magazine will be available on desktop, mobile and tablet formats as well as a raw PDF version. Â
Weâre always looking for more contribution at ICYMI, please if you are a photographer/artist/writer/journalist/poet or anything creative, send it in weâd love to see it! Please make sure visuals are in high-res PDF or JPG formats and all written documents are in .doc or .rtf format with as little formatting as you can do please.
I hope youâre all excited as I am to read our first issue. Canne wait.
I wasn't very good at school. But what I always had was an over-active mind and some form of self-motivation to be creative. I could easily sit for hours playing the guitar, drawing or writing, but I couldn't even attempt one question of my maths homework. Because, to me maths wasn't important. Music was important. Art was important. Itâs what made me want to get up in the morning, itâs what gave me the confidence to talk to girls, itâs what gave me a purpose to potter along my miserable teenage existence of self-absorbed nihilism and male arrogance of thinking I was an un-discovered Kurt Cobain. Now, at 21 I constantly wish I studied harder at A Levels and wished I did this and that and blah blah. We all do this but that doesn't mean my position on studying art has changed.
I was having a conversation with a musician friend of mine. Him, along with a lot of other people from parents to tutors to strangers have expressed to me that âI donât want to have an art degreeâ, âits a waste of a degreeâ. This got me thinking, all the conversations and interactions with people Iâve had who describe âMedia Studiesâ as a âdossâ, what âidiots doâ or Art âas a cop outâ or âeasy Aâ which really donât make much sense to me.
