The Material Conditions of Everyday Life

musings on art, music, culture, politics

[freeleah-blog]

First and foremost, do not panic.

Leah wanted for us to express these points to you with this news:

She is extremely traumatized and experienced a lot of very, very bad things, but she is alive. The state of her mental health is also very bad.

She asks that people do not jump to wild...

[nrcars]

O15 2012: The Next Global Day of Action?

I’ll keep it short and simple. I believe, for a 2012 October 15 Global Day of Action to be a success for the oppressed and exploited in Australia, united against wealth inequality, corporate greed, capitalism, landlordism and general authoritative oppression, it must co-ordinate well internationally and locally, spark discussion and conversation, and empower communities to begin satisfying their own needs, escaping the control of the systems and institutions that have failed us.

If you have specific ideas - a direct action, occupy a bank foyer, creative actions, community kitchen, people’s library - get a group of people together with shared affinity and make it happen yourselves. Then tie these events and actions into an O15 Global Day of Action in your city by co-ordinating with other events and actions organised by other groups and communities. This co-ordination can happen through a series of spokescouncils, the mechanisms behind non-hierarchical organisation from the anti-globalisation movement to the Arab Spring to Greece and Spain, Occupy and beyond. Such co-ordination can be geared towards mass collaboration on organising for an event on October 15, 2012.

Such a mass collaborative event would ideally take the form of a day of community participation and action in a central, visible, symbolic location – perhaps focused on City Square in Melbourne for example – to display physical numbers to ruling elites in positions of power and control. If enough people desire such a day to include a protest encampment, it will happen. If only a few people imagine a protest encampment to be an effective form of non-violent direct action, it may still happen but it might have the opposite effect of what those people intend it to have - underparticipation, lack of organisation, etc – and may undermine the effectiveness of other community actions and events happening that day. Similar considerations apply to other forms of direct action.

Obviously a mass display of physical numbers of people who have mobilised on that day united against political corruption, corporate greed, capitalism, landlordism, etc, in an event captured, documented and sent around the world sparking global conversations around the issue, may be an effective tool to influence hierarchical systems of control and oppression. However, I see perhaps a more empowering and inspiring effect of such a day; To use the occasion to meet new people, network with them, form new groups, collectives and spawn new projects that can help us escape systems of control and exploitation.

We need to be organising now, building the databases of our networks, sharing our resources, our skills, inspiring each other and empowering the unemancipated. Many people, groups, collectives, movements, communities and regions of the world have already started. What are you doing for O15 2012?

[nrcars]

The Cultural Freedom of Sampling

“Look at how every great poet made culture… It’s all about collage. It’s about taking the bits and pieces of your influences and forging them into something newer and stronger.” – Siva Vaidhyanathan, cultural historian “You could say that all humans are sampling machines. We all learn by taking in what we hear and see and trying to imitate it, and output it again. That’s how we learn to speak. That’s how we learn to paint and make music as well.” – Matt Black, co-founder, Coldcut “Whatever interests me, whatever I love, I wish to make it my own.” – Igor Stravinsky, 20th century composer The role of sampling and appropriation in the myriad musical styles and genres it finds use, is one born purely of a creative methodology, a process to attain a desired creative outcome. As McLeod & DiCola (2011) assert “Sampling is a form of the fine arts practice of collage, but one that is done with audio tools rather than scissors and glue.”This creative practice has indeed become a medium within which musical styles and genres are based and cultural forms are developed. However, restrictions on creativity, of which sampling has become a key resister, are stifling the development of both individual and collective cultural forms and pose tangible implications for our broader cultural freedoms as we move further into the 21st Century. Appropriation, aside from playing a central role in learning and psychological development, and the biological evolution of life more broadly, has found use in cultural and artistic mediums since the earliest human utterances. McLeod & DiCola (2011) note a multitude of documented historical examples in European classical music; in the works of Brahms and Mendelssohn appropriating elements of Beethoven’s work, Mendelssohn appropriating Wagner, Mahler from Brahms, and so on. Further examples of appropriation in performed music as present through to the 20th century. Woodie Guthrie’s I Ain’t Got No Home, a reworking of the Baptist hymn This World is Not My Home, is an example of how appropriation can be used as a creative act to rework compositions to affect the opposite social and political impact then intended from the appropriated composition, in this case better working conditions during the Great Depression in the US (McLeod & DiCola 2011). The act of using pre-recorded sonic material to create new artistic forms began not long after the advent of recorded sound technologies, particularly phonograph technology. In 1920, Stefan Wolpe performed a playback of eight gramophones at varying speeds, paving the way for similar works throughout the 1920’s including works by the French composer Darius Milhaud (McLeod & DiCola 2011). These early experiments with sound collage would become central creative elements in the future of sonic art and music, evidenced in the emergence of the Musique Concrète movement of 1940’s and 50’s Europe, in which technologies such as magnetic tape (see Fig 1), developed with the assistance of experimental musicians such as Pierre Schaeffer, expanded upon the capability and accessibility of manipulating recorded sound (McLeod & DiCola 2011). Fig 1: Pierre Schaeffer manipulating magnetic tape on the Phonogène, 1948 – Source: Wikipedia Schaeffer’s 1948 work Étude aux chemins de fer, an assemblage and juxtaposition of magnetic tape recorded railway train sounds, created a self described “concert of noises” broadcast over French radio. The art historian Glen Watkins notes that the editing techniques of splicing and overlay were by definition akin to notions of collage investigated in painting, literature and other art forms (McLeod & DiCola 2011). Meanwhile in the US, phonograph technology was pushed to the extreme by John Cage, exemplified in his 1952 work Imaginary Landscape, in which he crafted a densely layered work assembled from a range of phonograph recordings performed on gramophones. The experimentations of these early sound artists using recorded sound as a creative medium would grow to influence the use of sound in radio, film and television. However, the tangent which would lead ultimately to Instrumental hip hop began in the late 1950's, when broadcasts from US radio disk jockeys began influencing dance party disk jockeys in Jamaica. One such DJ, Count Machuki, began ‘toasting’ over tracks he was playing - essentially chants, comedic banter, rhymed storytelling and other vocalisations - appropriating and expanding upon the vocalisations from US radio DJs. These Jamaican DJs soon found roles in dance party performance collectives known as ‘sound systems’ in Jamaica (also known as ‘mobile discotheques’) through the 1960’s and Jamaican sound engineers began producing backing tracks known as ‘versions’ that could be used by DJs for ‘toasting’ over within the sound systems (see Fig 2). Fig 2: An example of disk jockeying and toasting in a sound system in Kingston, Jamaica, c late 1960’s early 1970’s – Source: Inity Weekly The art of producing these ‘versions’, as pioneered by sound engineers such as King Tubby, Lee Perry and Scientist through the late 1960’s, grew to inform the musical genre Dub, an instrumental derivative of Reggae, signaling the genesis of the modern remix (McLeod & DiCola 2011). Here we see the first modern resemblance of Instrumental hip hop, something that would later provide the backbone of Hip hop music. The development of Beatmatching by Francis Grasso, with the aid of Alex Rosner’s pioneering headphone mix technology, further expanded the performative creative capabilities of DJs using duel-turntable setups.

Meanwhile, block parties were becoming increasingly popular in the US in the 1970’s, echoing 1960's Jamaica, and techniques used by sound systems in Jamaican Dub were adapted to the increasingly disadvantaged and marginalised area of South Bronx, New York (see Fig 3). Disadvantaged youth were drawn to the sound systems, graffiti (see Fig 4) and b-boy/girl dance, empowered to move away from gang culture and into the creative world of sound systems and emerging hip hop culture by pioneering youth collectives such as Zulu Nation. Jamaican immigrants such as DJ Kool Herc, pioneered the development of distinctive local New York styles from toasting over sampled “break” beats from 1960’s and 70’s funk recordings. These “breaks” - sections within individual tracks in which all instrumental elements would drop out leaving the rhythm section, often only the drum kit, to fill time until the rest of the instrumentation returned in a “break-in” – were continuously looped by DJs using two records on separate cassette decks or turntables (Katz 2004), creating the basis of the distinct rhythm of Hip hop music within the broader Hip hop culture in late 1970's New York. Fig 3 & 4: Scenes of South Bronx and Graffiti, an element of Hip hop culture, New York, late 1970’s early 1980’s – Source: Wild Style, 1982 As T La Rock explains of mixing two records back and forth in McLeod & DiCola (2011); “Once the break beat ended [on one record], we used what’s called a cross fader on the mixer to bring in the same beat [on the other record]… That’s how we extended the break beats and made a longer piece.” Aided by the increased accessibility of digital sampling machine technology, short samples of drum kit beats played during these “breaks”, known as “break beats”, could be more expansively copied, looped and replayed to form the basis of new artistic works. Specific break beats became popular recurring samples within Hip hop music by the early 1980’s, such as the "Amen break", originally sampled from the track Amen Brother, recorded in 1969 by The Winstons, and the "Funky drummer" break, originally sampled from James Brown’s Funky Drummer released in 1970.

Throughout the 1980's, Hip hop music grew more diverse and the use of sampling grew more complex with the advent of more sophisticated sampling machines, enabling many samples to be layered and allowing for more complex compositional structures. As McLeod & DiCola (2011) explain; “Whether it was cassette decks, turntables, or-later-digital samplers, Hip hop artists made their electronic equipment do things for which the equipment was not originally intended, opening up new creative possibilities in the process.” The original 6-second sample of the ‘Amen break’ and it’s derivatives would spawn an entire subgenre known unsurprisingly as Break beat, in which original break beats would be looped at an increased tempo, which in turn significantly influenced genres such as Jungle and Acid House. Meanwhile through the 1980’s, artists such as Christian Marclay continued experimenting with physical mediums of recorded sound. Marclay’s work literally involving the physical splicing, cutting and reassembling of vinyl records for simultaneous playback, dissecting the relationship between sampling as process and medium. Almost all of the source material for Marclay’s vinyl splicing works were non-original and involved highly invasive processes of appropriation. Instrumental hip hop itself, etymologically referencing the origins of its sampled break beats, baselines and production culture more than other compositional elements, developed from the works of DJs gaining notoriety as specifically instrumental in their own right. An example is found in the work of the production collaboration between Double Dee and Steinski, in which a series of Hip hop-derived, sample-based collages were produced; Lesson 1: The Payoff Mix (1983), Lesson 2: The James Brown Mix (1984), Lesson 3: The History of Hip Hop Mix (1985) and The Motorcade Sped On (1987). The series featured recorded sound samples from spoken word, radio broadcasts, films, popular music and television, set to a collage of popular Hip hop breaks. Though not widely commercially successful, this specifically ‘instrumental’ Hip hop series proved influential for artists such as DJ Shadow, Cut Chemist and Coldcut into the 1990’s.

The influence of sample-based rhythm-oriented works into the mid-late 1980’s and the geographic ties of Instrumental hip hop to the US west coast are evidenced in the production work of the Dust Brothers. Originally creating ‘instrumental’ sample-based Hip hop recordings popular in Los Angeles night clubs in the late 1980’s, their extensive and innovative use of sampling helped establish the method as an artistic medium itself (LeRoy 2006), contributing their unique densely-layered sampling technique to several productions including; Tone Lōc's Lōc-ed Ater Dark, recorded 1987-88 and the Beastie Boys Paul's Boutique, recorded 1988-89, works defined by the Dust Brothers sampling methods (LeRoy 2006), paving the way for the popularisation of what we know of as Instrumental hop hop into the 1990’s.

Simultaneously to the Dust Brothers production contributions in the US, the distinctly ‘down-tempo’ nature of mid-1990’s Instrumental hip hop was being conceived in Jamaican dancehall and dub influenced sound systems in Bristol, UK in the mid 1980’s (see Fig 5 & 6). The Bristol sound systems had developed a taste for more ‘down tempo’ sample-based music. Bristol sound systems such as Wild Bunch, began developing unique local styles providing the genesis of the Trip Hop genre. This beat-driven, atmospherically layered, down-tempo style was popularised by successful commercial releases by artists Massive Attack, Portishead and Tricky, in turn further popularising the use of sample-based music into the mid 1990's. Fig 5 & 6: A block party in Bristol, UK, 1986 and a Bristol sound system, 1985 – Source: The Wire, 2007 (via Red Lines)

However, the term ‘Trip hop’, allegedly coined by a UK magazine in 1994, was initially used to describe Mo' Wax records releases at the time, including the 12minute "In/Flux" single by DJ Shadow in 1993, in which sample-based music was used to gently layer samples of spoken word, instrumentation and mix tempos. However, the commercial success of artists such as Massive Attack usurped the application of the Trip hop term to Mo' Wax releases and the works of artists in the style of DJ Shadow would later be described from within the US as ‘Instrumental hip hop’, perhaps an etymological reference to the origins of it's sampled break beats, baselines and production culture. Though the terms ‘Instrumental hip hop’ and ‘Trip hop’ are often used interchangeably. The application of Instrumental hip hop as a definable genre became widely known with the commercially successful release of Joshua Davis’ (aka DJ Shadow) full-length album Endtroducing….. in 1996. A self-proclaimed attempt at creating an album entirely from samples, Endtroducing….. acts as a temporal museum of the beats, timbres and spaces of western recorded sonic history, aligned to the pitch and rhythm of human history. In much the same fashion as Double Dee and Steinski’s Lessons series, samples of everything from film to spoken word are layered atop seamlessly spliced and looped down-tempo grooves (Rashid 2005), facilitated through the use of an AKAI MPC60 digital sampler/drum machine (see Fig 7) and a pair of turntables (Miller 2008). Fig 7: The AKAI MPC60 digital sampler/drum machine, as used on DJ Shadow’s Endtroducing….., 1996 – Source: Wikipedia If Endtroducing..… is a museum of sonic history, then the track The Number Song is an exhibit of funk drum breaks. 16 individual tracks were sampled to create The Number Song, a virtual tour of some of the most popular break beats in hip hop, referencing the funk beat-oriented sample-based work of Double Dee and Steinski in their 1987 release; Lesson 3: The History of Hip Hop Mix (Rashid 2005). Through the use of a diverse range of samples, Davis’ work, whilst remaining predominantly down-tempo and instrumental, interchangeably strays into genres reflecting this range of source material; jazz, electroacoustic, soul, metal, rock, funk, etc. This tour through sonic history itself has direct physical links to the initial creative act. Davis’ source material is obtained through a process known as “digging”, the act of searching through record stores and recorded music caches for recorded sounds (see Fig 8), specifically vinyl (Rashid 2005). In the case of Endtroducing….., almost all of the source material was obtained from the basement vinyl collection of a single Californian record store. Here we find the artist analysing the explosion of modern music, reinterpreting it and expressing it in new creative forms. In the work of Davis, sampling became more than just a creative methodology; it was the sole creative medium. Fig 8: DJ Shadow amongst the basement cache of recorded music in a record store in California, US – Source: Scratch, 2001 Throughout the late 1990’s and 2000’s the term Instrumental hip hop found application to the works of many artists who found moderate to widespread commercial success, such as; RJD2, MF Doom, Madlib, J Dilla/Jay Dee, Diplo, Alchemist, Cut Chemist, DJ Babu, Blockhead, Pete Rock, Premier, Danny!, Nujabes, Wax Tailor, Jake Uno and others. Many of these artists simultaneously produced both collaborative non-instrumental works and specifically instrumental works. Artists increasingly incorporated samples into their works and the number of artists creating purely sample-based works exploded (Katz 2004). By 2000, many artists were releasing commercially successful recordings comprised of as many as 3,500 samples in the case of The Avalanches debut album “Since I Left You”. Thought source material for sampling isn't always found in works or recordings to which the copyright is not owned by the artist employing its use, as evidences in various works by Portishead. Sampling as a medium beyond a creative method has solidified in sonic culture today, as sonic artists reflect upon and reinterpret the history of recorded sound and its social, political and cultural contexts, many choosing to work within sampling as a medium itself, often grouped under terms such as Mashup and Plunderphonics (Miller 2008). However, the creative medium of sampling can be a dangerous one for artists to work within given current state restrictions on the use of intellectual and physical/digital cultural material (Lessig 2004). Modern copyright law implies to both artists and patrons that the art of sampling and the creative process behind it is in some way illegitimate or even illegal, in the absence of a licensing agreement. Copyright law was introduced in the US in the 18th century to protect ownership of intellectual property, with the US constitution requiring the length of copyright law to be limited, so after a predetermined amount of time the work would fall into the public domain. However, after remaining virtually unchanged for around 150 years, the last forty years has seen the US Congress extend the scope of copyright law on no less than eleven occasions (Lessig 2001). Many such extensions have been granted after strong and sustained lobbying from wealthy and powerful copyright holders. As Lessig notes; “We have gone from a regime where a tiny part of creative content was controlled, to a regime where most of the most useful and valuable creative content is controlled for every significant use.” (p. 107, Lessig 2001) The effects these increased restrictions had on the use of copyrighted source material in sample-based works is diverse, affecting everyone from the specific individual practicing artist to the broader cultural sphere more generally. One effect was the increase in licensing clearance fees; All 105 samples used on the Beastie Boys Paul’s Boutique were cleared in 1989 for around $250,000. "Most of the samples used on Paul's Boutique were cleared, easily and affordably, something that would be unthinkable in today's litigious music industry.” (LeRoy 2006). By the late 1990’s, it became increasingly difficult for artists, particularly those publishing works on smaller or independent record labels, to clear source material used in samples (Lessig 2004). This in turn led to the alteration of many artistic works, including Cut Chemist’s Lesson 6: The Lecture, released in 1997. The album the track appears on had to be re-released several occasions, each time to remove specific samples from the track deemed to have infringed copyright law for which licensing fees could not be burdened. Fig 9: An explanation of various Creative Commons licenses available – Source: Master New Media This increased imposition of state restrictions on creativity can be damaging to not only individual artists practices, but culture broadly. Helfer & Austin (2011) explored the notion that modern expansive copyright law may in fact infringe upon human rights. While others, such as Griffiths & Suthersanen (2005) in editing Copyright and free speech, explore how copyright is restricting free speech. Such impositions of state restrictions upon human rights and free speech restrict the freedom of culture to flourish within and enrich the affected populace. Indeed through even the smallest of research in this area, one inevitably observes an irony, that it is the commercial music industry that fails in clearing the biggest copyright of all; the appropriation of artistic styles and techniques born of the struggle of cultural minorities in creating their own interpretations of their unique social, political and economic situations. Restrictions on creativity may be threatening emerging cultural-sonic forms and entire genres, such as Mashup, however appropriation and sampling as creative methodologies are not experiencing a decline. In spite of legislative measures to monetise creativity and the collective and shared ideas of humanity, sampling is experiencing exponential growth (Rimmer 2007). The commercial market and popular demand for sonic styles within the Mashup genre alone are exemplified in the inclusion of artefacts of Girl Talk’s live performance in the US Rock n’ Roll Hall of Fame (see Fig 10). Fig 10: Girl Talk’s shoes and laptop in the Rock n’ Roll Hall of Fame, US – Source: Wikipedia As we move further into the 21st Century, Creative Commons, a copyright licensing mechanism enabling creators to communicate which rights they waive and which the reserve (Lessig 2004), has increasingly become a mechanism with which creators can break from the commercialisation of creativity, since it’s creation in 2001. Artists who approve of their work being sampled, or appropriated in other creative forms, can waive some of their rights under copyright law to enable the legal appropriation of creative forms. However, Creative Commons still operates within the same legal framework as copyright and supports the option to retain private intellectual property rights (see Fig 9) – which in itself was created to monetise creativity, ideas and innovation for personal, individual profit (Lessig 2001). As Reagle (2010) observes in the culture of the world’s first global free encyclopaedia, Wikipedia, cultural exchange is something we have a natural predisposition for. Perhaps the only future in which culture is truly free will be one in which sovereignty of cultural content, be it ideas or physical mediums, lies collectively with all people, for the enrichment of all people. Bibliography: Bidner, S & Feuerstein, T (hg./ed.) 2004, Sample minds: Materials on sampling culture, Verlag der Buchhandlung Walther König, Cologne D. Gavin, M 2008, A work in progress: the prospects and potential of the world’s youth, International Debate Education Association, New York Griffiths, J / Suthersanen, U (ed.) 2005, Copyright and free speech, Oxford University Press, Oxford Helfer, L. R & Austin, G. W 2011, Human rights and intellectual property: Mapping the global interface, Cambridge University Press, New York Katz, M 2004, Capturing sound: How technology has changed music, University of California (Berkeley) Press, Berkeley LeRoy, D 2006, The Beastie Boys’ Paul’s Boutique (33 1/3), Continuum International, London/New York Lessig, L 2010, Remix: making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy, Penguin Books, New York Lessig, L 2004, Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity, Penguin Press, New York Lessig, L 2001, The future of ideas: The fate of commons in a connected world, Random House, New York/Toronto McLeod, K & DiCola, P 2011, Creative license: The law and culture of digital sampling, Duke University Press, Durham and London McLeod, K 2001, Owning culture: Authorship, ownership, and intellectual property, P. Lang, New York Miller, P 2008, Sound unbound: Sampling digital music and culture, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Porsdam H, 2006, Copyright and other fairy tales: Hans Christian Andersen and the comodification of creativity, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham Reagle, J 2010, Good faith collaboration: The culture of Wikipedia, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Rimmer, M 2007, Digital copyright and the consumer revolution, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham/Northhampton Rashid, R 2005, Behind the beat: Hip hop home studios, Gingko Press, Berkeley Sonvilla-Weiss, S 2010, Mashup cultures, Springer, Vienna, Austria Unknown author 2012, Why instrumental hip hop doesn’t suck: A rebuttal, from ‘Flea Market Funk’ blog, February 23, 2012 <http://fleamarketfunk.com/2012/02/13/why-instrumental-hip-hop-doesnt-suck-a-rebuttal/> - Retrieved May 10, 2012 Wentz, B 2007, Hey, that’s my music! Music supervision, licensing and content acquisition, Hal Leonard, New York Contextual framing: Kalmar, S & Pies, D (ed.) 2010, Be nice, share everything, have fun: Kunstaverein München 2005-2009, Verlag der Buchhandlung Walther König, Köln McGranahan, L 20 Money For Nothing: Behind the business of pop music – DVD ISBN: 1-893521-55-9, 2001 – 48min Rip! A Remix Manifesto – Broadcast SBS1 5/1/10 – 87min Scratch – Palm Pictures, 2001 - 92min Wild Style – Wild Style Productions, New York 1982 – Rhino Home Video, DVD, 2002 - 82min

[nrcars]

What Did I Expect? A Critique of the Marxism 2012 Conference

"This is what I think, why I'm right and why you should also think this way. Now for some questions predominantly from our organisation. Now to deride the 2 questioners who didn't follow the line. Now I get the last say. And here's where you sign up to the Socialist Alternative mailing list." - Marxism 2012 Conference

Before I get stuck in, my personal caveats to such a critique include Malalai Joya, stories from the Philippines, the Chilean student protesters, various other international speakers, the walking tour and the 2 amazing conversations I had. Thanks is due to Socialist Alternative for making these things happen.

I attended expecting intelligent conversation and skills and information sharing. Forums in which the 'traditional left' could learn from each other, in which we could exchange skills & share stories, with no speaker dictating to anyone. Very little of this actually happened. I didn't attend to play by the rules of the organisers - that being part of what's wrong with how we govern ourselves today. It wasn't an open, empowering, inclusive forum. Many didn't speak or ask questions because they felt intimidated or inferior. I felt intimidated! I just had the stubbornness to keep my hand in the air until I was chosen to speak.

Instead, argument and persuasion pervaded all discourse. Most speakers (excluding aforementioned caveats) dictated to an audience an insidious selective reading down of the topic at hand to justify an undercurrent of trotskyist or otherwise authoritarian/totalitarian ideology. Anyone who prodded with a question of substance, was mostly quickly papered over, ignored or derided. I was told by three Socialist Alternative members that I was wrong in interpreting 'democracy' as the rule of all people (the strict definition of the word) and persuaded to think of it as majority-rules, which is the current interpretation that fails us, with no attempt to engage with me in any mutual discourse.

I was also told by a long-term Socialist Alternative member that I shouldn't have asked a question, rather, I should have stated my opinion. But I wasn't there to impose my opinion upon others, I was there to share my knowledge with others and to learn from the knowledge of others. The format didn't allow that. The only thing that came close was the uni bar. There were strong anti-anarchist, anti-occupy, anti-autonomy, anti-horizontalism and anti-environmentalism undercurrents.

Participants were told time and time again of the sanctity of hierarchy & leadership, completely ignoring the fact that it was thus global democratic movements of 2011 were vehemently against. Some sessions were prescriptively titled, example; "Why the police are not part of the 99%." instead of "Are the police part of the 99%?" The influence of spontaneity, prefiguration and horizontalism on movements in North Africa and Europe were downplayed and union involvement was trumpeted as a dubious example of marxist undertones of these movements. Information and evidence was chosen selectively and much was ignored.

Debate around atomisation and casualisation of workforces and historically low union membership were glazed over. Solutions to rotten union leadership and the failure of hierarchically organised trade unions were barely discussed, yet much animated complaint against it was enjoyed, particularly against the ACTU, with little to no constructive critique or solutions offered let alone discussed. There was no room for people to share knowledge amongst themselves in the true spirit of discussion. It was largely self-congratulatory for those who identify with the 'traditional left'.

I was personally derided predominantly by members of Socialist Alternative and their sympathisers, and a couple of others caught in the ideological lineage. This derision was waged in a succession of responses to two questions I raised in separate sessions. I was accused of all number of things from co-opting Occupy Melbourne to being the cause of it's "downfall," some subtle, some fiery, all with no evidence provided and no chance given to respond to the assertions, personal accusations and unfounded, blatant attacks.

The use of language to alter perception of reality was manipulative and insidious. Examples of language used to manipulate opinions of myself can be found post-conference threads; twisting a "critique" of Socialist Alternative into a "derision" shifts the framing. Sarcastic accusations of me being "precious to disagreement" whilst ignoring the fact that I was one of the few who had the courage to speak up and spark disagreement, hardly precious, hardly against disagreement, and various assumptions of my own personal thoughts, all unfounded and unevidenced.

I submitted a question to Leia Pettey about identity in the Occupy movement and wether or not she felt it was divisive, creating a separation between "occupiers" and "non-occupiers", but she skimmed over it, responding; It's important people feel they can identify with a movement and thats important to fight for. I felt she spent too long talking of intra-politics, criticised insurgent anarchists without providing evidence to support her claims and failed to offer any type of contribution to meta-political discourse around Occupy as a movement, which I found disappointing from the sole Occupy-related international guest.

You may be wondering; Why did I expect something more equitable and more sophisticated? Sure, I should have known better but I guess part of me imagined it would be more of a meeting of minds than it would a circle jerk of the traditional left prefaced & bookended by a call to join yet another hierarchical political organisation. The tolerance of such a masquerade by the traditional left was indeed disturbing.

There are many problems in Melbournes 'traditional left' if it collectively steers us away from truly radical 21st century ideas, derides thousands of newly empowered people because they don't play the conventional leftist game, display inferior political knowledge or remain unresponsive to influence, and focusses its yearly pride around a propagandist, self-congratulatory conference and wonders why it isn't appealing to a broader audience making ground over neoliberalism.

Perhaps the most disappointing thing is that so many of us in the 'traditional left', still desire our own subjugation. We are yet to embrace a collective sense of communalism or truly enact mutual-aid and other concepts that have permeated broader society. The "revolution" is happening right now and the broader community refuses to submit to an organisation, or even a "movement" telling them what to do and how to do it. The failure of the Marxism 2012 Conference organisers to realise this is the ultimate failure of the conference itself. A disappointing if somewhat expected conclusion, made palatable by the presence of some fantastic caveats.

[nrcars]

Not Ready Yet: Lessons from Occupy in Australia

Presented at TEDxUniMelb, April 2, 2012: Firstly, I’d like to acknowledge that we are gathered here on land that is traditionally owned by the Wurundjeri people, I recognise that Indigenous sovereignty has never been ceded and that no treaty exists between the First Nations of Australia and the Commonwealth of Australia, and that as a white male I have inherent privileges that influence my interactions with others… I speak here this evening as just one of many individuals who were involved in the Occupy Melbourne movement and can only speak for myself and to the events as I experienced them. There are many diverse thoughts, opinions and ideas on Occupy Melbourne out there, this is just one of them… Don’t take my word for what I saw, I encourage you all to explore and share in the amazing thoughts of everyone else involved… Now, I thought I’d present something of an analytical chronology to give some context to this evening and explain the emergence and genesis of Occupy Melbourne whilst simultaneously offering some analysis and critique of the successes and failures I’ve encountered so far… For those of you who don’t know me, before 2011, I’d been involved in campaigning around environmental issues, public transport and planning policy development within the Victorian Greens and running as the Greens candidate in Doncaster. I’ve also been involved in producing a radio show for Beyond Zero Emissions, the climate change solutions think tank that produced the Zero Carbon Australia report, detailing how to transition to 100% renewable energy in Australia in 10 years. And have maintained a steady involvement in Melbourne’s contemporary music and arts, facilitating a creative resource hub for independent musicians and artists. I’d been following developments in Spain and Greece since 2008, the student protests in Chile, had friends help organise the UK Uncut protests and watched in awe at the people’s occupation of Wisconsin’s State Capitol in the United States. So when 2011 arrived, of course I was glued to the Internet, keenly watching the uprisings throughout North Africa, with Greece and Spain on it’s heels. But I’d been watching from a distance, identifying more as a Greens member and environmental campaigner than any kind of activist, the idea of translating these ideas to Australia was an impossibility.

As the scenes rolled on endlessly, square after square after park after plaza, one image hit a nerve. The spark that changed my life (and I imagine many others) was a simple sign from the streets of Madrid that read; “Crisis del Capitalismo”. I couldn’t speak Spanish, but I knew what it meant; ‘we’ve got a crisis on our hands and the current system is making it worse’. I was propelled into a new realm of inspiration. The impossible suddenly seemed possible. Perhaps something like this could happen in Australia, just maybe. It wasn’t long until combined stirings such as Annonymous’ OpESR, US Day of Rage, Adbusters provocational blogging and the inspirational images from the other side of the world, helped to spark Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Together. What had become a possibility was now reduced to a matter of fact. Something like this will happen in Australia, but what will it look like? Having friends in London and making new ones in Madrid and New York, I started to research how all these movements came to be, how they were organised and how they functioned. I quickly became part of the first group of people organising online to bring the Occupy movement to Australia, essentially just transposing much of Occupy Wall Street to Melbourne. I helped facilitate early organising meetings, started the website, administered social media and founded the Media and Facilitation Working Groups. But before we get too far ahead of ourselves, let’s start from the beginning… Occupy Melbourne started with one girl… As I mentioned before, within a week or so of Occupy Wall Street commencing, two guys in the US started a website called Occupy Together, originally intended to inspire and empower other cities in the United States to begin protest encampments, try holding assemblies of their own and organise actions, they supplied some tools and resources online covering the basics of people’s assemblies, consensus and working groups. But little did they know, they were helping spread the idea, that any city can “occupy”, far beyond United States borders… And they weren’t the only ones. Take The Square, US Day of Rage and a swag of other newly formed websites were helping disseminate news about what was going on around the world and sharing information about what was working best, where and how to do it. Within a short week, Spain’s call for an October 15 “International Day of Action” had been earmarked by many as an ideal date to put many of these ideas into action… Within a matter of days after the call to Occupy Together had gone out, a girl from the suburbs of Melbourne, studying in the CBD, thought... "You know what? That’s a good idea! Why not Occupy Melbourne?" So she started an email account, got a facebook page and group up and running, twitter and youtube, etc. But she wasn’t the only one triggered by the idea of Occupy Together. There were more of us, and we typed the words “Occupy Melbourne” into twitter and facebook to see what came up... "Hey! Someone’s already started a facebook page! Oh and there’s a group here too! And there’s a few people in here!... Wow!" This is where I came in... Within a matter or hours a small collection of people with the same idea in our heads had found ourselves together online in a forum where we could talk to each other.

But this first wave was just the beginning. For the next 3 weeks we would see over 8,000 people “like” the facebook page, 5,000 follow the twitter account, 3,800 attend the facebook event and 2,000 people engaging in a discourse on the first facebook page. Most of the growth in Occupy Melbourne’s online presence as it is today, was built in these first 3 weeks. And far more than 99% of these people had no skills or experience in activism or community organising of any kind. The few of us who did quickly faced a barrage of questions. "What now? How do we do this?" We decided to call an open public meeting to talk in person. A venue was decided on, a café in Sydney Road, Brunswick. 30 people turned up, an eclectic mix, from the completely naive and inexperienced (like myself), to battled-hardened non-violent resistance veterans and everyone in between. There was no spokescouncil, no professional facilitators, we just talked, it was very organic and quite disorganised, but we had all been drawn together by our collective grievances and we wanted to do something about it. Some had already organised teams of people for postering and flyering, others were offering experience, advice, skills, materials, services. I raised the question of a website; “We’re going to need one! Does anyone have any web development skills?” and felt a hand fall on my shoulder from behind; “Looks like you just volunteered!”. Knowing virtually nothing about web development I found myself with a loose mandate from a disorganised clan to build an Occupy Melbourne website. This is how much of the organisation continued in the lead-up to October 15, and these same patterns were present in the genesis of other Occupy movements around Australia, including Occupy Sydney and Occupy Brisbane. At peak there were somewhere between 15 and 20 'Occupy’s' around Australia, the smaller they were, the more niche their scope, but all were organised by predominantly every day people, with varying forms of assistance from existing conventional activist networks. There’s such a depth of information and questions we could journey into at this point, so please ask questions and participate in the discussion after the speakers where we can begin to delve into some of the massive areas I’m going to leap over... So, why are we still here? Where’d the revolution go? The answer, as I see it, can be put quite simply; Australia isn’t at midnight on our revolutionary clock just yet. In fact, we’re not even close. Yes it’s true, Australia is in a much better situation economically, we haven’t seen financial bail-outs and austerity measures on the same scale as Europe and the US. Unemployment though somewhat high at 12%, isn’t high enough to force bread winners into the streets of our cities. We lack the key triggers essential to imparting urgency upon a newborn movement. Though it is important to note, we were still impacted by the global financial crisis and continue to feel the effects of the Eurozone debt crisis, amongst other woes. Our two-speed economy is such that while the economies of WA and QLD enjoy growth over 10%, the economies of Victoria, SA and NSW are barely growing at all, and Tasmania is going backwards. Not to mention the myriad environmental problems we face on this dry continent. We do indeed face our own problems, but we also share global ills with all humanity; we suffer oppression in many different ways, we worry about corporatism, the corruption of our political system, the ability of representative parliamentary democracy to take us into the 21st century. And we acknowledge that there is still more to be done in striving for a better world despite our comparatively high standard of living. Occupy has been a crucial part of that acknowledgment and discourse shift. But why didn’t hundreds of thousands of Australians come out in force into the streets? How was it different to Occupy in the US, or similar movements in Europe? Why hasn’t Occupy Melbourne, Occupy in Australia, been as influential as Occupy elsewhere? The truth is, it’s complicated. But I’m going to try and summarise a few key points that I believe contribute to the answer…

We had no local momentum or triggers

We needed to be better organised

We failed to mobilise enough numbers

We weren’t ready for the ideas behind Occupy

and ultimately; We needed our own mass social movement, and we’ll only ever be ready for one as a people, as Australians, when the broader community demands it.

In the meantime, there’s a lot of work to do to ensure this demand doesn’t well up too late, to empower people to forge a collective sense of society, culture and community from the grassroots up. So why didn’t we have local momentum or triggers? Momentum around the world had been steadily building since before the Arab Spring, inspired westerners after the Spanish Indignados and made it seem possible that an Australian arm of these global struggles could be spawned after Occupy Wall Street kicked off. But in the absence of local triggers or the benefit of a sustained movement building prior, we had to use global momentum to manufacture momentum locally. Many Australians are well connected and just enough of us had our ears to the ground ready to swing into action around translating Occupy to Australia, even though there was no ground up push from the wider community. Harnessing this global momentum enabled us to mobilise thousands, but not tens of thousands or the hundreds of thousands needed to affect any kind of meaningful change in the status quo. Before any of this could happen organically to build real momentum in Australia we needed three things that we didn’t have; 1. Strong, established pre-existing networks of facilitators, non-violent resisters, street medics and other personnel; 2. Local social, political and economic triggers to motivate communities who would not normally protest out of necessity; 3. and above all else, resilient communities with a strong sense of communality and cultures of empowerment. Australia wasn’t exhibiting any of these things. Though there were several thousands of us inspired enough, excited enough to get up and take to the street, the lack of sustained organic growth and urgent triggers prior to October 15, meant that we had to grow local momentum ourselves, we had to kick start action and spark something from virtually nothing, get into the slip stream of O15 and Occupy Together, and see how long we could sustain it. Why weren’t we better organised? In late September 2011, a young girl from the suburbs studying at uni who had never even protested before, started a facebook page. While she was at it she thought she’d snap up Occupy Melbourne accounts on Twitter, YouTube and a few other things. A facebook group was created soon after where people could talk about the idea of Occupy Melbourne, and I was in it. I use myself as a case in point as someone who was somewhat capable but totally under prepared and completely lacking the experience and knowledge required to help others in getting a movement like Occupy off the ground, anywhere. There’s a whole library of information I could share about the early genesis of Occupy Melbourne online but the most important thing to note is that the community organising online were not traditional activists, they were normal everyday people inspired by what they saw happening overseas. And those of us who had basic levels of experience organising and promoting rallies and the like, certainly had no experience with radical Spanish people’s assemblies or a grasp of the finer points of consensus, autonomy and self-organisation for example. I didn’t even know what a spokescouncil was, but 5 months later in hindsight it sure would have been handy in early organisation phases. Linking all the disparate networks would also have been useful. So from the moment we began organising in person, we were running on an out-dated operating system. Yes there were more “experienced activists” come on board in later meetings, but on the whole, this thread of inexperience and struggles with comprehending new concepts was carried through all the way to the City Square encampment. Where in Occupy Wall Street they had facilitators form the civil rights movement training college students in non-violent resistance every day, here in Melbourne we were flailing around just to put up posters to tell people anything was happening at all. We wanted to be grappling with the idea of articulating the collective grievances of the entire nation, and instead we were struggling with the basics. Our lack of direct knowledge, hesitance of others getting involved in such a big mobilisation with so little time to organise it (3 weeks) and our inability to harness existing knowledge and experience in such matters, all led to us being drastically underorganised from the beginning. Of course, we could have been much better organised. And understanding how and why we weren’t will be essential knowledge for those of us wanting to foster in Australia a far broader movement into the future. All this led to a failure to mobilise enough numbers: In raw figures: we drew somewhere between 2,000 and 4,000 to City square on October 15. Some subsequent rallies drew 3,000-4,000 and two General Assemblies saw attendances of over 2,000 people. As impressive as it may be if you hold a favourable perspective of every day people with very little experience in radical self-organisation, that’s not enough people. It’s not enough to influence members of parliament, it’s not enough to wrest control of the media narrative, it’s not enough to represent the 99%, it’s not enough to maintain a sustained protest encampment over several months. That’s not to say that we couldn’t have mobilised a few more, but rather, we failed to, and it is from here the question arises; Was Australia ready for Occupy? Were we, the 99%, ready to articulate our collective grievances? Unfortunately I think only 1% of the 99% were (and still are) in any sort of hurry. On a side note: It can be argued that Occupy Wall Street wasn’t ready, and I tend to agree. Without unpicking the history of OpESR and US Day of Rage, there can be no doubt in my mind that Adbusters called the date too soon. 50,000 wasn’t enough to start a national revolution, but it appears it was at least enough to spark a global idea. While Occupy has been oppressed and marginalised everywhere, it is this idea that has solidified and triggered a geological shift in the public discourse. By the Republican Party’s own admission, Americans now believe capitalism is immoral, they want to tax the rich, they hate banks, financial institutions and stock markets and they want accountability in government, they want to reclaim their voice. So if the US may not have been quite ready and Australia certainly wasn’t ready, who was? The push for O15 originated in countries like Spain and Greece. They were ready. For them, it was just one of many global days of action scheduled many months in advance, they had been focusing mass mobilisations for almost a year to that point, the anglosphere was just coming along for the ride, almost merely in solidarity, with Occupy Together generating a uniquely English-speaking momentum that even spread to inner Europe and parts of Africa, South America and Asia. By the time the call to Occupy Together went out, Australia was already years behind. Not only were we just trying to keep up in the slip stream of O15 and OT, but local conditions had not necessitated local momentum sufficient to meet anything like what we were seeing unfold in Europe and the US, despite an inspired few hoping for more. Once we started organising online, it became a question of “can we harness this global momentum to try and spark something here?” Given the time and resources constraints, the numbers at hand, local conditions not quite ripe, the hurried adoption of systems of mass horizontal organisation, consensus-based decision-making bodies, and a general lack of belief it was even possible, I feel we did well. Initially we were indeed growing. We punched above our weight and had plenty of fuel left in our collective tank to sustain the City Square encampment far beyond its eviction. But to struggle against an authoritative enemy, an oppressive police force and a disempowered public, we’re going to need more than a spark of inspiration and a burst of energy if we’re to come together as a people and begin building the world we collectively want for ourselves. We need our own mass social movement, and we’ll only ever be ready for one as a people, as Australians, when the broader community demands it. Whether triggers are imparted upon us or we miraculously awaken from our comfortable slumber ourselves, the broader community has to demand a mass social movement before one can begin, and not enough of us were demanding something like Occupy Melbourne. In the meantime, there’s a lot of work to do to ensure this demand doesn’t well up too late, to empower people to forge a collective sense of society, culture and community from the grassroots up. But what does empowerment entail? Is it merely us imposing a doctrine, an ideology upon others? And do we even need a “movement”? A brand? A name? A banner to fall in behind? An umbrella to link us all together? These are important and difficult questions and conversations and most of us, even within conventional activism circles are not having them. Those of us already aware and inspired need to critically engage with our actions before we can ever expect a broader populace to be receptive to any kind of knowledge we may be able to offer to the next mass movement on the cusp of formation. I certainly don’t have the answers, but I’m ready to discover together with all of you what they might be.

So Why Occupy? What have we learned from it? And what type of legacy will it leave in Australia? Despite it’s prematurity; the Occupy movement has been fantastic for Australia. If nothing else we proved to the rest of the world that we care enough to get excited about the latest fruits of humanity's collective thought. We mobilised in solidarity with countries facing worse conditions than ours and if only for a moment, we demonstrated a sense of empathic multiculturalism, rediscovering our egalitarian values. We acted as an important southern hemispherical cog in the global push for equality and democracy, enabling Europe and North America to point to Australia as an example; “Look! It’s not just us complaining! Even Australians are unhappy.” Many of us have friends and family in countries like Italy and Greece, cities like New York and London, and many of us know how tough it’s becoming for them. We are not immune to the rest of the world, and we are more connected than ever. It is this connection that is at the heart of the influence Occupy has had on Australia. The world shared their solutions with us, affording us rapid exposure to the latest ideas emerging from our global shared human struggle against corporatism, against inequality, corruption and oppression. From people’s assemblies in Madrid to facilitation training in New York, to non-violent resistance tactics in Athens, we all learned from each other instantaneously at the speed of light. (Interestingly, I’ve heard anecdotally that Occupy Town Square in New York has it’s origins in Occupy Fridays here in Melbourne, one small example of how a small group of people are more than capable of being influential in this world.) This hunger to share knowledge, to share skills and exchange experiences, is allowing us to operate as a global humanity in our struggles. Occupy in Australia was us stepping into and assessing this present world. We don’t have the benefit of hundreds of years of locally focused semi-self-governing communities as they do in Spain. We don’t have millions in the streets choosing protest over television because try as they might, they can’t get a job. But our exploration of these ideas and the local adaptation of them is evidence of a brewing unrest beneath our laid back facade. We know that something is wrong. And we know we have to do something about it. Occupy has been just one of many steps on the road to a more resilient, cohesive and passionate Australia. Mark my words; as we begin to talk to each other, begin to share our knowledge, skills and experiences, as we begin to empower each other to act in the best interests of each other in our communities, real change will sweep quickly through this ancient land. And if a comparatively small number of people with no activism experience can rally thousands in 3 weeks, the institutions that are failing us are in for a big surprise when bigger numbers of Australians start becoming participators instead of spectators, when we start talking to each other and take to the streets. We are more than capable of rapidly building the most efficient mass movement in the world, and why not do it before the shit hits the fan? I could have stood here and pretended to impart some sort of higher wisdom upon a crowd of people, abusing the power this lectern bestows upon me and regailing you all with fabulous tales of being charged at by horses while linked in arms with friends or breaking down into tears at the desperate sight of my fellow Melbournians dressed in navy blue and fluro jackets beating their neighbours, but I instead wished to be as honest as I know how in exposing some of the key failures and flaws of Occupy Melbourne. We’re beyond conventional activism here, it’s not merely about spreading awareness, yelling into a megaphone or marching through the street. We can only be honest with ourselves. The solutions to the biggest problems humanity has ever faced are going to require more than we have ever known before. However you choose to view Occupy in Australia, it has taught us that we must learn how to speak for ourselves, together, all of us. And this begins by listening, it begins with you. (It turns out TEDx saw it fit to cut the front off this talk, and omit the entire 2nd half, before uploading it to their website)

[nrcars]

How Occupy Won

For all those doubting the ability of the Occupy Movement to make a measurable difference in this world, I am about to show you exactly how and why it already has…

In case you've been living under a rock these last 12 months, every corner of the world is now in a perpetual state of peaceful uprising in a global 21st century push for social and economic equality, human rights and democracy.

Some governments (like Syria & Libya) are bombing their citizens killing tens of thousands, whilst others (like Australia & the US) prefer to brutally clamp down on protesting before encampments become too big to sweep under the carpet.

TIME Magazine declared "The Protester" the 2011 'Person of the Year', specifically citing the Occupy Movement amongst others, and Occupy is now widely regarded as the anglosphere's First World answer to the Arab Spring.

Where North African dictatorships have been toppled, western plutocracies have been rattled. The public conversation has been radically shifted in First World democracies like Australia and the UK. People have rediscovered a renewed value for their human rights and now yearn for better democracies free from political corruption and corporate influence.

Beautifully ironic proof of this recently emerged from the unlikeliest of sources, the US Republican Party! In a leaked memo, senior Republican strategist Frank Luntz outlined researched revelations that Occupy has won the war over the conversational narrative, prompting the Republican Party to completely overhaul the language they use during their upcoming 2012 campaign.

The leaked memo includes poetic revelations directly from the Republican strategist himself; "I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death." and goes on to observe; "They're having an impact on what the American people think of Capitalism."

The Republican Party's own polling is showing that the American people not only understand the messages Occupy protesters have been communicating, nor do they merely sympathise with the protesters camping in hundreds of cities worldwide, but the movement has sparked a mass awakening, forcing the change to run far deeper.

Americans (at least) now understand that capitalism is bad, they want to tax the rich, they hate Wall Street, the finance sector and the banks. They want to end corporate influence over government and they want equality, to the extent that the Republican Party now has to change it's entire language set. And this isn't some donation-funded left-wing polling, this is hard core strategic Republican communications polling and research!

Talk about changing the conversation! And not just any conversation, not just the conversation amongst US citizens, but the conversation within the core of the United States most powerful conservative party, who will never again be able to manipulate the public with misinformation using the standard old tricks.

Additionally, the commercial media (at least in the US) have been ineffective in countering the flood of quality and revelatory information permeating the public discourse over the last 12 months. Once people have access to accurate and raw information, they begin advocating for that which is in the best interests of the communities in which they live.

So Occupy has completely redefined the political and economic conversation in the United States, but how is this relevant to Australia?

The most obvious answer is the most truthful and direct; We face the same systemic economic and political problems here in Australia that they face in the US (and the UK, Canada, NZ and other western countries for that matter).

Although Australia weathered the storm of the global financial crisis, we were still buffeted strongly and technically dipped into recession. State economies (like SA, VIC, NSW) not extracting enormous profits from mining, are barely growing into 2012. Victoria shed 27,700 jobs in the 6 months to February 2012, that’s over 1,000 jobs a week, our economy has almost stopped growing and 21.5% of Victorian youths can’t find a job. The conservative Baillieu state government has cut around 4,000 jobs and countless millions from public services.

And it's not just the economics that's worrying. Australian state governments are horrifyingly corrupt and giant mining magnates like Gina Reinhardt and Clive Palmer continue to exhort enormous and inequitable influence over our increasingly untrustworthy politicians, who obsessively fail to listen to their constituents over matters as simple as marriage equality and renewable energy.

Hence the multitude of reasons why tens of thousands of Australians have been demonstrating and establishing protest encampments in a dozen cities across this dry continent since October 2011. The difference? The Occupy Movement in Australia has been effectively and terrifyingly marginalised.

Firstly, marginalised through the use of local by-laws and the complicity of policing authorities to act upon them to oppress Australians' constitutional freedom of political communication (currently being challenged in the Federal Court).

Secondly, marginalised by our politicians incompetence and willingness to ignore and undermine the concerns of Australians protesting as part of Occupy. Their inability to do their job as elected representatives and listen to us.

Thirdly, marginalised by the sometimes incompetent, sometimes intentionally misleading commercial media in spreading misinformation or disinformation to reframe the narrative, fabricating an intentionally tarnished Occupy brand, and tarnishing the brand.

And perhaps most heartbreakingly, marginalised by ourselves, the Australian people, unwittingly and naively led away by the hand despite our heads turning briefly to glimpse what was going on in the shadows behind the lines of police and council officers.

And so it goes; "Who are those Occupy people there?" and "What are they protesting about?" "Oh! Don't worry about them. There's not many, so their concerns mustn't be legitimate. Besides, the Herald Sun and 3AW told me they smell! So I'm not going to listen to them."

I've been involved from the beginning and I can tell you better than anyone else… The people involved in Occupy were everyone. My mum, my brother, my friends, strangers, accountants, filmmakers, PR consultants, bankers, truckies, tradies, teachers, academics, everyday people from all walks of life.

Occupy is not an organisation, it's a movement, it is what we make of it. It is what you make of it. That is to say, you are responsible for Occupy, especially if you're not involved. Perhaps we're not quite ready for that type of responsibility in Australia? We enjoy being led and told what to do. Perhaps we're too complicit? I don't know the answers.

What I do know is that the Occupy Movement has completely altered the conversation in the western world, empowering millions of ordinary people to speak up and live life with passion in striving for equality, social justice and democracy for all in this post-individualistic, post-competitive world.

In my heart, that's not only relevant, but it's the most exciting and important thing happening in the world today! So perhaps Australia wasn't ready for Occupy like they were in the US or the UK. Even so, beyond Occupy lies a world of opportunity.

Australians are rediscovering our rights, understanding the problems and uncovering solutions. We're having these conversations together, without hierarchical leadership, being the change we want to be. I'm having the time of my life! Where are you?

[nrcars]

Snapshot of My City: Melbourne

The corporate-state propaganda... Melbourne: "The world's most livable city". Victoria: "The Place To Be". Everything is fine here. Our economy isn't a drain on the nation. We're creating jobs, we're growing, people are consuming, everything's running smoothly, we enjoy a good quality of life and people are moving here from all over the world and things couldn't be better. The stumbling economy... Victoria shed 27,700 jobs in the 6 months to February 2012, that's over 1,000 jobs a week, our economy has almost stopped growing and 21.5% of Victorian youths can't find a job. The new conservative state government has cut around 4,000 jobs from public services while Melbourne City Council and Victoria Police violently oppress peaceful protesters in the streets and a secret trade deal is negotiated out of sight where barely anyone knows about it. The cultural scaffold... If it wasn't for street art, coffee, live music, literature, food, the creative industries and a host of other socially and culturally vibrant elements of Melbourne's existence, we certainly wouldn't be the cultural envy of the nation. We are a melting pot of the essence of life, that is why people are flocking here to live and spy for a moment the secret city hiding down under. So much to admire. So much in need of nurturing. The hidden fears... I love Melbourne, I'm not leaving any time soon. We consider ourselves one of the luckiest cities, one of the luckiest states in the luckiest country in the world. But it doesn't take a genius to realise things aren't as good as they seem and could be so much better. Can we trash our pretensions and start turning our hopes into realities instead of hoping merely they were already true? My fear is we have lost the ability to do so. Or worse, perhaps we never possessed it to begin with? The lack of aspiration... There are fundamental shifts happening, like enormous geological anticlines, unfortunately moving at a similarly geological pace, and we're selling ourselves short by numbingly drudging in the same old lines. Why can't we trash the illusions, face the realities and embrace our hopes for the future? Prove our fears wrong? The rest of the world sees us as ("nice") conservative racists, and quite frankly, that's embarrassing. What's wrong with having some aspiration Melbourne? Only we control our destiny. So what do we want to do?

[nrcars]

Beyond Occupy (in Australia)

The below text is an excerpt from a paper I wrote in January 2012 entitled 'Beyond Occupy'... The time for honest reflection is upon us. The Occupy Movement has not become the people’s movement in Australia so many believed. It has been boxed, branded and tarnished; its contributors oppressed, beaten, arrested; it’s grievances ignored, and of most concern to me; it’s ideas lost in a haze of misunderstanding. To pull apart the mess and repair the damage would not only take enormous time and effort if possible, but would primarily depend upon factors controlled by the now infamous 1%. Occupy challenged more directly, rapidly and concertedly than any social movement in recent memory and was met with many concrete walls. Walls of oppressive law. Walls of excessive force, violence and brutality. And acutely in Australia, walls of ignorance. But why? No doubt Occupy exhibits a specific anti-corporate, anti-corruption focus, but the distillation of these concepts illuminates the Occupy Movement not as the be all and end all of present-day social movements, but as one of many predominantly Anglosphere elements of what has become a global struggle towards truly “rule of the people” democracy. The most significant lesson I’ve captured through my involvement in Occupy is that not enough of us understand enough about the problems we face – indeed many of us, both passively and actively, refuse to believe problems exist – to afford ourselves the collective ability not only to impart upon our leaders a collective will, but even to create the real world we all must live in. Given the dilemmas faced through misinformation, lack of growth, re-framing of the discourse in commercial media and other factors too numerous and insidious to mention; Do we abandon “Occupy” as a movement? To answer, we have to first look beyond the boundaries of the movement and begin to critically analyse what is happening, to provoke some critical consideration of how we're doing what we're doing and perhaps even question what we're doing in the first place. Of the 4.1 million people living in Melbourne, the 5.5 million in Victoria, the 22.8 million in Australia, the overwhelming majority of them know so little about the monied corruption of our democracy that around 10 million of them still place the LNP, ALP, Lib or Nat parties as their number 1 preference against their best interests (many of the rest are ineligible to vote). While there are some battles on the ground, in front of banks, outside forums and the like, the war on the best interests of the 100% lies in the intentional spread of misinformation amongst the populace. What processes, events, decisions have occurred to bring those of us who imagine ourselves to be "informed" and "free-thinking" to where we are today? If it is not our job to "educate" others with an imposed doctrine creating further institutionalisation, then how do we awaken Australians to the plight we face today to afford ourselves the numbers to affect real change? We must answer this question directly and effectively, and cut to the chase. Would it take 10 million one-on-one conversations? Do we need to go door-knocking? How much money do we need? How do we talk to people? Who are "we"? How do we "spread awareness" without imposing a doctrine? Is the real question one of empowerment? These are the questions we need to be answering and they are the answers we need to be acting upon. Occupy was one idea we attempted to enact on a large scale. It’s success or failure is irrelevant. What it brought us were glimpses into tomorrow’s broad social movements and what the struggle for democracy might mean to Australians. Beyond Occupy lies a fresh world of collaborations, of sharing information, knowledge and skills, a world of peace and non-violence, united by our common goals, if we indeed want these things. It matters not what becomes of Occupy, but what you become of Occupy. While the global Occupy Movement may inspire future protest encampments here in Australia, I for one believe the deeper shift in discourse has not been felt in this dry continent. Not enough of us were ready to sit for long enough in our public spaces until change was won, and to be honest in Australia at least, it was never going to be won that way. I want to empower others. I want to illuminate the reality of our collective plight. I want the minds inspired to be those who have never attended a demonstration, never signed a petition and perhaps never even knew who their local representative was. Do we have the sociocultural infrastructure, strong and resilient communities, to support a popular people’s movement against Australian ills? Or must those around us first be empowered to build a genuine sense of place and culture? I am going to find the answers. In the meantime, we could do far worse than to critically analyse the Occupy Movement in Australia to understand why it is so different from Occupy in the US or Europe and determine where we succeeded and where we failed. We must unpack and understand these things if we are to pull our weight as a people in this monumental global struggle for democracy.

[nrcars]

Road Map to a Sustainable Economy

The latest edition of the New Internationalist has a beautiful road map of how we can get to a fairer and more sustainable economic future. Here's some of the stuff it suggests... 1. Banks For People - restrict the power of the financial sector and banks - bring banks back into the control of the people - make banks fully accountable public services - separate retail & investment banks - force banks to lend to small-medium sized business - stop banks amassing funds for speculation - support people's banks, credit unions, etc - re-regulate financial markets. finance is a public asset - ban dangerous financial instruments - only approve financial products that are socially useful - move away from finance to more equitable activities - ditch the myth of free markets 2. Ending Public Services Cuts - the current crisis wasn't caused by overspending in the public sector, but by reckless spending and risk-taking by the private finance sector, encouraged and permitted by government and the reduction in real wages by corporate globalisation - the purpose of government is to meet the needs of the people, not to cut their lifelines. In many countries austerity measures are harming economic recovery. 3. Taxing the Rich - close tax havens & loopholes - tax international financial transactions (robin-hood tax) - implement progressive not regressive tax regimes - establish a max pay ceiling & ban bonuses - end subsidies for fossil-fuel industries - make corporations accountable to society, not just shareholders - ban corporate donations to political parties - impose rules on politicians leaving office for corporations - enforce transparency rules - expose lobbyists - extend rules of 'fair trade' to cover 'all trade' 4. Scrapping Debt - cancel all illegitimate (or odious) debts. many loans were made irresponsibly, they are unsustainable, unrepayable and will have to be written off sooner or later - establish an independent debt workout mechanism - challenge the power of creditors to influence policy - close credit rating agencies and replace them with independent credit rating agencies - stop bailing out banks and instead grant people of indebted countries to stimulate economic recovery 5. Growing Sustainable Alternatives - create strategies to support public services - develop green government bonds - make massive investments in renewable energy & energy efficiency - help polluting industries to convert - retrofit housing & transport infrastructure - (the above would create one million jobs in the UK alone) - encourage ethical lending & investment - end economic growth and pursue sustainability 6. Save and Create Democracy - learn from the occupy, indignants, arab spring, uncuts, trade unions and others fighting for democracy around the world - create a broader, deeper democracy through participatory ways of organising - encourage bottom-up, networked internationalism as the opposition to the ruinous system of global neoliberalism A very easy way to explain to people what we should be doing instead of continuously explaining what the problem is :]

[nrcars]

Draft Principles of Solidarity - Occupy Melbourne

Occupy Melbourne - Principles of Solidarity Drafted by Nick Carson Preface: These Principles of Solidarity have been created using proposals passed at the Occupy Melbourne General Assembly between October 2011 and February 2012, the various draft declarations, Occupy Melbourne's Safer Spaces Policy and successful proposals from Working Groups over the past 4 months. The intention is to draft principles of solidarity, concepts we can all agree upon, in a living document that can be revised through a direct democratic process. Preamble: Occupy Melbourne is a coming together of a broad range of politics and ideas. What unites us are our principles of solidarity. Our diversity is our strength. Occupy Melbourne is a centre of ideas, discussion, creativity, inspiration and action. We understand that differences exist, that we will not always agree on our vision or our strategy. We need to be willing to talk together with openness, compassion and understanding. While we may not always agree, we can recognise both our differences and our solidarities and we can come to consensus to work together. 1. We are a movement of people seeking to redress the collective grievances articulated by the community within which we live. We encourage all people to participate and contribute to this movement. 2. We recognise that Indigenous sovereignty has never been ceded and that no treaty exists between the First Nations of Australia and the Commonwealth of Australia. 3. We exist in solidarity with the unknowable numbers of people around the world striving for social, environmental and economic equality. 4. We are not aligned with any political party or organisation and prescribe to no single political ideology or principle. 5. We seek to create a just and equitable society in which social, political and economic power is not concentrated in the hands of a small minority. 6. We seek to understand and learn from one another and to open up spaces for discussion and dialogue. 7. We seek to engage in direct participatory democracy. 8. We seek honest communication, inclusivity and transparency within our non-hierarchical systems of organising. 9. We seek to exercise personal and collective responsibility. 10. We recognise the inherent privilege of some individuals and the influence it has on all interactions. 11. We seek to empower each other against all forms of oppression. 12. We seek to remain open, accepting and responsive to the possibility of being challenged and to remain responsible, considerate and caring in our challenging of others. 13. We seek action through non-violent civil disobedience in redressing our collective grievances. 14. We seek knowledge, culture and technology to be open to all to freely access, create, modify, collaborate and distribute. 15. We seek from our elected representatives immediate measures to listen to and engage with their constituencies. 16. We seek an end to all forms of political corruption in Australia. 17. We seek an end to all forms of corporate donations to political parties and elected representatives. 18. We seek to empower communities to self-govern to reclaim and articulate their collective voices. 19. We seek a formal treaty between the First Nations of Australia and the Commonwealth of Australia. 20. We seek for our human rights, as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to be enshrined, upheld and protected by law in Australia citing Article 28 of the UDHR. We are daring to imagine new social, political and economic alternatives that offer greater possibility of equality. From our principles of solidarity, we can begin to concisely articulate our collective grievances in the form of demands. Occupy Melbourne exists because of everyone that is here and what they bring to this space no matter how small or how large. It would not be possible without each and every one of us. Links: OMEL Safer Spaces Policy: http://occupymelbourne.org/how-to-get-involved/working-groups/safer-spaces/ OMEL Declaration Working Group: http://occupymelbourne.org/how-to-get-involved/working-groups/declaration/

[nrcars]

People's Mic Workshop

People's Mic Workshop Prepared by Nick (Occupy Melbourne) and Melanie (Occupy Wall Street) January 2012 Mic Check. Mic Check. This is the people's mic. You can use it anytime you like. This is a workshop… About how to use the people's mic. Prepared by Nick… from Occupy Melbourne… And Melanie… from Occupy Wall Street… In 5 minutes… We'll all be experts… on HOW and WHY… We use the people's mic! This is how to use… The People's Mic… Repeat after me… Mic Check? (Mic Check) Mic Check? (Mic Check) Our voices… Can carry these words… Over multiple waves… To hundreds of thousands… Of amazing people! Hear these words…. Listen to their content… And repeat en mass… To amplify it together… For all people here! This is why we use… The People's Mic... We amplify each other's voices... So we can hear one another! Because everyone's voice… Deserves to be heard! Not just the very loud… But also the very quiet! Because this is democracy! Where we all participate! We use it because... We encourage each other… to speak succinctly... and to speak clearly… Everyone around us can hear! Including passers by! Encouraging them to join in! The People's Mic… Makes GA's… More productive… Because… You have to be prepared… Organise a succinct few words… And get to the point! The people's mic... discourages interruptions… & encourages hand signals… To express how we feel… Without interrupting people! (This means I support it…) (This means I'm not sure…) (This means I disagree…) All of this saves time! When we all listen… And understand the first time! The People's Mic… Discourages the use… of rhetoric speech… in meetings and assemblies! To avoid the advantage… Of experienced speakers… To create… A level playing field… For all speakers! And perhaps most importantly… The people's mic… Pulls us together… In times of chaos… And enables us… To listen… And think clearly… As a people! United! The people's Mic… Energises Speakers… And captivates audiences… As we use all our voices… To actively participate… In real democracy! That was the workshop... On the People's Mic… Are there any questions? [Hand signal] [get people to come up and mic check their questions] [….questions….] Anyone… Can run this workshop! We encourage you… To take these words… And empower yourselves... To educate others! About the wonderful… People's mic! Thankyou for listening… And Thankyou for participating!

[nrcars]

Warehouse Parties Spread to Suburbs

The following is a letter I wrote in response to this article published in the Northcote Leader in September 2011, which attempts to manufacture community opposition to the spread of Warehouse Parties into the suburbs in Melbourne's north.

I've never had a problem with impromptu events, they're fun to attend, you see some of the most amazing local music and meet interesting and friendly people at them. What better use for abandoned buildings and sites than to use them for local community events.

What I can't stand is the drumming up of opposition to these events when the only opposition is a few people who get annoyed at the noise. I'd trade a lifetime of car and truck traffic noise for a night of musical noise any day!

I heard of a warehouse party in Coburg where hundreds of police wasted they're time using violence and intimidatory language against a bunch of kids who just want to get together, listen to music and enjoy each other's company. It saddens me that the police would take similar action here in Darebin.

Darebin's vacant buildings and sites could be used for housing, or community gardens, or parklands, or public schools or hospitals! We don't need to demolish old warehouses, just put them to good use! I can't see anything wrong with a few people having a party in them once in a while. But I can certainly see a problem with their owners letting them degrade over time, or demolish them for dog-box profit-maximising apartments or shopping centres. That's not hat we want in Darebin. We want more music. More gatherings. More friendship. Better use of our public and disused spaces.

Focus police resources on finding stolen goods or engaging with the community instead of disrupting some of Melbourne's most culturally significant events.

[nrcars]

Extremism, Culture, Politics and the Media

The article below was published in various independent publications and online blogs in July 2011.

After recent events in Norway it comes as no surprise that the Australian media are bad-mouthing 'extremism', to quote The Age, as having "no place in our culture". They seem to be collectively missing the point. Having an extreme point of view or ideology isn't a crime in itself. Extremism, regardless of the values or ideologies behind it, not only has a place in a given culture, but is quite essential. It is instead the violence present in underlying ideology that extremism can ignite. The radical, extreme and experimental have forever been crucial in driving evolution of thought, technology, systems and other elements of human society. But as recent events in Norway remind us, entertaining manipulation, inciting hatred or contemplation of violent acts are the things we should be worrying about, not extremism as a catalyst. As the ideologies driving the perpetrator's actions in Utoya and Oslo reveal, hatred and violence are often embedded in right-wing ideology. Unfortunately, the peaceful, non-violent and progressive public policy or community actions born of extremist left-wing ideology are often ignored or played down as our commercial media selectively digests reality to deliver the portions agreeable to their wider agendas. Some of these media outlets here in Australia, with unashamed right-wing bias, were urging an effective call to arms against the federal government over the carbon price, merely days prior to events in Norway. The subsequent headline "Radio shock-jocks incite violent [extremist] action" remained unpublished. Our media doesn't incite hatred or violence. Does it? Our media isn't extremist. Surely? Recently it emerged the perpetrator of the terrible events in Norway published a 1,500 page manifesto prior to the bombings and shootings in Oslo and Utoya, praising John Howard as "one the most sensible leaders in the world" to paraphrase, drawing many parallels with Australian Liberal Party's conservative policies on refugees and Israel. Right-wing extremism has a dark and gloomy history of violent action, at it's most extreme descending into Fascism and Nazism. Perhaps the biggest threat to our national security and domestic policy in Australia isn't extremism from overseas in Islamic terrorism, nor is it in extremism from the peaceful left as dramatised by the commercial media, nor is it extremism as a whole, but these attempts to incite violent action against a government by right-wing views and ideologies. Extremism acts merely as a catalyst. It's not just right-wing radio shock-jocks or opinion-piece zombies who incite violent action to a misinformed public. The leader of Australia's own right-wing political party, with arguably the most extreme right-wing ideologies in recent memory, has no qualms about standing in front of banners sledging unfounded accusations at opposition political leaders inciting hatred against the opposing point of view. Though this might sound like the actions of a political party in a dying North African dictatorship, this is happening in Australia, and it's happening right now. I've never heard of a Green inciting anything more than a forest embedded sit-in, or an Anarchist inciting anything more than an odd justification to damage property, yet their ideologies are considered unacceptably extreme in the eyes of the public as communicated to them by our commercial media. It is the hateful and violent end of the extremist spectrum in Australia we should be questioning and holding to account, not the pacifist one. After all, while the words 'peace and non-violence' are a key pillar of the so-called "extremist" Australian Greens' principles, the same cannot be said of the Australian Liberal Party, a party whose ideologies and views were praised by a person who saw it fit to murder tens of people in an act of terrorism against a government they disagreed with. Could it be that our view of what is acceptably extreme in Australia is completely backwards? While polls suggest most of us support one of the most extreme right-wing oppositions in recent memory, we remain misinformed about the implications and dangers of the ideology behind the party. Surely the peaceful, progressive and positive visions painted by our radical or 'extreme' left is the direction we'd rather head in? In either case, extremism isn't the concern. I'd rather see the ideological divide between left and right collapse altogether in favour of reasoned discussion and debate to achieve consensus as a people, rather than tearing ourselves apart based on which side of the political fence we fall. Instead of dumbing down debate surrounding extremist views, perhaps we could do with a little more extremism to motivate a disengaged and disaffected populace to participate more in our government, our society and our culture.

[nrcars]

The Co-option of Russian Revolutionary Art

The Co-option of Russian Revolutionary Art: From the Avant-garde to Propaganda. Written by Nick Carson, May 2011. “It is not what is made but how, and by what instruments of labour, that distinguishes different economic epochs” – Karl Marx, ‘Capital: A Critique of Political Economy’ (1867) There is little doubt Tatlin and Rodchenko’s own social and political ideals, and that of the Russian avant-garde, were in alignment with those of the people’s movement during the February 1917 Revolution. How their work related to these ideals and how were they in turn related to the state as their careers developed became complicated by the new communist state. As they lived under state-sponsored agendas for art, for the most part agreeing with it’s aims, their later work exemplifies further increasing contradictions within the state-sponsored artistic and cultural agendas under Lenin and Stalin. Both Tatlin and Rodchenko worked under the state structures within which endorsed art was created during the period, connecting the social, political and artistic ideals and aims of Constructivism, Russian avant-garde art and the new Communist state, at times contradicting whilst at other times reinforcing these varying ideals. During the pivotal months following the October revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks established the Proletkult (an abbreviation of Proletarskaya kultura, or Proletarian culture), a body born from the theories of Alexsandr Bogdanov in 1904, who believed the role of art in a new socialist state was to enlighten the proletariat. The body was to provide the foundations for a truly proletarian art devoid of bourgeois influence and was allocated 9.2 million rubles in 1918 from the Narkompros (The People’s Commissariat for Education), another state-run agency responsible for the administration of public education and cultural issues. From these bodies, initially, non-traditional art forms flourished, the Russian avant-garde was thrown to the fore and the teaching basis for Constructivism was established. In 1920, Lenin decreed the foundation of the VKhUTEMAS, a state art and technical school, replacing traditional art schools such as the Petrograd Academy of Fine Arts (est. 1757) and the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture (merged in 1865 from older schools est. 1832 and 1749), which were both suppressed under the Narkompros from 1918 onwards. Tatlin himself had attended the old Moscow school and Rodchenko would find himself teaching “construction” at the VKhUTEMAS from 1920-30. As Lenin and Trotsky grew increasingly intolerant of the Proletkult, it was ultimately disbanded in 1925, and by 1932 as Lynton explains (2009), all these above mentioned groups, associations and bodies were terminated by decree under Joseph Stalin and superseded by the single Union of Artists, which was charged with controlling artistic production (p. 189, Lynton, 2009). This ever-changing environment of political and social policy was the system within which both Tatlin and Rodchenko were working, exhibiting their own confluence and contradictions in relation to the social and political aims of the Russian avant-garde, Constructivism and it’s relationship to the state. Vladimir Tatlin was an established musician and artist prior to the revolutions of 1917 and grew famous as the designer of the non-existent Monument to the Third International, which embodied the early social and political ideals of the Russian avant-garde, ideals shared by the much of the Russian populace in the early years of the revolution (Milner 1983). Tatlin had always hoped for an association that would unite artists to establish better conditions and cultivate mutual respect (Lynton 2009) and had broader hopes for society and politics in pre-revolution Russia. Tatlin’s Monument to the Third International was not to be just a monument, an important part of Russian memorialising tradition, nor was it exclusively an aesthetic work aligned to the Russian avant-garde, it was also to serve a functional purpose, an intended home of the Comintern and other proletarian bodies. It’s pioneering industrial materials of steel and glass, pushing the limits of modern engineering, and the notion that a work of art can be “constructed” and functional, serving a purpose to the people, wrapped the social and political ideals driving it into a single form that exemplified the Russian avant-garde, captured the hopes and aspirations of the Russian people, and paved the way for Constructivism as an artistic movement. Many explanations for the ultimate rejection of Tatlin’s Tower exist, such as the influence of the tradition of memorialisation in Russian architecture, most often in the form a church and it’s monolithic form. Tatlin’s Tower is discussed by Lynton (2009) as a “lighthouse for Petrograd”, a monument of European scale “signalling Communist evangelism to the whole world”, undoubtedly interpreted by some as bourgeois iconism perhaps more in line with historical traditions than it’s intended embodied ideals.

”Monument to the Third International” Vladimir Tatlin, 1920 Scale reconstruction completed by the Tower of Babel Design Team, 2001. Maple, Scale: 1:20, Height: 152.3cm As Tatlin became the adopted ‘Father’ of the newly emerging Constructivism, he “found himself at odds with his supposed offspring” (p. 157, Lynton, 2009). This is a visible divergence between Tatlin and Rodchenko’s work and their ideals throughout their oeuvres. Tatlin didn’t regard himself as a Constructivist, and objected to many Constructivist ideas, such as the “artist as a researcher or creator of ever more advanced tools” (Tarabukin, 1923), whilst Rodchenko was a stricter Constructivist. Tatlin, along with Mayakovsky, sought the joining of the proletariat with artists, whilst Constructivists progressed this stance by “justifying their abandoning of their art for industrial production as the effective way to change life for everybody.” (p. 53, Lynton, 2009). Prior to the emergence of these differences and the revolutions of 1917, Tatlin had a profound and formative influence on Rodchenko’s work. In 1916 Rodchenko’s work appeared in an exhibition curated by Tatlin titled “The Store”, in which Rodchenko’s own paintings exhibited elements of Tatlin’s earlier 1914-15 “Painterly Reliefs” and “Counter-Reliefs” through the translation of these sculptural works into practical objects (Tupitsyn, 2009). Rodchenko’s “black on black” paintings from 1918 were featured in the exhibition “5 x 5 = 25” in 1921, in which he famously proclaimed ‘the end of painting’, turned to photography and later, photomontage, predicating the emerging ideals of the artist as constructor, the relationship between art and industrial production and emerging Constructivist movement. Rodchenko undoubtedly considered Tatlin his master, extracting elements of his practice most relevant to these emerging Constructivist ideals to synthesise art and industry (Lynton, 2009). This can be seen in Rodchenko’s self-evident “Hanging Spatial Constructions” (1921) in which the observer is able to easily establish how the works themselves are constructed, directly serving the resulting form, a work considered by Rodchenko to be spatial research into materials as opposed to artistic sculpture.

“Spatial Construction no. 12” Alexander Rodchenko, 1920 Plywood, open construction partially painted with aluminum paint, and wire, 61 x 83.7 x 47cm The notion of the artist’s creative mind withdrawing metaphysical inspiration was rejected by the Constructivists, who instead re-imagined the role of the artist as a constructor of material elements of usefulness to the society and politics of the new utopian state (Gough, 2005). As Elliott (1979) observes, Rodchenko’s Hanging Spatial Constructions “took [him] out of the realm of art altogether by undermining the personal link between the artist and his work”…“they were easy to make and required no aesthetic education to do so. Yet, they were still constructions; cultural objects, which were communal rather than individual property.” (p. 53, Elliott, 1979). Rodchenko’s Constructivist ideals and self-imagined worker-role were further evolved into the mid 1920’s culminating in a refined realisation of the social and political aims of the Constructivists with his Worker’s Club in 1925, an oblong room designed as a multi-purpose space for reading, researching, lectures, theatre and various other uses for 30 people (Elliott, 1979). The furniture within was intricately “constructed” to be multi-functional, changing to adapt to the spaces differing uses. The space incorporated striking visual elements mirroring much of his graphic design work, Popova-esque wallpaper and a hanging light element reminiscent of one of his early Hanging Spatial Constructions at the centre of the roof space, the construction of which all self-evident. It was whilst teaching at VKhUTEMAS from 1920-30, that Rodchenko began producing propaganda for the Bolsheviks portraying the history of the party and advertising posters for state-run businesses, such as an advertising poster entitled “Shouldn’t We Produce Pencils We Can Use?” (1923). The Bolsheviks knew the power of Rodchenko, Popova and other artist’s striking visual imagery to convey powerful and evocative responses, particularly useful in gaining support for state-sponsored ideas in less literate regions of Russia (Tupitsyn, 2009). This use of avant-garde art as a tool of the state to impart ‘top-down’ social and political ideals upon the populace it supposedly represented, and the notion of an artist as ‘advertising-constructor’ was a clear contradiction with the earlier social and political ideals following the February revolution of 1917, and a clear turn in the direction of totalitarianism and propaganda supported and disseminated under Lenin and Trotsky.

“Advertisement poster for Rubber Trust” Alexsader Rodchenko 1923 Text: “Defence in rain and slush. Europe can only sit and cry - without our galoshes.” Source: S. O. Khan-Magomedov: Pionery sovetskogo dizaina. Moscow: Galart. 1995. Wether Rodchenko considered any of these elements contradictory may not be known, but there is evidence suggesting a complicated relationship between Rodchenko and increasingly state-controlled artistic creation. Into the late 1920’s, under the influence of changing party guidelines governing artistic practice, he concentrated on sports photography and images of parades and other public events. In the 1930’s he returned to painting, stopped organising photography exhibitions for the government and by 1942 ceased photography altogether, instead producing abstract expressionist works which would not have been state-endorsed under Stalin. There is evidence to suggest a despondence with his idealistic Constructivist works towards the end of his career, as George Costakis, owner of a substantial collection of Constructivist works, recalls; “In about 1950 I asked Rodchenko what happened to his constructions. He didn’t reply very clearly but he said ‘I think there is one of them somewhere here, maybe up on the sleeping boards, above the stove. Go up and look’. So I got a ladder and crawled up. There were masses of dust and countless papers and magazines... In the middle of this mess lay an oval hanging construction in pieces. Rodchenko said ‘Take it You’ll find a safer place for it’.” Evidence also exists to suggest a complicated disendorsement of Tatlin’s work in relation to the emerging state-sponsored Soviet realism. Tatlin began focusing almost exclusively on theater design after the pivotal year of 1934. As Zhadova suggests “The end of [Tatlin’s] life was very hard. And when he died there were only seven or eight of us at his funeral” (p. 439, Zhadova, 1988). Hardly an audience one would assume for the ‘Father of Constructivism’ and designer of the ‘Monument to the Third International’ without suspecting a considerable diminishing influence by the state throughout his career. Whilst Tatlin and Rodchenko both intended to change the consciousness of the people, as with other Russian avant-garde artists involved in state-sponsored creation, they embraced the cause of social revolution and communism, perhaps with initial difficulties, but nevertheless identified themselves with the revolutionary workers state, persisting under state sponsored bodies under Lenin and into Stalin’s reign and the rise of Soviet realism and the height of Russian propaganda (Gough, 2005). By analysing the works of Tatlin and Rodchenko in relation to the social and political aims of the Russian avant-garde, the various state art and cultural bodies created and the new communist state itself, a complex relationship and inherent contradictions between these elements and the ideals of the avant-garde movements at the time, the artists and their works, is revealed, as the hope for a utopian Russia faded under the increasingly totalitarian tendencies of Lenin, Trotsky and later, Stalin. As argued above, the Constructivists unquestioning identification and support for the Communist state under these leaders effectively paved the way for soviet realism and state-sponsored propaganda. It would not be long before the transition from Russian constructivism and remaining proletarian ideals in the Russian avant-garde, into the state-sponsored Soviet realism and State propaganda was complete, cementing state intolerance to artistic forms of expression, abstraction, experimentation, satire and other elements essential to a free proletariat in line with the ideals underpinning the February revolution of 1917. Perhaps if Tatlin, Rodchenko and other avant-garde Russian artists had taken a stance similar to that of the Petropavlovsk resolution and subsequent Kronstadt rebellion in 1921 their positions within the new communist state would have been at risk, however we can only speculate wether or not these events and others like them, prevented Tatlin, Rodchenko and others, from taking a more uncompromising dissenting role as Russian avant-garde artists within the state, rather than working under it as they ultimately found themselves. As the famous filmmaker Roman Karmen’s uncanny ability to keep in with those in power demonstrates, there was much to be gained by supporting those in power; security, consistent work, adulation and at least no conflicts to incite by filming, or in the case of Rodchenko, photographing somewhat mundane daily activities such as public sporting events. As the social and political aims of Tatlin, Rodchenko and other Russian avant-garde artists’ works in the context of the Russian revolution demonstrate, the openness to collaborate and subconscious leaning towards communal artistic creation, be it construction or production of useful elements, the hopes for a collective art of the people to enlighten, strengthen relationships and cultivate knowledge within a proletariat, will continue with or without hindrances by systems of governance, however compromised, contradictory. Bibliography Andrews, R and Kalinovska, M (eds) 1990, Art into life: Russian constructivism 1914-32, Rizzoli, New York

Bowitt, J (ed.) 1988, Russian art of the avant-garde: theory and criticism, Thames and Hudson, London Elliott, D (ed.) 1979, Rodchenko and the arts of revolutionary Russia, A. Zwemmer, London in association with Museum of Modern Art, Oxford Gough, M 2005, Artist as producer: Russian constructivism in revolution, University of California Press, London

Gray, C 1986, The Russian experiment in art 1863-1922, Thames and Hudson, London Kiaer, C 2005. Imagine no possessions: the socialist objects of Russian constructivism, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass

Lodder, N 1983, Russian constructivism, Yale University Press, New Haven Lynton, N 2009, Tatlin’s Tower, monument to revolution, Yale University Press, New Haven and London

Margolin, V 1997, Struggle for utopia: Rodchenko, Lissitzky, Moholv-Nagy, 1917-1946, University of Chicago Press, Chicago Milner, J 1983, Vladimir Tatlin and the Russian avant-garde, Yale University Press, New Haven and London Tarabukin, N 1923, From easel to machine, Publisher unknown Tupitsyn, M 2009, Rodchenko and Popova: defining constructivism, Tate Publishing, London Zhadova, L (ed.) 1988, Tatlin, Rizzoli, New York Historical contextual framing: Tupitsyn, M 1992, ‘From the Politics of Montage to the Montage of Politics: Soviet Practice, 1991 through 1937’ in Montage and Modern Life, 1919-1942, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass Russian revolution in colour: Episodes 1 & 2 2009, television program, ABC1, Melbourne, 23rd of February and 2nd of March Roman Karmen, The Filmmaker of the Revolution DVD, RMIT Audio/visual Library Swanston, Melbourne

[nrcars]

Manufacturing Opposition to the Carbon Price

So The Australian newspaper proclaims a "war over the carbon tax" and leader of the Federal Liberals, Tony Abbott, is calling for a "people's revolt" against a price on carbon. What are they thinking denouncing such a positive step forward for action on Climate Change? What’s wrong with wanting to transition to renewable energy? Why would you want to try and divide people? Tim Badrick, in an article published in Independent Australia, believes that a carbon tax "con job" will do nothing to reduce environmental damage. I couldn't disagree more. The only "con job" is the one being disseminated against a price on carbon pollution, against the best interests of us all. A price on carbon signals the beginning of one of the most significant positive steps forwards for Australia for a long time. By putting a price on carbon pollution we are saying as a people that we want to stop the emission of carbon dioxide to mitigate the effects it has on our lives; polluted air, climate change, unsustainable and insecure energy source, unsustainable economics. If the free market was truly self-regulating, it would have made the transition to renewables decades ago, but it isn't and it didn't and we have to act, it's already long overdue. The federal Liberals are trying to manufacture opposition to a carbon price, using buzz words like "people's revolt" to get people riled up against their best interests, papers like The Australian propagate this senseless rhetoric and people who don't fully understand the issue buy into it. Opposition to a price on carbon relies on people's lack of information and knowledge. This type of propaganda is terribly damaging to our political system, opposition-for-the-sake-of-opposition reveals a severe lack of leadership and an inability to partake in intelligent dialogue and discussion. Simple calculations reveal that at $26 a ton it would actually cost the average 4-person family $100 more (not $300 more as circulated by the federal Liberals). And with the average cost of Green power at around $40/ton of CO2 saved, a carbon price of anything below this will actually save tens of thousands of households money. If the Liberals really wanted to pick a fight, why not try and stop energy retailers passing the carbon price on to end users? Surely the polluters should be taking responsibility for their own actions. The exact price is something we can all discuss and negotiate over the next year or so. I don't know about you, but as a very low-income earner, I don't mind paying to transition to renewables, just as I wouldn't mind paying to help rebuild infrastructure in flood-affected Queensland. We can use the funds collected to help homes and businesses use energy more efficiently, provide grants to help with the transition to renewables, facilitate upskilling and allocate funds for the construction of base load CST, wind, geothermal, etc. Australians no longer want to go down the coal-fired (and other fossil fuels) energy pathway, it's social, economic and environmental suicide. Don't care about the environment? Well let's look at the economics then... The simple fact is, if we head down the same fossil fuel path it will cost us 3 times more than it would to transition to 100% renewables. Economically speaking, business as usual is a total waste of money, a missed opportunity and neglectful to a generation of energy industry workers. Reports like Zero Carbon Australia, published by Melbourne University and Beyond Zero Emissions last year, show us how easy it is to power Australia with 100% renewables within 10 years at 3-3.5% of GDP. A fantastic nation-building program, economic stimulator, job creator, and by the end we have free energy from the sun, wind and other renewable sources, more jobs and economic stability in a clean and sustainable industry. A carbon price is only part of this transition; we also need a feed-in-tariff (so households and businesses supplying themselves with renewable energy can be paid for any excess energy they input back into the grid) and a proper target for renewables, amongst other things. We already know we can get to 100% within 10 years with current commercially available technologies, so why not skip a laughable 5% target, jump right over a 60% target, cut right to the chase and get on with transitioning to 100% renewables. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

[nrcars]

The Costs of a Consumer Economy

Adapted from an essay I wrote while studying the Diploma of Sustainability at Swinburne University in 2010 The consumer economy, endless production & consumption cycles and the illusion of exponential growth burden humanity and the Earth with enormous economic, social and environmental costs, here's a very brief overview... The Economic The economic effects of production and consumption can be summed up in some very simple statistics referenced in the recent article 'Buy Now, Pay Later'; “In 2004, Australians spent $5.3billion on food we didn't eat” and “Australians spend over $10billion of products and services that we don't use.” These two factors clearly uncover how goods and services are over-produced and then sold to a given population through advertising for the financial gain of a wealthy few. The article also suggests that “free-market fundamentalism is now the driver of politics, economics and life in most of the world.” If true, this has a severe economic cost to the community as a whole, both in the long and short term, as the ideologies of a “free-market” favour volatile, unpredictable, exponential and plainly unsustainable models and systems over alternative sustainable economic models and systems. Even in the short term, people lose giant chunks of their retirement savings in superannuation to the volatile fluctuations of our free-market. In most cases it is the majority of us, who don’t profit from the inner workings of the financial system, who suffer the greatest economic costs, not to mention the personal financial costs involved in literally being told to consume things we don’t even need.

The Social An example of the social costs of production and consumption is given in an observation of the economist J.K Galbraith’s own observations: “the individual serves the “industrial state” not by supplying it with savings and capital but by consuming it’s products. “On no other matter, religious, political or moral, is he so elaborately and skillfully and expensively instructed.” Our role as “consumers” within commercialised goods and services systems is an excellent example of the prioritisation of profit above people. Our social systems are compromised as we are utilised as tools in a larger system. Our communication, habits, diets, entertainment, skills, are all modified to fit the mold and it becomes increasingly difficult to consciously decide not to fit into the mold. Lawrence Summers’ (former chief economist of the world bank) can be quoted ironically, in saying that “The idea that we should put limits on growth because of some natural limit is a profound error and one that, were it ever to prove influential, would have staggering social costs.” I can only assume he is imagining the social costs to the decedent “quality of life” of a wealthy few. The Environmental Examples of the environmental impacts of production and consumption are glaringly obvious and can be found all around us. The Total Environment Centre (TEC) estimates that “there are 25 million discarded mobile phones in Australia which will probably find their way to landfill.” As Tim Flannery states “such was our collective thirst [in 1968] for resources that we were using all Earth’s sustainable production … By 2001 humanity’s deficit had ballooned to 20 per cent ... By 2050, the burden of human existence will be such that we will be using – if they can still be found – nearly two planets’ worth of resources. But for all the difficulty we experience in finding those resources, it’s our waste – particularly the greenhouse gases – that is the limiting factor.” The environmental impact of how we produce and consume goods and services can be reduced to two core issues; the extraction of resources and the creation of waste. This echoes the pattern present through analysing the economic and social impacts of goods and services seemingly being created and much of them not even consumed. Are resources, products and waste mere tools as human beings are 'consumers', tools of a larger system designed to generate above all else, profit? These are the costs of a consumer economy, indeed the costs of an internally contradictory Capitalism.

[nrcars]

Dead Consumerism Walking

Adapted from part of an essay I wrote while studying the Diploma of Sustainability at Swinburne University in 2010 There are so many ways we could be addressing issues of inappropriate production and over consumption on a large, systemic scale, be it through regulation, incentives or political change, but in fact what we see happening in the world is an undercurrent of community initiatives, projects and actions that are addressing unsustainable consumption right now... "Buy Nothing Day" One of Adbuster's many culture jamming actions is “Buy Nothing Day” where, for one day of the year, people are encouraged to buy nothing in a stance against overconsumption. This has also been extended to “Buy Nothing Christmas” and there are at least tens of thousands of people around the world who participate. This type of consumer-driven action could very easily drive producers of goods and services to deliver better, more appropriate products. If we all stop buying what we’re told we need, and only buy what we truly need, demand would decrease and in turn force producers to think about what it is they’re producing, in what quantities and perhaps even cause them to ask why. Ethical Supermarket Shopping Guide Produced by the Ethical Consumer Group, this guide lists all the major products found in the largest supermarket chains in Australia, praises ethical, low impact products, advises which products to avoid where possible and lists products to boycott. The guide also lists where each product is made/grown/owned and even takes into account the ethics of companies that own particular brands. This type of social action is about educating people, providing them with accurate and unbiased information about products available to them. If a majority of people can choose better, more ethical, local products over others, this would drive increased demand for these products and less for unethical, inappropriate products. Grassroots movements towards localisation In the inner areas of many large cities, Melbourne included, there exists vast interconnected social movements that purposely or indirectly deal with issues of consumption and production. Some of these are driven or supported by community groups like Friends of the Earth, established by non-profit organisations such as the Sustainable Living Foundation or start at a grassroots level, sometimes in other countries, such as Sustainability Streets. Others develop organically over time through demographic changes in given areas where independent-thinkers, students, artists, musicians, environmentalists and others congregate due to affordability, access to public transport and surrounding social infrastructure amongst other things. They include; community gardens, skills-sharing, services-trading, support of local businesses such as organic groceries, bakeries, carpooling/sharing, sharing of material possessions, collective-purchasing and use of public transport and cycling for transportation amongst much else. Intergenerational factors I think the development of the internet and better access to information in general, has and will increasingly be crucial to transitioning to a sustainable world, more specifically, it enables people as “consumers” to make more informed choices and creates more opportunities to drive demand in a free market economy for the goods and services we want and need. Access to free or relatively free information is quite simple, increasingly so for younger generations, and given time and persistence, people discover how to filter this information, separating the good quality from the bad, the biased from the balanced. I see the transition towards sustainability as a positive, optimistic, diverse, engaging, enriching and enjoyable challenge, far from a compromise. We only compromise when we fail to act, fail to educate ourselves and become aware, when we lose interest and revert to negativity and pessimism.