Leaving from the Left: Why those on the left should vote to leave the European Union.

In decades recent, the left has taken it upon itself to be the torchbearer of the UK’s continued participation in the European Union, as if those who have historically claimed responsibility to understand history have suddenly developed a collective memory of 6-years. We seem to have forgotten the fact that it was once the left who opposed what was called “the common market” and the Thatcherites who campaigned vehemently to enter into it.

What appears to be the primary and most dangerous view that impels this instinctual reaction from the left to preserve the EU is the picture of the “social Europe” - the idea that the European Union is a unifying paragon of social virtue, the very backbone of which the continents oh-so impeccable workers rights, environmental protection laws, human rights assurance, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and social safety net are built on. These are the reasons why so many EU organisations can apparently without shame refer to themselves as “socialist”. They are also entirely false.

The European Union from it’s embryonic stage was based on the solidification of trade agreements and the free movement of capital and labour, dreamt up by the European Steel and Coal Community, large banks, and the European Economic Community. Of course, this meant “free movement” with the exception of competition from outside of Europe or from potential emerging markets in individual European countries.

Staying true to its neo-liberal foundations, the EU will soon be the bureaucratic basis through which TTIP is passed. Brought in secretly and swiftly by EU and American officials and hidden from the public eye, TTIP is a bi-lateral free trade deal between the EU and the US that would make it legal for corporations to bypass environmental regulation, not adhere to safety standards, open up national services to private penetration (including the NHS), loosen banking regulations, ease data-privacy laws, and even sue nation states. This is perhaps one of the biggest threats to working people in the Western world and no defense or alternative has been offered by pro-EU left.

Despite the EU’s claims that its foundations are assembled from the sincerest of non-aggression philosophies, it has consistently campaigned to encircle and develop an aggressive police against the Russian Federation. Forbye, Vladimir Putins support for the Brexit campaign has been thrown around as a trump card by the stay camp. Because of course in typical Western fashion, if Russia is for something, we simply have to be against it.

It has been the EU’s prerogative to develop and give rhetorical and diplomatic encouragement to far-right and overtly Nazi elements in Ukraine to take power through violence. These groups forcibly removed the president, banned the Russian language, alienated entire portions of the ethnically Russian population and referred to the ousted president Yunukovych as running a “Moscovite-Jewish Mafia”. This illegitimate government, riddled with ultra-nationalists and Christian fanatics are trying to pander to and eventually join the EU, an organisation supposedly built to prevent the rise of fascism.

On a purely democratic note, even if one saw the provocations against Russia as necessary, why should the EU decide for the UK what it’s foreign policy should be? Surely, it should be up to us to decide for ourselves whether we think overt aggression against one of the largest and most popular countries in the world; with a supreme military, is a good idea?

In regards to the economy and the democratic front, the European Union mandates the form our economy can take. It tells us what our fiscal policy should be, what our productive output has to be, how much we can import from other countries outside the EU, who can come in, who we can deport, what our levels of public spending can be, what we can tariff and so on. Not only has the EU forced wealthier countries like the UK to abide by its political and economic criteria. It has forced poorer European countries to accept crippling economic policies akin to the austerity policies in our own country.

Greece’s own anti-EU left party sold out it’s country against the wishes of it’s own people and continued to pay back the unjustly imposed debt through cutting public services, policies promoted by the EU Commission and Goldman Sachs, which have devastated the Greek economy. In Portugal, the anti-EU coalition of Socialist and Communist parties won the election, and the European commission, Central bank, and the IMF refused to even recognise the decision. This blatant rejection of democracy by monopoly capital is only made possible with a centralised European Union ran by and in the interests of finance capital and big business.

Yet somehow the movement which secures its historical appeal by it's critical stance of unaccountable authority and rule of private accumulation has stepped in as the guardian of this system. The fight to revive national industries, the loss of which devastated communities and working class power all over the country, will all be in vain if we don’t vote to leave. If we want to repair the damage done by Thatcherism which has enforced a neo-liberal project on all of Europe, it can only be done by breaking up the hold of monopoly power over the UK.

In contrast, the sun is only rising in the East. Countries like China, India, Brazil, and Vietnam that we cannot currently form trade-negotiations as we'd like to, will offer us far more opportunity than a “common market”. Rather than cut ourselves off from the developing world, we could leave the cage of Europe and open ourselves up to trade with the emerging economies of 100’s of millions strong, some of which are developing socialist countries. That’s the real internationalist position.

Given our loss of perspective on this issue, who in our stead has come baring the torch of sovereignty? The nationalist right – a phenomena arising all over Europe as a reaction to the weakness of libertarians, neo-conservatives, and the left alike to properly appeal to any working class sentiment.  Referring specifically to groups like UKIP, the National Front in France, Law and Justice in Poland, the Swedish Democrats, the NDP in Germany and so on. To our shame, we have allowed this movement to lead and subsequently become the face of the fight for a referendum on the European Union and against monopoly capital.

It is imperative that the left re-thinks its position on this matter. Not only for the sake of our historical reputation but because we risk our position as the defenders of the rights of ordinary people to be usurped by a much worse beast. The working people of Europe have felt the stranglehold of German finance capital via the EU and they are standing up, we should be the ones at the political forefront alongside them. We should revive the days when the left stood staunchly against all forms of unjustified authority and oligarchic rule.

As the late Tony Benn said in 2013: “The way that Europe has developed is that bankers and multi-national corporations have got very powerful positions and if you come in on their terms they will tell you what you can and cannot do and that is unacceptable”.

I am not hostile to people from other countries. I am as far away from UKIP and the nationalist right as can be. I am an internationalist. I believe in the eventual disintegration of borders and national identity entirely. I believe the people of the world are commonly united by one flag, shaded in a colour of the blood we all hold in common. I believe the 196 national banners in their infinite colours are falsehoods, lines in sand. That is a cause that I am unashamed to say I am a combatant in and I plan to believe in it for the rest of my life.

It's the same reason I believe that the fall of the USSR, the partition of Korea, the break up of Yugoslavia, and the break up of Czechoslovakia were ultimately negative. It’s the same reason why I was against Scotland leaving the UK in 2014. But I cannot believe in this EU, which puts the interests of money and power before all else and remains completely unaccountable and undemocratic. This is why I believe those on the left should vote to leave the EU when the referendum comes around.

On recent changes in Cuba/U.S. relations.

“The United States will come to talk to us when you have a black president and the world has a Latin American pope.” 

The clock is no longer ticking towards the era where this quote by ex-Cuban president Fidel Castro becomes a reality. The shifting state of the relationship between the island nation of Cuba and the United States has been exemplified by the opening of a Cuban embassy in the U.S. for the first time since the overthrow of the Batista dictatorship in 1959. While we can't safely say that the embargo placed on Cuba by the United States will end, we can already see the conception of diplomatic interactions between the two countries. Hopefully in the near future we will finally see the end to the illegal, 53-year blockade on Cuba, which has relentlessly subjected the country to restrictions not just on it's export goods (tobacco and rum being the worst losses) but also necessary provisions for healthcare, monetary and financial trade, and access to new technologies - leaving the country in somewhat of a stasis. The fact that Cuba exists in a state of anything other than total humanitarian crisis, which is the unequivocal point of the embargo, is thanks entirely to the countries social-model; the free provision of all citizens with food, housing, education, and healthcare, regardless of pressure from international powers.

Even now that the Lefts dream of a Cuban flag emerging out of a sea of "Viva Fidel!"s and "Viva Cuba socialista!"s on the streets of Washington has been achieved, some are predictably still championing the position of defeat. On the day that international solidarity should be at it's strongest, accusations of betrayal, revisionism, and even senility against the Cuban leadership for daring to accept a deal which alleviates their people from just some of the afore mentioned restrictions, seems to illuminate the need for more sectarianism rather than less. If you would rather stay in the camp of defeat and fringe politics then that choice is yours. It's better you remain there than ask other people to fight to the last drop of their blood because you perceive them as ideologically inconsistent.

I should add that i'm not proselytising for the "opening up" of Cuba to American influence, nor should we equate bringing socialism into the 21st century to market-oriented socialism. I don't believe that route would be desirable for the Cuban people, nor do I believe it's what we'll get - Raul Castro has made it clear that they will not "negotiate their social system" and while the promise of the younger Castro doesn't quell all fears, it ranks as slightly more promising introduction to friendly relations with the West than "To get rich is glorious!".

Most importantly of all, the attitude which should be combatted is the harrowing glee from liberals that this change in foreign policy by the U.S will soon lead to Cuba emerging from the rubble of communism into an American-style parliamentary democracy - with it's very own CNN and O'Reilly factor of course! As the media confetti of any true democracy. Below the bug-eyed calls for "Freedom for Cuba!" (or the freedom for Levies and McDonalds to set up shop their anyway), a sinister mentality simmers; the assumption that Cuba, as it currently exists, is some kind of tyranny. While it is true that the nucleus of human rights abuses in the Caribbean does exist on Cuban soil, it has nothing to do with the Revolutionary government. The Cuban government has protested the presence of a CIA torture camp in Guantanamo bay for 36 years and each time the United States essentially replies with "What you gonna do about it?". Indeed the 53 years of sanction and sabotage by the U.S. has left Cuba in a state of siege and many democratic rights have been suspended, but regardless of how Cuba organises it's representation of it's people, the only form of democracy liberals will be happy with is one that includes the capitalists and kleptocrats of pre-revolutionary Cuba, who looted the country of it's wealth and subjected it's population to poverty and military repression.

Cuba will remain on the same path it has been for over half a century, and the celebrations of victory won't be drowned out by the grumbling of zealous ideologues or the opening of cash registers in preparation for a brand new exploitable market. Cuba will remain a beacon to the third world, as an example that you don't have to choose between the domination of Global capital or mass poverty. It's future will depend on how much it sticks to the original revolutionary ideas which liberated the country. Perhaps it's the case that this belated opening up is a tactical manoeuvre to inject neoliberal influence at the right time. Perhaps the old order will be returning to it's vomit soon. But for now, socialism will be exalted as more and more people will be lead by Cubas example that standing up to the West objectively pays off.

Quick reminder for everyone about tomorrow.

For people who are my age or around, this will be the first general election we've been legally allowed to vote in. Some of us might have had pre-conceived political opinions for a while, some of us might have only just started to really pay attention, and others might still be undecided on where they stand. Regardless of your certainty or position about who should be in parliament, the one crucial thing to remember is that voting is not the be-all and end-all of democratic participation.

The origin of the vote itself is quite confusing and I won't go into the exact historic details of when exactly "universal suffrage" was granted in Britain because it came in stages - first granted to a select few white males but later extended to working class white men, then women, then black men, then black women. The point is, the vote was not given to us by our oh-so charitable rulers or because the nobles and monarchs of the day believed the serfs were finally ready for democracy. We have the right to vote because ordinary people fought for it, because collectively the people knew that en masse they could demand their rights from those who controlled the country (and at the time most of the world). In fact, most of the services we now take for granted like the NHS, the welfare state, workplace safety rights, and the minimum wage were fought for by movements who believed that working people had the right to live dignified lives regardless of their ability to produce profit for a boss. Hell, even the bloody weekend, your leisure time on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday was fought for by American trade unions up until the 1940s when the 40-hour work week was officially put into law. That's right, working people have only had the full weekend since the 1940's.

For their 1987 election special, the satirical comedy show 'Spitting Image' ended their skit with a parody of the famous scene from Cabaret where a Nazi fanatic sings "Tomorrow belongs to me", a song about Hitlers plans for the future. Without changing a single word, Spitting Images version shows a theoretical dystopian future in Britain where: privatisation, corporate rule, environmental destruction, racist police, military hegemony, and ultra-nationalism are the prevailing values. At the time, Spitting Image thought they were over-exaggerating.

Tomorrow, we have another general election, and it seems pretty grim to be perfectly honest. Each of the 3-4 major parties march in varying degrees of lockstep to the tune of neoliberalism, imperialist war, and punishing the poor for the crimes of the rich by selling off the services working people fought so bravely for to their mates in the private sector. I completely empathise with those who have rejected the entire process outright, casting their vote away as pointless because they see all parties as tools for the rich and powerful. Even a day away i'm not even sure if I want to vote at all, and if I do it will be nothing more than to try and dilute the system. But like the Kings of old, the politicians and the business leaders know that if the people were to ever organise and agitate for change like we have many times before, the world could change over night. Every factory, mine, every mill, the financial sector, the police, the armies of all nations could at our command stand still.

So by all means put a piece of paper with an 'X' next to your preferred party in a ballot box tomorrow, but don't for a single second think that's where democracy ends. Regardless of whether we end up with a Labour, Liberal, Conservative or, God forbid, a UKIP dominated parliament. Remember that real change comes from being out on the streets, from organisation, from the constant struggle of working class people against those who make nothing but own everything. The ruling class trembles at the idea that you understand a simple truth; you don't need them, but they need you.

The Democrats: Party of war and mass murder.

So there's been quite a bit of buzz recently around Hillary Clinton announcing that she has begun her 2016 presidential campaign. Coming out on top of the Democratic parties nomination for presidential candidate with 65 percent of the poll, beating Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren by 10 percent.

It's pretty well established that democratic identification of minority ethnic and religious groups in the US sores in comparison to their Republican counterparts, with 64% of black americans voting Democrat while only 4% vote Republican. Does this make the democrats the party to represent religious minorities and people of colour? Fuck no.

It may be that Liberals and the so called 'left-wing' have been driven to Hillary in much the same way that many were driven to Obama; they represent something other than the typical old-white-male politician and people believe that a vote for them is some form of slight to the establishment. Problem is, social liberation and feminism are not interest groups to insert as many wealthy black/Muslim/latino/hispanic/female/trans/etc members into the ruling class as possible, the point is to dismantle the material conditions which are to blame for the oppression of minority groups and women in the first place. Supporting people who voted for the Iraq war will not bring any kind of liberation for the oppressed. If your feminism only advocates "strong woman" to be those who hold enough money and power to oppress and rule over the masses in the same way men historically have, then it is no feminism at all.

The Democrats have waged economic warfare against poor people and areas largely populated with black and latino people by supporting cuts on welfare and public services, proselytising for Neo-Liberalism, and supporting Americas imperialistic ventures around the World. Clinton said recently that she supports the deportation of the children of unregistered workers - completely ignoring her own governments involvement in destabilising the Latin-American continent, which has resulted in millions of people desperately trying to escape into the United States. Reminding us all of the price nations who resist U.S dominance pay; Cuban President Raul Castro highlighted some of the crimes committed in Latin-America by previous administrations. The role in which the United States government and corporations have played in dismantling the economies in Mexico, Guatemala, and other Latin-American countries through the funding of drug cartels, military juntas, and private death squads still continues today.

On their own, in the past 8 years, the Obama administration and the Democrats haven't even attempted to hide their lust for war-mongering. Running on promises to immediately end the illegal occupation of Iraq and close Guantanamo bay, many Leftists including the late Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez hailed the coming of Obama as a sign of peace and an end to the violent stupidity of the Bush era. Instead, Obama lead the United States into another profit-war in Libya which fragmented the country and brought about a power vacuum in which violent Islamic extremists who lynch black people have been given free reign, he backed the FSA extremists in Syria who eat peoples hearts and lungs, film it and then behead Priests who are members some of the most ancient Christian communities in the World. He promised apartheid Israel $30 billion over the next decade, supported the fascist-lead Maidan "Revolution" in Ukraine, and has supported various attempts at a military coup in Venezuela. That was the price the global population had to pay for Americas vote for Obama - the "cool" President.

Western liberal blood-thirst isn't exactly a new emergence either. The list of Democratic blunders and crimes span well before the noughties and the Cold War. President Wilson was the one responsible for American involvment in World War 1, in which 116000 American troops were killed, Truman dropped the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing between 60-80 thousand people, JFK attacked Cuba and caused the Cuban Missile Crisis, Johnson brought liberty to Vietnam in the form of napalm and missile strikes, and Jimmy Carter backed the Indonesian and Iranian military dictatorships. Now suddenly we're expected to see the Clintons and Obama as champions of youth and liberty? When they've had as much of, if not more of a part in not only the previously mentioned international crimes, but also domestic crimes? Like spying on the U.S and foreign public via the NSA and re-signing of the Patriot Act, which gives the state the ability to hold people indefinitely in prison without trial all under the name of "anti-terrorism". But it's all forgiven because Obama will make jokes about the Lion King. He's down with the kids, yo.

There is no "progressive" section of the ruling class. There is no "lesser of the 2/3/4/5/10 evils". The only division between the Democrats and the Republicans lies on which specific interests within the ruling class they support and on how they best may expand said system. Don't believe me? Just look at who's paying for Hillary Clintons Presidential campaign next year. Voting for the 'slightly-less-bad' political representatives of the Bourgeois only gives credence and legitimisation to their system, and to the false belief that capitalism can simply be reformed.

Songs I’ve had on repeat

While I do have staunch preferences musically, what I listen to changes pretty drastically over time. Here’s what I’ve been listening to recently.

10. Tigers Jaw – I Was Never Your Boyfriend

I’ve only just started to get into this band; I always found them to be kind of generic. However, this song has great riffs, it’s fast, and it’s short. Not an anthem by any means, but it’s not trying to be.

9. The XX – VCR

Chiller one this time. Great melody and all round nice tune.

8. Brand New – Degausser

One of the perks of being a great band with tons of filler songs is that it leaves an untapped pool of stuff for you to accidentally end up loving.

7. Passenger - 27

Catchy tune I heard going up to Newcastle last week. Catchy as fuck, melancholic, night-drive song.

6. Frankie Cosmos - I Do Too

Would not usually fit in with my music taste, but I can’t help getting chills listening tot his.

 5. UK Subs – Riot

Try and listen to this song without wanting to smash up a police car, I dare you.

4. Enter Shikari – The One True Colour

Shikaris new album is tops, and this is my personal favourite from it. Brilliant mix of anthemic chorus’s and hardcore verses.

3. George Ezra – Listen to the Man

Again, not something I’d usually listen to but there’s something about it that I fucking love. It has a consistent tune and is all round catchy as Hell. Also the video has a dancing Sr. Ian McKellan in it.

2. Valeriano Orobón Fernández - Las Barricadas

I’m no friend of anarchists but they do write some killer anthems sometimes. Also, watch the movie Land & Freedom.

1. Billy Ocean – Love Really Hurts Without You

Because sometimes you just have to remember that you have more in common with a schizophrenic, alcoholic, cross-dressing, thuggish police officer than most regular people. And that’s ok.

Movie recommendation: The Act of Killing

The Act of Killing is a spine-chilling film/documentary by Joshua Oppenheimer. An uncomfortable amalgamation of amazing musical numbers, interviews, and personal recollection - the The Act of Killing will both sicken you and glue you with an audacious thrill. You can watch the trailer here.

The film documents the Indonesian gangster Anwar Congo and his associates, re-enacting their major roll in the massacre of political dissidents after a military coup seized power in 1965. Together, the gangsters, the military, and private paramilitary groups launched a violent campaign against the Indonesian communist party (PKI), leftists, their supposed supporters, and the ethnic Chinese minority living in Indonesia - leading to the deaths of around 3 million people. This purge occurred amongst the backdrop of the transition from the progressive, democratically elected government who fought for Indonesia's independence from the Dutch, to the 30-year military dictatorship of President Suharto, a good friend of the Americans at the time.

Obviously, not the only or by any means the worst crime in human history, but what makes the film unique however, is the willingness of these people to return to the scenes of and re-enact their crimes. Demonstrating the efficiency of strangulation by wire in comparison to rope, and explaining how the rape of 14 year old girls is "Hell for them, but Heaven for me", puts this film on another level of discomfort than say, Schindlers List or The Killing Fields. Not only have these criminals have never been charged or punished, they are hailed as heroes and are currently living in what can only be described as absolute luxury.

All too often do people soak up Hollywood crap, not only in terms of writing but lazy churned out filming in general. The cinematography alone puts this film so far beyond so much that's come out recently. If you want to watch something worth your time, something where in every shot you can feel the dedication and care put into it, watch The Act of Killing.

Seriously, watch this fucking movie.

Why the UK should abandon its Trident nuclear program.

In 1980, the UK replaced its independent Polaris nuclear submarine fleet with the US-approved Trident nuclear program. Originally, the idea was that a joint nuclear pact in Europe between Britain and the US would help subdue the perceived aggression of the then Soviet Union. If a Warsaw Pact country were to threaten a nuclear attack against Western Europe, then a nuclear-armed UK could be a deterrent. However, the Warsaw Pact is long gone, along with the Soviet Union, but still Britain today still keeps fleets of nuclear submarines up in Faslane.

1. It's not a deterrent.

NATO refuses to admit that Trident is not a first-strike weapon, and given UK and NATO's track record of aggression against other countries, what reason do we have to believe the UK would not use a nuclear threat as an attack rather than a defence? Moreover, who exactly are we supposed to be deterring? Now that the USSR is gone, what threat is there to Britain's security that it's necessary have a fleet of nuclear-armed submarines? We're the one who's been conducting invasion after invasion all over the globe, in many peoples eyes we are the violent rogue state. Why should the country jointly responsible for destroying Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria be seen as a righteous owner of nuclear weapons? It shouldn't. Nuclear programs haven't kept the world at peace, it's only further slipped the balance of power into the hands of the Western powers and their allies. 

If nuclear weapons are truly a deterrent, then every country in the world should be allowed to have them, otherwise the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction becomes otiose. So why then did the UK put sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran in response to them potentially building a Nuclear weapons program which they were well within their rights to build due to their signature on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? If you want to argue that only democracies should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, then why did Britain give financial and political support to the Pakistani military dictator General Musharraf to build Nuclear weapons? Why do we refuse to send an international inquiry to Israel, which refuses to confirm the existence of it's Nuclear weapons when we know it has them? Every nuclear armed 'tin pot' dictatorship only has nuclear weapons either as a reaction to us having them in the first place or because we sold them to them. It's almost like NATO aren't interested in a deterrent at all, more that it's interested in surrounding and bullying countries we don't like into submission because we have bigger guns than them. 

2. Trident costs the UK too much.

The UK is not in the best place financially, since 2009 we’ve seen mass unemployment throughout the country, increase in homelessness, and the ever increase cutting of our social benefits and public services. All evidence from living here would tell you we’re broke. Or are we? Apparently, we’ve got enough leftover to spend billions of pounds a year to buy new fleets of nuclear subs and maintain the Trident programs existence. The next fleet of successor submarines is likely to appear next year. This is at a time when the Tory chancellor, just 3 years ago, laid waste to hundreds of British public sector jobs as an attempt to 'tighten our belts', the Labour government fired 200 food inspectors, and the NHS is being slowly chipped away and sold off to the hands of profiteering healthcare companies. This money currently being spent on a Nuclear program, no one in their right mind would ever think about actually using, would be better spent invested in the British economy.

3. All countries should dismantle their nuclear weapons.

If someone uses a nuclear weapon, that's it. We're done. There's no more debate. If a nuclear missile were to be launched, there would be no more human race. You might believe that nukes help ensure "our interests". But we don't have to scourge the Earth with a poorly equipped military to secure foreign resources, we don't have to follow the United States into war after war and ultimately onto the scrapheap of history. We could start now by sending a message to the rest of the world that we don't need nukes and we will have no part in the insanity of holding weapons which will literally end in the extinction of Human kind.