Yes, Margaret Thatcher is dead.

Written by administrator, 08.04.2013

 

Crust nor Crumb - the Slow Reduction of Working Class Food Culture

Written by Robert Prouse, 27.03.2013
The need to eat is a great leveller, an inescapable biological necessity, but what is the difference between the food of the rich and that of the poor - Is it just a question of taste? John Burnett in 'Plenty & Want' describes the rich of the 19th century as those who enjoyed “some margin of income over necessary expenditure and were able to make some choice in their selection of food”. This being the case the poor therefore ate a food which was a product of circumstance: Cheap, often monotonous and nutritionally inadequate. Yet out of this necessity came a resourceful invention, a creative use of the ingredients at hand and an open minded adoption of the products of foreign trade and technological innovation supposedly absent from traditional English cookery. The recipes left to us show a cooking which fulfils the apparently contemporary fashion for local produce, economy and creative presentation, not as a fad but as perhaps the richest heritage of working class culture. However, the development of this culture was broken somewhere along the line only to be 'rediscovered' recently by chefs and television personalities catering to the middle and upper classes. How did the working class loose their culinary culture only to have it dangled in front of them, out of reach, by supermarkets who can 'taste the difference' and celebrity chefs who berate them as they eat their TV dinners?
 

Weaponising Workfare

Written by Aaron Peters, 22.03.2013
The potential list of objectionable adjectives that have been extended to the medley of policies collectively understood as ‘workfare’ is, much like any credibility once invested in the present coalition government, indubitably nearing the point of expiry. Indeed workfare, and its present puppeteer the Home Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, are now not not only regarded as mad, bad and malicious but alsothoroughly inept. Surely even ‘IDS’ thought the numbers, the returns on government ‘investment’ in awarding these deals to A4E and others would not be so precociously dreadful as to place the programs beyond the parameters of any credible defence?
 
The contribution of groups such asBoycott Workfare,DPAC and Solfed, among others, in discrediting workfare programmes is impressive. At the same time such a contribution has undoubtedly been embedded within a defensive approach that has come to characterize anti-austerity struggles throughout the OECD. At times, as with workfare, such a response can be impressive. The student movement of 2010 was similarly a defensive struggle but was nonetheless possessed of admirable flexibility, scale and intensity. The same is true, indeed to a greater extent, with the ultimately victorious Quebecois student movement of the last two years, impressively coordinated byClasse. Conversely the UK ‘pensions fightback’ by public sector unions in 2011, again essentially defensive, shared few if any of these qualities. This is for a variety of reasons and has nothing to do with the intelligence or integrity of those involved, nor the quantity or quality of legitimate grievances they possessed. Indeed for all its scale, tenacity and openness the UK student movement of 2010 likewise failed to achieve its objectives or indeed really catalyse a larger movement beyond itself - although in retrospect it undoubtedly undermined any credible argument the coalition could communicate about its ambition to ‘share’ the burden of austerity.
 

Financial Obelisks: on the return of the monumental

Written by Federico Campagna, 21.03.2013
A new age of monument-making is on its way. In this short article I will try to explain the geo-political, social and symbolic reasons for the (coming) renaissance of monuments as a means for political domination.
 
 
Preface: Eiffel Towers
 
When the first design of the Eiffel Tower was produced in 1884, France had just emerged from one of its bleakest periods. After the defeat against Germany in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, and the wave of civil revolts that originated from the Paris Commune of 1871, the French Nation needed to prove itself again as a believable power in the eyes of the world. The times were fluid and dangerous, and the European balance of forces was being reassessed. France had to show itself as a reliable, stable, united political and economic entity – and the 1889 Exposition Universelle provided a perfect opportunity for such a display of solidity and power.
 
In October 2008, when the Mayor of London Boris Johnson and Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell agreed that ‘something extra’ was needed to celebrate the Olympics, the country had just begun to sink into the whirlpool of economic recession. When Anish Kapoor’s ArcelorMittal Orbit project was selected on 31st March 2010, the country had just admitted to the world to have entered its first double-dip recession since 1975, when Britain had to beg the IMF for rescue funding. The international credibility of the old Kingdom and of its Capital City-State was in peril, and immediate measures were required to show that stability, as well as power, was still part of the character of mighty Albion. What better way of achieving this, than investing on a monumental, non-functional artefact, such as Kapoor’s reinterpretation of the Eiffel Tower?
 

Solidarity in ruins. A reflection on the Freedom bookshop bombing.

Written by Paolo Mossetti, 17.03.2013

Much has been said on the coward aggression Freedom bookshop was victim of. Founded by Charlotte Wilson and Peter Kropotkin and based in Whitechapel since the 1970s, Freedom was the oldest anarchic bookshop in the English-speaking world, home of the renowned Freedom Press - which sent into print names such as Clifford Harper, Vernon Richards, Colin Ward and his 'Anarchy' magazine, Murray Bookchin, William Blake and Errico Malatesta. It was already attacked by fascists in 1993 and since then metal bars were installed on the windows and the entrance door.
 
All major publishers, bookshops and leftist groups promtly expressed their solidarity, especially because Freedom Bookshop wasn't exactly a steady market competitor, but - like many anarchic organisations - a volunteer-run entity, struggling to survive. A spontaneous 'clean-up' soon followed, and many sincere militants, armed with broom, took part in this Red Aid intervention.
 
Ironically, with all due respect to those affected by the bomb -no one was hurt-, we could look at the bombing as exciting news for anarchism: for once, radical literature wasn’t confined to the spider webs and dust of academia. Not just another talk, another conference of self-boosting egoes and parboiled lectures. Most importantly, not another publisher whining about censorship before billing their authors as 'dangerous' on the back cover of their books (dangerous for whom, and how?). It was, surprisingly, a physical target to be physically attacked.

Syndicate content