'Bodies in space' - comments on social media and political mobilisation

There's a very thought-provoking interview with Mark Fisher over at New Left Project, which covers a range of issues. This is an extract which I think is worth re-posting, though I obviously recommend reading the whole article. Fisher is asked:

Turning to technology then, you describe social media in Capitalist Realism as being ‘profoundly illiterate’, replacing genuine engagement with what you call ‘slogan recognition’—but yet they have also played some part in the recent mobilisations around the world. How do you assess the advantages and disadvantages of social media?

This is his response:

‘Profoundly illiterate’ comes from Deleuze and Guattari, who talk about capitalism in general not really being a literate culture. And you see that tendency to what I call post-literacy intensified. I think with social media in general it is a classic case of dialectical ambivalence. We’ve seen the respect in which they can mobilise people, although it may well have been overplayed. At the same time it is foolish to deny that it played some significant role in those events. And it was also part of everything that happened at the end of 2010 with the student movement in the UK—social media played a role in that.

At the same time because of the matrix it is plugged into, we don’t know what social media would be like if it wasn’t plugged into late capitalism. That’s why it’s difficult to judge it in itself. Certainly at the moment a large proportion of social media is reproducing capitalist subjectivity for sure, reproducing and intensifying it. But we don’t know if that’s a property of the media themselves or an effect of its current situation.

Nonetheless, one of the things I think is particularly notable is, and I think it relates to this question of cultural stagnancy, is attentional erosion. It’s partly why something like Twitter, I think, it does substantially erode one’s capacity to concentrate on anything. I’ve tried to spend a lot less time on Twitter lately and I think the danger of Twitter, as opposed to Facebook, is tied up with how useful it can be. I tried to spend a lot less time on Twitter before and then ‘Hackgate’ happened and the riots happened, and there it sort of came into its own as a form of counter media. Mainstream media is increasingly intolerable and the only way to work with it is by a counter media network provided by things like Twitter, it makes it more bearable.

But at the same time having our consciousness permanently segmented in that way makes it very difficult to concentrate on anything. I don’t want to get into saying that ‘in the good old days of face-to-face interactions’ and all that. I don’t think that’s a useful comparison. The really important contrast is the one between forms of attention giving.

One’s capacity to do things like read a book is rapidly deteriotated by something like Twitter. Also in terms of things like writing – in the past when you found a difficulty or an impasse in writing you sort of had to get through that by sticking with it. It’s now so easy to avoid that struggle to get over an impasse because of the distractions that are immediately available.

And I think that goes for everybody in culture, captured in a phrase from Linda Stone (some Microsoft Executive turned therapist guru)—‘continuous partial attention’. I think this is the kind of thing that social media is producing in all of us—which is, in a way, quite a nightmarish situation: A world in which no one is really paying attention to anything.

And the point as to why I think this is different to ‘the good old days of face-to-face interaction’ is that this form of digital twitch distracts from everything including itself. It’s not as if you fully pay attention to your Twitter feed. It is, by its very nature, kind of fragmentary and it produces this panic sense of belatedness. You always feel as if you are behind, which in a sense you are by the nature of the medium. It would be good to drop into this tickertape immediacy now and again, but it’s not the nature of Twitter that you can drop into it. It’s permanently diverting a large portion of your attention and that means your capacity for other kinds of attentional focus is eroded.

Sherry Turkle’s book, that came out last year, Alone Together, gives a really powerful account of the phenomenology of social media and its effect on particularly young people. What she discusses is the intricate etiquette that’s involved with the social media particularly amongst the young, an etiquette worthy of Jane Austen, where teenagers will spend an hour on a one word text to convey the right level of nonchalance. That phrase, ‘alone together’, captures a lot of the subjective quality of what it is to be plugged into cyberspace. There is this form of degraded collectivity which goes along side this feeling of solitude which never goes away.

I think what is significant about the role of social media in things like the Arab spring and the student militancy was that it broke out of its own conditions. One of the problems of the social media, going back to the blogs and discussion boards, is the interminable debate quality. As if there is an infinite time to debate things rather than to get involved and do them. And what is quite clear was that the tendency to endless debate was broken by mobilisation.

But the mobilisations went against the tendencies of social media because it was about the revival of an older style of politics, visions of bodies concentrated in space as opposed to bodies distributed in space that is the normal tendency of cyberspace. I think this then poses another problem which is the way in which communicative technology has colonised our sense of the modern, since our only vision of what is modern is tied up with communicative technology and that any kind of resistance to it or any kind of alternative to it almost seems like a reactionary throwback in a way.

And the issue for me is 1) how do we break out of this capturing of the present and possibility in the future by the communicational and 2) how do we articulate the kind of politics that is technological and really doesn’t depend upon this older model necessarily of bodies being together in space. That seems a real problem actually.

Share

Less tweeting, more talking (or blogging)

"Don't talk to her - she's a colonial feminist"

If something can't be said in 140 characters or less, why bother trying to say it in 140 characters or less?

I was reminded of this elementary point today by two faintly depressing spats on my Twitter timeline. Both of them illustrate the limits of Twitter, which I recognise is handy for many things - and I'm hardly Twitter-shy myself - but inadequate for developing an even remotely coherent argument.

The first spat concerned the Home Secretary Theresa May's ban on all marches across large swathes of London, an opportunistic response to the planned EDL and anti-racist marches in Tower Hamlets on 3 September. Some tweets are at the playground level, barely more sophisticated than 'Billy Bragg is a smelly poo' or 'The SWP are fatty stupidheads'.

But even the more intelligent interventions in the debates about the banning of racist marches and how to respond to the EDL are weak. This is no surprise - you can't articulate a reasoned critique in a tweet.

The other dispute is between two fine Egyptian revolutionaries Gigi Ibrahim and Hossam el-Hamalawy in the red corner and US-based commentator Mona Eltahawy in the blue corner (or blue and white corner, if slurs about her being a 'Zionist' are to be believed). Hossam called her a 'colonial feminist', which is like calling someone 'fatty stupidhead' after reading some Edward Said. It is name-calling as substitute for political argument. The marxist wing of the greatest revolution of our times can do much better than this.

What's even worse is that Twitter means lots of other people get drawn in too, even if just at the level of reading such silliness. The adversaries retweet supportive comments - or, more likely, tweets which disparage the other side. Polarisation rapidly shuts down any space for thoughtful debate; personality clashes obscure political issues.

My grandad used to say when I was a bairn, "if you haven't got anything nice to say, don't say anything at all". Or, to be more precise, if you want to say something not very nice then take the time to explain, substantiate and critique. And without the personalised mud-slinging. (That's not strictly what my grandad said - let's call it paraphrasing).

It's a reminder of why those who claim Twitter's 'microblogging' has made blogging redundant are missing the point. A blog post (and the same goes for a comments thread) is a chance to - in a phrase I associate with the late Chris Harman - think things through. Subtlety and balance, not to mention scope for offering evidence to support your assertions, are possible.

Talking is even better. There's no substitute for face-to-face meetings as a way of conducting political discussion. It is possible to pose questions, interpet tone and refine ideas. And if anyone denounces someone as a 'colonial feminist', the immediate laughter of derision operates as an instant reality check.  

It occasionally crosses my mind that Trotsky would have made an amazing blogger. On Twitter, I fear, it would have been different - and, with that level of distraction, there's no way he'd have finished 'A History of the Russian Revolution'! 
 

Share

Blogs and Twitter and all that

Huge crowds urge Jim Jepps to keep blogging

I'm sorry to see Jim Jepps is about to archive The Daily (Maybe), a very good left-wing green blog that's been running for a few years. Phil BC, meanwhile, hasn't blogged at A Very Public Sociologist for several weeks. Liam Macuaid gave up his blog a few months ago. Splintered Sunrise rarely blogs now.

In general there are two noticeable trends in the left-wing blogosphere of late. One is the increasing emphasis on group blogs, rather than individual blogs, and the other is the complete or partial relocation of a number of bloggers' online presence from the blogosphere to the Twittersphere.

The Third Estate, Left Economics Advisory Panel, Though Cowards Flinch and New Left Project (not really a blog, but I'll include it here) are all joint efforts by the radical left I'd warmly recommend.

These two trends - rise of group blogs, Twitter relocation - are relevant whether you look at the more radical elements of the blogging world or at the broader 'left', ie. including collective blogs like Liberal Conpiracy, Left Foot Forward and Left Futures, and someone like Tom Harris MP who used to blog but now only tweets.

Similar developments can also be found on the Right, for example Iain Dale giving up his personal blog. There's also - looking at the British political blogsphere and Twittersphere overall - a trend towards established names in the mainstream media having strong followings. Jon Snow, Johann Hari, Paul Mason and many others provide examples of this on Twitter.

Having said all that, I think there's a lot of life in the individual left-wing blog by humble activist-bloggers with no mainstream media platform. There are established bloggers still going strong, including Madam Miaow, Harpymarx, Dave Osler, Derek Wall and others.

Then there are blogs which I've only discovered in recent months, but have become regulars for me to peruse - Latte Labour, Owen Jones and Salma Yaqoob among them. See the blog roll in the right sidebar for links, and hopefully make a few discoveries.

Share

Get Luna17 in your inbox

Rejoice, rejoice! It is possible to get content from this blog via email. I've recently added a gadget - Follow by Email - you will find in the right sidebar.

You simply add your email address in the box to get a daily update. If I don't update Luna17 on any given day then you won't get a message. If I do add new content then you will get it in an email. It's that simple. Oh, and don't forget you can also follow on Twitter and Facebook.

Luna17 has notched up over 6000 pageviews so far in June - and more than 55,000 since the start of 2011 - plus much of my writing is re-published at Counterfire. While hardly competing with Liberal Conspiracy in the blog traffic stakes (how could anyone compete with the, erm, mighty Sunny Hundal?), there is semeingly some appetite for my humble offerings of revolutionary polemic, political analysis, left-wing news and more.

Share

Semiotically confused

Have a look at this feature: 'Riot girls, literally'.

OK, I admit to being confused by this. Is it proof that capitalism can absorb anything, including radical protest, in its commodification of everything ('turning rebellion into money')? Is it sanitising and depoliticising the student protests?

Is it a symptom of the radical student movement making an impact on mainstream consciousness? Is it a cheekily subversive, witty and clever way of combining protest with fashion? Is it just a bit of fun? Or what?!

Share

3 million and rising...

Congratulations to Ady Cousins, whose YouTube channel - see HERE - has just passed the 3 million hits mark.

Well established as this country's most popular left-wing YouTube channel, it's especially noted for bringing speeches at political rallies, conferences and public meetings - from the anti-war movement to recent student protests - to a wider audience. Ady also edits Counterfire, which benefits from posting videos alongside written reports and analysis. 

Here's a good example: Jeremy Corbyn addressing an emergency protest less than 24 hours after Israel's fatal assault on the freedom flotilla.



Share

Netroots UK and the limits of 'online activism'

My Twitter feed was filled today with assorted people reporting from the Netroots conference at TUC headquarters in London. The event's distinctive quality is its emphasis on 'online activism' in opposing the cuts, i.e. the role of the internet and in particular social media (which mainly means Twitter and Facebook) in the movement.

Harpymarx and The Third Estate have already done a commendable job of outlining some problems with the conference. These include its political weaknesses: it is dominated by the moderate Left, with keynote speakers including the likes of Polly Toynbee, and Sunny Hundal (editor of Liberal Conspiracy) declaring that activists must tone down their arguments if they want to win public approval.

The event is modelled on an American initiative linked to Obama's presidential campaign. In a sense it's built on a 'professionalised' notion of activism, with those in media or conventional (likely Westminster) political circles given prominence.

There's a few points I'd like to add about this vogue for claiming 'online activism' is transforming political protest. It goes without saying that I take the Net seriously - I'm a blogger, a member of Counterfire's editorial team, and use Facebook and Twitter as political tools all the time. It's worth stressing, too, that I have equally strong objections to those on the left who largely dismiss the internet.

But there's increasingly a loss of perspective on the role of online activity and a failure to understand how it is linked to other media and to real-world political activity.

1. Let's recall the TV coverage of the Millbank mass occupation on 10 November. Remember how that electrified the movement? It's a huge factor in explaining why tens of thousands of school and college students protested on 24 November, the first Day X national day of walkouts and protests.

This illustrates the role of old media (TV) in aiding the movement's development. A great deal of attention has, correctly, been paid to Facebook's role in organising and publicising the Day X protests, but commentators have almost enitrely overlooked the vital part played by TV coverage. It's also worth recalling that several newspapers have effectively promoted the protests by running 'what the protestors plan next'-style articles in advance of each day of action. Something similar happened with the most recent UK Uncut day of action.

2. There's a tendency to forget how dependent the effectiveness of 'new media' remains on 'old media'. Why does Jon Snow have so many Twitter followers? Because he presents Channel 4 News. Why is Paul Mason's blog popular? Because he's Newsnight's economics editor (he's also a good and perceptive writer, but if he wasn't on telly he'd get only a fraction of those hits).

Why has Laurie Penny got 10,000 Twitter followers? Partly hard graft and exceptional writing ability, but it helps to get platforms at The Guardian and New Statesman.

The point is that coverage, or a platform, in the established media underpins a lot of the success of online media. An obvious example: the biggest left-of centre blogs, like Liberal Conspiracy and Left Foot Forward, get a lift from their editors or contributors being featured as pundits on radio programmes, offered occasional Guardian columns and quoted in newspapers.

There's an inevitable political bias here, with more moderate voices from the blogosphere gaining greater opportunities than those to their left. It's also worth keeping in mind when some commentators use phrases like 'non-hierarchical' - in fact we're not all equal online.

3. It remains the case that any amount of online activity can never be enough. Such activities as stalls, flyering, door-knocking etc remain vital. UK Uncut has rightly been celebrated for using social media extensively in promoting anti-tax avoidance protests. But loose online networks only take you so far. Face-to-face meetings and democratic structures are essential.

Twitter is great for having a proliferation of ideas from a diverse range of people. But where is the decision-making mechanism in Twitter? There's no way of actually reaching a decision about anything - that still, for the most part, requires democratic, face-to-face planning meetings, student assemblies and conferences. And it's better if this decision-making is open and transparent, with accountability of those elected to take on roles and responsibilities, rather than a mysterious and hidden process.

4. The advocates of 'decentralised networks' fail to grasp the realities of building protest movements. Actually, to some extent they do get it, but there's a divergence between theory and practice. This is summed up in the opening paragraph of Clifford Singer's Guardian article:

'Last month, the anti-tax-dodging campaign UK Uncut tweeted: "Could the organisers of the Taunton action this Sat please get in touch? Many thanks." Theorists talk of how new technology has facilitated decentralised, non-hierarchical, horizontal networks. Well this, in less than 140 characters, is what such a network looks like.'

Can he not see the irony in that? The UK Uncut Twitter account is an example of centralism. So is the Facebook page. And the website.

The example cited here is not 'decentralised' at all - it is precisely an example of people recognising the need for co-ordination, with centralised means of communication playing a key role. There's nothing 'non-hierarchical' and 'horizontal' about a central, co-ordinating Twitter account requesting information from local organisers in order to disseminate that information more widely (and collate it with lots of other local actions).

None of this should detract from the genuine value in using social media, blogs etc to help build resistance to the cuts. In today's world a website is far more likely than a weekly newspaper to be the hub around which you can build an effective organisation, campaign or movement.

Just let's not get carried away by the overblown rhetoric and dubious theorising - and remember that building a mass anti-cuts movement is going to require a whole range of skills, methods and technologies.


Share

Viral video: school student at Coalition of Resistance conference

The different versions of this video have notched up over 300,000 views (as I type this), helped by being featured on a number of major US sites like Boing Boing and Huffington Post plus widespread re-posting on social networking sites.

Barnaby Raine was speaking in a workshop session at the Coalition of Resistance conference on 27 November.



Share

Support Wikileaks: Stop Assange Extradition

An appeal from Stop the War Coalition:

'No wonder Wikileaks is under concerted attack -- undoubtedly orchestrated by the US government. The aim is to silence the whistle blowing website, which every day reveals the secrecy and lies used to justify war, torture and corruption.

There is nothing warmongering politicians fear more than the exposure of the real reasons for the mass slaughter and destruction that they carry out in our name.

Over the past two years Wikileaks has proved itself repeatedly to be a true servant of democracy and an enemy of liars and hypocrites.

The disgraceful refusal to grant Julian Assange bail, while he fights extradition to Sweden, is all of a piece with the attack on Wikileaks.

The suspicion must be that the Swedish government -- deeply incriminated in its support for George Bush's "war on terror" -- has hatched a plan with the US government to whisk Assange to America, where politicians and right-wing commentators arecalling for him to be jailed for decades or executed.

Julian Assange next appears in court on Tuesday 14 December and Stop the War has called a protest at 1.00 pm outside the Westminster Magistrates Court. Details and a link for a flyer publicising the protest are below. Please spread the word as widely as possible and encourage everyone you can to join the protest.

We have also initiated an open letter (LINK BELOW) of support for Wikileaks and Julian Assange, signed by among others, John Pilger, former UK ambassador Craig Murray, actors Miriam Margolyes and Roger Lloyd-Pack, Salma Yaqoob, writers Iain Banks and A L Kennedy, artists David Gentlemen and Katharine Hamnett, and comedians Alexei Sayle and Mark Thomas.

We are encouraging all local Stop the War groups around the country to organise street stalls this weekend to collect signatures for the SUPPORT WIKILEAKS petition.

STOP THE EXTRADITION OF JULIAN ASSANGE
PROTEST IN SUPPORT OF WIKILEAKS
TUESDAY 14 DECEMBER, 1.00PM
WESTMINSTER MAGISTRATES COURT
70 HORSEFERRY ROAD, LONDON SW1 P2
DOWNLOAD FLYER TO PUBLICISE PROTEST HERE:
http://tinyurl.com/32pqdeo

OPEN LETTER / PETITION SUPPORTING WIKILEAKS
Signed by John Pilger, Craig Murray, Mark Thomas, Salma Yaqoob and many more.
READ LETTER & FULL LIST OF SIGNATORIES HERE: http://bit.ly/hkUVKS

PETITION:
The open letter has been produced in the form of a petition to
enable the collection of signatures to be added to the list.
Please print it and collect as many signatures as you can, then
return it to the Stop the War office.
DOWNLOAD HERE: http://tinyurl.com/39azq63

Share

New left-wing daily newspaper launched (sort of)

Yes, it's HERE.

With the aid of some rather ingenious techno-wizardry, it's now possible to have your own personal daily online newspaper. It updates automatically every day, thanks to a Twitter feed (the 25 tweeters this account is following are responsible for the content). Ignore the adverts and I hope you agree it's rather good.

If you want my daily digest in your email inbox every day (and, really, why wouldn't you?) just click on the 'Alert' button and put in your email address.

Brendan at The Sauce alerted me to it - see his short piece on the subject for more.

On the topic of new online media developments, I've started a blog for Tyne and Wear PSC (of which I'm Chair) this week. It will be a resource for any local supporters of justice for Palestine.



Share

Why have leading activists had their Facebook accounts wiped out?

This comes via The Sauce in the early hours of this morning. It is a very worrying and sinister development.

'Personal Facebook accounts for Stop the War officer Andrew Burgin and ULU president elect Clare Solomon have tonight disappeared.

Both political activists were administrators for the group "Can't Pay Won't Pay - Solidarity with the people of Greece" which approaches 15,000 members.

Clare, who has 2,000 friends on the site, said: "I am pretty freaked out. Mine and Andrew's accounts disappeared simultaneously we think while a third administrator can also no longer be found."

Within the last few hours a new Facebook group has been set up demanding: "We want the reactivation of the accounts of Clare Solomon and Andrew Burgin."

The site says: "On 6th May facebook administrators suspended suddenly the accounts of the two basic admins of the group: 'Can't Pay, Won't Pay: Solidarity with the people of Greece'. Strangely, this happened after the large recognition that the particular group gained the past few days.

"We believe that this action is against basic democratic values such as freedom of expression and speech and therefore we demand the reactivation of these two accounts. Solidarity with the admins of the Greek solidarity group! Join now!"

The group was set up less than a week ago and has grown rapidly amid reports of the Greek financial crisis, bailout plans and bank workers being killed in a fire.

The original Greek solidarity site states: "Solidarity with the People of Greece. Send support to the Greek workers fighting IMF cuts.

"Working people in Greece are showing the way forward to people here and across Europe. We send them our congratulations and support. Another system is possible.

"International capital has targeted Greece as its next victim. Hedge funds have pushed the interest on Greek government bonds to close to 14 per cent.

"Just as bankers Goldman Sachs made billions betting on a default in the sub-prime housing market in the USA so now these same predators circle Greece expecting to make similar obscene sums off the backs of the people of that country."'

Tweeting the revolution: Hugo Chavez joins the Twitterati

On Sunday Counterfire published an excellent article called The Internet - serving the revolution? This was swiftly followed by my own related commentary, in which I specifically flagged up the value of social networking for socialist activists.

Yesterday, Hugo Chavez joined Twitter. Coincidence? Well, the timing looks a bit suspect to me! I think we should be told: has the leader of the Bolivarian Revolution been reading Counterfire and Luna17?

If he joins Facebook too we can invite him to Monday's Counterforum, when we'll be discussing the Internet and socialist strategy. Just don't be disappointed if Hugo clicks 'Attending' then doesn't show...

Can online networks help us change the world?

There's a fascinating, highly insightful article at Counterfire called 'The internet - serving the revolution?' The article does something extremely unusual - and very welcome - by outlining the economic and social basis of the Internet and its political potential. This is especially good because of the writer's grasp of the contradictions at work. He therefore avoids the twin dangers of, as he puts it, neo-Luddism and techno-Utopianism.

I think this is also helpful because the Net is often seen as somehow 'outside' the system, as a parallel space where the normal rules and relations don't apply. This article debunks that myth. Instead we can start to explore how the internet is interconnected with wider society, how it is shaped by contemporary capitalism.

However, it's also an important piece because Christian Fuchs avoids the trap of saying therefore the Net can simply be analysed with some old-fashioned Marxist economic analysis pulled out of the hat. In fact it presents new features and contradictions. I like the way he identifies 3 elements that characterise the Net: networking makes information uncontrollable, information-sharing undermines private property and individualism, networks enable connections.

It would be interesting to further explore the political implications of the Net for socialists (I know it's a topic for discussion at Counterforum next weekend). This is where I think some weaknesses creep in to the analysis (towards the end of his article).

Partly this is because I think Fuchs doesn't have a fully-rounded view of democracy. It isn't just about freedom, discussion, sharing. It's also about decision-making, accountability, organisation.

On the latter point there are severe limitations to the Net. For example, in a comments thread people can exchange views, but if you want to agree on common action there's absolutely no mechanism for doing so. Nor can there be - it requires face-to-face collective meetings combined with the organised electing/delegating of roles and responsibilities.

And that, of course, takes us offline. It remains true that decisive political action will take place offline: the online world can serve that, but not replace it. The biggest challenge is how to develop the relationship between online and offline, so that what we do on the Net (which is inherently limited) can be of maximum benefit.

I think the article has an unduly negative view of our current predicament politically: it is a little one-sided, ironically given the author's superbly dialectical approach elsewhere avoiding the danger of one-sidedness.

His overall conclusion is the need for radical reformism. I think this depends on an application of Gramsci's ideas on hegemony which is misguided. Chris Nineham's recent article on Gramsci and hegemony gives a stronger - and revolutionary - interpretation, which we could start to think about in relation to the internet.

Reformist, or transitional, demands are very important. A number of those proposed by Fuchs (but not all) should be endorsed and pursuded. But those demands shouldn't be a substitute for recognising the need for a revolutionary transformation of society. We need to develop a revolutionary perspective on the politics of the internet as part of a broader social transformation. In this context we can formulate reforms worth fighting for.

It would also be helpful to consider how socialists can best use the internet to serve social change. Fuchs provides a list which is largely focused on political demands concerning the Net. These are very important. It's also important, though, to consider how we can (within current social constraints) use the tools available to us.

I won't attempt that here, but a key element is social networking - in line with the article's point about the way networking undermines control and ownership, through the ways in which it spreads information. A second key element might be to look at the precise ways the net can be linked with offline political activity and organisation. This is an exciting area and one where we need to innovate.

Jeremy Corbyn MP: we can still stop Digital Economy Bill

Also see Laurie Penny's 'The Digital Economy Bill has betrayed the young'.

Birthday blog post: revolutionaries today

Luna17 is one year old today. I started the blog on 19 March 2009 as a means of promoting the ideas and the kinds of activism I consider important. Throughout the last year I've sought to give it a clear orientation on 'offline' campaigning, which reflects my own political activism. While I only occasionally blog directly about my own activities, I often use this blog as a platform for promoting particular events and campaigns.

My initial impetus was that I knew of no left-wing blogs in the North East of England. I intended to plug that gap, but I quickly dropped the idea of devoting lots of space to local events and issues. This was mainly because I realised that most people checking out Luna17 weren't local, so I'd be limiting its reach if I preoccupied myself with local material.

I make a point of posting a wide range of material, in terms of the topics covered but also the kind of material: news reports, commentaries, videos, links to others, the occasional theoretical piece. For this birthday posting, I thought I'd select a small number of my more analytical writings. The common theme is the revolutionary tradition and socialist strategy.

The revolutionary tradition: standing on the shoulders of giants

Tweeting Trotsky

Revolutionary leadership and democracy

The future of the revolutionary party

Lenin, Lukacs and the actuality of the revolution

Note: The first post is from my temporary blog, compiled last summer, devoted to Tony Cliff.

A successful start

I'm part of the editorial team for the Counterfire website which was launched last Monday. During its first week the site had around 10,000 visits, an extremely promising start.

News stories include new revelations of abuses of migrant workers, the decision to allow BNP members in teaching, left-wing campaigner Clare Solomon's victory in the London student elections, and the truth behind media myths about NATO operations in Afghanistan.

Feature articles include an insightful look at 'Why kids kill kids' (in the wake of controversy about Jon Venables), Michael Moore's new film reviewed, an overview of the crisis in Greece and why it has global implications, and an account of how the internet was used to mobilise against Berlusconi in Italy.

There's lots more already in the pipeline, which will be working its way online in the coming days and weeks. And if you have a report, pictures or video footage to contribute yourself, please get in touch.

Civil service workers on strike: a fight for the whole public sector

Katherine Connelly, a PCS trade union member, has written an excellent article, 'Why we're right to strike', for the new Counterfire website (launched today). More than a quarter of a million PCS members are striking in defence of their pensions today and tomorrow. She explains:

'If we do not resist now, whichever party gets into government in May will feel confident about unleashing the even more painful cuts they felt would be too unpopular to talk much about before the election. If we do resist we can insist that the government starts looking elsewhere for money, starting perhaps with the greedy rich who have avoided paying over £130bn in uncollected tax (and that’s not including Lord Ashcroft!). No need to save £500m from the contractual rights of poorly paid civil servants if that was collected from people who should not have that money in the first place!

If they get away with attacking the compensation scheme, with cutting jobs and privatisation it will give every employer the confidence to do the same. That is why solidarity is so important. On 24th April 2008 teachers, lecturers, council workers and civil servants struck and marched together to resist pay cuts. This is the kind of action we need now. In the meantime it is important to provide solidarity to the workers in the civil service.'

Counterfire, to which I'm a contributor, has a wide range of material online already. The launch date is significant: not only is it a day of national strike action, it is the centenary of the first International Women's Day. Brendan Montague's profile of revolutionary Inessa Armand and Lindsey German's proposed manifesto for 21st century feminism are linked to this occasion.

The site has a big focus on imperialism, and resistance to imperialism, with an account by John Rees of Israel's anxieties about the level of pro-Palestinian solidarity in this country, plus there are articles about Joe Glenton and Iraq. The site already has a number of substantial theoretical articles in the pipeline, including Chris Nineham's 'Anti-capitalism: ten years after Seattle' and Neil Faulkner's wide-ranging 'The workers, the unions and the crisis'.

Counterfire is an ambitious attempt to combine fresh news, opinion, reviews, theory and video all in one site, with a strong orientation on real-world campaigning. This will be obvious from the homepage, with its four main sections: news, events, features and theory. As the site's press statement puts it: 'Counterfire is a news and theory website from the movements, for the movements.'

Also see The Sauce.

Social networking: is it changing the way we consume news?

Following on from my piece outlining ideas for an innovative left-wing website, I was intrigued to see these research findings about online news - and the role social networking now plays in how people get their news. It is based on an American survey, but nonetheless surely offers insight into the UK too. For socialists I think these results are worth reflecting on in the context of my recent post. The article reports:

'The Pew Internet study found that more than 90% of Americans were getting their news from multiple sources and almost 60% were getting at least some online.

Three quarters of those accessing news online said they were consuming it socially and it is being forwarded to them via email or posts on social networking sites. As many as 52% were reciprocating and sharing news of their own.

According to Pew the increased online and social nature of news means that few are loyal to one or even two news providers.

Seven out of 10 people accessing online news were doing so from more than two websites and 65% said they had no favourite news source. Among those who do, however, the most popular sites were those of major news organizations such as CNN and Fox.

Pew said the advent of social networking sites and blogs has helped news become a social experience in fresh ways for consumers as they use social media to filter, assess, and react to news.

Many more consumers are now taking part in the news. 37% of internet users have contributed to the creation of news, commented about it, or shared it via postings on social media sites like Facebook or Twitter.

The study said: "To a great extent, people's experience of news, especially on the internet, is becoming a shared social experience as people swap links in emails, post news stories on their social networking site feeds, highlight news stories in their tweets, and haggle over the meaning of events in discussion threads."

Twitter, and other status update services, are used by 19% of online Americans and virtually all of those people using Twitter access their news online.'

Brand Republic, who report these findings, list a number of specific results. These include:

* 51% of social networking site (e.g. Facebook) users who are also online news consumers say that on a typical day they get news items from people they follow. Another 23% of this group follow news organisations or individual journalists on social networking sites.
* 37% of internet users have done at least one of the following: commenting on a news story (25%); posting a link on a social networking site (17%); tagging content (11%), creating their own original news material or opinion piece (9%), or tweeting about news (3%).
* 28% of internet users have customised their home page to include news from their favourite source or topics.
* 23% of the social networking users who get news online say they specifically get news from news organisations and individual journalists they follow in the social networking space.

Please note: you are very welcome to validate these findings by re-tweeting this blog post, posting it as a link on Facebook, including it as a link in your own blog post, or emailing it to your friends ;)

Radical politics in the internet age

A couple of months ago I made brief comments on how the organised left does (and, more pertinently, doesn't) use the Internet politically. Here, now, is my outline of how I think a left wing website ought to be:

1. The ambition to have a daily, rather than weekly, newspaper can in effect now be fulfilled - and at little expense. Indeed a website can be updated a number of times a day. Speed of response is more important than ever before - phenomena like rolling news, Twitter and news websites have altered people's expectations. A site needs to be upadated very frequently, one consequence being that people keep coming back for more.

2. A website is not just an online storage space for print publications. The design needs to be considered afresh, links should be included, and interesting juxtapositions of new and archive material can be foregrounded. Online readers tend not to read at length, so content (even theoretical essays) should be kept concise, or divided into installments.

3. The internet has expanded the range of media available, compared with print. Crucially this means embedded video, which many site visitors will prefer to text, and which for everyone can at least be complementary to the written word. Short videos are expecially appropriate, given that most YouTube viewers rarely persist with anything for more than 5 or 10 minutes. The technology for a genuinely multi-media site is now cheap and readily available.

4. A left-wing website in 2010 can be truly collaborative. In the 1970s Tony Cliff said that no mainstream newspaper could afford 3000 journalists, but Socialist Worker could have such a team because International Socialists (later SWP), the organisation behind the paper, had that many members. Of course, today's SW doesn't fulfil that vision, instead relying on a small team of full-time journalists. It is, in any case, easier with a website - it's very straightforward for anyone to submit a report, a video or some photos, which can be added instantly. Reporting of workplace struggles can - especially with effective use of video - be transformed. A site today can be interactive, e.g. through commenting facilities, in a way that was once unimaginable.

5. It is also so easy to share content. Hit the Facebook or Twitter button and you can instantly share something you like. Print an article, or email it to anyone you think might be interested. Bloggers like me can re-post or link to things. All this means that even a small organisation - with writing skills, technical know-how, strong politics and a dash of flair - can ensure their material reaches a sizeable audience. The conscious use of social networking tools is essential for taking such a site to a new level. None of this can entirely substitute for direct face-to-face contact, but is invaluable in itself and - with some imaginative thinking - can become the basis for practical organising.

Next steps...

After the expulsions and resignations, what next?

'It is time to move on. Those who have left the SWP will be launching some sort of new left-wing organisation, inviting other activists and socialists to participate and to help shape the direction it takes. There are some things we can be sure of. Its activists will be thoroughly involved in broad-based campaigns around war, recession, climate change, fascism and more. There will be a high level of political discussion, seeking to renew the theoretically rich Marxist tradition for a new generation.

The internal democratic culture will be vibrant and inclusive. We will use the internet in dynamic and innovative ways to communicate ideas, with a website as an organising hub. There will be creative approaches to political discussion, using the recent Mutiny: Love on Trial event as a useful guide, rather than relying on tired old formats. We have to be willing to experiment, take risks and find new ways of connecting with people.

I expect anything we launch to grow rapidly. There is a thirst for radical politics and discussion of ideas, but also frustration amongst many radically-minded people with the perceived sectarianism and conservatism of the existing left, which seems stuck in old ways of operating and incapable of connecting with a new generation. We need to work together in shaping resistance across a range of political areas and, at the same time, bring Marxist politics to life for those seeking alternatives to the chaos and barbarism of our age.'

That's the final part of my article on the split from the SWP, published on New Left Project (sorry to spoil the ending). I flag it up because I've noticed two common misconceptions on the blogs, both of which are refuted by the above passage. One is the bizarre notion that former supporters of the SWP's Left Platform will simply 'liquidate' into the movements and not have any independent socialist organisation. Why would people fight so hard for the future of a revolutionary party - through its internal debates - if they didn't passionately believe in the need for such political organisation?

The second, equally wrongheaded, view is that we are looking to create something modelled on the SWP, but obviously far smaller. Anyone who suggests this really hasn't been paying attention! Again, it doesn't make sense: why would you put up such a struggle for your party to change direction if you merely wanted to do pretty much the same thing anyway?

Anyway, watch this space...