May 16 2012

Review: Onsind – Dissatisfacton

Tag: cultureRCN @ 9:38 pm

Album available at name your price with a minimum of £0

ONSIND are an acoustic pop punk band from Durham. Their name is in reference to the lack of abortion facilities in some areas of America.

I recently attended a gig put on by the Make That a Take DIY (anti-sexist, anti-racist, anti-fascist and anti-homophobic) collective in Dundee featuring ONSIND and was blown away at how incredibly good their set was. Their gig had more people at it and more politics in it than most public meetings by parties.

The album is a really nice package which contains liner notes including full lyrics and each song accompanied by a quotation. Philosophers have only interpreted the world…the point is to change it – Karl Marx should give another taster at their lyrical content which also mentions weighty lefty tomes. The majority of the song are two male vocalists, one lead; one backing with acoustic guitars. Occasionally other instruments and backing singers pop up. But it should certainly be a more accessible punk album to those who don’t normally listen to the genre or it’s millions of sub-genres.

The album opens with the lines Homophobes are terrified to admit that during their lives there have been moments where they’ve wavered in their minds on the track heterosexuality is a construct. It fills you with incredible hope to be a straight male in a crowd of 90% straight males singing along to I’m not a heterosexual man, I’m not ticking your boxes, that’s not who I am and love is not a crime. To quote a recent comment on Twitter Yes, I support gay rights. No, I’m not gay. I’m against deforestation and that doesn’t make me a tree.. These kinds of attitudes and behaviour are surely a massive step forward and something possible in the kind of space provided by Make that a take that you may not get in less socially conscious live music spaces. Normally punk/metal/alternative shows are filled with macho posturing men faux fighting with their male friends. Most times it’s fine but sometimes it can spill over into the rest of the crowd and drives everyone else to the back of the venue or out of the music scene altogether.

Either he’s dead or my watch has stopped should be listened to by anyone on the left.

We have nothing to lose but our chains…I’m just another naïve prole, with revolution on the mind, but I’d fight a line of riot police if it’d help to clear the sky…Melancholia and Marxism, this must be where I belong…I’d bomb the Royal Bank if it’d blow the clouds away

A song openly calling for revolution shouldn’t need much more comment.

The other essential track to hear is That Takes Ovaries. A call at arms for men to help smash patriarchy from our position of burden and privilege as something more productive [to do with] all that spare testosterone you have to throw around. A welcome addition to the discussions around feminism and patriarchy I’m sure you’ll agree.

The closing song I could carve a better man out of a banana tells the story of a female victim of domestic violence resorting to killing her abuser. she took a knife and drove it through his back with all the strength she had left – the first song the band ever recorded showing from the start they intended to set powerful political lyrics to tunes.

Author: Alan Graham


Oct 26 2008

Democracy 2

Tag: Emancipation & Liberation,Issue 16RCN @ 5:25 pm

Review: Alan Graham

Keynesian Economy Simulator
Format: PC
Publisher: Positech
Developer: Cliff Harris (probably in his bedroom)
Price: £15.28

Bourgeois Democracy: Another simulation

Following on from the original Democracy, Clif Harris has released a sequel: imaginatively titled Democracy 2. The game is a simulation of politics. You have been elected President of X country and have to choose which policies to implement or not and how to deal with dilemmas and problems.

The social model

Unlike its predecessor, Democracy 2 has fictional countries which are caricatures:

  • Bananistan:Socialist and Agricultural
  • Biblonia: Religious State
  • Freedonia: Liberal and atheist
  • Gaiatopia: Eco-aware state
  • Gregaria: Wealthy and capitalist
  • Koana: Capitalist Heaven
  • Malaganga: debt ridden, compulsory voting
  • Mexilando: military state, monarchy
  • Zambeezia: Agricultural, poor

One nice addition is the party system, you choose who to be rather than just have opposition. There is a large list, and like all things in this game, can be modified by the player. If you wish to be the SSP with the Tories as opposition, go ahead and add them. Fancy being the Bolsheviks, just add the title to the list.

Balance

Like the first game there is a delicate balance to be maintained. I ran the socialist state, and had managed to get 55% of the population to be members of the Socialist Alliance. The only major problem I had was an Asthma epidemic. The only link I could see was Air Quality and the biggest effect on that was air travel. To cut air travel the only option I could see was a Carbon Tax. This was unpopular with the group everybody but I figured it wouldn’t be that much. Within 4 turns there were 0 members of the party and asthma epidemic was still rife. Further playing around would probably reveal the correct balance to maintain – maybe youth clubs and free school meals with an increase in funding to state hospitals with a very low carbon tax is the answer.

Virtual socialist

Virtual socialist

And that is the beauty of this series of games, it shows in simple terms how sloganeering and promises of policies which appear to solve problems actually work in the real world and not through the lens of sympathetic media assuring us that X policy is the answer.

The one major limitation of the game is the economic model. The worldwide market crashes and there’s a recession. You see GDP plummet so what do you do? There’s no option to fiddle with interest rates or model of inflation. It means the simulation limits itself to policies and their effect but not the economy.

On Income Tax, this game seems to have the same flaw as it’s predecessor: fraud. If there is welfare fraud you can crack down on it. It doesn’t have the option of cracking down on Tax Avoidance by the highest earners. Fair enough, this mirrors real life, and you can add it in yourself, but it means you have to play a reformist by lowering income tax to allow the middle class to be moderately happy.

Policies

There has been an increase in policies to over 100, including ID cards, hybrid cars and micro generation grants. The dilemmas and situations seem about the same, with a few added and removed.

What’s new?

There have been a number of additions, Ministers, political capital, opposition groups, voter detail and encyclopaedia are the most significance.

Ministers

You start off with 6 ministers, each of which have different loyalties and you can fire them and appoint new ones. Maybe it would be a good idea to replace that Tax minister who has sympathies to the Middle Class and Capitalists with John Doe who sympathiseswith Socialists and Trade Unionists? Each minister has different loyalty and experience (these generate Political Capital), the sympathies help influence those demographics to support you.

Political Capital

The major new addition to the model has been Political Capital. In the first game you could bin all the policies and add which ones you like. Now it takes political capital to raise, lower or cancel policies as well as introduce new ones. If each of the 7 ministers generate 3 political capital per turn then you get 21 each turn added to the pool. To raise income tax takes 34, to remove university grants takes 19 whilst introducing Micro-Generation grants takes 1. This reflects how much each change will cause people to support or oppose you.

Opposition Groups

The threat of a coup has been expanded with your intelligence services keeping tabs on everyone from The Army of God and the Socialist Army to the Secular Society. If you have no religious people then you probably don’t have to worry about the Army of God, if you are playing in the Theocracy and fund stem cell research whilst banning the teaching of creationism in schools, then you may have something to worry about from them although the Secular Society will probably back off a bit.

Voter Detail

Fat Cat

Fat Cat

Previously, voter demographics were defined by number and how they support your policies. It seems to have been expanded, with focus groups showing how cross sections of society support you. There is likelihood of them to turnout to vote and to vote for you. Added to this is the party membership, although this is again simplified into two parties with most votes winning the election. Once you lose it’s game over too, perhaps the next in the series will introduce multiple parties and the FPTP system: choosing ministers from your pool. It would be more in depth but move the games from being simulations to explain basic politics to being a simulation of politics.

Flaws

There is still a flaw in the model however. At the start there are new options including the option to set the number of socialists in the country. Having dragged the slider to the end I was happy to see 100% socialists. Woo, I can finally try raising Income Tax and introducing Free School Meals to see my popularity grow. Unfortunately it went down. It turned out that 65% of the Socialists were also Capitalists. Each voting demographic is counted as separate and each individual voter can belong to multiple groups including contradictory ones. My carbon tax example earlier could have got the same result if 100% of people were Environmentalists but 60% were car users and 0% commuters.

Encyclopaedia

Lot’s of policies and voter groups now have some explanatory notes to help you understand what they mean. When choosing Income Tax levels you can see the top levels in various countries and the income scales in the US. Choose Socialists and you can see a page of pretty non-biased explanation and some key dates from the publication of The Communist Manifesto to the abandonment of Clause 4.

Verdict

There are a number of things which seem worse than Democracy: mouse scroll speed is frustratingly slow, lowering accessibility, the movement to caricature countries, the limitation on changing policies. Most of these can be addressed however through customisation. Change capital required to 0 and add your own countries.

Positive changes have included a UI update with new options and the Minister system adds a touch of realism. You can still customise it as much as you want and for a game it is very cheap with a real educational value. There is a demo available of both games which allow you to have a few turns and to get the feel of them. Overall if you don’t have Democracy, try this one, if you have Democracy then only get it if you really enjoyed it.


Sep 13 2005

Computer Game – Democracy

Tag: Emancipation & Liberation,Issue 11RCN @ 2:38 pm

Keynesian Economy Simulator

  • Format: PC
  • Publisher: Positech
  • Developer: Clif Harris (probably in his bedroom)
  • Price: $19.95+VAT (Approx. £13 – £14)
  • Reviewed by Alan Graham

(Bourgeois) Democracy: the game

I had heard about this game and was intrigued, so when I saw the demo on a magazine I installed it immediately. Two hours later I shelled out to download the full version from the maker’s site. Most simulation games involve running a household or a business, a civilisation warring with neighbours or realistically flying a plane. How many allow you to play around with the economy, see the likely effects of different reforms and if you’re not happy with the result: edit the data files yourself, add new dilemmas, policies and situations? Well this one does.

A computer game may appear a bizarre way to put across political ideas but most games contain some political elements whether it’s Command and Conquer’s Cold War conflict to Fallout’s post-Apocalypse world dealing with the effects of radiation. What stands out about this game is the portrayal of everyday political decisions on people: either by showing the way governments prioritise with taxation or how mild reforms cost peanuts compared to military spending but could have immediate results if the will was there to implement them from those in power. The simulation genre is targeted at a very sophisticated audience, those who like to analyse the game world and work out winning strategies.

The social model

The full game allows you to run the economy by being the leader of a host of industrialised countries including UK, Japan, Germany, USA, and Russia. It uses a sophisticated neural network to simulate the population and each decision you take reflects on their support of the government.

The population is split into various groups: poor, middle earners, wealthy, liberal and conservative, socialist and capitalist, state employed, trade unionists, the retired, motorists, smokers, environmentalists, the religious, and patriots. Each individual can of course belong to more than one group: the socialist parents who like to drink and commute to work whilst the wealthy self employed may smoke and be capitalists. Not to forget the religious organic farmer.

The game is a constant work in progress so there are problems with the fluidity between these groups but it manages to put across the concept that people are influenced, in different ways, by different policies. A socialist trade unionist who supports your efforts to increase pensions and NHS funding may be annoyed by high petrol tax.

Balance

Balance seems to be the driving force of this game: putting political ideas and concepts across in a neutral way and allowing the gamer to see the expected effects of their decisions. From a socialist perspective, the information given can be debatable.

You can block proposed laws. For example, when it comes to a countryside access law you can either block access:

Private land is private land. This is the very basis of private ownership and capitalism. If the owners wish to restrict access to their land, this is entirely up to them. This is nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt as class war by disgruntled socialists.

or support it:

Its crazy to have so much open, and often entirely unused, land in private hands while our cities are so overcrowded. This law will allow all citizens to enjoy the beauty of our countryside, whilst retaining the final property rights and ownership privileges of the landowner. It’s a good compromise.

Supporting such a law pleases socialists but displeases farmers, while improving equality. However the effect is reversed if it is opposed.

Policies

The game includes 75 different policies that can be implemented, ignored or modified, including introducing free school meals and reintroducing university grants. Some policies lead to situations, some bad some good. A high rate of asthma means you need to deal with air pollution, hammering motorists means fuel protests.

I experimented as a neo-con to see the effects. Hammering the poor results in class war on the streets, to tackle it meant either spending lots of cash fighting the causes of poverty or CCTV on every corner and armed police on the beat. If you attack the poor then assassination by Communist guerrillas is on the cards, similarly, maximising income tax leads to your intelligence agencies detecting plots by the capitalist and wealthy elite to organise a military coup!

Dilemmas

Each turn you are presented with a different dilemma and have to choose, sometimes the lesser of two evils: Ban animal testing or allow it, ban a fascist march or allow it to go ahead, meet a foreign minister of a country with an appalling human rights record to try and win them over or shun them for their crimes against humanity. I’ve suggested the following: the media claims you’ve gone to war based on a lie and whether you deny or admit allows you to move forward not back on the issue or have it hurt your popularity by way of the voter cynicism in your politics level if it turns out to be true.

Measures of success

The measures of success in this game are not just measured in economics or opinion polls, there are other statistics to show how good your society, such as lifespan, literacy rate, crime rate, poverty rate, equality, air quality, car usage, and unemployment. These all show how your policies are affecting society.

Decreasing the poverty rate decreases the crime rate as less people are driven to crime, but modifications need to be made. When luxury goods are taxed and Corporations made to pay their fair share, a black market is created and tax avoidance takes place. The crime rate is not affected however! This reflects the reality of capitalist society. In Britain, government spends £millions on campaigns targeting those on the breadline claiming benefits they are not formally entitled to. At the same time, corporate crooks who hide assets in shell companies and offshore tax havens are ignored while they defraud the tax coffers of £billions.

Turn Screen

A nice addition is quotations to read whilst you wait your turn, including Lenin – Capitalists are no more capable of self-sacrifice than a man is capable of lifting himself up by his own bootstraps; and Thatcher – A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.

Customisation

The beauty of this game is the option for customisation. All the statistics, data and policy effects are included as standard spreadsheet files. Drag the files into Excel, OpenOffice or Notepad and you can modify existing policies or create your own. On the game’s message board fans can suggest their own modifications.

I was bemused by the ability to provide subsidies for cleaner fuel, rail networks and bus lanes but allowing private companies to reap the rewards, so I suggested the ability to nationalise the railways and the buses. And the customisation is what takes this game and turns it into an economic model. The opening screen changing from The Queen has asked you to form a government… can quite easily become The workers have taken over the factories… The police force can be modified to become the citizens’ militia and any other policy you can imagine can be tried and tested.

Rating

As political simulations go this one is the best there is available to date. True, the simulation is of reforms and some of these need tweaking but overall politics are presented unspun and the effects of government decisions are shown in clear terms.

For me the most important part is the underlying model and the ability to customise this however you wish. At around 12MB I would recommend anyone interested in politics to give it a try. Given the ability to modify it could even become a cheap and quick way to put across a practical demonstration of economic and political ideas.


Sep 13 2005

Fight the Power

Alan Graham examines how politics and music link up

Looking back on the Make Poverty History march and the events surrounding it, it is hard to ignore the effect music had on the event. But how did it compare to other political/music events, and how political was the music? I will look at various bands and collaborations and the variety of ways they tried to spread their political message.

A small disclaimer: this is not a definitive list of bands or events. There are hundreds of artists, from a vast range of genres who could have been included here, but I will just touch on a few artists that I am most familiar with. Neither is it an endorsement of the politics of each of these artists. As there is a percentage of people in society who consider themselves socialists, so there are artists who consider themselves socialists. Some of these may not make politicised music. This article will merely look at the ways of using music to spread a political message, or as will hopefully become more clear, political messages.

System of a Down

System of a Down are a band made up of the descendants of refugees who fled from the Turkish genocide in Armenia. They put a couple of songs with strong political messages on each album as well as peppering political messages in songs as one-liners. An example of a political song would be P.L.U.C.K. about the genocide in Armenia. Other notable songs include Prison Song focusing on exposing the prison industrial complex and the role of the CIA in the Iran Contra affair.

  • Drug money is used to rig elections,
  • And train brutal corporate sponsored,
  • Dictators around the world

The other stand out track is Boom!, the video of which was directed by Michael Moore which tied together globalisation and the 4000 children who die every day from poverty in comparison with the billions spent on bombs to kill people… Creating death showers.

Their latest album, which came out after the start of the war in Iraq, begins by criticising the system which sends economic conscripts to die in wars … Why don’t presidents fight the war? Why do we always send the poor? They always send the poor.

Rage Against the Machine

One of the biggest and most widely recognised political bands of the 1990’s was without doubt Rage Against the Machine. Unlike System of A Down who spoke of politics in some songs, Rage discussed politics in almost every song they released.

As the various band-members described themselves as anarchists, communists or simply left wing, they provided not only criticisms of the existing capitalist system but also were deeply involved in campaigns to change the system – from Anti Nazi League benefit gigs in London, supporting sweatshop workers, campaign to free Mumia-Abu-Jamal and support for the Zapatistas.

They have taken part in everything from tokenistic protest, such as hanging the US flag upside down, to direct action, such as filming a video outside the New York Stock Exchange. This caused mayhem as fans turned up to an illegal public performance, resulting in the Stock Exchange being closed down for the rest of the day and the band members and Michael Moore, who directed, being arrested. You can see the arrest as part of the video.

Needless to say their outspoken left-wing views and ability and willingness to link up differing campaigns whilst pointing out the capitalist system as the problem led to defamation and attacks by the right wing media. For example, they were dubbed anti-Semites and terrorist supporters for supporting the struggle of the Palestinians.

Peace Not War

The two volumes of the Peace Not War compilations were organised by the Stop the War coalition around the Iraq war.

The first compilation, produced in the build up to the war, comprised of artists from throughout the world opposed to it. The songs were not just narrowly about the war, but linked various issues to it: imperialism, nuclear weaponry, US support for Bin Laden and the plight of asylum seekers in Britain are all featured.

The second compilation has a more angry feel than the first, probably due to artists outraged that the war had actually happened, even though millions had mobilised against it. Most of the artists here are from UK, USA and Australia, whether this was deliberate or whether artists in the countries whose leaders were the most supportive of the war were most moved to write anti-war songs is unexplained, but unimportant.

Like Compilation 1, this album also links campaigns and struggles throughout the world, as well as sampling speeches by Tariq Ali and Bill Hicks and using songs from demonstrations.

Some noteworthy examples are:

  • Faithless’ excellent Mass DestructionRacism is a Weapon of Mass Destruction, Greed is a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
  • Son of a Nuns Fight Back: We’re on a mission to widen the schisms of capitalism and replace it with a system that’s for the people, by the people, of the people, not the evil.

The CDs can be ordered and tracks download for free from Peace Not War , their next release will be Peace Not War Japan.

Rock Against Bush

Another movement using music as the focus of political activities has been Rock Against Bush, in association with Punkvoter, a movement which through stalls at concerts throughout the USA managed to get 2 million, mostly young people, registered to vote for the first time. Their two volumes comprise of a CD and a DVD with documentaries and music videos as well as political comedy sketches.

Public Enemy

Although the examples so far have been mainly rock artists, unsurprisingly hip hop has a number of political acts. Public Enemy were ground breaking in both the size and breadth of popularity. They suffered massive state and media attacks including an FBI report to congress Rap Music and Its Effects on National Security. One member, Professor Griff, caused controversy and was eventually ejected from the band after comparing the acknowledged Holocaust with the largely ignored slaughter during slavery. He also attacked Zionism leading to claims of anti-Semitism, some of which appear to be without merit but others not, leaving his position in the group untenable.

On stage they had a group of minders called S1W (Security of the First World) which were a throwback to the Black Panthers defence militias. Attempts to link up with past struggles was a main feature of the group. Around the time of the first war against Iraq they released a track called Black Steel in the Hour of Chaos, echoing the sentiments of many economic conscripts their view was clear:

  • I got a letter from the government the other day
  • I opened and read it
  • It said they were suckers
  • They wanted me for their army or whatever
  • Picture me giving a damn – I said never

After speaking out for the poor in Africa for years, a visit there had a profound effect on Chuck D (the main rapper and songwriter). In his autobiography, Fight the Power, he describes the shock they received as they toured. One positive outcome was their realisation that not many people had access to electricity, to which they organised the donation of hundreds of thousands of clockwork radios and tapes allowing thousands to have access to radio for the first time, and to spread their powerful lyrics to new audiences.

One of the most moving sections of the autobiography is the description of visiting the Castle of Elmina where slaves were kept before transportation. The description of the conditions in this dungeon, as well as the 2 foot of hardened bone and flesh which covered the whole floor, helped to inspire the 1994 song Hitler Day which was hugely controversial.

This song started:

  • 500 years ago one man claimed to have discovered a new world
  • five centuries later we the people are forced to celebrate a black holocaust
  • how can you call a takeover a discovery?

Not surprisingly the song caused the American media to hit out. Chuck D defended the song claiming that there would be outrage if someone wanted to celebrate a Hitler Day for what he did for Germany. As Hitler represented death, torture and destruction, so Chuck D felt that is what Columbus Day represented to Native Americans and African Americans. Its other inspiration was that, at that time, the US state of Arizona still did not recognise Martin Luther King day.

Although they have not been working on music much lately, Chuck D has been active in promoting the use of file sharing and fighting copyright to encourage not only free downloading of music but the freedom for artists to sample sounds and other music for their own work.

Tupac Shakur

This year, 9 years after his murder, Tupac had another number one single in the UKGhetto Gospel: a song about poverty in American ghettos. The majority of his work, over the years, has dealt with this subject – from single mothers and his own life story, to trying to understand and confront the dead end outlets taken by many young black males – drug abuse and gang warfare.

Of all the artists using their work to discuss politics, he stands out as one of the greatest. However flawed his analysis, he portrays the system which created the poverty he lived in and despised so much.To understand why his music was so popular and why some of his analysis was wrong it is essential to put his music into context. Tupac’s mother, Afeni Shakur, had been a Black Panther, a member of the Panther 21 group. While she was pregnant with Tupac, she was on remand for allegedly planning terrorist attacks against the state. His aunt Assata had escaped from prison and found exile in Cuba and his godfather, Geronimo Pratt, was a leading Panther and a political prisoner. Tupac campaigned for his freedom, both in his music and at grass roots level. Pratt was only released from prison after Tupac’s death.

Tupac claimed to have been followed and harassed by FBI agents from the age of 9, due to his politically active family and friends. At 17, he already had ideas of changes to the school system which would actually benefit the poor in America, and would also expose and question the nature of society:

There should be a class on drugs, there should be a class of sex education, a real sex education class, not just pictures and diagrams and illogical terms…There should be a class on scams. There should be a class on religious cults. There should be a class on police brutality. There should be a class on apartheid. There should be a class on racism in America. There should be a class on why people are hungry.

On his first release 2Pacalypse Now, the track Words of Wisdom was by far the most political, the majority of it comprising of a tirade against capitalism and the American state, but also promoted militancy:

  • Pledge allegiance to a flag that neglects us
  • Honour a man that refuses to respect us …
  • I charge you with robbery for robbing me of my history
  • I charge you with false imprisonment for keeping me
  • trapped in the projects
  • And the jury finds you guilty on all counts
Tupac: social commentator

Tupac: social commentator

On the angst-titled I Don’t Give a Fuck, he, like Chuck D, is angry about the Iraq war, And now they [are] trying to ship me off to Kuwait, Gimme a break the song ends in a vitriolic rant against the San Francisco and Marin County Police Departments, the FBI, the CIA, George Bush and AmeriKKKa a phrase which was so used by other artists and protesters it has become cliché.

The album also contained his landmark social commentary songs – Brenda’s Got a Baby – about a young girl who is the victim of sexual abuse who ends up turning to prostitution and crack cocaine abuse, and Trapped about the prison system and its effects on society. Topics most artists dare not cover, and this was a 19 year old’s début album.

Even from this time, he was interested in doing more than releasing songs about poverty, he wanted to change society. One naïve attempt was the creation of the Code of the Thug Life which tried to reduce gang warfare.

Less naively, once he had become famous he wanted to use his influence and respect from other rap artists to sponsor community centres in every ghetto.

Unsurprisingly his youthful enthusiasm, promotion of militant activism and ability to formulate ideas to give immediate improvements to the lives of the poorest workers in American quickly gained the attention of the state and he had a number of run-ins with police. In 1993, after the Rodney King beating, Shakur came across two off-duty police officers who were harassing a black motorist on the side of the road in Atlanta. Shakur got into a fight with them and shot both officers (one in the leg, one in the buttocks). He faced serious charges until it was discovered that both officers were intoxicated and were using stolen weapons. The charges against Shakur were dismissed. What followed was systematic harassment against him. This included arrest for jaywalking and a 4.5 year prison sentence for sexual assault, which he consistently denied.

Whilst in prison he studied politics and history. When released these run-ins with the law inspired him to take an even more militant stance in his view of the police, state and media as well as engage in grass roots activity like rallies to free all political prisoners as well as campaigns to encourage poor African Americans to register to vote.

Although the only album released between his release and his murder was his least political, his vast archive of posthumously released tracks contained many other songs about poverty and politics.

He also fought against some of the more reactionary claims in hip hop, that the vast majority of blacks are impoverished because of white men. In White Man’s World he parodies this view and ending: It ain’t them that’s killing us, it’s us that’s killing us.

In interviews of this period, he spoke of his new vision to improve society. As well as community centres in every ghetto, he promoted baseball teams sponsored by rappers. This served a duel purpose, firstly to encourage poor kids from the ghetto to get involved in sport as a way to stop them being involved in gangs and drug abuse. Secondly to heal the wound from the media invented ‘Rap War’, which, in reality, was a verbal polemic between a small number of artists, glamorised and exaggerated by the media as a way to attack and denigrate people who were role models to some of the most impoverished teens in America. Focusing on these battle tracks also diverted attention away from the positive initiatives some of these artists were involved in, as well as the songs dealing with subject matter the media ignored.

Sorting out Africa and global poverty!

Sorting out Africa and global poverty!

Live 8 in comparison

This is a long introduction for a rather short analysis of the musical events surrounding the anti-G8 protests but hopefully it has given a flavour of the mix of politics and music. The biggest factor to consider is the ability of these artists to speak, not only of politics and dissect society, but more importantly to link these struggles up with others:

Rage Against the Machine on Spanish imperialism, the Zapatistas and Globalisation; Public Enemy on slavery and intellectual property; Tupac speaking about political prisoners, drug abuse and prostitution.

This is what separates these political activists from the dirge of Live 8. The majority of the artists participating in Live 8 (U2 and Green Day being the main exceptions) had no history of political activism. What they had in common was they were famous and popular – therefore people would watch them rather than listen to speeches by political activists. This also attracted media attention. Where there was any political discussion to be had by artists at Live 8, it consisted of sloganeering – 250,000 people here – fantastic, great; more aid, fairer trade, buy a white band and that will stop the G8!

Geldof had the dubious honour to be appointed to Blair’s Commission for Africa. It is staffed with New Labour puppets who then lobbied the New Labour government for minor reforms, got some of them and could then claim the G8 had got 8/10 and 10/10. While the government lobbied itself for change, the media’s attention was on scaremongering over anarchist plots. Although it seemed to be the police planning all the trouble – harassing and lying to those travelling to Gleneagles, keeping them trapped for hours to frustrate them and re-routing the march to allow a massive target of a tiny fence between the protesters and the Hotel.

The solution presented by Geldof and his cohorts was for the G8 in their almighty benevolence to cancel some aid and allow an increase in the move towards globalisation of capitalism through the opening up of markets. And if Blair didn’t listen to your voice then you should just withhold your vote from him in 4 years time! This is assuming the majority of the 250,000 who were over 18 and were so concerned with poverty in Africa would have actually given a lying war criminal, partly responsible for this suffering, their vote in the first place.

The widest chasm between the political activism of the artists mentioned earlier and Live 8 was the complete lack of any link to other movements or issues. Anti war speakers were banned from the main stage and the Stop the War Coalition had to set up a separate stage to allow that issue to be heard at the Make Poverty History demonstration in Edinburgh. What chance would a speaker from Palestine or Iraq have had, never mind those fighting against privatisation schemes here, whilst government-funded, right wing think tanks are trying to force these schemes on the poorest in Africa.

For me, the Live 8 event was politically vacuous and a striking example of what happens when celebrities with media and state support jump onto a movement and take over the agenda and stifle any other relevant issues. When I first got interested in the G8 protests there were grass roots mobilisations against it.The office bearers were publicly known and accountable. Make Poverty History grew out of this, but was less accountable. Then came Live 8 who, out of nowhere, arrived a month before the events and organised a series of concerts which completely dominated and diverted media attention and focus of the anti-G8 protests, undermining the real agenda.

Alan Graham

References

Dyson, Michael Eric, 2001, Holler if you hear me

Hoye, Jacob, 2003, Tupac: Resurrection 1971-1996.


Mar 02 2004

Intellectual property is theft!

Alan Graham looks at the way capitalism has appropriated intellectual property and suggests some ways to fight back.

The main focus of socialist thought, including within the SSP, is about emancipating ourselves from economic exploitation such as poor pay and long hours, but before socialist thought can become the norm we must emancipate our minds from bourgeois indoctrination.

In this article I will address one area: that of Intellectual Property, arguing the idea that it is not just our physical bodies that are enslaved when we labour for the bourgeoisie but our minds as well. As my background is in computing, the examples given will mainly be from the computing world but it is the underlying principle that is of importance, not the examples themselves and there are numerous analogies in every area of capitalism.

All With Good Intentions

There are three main areas of intellectual property: Patents, Copyrights ©, and Trademarks (™, ®). Each of these was intended to protect the inventor of an idea from having it abused by someone who had no part in its design.

Patents: These must be applied for from a country’s patent agency. To be granted a patent an invention must be original, non-obvious and have a commercial value. Another condition is that an inventor must inform no one of his/her invention until a patent is applied for to allow it to keep its ‘original’ status and avoid the possibility of someone stealing the invention. A patent lasts for 20 years before others can reproduce the item. This is the opposite of a trade secret whereby a company/individual does not allow the workings of an invention to be made public giving them exclusive knowledge of its operations but no protection if a competing company creates and sells an identical item.

Copyright: This is the right to copy an item and lasts for 75 years after the death of an inventor. This is intended to grant an artist the exclusive rights to decide who can copy their work through licensing. For example this would stop a company from reproducing and selling an article without permission from the author. Copyright is automatically granted whenever something is created.

Trademark: This is used to stop the theft of a logo that would allow confusion between two companies. BT could not change their logo to be an identical design as Telewest for example, and no one could use the name British Tele-communicators and shorten it to BT to trade as a phone operator causing confusion between themselves and the ‘real’ BT (British Telecommunications). However Apple Macintosh can’t prevent a fruit company from operating under the name Macintosh Apples.

Each of these systems, although admittedly created to protect business, also were intended to prevent the exploitation of an individual’s creation by another company. The question is then: How well do they work?

Big Business Abuse

Patents

As stated above, the patent system was designed to only allow an invention to be patented if it is original, non-obvious and has industrial applications. When big business is involved in such a system the potential and, indeed inevitability, of the system’s corruption is certain. In 1979 IBM released the DOS filing system. Microsoft bought the rights to this from IBM in 1981 and patented it in 1986; the patent will run out in 2006. So the system previously existed, was on the market for 2 years before Microsoft bought it, and they had been selling it for 5 years before patenting it. The patent is still considered valid.

Trademarks

The most widely known example of big business exerting pressure over trademarks should be of great relevance to all Scots. McDonalds hit the headlines for demanding a shop called McMunchies cease using Mc as a prefix in case customers become confused between the companies. The backlash against this and other cases where food shops were threatened for using McDonalds as part of their name caused an infuriated response from not only the anti-McDonalds groups but by a huge array of groups including big business’ best buddy – the Tories! That is not to say that the reason for the Tories opposing McDonalds on this issue was right or indeed similar to ours, but just that opposition to the current system, with its inbuilt ease of corruption, is opposed by a wide range of people from different class interests.

Copyrights

As can be seen from history, governments support the theft of copyrighted materials until the benefit from selling their own copyrighted work outweighs the benefit from stealing copyrighted work. An example is Shakespeare’s work being printed in America without giving his estate any money at all. Once the US reached a stage where they had more to gain than lose from enforcing Intellectual Property laws they switched to enforcing them. The best recent example of which you can see now is with the RIAA and MPAA.

These massive conglomerates of the biggest media companies are suing everyone from 12 year old girls to 80 year old grannies for downloading music files whilst sending jackbooted thugs dressed in FBI style outfits to close down market stalls calling themselves the ‘music police’, which if anyone else was to do would be called impersonating a police officer. There are two major arguments against such authoritarian abuse and these are built into the copyright system itself: parody and fair use. Parody being where you can reproduce an artwork if the intention is to mock, not to imply yourself as the author of the original work. This would have stopped Microsoft from attempting to sue a Mr Mike Rowe for registering his domain name http://www.mikerowesoft.com and claiming its an infringement of their copyright.

Fair use is the ability to use the item as you wish. So you should be able to copy a CD you own onto a cassette or your PC. Whether you should be able to copy and give or sell to another person is a separate issue, one the RIAA do not admit exists. In their attacks the RIAA fail to distinguish between these two. DVD-John is another example. When DVD players for PCs first came out the software to make them work only supported Windows machines. DVD-Jon as he came to be known worked on software to enable his DVD player to work on his Linux machine. When he did so in 1999 at the age of 15 and released this code to the public for free he was immediately threatened with lawsuits by the MPAA. In January this year he won his appeal against their charges and previous victories and a blow was struck against the massive media companies.

The other major, and much ignored abuse is that a student at university, college or school may not own the copyright on any of the work they produce whilst in the institution. Part of the contract to apply for university or college includes signing away intellectual property rights to the University itself or the SQA. Similarly if you invent something, draw or paint, write a poem, an article or indeed a song whilst you are working for a company, the company is the owner of the copyright to the work. Something to contemplate the next time you doodle during a meeting!

Before proposing a socialist solution, I will give some examples of how the capitalist intellectual property schemes could be improved. This is not to present these as an alternative to a socialist solution, but to show the inherent nature of the capitalist system that rejects such improvements.

The Fairer Option

Patents is the most easily reformed system and that would be to just simply not to grant patents for items which fail to meet the criteria. Once this basic idea is established then patents can themselves be cleaned up so that the wording of the patent only reflects the item being patented and cannot be used to accuse a different but similar item of infringing upon it.

Copyright would be the most difficult to change. So entrenched are big businesses into the system itself that it would be difficult for capitalist government to climb out of their pockets and kick them from the decision making process. The first obvious step would be to fully allow parody and fair use within the copyright process. If an individual purchases an item they should be free to use that in whatever way they want without the copyright holder taking them to court. Ikea would not sue you for cutting the legs shorter on a table you purchased from them so why should the RIAA or BPI be able to sue you for listening to an MP3 file you made of the CD you purchased? If we are to be slaves to consumerism then the public must be able to decide the way in which they consume.

Trademarks are again easy to change, just disallow the registering of names or commonly used words. Orange, the phone company, have rights to use the word orange accompanied by an orange background. Perhaps we all missed the day when not only did they invent these two but first used them together.

An Alternative System for an Alternative Worldview

There are other ideas put forward by various groups about alternative schemes to be used now. Unfortunately they are under constant attack by the pawns of capitalism so it is my view that revolutionary as these proposed systems are, they can only be truly and fully utilised in a socialist society.

The two easiest systems to change are the trademarks and patents systems. Why would one person be allowed to stop another from producing a life-saving medicine? Why would a logo need to be exclusively used to promote a private business? The answer is that as these exist to protect a business tool, then they would have no place within a socialist society anyway.

Copyright is a different matter however. Copyright exists with a dual use: to prevent unauthorised reproduction and in effect profiting from a work and secondly to acknowledge authorship of a work. There is no reason to cease acknowledging the authorship of a song, poem, book, drawing or any other work. Being the author should not lead to monetary gain anyway; then being credited with your work should be reward enough.

Two such systems that should be analysed for their relevance are CopyLeft and GPL.

CopyLeft, much as the name implies is a stark opposite to Copyright. It is a system where an author allows their work to be reproduced on the condition that the work it is part of is also CopyLeft and that they are credited with authorship. Not surprising this is not a system that is developing overnight and it only spreads slowly through the farming out of articles to multiple magazines, journals and newspapers. As this is how socialists spread their literature and ideas, I would appeal to all socialists to declare their articles CopyLeft or at the least declare that this article can be reproduced and edited by anyone as long as I am credited as the author. We should, after all, be trying to allow socialist points of view to spread to the maximum audience in the maximum number of ways possible.

GPL is a similar paradigm that is used with computer software. When you buy a piece of software from a store you generally sign an End User Licence Agreement that denies you the right to modify the software at all. There is a move within the software developing community towards Open Source and free software. One aspect of this is the GPL. Any software that is released has the actual source code included so that anyone with the knowledge to modify it can do so as they wish. Under the sole condition that if they release their version, they release the code as well and give it a GPL licence.

Both of these systems are split into two camps of release it for free and release at a price but include the ability to modify and re-use. It does not take much thought to see how these types of ideas can be spread and modified from a socialist perspective. This can give rise to the freeing of knowledge, which is after all the root of power. From a socialist perspective it is not enough to just ignore the capitalist intellectual property laws (such as Cuba plans with the reproduction of cheap anti-HIV drugs for Africa), but we must carefully prise back every tentacle they have spread until we can implement a fairer democratic and free system where knowledge is available to all. The paradigm of the GPL/CopyLeft system can be implemented in literature, articles and other writings. Musicians can allow their music to be spread to as many ears as possible whilst allowing others to sample and remix their creation in a way that they themselves find appealing. We cannot emancipate our minds unless we first identify how our minds are enslaved.