The UK's branch of the Industrial Workers of the World has been stepping up its publications. One of the newest is a journal called Wobbly Times. The theme for the first issue which will be released soon was "Workers of the World United" a great choice, but at the time they were calling for submissions I could not think of anything to fit it.
Yesterday I attended an IWW writers workshop and this idea came to me.
You may recall that I used to work in a cold factory producing frozen foods. There's a stereotype of a factory proletarian being this salt of earth man full of muscles, the reality was that the workforce was the most diverse I've ever encountered. Many women, every age from "are you sure your 18?" To "Shouldn't you have retired already?" Workers with mental and physical disabilities including me, and workers from many ethnic backgrounds and many being immigrants.
The canteen and the outside corner where the smokers gathered and the bike shed were full of accents, slang and languages.
The langauge barrier is a serious obstacle to international and even intranational co-operation, at the factory even though we were all polite and friendly to each other groups formed around first language for the most part. Revolutionary groups have struggled with how to overcome this obstacle, some invest heavily in translation departments, others promote a 'workers language' either Russian, Spanish, English or Esperanto etc.
I don't have a silver bullet for this problem, but I do have some observations. While outside of work the differences were obvious they largely disappeared on the factory floor. Lack of fluency in English or any other langauge didn't matter so much since it was simply too loud to talk in a meaningful way.
Conversations were short with only the most important words and punctuated with pointing and gestures. Body langauge was also heavily reduced since we were all covered in the same white overcoats and gloves and hair nets. If you were clean shaven you could still use your face to smile or look concerned but if you had any peach fuzz you had to cover your snout with a snood.
In a strange way the tempo and organisation of the factory leveled the differences between us and we spoke a common langauge. There were of course limits to this language, there wasn't much room for abstraction and elaboration. But it was still a useful tool in building some links between us all. We gave warnings about bits of machine that liked to bite and grab, laughed at terrible supervisors who thought they were cool and tough, helped out the newbies or the ones who were having trouble.
I still think that communication is serious obstacle to building a movement capable of challenging the global capitalist order, but I am atleast confident that it is an obstacle that can be overcome with enough effort.
Some more news regarding Lindsey Oil Refinery. Since the beginning of August there have been sporadic protests, the one in the photograph was held at the refinery, you may recognise it from photos of the wildcat strike. There was also a march down the seafront in Cleethorpes and a rally outside parliament. My stepdad attended the refinery protest, he said the turnout was low, but he was impressed with the calibre of the speakers. He didn't recognise any of them, those two facts mean they must've been UNITE bigwigs, none of the local reps are praised for their oratory.
This hasn't moved the government, who are haemorrhaging support here. Officially, LOR is still open and running, though you'd be hard-pressed to tell. My friend who's an inspector has very little to inspect and has been polishing his CV and looking for other work. My cousin who is a firefighter at the refinery secured a job at the sister refinery Conoco only to be told that since LOR is still technically open they can't take any of the fire and safety staff on as LOR can't source any replacements. Which is very odd since LOR has already downsized and Conoco is next door and the two refineries already collaborate on safety and rescue operations. That's regulations for you!
I have found out that regarding the full staff (not including contractors) will be made redundant in two waves, the first is rumoured to be in October, the second at the end of the year. I've also been told by several people that they're planning to do it via the two rooms method. Everyone gets called into one of two rooms, and then they find out if they've been let go or not. I hope that's just a rumour because that's brutally cold.
There's also been an update on that training pledge. There is a commitment from the government to pay for retraining of redundant staff (contractors out of luck again) into new industries, renewables seems to be the one they're aiming for. This has been taken as insult on top of injury. It's not a bad choice all things considered, the renewable sector is a growing part of the local economy, travelling from Immingham to LOR you pass multiple warehouses, many of which are involved in recycling and batteries. Siemens is a big investor in the area as is Myenergy a company that makes batteries for electric cars and chargers. You may recognise Myenergy as it's the official sponsors of Grimsby Town Football Club replacing Young's Seafood, it expanded operations aggressively but had its own round of layoffs last year.
Grimsby UNITE office, displaying photos from the rallies against LOR closure
While this is feeding into an anti-zero sentiment, the real issue is how's it been handle. Since the refinery is winding down and redundancies are coming, you might think it'd be a good idea to offer the retraining now, perhaps in stages, however it will only be available once you've been made redundant. The training will take months, if not a year, so the workers are faced with a choice to take any work they can find or go without for nearly a year and hope that a job will be available once it's completed. To make matters worse the training contract has not been given to the local industrial training providers it's been given to providers further afield, so transport will be an issue, and it's wasted an opportunity to invest in the local economy. The area has a well-developed apprenticeship and training system with multiple providers, covering engineering, manufacturing, electricians etc. And most importantly they have connections with the industrial employers including the renewables sector.
The response by the government seems tailor-made to piss off and alienate the entire population. Every step they take or do not take indicates a gross ignorance of the region and a lack of interest. The only thing remotely approaching good news is that the people I know who work for LOR are "safe" relatively speaking. It's also been confirmed that there are buyers interested in the site, though who they are and what specifically they're interested in and willing to keep open and how many jobs they'll secure remain to be seen. A buyer might re-hire some experienced hands, but they may also decide to bring in their own employees. It's difficult to speculate, but LOR in its entirety probably won't disappear completely, but we won't know what will remain.
This past week I contracted COVID-19. Its not the first time but this one hit my like a lorry. I've kept up with my vaccinations so it could've been a lot worse. I'm taking the week off to recover. Since I'm isolating and the motion in games makes me want to vomit I've been catching up on movies and Telly inbetween taking pain killers and drinking water and juice.
I'm miserable and achey, but I'll survive. While I suffer my mind keeps going back to the lockdowns when COVID started spreading. I had been working as a security guard on the dock, this meant I was classed as an "essential worker" and was not furrloughed. I worked right through the UK's economic shutdowns. My new found status blocked my ability to find alternative employment, who was hiring when 90% of the staff you already paid were sent home? Previously I had been cycling through several positions in the area, reception, hole watcher (yes that is a real job) fire watcher, (yes that is a different job) banksman, general laboring, security guard, safety monitor etc. Now I was effrctively trapped in one role.
I was also living with my parents at the time who have health conditions that put them in greater risk should they contract it, and so had to practice "shielding" i.e. avoid direct contact. Conversations would take place over the phone, outside in the garden or by opening doors or with the stairs between us.
It was quite isolating psychologically. This was reinforced at work which was deserted apart from the occasional maintenance van doing the rounds. On the positive side I enjoyed my commutes to work, the roads were deserted so I could ride without fear of being rear-ended by a drunk docker or going under the wheel of a truck thanks to a gust of wind[1]. Once I got over the erieness of the quiet I found it peaceful.
When I was at work there wasn't anything to do. No visitors meant I just sat or stood there for 12 hours at a time. After awhile I started taking books to read and then I bought a DVD player and watched films. This could've gotten me in trouble had they caught me but the alternative was to just crack under the weight of it all.
If this sounds like a lark then there's two things to keep in mind. There is a vast difference between getting money for nothing and getting money to do nothing. There are jobs that through luck or inefficiency or bureaucratic mandates that cover the latter. Security guard in a place thats dead, warehouse night shift, night porters for unpopular hotels etc. There you are expected to be doing the activites assigned to your job and if you cannot then you are expected to do nothing and remain in a state of readiness should the opportunity to do your job present itself no matter how rarely.
If you've not had one of those jobs you maybe familiar with the managerial maxim "time to lean is time to clean". I've had jobs under supervisors who breathed that wisdom but even they wouldn't expect you to spend a whole 8/10/12 hour shift cleaning if something is preventing actual work being lije say the line is jammed and the technicians are busy working on another one.
In cases like mine management do expect you to be ready to pounce as soon as you clock on and upto the second you clock off. Anyway once it became clear that they weren't going to be checking up on the staff still working I could fill my time with some distractions and catching uo on my reading and research. It was that or dive into social media.
The second thing to keep in mind was that the virus was running rampant and was lethal. In addition to every news item reminding me how dangerous the microbes in the air were it struck closer to home. My uncle contracted it, fortunately he lived on our street and we could help him by getting him supplies and checking on him regularly. He looked like a zombie, I was convinced he was going to die, thankfully he didn't, he celebrated his 70th birthday this week. Sadly other people I knew did die. These weren't close friends but they were people I knew to speak to when I met them in the street or the pub and due to restrictions I wasn't able to attend their funerals.
Essentially every day I had a sense that I was putting myself and my loved ones in danger. All because of a bureaucratic categorisation. Unlike a health care worker or a shop staff I was providing no actual essential work even when there was work to do. I just had to stand there in a high vis incase someone tresspassed or a lorry driver got lost and needed help reversing down the access road.
And for this risk I recieved zilch. No hazard pay, just two reusable masks with the company logo stitched on it[2]. And they didn't arrive for months, I was using my own until then.
If I'm coming across as a martyr, I know there were others who had it worse. Other essential workers had all my issues and had to interact with the public on a regular basis which put them at great risk. Though that knowledge was a cause for concern the few times I did have to interact with a stranger.
They say humans adapt to most things. Over time a sense of routine estsblished itself which took some of the edge off the everpresent climate of fear. Meanwhile the government and the business community were getting fed up with all the losses to the economy started working on ways to get people back to work and consuming.
Eventually things returned to normal, and I moved on to other ventures. Though of course things still aren't normal. COVID remains and continues to mutate. It still infects people and can have drastic effects. The big change from 2020 to today is that we're now in a place where the damaging effects of COVID aren't disruptive for commerce and adminstration, so hard luck for those who contract it even those who still die from it. Several people at my current workplace have weak immune systems and yet when I reported my COVID they treated it like a regular sick leave period. I'm not complaining on my behalf sick leave is the most generous I've had in my worklife but it is concerning that COVID is being treated like a summer cold.
Also yes, the title is a reference to Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel Garcia Marquez.
1: These are not random examples. In 2023 the council finally moved forward with paving a cycling route to the docks and the nearby industrial estate. A year after I stopped working there.
2: Branded safety equipment, just one of the many examples of crisis profiteering that went on during that time.
Something unprecedented has happened, my old town has made it to the local news and even bagged the top spot, and without a drop of blood. The town of Immingham was featured on ITV's regional news program Calendar. Unfortunately it's not good news, it's pretty grim in fact.
After serious mismanagement by its owners, the Lindsey Oil Refinery (LOR) is shutting down risking thousands of jobs, and the closure will open a big black hole in the economy of the southern bank of the Humber river. This story is very similar to Scunthorpe's Steel works, which was facing a physical as well as financial collapse and forced the government to step in to keep it open. Scunthorpe is just 20 miles away as the crow flies, these two developments show that the entire region and its heavy industries are in a crisis.
Before the news broke yesterday (22nd of June) I was already made aware of how bad things were going there. I used to work on LORs satellite sites in the neighbouring docklands and have friends and family who work on the refinery in various grades and roles and know many more who have since retired. The refineries cast a big shadow, and I mean that literally as well as figuratively. In addition to being a major source of employment for the towns and villages dotted around them, the chimney stacks can be seen at nearly every part of the town.
The mood is bleak here, I've been told today (23rd) there will be a march up to the refinery and will try and get details. In the meantime, here are some facts not covered in the ITV Calendar report.
LOR is one of two refineries built in-between the port town of Immingham (Im-Ing-Um) and south Killingholme. It employs around 400 permanent staff but also employs many more as contractors and temporary workers. Shutdowns and periodic maintenance can see the number of workers active on the site balloon into the thousands. It produces various kinds of petroleum, including aviation fuel, which means a knock-on effect beyond the local area is likely.
Already LORs tanker drivers, around 200 people have been made redundant, they were informed of this via Microsoft Teams call. The rest of the staff are in limbo, with discussions ongoing. My friends still working there are updating CVs and looking for other work while they await updates.
The owners of Prax the company that has brought LOR to the point of collapse have gone to Dubai. Funny they have enough money for that. And are generally unresponsive to request for comments or information.
I was working on Immingham docks when Prax took over LOR and I remember there was some disquiet and alarm back then due to the company having no background in refining, several LOR inspectors I knew were convinced the refinery was done at that point, it looks like those fears were correct it just took a little longer to become apparent.
LOR's neighbouring refinery Conoco Phillips (pronounced as Ko-No-Ko by the locals, but is pronounced Kon-O-Ko by the owners) is owned by the US based Phillips 66 and is interested in LORs storage tanks and industrial rail links but produces different grades of fuel so probably will not be interested in the refining systems of LOR. It's doubtful that the entire infrastructure will go, it seems likely that it will be stripped and broken up by other firms, how much will remain and how many jobs will be saved by this asset redistribution remains to be seen.
I was informed that LOR has enough crude to last until the 28th with several vessels standing by in the Humber and the North Sea with fuel oil for LOR that could extend the operational time further, but its up in the air as to if that'll happen.
I have also heard that two other refineries in the UK (out of 6 total) that are looking at a similar winding down but have no details at yet.
You may remember that back in 2009 LOR and Conoco were the epicentre of a wave of wildcat strikes throughout the industry that spread throughout the UK. At the time I was in Hull studying, but my stepdad was involved with the Scaffolders, he's since retired but still hears things from his mates still there. He told me about the planned march and was one of the people interviewed in the Calendar report. Though they cut out most of his commentary on strategic economic interests and big global firms that can asset strip and then relocate.
Based on his and others comments, I don't think a repeat of 09 militancy is likely due to demoralisation of the workforce. Though, despair can turn to anger very quickly, especially if the feelings of abandonment and being ripped off continue. I'll monitor the situation.
24th of July
UNITE held a protest rally outside Grimsby town hall, I do not know if the planned march on the refinery took place, a friend who works at the refinery was too depressed to meet me on Wednesday (23rd). I believe this protest was replacement or the people telling me about the march were mistaken. If I hear anything definitive, I'll update. I was in Grimsby working that day, not too far away from the protest, but it ended and dispersed before I could clock off.
Bear in mind this is all second hand, but I have attended these types of protests before in the same location with some of the same organisers. This seems to have been a "going through the motions" affair. The speakers were local politicians including the Conservative MP Martin Vickers and Greater Lincolnshire's first Mayor, the Reform party's Andrea Jenkyns (pictured). This worries me as coupled with the demoralisation I have noticed that much of the criticism is aimed at the owners of Prax being foreigners, and the UK selling its strategic assets to large foreign corporations. There is room for Reform and the right wing of the Conservatives to co-opt these sentiments and build up support within economically depressed areas and threatened sections of the labour force. I'm also surprised that the respectable TUC unions are already collaborating with Reform, especially given that the Mayor isn't a relevant official. I was under no illusions that the appeal model of industrial bargaining that the TUC endorses would mean they would attempt to curry favour with far-right officials but I thought it'd take a bit longer.
Personally speaking, the collapse of LOR and Scunthorpe steel works were the result of general economic trends and a culture that weakened regulations and reformed business administration in a manner that gave the owners the freedom to maximise profit in ways that wrecked the overall firms. The image that comes to my mind is a mining company demanding a shaft be sunk so deep that it eventually collapses the entire coal field. The Miners are trapped below the earth, their families are panicking on the surface, and the owners have flown away to a mansion on some tropical island. I don't think the passports of the boss matter nearly as much as the fact that there is a boss and that they are able to stay wealthy and get wealthier out of the impoverishment of others.
Going back to the Tories/Reform/other reactionaries, not only is a deep concern that they seem to be capable of exploiting misery to spread their ideology and build up support, these disasters are the fruits of the economic policies they promote and the Labour government maintains. None of these political factions are offering an alternative solution, they're using this to score points. They are all in favour of capitalism, and they are all in favour of the specific version of capitalism that enables the stripping of assets and embezzlement that can sink nationally important industries. Reform, especially promote and support letting businesses have a free hand in everything. People are pissed off with Labour's reaction to what's happening here, however I do not beleive the situation would be improved by replacing them with the Conservative Party or Reform or any of the others.
For a couple years the regions of North/North East Lincolnshire and East Yorkshire have seen growing support for nationalisation of industries, infrastructure and utilities. I don't know if its met majority support yet but it is now a common point of view. The situation on LOR has been strengthening that sympathy. I think its an understandable sentiment if you live here, we're part of the British equivalent to Rust Belt in the United States, but I'm old enough to remember that nationalised companies can also experience crisis and collapse, at best its a stop gap measure, one that could (but not guaranteed) prevent the egregious examples of what's happened here and in Scunthorpe but I wish more people round here would dream deeper.
In other news, the Government has confirmed keeping LOR open for three more weeks to attract a buyer. I haven't seen much detail, but I assume that means some crude vessels were allowed to dock, as a refinery cannot run without oil to refine. Or they could've decided to shut the refinery down in stages. The government has also said it is funding a "comprehensive Training Guarantee", I don't know what that means, and I don't think anyone else does either. This has not brought relief to anyone nor calmed the situation at all.
Many people are angry with the government's response, or more accurately the lack of response, three weeks isn't much time to conclude a deal nor provide much security for the employees. There have been claims that the government isn't more supportive due to Net Zero commitments. With Tories and Reform especially banging that drum. I don't know Ed Miliband the Energy Secretary, but that doesn't make much sense to me since the Net Zero framework was drawn up by the previous Conservative governments and LOR produces fuel oil for cars and planes, it has a pipeline directly connecting it to Heathrow.
Electric cars are becoming a common site and I know prototype electric planes exist now, but I don't think the government is planning to switchover to 100% electric automobiles and electric aviation industry by Autumn this year. That seems too ambitious and radical for the current PM's tastes.
I suspect that the actual reason for the government's actions are that they do not want to spend the considerable sum of money taking the refinery over and running. They seem to be set on wishing that a private sector buyer will show up and save the day.
31st of July
Wellit looks like its all over. Spoke to my cousin whose an LOR firefighter, they've been told they can either work till the closure or leave without notice if other work is available. If they stay until the deadline they'll recieve a bonus but will be competing with everyone else for a few vacancies. And that's just for the full time direct employees who were the cream of the crop in the workforce. Employees at the refinery numbered a little over 400, contractors can swell that figure to over a thousand. They're treatment will depend on the contracting company. The ones I worked for would give you nothing not legally mandated and even then they'd drag their feet on complying.
Still haven't heard any details about this "Training Guarantee" the government have been repeating their appeals to Prax's owners to "do the right thing by their workers" it seems to me if they were the sought to "do the right thing" they wouldn'tve draind the funds, hidden it and then scarpered abroad. We'll see if they face any consequence when the investigation winds down.
Appendix:
This isn't related to LORs troubles but does concern the reporting of it. The Calendar news segment is in my opinion a good case study in how the news media can manipulate a narrative into existence. The core of the reporting reflects what I've been told, but several people I know were upset with how Immingham was portrayed.
During the report it stated that Immingham was already expressing depression and showed two shots, one a very tight focus on an empty shop unit and a boarded up street.
Now Immingham is not a boom town but quite a few people thought this was manipulative, and I agree with them. Regarding the first shot, the town's civic centre does have some unoccupied units but the reason that shot was so tight because the units next to it are occupied which would conflict with the narrative.
The second shot concerns a street I used to ride my bike down to get to work on the docks. That street is indeed boarded up, but that is because Associated British Ports (ABP), the region's other giant Industrial concern, bought out the houses and businesses on that street as part of a major expansion plan that will take many years to complete. Before the buyout, that street was full of active businesses.
Of course, this manipulation is practically benign and seems to have
been done to reinforce the facts on the ground and not conjure up a
narrative. Anyone who lives in the area knows you don't have to work to give Immingham a bad reputation, it's been tarred and feathered for years by the county snobs. I just feel it's important to keep a critical mindset even
when presented with a narrative you sympathise with.
2nd Appendix:
I've seen some comments echoing the Tory/Reform line about the collapse of LOR being a good thing due to climte change. I think that's both incorrect and extremely superficial thinking. LOR is not shutting down due to competition by Green power sources, its closing due to either gross incompetence or active raiding by its owners. The demand for the petroleum that LOR supplied is still there, and it will move eventually to another supplier. So, either the environmental impact of LOR going will be zero or potentially worse depending on how its market share is divvied up. Its not just production process of fossil fuels that can be environmentally damaging, shipping of refined fuel potentially over great distances will add to the impact, will the other refinery need to expand or cut corners to make up for the increased demand? We saw this in the UK during the Miners strike of 84-5 and the aftermath of the collapse of Britain's domestic Coal industry. Demand for coal remained high during the strike so the government imported large quantities from a number nations including Apartheid South Africa and the Communist dictatorship in Poland.
Importation of vast quantities of coal continued for many years. Immingham docks was one of the main transit points, it was covered in giant black mountains of coal dust up to 2014-16. The biggest ones were doused 24 hours with water by sprinkler systems because they spontaneously combusted all the time. They got rid of imported coal by substituting imported biomass (wood pulp) and the debate over whether that counts as a green alternative rages to this day.
Will the short and medium term disruption brought about by the closing of LOR provoke a backlash against attempts to decrabonise technology and the economy? Reform and the Tories are currently working very hard to see that such a backlash happens. Reform in particular are increasingly sucessful in growing beyond a protest vote, they're sinking roots in new soil and are seeing results in their efforts to radicalise sections of the public.
This isn't a win for ecosocialism nor is it even a win for green capitalism. Its just an example of capitalism and governance. We won't know the full environmental impact until the dust settles and the reports are published but if there is a slither of good news for the environment here it'll be entirely coincidental.
It's not often that I get to comment on recent news from a position beyond armchair commentator. Several weeks ago, my small corner of the world became global news for a time. Two great big cargo ships collided in the North Sea at an anchorage for vessels waiting clearance to enter the River Humber. One was the carrier of aviation fuel, the Stena Immaculate, and the second a container ship Solong. The captain of Solong is a Russian national, that fact coupled with the news that he's being investigated for criminal conduct has encouraged speculation that this was a deliberate act carried out as part of the Russian Federation's hybrid warfare doctrine.
The investigation is ongoing, and I won't speculate on whether I think the charges have merit or not. What I will say is that if it comes to light that the cause of the collision which killed one of the crew of the Solong and injured dozens of sailors on both vessels was negligence or equipment failure, well I wouldn't be entirely surprised.
There's a fortune tied up in international freight and massive pressure to avoid delays at all costs. Cutting corners and meeting windows for berthing, discharging cargo and taking on new cargo are stressful times with many bottlenecks, that area of the North Sea is effectively a floating car park for vessel to wait their turns, clearance and the boarding of pilots. Miss that window and the ship is at the back of the line, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars.
I know this because I have friends and family who worked in the shipping agencies, and I worked on the same dock that ships including the Stena Immaculate regularly berthed and met their crews and captains. It's a small part of the world. I've had the pleasure of being shouted at in 02:30 am because a ship hasn't sailed for Norway due to its bridge crew not returning from shore leave, I've also had to draw maps of the docks for crew members who were just dumped outside the gates for their shore leave, and I've had to stand in the pouring rain with a radio awaiting the arrival of the port medical team so I could show them a dead body that washed up.
But enough flavour text, the reason I'm bringing this up is to demonstrate why a vessel barrelling at 16 Knouts in low visibility in an area well known for being a busy anchorage doesn't shock me despite being an obviously bad idea. This attitude of rush, rush, rush, get it done quickly is endemic to the shipping economy, and it breeds a culture of apathy and resentment towards the regulations that are designed to prevent incidents and accidents like what happened here.
Russian owned/captained vessels were especially notorious for obeying the letter of the law and ticking all the boxes, while expending the least amount of effort possible. I remember two examples, one was when a sailor had collapsed, and I was talking to the medical team, they repeatedly asked me to confirm the ship was not Russian, because the last time they had attended a Russian vessel the captain wanted to leave the crew member on the jetty and depart without answering any questions. Another time I was working over water and needed a life jacket, UK regulations state you must wear one when working over water, the penalties for violating that one are quite steep. When we ran short, we just radioed the vessels and used some of their spares. The Russian vessel gave use life jackets that were empty, either someone had stolen the bouncy material or they never had any. I thought that was a one-off, but a guy who'd been there for longer than me said it happened all the time.
I must stress the point of this is not that the Russians are uniquely corrupt and lazy. Corners were cut across the industry, and there were many times Russian vessels arrived without incident or noticeable deficiency. Common issues are Flags of convenience where a ship is registered to a company in a nation with lower safety and employment standards, I saw that all the time, it was blatant, crew lists and manifests gave it away, a ship that sails between Le Havre and Grangemouth, is operated by a company in France and is crewed by Indians and Filipinos and has a Greek captain is registered as belonging to Liberia or one of the smaller Caribbean island nations. Often finding out who actually owns a ship is an impossible task. The news reported that the Solong had Portuguese owners and the Stena Immaculate is owned by the USA, but the Stena was an exception as it served US military aviation, I met a Department of Defence rep once who turned up to inspect the ship. He had a baseball cap and a denim jacket, called everyone buddy.
So, in conclusion, I'll wait and see what the results of the investigation are. I am interested in their findings but the two most likely options will not be surprising to me.
I came across this short article by Eugene V. Debs. It was written in 1915 but much of it, including the peace in the USA and war in Europe, is still very timely. I sometimes feel tired of saying that when going through historical records, especially since it only seems to apply to bad things, disease, poverty, war, corruption, bigotry etc.
Debs was at the time the leader of the Socialist Party and was its pick for Presidential candidate, his opposition to American entry in the First World War and refusal to buckle to pressure led to his arrest, and he ran his last Presidential campaign from behind bars.
Published in St. Louis Labor, whole no. 578 (Aug. 14, 1915),
Because the workers have everything to lose, including their lives, and absolutely nothing to gain in war, it does not follow under the benevolent rule of capitalism that they have everything to gain and nothing to lose in peace. In Europe just now the workers have war and hell while in this country they are enjoying peace and starvation. That there may be no mistake about the latter condition I quote from the highest capitalistic authority, the Associated Press, which carries the following dispatch:
COLUMBUS, Ohio, July 26th, 1915.— Reports received here today from militia officers who have charge of the distribution of food supplies among destitute families in the Southern Ohio coal mining districts, prompted state officials to send out additional appeals for contributions to aid in the relief work.
The reports showed that a large number of these 10,000 families in the Hocking and Sunday Creek Valleys are dependent on outside aid for food. In describing conditions the word “piti- able” appeared frequently in the reports. There is no strike in these districts, but most of the miners are out of work owing to the shutting down of the mines.
There is much more to the dispatch, but this is enough. There is no war in this country and there is no strike in Ohio. Instead of war and hell such as they have in Europe they have peace and starvation in Ohio. The soldiers who are asphyxiated in the trenches have one advantage in war over their fellow-workers who are starving in the mining camps in peace — their agony is reduced to hours, perhaps minutes, instead of being prolonged into a lifetime. Blessed are they who are speedily reduced to wormfood, for they shall not see their offspring starve in the midst of plenty.
• • • • • It is not the misfortune of the miners that condemns them to see their wives and children starving before their eyes in a state bursting with riches they themselves produced; it is their folly and crime in common with the folly and crime of the people among whom they live.
The men who shut down the mines and locked out the miners and are now starving them and their families are not among those crying for relief. They own the mines and control the jobs and can shut out and starve the miners at will — by grace of the miners them- selves, an overwhelming majority of whom belong to the same capi- talist party their masters do and cast their votes with scrupulous fidel- ity to perpetuate the boss ownership of the mine in which they work and their own exclusion and starvation at their master’s will.
Blessed be the private ownership of the mines, for without it the miners and their wives would lose their individuality, their homes would be broken up, their morality destroyed, their religion wiped out, and they would be denied forever the comfort and solace of pov- erty and starvation!
When the miners themselves control the mines, once they have learned how to control themselves, they will not lock themselves out and starve themselves and their loved ones to death. The bosses are very kindly doing this for them, but only because the miners them- selves, by their votes and otherwise, have willed it. The bosses lose their power and along with it their jobs when the workers find theirs.
• • • • •
But I only meant to show that in peace as in war the workers are the losers; if they are not killed in war they are starved in peace; if they escape the trenches they are reserved for the slave pits. The bosses are always the beneficiaries; the workers always the victims. The Rockefellers never lose and the [John R.] Lawsons never win. Such is capitalism and the workers who side with the bosses and support capitalism politically and otherwise, and are therefore respon- sible for capitalism, are also responsible for the hell they get in war and the starvation they suffer in peace.
Someone showed me a review of Schindler's List which left me struggling to comprehend what I was reading. I have a high opinion of the film, the reviewer did not, but that's okay, everyone interacts with media differently, the issue is in why they did not like it. Neoliberalism and a Zionist ending, apparently.
If you're not familiar with the movie, it's based on real events and documents how a factory owner saved the lives of some of his Jewish labourers and conspired in some industrial sabotage of the Nazi German war effort. The ending is the surviving Jewish labourers and their children placing stones on the real Schindler's grave, which is a Jewish sign of respect for the dead. The only way that's zionist is if you equate Jewishness with zionism, which is deeply antisemitic and plays into the hands of the actual zionist movement. There's a lot more to the film than this brief synopsis I think the film is worth seeing, and there are many other places to get a deeper look at it as a movie. It's not a cheerful movie, obviously, I think you need to be prepared to experience it.
As for neoliberal? I guess we have got to the point where that term has no meaning any more so whatever.
Personally speaking, I think that the movie does a very good job of exposing a mainstream audience to the capitalist nature of the Nazi regime. The racist bigotry and the militaristic brutality of the Hitlerites is popularly understood which is why even with a global resurgence in far right movements and personalities the really popular ones still try to obscure their connections. Less understood is the capitalist nature of the Imperial expansion, I think the most popular recent document to hammer that home was Germa Bel's documentation of privatisation in Nazi Germany, Against the Mainstream, and that's still stuck in the capital P politics corners of the web.
In History circles the role of big business in Nazi Germany is well understood, but I can't think of a more popular example of this process than the book and film about Oskar Schindler. Who is Oskar Schindler? Well in the film he is a user of slave labour and an opportunist. He is a member of the Nazi Party and businessman, he arrives in occupied Poland with the idea to open factories because labour is much cheaper has no legal standing, and he will have the backing of the occupying state to do what he wishes. His decision to take on Jewish workers instead of Polish ones is nakedly financial, Jewish workers cost less and are even more vulnerable to exploitation than Polish workers.
STERN The standard SS rate for Jewish skilled labor is seven Marks a day, five for unskilled and women. This is what you pay the Reich Economic Office, the laborers themselves receive nothing. Poles you pay wages. Generally, they get a little more. Are you listening?
Schindler turns from the wall of glass to face his new accountant/plant manager.
SCHINDLER What was that about the SS, the rate, the - ?
STERN The Jewish worker's salary - you pay it directly to the SS, not to
STERN(CONT'D) the worker. He gets nothing.
SCHINDLER But it's less. It's less than what I would pay a Pole. That's the point I'm trying to make. Poles cost more.
Stern hesitates, then nods. The look on Schindler's face says, Well, what's to debate, the answer's clear to any fool.
SCHINDLER Why should I hire Poles?
Schindler is an outsourcer, the only difference between him and the CEO of Nike who shifted production to Indonesia in the 1990s is the contexts in which they both operate. The amoral, nakedly self-interested logic is the same, "doing this ____ will benefit me, and I am allowed by the powers in charge to do ____, so why should I do anything else?"
And of course Schindler exploits the vulnerabilities of the Jewish community in order to acquire the capital as well as the labour to open his new company, which was seized as from its Jewish owners. And he relies exclusively on his assistant Stern to do the actual work of running a business, which gives Stern the latitude to start intervening on the behalf of his fellow Jewish inmates. He's nice and charming about it, makes it all sound like a good deal for everyone involved, but he's exploiting the market to compete to his advantage.
SCHINDLER Jews, yeah. Investors. (pause) You must have contacts in the Jewish business community, working here.
STERN What "community?" Jews can no longer own businesses, sir, that's why this one's in receivership.
SCHINDLER Well, they wouldn't own it, I'd own it. I'd pay them back in product.
STERN (pause) Pots and pans.
SCHINDLER Something they can hold in their hands. They can trade it on the black market, do whatever they want, everybody's happy.
He shrugs; it sounds more than fair to him. In fact, so taken with the spirit of his own largesse, he offers even more:
And at first once he's shuckdown his Jewish investors and opened the factory with his compliant workforce he lives it up and leaves Stern to do all that boring work. That last part at least gives Stern some time to get a support system off the ground. If the story (both real and fictional) ended here Schindler would be remembered as a villain. But history marched on.
Schindler's turn or redemption stems from two intertwined factors. He finds it impossible to avoid being directly confronted with the bloody context in which he operates, and he as he spends time with these Jewish labourers he's been exploiting for maximum profits he starts relating to them as people outside the employer v employee/master v slave relationship. He knew about the war, and the slave labour system, the racism and the ethnic expulsions and the dictatorship, and made his peace with all of them since he found a way to profit and thrive from it and the bad things were happening to people he didn't know. Those experiences changed him. But they didn't change him that much, throughout the film he's still businessman, he's just shifted from laissez-faire to paternalist boss. His early episodes of friction with the Nazi regime have him arguing with officials over their interference in his factory, and abusing his workers.
And he also works to sabotage the German war effort by producing faulty shells. Sabotaging the war effort is a good thing, but the issue is that Schindler himself as decided that his factory will not produce shells and bullets for the war effort and thus his workers must comply, which puts them in an extremely dangerous position, if its discovered even if no active sabotage is suspected they will be sent to their deaths, the only reason they survive is thanks to their designations as essential workers.
If I sound critically I'm not particularly, this is largely what happens in the film and in real life, I just thought it was worth noting.
Beyond Schindler there is another well remembered part of the film that demonstrates the murderous capitalist logic of the Nazis, it is the infamous "hinge" scene.
During this scene, the commandant tests a slave-worker's productivity by timing how long he takes to make one hinge. He performs the job very quickly only to release the trap, he made a hinge in excellent time and yet his overall output is low. Goeth the commandant then drags him away for what is supposed to be an execution but faults in both of his pistols grants a temporary reprieve. This is cruelty at its unadulterated, and it's clearly motivated by extreme racism, but there is also a cold economic logic, the camp is receiving more inmates and more slaves for its workshops, so the test. Of course that was just an excuse to demonstrate power over an "inferior" hence the game and the method of execution. However, the commandant would have to murder someone in these circumstances, either some of his slaves or the new arrivals, he can't afford to keep them all, and they have to meet their targets.
I'm not arguing that Schindler's List is an anti-capitalist movie designed to radicalise the masses, that's taking the argument too far. It condemns the Nazis in all their facets, including the economic drives of mass subjugation and mass murder.
This
new year has been quite hectic, hey? Tariffs this and DEI that. In
addition to executive orders every day of the week a Republican
Congressman Mr Biggs of Arizona submitted a bill with the intention to
dismantle the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
Submitted on the 3rd of January in the current year 2025, the bill will if passed abolish OSHA, and leave nothing in its wake.
I've never heard of Biggs, and I have no idea whether this bill has a
chance at making it to law. But if I were a worker in the USA, the mere
attempt would be cause for concern. Currently, I work in an office but
in the past I work on industrial sites, refineries, docks, warehouses
etc. To be allowed on the premises I had to pass several health and
safety courses and every single site had their own safety inductions.
And those all had to be renewed over time. They are extremely dull and
90% of the information you get is obvious and already known to you,
unless it's your first day. But I'd rather be bored two or three days a
year than have my head crushed between a jetty and an oil tanker1
. Or go death prematurely due to not demanding ear defenders.
They can also be quite grim, with photos and videos of accidents
leading to deaths, some were staged, but most were not. The videos in
the sections I call "Here's how painfully you will die if you half arse
safety" all used examples from work in the USA. All of which were OSHA
compliant. So, that might sound like I'm in favour of scrapping OSHA,
and yes, if that scrapping process involves a radical restructuring of
work in the USA that shifts focus onto the wellbeing and safety of
employees over potential maximum profit, and expands safety in the
workplace.
But none of that is in this bill, it is just getting rid of OSHA and leaving nothing.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 is repealed. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is abolished
I realise this point is difficult to get across without showing you
some of those video clips of graphic deaths, so I'll be blunt. The
current safety and protection system in effect in the USA is weak and
insufficient to the point that a UK employer who followed its guidelines
to the letter would be prosecuted for safety violations even if no
accidents or near misses had occurred yet. That's not to be patriotic
and make present the UK's health and safety systems are perfect2
, it isn't, we still have workplace accidents, injuries and deaths, we
still have to work without any real say in how we do it. The UK is a
modern capitalist economy its not some land of milk and honey. I have
my own criticisms of how health and safety works in this country too.
I'm comparing the two to show how even for a capitalist economy, workers in the USA are especially
vulnerable to death and injury. So, anytime a politician tries to scrap
what limited safeguards that do exist should be taken seriously and met
with determined opposition as the direct consequences will be more
deaths, more injuries and fewer compensation payouts for the survivors.
The only time a working person in the USA should welcome a bill to
repeal OSHA is if it's part of an expansion and reform of workplace
protections and safety procedures.
Mr Biggs may just be a one-off maverick extremist and will not get
any support, but I wouldn't want to take the risk, and as a Congressman
Biggs is part of the ruling strata of the nation, and clearly at least
some of those people are fine with trading human lives if it means
removing the slightest inconveniences and restrictions on maximum profit
and control. Class war doesn't get more overt than that.
1This
was not a hypothetical, I know someone who stuck his head in the gap
between the two because he couldn't be bothered to wait. Fortunately,
somehow his hard hat saved him
2we
are also made to watch UK based dangers and accidents, but they're
either old historic cases or used to show specific examples of failures
to follow specific site requirements
I'll say this for the anonymous artist who worked on this advertising material for the Grumman industrial concern, they did an excellent job with positioning and space.
When I share material older than 1925 I often get asked how it's in the public domain, in this case despite being published material there is no copyright notice present, which was mandated by the US copyright laws at the time.
I'm no fan of the arms industry, in fact over ten years ago I walked away from my plans to pursue a career within it after leaving University. So, its with great frustration that I have to concede that this poster from the 1970s is making an excellent point. The idea behind this buy F-14s advertisement is a concept known as the Security Dilemma, its the major factor for why most nations around the globe spend heavily on defence and offense capabilities, and also how large and well equipped militaries do not in fact lead to a peaceful world by themselves.
The simplest way to think of the Security Dilemma is in the type of scenario presented by this poster,
Cruise Missiles exist and Nation A is building them
Nation B sees a potential threat in Nation As Missile capabilities
The threat is not deemed serious right now as relations between the two are overall healthy
But can the leadership of Nation B guarantee that will always be the case?
Nation B decides to look for a counter measure, Grumman offers the F-14
Nation A sees the spending on the F-14 program and its counter missile capabilities
Nation As leadership is concerned that its Defence policy is now compromised as it relied on its missile capabilities.
Nation A looks for ways to counter or by pass the F-14.
Nation B sees the expanded military investments of Nation A and becomes concerned, also starts to invest in further weapons programs.
Relations start to deteriorate and tensions continue to rise
War
There's more to international relations than this mechanistic cycle, but it is still an important part of the logic of militarisation. The lack of attention to the Security Dilemma is a major weakness of the pacifist and anti-militarist movements. Much of their argumentation relies on moral arguments, which is understandable, the moral implications of institutions and industries dedicated to the killing of over human beings are as obvious as they are horrific, but this overfocus constrains these movements and limits their potential audiences and strategies of resistance.
They're also heavily constrained by context, I remember the anti-war movements in the UK and Western Europe in the 2000s, they were large and popular since the types of conflicts the UK, France and NATO were involving themselves in were far away and often under the initiatives of their governments. These conflicts were widely seen as aggressive on "Our" part, or at least an overreaction. During the 2010s and especially after 2022 the atmosphere has radically changed and support for military action and spending is much more popular and resistance to it the more marginal. Why? Well now we're all reminded that the "West" is not the sole purveyor of armed strife and repression, their are other powers in the world just as willing and capable of resorting to mass destruction to get their way. Opposing BAE Systems was easy when the news was full of the destruction wrought on Baghdad, its much less so now that the news is full of Russian strikes on hospitals and schools and the ruin of Bakhmut.
The Security Dilemma is also the main reason why the previously somewhat sucessful strategy of partial demilitarisation won't work in the long run. The organised anti-war movement was somewhat sucessful in getting specific types of weapons of destruction to be seen as taboo and were able to leverage the outrage and disgust over them to get some states to adopt laws and subscribe to treaties that would phase out parts of their stockpiles. Land Mines, Cluster munitions and multiple types of chemical and biological weapons and some Nuclear munitions were after years of blood, sweat and tears from millions of passionate campaigners starting to look like endangered species. But now much of that work may well be undone as recent conflicts demonstrate to all the powers that these horrific tools do have practical applications.
In Syria Assad's regime used chemical weapons to break an rebellion that may well have toppled him. He also heavily relied on aviatian, artillery and Iranian and Russian support but the case studies he ran using Chlorine shells will prove useful in certain circles. The war in Ukraine fought between two nations which have not outlawed Cluster munitions or land mines have demonstrated how militarily useful both can be in certain conflict scenarios. When the United States of America which also has not subscribed to the ban on Cluster munitions started supplying Ukraine with some of its stockpiles the leaders of the governments in Western Europe were grilled quite heavily about the issue for a week. They all just reiterated their official opposition to these weapons and then concluded they could do nothing about it.
The only way to solve the Security Dilemma is to take an approach at the root of the issue. Banning F-14s and their equivalents globally won't effect Cruise Missiles, getting Cruise Missiles scrapped won't touch Tanks or Mortars, nor stop the logic that drives businesses to operate in the arms markets, nor states from investing and supporting these companies and the wider market. If we ever genuinely want to see a world free of F-14s, SU-34s, Elbit produced Drones, AK-47s, Challenger 2s, Mirage Fighter Jets and Scud Missiles, we need to attack their support structure.
The military industrial complex and its ancestors have always been extremely resource intensive and required decades of support and investment to bare fruit. Without the capitalist market and the State system they will not be sustainable. If humanity truly is doomed by nature to a cycle of fratricidal violence (which is not what I believe but others apparently do) than by taking away his toys and the workshops that build those toys will prevent the worst excessises of that nature. Anti-Militarism without a Materialist strategy for resistance will be doomed to ultimate failure.
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher meeting key economic ally General Jaruzelski dictator of the People's Republic of Poland
I saw one of those strange "Why I left the left" type posts on Twitter the other day, one of those that go "In my rebellious youth I used to be X, but now I'm older and wiser" type messages that go onto to establish that they probably never were X and its coin flip whether they were never really committed to it or just making it up as a cheap rhetorical device. In this particular case, it was a twitter stalinist explaining how they were once an anarchist and are now, thanks to Historical Materialism, ™ seen the sterile light of Marxism-Leninism-whateverism.
It got me thinking of my dear stepdad and his life. I knew him as a sweet and mild man with a doddy sense of humour, but in his youth in the 70s and early 80s he was a punk rocker with a bright blue Mohawk and went on demos and protests to ban the bomb and end unemployment. One day I asked what had changed and explained. It started with getting a regular job, nothing like the monotony of wage labour to eat a way at your vitality and free expression!
This job was with British Sugar, he worked at a depot loading freight and then unloading them. The job was not great, if you've done manual work in factories or in logistics you'll know, it's monotonous and tiring, but it was steady employment, and he cracked on, he always had a reputation for being a grafter. No, the reason this job lead to a complete change in outlook and attitude for him was because one day he noticed something odd, the sugar he was unloading was the same sugar he had been loading for hours on end. The sugar was untouched the only difference was that it was covered in customs marks from the Soviet Union, the USSR was an importer of British Beet sugar as trade between Western and Eastern Europe was extensive and grew throughout the period.
You might be wondering why this would be a source of epiphany, well for shipments in Tons to cross international borders and work in a cycle as regularly as it did had to be a corruption scheme. And what made it worse was for millions of Tons of goods to be used in this manner required the active participation of officials on both sides, at least that's how he saw it. Keep in mind this was the Cold War where people walked around with the threat of Nuclear annihilation, and yet both the Thatcher's Britain and the Soviet Union, supposedly irreconcilable enemies and totally alien societies were wasting hours of labour and millions of Pounds/Rubles lining the pockets of minor officials.
In effect, he was given direct, first-hand proof that the world he lived in and believed was a con. And he wasn't wrong, it goes beyond sugar, contrary to popular myths that North American Neo-Stalinists and Regan mourners keep a live the powers that be were willing to make money out of the international working class (this part editorialising here, he never used this kind of language) and so all this talk of revolution was nothing but hot air.
I've chosen the image above for an important reason, that is Margaret Thatcher and General Jaruzelski, apart from a photo-op the connections ran so deep that in 1984-5 when Thatcher was fighting to destroy the Miners and then the wider British Workers Movement she turned to Apartheid South Africa and "Communist Poland" for help. Coal Mining was the backbone of the Polish economy for many years, and they could deliver.
“UK imports of Polish house coal have been running at almost double
their usual rate since the beginning of the year. If the strike had not
taken place about 130,000 tonnes of Polish house coal would have been
imported this year. But traders say that so far 100,000 tonnes have
been landed, and the final total for the year to likely to be 200.000
tonnes. Cawoods, part of the Redland Group, based at Cheltenham,
confirmed yesterday that it had placed an order for 30,000 tonnes of
domestic coal. It had purchased individual cargoes of Polish coal
previously but this is its first long term contract.” (17th May 1984) Financial Times, sourced from https://ukrainesolidaritycampaign.org/2015/04/12/how-stalinism-helped-defeat-the-great-miners-strike-in-1984-85/
It couldn't be more clear, the Actual Existing Record of Actually Existing Socialism is one of scabbing on and international scale, during the Miners Strike the arch Cold Warrior Thatcher was vulnerable like never before, and yet the vanguard of world socialism just took advantage to double their pre-existing contracts.
My step-dad held several jobs learning the trades before jacking it all in to become a self-employed Handyman, he ended his work life as a window cleaner enjoying the lack of a boss and the freedom to tell abusive customers where to stick it. Not a viable path to emancipation for the dispossessed but it was he own personal victory on a system that took him and the rest of us for a mug.
Humour is subjective, but not sure, I'd get along with anyone who found Bartleby hilarious
"I would prefer not to"
I finally managed to catch my White Whale. Bartleby, the 2001 film adaptation of Herman Melville's short story about a Wall Street clerk, has been on my watchlist for some time. Bartleby belongs to that category of film that seems like it'd be pretty interesting but never appears on anything, so better hope the bare-bones DVD is still in print. I've been interested in Bartleby ever since I mistook it for a Cohen brothers film, looks like me and Bill Murray have something in common after all. But unlike Bill I'm glad I was mistaken, Bartleby which was directed and written by Jonathan Parker, and it is a strange miserable vaguely hostile movie about the crushing of the individual by corporate productivity.
I know that doesn't sound like a good time, but the odd thing about Bartleby is that it gets its hooks into you. There were times when I found myself mirroring the confused musings of David Paymer's The Boss, and wanting to figure out this puzzle. I had not read Melville's short story before watching the movie, the reason for that is that I attempted to read Moby Dick and according to my bookmark I have been stuck two hundred or so pages into it for three years now, which dulled my enthusiasm for checking out the rest of his work for a time. I suppose I should finish it, but if you'll forgive the joke, "I would prefer not to".
So I went in largely blind, the film opens with a brief biography of Herman Melville, it sets the tone for the rest of the film, Herman Melville's more psychological works found few readers, and he was forced to get a job as a scrivener in a customs house, as hard as it is to believe today, he died at the age of 72 in obscurity. Hilarious right? Sorry, I understand from experience that marketing unorthodox products is an impossible task. Just like with Slasher, I understand why movies like this would be stuck in the comedy box. Grumbling about the quote aside, that poster is a good representation of the confusion and isolation at the heart of Bartleby.
Bartleby is one of those odd ducks that doesn't fit in. I think it's very good with a lot to offer an audience, but I do understand why it failed to leave a massive impression. As a product, it is as awkward and difficult to work with as Bartleby the character. Every part of this movie is dedicated to showing normal life and normal work as slightly hostile but largely indifferent to human beings as human beings and not economic functionaries. The camera angles and lighting make office spaces look sinister, the exterior of the office building is a model of a concrete lump on top of a rock that overshadows the urban sprawl and is so isolated you can't get to it without driving a car, character interactions are defined by friction and cross purposes, it's rare that two characters have a conversation where both participants are on the same page, even something as simple as "how's your day going?" causes tension. Crispin Glover's Bartleby is weird and awkward, but his differences are by degree and not kind. Everyone in this film is odd, it's just that Bartleby is more noticeable, but this isn't much of an issue while Bartleby continues to work it's the value to the company that ultimately matters and The Boss while a little uncomfortable with Bartleby is willing to live with it.
The breaking point comes when Bartleby starts to gradually withdraw his labour, justifying his actions with the phrase "I would prefer not to". Immediately this ratchets up the tension and Bartleby becomes a source of bullying, The Boss doesn't feel right firing such an awkward person so tries to find a justification for doing so, while that goes on Bartleby continues to withdraw, refusing more and more work and to answer questions from his increasingly perplexed and frustrated boss and co-workers. We're never given an answer as to why Bartleby withdraws into himself, the Boss and his co-workers guess that he has some kind of mental illness or learning difficulty Attention Deficit Syndrome* is one of them. But it's clear that whatever is at the root, living and working as a "normal" person is making it much worse.
The Boss who tries to resolve the problem fails ultimately because all he can offer is work support or a recommendation letter to help him find other work. Since it is work itself and the lifestyle that comes with it that is at issue, these offers are useless. Bartleby ends up being treated like every other person who cannot work, homeless and arrested for vagrancy before being forcibly cast into the gutter. At that point his withdrawal into himself is so complete he can't even interact with the community and customs of the homeless, he starves to death outside a soup kitchen because he can't go inside and the workers their won't go outside and bring him food.
The Boss has been torn throughout the movie between his two selves, The Boss who employs Bartleby and the human who knows Bartleby. As The Boss, he tries to persuade, cajole and compel Bartleby to be a normal worker and when that fails attempts to cut Bartleby off from his life. The human part of him though has a mix of curiosity and pity for Bartleby and tries to get him to conform and be normal for his own sake. He does not take the failure very well, after Bartleby's death he tries to keep him alive by turning his notes on Bartleby into a book, the book is rejected for being too sad and strange. This rejection and his inability to get the publisher to understand the importance of Bartleby pushes him into emulating Bartleby, shouting "I would prefer not to" as the publisher tries to get him out of her office.
Overall, I'm not surprised Bartleby has struggled to find mainstream appeal, but I do wonder if audiences nowadays would be more receptive to Bartleby. Office Space was another movie about how work sucks, it sucks so much that it sucks your essence out of you, it's regarded as a classic now with many memes, but it was a bit of a flop on release in 1999. I remember watching very late at night in the dead air slot in the early 2000s and had to work hard to convince my friends to watch, I only managed to do so by telling them Rachael from Friends was in it.
If you think about it, "I would prefer not to" is a response HR would have to work really hard to justify disciplinaries over, it's polite and you aren't unambiguously saying no.
We now live in less optimistic times, everyone agrees that work is awful, even senior management at most companies have to waste their time reminding everyone to take care of themselves. Perhaps, the jaded masses of the current year could empathise with Bartleby and his struggles and respect his flawed attempt to take control of his life.
* As someone with ADHD Bartleby doesn't seem the type, apart from occasionally hyperfocusing and I think he might be trying to avoid something given Glover's pained expressions in those scenes he seems more likely to be processing trauma which is made harder by his surroundings and life.
Last Christmas, I scratched It's a Wonderful Life off my to watch list. It took me awhile, I suppose it was a combination of never being on TV when I was free at Christmastime and a case of absorbing much of the film via cultural osmosis due to the staggering number of other media spoofing, parodying and tributing the film. I learnt about the key plot twists as a child thanks to the Simpsons and an episode of Johnny Bravo. I was surprised to learn that the bits everyone knows about are only a fraction of the film, and that I still really enjoyed it despite popular culture spoiling nearly every key scene. Initially Jimmy Stewart's performance stunned me since I had been under the impression that his aww shucks and golly gee dialogue and put upon but dogged demeanour combined with that semi-warble line delivery was a product of exaggerated spoofs and not the performance of a Hollywood leading man.
It's a great film, has a good moral, the cast plays their roles excellently, I didn't feel its length and this is nothing new to anyone whose seen the film. All I'll say on that is that if you were like me and were in no rush to see it, give it a go, it'll be a pleasant evening.
So, with that out of the way, the reason I'm talking about this movie is politics. The film was controversial on release wayback in 1946, the FBI in an early move in the second Red Scare investigated the film on suspicion of it being Communist propaganda.
There is submitted herewith the running memorandum concerning
Communist infiltration of the motion picture industry which has been
brought up to date as of May 26, 1947....
With regard to the picture "It's a Wonderful Life", [redacted] stated
in substance that the film represented rather obvious attempts to
discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a "scrooge-type" so
that he would be the most hated man in the picture. This, according to
these sources, is a common trick used by Communists.
[redacted] stated that, in his opinion, this picture deliberately
maligned the upper class, attempting to show the people who had money
were mean and despicable characters. [redacted] related that if he made
this picture portraying the banker, he would have shown this individual
to have been following the rules as laid down by the State Bank Examiner
in connection with making loans. Further, [redacted] stated that the
scene wouldn't have "suffered at all" in portraying the banker as a man
who was protecting funds put in his care by private individuals and
adhering to the rules governing the loan of that money rather than
portraying the part as it was shown. In summary, [redacted] stated that
it was not necessary to make the banker such a mean character and "I
would never have done it that way."
Which is of course total nonsense. Yes, Mr Potter as portrayed by Lionel Barrymore is an absolute scumbag who you're supposed to hate with vehemence, but Jimmy Stewart's character is also a banker. The film isn't Communist at all, Capra the director of the film is throwing his weight behind small scale community oriented capitalism. Bailey Brothers Building and Loans is a bank and its importance as an institution in the town and the hope it provides to the residence of Bedford Falls is salvation through capital investment, the homes they're building and enabling the community to buy come from those investments.
Potter and Bailey are opposed ideologically, but it's an ideological divide within, the logic of capitalism. Potter represents old monopoly capitalism, he spends the film trying to destroy the Bailey Brothers because they are the one sole form of competition in the area, so he as the big established capitalist uses every advantage he has to break the rival bank, and when that fails he just steals from them to try and deal the killing blow. I think what really got the FBI and its informant [REDACTED] ornery was that Potter, the villain, is representative of the American system, he's the typical capitalist and so criticism of how he acts and behaves is criticism of officially sanctioned America. He also doesn't face any punishment for his many morally and ethically dubious but often legal actions. I don't know if Frank Capra was consciously aware of just how damning that is a judgement of American society. The film shows us that the established powers in America can use that power to crush the good in society out of personal spite or paranoia over a potential competition, and they can do that with impunity.
The real tragedy is that in the real world, the Potters won. Credit Unions, community and co-operative banks still exist in the present and some have grown to some size, but compared to the banks' ala Potter? Pebbles next to mountains. The successful stakeholder initiatives increasingly morph into or sell to the big banks, which are now so big and concentrate so much capital that they can plunge the whole global economy into recessions when they screw up. And closer to home, the Potters won the battle for the film.
It's a Wonderful Life didn't just annoy the FBI, it did poorly with the critics and was a box office disappointment. It languished in obscurity and was such a low priority that when the copyright was up for renewal in 1974 it was botched, pushing the film into the public domain. Thanks to that clerical error that led to the film's eventual rise to classic status and beloved fixture of American holidays. TV stations could air the film in exchange for royalties to the owner of the copyright of The Greatest Gift, the 24-page source material, which still made it much cheaper to show than most alternative films. This also probably played a role in why the film is so widely referenced, parody is protected under the doctrine of Fair Use, copyright can still provide grounds for offended rights holders to make it not worth the trouble.
Republic Pictures used its ownership of the copyright to the source material to clamp down further on the distribution of the film, effectively forcing it back into copyright. Republic Pictures had closed down in the 1960s and was revived in the 80s due to business restructuring, shortly after reclaiming It's a Wonderful Life they were folded up into Viacom. No one who worked on the story or the film is connected with the royalties and fees that are accrued by the film today. The cinematic community has been robbed of the film thanks to the power of large corporations to influence the legal system of the United States with their large law firms and lobbying agents.
I suppose It's a Wonderful Life has some solace for us, in the film Potters triumph as bleak as it is not the end of the struggle, George Bailey doesn't give into despair despite the many trying obstacles, he earns his happy ending and we can too.
About a month ago, I paid a visit to the local chemist to pick up my stepdad's prescriptions while he was away on a trip. I got everything except Ozempic, they told me they had run out so if he was running low he should contact his Doctors to source a replacement. That's annoying but nothing new, there've been noticeable supply chain issues for a long time now, exacerbated by a protracted transfer of ownership of the chemists in my area.
The day after, I was watching the local BBC news station, and it was interviewing a man complaining about his difficulties acquiring Ozempic. I paid close attention to the story. It emerged that the reason for the scarcity of Ozempic over here isn't part of the normal supply chain issues, the COVID lockdowns, surge in fuel and cargo prices, war in Ukraine, ships getting stuck in the Suez Canal etc. No, the main cause for the rarity of the powder blue stabbers is apparently a massive celebrity and influencer (I hate that word) craze over a wonderful weight loss drug called... Ozempic.
After the report, which included clips from some California award show with Hollywood actors I didn't recognize making jokes about how Ozempic is the reason for that super skinny look that's popular in those parts, I got my phone out, went on several social media sites and searched #Ozempic. I was flooded with comments, tweets, videos, photos, gifs and memes all chiming in about this wonderful, amazing new weight loss drug. So, I can say that the news wasn't exaggerating, there is a real push to get in on the buzz.
I was left quite worried. Worried because my stepdad still hasn't been able to find a replacement that doesn't come with severe and unpleasant side effects, though he did manage to find another months supply, we've been told no one in the region can get more until August 2024. I'm also worried about the people who are buying it up in large quantities, because Ozempic is not a weightloss medication, it is prescribed for diabetic patients, they need to take it in order to live. I know it can be hard to lose weight, I'm one of those people who seem to be a roundabout, lose some weight one month only to get it back the next and changes in diet and exercise don't seem to make much difference. And yes, Ozempic can assist in weightloss as one of the effects is a suppression of appetite, but it's designed for diabetic patients who again need it to treat a life limiting condition. Diabetes will kill if not monitored and treated. There are many other things out there that can suppress appetite, my ADHD medication does that, and I've noticed some consistent reduction in weight, which is why I won't tell you what it is, it's difficult enough for me to source my medication already without some clout chasing instastreamer shilling it as the wonder drug of the month.
I was furious at the people who are taking it because it's the latest fad, and still am to a degree, their actions are playing a role in scarcity of an important resource. But, with reflection, there's more blame to go around. They are part of the problem and the ones who are pushing this for monetary gain or purely for social media popularity, which appears to be what the majority of them are doing this for, are worthy of contempt, but this is a symptom and not the cause. We're at a moment in history where the question of production is largely solved, there are few products that cannot be produced at scale and one of the supposed benefits of capitalism is the so-called law of supply and demand, which is a guarantee that needs (demand) will be taken care of (supply) with little delay. Well, we all can see that that is a lie and this is just one of the proofs. That's the true horror here, the vast majority of medical research and production is not done for need but for a profit on a market. While the terminology refers to the takers of medication as patients, the reality is that they are a consumer base.
In this particular case, we have two conflicting consumer bases, diabetics who are long term customers, but numbers are limited, and the weight loss customers whose potential numbers outstrip the diabetics so most of the supply is going to the demand of the latter. It's not a new thing, I've spoken to friends and acquaintances that are on long term medications, and they've noticed that sometimes difficulties getting their medication correlate with some surge in popularity for some other effect. It's probably killed a lot of people and made others lives much worse. I wasn't being flippant when I said I will not disclose what medication I take, it took me years to get a prescription, and it's a constant hassle to get it every month, and while it's a controlled substance in the UK it isn't in parts of the United States where it's made, just one minor e-celeb recommending it to fuck me over completely.
And one other issue with this system we have, I didn't know where to place it, so I'm ending the blog on this point. Part of the reason this horrifies me is that I don't think most of the people buying Ozempic because of the hype campaign know what they're doing. When I was searching through the hashtags and such, I saw multiple posts "revealing" that not only is Ozempic the magic cure to an expanding waistline, but it also apparently has the ability to fix your heart. This alarmed me because it's not a secret that Ozempic has beneficial effects for people with heart conditions, it's on the packaging and is a major factor in why Ozempic is prescribed over other alternative Diabetic treatments. It's the reason my stepdad was put on it, he has diabetes and heart issues and thanks to Ozempic he doesn't have to juggle heart and diabetes medication. It removed a tonne of stress and worry over keeping on top of 20+ pills a week.
So, if lots of people are taking a diabetic medication that affects the heart without supervision, and they weren't even aware of these effects, then that is a very worrying sign. Medicine doesn't work like it does in video games, it isn't a totally beneficial for everyone who takes it. It helps my stepdad regulate his insulin and sugar levels and his heart, but that doesn't mean it will for you or everyone else. I would not recommend anyone take anything that affects your heart without some form of monitoring and supervision. My ADHD medication is controlled because it does very destructive things to normal people, over a 100mgs can kill you. For me, it gives me focus and aside from some light nausea it's been negative free. I'm the only one in my support group that's on it, everyone else is on other medications because mine didn't work for them, some of them have been on dozens with multiple changes in dosage, times of taking them etc, and some have had very nasty side effects.
Treating medication as a commodity that can just be bought and used or abused is a very dangerous thing. This system doesn't benefit anyone except for the small few who own it.
Posts
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
