Deep Freedom: John Mellencamp - Freedom Road

My recent post includes several references to speeches by Roberto Unger on the concept of Deep Freedom. In an essay for IPPR Unger defines this concept as:
" In opposition to the political ideas that have most recently guided ideological controversy around the world, but similarly to those that used to influence such debate in the 19th century, deep freedom combines a devotion to the empowerment of the ordinary person – a raising up of ordinary life to a higher plane of intensity, scope and capability – with a disposition to reshape the institutional arrangements of society in the service of such empowerment. In the design of social, economic and democratic institutions, deep freedom has priority over any form of equality of circumstance. Equality of opportunity is a fragmentary aspect of deep freedom."
The converse of deep freedom is of course shallow freedom. I think that these are easier to define, becaouse to most of us they are more tangible. Shallow freedoms are those granted to wage-slaves to give them the impression of choice; the illusion of autonomy. John Mellencamp gives a very incisive depiction of this in his song Freedom's Road.
The obstructions that we find along our journey along Freedom's Road are the same institutional obstructions that prevent people from really being free. Many people are obliged to take poorly paying jobs just to pay the rent or pay for expensive food. They are wage slaves earning a fraction of the value that their work produces and paying a fortune in housing that ultimately will only further enrich the corporate banks.

John Mellencamp  - Freedom's Road, 2007.
I'm navigating my way down Freedom's Road
Trying to make my way back home
I got my foot to the floor
But she must need bleeding
This car just don't want to roll
Freedom's Road must be under construction
Sometimes you wonder what kind of freedom they're talking
If you're here looking for the devil
You'll find him on Freedom's Road

Freedom's Road, Freedom's Road
If you want to take a ride
Well you've got to pay the toll
Freedom's Road, Freedom's Road
If you're looking for the devil
He's out there on Freedom's Road

Sometimes there's rape sometimes there'll be murder
Sometimes just darkness everywhere
No passing signs and barbed wire fences
Misinformation but no one cares
Freedom's Road can get narrow
No one wants to know you
If there's no pork in your barrel
If you're here looking for the devil
He's out there on Freedom's Road

Freedom's Road, Freedom's Road
If you want to take a ride
Well you've got to pay the toll
Freedom's Road, Freedom's Road
If you're looking for the devil
He's out there on Freedom's Road

You can drop your bombs
You can beat the people senseless
But that won't get you anywhere
Hide your agendas behind public consensus
And say that this world just ain't fair
Freedom's Road is a promise to the people
You'll never fool us now
With all your lying and cheating
If you're here wanting a crown in heaven
It's out there on Freedom's Road

Freedom's Road, Freedom's Road
If you want to take a ride
Well you've got to pay the toll
Freedom's Road, Freedom's Road
If you're looking for the devil
He's out there on Freedom's Road

Inequality, Ed Miliband and Deep Freedom

This piece was first posted on Labour Uncut on 24th January 2014 (Heading by website editor)

Ed Miliband is the only politician talking about what really matters: inequality

by Robin Thorpe
With Ed Miliband’s recent talk of rebuilding the middle class and his previous rhetoric of the squeezed middle are we now seeing a resurgence of class consciousness? Or is Ed just focusing on familiar words to cloak his lack of credible policies? I sincerely hope it is the former. The problem with the concept of class is that because the labour market is now so diverse it can be difficult for people to identify what class they are. Perhaps, therefore, we should just recognise that there are broadly only two classes of people; the ‘power elite’ and the rest of us.
I can understand why people may want to cling to the notion that there is a hierarchy of socio-economic divisions that we can climb up if we only work hard enough. People have evolved to compete for resources and societies have long been predicated on prestige and social position. But surely we must now recognise that the division between the elite and the rest is so entrenched that it will take more than a bit of pluck and a protestant work ethic to break the stranglehold of inequality. Will Hutton has written that he thinks that Ed Miliband’s “cost of living” crisis is a sideways route into opening up an argument over inequality and I hope that he is right.
Enabling effective change will not be easy; there are many vested interested who will oppose a recalibration of the way that our economy works. The obvious attack on Miliband’s ambition is to decry it as statist and anti-business. Fraser Nelson writes in the Telegraph that a Labour government implementing this agenda would result in “companies refusing to invest, and wealth-creators leaving”. This argument ignores the fact that the notion of state vs. business is a false choice; neither can this choice be defined as socialism vs. capitalism. Instead it should be defined as shallow versus deep freedom.
Steve Davies from the Institute for Economic Affairs (on Radio 4’s The Longview) agrees that the cost of living is a real problem for those on low wages; in particular the cost of housing. But he also states that workers must increase their productivity to improve their wage-earning capacity, as if low wages are their fault for not working hard enough. Solving the problem of the cost of living will still leave people dependant on increasingly precarious employment.
A leader in The Economist recently made a very good case for the importance of skills and education in combating this phenomenon and why we should invest more in pre-school and adult learning. But also admits that this will still result in some people relying on a benevolent state to provide subsistence. These actions may mitigate the worst aspects of poverty but they will not ameliorate the effects of inequality.  Some inequality is an inevitable by-product of an organised society, but extreme levels of inequality are bad for everybody.
Those who would seek to maintain the status quo will offer a risible rise in wages and will continue to provide state-sponsored subsistence to bribe the voters. They will provide schemes to maintain the majority in machine-like jobs and will present mortgage debt as an aspiration for all. They will not attempt to increase opportunity and autonomy because to do so would threaten the interests of those who wield political influence. For them freedom means less regulation and redistribution. It means the absence of state interference in the business of multiplying wealth.
These political schemes of varying complexity and success may lead to some future prosperity and may guarantee future jobs, but the majority of individuals will still have very little influence on their personal future. People will still be bound to the will and caprice of employers. The majority of people will still subsist on wages that represent a small proportion of the value that their employment creates and the cost of living will continue to rise as the banks and other vested interests maintain the high cost of housing.
To challenge the system of inequality it is necessary to implement radical change to bring about greater personal and collective freedoms. To settle for anything less is to accept the existing institutional framework. The framework that offers varying combinations of state and market designed to ensure that the inequalities generated by the market are corrected by the redistributive and regulatory activity of the state. The very fact that people in their droves are fleeing the country and travelling to cities such as London in search of a job, any job, is proof enough that people don’t just want more equality. People want more consumption, more excitement, more of everything except equality. Deep freedom, the capability to make more of their own life, must be the objective of radical change.
Perhaps I am reading too much in to what Milband is trying to do; but it definitely seems to me that in his speeches on ‘predators’ and ‘pre-distribution’ he is pitching to represent the 99%. And that he is willing to take on the ‘Power Elite’. Blair and Mandelson famously shied away from challenging the ‘shadow cast on society by big business’, seeking merely to attenuate the effects. I hope that Miliband is brave enough to try and that we give him the opportunity to effect real and lasting structural change.
In order to be successful Miliband must first raise awareness that he alone represents the interests of the people. He must not just convince traditional Labour supporters but all the electorate that a vote for Labour is a vote in favour of the collective interests of the 99%.  He must convince the electorate that the status quo only serves the interests of the elite and that Labour will enact meaningful change.
Ed Miliband is certainly influenced by his father and by other notable socialists Tariq Ali and C. Wright Mills. The papers have recently been suggesting that he aims to be a 21^st Century Teddy Roosevelt. I suspect that he has also been reading George Lakoff:

 “The liberal market economy maximizes overall freedom by serving public needs: providing needed products at reasonable prices for reasonable profits, paying workers fairly and treating them well, and serving the communities to which they belong. In short, “the people the economy is supposed to serve” are ordinary citizens.”

I think that all political parties have done the people a disservice by pretending that ‘we are all middle-class now’. Yes disposable incomes are higher; yes more people now work in offices rather than in manual occupations. But the availability of credit and the cultural incitement to home and car ownership means that just as many people are now wage-slaves, dependant on employment to pay for their ‘standard of living’, as they ever have been. As Ernest Bevin said “We must not confuse democracy with the maintenance of a particular form of economic or financial system…rather it is a condition which allows for change in the system itself”’

Bombers Moon - Mike Harding

4 in Bomber County<BR>
young men waiting for the night, <BR>
In the hedgerows birds are singing, <BR>
Calling in the falling light. <BR>

And the captain says, <BR>
'Tonight there'll be a bomber's moon, <BR>
We'll be there and back underneath a bombers' moon. <BR>
A thousand bombers over the northern sea<BR>
Heading out, out for Germany.'<BR>

Chalkey White stands at the dartboard, <BR>
Curly Thompson writes to his wife, <BR>
Nobby Clarke and Jumbo Johnson<BR>
Are playing cards and smoking pipes; <BR>

And over the hangars rises a bombers' moon, <BR>
Full and clear rising, as the engines croon<BR>
And the planes they taxi out on to runway five<BR>
And sail off out into the silvery night. <BR>

Sandy Campbell checks his oil gauge, <BR>
The Belgian coast is coming soon; <BR>
Curly Thompson lifts his sextant, <BR>
Lines up on a bombers' moon<BR>

And waves are shining there below the bombers' moon. <BR>
The Lancasters flying high below the bombers' moon<BR>
Coming in along the Belgian coast<BR>
A thousand silver-shrouded ghosts. <BR>

Flak flies up around the city, <BR>
Jumbo Johnson banks his plane, <BR>
Goes in low and drops his payload, <BR>
Turns to join the pack again. <BR>

And people are dying there below the bomber's moon, <BR>
The city's a raging hell below the bomber's moon, <BR>
And the planes head out towards the northern sea: <BR>
Young men coming home from victory. <BR>

Over Belgium came the fighters, <BR>
Flying high against the night; <BR>
Curly Thompson saw them coming, <BR>
Closing in before he died. <BR>

And the young men shot them down below the bomber's moon, <BR>
Shot them down in flames below the bomber's moon; <BR>
Young men sending young men to their graves<BR>
Saw them down into the North Sea waves. <BR>
<BR>
'83 in Bomber County<BR>
Mrs White dusts the picture and she cries: <BR>
Chalkey White in uniform<BR>
Looking as he did the day he died. <BR>

And for God's sake no more bombers' moons, <BR>
No more young men going out to die too soon, <BR>
Old men sending young men out to die, <BR>
Young men dying for a politician's lies. <BR>

For God's sake no more bombers' moons, <BR>
No more young men going out to die too soon, <BR>
Old men sending young men out to kill. <BR>
If we don't stop them then they never will. <BR>
<BR>
No more no more bombers' moons. <BR>
<BR>
No more no more bombers' moons. <BR>
<BR>
No more no more bombers' moons. <BR>
<BR>
No more no more bombers' moons. <BR>
<BR>

If I can Dream - Elvis Presley

White Poppies are for Peace "The idea of decoupling Armistice Day, the red poppy and later Remembrance Day from their military culture dates back to 1926, just a few years after the British Legion was persuaded to try using the red poppy as a fundraising tool in Britain. A member of the No More War Movement suggested that the British Legion should be asked to imprint 'No More War' in the centre of the red poppies instead of ‘Haig Fund’ and failing this pacifists should make their own flowers. The details of any discussion with the British Legion are unknown but as the centre of the red poppy displayed the ‘Haig Fund’ imprint until 1994 it was clearly not successful. A few years later the idea was again discussed by the Co-operative Women's Guild. In 1933 the first white poppies appeared on Armistice Day (called Remembrance Day after World War Two). The white poppy was not intended as an insult to those who died in the First World War - a war in which many of the white poppy supporters lost husbands, brothers, sons and lovers - but a challenge to the continuing drive to war. The following year the newly founded Peace Pledge Union began widespread distribution of the poppies and their annual promotion." Taken from http://www.ppu.org.uk/whitepoppy/index.html

G. G. Osborne speech CPC2013; CCR - Fortunate Son

I've been a little busy with my everyday life to blog recently but George Osborne got under my skin today - and not in a good way.

I didn't hear all of his speech, as I was travelling for work, but what I heard seemed to be full of contradictions and made-up stuff. Apparently in a country such as Britain, where we dug deep for coal and explored the North sea for oil and gas, we shouldn't be afraid of extracting shale gas and shale oil. But also we should admire Thatcher for recognising the need to modernise (or whatever he said); is that the same Thatcher that closed the mines and destroyed Britains industrial heartlands?

Osborne said that Labour should have run a surplus during the good times; would that be the same good times during Osborne pledged to match Labour spending? Osborne plans to make individuals have been long-term unemployed undertake work-placements in exchange for their JSA payments. So there is work that these people can do; they just can't actually get paid a fair wage to do it?

Osborne decried Miliband's plan to reform the energy market by stating that if the price freeze were to be a realistic possibility then energy providers would jack up the price before and after the freeze to recoup there profits; seemingly failing to recognise that this sort of behaviour is why the market needs reforming and that if it is possible to hike prices before a price freeze then it only shows how ineffectual the regulation of the energy market is.

During his speech he also stated that his parents took a risk and started their own business and that he grew up with his father running the business. He may be trying to present himself as a pro-business guy who recognises that people take risks but he can't seriously expect us to believe that his parents were actually staking their livelihood on a decorating business? Risk is where something bad might actually happen, not playing at setting up a shop with inherited capital. If the business failed they would not have been destitue, possibly poorer, but not homeless, hungry and without hope.




 Creedence Clearwater Revival - Fortunate Son Songwriters: JOHN C. FOGERTY
Some folks are born to wave the flag,
Ooh, they're red, white and blue.
And when the band plays "Hail to the chief",
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord,

It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no senator's son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me;
I ain't no fortunate one, no, Yeah!

Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,

It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no millionaire's son, no.
It ain't me, it ain't me;
I ain't no fortunate one, no.

Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,
 And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh,

 It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, one.
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no no no,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son, no no no,

SOLIDARITY FOREVER - Utah Phillips

TUC this week - a special union song; Solidarity Forever. The Union makes us strong. I especially like the slide in this video that says; "When someone tells you they got rich through hard work, ask them Whose?"

The Universal Soldier -

The song Universal Soldier was written in the 1960s by Canadian Buffy Sainte-Marie and is therefore bound up with the Vietnam War protest movement. The song was written as a general protest against war and therefore has wider connotations. The pretext, as Sainte-Marie explains in this video is that each individual must bear responsibility for individual actions. If enough people come together and say we will not fight, then war will end. In an enlightened society, where people have the ability and the freedom to come to their own conclusions then war will end. In a closed society, where people have neither the freedom or the information from which to make up their own mind then people will continue to fight their fellow people.

He's 5 foot 2 and he's 6 feet 4 He fights with missiles and with spears He's all of 31 and he's only 17. He's been a soldier for a thousand years He's a catholic, a Hindu, an atheist, A Buddhist, and a Baptist and Jew. And he knows he shouldn't kill And he knows he always will kill You'll for me my friend and me for you And He's fighting for Canada. He's fighting for France. He's fighting for the USA. And he's fighting for the Russians. And he's fighting for Japan And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way. And He's fighting for democracy, He's fighting for the reds He says it's for the peace of all. He's the one, who must decide, who's to live and who's to die. And he never sees the writing on the wall. But without him, how would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau? Without him Caesar would have stood alone He's the one who gives his body as a weapon of the war. And without him all this killing can't go on He's the universal soldier And he really is the blame His orders comes from far away no more. They come from him. And you and me. And brothers can't you see. This is not the way we put an end to war