larlet-fr-david-cache/cache/2461e08e1dea19ba1c1e7ef18c6f8ce8/index.md

title: Abandon hope (summer is coming)
url: http://k-punk.org/abandon-hope-summer-is-coming/
hash_url: 2461e08e1dea19ba1c1e7ef18c6f8ce8

<p><a href="http://k-punk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/zomby-where-were-you.jpg"><img src="http://k-punk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/zomby-where-were-you-300x300.jpg" alt="zomby-where-were-you" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-1402"/></a></p>
<p>So it was to be a re-run of 1992, after all. It seems that even elections are subject to retromania, now. Except, this time, it is 1992 without Jungle. It’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Orq_75kFi8I">Ed Sheeran and Rudimental</a> rather than <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5xa0CmeQp8">Rufige Kru</a>. Always ignore the polls, wrote <a href="https://jeremygilbertwriting.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/300-am-thoughts-on-another-general-election-defeat/?fb_action_ids=10155759772135314&amp;fb_action_types=news.publishes&amp;fb_ref=pub-standard">Jeremy Gilbert</a> late on election night. “You get a better sense of what’s going on in the electorate by sniffing the wind, sensing the affective shifts, the molecular currents, the alterations in the structures of feeling. Listen to the music, watch the TV, go to the the pubs and ride the tube. Cultural Studies trumps psephology every time.” </p>
<p>Contemporary English popular culture, with its superannuated PoMo laddishness, its smirking blokishness (anyone fancy a pint with Nigel?), its <a href="https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/4583/classless-broadcasting">poverty porn</a>, its craven cult of big business, has become like some gigantic Poundbury <a href="http://cookham.blogspot.co.uk/2007_06_06_archive.html">Village</a> simulation, in which nothing new happens, forever … while ubiquitous “Keep Calm” messages, ostensibly quirky-ironic, actually function as <em>They Live</em> commands, containing the panic and the desperation …</p>
<p>England is a country in which every last space where conviviality might flourish has been colonised by a commercial imperative …. supermarket check-out operatives replaced by <a href="https://vimeo.com/79315807">crap robots</a>… unexpected item in bagging area… every surface  plastered with corporate graffiti and haranguing hashtags …  no trick missed to screw every last penny out of people… exorbitant parking charges in NHS hospitals (exact amount only, no change given), all the profits going to private providers …    </p>
<p>Everything seen through a downer haze… “Mostly you self-medicate” … comfort eating and bitter drinking ….  What’s your poison?</p>
<blockquote><p>The suburbs are hallucinating, England is hallucinating. Monster Ripper and Smirnoff, Brandy Boost, oversized glasses of chardonnay at Weterspoons monday club, valium scored for a few quid in the pub , the stink of weed drifting from portakabins, red eyes and yellow bibs.. The pharmaceuticals indiustry is one of UK Plc’s biggest success stories ( along with arms dealing and loans companies) as prescriptions for anti depressants are kept on repeat. (<a href="http://lauraoldfieldford.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/seroxat-smirnoff-thc-9-october-29.html?q=seroxat">Laura Oldfield Ford</a>) </p></blockquote>
<p>Time for one more, Nigel? </p>
<p>Time, gentlemen, please ….</p>
<p>There is no time … Time is on your side (yes it is) …  </p>
<p>In any case, <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/shaun-lawson/polls-and-most-of-forecasts-are-wrong-ed-miliband-will-not-be-next-prime-min">Shaun Lawson</a> is to be congratulated – if that is the word – for what turned out to be an astonishingly accurate prediction of how the election would go. My attempts to refute the parallels with 92 in my last post were as much wishful thinking as anything else. I suppose at some level I knew after the BBC Leaders Debate how things would go – which is why I found watching it so dejecting. (Another rhyme with the past: Ed’s stumble at the end of his interrogation by the petit-bourgeoisie was a minor echo of Kinnock’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh8ktNsie0I">tumbling into the sea</a> in 1983.) </p>
<p><strong>Don’t fear …</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://k-punk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/11219629_1077279205620211_3774312807824708646_n.jpg"><img src="http://k-punk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/11219629_1077279205620211_3774312807824708646_n-225x300.jpg" alt="11219629_1077279205620211_3774312807824708646_n" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-1405"/></a></p>
<p><em>UKIP leaflets in a litter bin at Manningtree station, Essex, on Wednesday</em></p>
<p>It seems that the very thing which gave us hope – the possibility of vacillating Labour being pulled to the left by an alliance with the SNP – might have been what motivated Tory voters to come out in such numbers in England. (Another echo of 92: fear as a hyperstitional force.) The truth is what many of us have long suspected: Labour lost this election five years ago, by failing to challenge the Tories’ narrative. Yet this failure wasn’t about the wrong leader, PR strategy or even policies; it is ultimately rooted in Labour’s disconnection from any wider movement, and this is in turn rooted in the wider emergence of capitalist realism. Blairism may have won Labour three elections, but the unfolding of its logic could well lead to the destruction, in the not so far distant future, of the party. As <a href="http://blogs.channel4.com/paul-mason-blog/labour-failed-win-worse/3671">Paul Mason</a> acidly summarises, “Labour no longer knows what it is for, nor how to win power.” With Blairism, Labour knew how to win power, but in acquiring this knowledge, it forgot what it was for. </p>
<p>That existential quandary is bitterly ironic given that there is a large proportion of the population in England – I still believe it is the majority – which  feels it has no party which represents it. I maintain that the shift to UKIP is ultimately much more to do with this sense of disenfranchisement and despair than with any intrinsic tendency towards racism or even nationalism in its supporters. Everyone has chauvinistic potentials of one kind or another which can be activated by particular sets of forces.  Ultra-nationalism is a symptom of the failure of class politics; or, class politics emerges through the ultra-nationalist lens in a distorted and displaced way. </p>
<p><a href="http://k-punk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/IMG_0100.jpg"><img src="http://k-punk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/IMG_0100-225x300.jpg" alt="IMG_0100" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-1417"/></a></p>
<p><em>Ipswich Waterstones</em></p>
<p>As Paul Mason also points out, a return to Blairism will certainly not win back those Labour supporters who turned to UKIP. In England, as in Scotland, it was Blairism’s taking for granted and abandonment of its working class base that produced the sense of betrayal which led to so many former Labour supporters losing patience with the party on Thursday. In Scotland, the response to betrayal took a progressive form; in England, it assumed a reactionary mode. Partly, this is because there was no progressive outlet available in England. Working class English voters alienated from Labour’s Oxbridge elite were left a choice between a UKIP that deliberately talked up its appeal to working families, and an array of small left-wing parties to whose message they were not exposed and which had no chance of being elected. UKIP were also practically forced on them to by a political media so decadent, so boring, that it counts Nigel Farage as a charismatic flash of colour. Hence what <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/meme-politics-and-apathy-in-ukip-on-sea">Tim Burrows</a> calls “the curiously mediated entity of Farage, a man whose direct manner, coloured tweed and pints of ale seem made for meme-politics. UKIP are more popular on Facebook than Labour and the Liberal Democrats put together.” </p>
<p><strong>Don’t Despair … </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://k-punk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/IMG_0106.jpg"><img src="http://k-punk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/IMG_0106-225x300.jpg" alt="IMG_0106" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-1421"/></a></p>
<p><em>Failed attempt to photograph a defaced Tory poster in Tory heartland, Suffolk, Saturday</em></p>
<p>It would be easy to fall into despair about England after Thursday; it would be easy to conclude that the country is full of selfish, mean-spirited and stupid individuals. Yet we have to remember that most people’s engagement with politics is quite minimal; thinking in political terms, framing everyday life in terms of political categories, is now a minority pursuit. This is not a moral or intellectual failing on the part of the electorate: it is a consequence of a neoliberalism which has largely succeeded in its aim of disabling the mechanisms of mass democracy. Overworked and told they need to work harder, busy, but sill feeling that they can’t get everything done, many are too drained to care. (<em><a href="http://markspectre.tumblr.com/post/118509772008/space-to-think">To knackered to think</a>, just give me time to come round …</em> ) How many Tory voters are committed Conservatives, really? Mostly, they are jaded and detached, maybe voting out of fear as much as self-interest (and self-interest is often experienced as fear). </p>
<p>Capitalist realism is not about people positively identifying with neoliberalism; it is about the naturalisation and therefore the depoliticisation of the neoliberal worldview. The Tories’ pitch is in tune with this ambient neoliberalisation, with its apparently commonsensical emphasis on choice, opportunity and the dignity of labour, and its emotional appeal to negative solidarity. To break out of this, you need a repoliticisation, and this requires a popular mobilisation, just as we saw with the SNP. </p>
<p>The Tory success depended upon a popular de-activation (the days of Thatcher’s rallies are long gone). There was no enthusiasm for either of the two leading parties. The only party that could call on massive popular enthusiasm in the UK was the SNP. That popular enthusiasm – an enthusiasm that capitalist realism is set up to prevent emerging – is the rushing in of something that, for a long time, there hasn’t seemed to be any glimmer of in England: the future.</p>
<p><strong>Don’t be depressed …</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://k-punk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/IMG_0102.jpg"><img src="http://k-punk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/IMG_0102-225x300.jpg" alt="IMG_0102" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-1418"/></a></p>
<p><em>BHS Ipswich</em></p>
<blockquote><p>What hope for a country where people will camp out for three days to glimpse the Royal Couple? England is like some stricken beast too stupid to know it is dead. Ingloriously foundering in its own waste products, the backlash and bad karma of empire. (William Burroughs)</p></blockquote>
<p>So we shouldn’t take the Tories’ victory as a sign that we are totally out of sync with the majority of the population in England. As Jeremy remarked to me on Thursday, it is not as if the equivalent of Syriza or Podemos had lost. (Although that was part of what was so devastating – our expectations were low, but reality contrived to go even lower.) Given the serious weakness of Labour’s offer, given the ferocity of the attack on Labour from the right wing media machine in the UK, given the failure of supposedly neutral popular media such as the BBC to offer the public an adequate account of the banking crisis and its aftermath, it is actually surprising that the Tories’ victory was not even more comprehensive. Those who voted Tory aren’t necessarily indifferent to the suffering of the poor, or to the plight of the vulnerable – most merely accept (why wouldn’t they) the capitalist realist story about there being “no money left” and the need for “difficult choices”. No doubt, their acceptance of this is somewhat self-serving; no doubt, it depends on keeping those who suffer out of sight or in their peripheral vision. </p>
<p>But it is also a fundamentally depressing and depressive outlook. There is a connection between capitalist realism and <a href="http://www.zero-books.net/books/anti-matter">depressive realism</a>. The idea that life is essentially drudgery (and that therefore no-one should get a free ride) is a depressive conception of fairness (if I have to be miserable, so should everyone else), which has a particular traction in a burnt-out post-protestant culture like England’s … (England is the oldest capitalist country, don’t forget …) </p>
<p>All Cameron offered was more of this depression: a vision of a man chipping ice off his windscreen and going to a job he hates, forever. Yet Labour not only failed to offer a narrative about how the economy had gone wrong, it also failed to offer any positive vision of what society would look like if it had its way. I’m convinced that even the most minimal sense of this might have been enough to have inspired people to reject the Tories. Yet the fact that Labour couldn’t offer it was not some mistake (a few more focus groups and meetings with advertising people, and they’d have been there!). It was one more symptom of the way in which the party has been completely colonised by capitalist realism. </p>
<p>The Tories quickly abandoned the “Big Society” after the 2010 campaign, but the concept did actually point to what neoliberal culture has corroded: the space between “individuals and their families” and the state. In addition to its clunky and uncommunicative name – it was a kind of anti-meme – the problem with the “big society” was that, in the Tories’ hands, it was a transparent ruse to dismantle the welfare state. To resocialise a culture that has been individualised to the extent that England has demands massive resources – it requires time and energy, the very things that capital (especially the contemporary neoliberal, English version of capital) strips us of most thoroughly. </p>
<p>Real wealth is the collective capacity to produce, care and enjoy. This is <a href="http://luxurycommunism.tumblr.com">Red Plenty</a>. We, and they, have had it wrong for a while: it is not that we are anti-capitalist, is that capitalism, with all its visored cops, its teargas, all the theological niceties of its economics, is set up to block Red Plenty. The attack on capital has to be fundamentally based on the simple insight that, far from being about “wealth creation”, capital necessarily and always blocks our access to this <a href="http://www.allofusfirst.org/tasks/render/file/?fileID=DF06657B-0516-476C-B6CF455893DC3F7F">common wealth</a>. <a href="http://www.weareplanc.org/the-elections-are-over-we-still-want-everything-for-everyone/#.VVBToKbKbFK">Everything for everyone</a>. <a href="http://www.allofusfirst.org">All of us first</a>.	</p>
<p>Labour has allowed election after election to be fought not on the Red terrain of resocialisation, but on the Blue territory of identitarian community, with its border guards (we’ll have as many as you!) and barbed wire fences (they will be as high as yours!) The genius of the progressive forces which have seized the SNP, meanwhile, was to have moved from the Blue of identitarian community – and the nationalism of colonised peoples is of course very different to the nationalism of the colonisers – to the Red of internationalist cosmopolitan conviviality. </p>
<p>Red belonging offers something different to traditional forms of belonging (faith, flag, family – so many corrupted forms of the commons, as Hardt and Negri have it). <a href="http://www.onlineopen.org/article.php?id=154">Jodi Dean</a> has movingly described how the Communist Party in the US “gave some Americans the feeling that the world was of one piece, their work meaningful as the work of a class, their struggles significant as part of a global struggle to liberate collective work from those claiming it for their own private profit. For desperately poor and barely literate immigrants, communism is a source of knowledge and power – the knowledge of how the world works and the power to change it.” The sense of belonging here could not be reduced to the chauvinistic pleasures that come from being an insider in any group whatsoever; it was a special sense of involvement that promised to transfigure all aspects of everyday life in a way that, previously, only religion had promised to, so that even the dreariest task could be imbued with  high significance. “Even those engaged in the boring, repetitive work of distributing leaflets or trying to recruit new members as the official line changed, or chafing against the smugness of higher ups, experience their life in the party as intensely meaningful.”  </p>
<p>As opposed to the essentially spatial imaginary of Blue belonging – which posits a bounded area, with those inside hostile and suspicious towards those who are excluded – Red belonging is temporal and dynamic. It is about belonging to a movement: a movement that abolishes the present state of things, a movement that offers unconditional care without community (it doesn’t matter where you come from or who you are, we will care for you any way). </p>
<p><strong>But don’t hope either …</strong>  </p>
<p><a href="http://k-punk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/IMG_0088_2.jpg"><img src="http://k-punk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/IMG_0088_2-300x175.jpg" alt="IMG_0088_2" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-1422"/></a></p>
<p><em>Red flag flying in Orford last week</em></p>
<p>“There’s no need to fear or hope, but only to look for new weapons,” Deleuze writes in “Postcript on Societies of Control”. He was no doubt thinking of Spinoza’s account of hope and fear in the <em>Ethics</em>.  “There is no hope unmingled with fear, and no fear unmingled with hope,” Spinoza  claimed. He defines hope and fear as follows: </p>
<blockquote><p>Hope is a joy not constant, arising from the idea of something future or past about the issue of which we sometimes doubt. </p>
<p>Fear is a sorrow not constant, arising from the idea of something future or past about the issue of which we sometimes doubt.</p></blockquote>
<p>Hope and fear are essentially interchangeable; they are passive affects, which arise from our incapacity to actually act. Like all superstitions, hope is something we call upon when we have nothing else. This is why Obama’s “politics of hope” ended up so deflating – not only because, inevitably, the Obama administration quickly became mired in capitalist realism, but also because the condition of hope is passivity. The Obama administration didn’t want to activate the population (except at election time).  </p>
<p>We don’t need hope; what we need is confidence and the capacity to act. “Confidence,” Spinoza argues, “is a joy arising from the idea of a past or future object from which cause for doubting is removed.” Yet it is very difficult, even at the best of times, for subordinated groups to have confidence, because for them/ us there are few if any “future objects from which cause for doubting is removed.” </p>
<p>“Class disadvantage is a form of injury inflicted on the person at birth,” David Smail explains. “The confident slouch of the hands-in-pocket, old Etonian cabinet minister speaks not so much as a current possession of power (on some measures the union boss might possess as much) as of a confidence which was sucked in with his mother’s milk.” (Even if the milk he fed on was unlikely to have come from his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apO3B_o6dz8">mother</a>). The welfare state was supposed to be a structure which removed some of this doubt, while the imposition of precarity is a political project designed to remove the confidence that the working class had attained after years of struggle. (See Jennifer M Silva’s heartbreaking <em>Coming Up Short: Working-Class Adulthood in an Age of Uncertainty</em> – a book to which I shall certainly return in future posts – for an account of the devastating impact of precarity on the emotional lives of young working class men and women in the US.) </p>
<p>Whereas hope and fear are superstitious (although they may have some hyperstitional effects), confidence is essentially hyperstitional: it immediately increases the capacity to act, the capacity to act increases confidence, and so on – a self-fulfilling prophecy, a virtuous spiral.</p>
<p>So how are we to rebuild our confidence? While the conditions are difficult – and in England, they are about to get much more difficult – we can still act, and act imminently and immanently. How? </p>
<p><strong>Socialisation beyond social media</strong></p>
<p>The answer of course is that many groups are already doing what is necessary. But these processes will become more powerful when they are logistically co-ordinated (which is not to say “unified” – unity is a strategic weakness, not a strength) and bound together by stronger common narratives and fictions. Jason Read’s essay <a href="http://www.academia.edu/11159929/The_Order_and_Connection_of_Ideology_Is_the_Same_as_the_Order_and_Connection_of_Exploitation_Or_Towards_a_Bestiary_of_the_Capitalist_Imagination">“The Order and Connection of Ideology Is the Same as the Order and Connection of Exploitation: Or, Towards a Bestiary of the Capitalist Imagination”</a> explains why narrativisation is so important. In his account of two neo-Spinozist thinkers, Frédéric Lordon and Yves Citton, Read reminds us that  “our desire, our loves and hates, are already shaped by narratives, by scripts inherited through television and books. We enter into a world already scripted, and, as Spinoza argues in his definition of the first kind of knowledge, our life is defined as much by signs and images as things experienced.” This means</p>
<blockquote><p>that the scenarios that we imagine, the stories and narratives that we consume, inform our understanding of reality, not in the sense that we confuse fiction with reality, but that the basic relations that underlie our fictions shape our understanding of reality. It is not that we confuse fiction with reality, believing everything that we see, but that the fundamental elements of every narrative, events, actions, and transformations, become the very way that we make sense of reality. Fiction exists in a permanent relation of metalepsis with reality, as figures and relations from one constantly inform the other.</p></blockquote>
<p>This is why the intensification and proliferation of the capitalist technologies of reality management and libidinal engineering in the 1980s was not merely some happy coincidence for neoliberalism; neoliberalism’s success was inconceivable without these technologies. It is also the reason that direct action, while of course crucial, will never be sufficient: we also need to  act <em>indirectly</em>, by generating new narratives, figures and conceptual frames. </p>
<p>By first of all imposing a particular set of narratives, figures and frames which it then naturalised, capitalist realism hobbled what Jason Read identifies as the “particular power of humanity (and the linchpin of our emancipation)”: “our faculty to reorder differently the images, the thoughts, the affects, the desires and the beliefs that are associated in our mind, the phrases that come out of our mouths, and the movements that emanate from our bodies.” Cultural Studies was also based on this account of the capacity for reordering (which it derived partly from Spinoza, via Althusser). The reordering of images thoughts, affects, desires, beliefs and languages plainly cannot be achieved by “politics” alone – it is a matter for culture, in the widest sense. </p>
<p>Seen from this point of view, the locking of popular culture into repetition that I describe in <em>Ghosts Of My Life</em> – and which Simon Reynolds also describes in <i>Retromania</i> – is therefore a very serious problem. Popular culture’s incapacity to produce innovation is a persistent ambient signal that nothing can ever change. Sometimes, it can seem fiendishly difficult to account for what has happened to popular culture, but the explanation for its sterility and stasis is ultimately quite simple. Innovation in popular culture has overwhelmingly come from the working class. Neoliberalism has been a systematic and sustained attack on working class life – the results are now all around us. </p>
<p>Furthermore, the incursion of capitalist cyberspace into every area of life and the psyche has intensified the processes of de-socialisation. This is not to say that there are no progressive potentials in the web, but these have almost certainly been overrated, while the impact of cyberspace in de-socialising culture and subjectivity has been massively underestimated. Here I merely rehearse Bifo’s account of semiocapitalism and Jodi Dean’s critique of communicative capitalism, but it is important to operationalise this critique.</p>
<p>Blogs and social media have allowed us to talk to ourselves (but not to reach out beyond the left bubbles); they have also generated pathological behaviours and forms of subjectivity which not only generate misery and anger – they waste time and energy, our most crucial resources. Email and handhelds, meanwhile, have produced new forms of isolation and loneliness: the fact that we can receive communications from work anywhere and anytime means we are exposed to work’s order-words when we are alone, without the possibility of support from fellow workers. </p>
<p>In sum, the obsession with the web, its monopolisation of any idea of the new, has served capitalist realism rather than undermined it. Which does not mean, naturally, that we should abandon the web, only that we should find out how to develop a more instrumental relationship with it. Put simply, we should use it – as a means of dissemination, communication and distribution – but not live inside it. The problem is that this goes against the tendencies of handhelds. We all recognise the by now cliched image of a train carriage full of people pecking at their tiny screens, but have we really registered how miserable this really is, and how much it suits capital for these pockets of socialisation to be closed down?</p>
<p><strong>Knowing someone in this life feels as desperate as me</strong></p>
<p>Some folk in Plan C have been talking about consciousness raising, and for many reasons, I believe that it is a crucially important to revive and proliferate this practice (or range of practices) now. Consciousness raising is partly about the discovery and production of subjugated knowledges, but it is also about the immediate production of socialisation, of forms of subjectivity antithetical to the always/on-always lonely mode of contemporary capitalist individuality. </p>
<p>Consciousness raising opens up the possibility of <em>living</em>, not merely theorising about, a collective perspective. It can give us the resources to behave, think and act differently at work (if it makes any sense to talk about being ‘at’ work any more), where capitalist realism has become second nature. The roots of any successful struggle will come from people sharing their feelings, especially their feelings of misery and desperation, and together attributing the sources of these feelings to impersonal structures, albeit impersonal structures mediated by particular figures to which we must attach populist loathing. </p>
<p>In the harsh conditions of cyberspatialised capitalism – conditions that, as Jennifer M Silva demonstrates, have produced a “hardening” of the self, especially in the young – consciousness raising can produce a new compassion, for others and for ourselves. Neurotic-Oedipalising capitalism responsibilises, harshly blaming us, while – in its therapeutic mode – telling us that we have the power as individuals to change anything and everything: if we’re unhappy, it’s up to us to fix it. Consciousness raising, meanwhile, is about positive depersonalisation: <strong>it’s not your fault</strong>, it’s capitalism. No individuals can change anything, not even themselves; but collective activation is already, immanently, overcoming individualised immiseration.</p>
<p>So I present below a number of strategies, practices and orientations, starting from the most immediate (something groups can do right now) and moving towards the more remotes. The list is of course not exhaustive; and I can’t claim credit for coming up with any of the strategies myself. The point is to share them, add to them, elaborate them. </p>
<p>The chief obstruction to all of these steps is what, in a trenchant and clear-eyed analysis, <a href="http://wire.novaramedia.com/2015/05/election-reactions-our-commons-are-being-privatised-its-time-for-more-time/">Ewa Jasiewicz</a> calls “time poverty”:</p>
<blockquote><p>Our time is under attack. Work will be intensified, worse paid, and more casualised – if we don’t have it, we’ll be working to have it; mandatory and supervised job searches and workfare will see people forced to spend their time locked into coerced, computerised distraction. A real, diverse, working class self-representative movement needs to include people facing and living these experiences, but how will that happen when we’re too tied up working?</p>
<p>Access to time and our own labour is key and will determine participation and the ability to organise. If we can’t have our own time to organise, we can’t organise, we can’t meet each other, we cannot find each other. Work and the benefits regime – which is work under different conditions and profit margins –  are key sites of struggle. Solidarity will need to step up if we are to win workplace disputes and strikes, refusals of workfare and support for people getting sanctioned, so that people have more control over their time and labour.</p>
<p>All our commons are under attack. The condition of time poverty and its roots – intensification of labour, welfare repression, criminalisation and incarceration – have to be recognised as major obstacles to movement, diversity and power. These obstacles need to be tackled if we want to overcome the ideology of wage labour as a determinant of human value on a popular level. </p></blockquote>
<p>The problem is that, in order to struggle against time poverty, the main resource we require is time – a nasty vicious circle that capital, with its malevolent genius, now has … This problem is absolutely immanent – writing this and the other posts I have completed this week has meant that I have fallen enormously behind on my work, which is storing up stress for the next week or so. </p>
<p>The first thing we must do in response to all this is to put into practice what I outlined above: try not to blame ourselves. <strong>#it’snotyourfault</strong> We must try to do everything we can to politicise time poverty rather than accept blame as individuals for failing to complete our work on time.  The reason we feel overwhelmed is that we <em>are</em> overwhelmed – it isn’t an individual failing of ours; it isn’t because we haven’t “managed our time” properly. However, we can use the scarce resources we already have more effectively if we work together to codify practices of collective re-habituation (setting new  rules for our engagement with social media and capitalist cyberspace in general for example).   </p>
<p>Any way, here goes:</p>
<p><strong>1. Talk to fellow workers about how we feel </strong> This will re-introduce <a href="http://wire.novaramedia.com/2015/05/election-reaction-a-space-is-opening-up-fill-it-with-everything-the-tories-are-desperate-to-destroy/">care and affection</a> into spaces where we are supposed to be <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/04/07/life-in-the-accelerated-academy-carrigan/">competitive and isolated</a>. It will also start to break down the difference between (paid) work and social reproduction on which capitalism depends. </p>
<p><strong>2. Talk to opponents</strong> Most people who vote Tory and UKIP are not monsters, much as we might like to think they are. It’s important that we understand why they voted as they did. Also, they may not have been exposed to an alternative view. Remember that people are more likely to be persuaded if defensive character armour is not triggered.   </p>
<p><strong>3. Create knowledge exchange labs</strong> This follows from what I argued <a href="http://k-punk.org/communist-realism/">a few days ago</a>. Lack of knowledge about economics seems to me an especially pressing problem to address, but we could also do with more of us knowing about law, I suspect. </p>
<p><strong>4. Create social spaces</strong> Create times and spaces specifically dedicated to attending to one another: not (yet more) conferences, but sessions where people can share their feelings and ideas.  I would suggest restricting use of handhelds in these spaces: not everything has to be live tweeted or archived! Those with access to educational or art spaces could open these up for this purpose. </p>
<p><strong>5. Use social media pro-actively, not reactively</strong> Use social media to publicise, to spread memes, and to constitute a counter-media. Social media can provide emotional support during miserable events like Thursday. But we should try to use social media as resource rather than living inside it at all times. Facebook can be useful for discussions and trying out new ideas, but attempting to debate on Twitter is absurd and makes us feel more stressed. (He says, thinking of the time when, sitting on a National Express coach, perched over his handheld, he tried to intervene in an intricate discussion about Spinoza’s philosophy – all conducted in 140 characters.)  </p>
<p><strong>6. Generate new figures of loathing in our propaganda </strong> Again, this follows up from what I argued in the <a href="http://k-punk.org/communist-realism/">Communist Realism</a> post. Capitalist realism was established by constituting the figure of the lazy, feckless scrounger as a populist scapegoat. We must float a new figure of the parasite: landlords milking the state through housing benefit, “entrepreneurs” exploring cheap labour, etc. </p>
<p><strong>7. Engage in forms of activism aimed at logistical disruption</strong> Capital has to be seriously inconvenienced and to fear before it yields any territory or resources. It can just wait out most protests,but it will take notice when its logistical operations are threatened. We must be prepared for them cutting up <em>very</em> rough once we start doing this – using anti-terrorist legislation to justify practically any form of repression. They won’t play fair, but it’s not a game of cricket – they know it’s class war, and we should never forget it either.</p>
<p><strong>8. Develop Hub struggles</strong> Some struggles will be more strategically and symbolically significant than others – for instance, the Miners’ Strike was a hub struggle for capitalist realism. We might not be able to identify in advance what these struggles are, but we must be ready to swarm in and intensify them when they do occur. </p>
<p><strong>Summer is coming</strong></p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ger.killeen/posts/10153323166253384?fref=nf&amp;pnref=story">Lannisters</a> won on Thursday, but their gold has already run out, and summer is coming. What we saw in the debates dominated by Nicola Sturgeon was not a mirage – it is a rising tide, an international movement, a movement of history, which has not yet reached an England sandbagged in misery and mediocrity. Comrades, I hope (ha!) for the sake of your mental health and your blood pressures that you didn’t see the right wing tabloids over the weekend (tw for class hatred): middle England crowing over its “humiliation” of “Red” Ed. Well if they think Ed was Red, wait until they see the coming Red Swarm. Outer England has been sedated, but it is waking from its long slumber, carrying new weapons ….</p>
<p><a href="http://k-punk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/11156331_1077279225620209_5539083972603731927_n.jpg"><img src="http://k-punk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/11156331_1077279225620209_5539083972603731927_n-225x300.jpg" alt="11156331_1077279225620209_5539083972603731927_n" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-1406"/></a></p>
<p><em> <a href="http://markspectre.tumblr.com/post/118635459473/please-abandon-your-realist-expectations-dead">Flatford</a> on Wednesday morning</em></p>