Recent Tweets @rumagin


Scott Brown’s campaign called me a “liar” because Mayday.US used the word “Washington lobbyist” in a way I thought ordinary people ordinarily understand it — to describe a person who sold his influence to a business in the business of changing legislative policy in Washington.

Now former…

What cultural logics connect recent confrontations in Ferguson, Gaza, and east Port of Spain? The short answer is militarism, poverty and racism.

Peter Kraska, a professor of justice studies, describes police militarisation as “the process whereby civilian police increasingly draw from, and pattern themselves around, the tenets of militarism and the military model.”

Watching events in Ferguson and elsewhere in the USA it is clear the sale and transfer of billions in weapons and military equipment to police forces around the US has created a militarised police force unable to fathom the concept of community policing.

In Gaza, the Israeli state’s embrace of an ideology of militarism has produced a dire public health crisis. The connection there is not just one of ideology but of training and equipment too. The same gun, projectile, and shell casings, manufactured by the same US companies like Combined Tactical Systems, litter the streets of Ferguson and the rubble of Gaza. While Israeli security forces also trained two law-enforcement agencies in Ferguson.

In east Port of Spain, the state, under the leadership of Captain Griffith is also involved in turning residential areas into militarised zones. The Captain’s answer to those speaking out at the inherent dangers of police and soldiers treating citizens and residents as wartime enemies is east Port of Spain is the safest it has been in years. And women and children can walk securely again.

Conveniently, Griffith leaves out the part about residents jumping from one dire situation to another or how making neighbourhoods into state enforced military zones, and making people live under conditions that feel like occupation, helps in the long term?

The second link between Ferguson, Gaza and east Port of Spain, is a history of poverty. To fail to see the inhabitants of all three as victims of economic injustice, and blame individuals for troublemaking, is to be blind to the context, provocation, and reasons people behave as they do. Crime is often a product of social conditions, and no policing including militarised policing can totally eliminate it.

Poverty for all three areas is structural. This means poverty is a historical legacy, reinforced rather than solved by the state. Whether it’s the 7-year blockade of Gaza, or the underdevelopment of Ferguson and east Port of Spain, the outcomes of intergenerational poverty produce populations and persons in need of support, development and uplifted social conditions. Not more state violence, destruction, and further retreat from social norms

The final link between the three is racism. This is the link that makes sense of why persons in power accept militarisation and poverty in areas they are not from. Racism is easy to see in Gaza and Ferguson. How could events be described otherwise? The Israeli state is founded on racism, while US police statistics illustrate being black there is a different and more dangerous experience than being white.

In T&T we might pause and say the issues found in east Port of Spain are less to do with race and more to do with class. After all the hotspot areas are low income and we have no white majority. Yet that would be an error. Yes these situations are about economic realities but they are patterned by the racist ideologies of their colonial origins.

The sadness about acknowledging connections between confrontations in Ferguson, Gaza and east Port of Spain is no leadership anywhere is willing to recognise that when militarisation, poverty and racism blend we’ve returned to the colonial logic of racist imperialism and white supremacy.

One form of racist supremacy in this new imperialism is the false pride with which leaders look at their supposed interventions. Whether its Netanyahu, Thomas Jackson (the Ferguson police chief), or our own Captain Griffith, the problem to them is always the people in those under siege communities.

That is why the powerful and their military agents dehumanise and mistreat them. Yet these fair-skinned male leaders, and it is always men, are so enamoured of their actions they fail to see the context or consequences of their ideas.

It isn’t the people who are the problem. Lawlessness is a symptom, not the cause. Whether its crime, or looting or riots, these are some ways the powerless take back power. Many might not like such social rebellion but it’s symptomatic of a wider problem sewn into the fabric of modern society.

That problem is the cultural logic of colonialism. Its armed forces, economic looting and white supremacy never completed went away; they just continued along submerged and are back in the open for all to see.

Race and racism in America and the world explained in 50 seconds by Tupac

Putting aside the bizarre notion that an idea can feel “demeaned” or “abused”, the Chancellor’s position implies that the University of Illinois will not tolerate biologists or physicists who are “disrespectful” (in her sole judgment) of creationists or even of creationism.


Hampstead Heath

Last week acting Prime Minster Errol McLeod warned Winston Duke, the PSA and wider society that “violating the Industrial Court’s injunction is violating the rule of law and could lead to anarchy.” COP leader Prakash Ramadhar did not use the word anarchy but agreed the strike was an attack on law and order.

“Anarchy” is one of those apparently straightforward words. Most persons understand it as a descent into chaos and disaster. And politicians deploy it because it sparks a dark image of the rule of law giving way to a primordial battle of all against all. Not to mention it’s a popular word many citizens use to lament everyday life.

One of the ironies of this descent into anarchy meme is it never applies to all citizens equally. For example when elites ignore the rule of law, say in corruption or fraud cases, politicians never evoke the moral panic of a society-wide descent into lawlessness. 

To cut a long story short, to the acting PM and probably most other incumbent political figures in any government, anywhere in the world, the anarchic are people who threaten the status quo as defined by the powerful and elite. 

Now many persons do not agree with Winston Duke and his tactics. It is impossible to deny the backlog and frustrations many citizens have endured. While the failure of the state to provide travel documents to its citizens is clearly a serious breakdown in the social contract. 

Yet let us not fool ourselves. As Walter Rodney pointed out in 1972, “the state arose as an instrument to be used by a particular class to control the rest of society in its own interests.” As much as most citizens think it is there to look after their own needs as citizens, the state’s central function is to protect wealth and private property. So if and when the not-so-rich fight and denigrate amongst themselves, as they often do over worker rights, and as they are doing now, the state and its status quo is safest.

This is where the definition of anarchism gets interesting. In the political sociology literature anarchism has a different definition from that generally understood or suggested by the acting PM. 

Anarchism most accurately means “without rulers”. It as an umbrella term for a variety of different political ideologies concerned with organising life from a bottom-up perspective, distinct from the top-down system of bourgeoisie democracy and the post-colonial state bureaucracy we currently endure.

What does this mean? How does a society without rulers even work? Actually, the foundations of anarchism aren’t that unfamiliar to what many people intuitively feel are solutions to many social problems. Anarchist ideas and principles include mutual aid, voluntary association, decentralisation, direct democracy, egalitarian decision-making, participatory management, and dismantling the machinery of state rule. 

Anarchism is a faith and practice in fundamental human values. Yet such simple ideas are dangerous to the status quo and this is why the real meaning of anarchism is replaced with fear and stigma in popular culture, politics and academia.

The anthropologist David Graeber offers a useful description of anarchy: “On one level it is a kind of faith: a belief that most forms of irresponsibility that seem to make power necessary are in fact the effects of power itself. In practice though it is a constant questioning, an effort to identify every compulsory or hierarchical relation in human life, and challenge them to justify themselves, and if they cannot – which usually turns out to be the case – an effort to limit their power and thus widen the scope of human liberty.”

Which brings us back to the acting PM’s statement. Yes, we all want public service workers to be there for our needs. And yes we all understand for this to happen they must be treated fairly and have a healthy working environment. So why is jail being threatened for persons asking such things? And why is it suggested the whole of society will descent into lawlessness for such demands to be resolved? 

In this sense right and left politics become the repressive vs. the anarchic. The former is our post-colonial road that favours wealth and private property, the latter is an alternative way to think about solving problems and politics in the interests of all, especially those with little wealth and private property.

The irony is the acting PM, a once revered trade unionist, now describes solving workers’ rights as a nightmare descent into lawlessness, in need of repression. When anarchy more accurately, as the acting PM probably knows himself, would be an on-going conversation about rebuilding the entire system and providing workers with input into their working conditions.

Today, the attitudes of the populations of the First World towards the lives of people in the Third World range from relatively benign pity, ironic indifference and willful ignorance; to negative stereotypy—a willingness to believe anything bad that is said about a particular Third World people or their putative “culture” and a refusal to relate privilege in the First World to oppression in the Third World—through to contempt, disdain and outright, outspoken and violent hatred. Thus, there is a common tendency to imperialism, corporatism and a blase disregard for the painful reality of super-exploitation. The national-chauvinism, parochial jingoism and racism of the First World working class is not the product of false class consciousness; working-class conservatism in the imperialist countries is not so much the product of “traditional deference,” but of global preference. It is the end product of a long and violent process wherein the economic and political privileges of living in an imperialist nation have come to seem natural and acceptable to the First World citizenry, as relative winners in the global class struggle.
Zak Cope, Divided World Divided Class: Global Political Economy and the Stratification of Labour Under Capitalism (via socio-logic)

(via socio-logic)

How might we make sense of the current situation in Gaza? What knowledge and experience can we bring to bear on the situation from Caribbean colonial history?

One place to look is the writings of the late Martiniquan, Aimé Césaire, and his powerful book, Discourse on Colonialism. Born in 1913, Césaire was a gifted thinker who completed his studies in France and was a leading light of the Caribbean diaspora in Europe.

Some described the book as “a declaration of war.” Others spoke of it as a “third world manifesto.” Its central thesis was what is the impact of colonialism, not simply on the colonised and their own societies but on the coloniser themselves?

Written soon after the end of World War II, Discourse on Colonialism spoke to the West from an anti-colonial position and considered reasons for the moral and spiritual collapse of Europe that led to Fascism, Nazism and the holocaust. There are two key observations amongst many in the book that might be most pertinent to current Israeli actions.

The first is Colonialism as a system of “proletarisation”. By this concept Césaire explained how in the construction and later continuation of a system of domination and subordination, colonialism prepared the ground for capitalism. It did this through the creation of “false consciousness” within both the coloniser and colonised.

By this he meant colonisers needed to maintain a system of inequality where they were understood as the superior race. One way colonisation achieved this was with the belief and structure of racial inequality.

Césaire explained how the coloniser needed to create a world where the colonised were dehumanised and seen as uncivilised, in need of salvation through being conquered and developed. This false premise of superiority and the perceived inequality between colonised and coloniser allowed the coloniser to justify their brutal activities and prepared Colonies for class based society.

Of course this notion of development and salvation was always a charade. But as Césaire wrote, it provided many Europeans with a false belief and justification for Colonialism. What was original and precocious about Césaire’s reading is he took the observation further to describe how the dehumanisation of Colonialism poisoned Western morality and humanism.

Césaire noted when we remove the facade of Colonialism as development we begin to see colonialisation as an illness infecting European civilisation. It had consequences. The direst of which was Nazism, Hitler, and the holocaust.

This was a bold link to establish and most Europeans were unable to see this for themselves. Césaire’s argument was simple. Colonisation and Nazism had the same foundations. The same ideas. The same cruel and inhumane logic.

The reason why Colonialism was acceptable to European civilisation Césaire argued was because it was done to non-whites and non-Europeans. The dehumanisation of colonial thinking he said cultivated Nazism within European culture. For Césaire, Hitler emerged from the cultural logic of racial domination over others found in the Colonial encounter.

European philosophers had always justified Colonialism on European superiority and a divine duty to civilise the world and regenerate inferior races. A European majority never refuted such ideas; it was part of their belief system. Only with Nazism and the holocaust was this belief system thrown into doubt.

As Césaire noted, the reason Nazism was viewed differently to Colonialism was not because of the inhumane act itself but that, “it is the crime against the white man, the humiliation of the white man, and the fact that [Hitler] applied to Europe colonist procedures which until then had been reversed exclusively for the Arabs of Algeria, the coolies of India, and the blacks of Africa.”

Césaire described how Colonialism decivilised the coloniser, brutalised him and degraded him. He stressed colonisation “dehumanises even the most civilised man; that colonial activity, colonial enterprise, colonial conquest, which is based on contempt for the native and justified by that contempt, inevitably tends to change him who undertakes it.”

Césaire called this the “boomerang effect of colonisation.” And here we can forewarn the Israeli state and its G7 supporters using Césaire’s own words.

“No one colonises innocently, no one colonises with impunity either; a nation which colonises, a civilisation which justifies colonisation – and therefore force – is already a sick civilisation, a civilisation that is morally diseased, that irresistibly, is progressing from one consequence to another, one repudiation to another, and calls for its Hitler, I mean its punishment.”

Seen through the eyes of Césaire, the Israeli state’s current actions not only have the same cultural logic found in European Colonialism and Hitler’s Nazism. They also illuminate the racism at the heart of the Israeli state.


By Carlos Latuff

(via bkcarib)

Because today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups… So I ask, in my writing, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms. I do not distrust their motives; I distrust their power. They have a lot of it. And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing.
Philip K. Dick (via theministryoftruth)

(via buffleheadcabin)

By putting government and politics into the center of economic analysis, Polanyi makes it clear that today’s vexing economic problems are almost entirely political problems. This can effectively change the terms of modern political debate: Both left and right today focus on “deregulation”—for the right it is a rallying cry against the impediments of government; for the left it is the scourge behind our current economic inequities. While they differ dramatically on its desirability, both positions assume the possibility of a “non-regulated” or “non-political” market. Taking Polanyi seriously means rejecting the illusion of a “deregulated” economy. What happened in the name of “deregulation” has actually been “reregulation,” this time by rules and policies that are radically different from those of the New Deal and Great Society decades. Although compromised by racism, those older regulations laid the groundwork for greater equality and a flourishing middle class. Government continues to regulate, but instead of acting to protect workers, consumers, and citizens, it devised new policies aimed to help giant corporate and financial institutions maximize their returns through revised anti-trust laws, seemingly bottomless bank bailouts, and increased impediments to unionization.

The implications for political discourse are critically important: If regulations are always necessary components of markets, we must not discuss regulation versus deregulation but rather what kinds of regulations we prefer: Those designed to benefit wealth and capital? Or those that benefit the public and common good?

Great explanation by Teun A. van Dijk,