A significant section of the constituency of contemporary contention is connected with neither the traditional organisations of the far left, nor with small groups intent on carrying out direct action for immediate change. The radical liberal frame is one apparently utilised by many in the movements who are more likely to be supportive of a range of well-known non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as Greenpeace, Oxfam or War on Want. While these organisations’ primary operations are not directed at mobilizing a membership to take part in street demonstrations, they nevertheless often provide an urgent desire for social change.

Increasingly, over the past few decades, such NGOs have developed a set of intellectual tools that provides an understanding of western governments as culpable for social and environmental injustice, and the potential efficacy of massed populations in changing their governments’ behaviour. On this basis, the radical liberal frame emerges from a wide range of particular issue-focused critiques rather than either a body of theory or a particular approach to social change.

The radical liberal frame expresses the way that certain core beliefs appear to come together to justify an increasingly radical approach to holding governments to account, while seeking to achieve concrete gains in the immediate future. Some core ingredients of the frame include:

• A strong moral position centred on a (broadly egalitarian) understanding of justice.
• Critique of those in power focused on the abuse of that power.
• A positive evaluation of empirically grounded understanding and subsequent critique of any belief system that appears to be dogmatic.
• A belief in the potential of social change activities that work with, rather than against, current institutions of power.
• A strong belief democracy, justified on the basis of sharing relevant knowledge.

C5: Seeking a Just Political Economy

Despite their different political flavours, the three frames set out above deal with a number of very similar issues. This is hardly surprising given that each worldview developed over the same period, within the same political and social context and in relation to the same emerging problems and opportunities. So, we find that each frame addresses themes such as democracy, power, economic and political institutions and the appropriate methods for social change.

This chapter outlines some of the points at which each frame, or a particular combination of them, find agreement on certain points. However, I stress more explicitly those places where sharp divergence in understanding is evident, since these points help to draw the boundaries around each frame, aiding understanding of their contents and extents. The chapter also stresses the tactical and strategic differences, more often than the philosophical. The strategic and the philosophic aspects are completely intertwined, since to provide a plausible strategy for social change one must base it on a plausible understanding of the social structure that is the target of that change. However, since proponents of the different frames mostly come into contact in the planning and carrying out of political action – it is in the realm of strategy that their divisions are most easily perceived.

In exploring the points of agreement and disagreement we find out, among other things, what exactly is meant by radicalism or reformism (depending on who is using the word), why the united front tactic of trotskyist organisations is so divisive, and how the notion of direct action has come to be applied in apprently inappropriate situations.

Download C6: Conflict and Convergence

“What we see today – continual warfare and persistent authoritarianism in the post-colonial world and explosive terrorism spreading its horrors – are dark streaks across the vision of peace seen by the free-trader…
A nation-state system based on furthering material interests is incapable of curbing violence. It is only by relentlessly pursuing the deepening of the democratic revolution – at home and abroad – that we can hope to respond to the multifaceted injustice that defines our age.”

One of the most appealing arguments for an international economic regime of free and frequent trade is that it will – through nations’ own self interest – lead to peaceful international relations. Since the mid 19th century the opponents of economic protectionism have made this case. Today, proponents will point to the EU, whose humble beginnings in the European Coal and Steel Community are at least a part of the explanation for the disappearance of war among this tightly-knit trading bloc.

This argument assumes that nations have the monopoly on the legitimate use of force, and have a largely agreed upon definition of self interest. These may be philosophically troubled notions, but more importantly, here in the real world we can begin to perceive why violence shows no signs of abating.

In the post-colonial era national self-determination, tied in with removal of barriers to trade erected by colonial ties, was hailed as the way forward for communities to achieve a better standard of living. But the age of nation-building was all but over by the time President Harry Truman used the US’s economic influence to push European imperialists out of Africa, Asia and South America. Particularly in Africa, the divisions set up in the carving out of territory for British, French, Dutch, German, and Italian invaders was antithetical to the scale and nature of pre-exiting political communities. Nations the world over are, to be sure, imagined communities , but Africa has never had a home-grown Treaty of Westphalia to legitimise their own legal borders.

The difficulty of creating nations in Africa is now compounded by the disintegration of the state. Thanks to the myriad process of ‘globalization’ the state is niether internally uniform in its views and ambitions, nor particularly coordinated in its action. The state has never had a true monopoly on violence, but as its legitimacy ebbs and the flow of weapons becomes more widespread and less discerning it is clear that other forces have sheer might behind them.

So what we see today – continual warfare and persistent authoritarianism in the post-colonial world and explosive terrorism spreading its horrors – are dark streaks across the vision of peace seen by the free-trader. Even with a number of powerful international institutions attempting to force a particular model of development, its influence – its resources and its values – spread unevenly. The wars of Africa continue to take place in the mode appropriate to a world of strong nation states – what the Tofflers would call the ‘second wave’ world. Malformed by the theft of their history and crippled by the theft of their resources, these nation-states do not enjoy the broad consensus and legitimacy that is essential to their capacity to make an agreement for lasting peace either within their borders or beyond.

With the move to the ‘third wave’ world – characterised by increasing complexity, the centrality of information flow, and the operation of power over ever more distant relationships – longer established nation-states have lost any semblance of unity and consensus they once enjoyed. It is to the great credit of the millions who opposed the most recent war on Iraq that they saw beyond the borders of the state, and beyond their ‘leaders’, to feel genuine solidarity with those who were suffering. It hasn’t always been thus, and while the new media have certainly helped to bring stories closer to home, it also indicates a maturation of understanding about international relations among a great mass of people. This trend is the flip-slid of those who oppose states violently, for whom the disintegrating ties of nation state have been replaced by fundamentalist religion or ideology, while genuine grudges may be the remainder of the violence of the first burst of nation building.

The free-trader’s argument for peace by economic means is based on crude understanding of how states and peoples interact which is becoming less and less relevant to our global future. Worse: where the state’s powers continue to be exercised according to the national interest model, it is only capable of measuring national interest in economic terms. It is not at all the case, therefore, that by pursuing its interests it will vouch for peace unless it is in the interests of the economically powerful. Beyond that, “the expanding market system has little interest in tackling authoritarianism in, for example, the tortures of political dissenters, the cultural oppression of women, or the abuse of children … the economic elites might even lend support, quite legitimately on individualist grounds, to those implementing the practices.” ( Tam, 1998) Today’s news that 2004 arms expenditure topped $1 trillion is clearly indicative of that case. [news , stats]

A nation-state system based on an individualist model of furthering material interests is incapable of curbing violence. It is only by relentlessly pursuing the deepening of the democratic revolution – at home and abroad – that we can hope to respond to the multifaceted injustice that defines our age.

This election is really dull – the main parties are once again conducting a marketing strategy aimed almost entirely at a very small number of floating voters in swing seats. Yawn. Polly Toynbee hit the nail on the head.

So, here, instead, is something out of leftfield, it turns out that lots of my liberal mates are quite into the idea of national service, here’s (more or less) how the conversation went:

Here’s a taster of what the BNP are up to in Barking… here are some pledges which may (or may not) convince you to vote for them..!! Look at number 4!!!

BNP pledges:

1. Complete halt to all immigration and “voluntary resettlement” of ethnic minority Britons to their “lands of ethnic origin”
2. Redeployment of British troops from Iraq to secure Channel tunnel and Kent ports against illegal immigration
3. Reintroduction of compulsory military service
4. All adults who have completed military service required to keep a military assault rifle in their home
5. Corporal punishment for petty criminals and the death penalty for paedophiles, terrorists, murderers and drug dealers or importers.

Jaysus!!! They are completely whacko aren’t they?

this is going to be unpopular but I actually think that introducing national service is not a bad idea

Me and my boss were just agreeing too…not sure about the assault rifle part though!!

Not unpopular here, I wouldn’t disagree at all…

There are loads of options we could offer consciptees to choose from, many of which could benefit from low cost, enthusiastic labour, and which could undoubtedly benefit those taking part:

• Environmental Management such as natural habitat restoration
• Community Work
• Social Work
• Peacekeeping with the military
• Overseas Development
• Corralling Immigrants at riflepoint into prison ships for sending back to Bongobongoland ;-p
• Other works of a charitable nature

And additionally, it could delay the starting age for University which I reckon would cut down on course drop out rates and wasted first years; simply by giving everyone a year out of taught education in which to clarify what they wanted from life.

Wow, lots of votes in national service eh? Although from that list the primary purpose of the military seems a little obscured. Still, with enough rebranding maybe the army would soon be so full of hippies that its brutal bullying discipline will be undermined by a major culture shift. Without that though we’d probably be forcing a generation of youth into a training regime that has been consciously designed to stifle the imagination and create absolute, unquestioning obedience to authority.

There’s definitely something positive about people learning to manage and direct their agression, only from the little I know about squaddies on the piss the army doesn’t actually do that very well.

So national service, great idea, but lets have it managed by someone other than the military, with the added bonus that if your government gets a taste for a bit of old fashioned imperialism you won’t get pulled from your vital dreamcatcher recycling workshops in order to shoot someone and nick their country.

Maybe we could have national civic service instead: This would be compulsary as well, but you wouldn’t go into the army necessarily but do the kinda stuff suggested (maybe without the forcible deportations to Bongobongoland) under a civic authority instead. Just think of all those fresh faced 18 year olds being forced to make the country a nicer place to be and hating every minute of it!!!

“One volunteer is better than ten pressed men.”

So I read, anyway. Not entirely sure what it means… pressed men? Is it like pressed olives? This implies there’s such a thing as extra virgin man oil, which is frankly just a little bit wierd, and ever so slightly seedy. Wierd, seedy – but logically, true! Wow.

What we need to do is get rid of the nuclear deterrent. It’s only coz of dem pesky nukes that the military got cut back in the first place. (That’s actually true! No, really actually. Which kinda makes me go “er… nukes: great! Less national service and less army! Cool! Oh, hang on – potential Armageddon destroying all life as we know it! Bad thing! Er… confused! Bugger!”)

p.s. *Did you know* that the total number of olive presses in the Palestinian Territory is 285, of which 242 are operating, while 43 are temporarily closed? I bet you didn’t, did you?

Okay, so it got a bit surreal towards the end.