UK Uncut is promoting an action celebrating ‘mutual’ companies and co-operatives. Not small-scale, localist workers’ coops, like the food shops that pop up every now and then, but corporate behemoths like John Lewis. The aim of the protest is to ‘raise awareness among the public’ that ‘another financial world is possible’ – i.e. that instead of straightforward selling off of Royal Mail and Northern Rock to the highest bidder, alternatives such as co-operatisation have legs. Radical legs, it would seem, if UK Uncut is on board.
The first thing that struck me as odd, reading this, is the strange amalgamation of Royal Mail (a public service), Northern Rock (a bank majority-owned by the UK Government, but held at arms-length and paying no dividends) and John Lewis (a retail corporation that’s loosely ‘mutual’, on which more below). The privatisation of Royal Mail is an entirely different kettle of fish, representing different political problems to the re-transfer of Northern Rock into private hands. What John Lewis has to do with any of this isn’t clear, unless it is seriously, with a straight-face, being proposed as a model for either organisation. Something the government already suggested for Royal Mail. The Coalition government.
This is clearly nonsense, but it’s nonsense tied up in a set of confused radical-sounding politics that needs to be challenged. Talk of ‘mutualism’ and the co-option of the anticapitalist slogan ‘another world is possible’ sits side-by-side with pleas for ‘national conversation’ amongst ‘the people’, and worse, the statement that ‘all possibilities for our banks’ (our?) should be ‘scrutinized and thought over’. Something doesn’t fit – on one hand the protest seems to be about restructuring economics, in sense that verges on anticapitalism, but then its role is defined as that of neutral debate-starter, educator of the masses that there are options, without picking a side. It makes no demands of government (‘political elites’ – nevermind that they have power, and what we really need is strategies for taking it back), instead falling back on fuzzy language about education and public debate. For example:
This debate must be done on our terms and our streets. The people must define the debate about where we go with banking both retail and investment, this can no longer simply be left to media and political elites. In order to facilitate this we must educate and inform people of the alternatives. Banking reform and restructuring needs a movement, movements need people to participate, powerful participants need knowledge.
Resisting the temptation to just say ‘eh?’ here, the logic goes something like: we at UK Uncut reckon the banking sector needs a change. We will educate ‘the people’ about the different options. We have no opinion on these options. Equipped with knowledge ‘the people’ will form a movement. We are the neutral facilitators of the coming authentic and organic mass movement, which just needs our spark of education to get going.
Of course, there’s no such thing as neutral in politics, and that’s the problem. This method of ‘organising’, taking a pure, supposedly unideological ‘educative’ role comes across as at best naive and apolitical, and at worst, cynical and shadowy. Are we seriously supposed to believe the people organising this event don’t have their own ideas about which of the multiple, conflicting, complex possibilities for public ownership (or worse, private business with a smiley public face like John Lewis)? Is this some odd stagist concept of campaigning, where they educate the masses, then come out for their preferred option when everyone’s working on the same level of knowledge?
It’s disappointing given the impressive tax protests UK Uncut has so far organised. They were straight-forwardly political – we’re protesting because we think rich people and businesses should pay their tax. That’s a political opinion, and one which was spread in a creative and dynamic fashion. It laid bare the vast hypocrisy of ‘we’re all in this together’ and directly challenged the logic of the cuts. It played an old-school consciousness-raising role, sticking the bare facts of the class divide in people’s faces and equipping activists with new arguments. Contrast that role to this new ‘protest’ – what is it advocating? Who is it talking to? What is it saying? As far as I’m concerned, none of these questions can be answered adequately, and where they are addressed, huge political problems arise.
The most pressing of these is perhaps the complete airbrushing of the trade union movement. The CWU, which organises Royal Mail workers, is already campaigning against privatisation. There are problems for anticapitalists with the campaign – the business-led rhetoric they’ve co-opted, for example – and trade union leaderships aren’t exactly at the forefront of militant, active organising. But the first point of departure for any truly left-wing movement against privatisation of industry has to be the workers in that industry. This isn’t a question of authenticity (a difficult question for the left, somewhat related post here) – it’s a question of agency, and of power. Royal Mail workers can bring the company to a standstill, not to mention the power they then wield over the economy as a whole. They can strike. It’s enormously problematic that the UK Uncut event has nothing to say about, or to, organised labour, particularly when it’s already active in this struggle.
Second, the focus for this education session is John Lewis. From the UK Uncut site:
We will also distribute flowers and sweets to those whom choose to shop and more importantly work at John Lewis given, despite its numerous imperfections, that it represents a different way of doing business.
There are a million problems with the idea you can change the world through your bank balance, and where you choose to spend it, and I’m not going to rehash those arguments here. But particularly given it’s John Lewis, a corporation that prides itself on its upmarket, exclusive and expensive image, the idea of congratulating consumers for their right-on ethical choice makes me incredibly uncomfortable. Labour Behind the Label says John Lewis has ‘a disappointing approach to workers’ rights’, both of its direct employees and of those working for suppliers. Hardly the epitome of ethical shopping, even if you believe in such a thing. Equally, the language here suggests working at John Lewis is a positive moral choice, a bizarre way of relating to labour. Are you a better person if you work in low-paid, non-unionised John Lewis than if you work in low-paid, non-unionised Morrisons?
The John Lewis model bears more scrutiny than it’s getting here. It’s a co-operative, in the sense each employee gains a share of the profits, and has some (very) limited input into some decisions. A quick scan of the very complimentary Wikipedia page will show this doesn’t go very far – the ‘Partnership Council’ might appoint 5 directors (how they’re nominated isn’t clear) but the chairman gets to handpick 5 more. Democratic.
The dividend, so well covered in the press each year, is hardly much better. Checking in-store and support roles on their corporate site shows most jobs pay a fraction over the minimum wage, just £6.60/hour in London. For a full-time post, that’s roughly £13k a year, before tax. Add the largest ever dividend share, of 20% of gross earnings for each employee, and you’d take home around £2,500 extra, tops. So £15,500 p.a., before tax. That’s poverty pay, particularly in London and the South East. And UK Uncut proposes to parade in front of these workers, handing out flowers and sweets to all in celebration of their right-on company. I’d propose the only ‘educating’ that’s going to do is to show John Lewis staff just how little they’ve done their research. Or worse, how little they care.
Here’s what a real, political conversation looks like: take a group of activists, thrash out some common points of agreement on what’s wrong with x, and the strategy for changing x, and the larger political ideas that underpin that. Organise based on that. Be clear, concrete and open about it, and allow it to be put to public scrutiny, by other leftists, the media, even the right. That’s your conversation, right there. This, on the other hand, is hard to get hold of, slippery and imprecise, and packing a whole lot of assumed, underlying political standpoints under the guise of impartial facilitation. UK Uncut, an organisation I (and many other revolutionary socialists) have a lot of time for, should reconsider.
Update – the UK Uncut event page (linked to above) and the Facebook event page have been removed. Looks like the event is cancelled, more soon
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
really disagree – its a fair enough point, more nuanced then Seymour’s but i think public education is really important – the ultimate aim is to inform people of other models, no specific ones – and the action is celebrating smaller coops …and mutuals as well, in fact several want to participate and get themselves out there to the broader public. This would be the first of numerous actions one would imagine – perhaps even under the auspices of a different platform eventually that is looking to deal with the banks rather than tax avoidance. who knows – its certainly a welcome conversation about not only the issues of finance and co-operatives ( and I agree in large part with your points about John Lewis – but surely on the day we can also highlight JL’s lack of unionised labour and draw attention to that).
Tax evasion is very easy to go after – everyone understands the concept.
Almost everything we want to do however isn’t- be it on fees or deficit reduction really isn’t.
What we do with banks with regards to ownership, fractional reserve lending, re-localizing, breaking up is up for grabs but no-one can win an argument if people are so highly uninformed of alternatives and the nature of private creation of debt by private banks as is the case in the existing financial system.
I personally think that the argument can be won to nationalize RBS and Lloyds but that can only happen through information, deliberation and consent. I believe in the rationality of social deliberation when done under certain condition, bit of a habermasian about that I’m afraid to say though his faults on other things.
Maybe you are right, maybe going forward another platform, like that of uncut or false economy is needed. For myself the issue of fractional reserve lending, debt creation , privatized money supply etc is bigger than all of them in fundamentally changing things.
Appreciate constructive contribution however.
Comment by aaron peters — Sun 02 Jan @ 7:35 pm
I think we can move the ‘centre’ very radically to the left, very quickly but I think we have to do it in a particular manner – I’m a big fan of an approach of constructing gramscian counter-hegemony and transformismo.
Comment by aaron peters — Sun 02 Jan @ 7:38 pm
In fact Sofie I would IMPLORE you on the day to organize something that explains ALL of your article to the public – that would actually be amazing. We can give flowers to workers etc to highlight co-operative models, you can be outside wi…th a megaphone talking about lack of unions etc – this is what democracy looks like! Lets inform and educate about everything and everybody, pros and cons.
Comment by aaron peters — Sun 02 Jan @ 7:45 pm
Sophie – thanks. This is both informative about the nature of John Lewis as an organisation and well judged in terms of what you’re saying about the nature of this particular action. I wonder what the implications are for the “leaderless” organisational model of activism that’s being discussed at the moment. Was this event just announced, or was it subjected to some form of collective scrutiny and decision-making?
Comment by David Wearing — Sun 02 Jan @ 8:01 pm
Mr Peters – (who has posted a response to this article) I am glad we are having this discussion. It’s good to engage with the public – but treat it as such. It’s a community engagement project outside John Lewis. It’s not a protest.
Since you are the admin of the facebook page I assume you are passionately in favour of this engagement process. And your passion shines in your response. Good for you.
It is a good thing to do because it has got us talking. Personally I am more broadly in agreement with the author of the post. Please let’s not go the route of promoting fluffybunny capitalism. I’d lose the will…
Plus I’m miffed that you appear not to understand the damage cut flowers do when they’re available in January. Make recycled flowers or think or something else. And don’t forget to big up TUC March in March – is it the 26th?
Comment by Marina Pepper — Sun 02 Jan @ 8:10 pm
Totally agree. Holding JL up as some kind of model is an insult to its low paid ‘workers’. Asking people to accept capitalism and pick the fluffiest marketing yet still corrupt company model is akin to asking a slave what type of feudalism they like best.
Comment by Danny — Sun 02 Jan @ 8:59 pm
“I’m a big fan of an approach of constructing gramscian counter-hegemony and transformismo…”
I’m a big fan Aston Villa…
… but a big opponent of Marxist gobbledygook – you won’t move anyone to the left is this your normal conversational style, let alone establish a counter hegemony Mr P.
Indeed, it looks like your fellow posters have missed your point… The article is pretty clear, I would say
Comment by baffler — Sun 02 Jan @ 9:16 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Marina Pepper, landslidepurist, Hayzel Trickey, Sofie and others. Sofie said: Blog on UK Uncut and John Lewis – http://zetkin.net/uk-uncut-john-lewis-and-the-pretence-of-neutrality/ #ukuncut [...]
Pingback by Tweets that mention zetkin « notebook -- Topsy.com — Sun 02 Jan @ 9:41 pm
Difficulty is, Aaron, the event isn’t solely about “debate” and “education” in the way it’s being framed. The giving of flowers and sweets to John Lewis staff and customers alongside the title, “The feeling is mutual”, clearly sends a message that mutuals along the lines of JL are the correct alternative, and therefore that the people who turn up at the event endorse them. Now, personally I am a supporter of mutuals and co-operatives, but not JL which clearly isn’t democratic and has serious issues with how it treats its staff, as Sofie sets out. Should I turn up to the event? No doubt you’ll say Yes, because it’s about debate, but you can understand the unease myself and others have given how this event is being presented and the actions participants are supposed to be engaging in.
Comment by Guy Aitchison — Mon 03 Jan @ 1:19 am
@marina Paper flowers and fairtrade chocolates it is!
Is collective ownership of finance capital and two of the biggest banks in the county fluffybunny capitalism?
Comment by aaron peters — Mon 03 Jan @ 1:34 am
@Marina we are also moving to HSBC after where it will be very much a protest
Comment by aaron peters — Mon 03 Jan @ 1:34 am
I agree wholeheartedly with this article. I have to say I’ve been really disappointed with the direction taken by UKUncut recently.
Firstly they are now targeting high street banks, and whenever I ask the question about the political problems of high street banks I get fobbed off with some nonsense about fractional reserves (erm, yeah, I see that fractional reserves increase the density of capital through a highly formalised system of credit/leverage that claims an unjustified level of stability, but this has a) very little to do with the high street operations that are being targeted, and b) is not a proper political response to the problems of banks.) Indeed I am yet to have a good answer to why targeting high street banks is politically sensible. Mostly it makes you look stupid because you attack the high-street arm of a corporation when you have a problem with the broadly unconnected investment arm. Anyway, if someone would like to explain the argument clearly, and show that this is not just becoming another form of banal symbolic protests, subverting the role of direct action then I’d be really very appreciative.
Then there’s all this stuff with co-ops and mutuals, which someone has just declared to be a great idea. Well, frankly the people’s control of the means of production does not mean creating co-ops (i.e. more widely dispersed capitalist control.) It might be a starting point, but only with regard to already private concerns, and certainly not publicly owned organisations like Royal Mail. Basically UKUncut needs to sort out its politics. When you ask UKUncut about it you get some bollocks response along the lines of “oh well we’re just supporting this action” or “we don’t have central decision making processes but people in our group want to do this.” The fact is that lending your name and your brand to something means you probably should take responsibility for the politics of that action. Obviously it will always be a broadly reformist organisation, insofar as it targets consumption rather than production, but it can do a good job. The problem is that it really isn’t doing that good job right now.
Comment by Jacob — Mon 03 Jan @ 2:14 am
Sure, partnerships like John Lewis aren’t ideal. It’d probably have better industrial relations if it was a worker co-op and encouraged unionisation. But compared to comparable firms, the rate of exploitation is lower – and the surplus does not go to an external capital-owner. The extent to which it is a capitalist firm is thus questionable.
In the US, the steelworkers union is working with the Mondragon worker co-operatives to try and create jobs in new “union co-ops”. This would allow for unionisation alongside workplace democracy.
Perhaps this is something we should be looking to propose as an alternative to the model of entrepreneurship?
Comment by james — Mon 03 Jan @ 5:35 am
This is not a direction UKUncut is taking. It is an event organised autonomously by Aaron, which he listed on the website of his own volition.
Aaron is not a figurehead in UKUncut, because there are no figureheads. It is decentralised, autonomous protest – which is why there are ostensibly anomalous events listed such as this one.
I have been involved in UKUncut since its genesis. I have done numerous interviews speaking about the movement. I am also in a short film about it for the Guardian. Yet I totally disagree with Aaron’s stance on mutuals. This is due to the fact that UKUncut is AUTONOMOUS DECENTRALISED PROTEST WITH NO LEADERS OR OFFICIAL PARTY LINE.
Clearly you have not bothered to read the website, or the responses they have tweeted to this event. That or you are simply unable to grasp this relatively simple concept.
Either way, it totally discredits this exasperating article.
Comment by Ellie Mae — Mon 03 Jan @ 11:04 am
Thanks for the information Ellie, but it’s hardly clear to anyone not inside the UK Uncut bubble that any of this is the case – not everyone on the activist left, and very few people in the media (who I presume you want to cover actions) will know who’s organised what and whether it’s a consensus action or a minority one. The event looked like a UK Uncut one because it was posted uncritically on the UK Uncut site. Perhaps, if some people disagree with it, there ought to be a public debate space so anyone reading can see for themselves where political responsibility lies.
I appreciate that UK Uncut is trying to organise autonomously and in a decentralised fashion, but that doesn’t mean it can evade responsibility for dealing with the problems that arise from this style of organising. Which are painfully obvious here – how much would any activist have to disagree with an event under the UK Uncut banner for it to be a problem that splits the movement? How do you differentiate for the left, the public and the media what the group agrees on and what it doesn’t? Does it agree publicly on anything? How do UK Uncut activists respond to criticism of actions they personally don’t subscribe to?
Movements need open political debate, and that’s pretty difficult to have when the response to criticism is ‘you can’t knock us because we’re autonomous and diverse’.
Comment by Sofie — Mon 03 Jan @ 12:06 pm
I’m not sure what ‘bubble’ you’re referring to. The only information I have on Aaron’s event comes from that which is publicly available. UKUncut HAS dealt with the conflict which arose from this – it asked its followers to comment on the event and retreated the responses. Aaron saw there was a lot of opposition and decided to cancel. I don’t know what more could have been done, other than to change the entire structure of the movement.
Of course the nebulous nature of UKUncut has its risks, in the same way that having visible leaders has its risks – Wikileaks and the NUS come to mind here. I certainly don’t think UKUncut should change in order to placate the media, which is always baying for blood anyway. There have already been three fatuous exposés on the movement. Ultimately an establishment press will attack an anti-establishment entity in whatever way it can. Changing the structure of it won’t change that.
It’s just inaccurate to suggest there is some insider secret to UKUncut that the rest of us aren’t getting. This article feels like a disappointing attempt to polemically discredit something.
Comment by Ellie Mae — Mon 03 Jan @ 5:45 pm
Every political action or group exists in a bubble of some sort, it’s not necessarily a criticism – there are those who are involved and those who aren’t yet, people who know each other personally and connect online or in real life and those who don’t etc. I mention it because any activist not already involved with UK Uncut, with Twitter debates or Facebook friends, wouldn’t know that there was a debate/disagreement about the event, or maybe even that other UK Uncut activists they may know (online/IRL/through the press stuff) don’t agree. It was just on the site, so it looks like UK Uncut was endorsing it, which entails a certain degree of political responsibility.
I think UK Uncut (or whoever deals with Twitter) has responded admirably to criticism this week, posting links to dissenting stuff and so on, particularly given the bizarre and sectarian response of the liberal left online. I’m pleased that Aaron thought again about the event, though I’d have liked to see some explanation and space for debate rather than removing the event and statement from public view entirely.
On the press stuff, of course they’re not on our team and never will be, and you can’t avoid a certain amount of ludicrous (Daily Mail article for example) attempts to undermine successful left-wing activism. But we also don’t have to give them ammunition. In this case, it wouldn’t have been a disaster, I imagine, for a lot of people involved, if the press had picked up on it. But if anyone can organise events ‘autonomously’, what happens if the next furore is about something worse, an event or action the press use to discredit UK Uncut? What happens if it’s so off the majority of activists’ political radars that people just dissociate themselves from the movement?
You mention changing the structure of the entire movement, and I think that might be very well what is needed – a serious, collective think about potential problems raised by this mode of ultra-open, structureless, non-consensus based grouping. There’s not a binary opposition between having no structure and little political consensus and having rigid, party-style structure with a leadership, and I agree that movements of the latter kind have huge problems too, probably more so.
This episode, though, has raised questions that need to be discussed, and discussed without flared tempers or personal upset – particularly when those doing the criticism are themselves invested in a strong left-wing movement against the cuts. I’m not trying to undermine UK Uncut, I have a lot of time for it. I’m trying to think through some problems that might have the potential to let it undermine itself if not resolved.
Comment by Sofie — Mon 03 Jan @ 9:34 pm
Good article, certainly: I agree completely with your critique of the planned/cancelled event.
The comments on organisation present a very interesting problem. But, maybe they also present the solution to that problem. In short: an event was planned by one poor fool, acting on his own; activists who identify with UK Uncuts to various degrees – i.e. directly (Ellie) or less directly (Sofie) produced a critique of the event; the lone fool changed his mind.
A parallel situation: one poor fool decides it makes sense to throw a fire extinguisher off a roof; the crowd below starts chanting: “Stop throwing shit!”.
In short, the movement is, to a significant degree, able to critique itself, and we can see that it is constantly doing so. Therefore, it doesn’t need organisational “policing” structures any more than protests need policing.
As far as the uk uncut events list: it seems people can and are posting “events” without giving any group names, contacts, details, &c. Perhaps there are people who are then going to these events without knowing anything in advance. Presumably this is the “flashmob” tactics so many people are getting overexcited about. Frankly, it is not “autonomous” and “nebulous” organising that seems to me to be the problem, but the idea that some people might decide to carry out an action/event simply because some unidentified person has posted it into the ether.
What is the effect of this type of e-nonymous organising? Actual, open and inclusive discussion and organising – and active solidarity – is cauterized.* In other words, the people who attend do so (despite the rhetoric) as individuals, rather than in existing solidarity groups (e.g. small autonomous groups as well as larger organisations). In short, (usually young) people may decide to follow a call given out by who-knows-who, with who-knows-what agenda, even though that activity may involve certain risks (e.g. may be illegal, or dangerous, or involve expulsion from university, etc.).
Then again, even this might be largely a theoretical problem, since I don’t know very many people who would be foolish enough attend an utterly anonymous event. I do know some, though.
Thoughts?
Best
Wit
* Even with a big event (e.g. a national protest), where people may be excluded from organisation at an overarching level (whatever that means), if they attend as part of a (local) group/collective/organisation/loose “collectivity”, they are afforded a degree of decision making. E.g. they may decide to take placards or not; they may decide to storm Millbank or not; they may decide to fight co-ordinated battles with police/fascist mobs (e.g. in Athens). They can make these decisions on the basis of their understanding of their groups’ aims and capabilities (e.g. numbers); with an understanding of their mutual support and solidarity, etc. Meanwhile, as a “flashmob”, you appear as an individual and leave as an individual, and run all the risks that entails (often none other than turning up to a poorly organised and badly attended event, where all you hear is bullshit that is going nowhere beyond the “flash” of the “mob”). In otherwords: postmodern organising.
Comment by Wit Ackman — Tue 04 Jan @ 1:21 pm
[...] online disagreement was mostly conducted in a deliberative manner in the spirit of solidarity and indeed taught myself and no doubt others some under-reported home truths about the John Lewis [...]
Pingback by Networks can be deliberative, accountable and consensual in decision making | Left Foot Forward — Tue 04 Jan @ 6:56 pm
Just seen Aaron Peter’s comeback ping-back on here, but his comments are locked. So let me say here: Aaron, the only thing we realised “in a spirit of solidarity”, is that you are a proper numpty.
Best
Comment by Wit Ackman — Tue 04 Jan @ 8:48 pm
The notion that the Tories are suggesting real mutualism is, of course, rubbish. Nor is John Lewis a real co-operative (as management are not elected). I discuss this here:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/mutualism-fake-real
The only benefit of these discussions on “mutualism” is that it raises the idea of workers’ self-management — and anti-capitalists should be asking if co-operatives are so good for public services, why not all workplaces? We should be stressing that while opposing the Tory plans as disguised privatisation.
Comment by Anarcho — Wed 05 Jan @ 12:29 pm