Book review: Why It’s Kicking Off Everywhere by Paul Mason

It will long be remembered as the year of ‘the protestor’; as uprisings originating in the Arab world swept across the globe like a wild bushfire. Paul Mason, the economics editor of Newsnight, is therefore well placed to draw on his wide-ranging reportage in 2011 to answer the key question; how has this happened?

The global economy, troubled by a ‘shortfall between stagnating wages and increased consumption met by credit’, was bound to ‘explode’ Mason argues. Thus the influence of economics on the protests of today draws parallels to those in history; inflation correlates ‘closely with revolt: the higher the cost of bread, the more revolutionary the outcome’. Indeed, economic concern was so widespread in 2011 that the protests were populated by an unprecedented range of participants. Mason proposes three distinct socio-economic groups; the ‘graduate without a future’ of the discontented middle class, organized labour and the urban poor.

However, Mason argues that we cannot rely on economics as an explanation alone. If the uprisings are rampant flames, then technology rather than economics is the fuel spreading the fire. Social media, Mason argues, helped the movements ‘grow with dizzying rapidity’, observing the events in Tahrir Square as ‘a revolution planned on Facebook, organized on Twitter and broadcast to the world via YouTube’. As such, technophobes may find themselves horrified at the prevalence of social media references – certain protesters are referred to by their Twitter names for example – but despite the fact that ‘there is no quantitative research’ on the impact of social media ‘on politics and political campaigns’ Mason is by no means guilty of hyperbole.

Influenced by sociologist Barry Wellman, who ‘long before Facebook’ noticed that ‘people preferred to live with multiple networks, flat hierarchies and weak commitments’, Mason argues that a ‘networked individualism’ allows groups to form with the aim of completing only a single task. In many ways, this poses an interesting paradox to the ideas of Robert Putnam, who in Bowling Alone (1975) argued that a breakdown of ‘social capital’ had caused a disconnect between people and forms of social organization. Perhaps then, we’re still bowling alone, but online we’re in the company of millions.

The book loses momentum in the latter half, as Mason travels through the mid-west of the United States and the slums of Manila, describing, at odds with the general theme of the book, people who rather than ‘kicking off’, are tolerant, if not satisfied, with the troubled lives they live.

Notwithstanding the value of such first-hand experience of humanity, the downfall of Mason’s connection with the grass-roots is that he is occasionally guilty of failing to take into account a wider picture. Despite his BBC connections, he is unashamedly Neo-Marxist in his critique of the global system whereby the root problem is ‘globalization, and the resulting monopolization of wealth by a global elite’. A theme throughout the book is that amidst ‘the near collapse of free-market capitalism’ a ‘desire for individual freedom’ is fundamental to the uprisings. However, if Mason is so dissatisfied with the former then surely his attitude fails to accommodate the desires of his subjects; for if Mason knows of a global system which provides individual freedom in greater abundance than liberal democratic capitalism, he is yet to reveal it.

The book, and the movements it explores alike, can therefore be credited for raising logical points and intriguing questions, but denounced for failing to suggest valuable answers or alternatives. ‘The future hangs in the balance’ warns Mason. Perhaps then, the forthcoming ‘Reflections on Why It’s Kicking Off Everywhere’, will provide more evidence of the way in which Mason believes the balance should tilt.

Why It’s Kicking Off Everywhere: The New Global Revolutions
Verso, 244pp, £12.99
Published January 2012, London

Robert Smith is Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @RobertSmithUK

The NUS must resist temptation to attach itself to the Left

Photo: Plashing Vole (Flickr)

It’s inevitable that general opinion within the National Union of Students will be against that of the Coalition government on policies such as tuition fees, but the organisation must resist forming close links with left-wing groups, writes Robert Smith.

The news from the National Union of Students today was that its’ President, Aaron Porter, will not be seeking a second term and will therefore not be standing in the next election. The obvious observation here is that he has stepped down due to the wave of criticism which has been fired at him concerning tuition fees and the related student protests. His critics believe he was ineffective at leading the student movement during the protests, with many saying he failed to provide his full backing.

While thousands of students filled the streets of London, they say he was nowhere to be seen. He was even chased by a group of students from Manchester, where he required a police cordon to enter a building safely.

Now, the many members of the NUS can condemn Porter for not being radical as much as they like, but the truth remains that it would have been foolish for him to have attached the organisation he was head of to a protest movement galvanised by the far-left. The National Union of Students is supposed to be a serious organisation which stands to represent students up and down the country, not just left-wing activists, but moderates and conservatives too. Many already feel uncomfortable with the prospect of joining the organisation because it stands too far to the left. A further alignment of the union to more radical left-leaning organisations would only leave people even more sceptical and alienated towards it.

Some students, notably Porter’s greatest critics, have even exclaimed that he is a ‘Tory’, in reaction to his somewhat lukewarm reaction towards tuition fees. This is of course complete non-sense. Aaron Porter is a public supporter of the Labour Party, and completely opposes what the Government plans for higher education. The truth though, is that he is cleverer than his critics; at least he realises that climbing on buildings and burning down bus stops is not the way to win the respect of the politicians in charge. But this does raise the question of whether the President of an officially ‘non-political’ organisation should publicly be able to support a political party. It’s easy to see why the individual leaders of the Union might want to make their views public, but it does damage the idea that the NUS is apolitical.

In reaction to the news of Porter standing down, the Education Activist Network and the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts have pledged to stand for leadership posts under a “united Left” slate. This could be damaging to NUS, as attaching itself to the left will only make the views of the organisation less legitimate. The elected politicians in charge will be more able to pass off it off as a ‘group of lefty students’ who ‘would oppose Conservative policies wouldn’t they?’. I hope the next President will be a moderate, pragmatic person who will not only campaign for what he/she believes in through the right channels, but also listens to the arguments for the reforms led by the government. They are being done for a reason; politicians are not just nasty people who want to cause harm. I worry though that the fierce opposition to the Coalition policies in this area will likely lead to a closer relationship between the NUS and groups like the Socialist Workers Party. If it does then, as for the NUS, I will still not be joining. Shame, I could do with that student discount card.

Robert Smith is Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @RobertSmithUK