Coded Bias shows how deeply embedded racism is in our society

The film of A Time To Kill opens with a scene of horrific racism. I’m not going to describe it here because it’s awful. If you’ve seen the film (or read the book it’s based on) you’ll know what I mean. If not, then take my word for it being both horrific and racist.

Events like this scene have been terrifyingly common throughout American history, as well as occurring in countries like Britain - where we like to pat ourselves on the back for being less racist than America, whilst celebrating our own racist colonial history. In addition to being a shocking depiction of how horrifying racism can be, this scene underlies some of the common misconceptions about racism. 

I’m aware that I’m a white person writing about racism and I don’t fully appreciate what it’s like to experience it as an everyday occurrence. I can’t speak for all white people, but from my experience there is an incorrect assumption by many white people that racism has two criteria. Firstly, that it’s an action that someone made a conscious decision to do, i.e. someone chose to be racist. Secondly, racism is always clearly racism, i.e. something that, if seen by a neutral white person, they would understand to be horrific. Events such as murder, rape, arson and beatings fall into this definition.

The subtle nature of racism

The opening of A Time To Kill meets these two criteria. An awful act - so bad that it moves an all-white jury - and one that the perpetrators choose consciously to do, even as a spur of the moment decision. Burning down an African American church or lynching someone also fits these criteria. The misconception that racism must have these two criteria obscures how subtle a lot of racism is.

A new documentary on Netflix presents a different picture of racism. It shows that it might not appear horrific at first and not arise through conscious decisions. This is a more nuanced exploration of racism than the very violent opening of A Time To Kill. It’s more nuanced than the films that focus on the sort of instances of racism that even a white person, unaware of their white-privilege, would consider racist.

This film is called Coded Bias. It begins by exploring the inbuilt biases in facial recognition technology. The film follows Joy Buolamwini, a grad student at MIT who was working on a project involving facial recognition and discovered that the software being used to scan people’s faces struggled to read faces of women and people of colour. Buolamwini realised that she had to wear a white mask for the software to recognise her face.

Failing to recognise faces

Buolamwini discovered that the problem with the software failing to recognise women or people of colour’s faces meant that many times, facial recognition software failed to match, or provided the wrong match, for people who are not white men.

Coded Bias goes on to look at a group called Big Brother Watch, who are organising against the use of facial recognition software by the Metropolitan Police in London. They follow police surveillance vans using facial recognition software, which is flagging people for the police to question who aren’t the suspects they are looking for. The film shows an example of a school boy, a person of colour, who is questioned by the police but is not someone they are looking for. He was flagged for questioning by the software.

The reason for these mistakes is that the software is not familiar enough with women or people of colour’s faces. The AIs that match police camera footage to databases of suspects need to be trained to analyse human faces. To do this, these AIs are fed millions of photographs to scan for faces. However, not enough women or people of colour were included in the training data that has been fed to AIs, so the AIs didn’t understand the difference between different women or people of colour when they encountered them in the real world.

The taint of discrimination

The reason why women and people of colour were not included in the training databases is that these databases were initially made out of the photos that were to hand, i.e. pictures of the staff at the elite universities and computer science labs that pioneered AI and facial recognition research. I’m sure I don’t have to explain to you why women and people of colour have been historically underrepresented at elite universities and research institutions.

This failure of facial recognition software to recognises people of colour’s faces - which has real world consequences when this software is being used by police - shows how subtle racism is and how the taint of discrimination creeps into everything that our society produces. Machines may not have bias in their hearts, but the society that produced them did.

The companies and institutions that use this technology are not transparent about how they are used. When the police question someone, that person has no way of knowing that the reason they are being questioned is because an AI that can’t tell the difference between different people of colour flagged them as a police suspect. If we don’t know what means are being used to investigate crime, then the concept of due process and fair legal proceedings goes out the window.

Assumptions about racism

Some believe that using machines to select candidates to interview for a job, or to identify police suspects in a crowd, is a way to strip out the human biases from these processes. There is no denying that humans bring their gender and racial biases into their decisions (consciously or unconsciously). However, machines only follow the programmes of their designers and unconscious bias can creep into their design. The machines our society makes reflect the prejudices of our society, just as the makeup of the faculty and student body of our elite universities represents the prejudices of our society.

The problems that Buolamwini found when she tried to design a piece of university course work that could recognise her face is connected to the opening of A Time To Kill. They both show how racism is a part of our society, but their differences show an assumption that many people make: that racism is a conscious decision by bad people and that it’s not something that can come about through unconscious biases that are so deeply ingrained in society that they are invisible. Like the air around us, racism can be invisible, and we don’t think about it, but it's always there.

No one set out, with deliberate malice in their heart, to create a facial recognition AI that would misread women and people of colour’s faces so that police in London can harass an innocent school boy. However, that is exactly what happened.

Racism doesn't have to announce itself

Many people (most of them white) like to tell themselves that if they don’t have hate in their heart and they don’t use the N word they’re not racist. If you’re thinking that, then you can give yourself a pat on the back for being a better person than a far-right thug with swastika tattoos, throwing bricks through the windows of a mosque. You are objectively better than that piece of scum.

However, you can still be doing something racist without deliberately choosing to be racist and without being motivated by hate. You could be using software that’s incorrectly flagging up people of colour for police questioning, and not stop to ask what’s happening or what the effects of this are on the people being falsely questioned by the police.

This idea that racism is only done by people like the vile dirt-bags depicted in the opening of A Time To Kill, people who have hate in their hearts and the N-word on their lips, leads many white people to either ignore or become angry at the people of colour who try to explain how racism is often subtler than the clear morality of a Hollywood film. Racism doesn't have to announce itself with Sieg Heils and street fights. It can be brought quietly into the world by people with the best of intentions, who are still subject to the deep-rooted biases in society.

Deeply embedded racism

Coded Bias shows how deeply racism is embedded into our society and how it manifests in surprising ways that have profound effects on people’s lives. The film ends with Buolamwini testifying before Congress about the serious impact that biases in facial recognition software can have.

We need to be aware of how our technology can replicate the deep-rooted injustices in our society. We also need to be aware that just because something isn’t obviously racist that doesn’t mean it’s not racist.

Seaspiracy is weakened by framing the environment as a consumer issue

Politics and food are deeply entwined because what you eat is a powerful statement of your identity, but also because food shopping is where individuals can use their consumer power to create change. You may think that your purchasing habits are insignificant, but the boycott of South Africa was partly responsible for the end of Apartheid. Lots of people changing how they shop can have a big impact.

It’s hard to talk about the politics of food without thinking about this consumer choice framework. If we stop people from buying Soda Streams and Israeli dates, can we stop Israeli settlements in the West Bank? Debates around buying Fair Trade or sustainably sourced produce stems from the Gandhi insured idea that we should use our consumer power to be the change we want to see in the world.

Seaspiracy vs The Cove

It is with this in mind that I approached Seaspiracy, a new Netflix documentary about the fishing industry. The film begins by looking at whaling and dolphin killing in Japan. Seaspiracy makes a case that these practices are unnecessarily bloody and cruel, although this subject is covered more effectively by the 2009 documentary The Cove.

The film quickly moves on from this to explore the environmental impact of the fishing industry, first in Japan and then all over the world. I consider myself to be reasonably well informed about environmental issues, but I was flabbergasted at how destructive the fishing industry is.

Oil spills and garbage patches

Perhaps the most impactful moment of the film is when it argues that the BP Oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 was a net benefit for marine life, because it caused a temporary stop to fishing. This fact was not only surprising, but brought home to me the impact of an industry I had naively assumed was largely benign. I had made this assumption because, even in news sources that report on environmental stories, there is little reporting of overfishing and pollution from the fishing industry.

The film draws an interesting parallel between the high level of concern over plastic straws, and other single-use plastics, against the lower level of concern about the environmental impact of the fishing industry. One thing I didn’t know is that nearly half of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is fishing gear the industry abandons.

(Un)sustainable fishing

The contrast between the two is important, as single-use plastic is seen as an issue that can be tackled with consumer power - simply stop buying single-use plastics - whereas it’s much harder to change how the fishing industry goes about catching fish. Shouldn’t we only buy sustainably sourced fish and thus change the fishing industry using our consumer power, I hear you ask? Well, Seaspiracy doesn’t think this will work.

Seaspiracy shows that buying sustainably sourced fish is not an effective way to stop the damaging practices of the fishing industry. The film demonstrates that there is no way to accurately inspect the fishing boats whilst at sea to make sure they are fishing according to sustainability standards.

In one interview, a representative of the body who certifies that the food we buy is sustainably fished, admits that their representatives don’t check all the boats that are supposed to be catching sustainably sourced fish and can be bribed even if they did see unsustainable practices.

The role of government

The film concludes that the only way to protect ocean life is to eat less fish, once again framing an environmental issue as one of consumer choice. The focus on using consumer power to affect environmental change is not just limited to issues of fishing, it is a key part of many environmental narratives. Framing an environmental problem as an issue of consumer choice places the emphasis on individuals to address these big problems and overlooks the role of collective action in tackling them.

Consumers do hold a lot of power in our capitalist economic system and by shopping with the environment in mind we can send signals that might cause industries to change. I’m not for a second saying we shouldn’t consider the ethics of what we spend our money on.

However, the problems facing the environment are not just ones of consumer choice. In a world where 71% of emissions comes from 100 companies, there is a vital role for governments to take on these mega-polluters as even consumer power isn’t enough to get them to change. They must be compelled to change by the only thing more powerful than industry: the government.

Employment and the fishing industry

Seaspiracy focuses too much on consumer change as a solution to the problems of the fishing industry and not enough on what can be done by the government. It also fails to explore the impact of the collapse of the fishing industry, following everyone stopping buying fish.

The film takes aim at the subsidies that Western governments give to fishing and blames them for the environmental damage that results from these subsidies. Although it is correct that by supporting the fishing industry the government is supporting the damage it does to the environment, subsidies exist to protect sources of employment. Many economically depressed coastal communities depend on income that comes from the fishing industry, which is kept going by the subsidies.

The film does not adequately explore what the impact of everyone stopping eating fishing would be on the people who work in the fishing industry. It does explore the effect that industrial fishing from Chinese fishing boats has had on small-scale fishing in Africa. It argues that small-scale fishing is no longer sustainable because of the impact of large industrial Chinese fishing.

When fishing stops being a viable source of food and employment, it pushes the former fishermen into either piracy or trading in bush meat, the latter of which the film blames for the recent Ebola outbreak. Seaspiracy shows the negative effects of unemployment in the African fishing industry, but it doesn’t stop to consider the effect of shutting down large industrial fishing operations that employ many more people in other countries.

A powerful argument

Seaspiracy powerfully portrayals the huge environmental impact of the fishing industry. It’s horrifying to see the devastation that this industry causes, and more needs to be done to stop this damage before it becomes irreversible.

The film makes a powerful argument to stop eating seafood as a means to prevent the destruction of our oceans. I agree that we should stop using our consumer spending to support the fishing industry, but by framing this as only a matter of consumer choice, the film is missing the broader social change that is needed so that government power can be brought to bear to protect the environment from exploitative industries.

If we think of the environment as something that can be fixed at the checkout, we ignore the complex political issues - from food distribution to employment - that are mixed in with the environmental protection that together are needed as part of a broad political response to the environmental crisis we all face.

The Big Meeting is a celebration of radical left culture

Socialism can look like a series of policy positions. It can be described as a movement of politicians who are committed to, for example, renationalising the railways, raising taxes on the wealthy or spending more on welfare. It is these things, but that is the tip of a much larger iceberg. Socialism is a culture, a history, an outlook, even a way of being. This culture is what has given life to socialism over the decades. It is deeper and has more emotional resonance than policy positions. 

One of the institutions in this culture in Britain is the Durham Miners’ Gala, which takes place every second Saturday in July the city of Durham. It’s a celebration of radical left culture, a bringing together of like minds in solidarity and rallying point for the movement.

A new documentary called The Big Meeting, directed by Daniel Draper, has captured the vibrancy, diversity and energy of the gala for everyone. “Visiting and filming the Gala in 2016, I was exposed to the colour, noise and environment for the first time. It’s something I’ve struggled to articulate into words to people ever since,” Draper said. I myself have never been, but this film made we want to go. It captures how exciting it is.

The Gala began in 1871 and was started by miners’ trade unions. Today it takes place at the old Racecourse in Durham and attracts representatives from many different groups in the labour movement. Its history has been interwoven with the history of the trade unions, the Labour Party and the radical left of British politics for the last century and a half.

The gala consists of many things that are iconic of left-wing working class culture, such as brass bands (many affiliated to collieries), old banners of trade unions and radical organisations, marches and speeches from leaders of the labour movement. There is also live music from Billy Bragg and people selling radical books and pamphlets. All of these are staples of left-wing culture, but at the gala their power is felt. Colliery bands and banners come to life when they are in the presence of so many people who I appreciate the rich history they embody.

A sense of the scale and energy

Filmed over the course of the 135th gala, the film uses observational documentary techniques to immerse the audience in the event. Interviews and voice over and kept to a minimum to make space for close, fly-on-the-wall observations of the people attending the gala. This brings the atmosphere to life. As a viewer, you get a sense of what it is like to be amidst the crowds, marches and music. Montage is used to show the vast range of people, groups and activities and split screen is employed to show different events in the gala occurring simultaneously.

The film follows a few characters through their experience of the gala. This allows us to get a sense of the scale and energy of the gala. “I don’t think words can do justice to such an occasion - I feel like the Gala is a living and breathing organism, something not static, but immovable - a celebration of working-class life, not just today, but almost as if it takes place in the past and future simultaneously.” Draper said.

The film features grandees of the left. There is footage of a speech from Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders appears via a video message to the gala and the film also features interviews with Paul Manson, DBC Pierre and others played over old photographs and historic footage of galas gone. The later puts the current gala into its historic context and shows how it’s the modern embodiment of a radical tradition.

The presence of these well-known figures are supplementary to the film. The main focus of the documentary is on local gala attendees. We follow Charlotte Austin, a student at Oxford University whose family is of old Country Durham Mining stock, who volunteers for the People’s Bookshop selling radical left-wing books at the gala. There is also Laura Daly who is introducing a new banner celebrating women’s’ history in the labour movement. We meet Robert McManners who collects and chronicles working class left-wing art. It is through their time at the gala that we experience it.

The film is an unvarnished portrait of the gala's history. There are candid discussions about the sexual encounters that took place at past galas, where the event was an opportunity to escape from the restrictive sexual mores of the day. There scenes showing the heavy drinking that some partake in. A more saccharine film would have glossed over these aspects, but this film shows what the gala is like and has been like.

This is not presented as a criticism of the gala, more a warm reflection of how the gala reflects all aspects of what people need from radical politics. Yes, there are great speeches outlining a vision for a bold new world, but also a chance for people to let loose and throw off the restrictions and judgments of society, if only for a little while.

Pride in mining communities

There are sombre moments to the film. There is a service that takes place in Durham cathedral where new banners are blessed and brass bands play that captures the solemnity of the history of the labour movement that is being celebrated and pays homage to the struggles of the past.

This reflects the gala’s long and proud history, but it’s also a modern event that embodies the radical left today. The film follows the introduction of a new banner celebrating the contribution of the woman of Durham. There are also interviews with LGBT activists, including representatives of Lesbians and Gays Support The Miners who were immortalised in the film Pride. There is a focus on current struggles for liberation and self-determination around the world such, just as there was a focus on Irish self-determination or Civil Rights in the past.

The gala, and by extension this film, is a celebration of working class and radical left culture. It’s wonderful to see the joy and pride that the attendants have in our culture captured on film, as equally worthy the subject of a documentary as the Royal Ballet.

The film shows people with a huge sense of pride in coming from a mining community, which is not often depicted on film. The film shows people who are proud to be on the left, gathered together, having a good time and organising to continue the struggle for a fairer society. It evokes a strong sense of community, of everyone belonging to a radical left culture. This sense of everyone being together, being equally valid and partaking in a rich left-wing culture is the essence of socialism.

THE BIG MEETING will be released in UK cinemas 6th September www.galafilm.co.uk

Everyone should go and see Mike Leigh’s Peterloo

Mike Leigh, veteran left-wing filmmaker, director of Happy-Go-Lucky and Secrets & Lies, has made a film of a seminal event in British history: the Peterloo massacre. In 1819, the unprovoked massacre of ordinary people protesting injustice shocked the nation. Peterloo is the foundational event of British democracy and it paved the way for the process of reforms that (eventually) gave everyone the vote.

This was certainly a film that I was going to like, as it combines my interest in cinema, history and radical politics. It is probably no surprise to you, if you know me, that I did like this film. I can’t have unbiased opinions about something as important to me as this film. 

So, my entirely subjective opinion is that this is a powerful film. I defy anyone to not be moved when they see unarmed men, women and children mowed down by cavalry in a confined square.

Mike Leigh and the army of actors, camera people, set designers, clothes makers and prop designers have created a very detailed portrait of a critical time in British history. There are lots of historic details that bring the film to life, from beautiful period costumes to the recreation of political rhetoric from the time.

The film’s sympathies are with the ordinary victims of the massacre, however, it does not paint the massacre as either a freak occurrence, an accident or being unavoidable. There were clear decisions that led up to it happening, made by a range of people with their own prejudices and assumptions. The film characterises the complex political situation and nodes of state power around Peterloo and the events that ultimately led to the deaths of 15 people and between 400 and 700 injuries.

As well as exploring the complexities of the state apparatus that carried out the massacre the film does not present the victims as one monolithic block. The film explores how they had a wide range of opinions. Some people were people were poor and simply wanted to improve their circumstances. Some people were protesting against the greed and callousness of landowners. Some had specific goals such as the repeal of the Corn Laws or reforms to how parliament was elected. Some had a radical vision of changing all of British society. Then, like today, a mass movement of people was made up of many different people with different visions, united in a common expression of discontent.

Peterloo is a strangely hopefully film, considering it is about a peaceful protest that was cut down. There are many characters in the film who are hopeful about the prospect of one form of change or another. Many of the characters in the film who are poor and have been ground down by early 19th century Manchester. There had been a lot of change, industrialisation and the rise of dark satanic mills, and many people’s lives has been made worse by the Corn Laws and a draconian establishment that uses everything from courts to the military to batter people down. Despite all this, many characters are hopeful, they believe their situation can improve and that their lives can get better and that they are the instrument of the change they need.

Our world is changing rapidly as well. Information technology could have as dramatic an effect on the world of the 21st century as industrialisation did on the 19th. A lot of this change seems to be for the worse. Social media has given a new platform to nationalists and hate mongers. In many ways it seems our world is spinning out of control. In this last week we have had bombs sent to liberal politicians, mass shootings in a Synagogue and the far-right candidate winning an election in Brazil. Just as it did for the Manchester poor of the early 19th century, the future looks bleak.

I think we can take some courage from the people who stood up for a better world in St Peter’s Field in Manchester. Their sacrifice brought us a fairer and more equal society. Peterloo shows that there is a cost to doing politics, especially when the state is heavily armed and its power is wielded by people who are the awful combination of stupid, prejudiced and frightened. Terrible things can happen when standing up to power and demanding that you be treated like a human being with rights. There is a cost to asking for a better world. Terrible things may happen in our future, but we still need to stand up for our rights against those who would oppress us and grind us down.

If ordinary people can come together and stand up for fairer, more equal and less oppressive society then a positive change can be made. The legacy of Peterloo is that ordinary people can make a positive difference, when united, even against an oppressive and powerful enemy. This is why a film that is very sad, ultimately left me feeling positive about our future.

The Death of Stalin

A lot of people have been down to the cinema to have a chuckle at some Communists in the middle of a panic. So far, so unremarkable - but some people don’t like that we’re having a laugh. Specifically, some people don’t like that we’re having a laugh about Joseph Stalin. Peter Hitchens wrote a piece about why our enjoyment of Armando Iannucci’s The Death of Stalin is in terribly bad taste and that we should read Billy Liar instead.

The core of Hitchens’s argument is that Stalin was a mass murderer and so shouldn’t be made fun of. The fact that Stalin’s brutal reign of terror was soaked in the blood of innocent people is not in doubt. Neither is the fact that he is one of biggest monsters of the 20th century’s, if not of all time.

A comedy about the Rwandan genocide or the Ethiopian famine would be in poor taste, even if it was written by one of the greatest living satirists. On the other hand, a film making fun of Napoleon or Vlad the Impaler would be fine - so long as it was actually funny. I can’t imagine people protesting outside London’s art house cinemas or writing huffy Mail Online columns about violent despots from centuries ago.

Where do you draw the line as to what history is too recent or too tragic to be made fun of? Everyone’s answer will be different, and so there will be disagreements about whether a particular film, book or TV show is in bad taste. Where there are disagreements, it’s worth us having a conversation.

In the spirt of having a conversation about The Death of Stalin, I would like to say that this film is not only very funny, but also it will open peoples’ eyes to what life was like in the USSR under Stalin. No one can watch this film and think that Stalinism or the Soviet Union’s particular take on Marxism was good. The real-life characters in this film are motivated by greed and paranoia, and they show a casual disregard for life that is chilling.

These people were so focused on their own survival and thirst for power that they allowed huge numbers of people to be beaten, raped, tortured and killed. This film exposes the terror of Stalin and the complacency of those in his inner circle. It is good that it was made and that lots of people are going to see it so that we can remember Stalin’s crimes and thereby prevent such a thing from ever happening again.

This film is clearly good entertainment and it is making history more accessible to a mass audience. So why is Hitchens so upset about it? There is something else going on in the words of Hitchens. There is a dog-whistle being blown here. It is found in Hitchens’s assertion that there hasn’t been a tragic film about how awful life under Stalin was. He laments that “Hitler’s crimes have been repeatedly explored in mass-market TV series, and major fictional films without number. But the equivalent documentaries and dramas about Stalin have yet to be made.”

Hitchens is suggesting that it is because of the left/liberal dominance in the media and arts that we don’t have a Schindler’s List for Stalin’s terror. Hitchens states: “fashionable showbiz persons [read: lefties] still can’t grasp that Stalin (Left-wing) was just as evil as Hitler (Right-wing).”

His implication is that the crimes of Stalin have been ignored by lefties because they don’t want to criticise him too much as they feel some sympathy with his cause and, on some level, justify his terror. Hitchens wants us to think that there are scripts about how awful Stalin was that are being passed over for production because lefties in the media are worried that if we start criticising Stalin then the unthinking masses will see what’s wrong with the entire left from Hillary Clinton to Slavoj Zizek, and go rushing into the arms of the Mail on Sunday.

Think for a second about all the Schindler’s Lists about Stalin that have been strangled in their cribs because lefty sensibilities don’t want to hear criticism of the Soviet Union, a criticism we can’t bear because at the end of the day Communism was a good idea even if it was terribly executed. In Hitchens’s view, lefties think mass murder must be excused so that they can feel smugly superior to Christians when they are homophobic.

Hitchens says that Hollywood has always been ambivalent towards Stalin and “that ambivalence goes back to Hollywood’s flirtation with Communism in the wartime 1940s,” when “Hollywood was soft on Stalin”. Maybe it was back in the 1940s, when Stalin was in our good books after helping us defeat Hitler. It wasn’t just the left that was “soft of Stalin” immediately post World War Two. 

Off the top of my head, I can think of films such as the Enemy at the Gates, which does show how bad Stalingrad was and how little the Red Army cared for its conscripts. This film starring Jude Law, Rachel Weisz and Ed Harris is not better known because, in short, it’s not very good.

Hitchens is right that there’s no Schindler’s List for Stalin and his victims. There’s also no Schindler’s List about the Indonesian mass killings. The fact that this piece of history doesn’t even have a proper noun, let alone a heart-wrenching slice of Hollywood Oscar-bait perhaps could be because the victims were Communists, or because in the West we don’t care about what happens in Indonesia?

A lot of history’s tragedies (recent and past) have not had the mainstream Hollywood treatment. The fact that Hollywood thinks there is money and Oscars (and Oscars just mean more money from DVD sales as you can put “winner of 5 Oscars on the box”) in a particular historic tragedy does not make it more or less of tragic than any other piece of history, and commentators obsessed with the masonic control that liberal Hollywood has over popular culture would do well to remember this.

I don’t know whether the general liberal persuasion of Hollywood has prevented there being a Schindler’s List for Stalin. My suspicion is that if Hollywood thought there would be money in it, their political beliefs wouldn’t stop them from making a film about it.

What is certain is that many people on the left, including the far left, deplore Stalinism and the terror of his bloody regime. In all my years on the political left, I have never heard anyone trying to defend Stalin or justify what he did. To imply that all liberals are secret apologists for Stalin is to twist reality to the perspective of paranoid conspiracy.

Hitchens is telling us that we shouldn’t have a chuckle in the cinema because “laughter is not necessarily an expression of happiness or delight. It is often an expression of conformism and almost invariably an attempt to identify with others.” Laughter can be an expression of astonishment or disbelief at the absurd actions of others, which has been the basis of satire and farce for centuries, and is the basis of much of the humour in The Death of Stalin.

Stop your virtue signalling conformity and read Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore instead. Then read Margaret Thatcher’s memoirs to divest yourself of any silly liberal ideas. Stop laughing at the back. Don’t you know what’s good for you?

Living memory of death in war

I am always surprised how little most people know about the Second World War. I find it strange that people don’t know the details of the most massive military conflict ever. I assumed that a basic understanding of Operation Market Garden or the Battle of the Atlantic was just a natural part of being British; information everyone absorbed through osmosis via our cultural obsession with the World War 2.

Dunkirk, the subject of a new film by Christopher Nolan, is a good example. I wonder how many people didn’t understand the scale of the evacuation of Normandy until they saw it on film. My knowledge is a product of the fact that I was raised on war stories. They formed a core part of the popular culture I consumed from an early age. From Saving Private Ryan to Medal of Honour, stories about the Second World War were a constant part of my childhood. We are not an especially military family, although dad is a historian, but through these stories I felt connected to something huge that was within living memory.

That connection to the actual lived experience of the Second World War is dying. The Normandy Veteran’s Association closed in November 2014 - the same year as the 70th anniversary of D-Day - because there are not enough Normandy Veterans left alive to sustain it. The war is becoming another collection of dates, battles and statistics, rather than something tangible that is a part of us via our collective memory. This is not necessarily a good or bad thing; it is just how time works.

As World War 2 has become history, something significant has changed. We have lost the direct connection to the people, the ordinary soldiers, who fight in wars. Help for Heroes is generously supported by the British public and we still observe the two minutes silence on Remembrance Sunday, but fewer people have or know someone who has a direct experience of war.

In the Battle of the Somme, 420,000 British soldiers died. The total population of the UK was around 42m people, so 1 in 100 people died in a single battle. Almost everyone would have known someone personally connected to the Somme. By contrast: 454 British soldiers were killed during the entire war in Afghanistan, out of a UK population of around 63 million. That’s 0.0007% of the population. This enormous shift is changing how we relate to war and the people who fight it.

The connection to war is fading partly because war has not recently taken place on a scale to touch everyone’s lives. The people who fight in wars are becoming abstract concepts to many, but recent conflicts are still woven through our popular culture. From Jarhead, in the cynical early 2000s, saying that there are no anti-war films to the Punisher’s origin story in the Netflix's Daredevil Series 2 being updated from Vietnam to Iraq (he could just have been a vigilante, but the story is more effective if the Punisher is a man of honour, scared while serving his country’s political interests overseas). War is still a big deal for our society, but we are increasingly disconnected from it.

This point was underlined recently when Amy Shafer from Center for a New American Security published a report highlighting: “the growing civil-military divide” in the US. Shafer’s report found that 60% of veterans under the age of 40 had a family member in the military, compared 39% of civilians. 25% had a parent who served. The report also found that geographical location is significant in the makeup of US armed forces, as 60% of recruits come from the South and West. 37% came from the South alone. Shafer said: “half of the states in the U.S. contribute more than their fair share, and half contribute less.” War is still a big part of society, but for most of us, war is something that happens far away and to other people

Strangely, this has not made war any less popular. Shafer states that: “60% of youths ages 18 to 29 supported sending ground troops to fight ISIS”. We are currently fighting several wars around the world and are deeply embroiled in a handful of other conflicts. There are fewer anti-war protests then when I was a teenager. The public either supports our current wars or is apathetic to them.

As someone who wants the country to involved in less conflict I find this interesting. Support for war remains high (certainly war as defined as bombing people in other countries, I am not sure the British public would want British boots on the ground anytime soon) despite the fact that war is isolated from us both physically and socially.

I don’t think it is good that only small sections of society are engaged with military service. If we are going to have an army (whether we should, and what we should use it for, is a different debate), then it should be reflective of the country it represents. However, getting more people into the army (either via the draft or national service) is not good for preventing more wars. It appears that our enthusiasm for war is not related to the size or structure of our armed services.

I am left thinking that if we understood history better, what wars involved and the devastation they caused, then maybe we would be more hesitant about dropping bombs from a great height on other countries. My education in war history (even though it was full of thinly disguised American pro-war propaganda like Saving Private Ryan) made me more anti-war, not pro-war. Do the 18 to 29 year-olds Shafer talked about in her article, isolated physically and socially from war, know about the history of recent conflicts? How many people died? The human cost?

The knowledge of war I am referring to is more than troop movements and casualty figures. It is the social changes that bringing women into the factories caused, or segregation in the US army. It is looking at the money spent rebuilding Germany after World War 2 and the denazification program. If we understood these things then more people might ask if we spent enough rebuilding Iraq after the invasion, or question whether we spent enough time on a new political settlement there. If those issues had been raised, then maybe the current situation could have been avoided. Mosul has been liberated from IS, but it has also been completely destroyed. Who will pay to rebuild it? Who is asking that question?

Britain is still a country obsessed with war and our past glories. But it is ironically a country that knows less and less about war and the people who fight it. As World War 2 moves further into the past and nature of our armed forces changes, being better connected to our history and understanding it is a way to prevent the experiences of people who live through wars fading from our minds entire.

Dispossession: The Great Social Housing Swindle

Look out your window. What do you see? I'll tell you: a housing crisis. Unless you're in the countryside, in which case you're probably looking at a nice field that will shortly become a site for shale gas exploration. As this blog is pretty metropolitan, I’ll assume that you're looking at houses.

Crucially, you are not looking at not enough houses. Not enough to meet the demand for accommodation. An Englishman's home is his castle, or so the saying goes. For this to be true castles would need to be redefined as mouldy bedsits that cost £700 a month to rent. We have a housing crisis, or a castle crisis if the saying is to be believed.

Whatever you call where you live (I go for Place de la Ball, but it's not catching on) it is becoming increasingly true that people with decent wages and money cannot afford to live in London or other big cities. We are, quite simply, not building enough houses.

Calls to tackle the problem of unaffordable homes have been getting louder for a while. Even the Daily Mail, the staunch defender of the property owner, is getting in on the act. However, we also have a crisis in social housing and this is less talked about. If you're struggling to pay for a bedsit in Tooting with your job as scrum manager and your landlord just raised the rent, then I feel for you mate. I really do. That's shit. However, we don't spend enough time talking about the housing that is supposed to be safety net for the less fortunate.

Since Margaret Thatcher's Right To Buy scheme in 1980, the social housing stock (mainly council housing, the homes owned directly by the government) has been run down. There is a massive shortage in housing generally but this more acutely felt in the social housing sector, which is supposed to provide for the poor, the disabled or those whose basic needs will not be met by the private rental market.

Houses prices are rising faster than my enthusiasm for a pub that just expanded its craft beer range, which means that the social housing stock is being run down. This is pushing more and more people into the private rental market and a lot of these people have basic needs that cannot be met at the price that the private rental market sets for accommodation. This is turn ultimately leads to the vulnerable being exploited.

A new film from director Paul Sng called Dispossession: the Great Social Housing Swindle, aims to shine a light on the current state of social housing. It is a powerful documentary that covers more than 30 years of history, politics and urbanism. Now, more than ever, this a topic that we need a public discussion about, so I urge you all to go and see this film.

The film examines the problems caused by the lack of social housing. It covers how the social housing stock has been run down as houses prices have grown. It looks at how people have lost of their homes or being priced out of accommodation that was supposed to provide for them for life. No one can claim to be human and not be moved by the plight of Beverley Robinson, who is refusing to leave her flat in the Aylesbury Estate in Walworth, London until the council offer her enough money to buy a home in the area. People like Beverley are the victims of the housing crisis.

The film shows specific examples of social housing, which was supposed to be set aside for the less well off, being taken away from the people who need in it. Not just Beverley in the Aylesbury Estate, but also residents of Balfron Tower, a brutalist marvel built by Erno Goldfinger, a Hungarian socialist who wanted to make housing for people with “deep roots in the immediate neighbourhood”. Sadly, middle class architecture enthusiasts who move to London to work, and live in East London (like me), are making Balfron Tower a fashionable place to live. This is leading to the people who should be living there; the people Goldfinger designed the building for, losing their homes.

When we talk about the housing crisis it is easy to focus on London, where price rises and austerity have taken a huge toll. However, we are in a grip of a national housing crisis with people in Birmingham, Liverpool and Newcastle unable to afford a place to live, while their neighbourhoods are colonised by people selling up in London. There is a social housing crisis across the land and Dispossession looks at estates such as St Ann’s in Nottingham, where residents have had to deal with the stigma associated with council housing for years. A stigma that is entirely false.

The film also looks at Glasgow and the huge privatisation of social housing that took place there. Between those exploited by rogue landlords and those who cannot afford to live in their home town, it is clear that the housing crisis is just as toxic in East Glasgow as it is in East London.

Dispossession talks to real people whose lives are affected by the social housing crisis and lets them tell their stories. This brings home the human side of an issue that can too often be dominated by discussion of policy on brown field land or relative house price inflation. Not that these things aren't important, but once you see the squalor that residents of Govanhill in Glasgow live in, you will feel compelled to act to help your fellow human beings.

Dispossession show the same pattern, being repeated across the country. Loss of social housing, through selling it off and bad deals that do not provide for the people who need it, and not enough new social housing being built. Across the country, people who want to stay in their homes cannot and vulnerable people are not having their basic needs met.

The conclusion from this is straightforward: the market mechanism for social housing cannot keep people in their homes meet their needs. We need more social housing. We need to stop the sale of the social housing that we have and we need to build more. Everyone has the right to a safe and secure home and should not lose it due a redevelopment deal or because rising house prices makes their central London plot incredibly desirable.

We cannot afford to overlook the problems of social housing when we tackle the housing crisis. The scrum manager struggling to make rent on his private rented bedsit in Tooting and Beverley, who risk being driven out of the Walworth area, are both victims of the same travesty. We need to know about each other's plight and work together to solve this problem so that everyone can have a safe and affordable home for life. This film is a critical step towards that.

If you want to see Dispossession: the Great Social Housing Swindle film screens across the country can be found here:

https://www.dispossessionfilm.com/

I, Daniel Blake

Ken Loach has never shied away from addressing controversial political topics in his films. His 1966 TV play Cathy Come Home uncovered the terrible state of housing in the 1960s and energised a social movement to improve the quality of housing. Since then he has tackled issues such as life on a Glasgow council estate, Irish Independence, the 1945 election and the damage caused by Thatcherism. His characters are usually working class and his films frequently have a left wing political message. In his latest film, I, Daniel Blake, Loach attacks the cruel and unsympathetic welfare system.

The film focuses on Daniel Blake, a carpenter from Newcastle who has been signed off work following a heart attack. When he is denied Disability Living Allowance he has to apply for Job Seekers Allowance, however, Dan quickly finds that the system is set against him. This is a film that states clearly that the safety net is not helping the people who need it, because of the restrictions on claiming benefits.

I, Daniel Blake is effective in making its point. Almost every scene is dedicated to showing how the loops that Dan has to jump through are set up to grind down his self-esteem. The film is filled with characters who try to help Dan, from his neighbours to a friendly Jobcentre employee, but the benefits system itself actively prevents them from making a difference. Loach is saying that people are good and want to help, but the rules prevents them from doing so. It is a bitter indictment of our collectively lack of humanity.

Loach digs into the wider economic and social problems that have contributed to Dan’s situation. When Dan is sent to a mandatory CV workshop by the Jobcentre, he makes the point that there are way too many job seekers for the amount of jobs that are available, so it does not matter how good his CV is. The housing crisis is examined through the character of Katie, an unemployed single mum that Dan befriends. Katie has been moved to Newcastle from London, because this is the nearest council flat available for her and her two children. Food poverty is tackled when benefit sanctions force Katie to visit a food bank. Katie also skips meals so that there is enough food for her children. One in five UK adults are current struggling to feed their children.

The audience knows that it was Tory austerity and Iain Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms that made it so much harder to claim benefits. It is these policies that have removed the safety net that was created to protect people like Dan or Katie when they were in need. The film does not point to specific policies, people or parties as responsible for the situation; the Tories and IDS are only mentioned once by an unnamed supporting character. Maybe this is because it would be out of character for Dan to understand the politics that oppress him. The result is that this is not a partisan film, it is about how cruel and unfair the system is.

The strength of I, Daniel Blake is that Dan and Katie are very sympathetic. They are good, honest people who want to and actively seek work. They are hard working families and cannot be described as scroungers. Through their story we see the very human cost of welfare restrictions, which makes the audience angry with the system and want to change it. It is worth remembering while the disaster of Brexit unfolds, the unemployed are still suffering under a cruel benefits system. Effectively conveying this fact to a large audience is a huge achievement for Loach.

One of my main concerns with the films is that Dan and Katie are so sympathise that the film could make it worse for benefit claimants. Campaigners against welfare cuts frequently use instances of the deserving to back up their case for a more just welfare system. Perversely, this actually increases support for welfare restrictions. This is because when the public find out about cases of the needy being unable to access benefits, they become angrier at the scroungers they read about in the papers taking money away from people like Dan and Katie. This leads to a desires to further tighten access to benefits as a means of helping deserving claimants.

My other concern about the film is whether it will reach the right audience? Cathy Come Home was very successful in starting a public campaign to improve housing conditions in the 1960s. However, Cathy Come Home was on the BBC when there were only two channels. We had less choice and therefore more people who ordinarily would not have been exposed to the ideas of the film found out about the state of housing at the time. Now we have a much wider choice in media and I worry that I, Daniel Blake will only be seen by an audience who already agree with its message.

At the screening I attended, in a middle class area of North London, a huge cheer rose from the audience when a character insulted Iain Duncan Smith, but I live in a safe Labour seat. The Daily Mail has barely covered I, Daniel Blake, even when it won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes film festival this year. They are able to pretend that it does not exist, because their audience will never find out to about it. The people who should have to experience the anguish of watching Dan suffer never will.

It is a problem with contemporary politics that we all live in bubbles filled with the opinions we already hold, fed back to us by social media and selective news that we consume. We are isolated from ideas that challenge our worldview. I, Daniel Blake is a brilliant piece of filmmaking, but regardless of how good it is, it will only ever be seen by people who agree with it.

We need more films that challenge the cruelty of our government and the callousness with which many of us have thrown huge numbers of the unemployed onto a scrap heap. However, if we cannot reach out to a broad range people who think differently, then no one’s opinions will alter and nothing will change. To paraphrase Karl Marx: I, Daniel Blake interprets the world. The point, however, is to change it.

Fuck for Forests

Sex!

Now that I have your attention, here is a dry blog post about politics.

That was a joke with a grain of truth in it: sex sells. From shampoo ads to music videos, specific parts of our bodies (usually womens’ bodies) are being used to make us part with pieces of paper with an old women on them. Put like this, it all sounds silly, but a person’s views on the relationship between sex and politics is an important part of their beliefs.

Fuck for Forest is a film about people who sell sex, literally. Michal Marczak’s documentary follows a Berlin based group of filmmakers and activists who are trying save the world with sex. Specifically the natural world. Fuck for Forests itself, is a group of people who make ethical pornographic films and upload them to their website, where they sell membership (like most porn sites). The money goes towards saving the rainforest.

Marczak’s film is a candid fly on the wall documentary following Fuck for Forests as they raise their money, run their strange social enterprise and then try to use the money to help a group of poor Brazilians living in the rain forest. The film does not pass judgement on its subjects, but it does raise a lot of complicated political questions. It caused me to examine my own politics and my thoughts on the merits of what Fuck for Forests are doing. What follows here is my attempt to relay these thoughts in roughly the order they occurred to me as I watched the film. If you really want to watch this documentary then see it before you read further, as there will be spoilers.

The first thing to note is that Fuck for Forests are a group that are hard to take seriously. It was not the way they dress or act that made me doubt their seriousness, although Fuck for Forests do conform to the stereotype of new age hippies. Personally, I do not see how the way that anyone presents themselves affects the validity of their arguments. What I found hard to take seriously is their belief that non-monogamous relationships and public nudity are the most important political battleground of this age.

Fuck for Forests are about as obsessed with sex as the conservative Christian right are, although with diametrically opposite views. Sex is at the centre of their politics, their spiritual views and their belief in how to make the world a better place. I agree that we should be more relaxed about sex and non-conventional relationships. It seems to me a bit silly that public nudity is illegal; why are we so frightened of naked flesh? However next to the huge political, social and economic inequalities in the world, the cruelties of war, and the slow crushing of everything that is not of financial value, the right to have sex in public is not a priority.

I also feel that an intense focus on sex (either liberally or conservatively) is not the best way to go about political change. Our attitudes to sex is a reflection of the state of gender politics, not the cause of it. To achieve equality between the genders, different sexualities and people who do not easily fit into these groups, we need to examine all of society's attitudes to gender and sexuality, not just what happens when genitals are stimulated. As feminist writer and equality campaigner Laurie Penny wrote: "we cannot fuck our way to freedom".

Generally I find that those whose politics revolve entirely around changing attitudes to sexual intercourse are usually privileged enough not to have to worry about other forms of discrimination; the members of Fuck for Forests exemplify this. In one scene, a Fuck for Forests member talks to a group of Palestinian refugees and argues that public nudity should be legal. It is painful to watch the lack of comprehension on the faces of the refugees. Eventually one tells him that they do not have a home and he is only interested in being naked in public.

Any so called "sensible" people will dismiss Fuck for Forests almost straight away, because of their long hair, tattoos, piercings, constant nudity, vague spirituality and liberal attitude to drugs. They are a stereotype that the political mainstream likes to colour anyone with radical views with. I find it tiresome that people with usually the most boring and conformist political opinions enjoy looking down on and easily dismissing the views of anyone who does not conform to their own narrow range of opinions. Usually this dismissal is based on the way someone looks or acts and not their arguments. The sense of superiority that is used by the political mainstream to easily ignore Fuck for Forests is also used to dismiss anyone who challenges the accepted free market orthodoxy. Try questioning capitalism for yourself and see how long it is before someone dismisses you as a “hippy”.

However there is serious point to be made about the best way to convince others of your views. Their appearance and attitudes will alienate most people, which makes it difficult for Fuck for Forests to achieve their core goals, ie the protection of our natural environmental. There is a degree to which you have to conform to what "sensible" people look for in a political movement to achieve change. This unwillingness to conform aesthetically to what is expected is partly what holds back the environmental movement.

After first finding Fuck for Forests and their hyper-sexual politics faintly ridiculous, my view shifted overtime to having more respect to them. The main reason for this is that their commitment to what they believe is inspiring. The members of Fuck for Forests live an incredibly frugal lifestyle to put all the money they make from their sex videos into the cause of saving the rainforest. This includes eating food from the bins of shops and restaurants to save money. This living off what most people consider waste, is partly done to minimise the impact of their lives on the natural environment but it is also because their first and greatest priority is raising money to protect the environment.

Whatever your political views, you have to respect someone who has over 400,000 euros in savings but chooses not to spend it and instead scavenges for thrown away food so that more money can go towards your cause. This level of commitment has to be respected. It is difficult to live an ethical lifestyle, to never use the products or service of a company that dodges tax, exploits workers or damages the natural environment. There are lot of people on the left and right who talk a lot and do very little. Anyone has to respect someone from any political background with the level of commitment to what they believe in that Fuck for Forests have.

They have used their funds to set up an NGO which plans to protect the Amazon rainforest and its indigenous people. The specific means of achieving this is buying rainforest land and giving to the people who live there so that their way of life is protected from companies wanting to exploit the environment. During the film, a group of rainforest residents put out an open call for NGOs to support them in doing just that. Fuck for Forests were the only NGO to reply and the members travel to Brazil to meet the community their money will go towards helping.

This is where the politics of the film get complicated (if they were not already). Fuck for Forests clearly have a, frankly, slightly racist view of the rainforest residents living a harmonious existence with nature, which in their minds includes a relaxed attitude to public nudity. To me, this harmonious existence with nature looks a lot like poverty. Living off the rainforest is a result of the lack of jobs, education and infrastructure in this part of Brazil. Does the world view of the Fuck for Forests require these people to live in poverty so that it can offset their guilt about Western materialism?

Quickly it becomes apparent that these people do not want Fuck for Forests’ money to protect their current way of life. They want it to build roads and start businesses, to create jobs and bring in the material goods that people in the West take for granted. Fuck for Forests are not interested in this, although they do say they want no say in how the rainforest residents manage their land after they use Fuck for Forests' money to buy it.

Fuck for Forests clearly know nothing about the people they want to help, what these people want and what is in their best interests. Their view of an ultra-green existence, epitomised by a pre-industrial society, is in reality poverty. The people in poverty want to escape from it to attain everything that Fuck for Forests believe is destroying the world.

Clearly Fuck for Forests has the wrong priorities. In a selfish way this made me feel better about owning an iPhone and occasionally spending money in Starbucks. Then I thought, what if Fuck for Forests are right? What if taking this money is in the best interest of these people?

Indigenous people's views are rarely consulted when natural resources are exploited. If, in the future, valuable minerals or chemicals are found in this area of the Amazon then the people who live there are more likely to be thrown off it as mining or chemical companies swoop in to grab as much for themselves as possible.

Purchasing their land for their own protection might be the best long term strategy for the rainforest residents. I understand completely that they want roads and industry, but if their land is taken away from them because it is found to be valuable they will be left with nothing. Free money with no strings attached does not come along very often, even if the motivation behind the gift is somewhat dubious.

I was left confused about whether Fuck for Forests were brilliant or crushingly naive. Were they crusaders for equality and defenders of the natural environment? Or just more smug Westerners with slightly racist views of people in other countries?

There are a few things that are problematic about Fuck for Forests’ hyper-liberal take on sexuality. Mainly that they are still a patriarchal group. I get the strong sense that most of the decisions are made by the men in the group and it clearly has a patriarchal power structure that makes all women sexually available to men at all times.

Also a scene where Fuck for Forests co-opt a Copenhagen Slut March to attempt to promote themselves and their public nudity agenda, which is not one of the goals of Slut March, made me angry. Slut March is a feminist political movement against victim blaming and not related to public nudity or sexual liberalism. This was just an opportunistic attempt for Fuck for Forests to promote themselves and shows clear lack of respect for the work of other activists.

Fuck for Forests is not a movement I am keen to sign up with or endorse in anyway, however their commitment to what they believe in has to be respected. The film of the same name asks some interesting questions about politics in a subtle way and led to a lot of introspection on my part. If we all took more time to think about the relationship between sex, politics and the environment then we might be able to build a better world.

Invisible Britain

One night, after a particularly heavy pub session, we all piled back to a friend’s flat for more beer and music. In his inebriated state, a music blogger friend of mine insisted we listen to a new record called Divide and Exit by East Midlands group Sleaford Mods. He characterized them as hip-hop, not a genre of music I know particularly well, but Sleaford Mods’ combination of grinding mod guitars and anger filled lyrics captivated me instantly. This was the soundtrack to the age of government austerity. This was how people felt when punk first exploded onto the music scene in the mid 1970s. I wanted to recreate the scene from 24 Hour Party People, when after first seeing the Sex Pistols play, Tony Wilson (played by Steve Coogan) claims that all the music that had come before this was dead. I wanted to jump to my feet and rip down Oasis, Stereophonics and Arctic Monkeys posters. That was the soundtrack of the prosperous, optimistic New Labour era. Sleaford Mods is the soundtrack of NHS privatization, benefit sanctions and Etonian rule. I was instantly a fan.

Sleaford Mods are breathing some much-needed fresh air into popular music. They are different, crude and rude, but also shine a light onto the lives of ordinary people reminiscent of the work of L. S. Lowry. In an age when popular culture is dominated by Dragon’s Den and Benefits Street, Sleaford Mods show that we can aspire to more than the hollow worship of capitalism. They have been compared to the Sex Pistols and to the Specials, but I think it is a disservice to give them retro comparisons. We have too many throwbacks right now. Sleaford Mods are an original outfit, a product of 21st century Britain.

Mainstream popular culture often ignores the problems and challenges faced by ordinary people in a time of high unemployment, high cost of living, stagnant wages and benefit cuts. There is a growing middle class dominance of media and culture. Oasis and The Stone Roses came from Manchester council estates. Now we have the privately educated Frank Turner and Mumford and Sons. Sleaford Mods reflect ordinary people and everyday situations. Now, they are taking this a step further with a documentary called Invisible Britain, which looks at the places and people the middle class cultural hegemony overlooks. Invisible Britain puts the deindustrialisation, rising poverty and unemployment of places like Scunthorpe into a wider political and cultural context. It also documents the group’s tour of British towns overlooked by popular bands and the mainstream media. From decaying arts centers to boarded-up houses, this is a portrait of Britain as it is for most people, a million miles away from the pop-up shops or leafy suburbs of middle class life.

Invisible Britain articulates the social and economic problems of contemporary Britain very well. We are showed how our economic system is set up for the benefit of the few, that many lose out and that some people are thrown completely onto the scrap heap. Issues of social class are discussed overtly, which is refreshing. Our current political discourse is lacking a discussion of social class. This is partly because if we discuss social class, it would involve acknowledging that we are going backwards, that inequality is growing and that we becoming a more economically divided society. As barriers related to other forms of social exclusion come down, barriers between the social classes are rising. This is one of the few films that put inequality and the class divide front and centre.

Not only are working class people ignored by newspapers, TV shows , music and other popular culture mediums but working class people’s expressions of anger are being ignored. Sleaford Mods are loud and angry. Their music demands attention, they cannot be ignored and thus they are showing middle class Britain what they want to overlook: the growing class divide, the rising poverty, the growing sense of alienation and anger.

Most of the people who are interviewed for Invisible Britain are middle class. The film is stronger for focusing on Sleaford Mods’ fans, rather than lining up music journalists, but it does show that Sleaford Mods have a very middle class following. This is music by, and about, working class people but it is connecting with a liberal middle class audience. It is certainly good that middle class people have exposure to the working class other than Benefits Street - that is what the Tory government would prefer. The middle class presides over a popular culture industry that spreads ignorance other people, especially people outside the South East or the middle class. This is what allows the Tories to cut benefits, close Sure Start centres and axe preventive healthcare. This is what allows inequality to grow and for class divides to become more entrenched.

Invisible Britain shows the expressions of anger by the marginalised. The film talks to relatives of Mark Wood, who starved to death after being found fit to work by Atos and thus losing most of his benefits. The film also focuses on the campaign against joint enterprise convictions, which are disproportionately high in the black and Asian community. The film also shows the futility of the alternatives to the current government, a strong feeling of political disenfranchisement comes from the interviewees. The fans interviewed say that voting changes nothing and that Labour are as bad as the Tories. Invisible Britain shows the growing sense of alienation with politics that many people feel.

Some hope is are offered, Invisible Britain talks to local artist co-operatives, grass roots campaigners, food bank volunteers and trade union activists. However there is no wider political ideology mentioned that could bring about change. Sleaford Mods are expressly not a political band and the film shows an interesting distinction between the social commentary of the music of Sleaford Mods and other overtly political artists.

Britain needs a political solution to the problems shown in Invisible Britain. We need a consensus to tackle the problems of growing inequality, class divisions, middle class domination of popular culture and racist laws. One step towards a political solution would be distribute Invisible Britain as far and wide as possible. Many people should watch this film is to see what life is like outside their middle class metropolitan centrist bubble. Then maybe the shouts of anger will not be ignored.

What if Spider-Man was a neo-liberal?

"With great power comes great responsibility." That is the takeaway lesson from Spider-Man. That and the fact that New York is a great place to live if you have an easy way of avoiding the traffic.

The lesson is completely true, Spider-Man has huge abilities beyond that of most people and he could easily use these powers to enrich himself at the expense of others. So what is stopping him? It is that sense of social responsibility (impressed on him by his uncle) and his own internal moral compass, shaped by experiences such as seeing close friends and colleagues corrupted by power (Harry Osborn, Dr Octavius, etc).

However, if Spider-Man was to meet a neo-liberal economist, the economist would argue against Uncle Ben's advice and claim that Spider-Man does not have any responsibility to anyone other than himself. The neo-liberal would argue that Spider-Man is a rational individual and he should act in his own rational self-interest. This is the central belief of neo-liberal economics: if everyone acted this way then we would all be more prosperous.

The only flaw in this argument is that a world with someone as powerful as Spider-Man in it, who acted only in their own self-interest, would be a terrifying place for everyone who was not Spider-Man.

If we extend his logic to all superheroes then the world gets even darker. Should the Avengers act in their own rational self-interest and ignore all their social obligations? Neo-liberal economists would argue that they should, however if they did then there would be no power on earth that could stop them. The Avengers could hurt many people in the process of enriching themselves and it would be perfectly rational to do so.

There is no wider social organisation made up of the people they would exploit that could hold the Avengers to account for their actions, that is how great their collective power is. We have seen Thor, Hulk Iron Man, et al face down entire armies. If the Avengers acted only out of rational self-interest then world would clearly be much worse off, not better off as the neo-liberal economists argue.

This is because of the asymmetric power relationships in the world of the Avengers. The Avengers are more powerful than everyone else in the world combined, which removes any element of accountability for their actions. We are dependent on the Avengers choosing to honour social obligations, but neo-liberals argue that they should act with rational self-interest and enrich themselves. No global system with asymmetric power relationship whose gulfs of power are as large as the difference between Thor and a baseline human could work based around complete individual freedom because the Avengers would exploit us all.

Superheroes work as a metaphor for the neo-liberal view of the individual. In their world, it is wrong to constrain the individualism of heroes. Their accomplishments are entirely individual and not the product of wider social factors. They stand apart from the society that created them and are not beholden to it. Thor has little regard for the rules of his own society, as he seeks personal glory from attacking the Frost Giants, and the Hulk’s destruction of vital infrastructure shows no regard for the wider needs of the people dependent on such infrastructure. This view of the individual is based on a reading of history where only individuals achieve anything and on the idea that we need to put our trust in great individuals and not institutions.

If you think about it, a world with superheroes in it has the sameproblems as a world with neo-liberal economics in it. Superheroes show the dominance of the free neo-liberal individual. Only rational individuals can wield the power necessary to save the world and collective action is, at best, ineffective and, at worst, directly opposed to individual freedom. The army is constantly trying to constrain the individual freedom of the Hulk. In V for Vendetta we see how only an individual with complete freedom can stop a society which oppresses individual freedom.

The problem with complete individual freedom is that there is nothing to stop people hurting each other, either deliberately or out of selfishness. Again the Hulk is a great example of this, it is accepted that there must be some limits on personal freedom where an individual can do as much damage as the Hulk can, given complete freedom to act in any way they feel.

Superheroes are a lot like big companies and the ultra rich of our world. They act in their own rational self-interest and there is no power left on Earth which can hold them to account for their actions. Like with Spider-Man, we are dependent on them choosing to follow their social obligations, but they are constantly being told by neo-liberal economists that we would all be better off if they ignore their social obligations and behave with rational self-interest.

It is true that with great power comes great responsibility. Like superheroes, large companies and the ultra-rich have a great responsibility. We need a system made up of the people they oppress to make sure they do not oppress us, a system with the power to hold them to account. In the Marvel Cinematic Universe, we can trust superheroes’ internal moral compass to honour their social obligations, but in our world we cannot rely on good intentions to prevail. There has to be a mechanism to protect the less powerful from asymmetrical power relationships.

Any system that constrains the absolute freedom of the individual sounds oppressive, but superheroes show how dangerous complete individual freedom is in a world of rational individuals acting in their own self-interest who cannot be held back from exploiting others to enrich themselves.

It is interesting that Captain America is the Marvel hero who has the strongest internal moral compass and is the most willing to act against rational self-interest by risking himself to help the less powerful. This this because he comes from a time before the advent of neo-liberalism. Contrast his behaviour to Iron Man who refuses to acknowledge the authority of his own government and believes he is beholden to no one other than himself.

Great responsibility does come hand in hand with great power. Superheroes show the best and worst the human race is capable of. The huge power that superheroes have means that we cannot rely on them choosing to be good. Rational individuals acting in their own self-interest can only work when there is equal power between parties and not the asymmetric power relationships between superheroes and regular people. This lesson applies equally to the powerful in our world as it does to the powerful in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

If Spiderman was too meet a neo-liberal economist, I hope that he would remember Uncle Ben’s advice about our social obligations and not act in his own rational self-interest.

What can Mad Max: Fury Road teach us about the free market?

Mad Max: Fury Road is fast paced, vibrant and bloody. It is a colourful explosion of carnage and vehicular combat. On first inspection it comes across as a visually stunning but shallow movie of wall to wall action and little character development. However underneath the explosions and car crashes Max Max makes some subtle points about how we see ourselves as individuals.

The Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang said Mad Max is a vision of the neoliberal economist’s perfectly free market. Granted he was referring to the Mel Gibson starring original but it applies equally to the Tom Hardy starring remake.

Neoliberal economics, often referred to as free-market economics, is a school of thought which believes that unregulated markets are preferable to regulated markets. They believe the government should get out of the way of private business to allow private business to create as much wealth and job as possible.

Neoliberalism is based on the liberal (liberal as in Adam Smith not George Clooney) principle of individualism and that society is made of rational individuals making decisions in their own interest. It is best for society when governments do not curtail this individualism, as what is best for society is rational individuals making decisions in their own interest. Individual freedom is at the core of neoliberalism, neoliberals often oppose programs aimed specifically at gender or racial equality claiming that group rights oppressed individual rights.

That is enough theory, we should look at the film. Mad Max: Fury Road takes place in a future where society as we know it was destroyed in a nuclear war. Most of the action takes place in a desert where vicious cultists follow bloodthirsty messiahs, who use their military power take what they need and kill anyone who opposes them.

In the world of Mad Max there is no government and no laws. Mad Max has is the neoliberal vision of a perfectly free market, with no state intervention and complete personal freedom. Why then is it so violent and chaotic and not a neoliberal paradise of plenty and economic efficiency?

Certainly environmental factors are at play here. Scarce resources has led to intense completion, which is manifesting itself as violence. Yet there are clearly enough resources to sustain a sizeable population and some individuals are clearly resource rich which indicates that the issue is not the lack of resources but an unequal distribution of resources. In Mad Max monopoly power has risen in an unregulated market, this takes the form of the film's villain, Immortan Joe, who hoards all the water for himself. What this says about the perfect neoliberal world is that rational individuals who possess social status (in this case being the leader of a militarised cult) will horded all the resources and created private monopolies. In the complete free market our intelligence or hard work is not a factor of success, it is the social status of an individual which determines success.

Mad Max is a world with complete individual freedom and no group rights, there are no affirmative action programs or governments holding back individuals. It is also a world entirely based on competition with no welfare, those who cannot compete in this violent desert die. In order to survive in such a world individuals must band together to form mutually supporting collectives. This is what the main characters of Max (Tom Hardy), Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron) and the wives of Immortan Joe, which Furiosa has liberated from his cult, do. These characters form a mutually supporting collective to protect themselves against individual freedom run amok. The individual freedom takes the form of the lawless bandits roaming the desert and the bloody thirsty war boys which Immortan Joe sends to retrieve his wife.

We see this in real life examples of environmental catastrophes, individual needs are set aside as people work together for the good of everyone affected by the disaster. In Mad Max no individual can stand up to the private monopoly of Immortan Joe backed up by his cultists and military power so it is necessary for individuals to form a collective. These collectives operate along Communist, not neoliberal, lines with equality of resources and mutual aid along the principal of "each unto their need and each unto their ability". (This is good loose definition of Communism laid out by David Graeber in his book Debt: The First 5,000 Years.)

The individuals in the collective are less effective when the unspoken rules of the collective are broken, in other words when they do not work along the principal of each according to their needs and abilities. When Max tries to use a sniper rifle to stop a vehicle crewed by Immortan Joe’s followers, Max turns out to be a bad sniper. Mad Max has reverted to neoliberal individual self reliance acting as rational individual who believes he is the best shot. The safety of the collective is threatened as Max cannot shoot the incoming vehicle and has to voluntarily give up his rifle to the shooter of greater ability, Furiosa, who is able to protect the collective. It is telling that Max does not have the rifle taken from him by force, but has to voluntarily admit that his best chance of survival is trusting in someone else and not acting as a rational individual.

The neoliberal world of Mad Max is completely male dominated, with women related to childcare roles. The purpose of Immortan Joe many wives is simply to produce more male offspring to expand his private monopoly, this shows that existing oppressive social structures would get worse in a neoliberal world without state intervention to counter them. The focus on individual rights in reality is rights for the dominant class as an equal society can only be achieved through pursuing the rights of oppressed groups.

By forming a collective against individualism, group rights can be asserted and male dominance challenged. Again this is what happens in the band led by Furiosa and Max. This collective is against the male dominated private monopoly and offers a range of roles for women, not just related to children. The collective is led by a woman, women take part in all roles including fighting and is expressly opposed to the male dominated world of individualism which seeks to oppress them.

The same metaphor about the neoliberal view of individual freedom in a chaotic or post apocalyptic world is explored in other works such as the move and film The Road and and the video game Borderlands. Both emphasise the point that a complete free market and world based entirely on individual freedom without border social structures is violent, chaotic, oppressive and prone to the domination of individuals with social status. Stylistically Mad Max: Fury Road is very much influenced by Borderlands, although the game in turn is clear aesthetically influenced by the earlier Mad Max films.

Obviously, Mad Max: Fury Road can be read differently if you have different political views. It can be interpreted the other way around with Max and Furiosa representing individuals fighting back against Immortan Joe, who in this reading represents an oppressive government determined to stamp out their individual freedom. This is possible but that would make Immortan Joe some form of Communist dictator and there is clearly no sharing of resources in his society.

There is also nothing to stop the cultists leaving his army. If Immortan Joe represents the government then why are there no laws or civic institutions, something even primitive societies have? Immortan Joe’s followers are all rational individuals with their own freedom who choose to remain part of his monopoly because they dependant on it to survive due of the lack of social safety network. The reading of Immortan Joe as the government leaves more questions unanswered than the reading of him as rational individual using his social status to amass a private monopoly of society's scarce resources which he can because nothing can stop him in a perfectly free market.

Mad Max can be viewed as a simply a piece of entertainment, a silence of visual spectacle, but what entertains us makes subtly points about our hops, aspirations and fears. Mad Max speaks volumes about our fear of complete individualism, where nothing can hold back greed or violence. It speaks about our needs to band together against individuals who will do us harm. If the future is the neoliberal view of complete individual freedom then the future really does belong to the mad.

The Hunger Games and Game Theory

I do not usually write posts about popular culture topics, so this blog will open with a first which is a SPOILERS WARNING. This article may ruin the ending of The Hunger Games if you have not seen the film or read the book yet.

With that out of the way, I can move onto the main area of discussion. One might think that The Hunger Games, which opened at cinemas nationwide on the 23rd of March, might not have much to teach the viewer about economics, but that would be a mistake. The film has some important insights into the nature of competition and game theory.

The film follows the story of Katniss Everdeen, a teenage girl who volunteers to combat 23 other juveniles in a battle to the death in order to avoid the same fate befalling her sister. She strikes up a friendship come romance come rivalry with one of her opponents who hails from the same district of the film's dystopian future as she does. Katniss has to rely on her own survival skills to make it back to her family but is also faced with difficult decisions along the way in regard to who she can trust. There can be only one winner of The Hunger Games and only one can return to their home, co-operation in this environment can only go so far.

This is very similar to game theory and I am sure that had John Forbes Nash been alive today he would have found the questions raised by this literary sensation fascinating. Nash's game theory is a study in human selfishness which attempts to find mathematical and logical optimal solutions to real world problems. His results are bleak and frequently point to the power of human greed as a means to achieve the optimal result from any situation. Nash won the Nobel Prize for economics for his efforts and his theories underpin a lot of the prevailing market ideology and government policy. I have blogged on Nash and his theories before.

In a typical game theory situation there is a trade off between cooperating with the other player(s) and behaving selfishly for personal gain. Frequently you do not know what the other player's moves are or how they affect yours until after you have made a key decision. Nash found that there is always an incentive to betray trust for personal gain as in any one moment the other player(s) is likely to be betray you if they are behaving logically according to game theory.

In The Hunger Games itself there is an incentive to cooperate with one or more opponents against further opponents. Katniss teams up with Rue during the game to great effect whereas Peeta Mellark (her rival/love interest) allies himself with the stronger and better trained players. However there is an incentive to betray trust at any point as there can only be one winner. During the course of the game Peeta switches sides to help Katniss defeat his former allies. Signs of personal weakness are rewarded with timely betrayal and several characters come to an abrupt end at the hands of their recent allies. At any moment there is an incentive to betray trust just as whoever you are allied with is likely to also be planning the moment they turn on you.

This all sounds very bleak and has led many to doubt the human virtues of cooperation and altruism but there is a positive side to game theory. More recent experiments have been based upon the idea of iterated game theory where games are not played in isolation but repeated over and over with the long term outcomes monitored. These studies have shown that there is a mathematical advantage to altruism in iterated game theory. If you cooperate in the long term, through repeated games then all parties can each gain greater results than they could have achieved through seeking personal glory.

The Hunger Games also has an argument for cooperation and altruism if you view not as a single game but a series of games Katniss repeatedly plays against a changing series of opponents. There is a clear incentive for her to cooperating with weaker plays against the players with advantages. Ultimately Katniss's victory in The Hunger Games is achieved because she works together with others and uses their competitive advantage against her opponents. She also exploits the selfish players willingness to turn on each other to thin the field. At the end of the film Katniss is able to save herself and Peeta not because of their ability to work together to achieve a common goal but because they are able to trust each other.

The Hunger Games shows that there is not only an incentive for cooperation but also for trusting others even in an single victor environment. It is a strong argument against Nash's dark view of human nature as motivated by selfishness and personal gain. In our personal lives as well in society as a whole we need to learn from Katniss example of helping the weak, harnessing the power of cooperation over selfishness and above all that we need to trust each other.