Editorial - From Heiligendamm to Heathrow

This editorial was published in the summer of 2007.

Submitted by shifteditor1 on December 11, 2012

“The decision to go to Heathrow was wrong!” This was the impulsive thought that was playing on our minds as we followed eight politicians and herds of protesters to Germany; to meet Shift contributors, eat in squats, sleep in tents and on dirty floors, drink 50p-a-bottle beer with ‘the movement’, and of course to “shut them down” – again. Throughout the journey, this impulse became a much reflected upon certainty (avoiding the quick guilty trip by plane allowed us the luxury of 26 hour-a-go bus journeys and plenty of time to think). Yes the aviation industry is a major problem, as the fastest growing source of C02 emissions plans for expansion fly in the face of any commendable efforts to tackle climate change. Heathrow seemed an obvious choice simply because of its size and expansion plans. But to make radical politics work, we need to come up with more than just big=evil!

Sometimes the Camp for Climate Action transcended such simple equations, but more often than not it presented itself as a protest for austerity. If the anti-G8 mobilisation in Germany showed anything, it was that protest is not necessarily progressive. Opposition to neoliberal globalisation did not only come from the Left. Anti-consumerist and “Bush go home” slogans were also heard on neo-Nazi marches. The common target on both sides of the political spectrum was the greed of a few causing unemployment, ecological disaster, widespread poverty and imperialist war. The German far Right had mobilised against a profit-driven system run by multinationals, America and Israel. Sound familiar?

But there are no puppeteers holding the strings of the world in their hands. Capitalist society is characterised by more hidden and complex forms of domination that underlie all aspects of our lives. Bush, Brown and BAA are all too easily depicted as greedy fat cats with a master plan for environmental destruction and world domination. But capitalism is not a conspiracy of a few politicians and airport bosses. The anti-globalisation focus on the opaque power of the rich and famous neglects the social aspects of capitalism.

This is where the choice of the aviation industry as the prime target of this summer’s Climate Camp is flawed. Sure, from a moral perspective, we need to switch to less carbon intensive modes of transport. However, it seems to reduce our critique to one that simply contrasts the ‘ethical’ lifestyle to an ‘unethical’ one. Instead of showing the interconnectedness of the Social and the Ecological, Climate Camp has picked the individual as the point of attack. Of course, the mass action targeted BAA’s corporate power and not individual passengers, but the message remained: “Fly less”.

This disrespect of the social aspect of our lives seems to us reminiscent of a Thatcherism that stood firmly against the assertion of social classes in the 1980s. For Thatcher, the Social was no more than the accumulation of individual behaviour, denying the existence of society. This green Thatcherism is one that we can see in the UK’s political centre. Cameron, Miliband and Co. are its true inheritors, with policy proposals that are aimed at consumer behaviour. Accordingly, Hillman, Monbiot and other movement theorists demand government action to make individuals comply with a more ‘ethical’ lifestyle. Yet, society is not just the sum of its individuals; it is shaped by social relations. The focus on individual consumption ignores the peculiarity of the social processes intrinsic to capitalism.

The campaign against the aviation industry is an ethical and moral undertaking worthy of support. And Climate Camp brings forward convincing arguments against the unequal distribution of power in society as one of the root causes of climate change. However, we also need to explore criticisms that go beyond moral and ethical positions. With this magazine we want to intervene into movement discourses, from the G8 to Climate Camp and beyond, and to force open spaces for a more radical analysis of capitalist domination.

Capitalism is no conspiracy, it exploits on an everyday level and there is no ‘do or die’. From this perspective, the emerging social movement against climate change is as radical as an ethical lifestyle guide.

Comments

Related content

Submitted by westartfromhere on February 22, 2024

adri

2 years 8 months ago

Submitted by adri on February 24, 2024

Tried telling you that this monarchy stuff is stupid back in '76, but you wouldn't listen. *says the slave republic*

Paine wrote: A French bastard landing with an armed Banditti and establishing himself king of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original. It certainly hath no divinity in it. However it is needless to spend much time in exposing the folly of hereditary right; if there are any so weak as to believe it, let them promiscuously worship the Ass and Lion, and welcome. I shall neither copy their humility, nor disturb their devotion.

Submitted by westartfromhere on February 29, 2024

adri wrote: Tried telling you that this monarchy stuff is stupid back in '76, but you wouldn't listen. *says the slave republic*

Paine wrote: A French bastard landing with an armed Banditti and establishing himself king of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original. It certainly hath no divinity in it. However it is needless to spend much time in exposing the folly of hereditary right; if there are any so weak as to believe it, let them promiscuously worship the Ass and Lion, and welcome. I shall neither copy their humility, nor disturb their devotion.

That damned Norman yoke.

In 1066-7 William the Bastard declared that all land, animals and people in the country belonged to him personally. This was as alien to these Isles' laws and customs as the colonial land-grabs were to the First Nations of America. Over a very short space of time, we went from a country in which >90% of people owned land, to a country of landless serfs, themselves owned by foreign lords. Our lands were parcelled up and given as payment to William's mercenaries.

Tony Gosling, The Norman Yoke: Britain's Landless Serfs, 1st February, 2018

westartfromhere

2 years 8 months ago

Submitted by westartfromhere on March 1, 2024

Here is one interpretation of the situation from The Independent:

Far be it for us to gossip-monger about the bourgeois scum that form the titular head of state—capital is the supreme ruler—of this great prison camp they call the "UK", but.....
HEAR THIS: Rumours are spreading that trouble is a brewing in the Haus Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha. It is said that the marriage between the future King William the Bastard II and his queen is rending apart. The marriage is one full of violence between the two business partners. The unnatural state of affairs—money, not love, being the basis of the holey union—has led to sad repercussions on the psyche of the golden princess. Rumour has it that she has been admitted to a private psychiatric facility and is being kept under lock and key, as the royals tend to do with their troublesome women, at best. Our sources tell us that the Bastard is not wearing his marriage pendant normally worn in public.

adri

2 years 8 months ago

Submitted by adri on March 2, 2024

Paine was also British-American, so technically you tried telling yourselves but wouldn't listen.

westartfromhere

2 years 8 months ago

Submitted by westartfromhere on March 2, 2024

By his own account, Thomas Paine was "an Englishman".

adri

2 years 8 months ago

Submitted by adri on March 3, 2024

An Englishman who moved to (British) America, advocated independence in the above-cited Common Sense, was read widely by Patriots during the American Revolution, sided with the Continental Army against the British, and then spent the remainder of his life (after spending some time in Europe being persecuted) in the US. The point is that the British Empire got humiliated by 13 colonies in the American Revolution and then again by the US in the War of 1812.

westartfromhere

2 years 8 months ago

Submitted by westartfromhere on March 3, 2024

Nothing compared to the whipping we gave the British on those hot days of August!

adri

2 years 8 months ago

Submitted by adri on March 3, 2024

Which whipping was that? Something with the Irish? In any case, it seems we're all in agreement that the British ruling class are and always have been bastards.

westartfromhere

2 years 8 months ago

Submitted by westartfromhere on March 3, 2024

Somepin wid da ire-ish.

Hey, my Mrs is a bastard, but I know what you mean.

westartfromhere

2 years 8 months ago

Submitted by westartfromhere on March 4, 2024

Who are the ruling class?

adri

2 years 7 months ago

Submitted by adri on March 5, 2024

Nothing compared to the whipping we gave the British on those hot days of August!

Wait, you couldn't have given me a better hint that you were referring to the Irish-English conflict than the word "August" and Sinéad O'Connor (rest in peace) doing a Prince cover? I'm not sure about other people, and I'm also not that read up on the Troubles, but I don't immediately associate Sinéad with the IRA! Like one would think that "My Little Armalite" would have been a much better clue than "Nothing Compares 2 U." Also, the idea of Americans intentionally supplying the Irish with Armalites, an American weapon, in order to carry on the fight against the British is pretty amusing, even though that obviously was not what happened.

In all seriousness though, bourgeois national liberation struggles, while maybe improving the condition of the lower classes in some cases (if even), have invariably failed at achieving genuine freedom for their participants and at ridding the new society of its class character. Such failures were seen after the American Revolution where, besides the literal enslavement of hundreds of thousands of African Americans and the continuing eradication of the indigenous population, a new kind of industrial wage slavery soon developed in the northern states before spreading to the rest. While it might be fun to remind the British (especially the proud patriotic Brits who actually care about this stuff) that we threw off their monarchical yoke and kicked their arse 250 years ago, one should also recognize the limitations and often reactionary nature of such struggles.

westartfromhere

2 years 7 months ago

Submitted by westartfromhere on March 5, 2024

Good little tune that one.

Dear prudence means that the August reference must remain cryptic so the Brits don't close this site for incitement to Riot.

Good exposition on national liberation struggles.

Since her death the Irish oppressors have claimed Sinead as their own but we know otherwise.

adri

2 years 7 months ago

Submitted by adri on March 8, 2024

the idea of Americans intentionally supplying the Irish with Armalites, an American weapon, in order to carry on the fight against the British is pretty amusing, even though that obviously was not what happened.

or is there more to it... how else does one explain this clip of Biden, who's part Irish, talking about how the Black and Tans got the hell beat out of them? or what about this video of Biden singing "Come out Ye Black and Tans"?! Although it is a bit surprising that Biden would leave in the line about how the British "slew them ol' Arabs two by two"—don't really have much room to speak there Mr. President!

westartfromhere

2 years 7 months ago

Submitted by westartfromhere on March 9, 2024

I like the line, "Got the Isra'eli's in his sights, with a ra-ta-tat, and they run like Shi'ite."