Hardcore for Nerds

"Why sneer at the intellectuals?"*
punk music, left politics, and cultural history - previously found here.
contact: gabbaweeks[at]gmail.com (sorry, no promos/submissions, thanks) or ask
Dublin, Ireland. 24, male, history graduate
HFN | HFN 2011 HFN 2010 hfn2k9 HRO 2k9 Hoover Genealogy Project | Hitler Runoff | @HC4N
*from the title of a review of Arthur Koestler's Arrival and Departure by Michael Foot, Evening Standard, Nov. 26, 1943.
Apr 27
Permalink
The answer to solving Ireland’s economic woes is inherently built in to its natural assets, especially its seabed and quality of grass, President Michael D Higgins said yesterday

Classic Michael D.

although I wonder how his constant repetition of this contemporary line is going down:

“The President said the country’s natural assets should be harnessed “to provide a real and lasting economy”, as opposed to “a speculative false economy”, which was symbolic of the Celtic Tiger.”

when a lot of people made their money (although most subsequently lost it, or were saddled with enormous debts) in that speculative era, and Ireland remains a predominantly service sector economy in which the lines and linkages to such speculation are blurred, or the progress to growth remains reliant on renewed consumer spending. I’m sure there are plenty of people who are genuinely regretful about past obsessions, and I hope we change direction too - but there are a lot of people I imagine who see the term “speculative, false economy” as an attack on genuine money-making. As maybe they should, and that’s the debate he wants us to have… but how do we get there?

Michael D. Higgins irish politics economics
Comments (View)
Apr 09
Permalink

On the execution of 1916 leaders, he said: “The removal of such a strong intellectual core from the definition of independence was the price we paid, a high one, because the succeeding 20s and 30s into the 40s are very conservative and very different from either the life-witness or the writings of the people who were the direct participants” in the Rising.

By the end of the Civil War, “the institutional continuity of the State meant it continued in its administrative form somewhat unchanged, whereas the language that is there between 1890 and 1920 is a language of possibilities and options and its about a very different kind of Ireland”.

President reflects on 1916 Easter Rising and its aftermath on nation’s history

Michael D. Historicizing again… it’s a good point, but the question is how would things have been different if the leaders of 1916 hadn’t been executed*? They weren’t just the ‘intellectual core’ of the independence movement, but also its ideologues, whether on the side of nationalist idealism (Pearse) or socialism (Connolly - it’s ironic that the major difference between the two now is that they are train stations on, respectively, the south and north side of the city). It’s quite likely that the 1919-1921 War of Independence could have been more revolutionary in its scope; but perhaps the nationalist pressures that drove the anti-treaty idealism would have been even stronger, the resulting Civil War even bloodier, and the essential counter-revolution that brought stability to the Free State, not to be sneezed at at a time when Europe was increasingly in turmoil, may have been weaker - or would stronger heads, even those who launched a bloody coup in the middle of a world war, have prevailed?

Maybe, as a Labour man, where he’s coming from is the idea that if the nationalist martyrdom train hadn’t taken off, there wouldn’t have been such a split in the nationalist movement (with all its decades-long implications for Irish parliamentary politics) and Ireland could have developed with a more European balance of social and Christian democracy. In that respect, it’s less about what could have happened than about what actually did happen - a terrible beauty is born, and all that - and how we think of moving on from there, to a new republic, and applying some of what he’s talking about at the end to our current situation of crisis. However, and it may just be my innate conservatism coming through, there’s a value in stability and continuity as well.

*though counterfactuals are always difficult: even if we assume the 1916 Rising did go ahead, and still failed, but that the British military and government saw reason in not summarily executing its leaders and turning popular opinion towards the rebels, that constitutes a major shift in how the Rising was perceived and in the reputation of its leaders.

Michael D. Higgins irish history politics
Comments (View) | 3 notes
Mar 25
Permalink

Can we just take a second to appreciate the President of my country?

easpageag:

fuckyeahfavouritethings:

President Michael D Higgins has hit out at what he described as “the appalling, destructive reality of homophobia”.

The President made his remarks this morning while addressing a conference organised by youth organisation Foróige.

President Higgins described suicide resulting from racism and homophobia as an appalling blight on a society.

The idea that any young person would be driven not just to lower self-esteem, exclusion, isolation, loneliness but self destruction itself is an appalling blight on a society,” he said.

We have to ask about how racism gets going, how homophobia does its destructive work, how isolation tears at a person’s wanting to exist, how important every person is. These are important issues, they are not merely emotional issues,” President Higgins added.

I like Higgins, because he always seems like he means it. Every politician says that homophobia and racism are bad, but must of them sit back and allow racist and homophobic policies to run their respective countries. Higgins not only supported David Norris, but actively fought to get his name on the ballot for President of Ireland, despite Norris running in opposition and being the favourite to win.

This is mostly an intellectual reaction, as I already admire Higgins’ politics and his presentation of same, but I really like the way he places things in a sociological context. I know that can put people off by making him seem unnecessarily wordy and abstract (like what happens when you say stuff like “place in a sociological context”), but that second paragraph really strikes home: “These are important issues, they are not merely emotional issues”.

Without belittling the emotional difficulties surrounding homophobia, or emotional reactions in general, I think it’s important to step outside individual sympathy in these issues - the “why can’t people just all be nice” approach, lots of hand-wringing about our troubled youth - and challenge the alienation and general lack of empathy in society. Or the fact that an institutionally homophobic church (not just the Catholic Church, the Church of Ireland isn’t doing all that much better with their recent fiasco of a conference on (homo)sexuality) has a persistent influence on education in this country.   

Michael D. Higgins irish politics
Comments (View) | 66 notes
Feb 22
Permalink irish politics Michael D. Higgins socialism europe
Comments (View) | 6 notes
Jan 26
Permalink

“It is admirable that Higgins touches upon issues of scholarship with a certain amount of prior knowledge, but his invocation of “technocracy” is the sort of neoliberal posturing, simultaneously absolving individual responsibility and reasserting the need for “better leadership” (of what?), that seeks to historicise itself (à la Gingrich’s campaign speeches, currently, in the U.S.) whilst maintaining its position firmly on the fence. As a cultural history lesson, it’s spotty, and as a “statement of intent”, it’s suitably vague and platitudinous to satisfy the lotus-eating youth who voted for him whilst not upsetting their parents.

Perhaps it’s not appropriate to criticise Higgins’ track-record with regard to towing the party line while a TD, but Edward Saïd being the only theorist he quotes from the last thirty years suggests his decline into neoliberalism was simultaneously a political and an intellectual one.”

comment by pinocheo on the previous post

“lotus-eating youths”? really?

I get enough anti-Labour leftist rhetoric from the comments on the CLR (and in a way I’m glad to see them getting back what they gave to the Green Party over the last few years), but it’s more galling to see this level of condescension, whatever about tendentious critique, towards what is a highly unusual and unorthodox political statement in Irish public society.

The guy in the highest office in the land - ceremonial or no - has just launched an intellectual critique of market economics, and not just in the ‘oh, we need fairness’ way, and your response is that it’s fence-sitting? Have you seen where the fence is lately? Whatever about parents and platitudes, I find this a good deal more energising than the politics of protest.

also, it’s toeing the line and he quotes Habermas from the past 12 months.

irish politics Michael D. Higgins
Comments (View) | 6 notes
Permalink
It was a cracker of a Michael D speech: we counted a head-wrecking nine paradigms along the way, although a few may have slipped through the “interstices” as we considered how “utopian alternatives must be accompanied by a praxis that is envisaged and one that is applicable within, and in the context of, institutions”. As Ernst Bloch might have said, before we cantered through the reconstruction of 19th century Europe, the Glass-Steagall Act and the libraries of Alexandria.

First they came for our sociologists, and I did not cry out because I was not of that faculty…

feeling a bit reductio ad hitlerum today (in an ironic way)… maybe I should go back and do my PhD in 1930s European Communism.

irish politics hitler runoff Michael D. Higgins
Comments (View) | 6 notes
Jan 25
Permalink Michael D. Higgins irish politics
Comments (View) | 9 notes
Permalink
For example, we have arrived at quite widespread acceptance by policy makers of a proposition rejected by the majority of serious economic historians, that markets are rational. This, on occasion, leads to the suggestion that it is people who are irrational, the markets rational.
— I see your President’s State of the Union address, and I raise you mine’s. More on this to come.
economics irish politics Michael D. Higgins
Comments (View) | 10 notes
Nov 11
Permalink Michael D. Higgins NO PAST art history irish politics socialism
Comments (View) | 3 notes
Nov 10
Permalink
[Flash 9 is required to listen to audio.]

Fugazi - ‘Cashout’ from The Argument

Deconstructing Politicising Emo, Pt. 3

I

Along with Repeater, The Argument is what I would think of as an “accessible” Fugazi album, almost to the point of book-ending their catalogue of full-lengths (13 Songs is of course excellent but it’s a lot less fully-formed than its follow-up) with their two most listenable and directly engaging albums. In his One Week One Band post on this record, Thom Gibbs points to the obviously ‘poppier’ sonic elements, but what struck me initially was also the overtly, clearly political lyrics of the first song after the intro, ‘Cashout’:

on the morning of the first eviction 

they carried out the wishes of the landlord and his son 

furniture’s out on the sidewalk next to the family

He gives an interesting description of it, as MacKaye’s “descending guitar figure on first song proper Cashout sounds like the portentous chime of a news bulletin, a neat trick for a song which is a state of the nation dispatch about development and housing.” But living outside the nation in question, I’d like to think of it in somewhat broader terms. True, listening to ‘progressive’ (in both relevant senses of the word) punk rock from America in my teens did help me get a sense of the social and economic problems in the world’s leading power, especially that underbelly of capitalism which underlies the global march towards a bright neoliberal future; it also gives a sense of America as a polity with its own conflicts below the level of what is seen internationally, between presidential candidates who clash along cultural divides, chasms of ‘liberal’ and conservative ideology, while in states and cities smaller problems of money and power exist on a strong basis of subsidiarity. Yet there’s also a consequent universality to such problems - odd as they may seem initially to someone with a vision of America as country full of rich people, which is in fact merely the facet of wealth somewhat grander and less equally distributed than in most other developed countries - because everywhere in the West operates to the rule of property and the market, and have politics based on the theoretical equality of people which is undermined by any number of inherited cultural prejudices on race, gender, class or ability. 

That is a shared reality - to use such a subjective construct - that stretches not only across geographical boundaries but also into our pasts, where conflicts and injustices often seem sharper and, consequently, to a mind worn down by the orthodox acceptance of what passes for life today, more vivid. Listening to the opening lines above, my mind turned to the fact that three of the members of Fugazi have Irish (or, okay, maybe Scottish) surnames: Lally, Canty and MacKaye - from a culture where eviction has become a notorious symbol of famine, depopulation and emigration. Eviction - though it still happens on occasion, and increasingly so in the climate of recession, and through a long tradition of an urban underclass too - primarily conjures up images like this for anyone who’s been through the Irish education system. Picciotto, too, has a heritage from another ‘peripheral’ part of Europe which suffered from an unequal system of landowning and added to the emigration flux towards America in the 19th and 20th centuries: emigration which, seen from the far side as immigration, became part of the founding myth of America, however that may have been curtailed or debased in recent times - but seen from the ‘old country’ such as Ireland, emigration becomes a form of eviction itself.

II

Another side of the immigration myth in America is the frequency, and expectation, of migration within and across the country: so where industry or agriculture does not provide the opportunity of employment in one area, you up sticks and find it elsewhere (assuming one is mobile enough and not ghettoised in a drug-ridden poverty trap, I suppose). Whereas if you’re ‘old country’, there’s a substantially unbroken connection to the land and culture that inhibits that kind of mobility: unless by economic or social necessity, or overarching desire, you make that choice - in Irish history there’s the intriguing commentary that political radicalism was suppressed throughout most of the past century (or two) by the effective export of the poor and disaffected, leaving behind a greater majority of those conservative and comfortable with their lot.

Except if, particularly post-independence in 1922, we were not very radical, we were still insecure. Traditionally this has been seen as being focused on property ownership, so that from the old landholding drive came a more modern house-owning one (renting being a waste of money and a subordination of the individual’s economic self-determination to that of the landlord class). Of course this just meant the landlords were replaced in the system of power first by the developers, who shovelled money into the politicians’ hands (originally the ‘men of no property’) in order to build more and more houses, and then by the banks who threw even more money at the developers to build even bigger buildings, until it came full circles and the politicians felt they had to give the taxpayers’/citizenry’s money to the banks. 

everybody wants somewhere 

the elected are such willing partners 

look who’s buying all their tickets to the game 

development wants, development gets 

it’s official

III

I started writing this post when Seán Gallagher was at 40% in the polls for the presidential election, and was considered by many and most commentators as unassailable, barring catastrophe, and despite several quite well publicised stories about the links between the fresh new entrepreneurial face of the business-friendly Irish community and the old party of corruption, self-aggrandization and fundamentally unsustainable economics. As it happened, the catastrophe did materialise, thanks to some shady allegations from Sinn Féin (really the fact of a individual’s €5,000 donation for a fundraiser, hardly scandalous in itself apart from the connection it displayed to the party of loose financial morals), a hopelessly inadequate and devastatingly resonant (of previous corruption scandals) response from Gallagher, and a peculiar situation of an absence of poll figures and an intervening media blackout before the actual day of the ballot - which in the end almost exactly switched Gallagher’s poll figures with those of his apparently outpaced rival, handing victory to the steady campaign of Michael D. Higgins. I have my suspicions as to the genuine basis of the public’s scepticism, whether it was a reaction to the sheer effrontery of the charge and the ludicrousness of his defence, rather than a deeper concern for probity and honest progress in the political sphere. However, the upshot is that we have a new president to be inaugurated tomorrow; an emigrant, poet, student and scholar of sociology, political economy, science and philosophy, left-winger and intellectual. And that’s fucking punk rock.

fugazi punk politics irish history HFN Michael D. Higgins
Comments (View) | 39 notes