Twenty reasons it may kick off here.

[mj.scuba]

Great article:

 

We've had revolution in Tunisia, Egypt's Mubarak is teetering; in Yemen, Jordan and Syria suddenly protests have appeared. In Ireland young techno-savvy professionals are agitating for a "Second Republic"; in France the youth from banlieues battled police on the streets to defend the retirement rights of 60-year olds; in Greece striking and rioting have become a national pastime. And in Britain we've had riots and student occupations that changed the political mood.

 

What's going on? What's the wider social dynamic?

 

My editors yesterday asked me put some bullet points down for a discussion on the programme that then didn't happen but I am throwing them into the mix here, on the basis of various conversations with academics who study this and also the participants themselves.

 

At the heart of it all are young people, obviously; students; westernised; secularised. They use social media - as the mainstream media has now woken up to - but this obsession with reporting "they use twitter" is missing the point of what they use it for.

 

In so far as there are common threads to be found in these different situation, here's 20 things I have spotted:

 

1. At the heart if it all is a new sociological type: the graduate with no future

 

2. ...with access to social media, such as Facebook, Twitter and eg Yfrog so they can express themselves in a variety of situations ranging from parliamentary democracy to tyrrany.

 

3. Therefore truth moves faster than lies, and propaganda becomes flammable.

 

4. They are not prone to traditional and endemic ideologies: Labourism, Islamism, Fianna Fail Catholicism etc... in fact hermetic ideologies of all forms are rejected.

 

5. Women very numerous as the backbone of movements. After twenty years of modernised labour markets and higher-education access the "archetypal" protest leader, organizer, facilitator, spokesperson now is an educated young woman.

 

6. Horizontalism has become endemic because technology makes it easy: it kills vertical hierarchies spontaneously, whereas before - and the quintessential experience of the 20th century - was the killing of dissent within movements, the channeling of movements and their bureaucratisaton.

 

7. Memes: "A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas symbols or practices, which can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals or other imitable phenomena. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes, in that they self-replicate, mutate and respond to selective pressures." (Wikipedia) - so what happens is that ideas arise, are very quickly "market tested" and either take off, bubble under, insinuate themselves or if they are deemed no good they disappear. Ideas self-replicate like genes. Prior to the internet this theory (see Richard Dawkins, 1976) seemed an over-statement but you can now clearly trace the evolution of memes.

 

8. They all seem to know each other: not only is the network more powerful than the hierarchy - but the ad-hoc network has become easier to form. So if you "follow" somebody from the UCL occupation on Twitter, as I have done, you can easily run into a radical blogger from Egypt, or a lecturer in peaceful resistance in California who mainly does work on Burma so then there are the Burmese tweets to follow. During the early 20th century people would ride hanging on the undersides of train carriages across borders just to make links like these.

 

9. The specifics of economic failure: the rise of mass access to university-level education is a given. Maybe soon even 50% in higher education will be not enough. In most of the world this is being funded by personal indebtedess - so people are making a rational judgement to go into debt so they will be better paid later. However the prospect of ten years of fiscal retrenchment in some countries means they now know they will be poorer than their parents. And the effect has been like throwing a light switch; the prosperity story is replaced with the doom story, even if for individuals reality will be more complex, and not as bad as they expect.

 

10.This evaporation of a promise is compounded in the more repressive societies and emerging markets because - even where you get rapid economic growth - it cannot absorb the demographic bulge of young people fast enough to deliver rising living standards for enough of them.

 

11.To amplify: I can't find the quote but one of the historians of the French Revolution of 1789 wrote that it was not the product of poor people but of poor lawyers. You can have political/economic setups that disappoint the poor for generations - but if lawyers, teachers and doctors are sitting in their garrets freezing and starving you get revolution. Now, in their garrets, they have a laptop and broadband connection.

 

12.The weakness of organised labour means there's a changed relationship between the radicalized middle class, the poor and the organised workforce. The world looks more like 19th century Paris - heavy predomination of the "progressive" intelligentsia, intermixing with the slum-dwellers at numerous social interfaces (cabarets in the 19C, raves now); huge social fear of the excluded poor but also many rags to riches stories celebrated in the media (Fifty Cent etc); meanwhile the solidaristic culture and respectability of organized labour is still there but, as in Egypt, they find themselves a "stage army" to be marched on and off the scene of history.

 

13.This leads to a loss of fear among the young radicals of any movement: they can pick and choose; there is no confrontation they can't retreat from. They can "have a day off" from protesting, occupying: whereas twith he old working-class based movements, their place in the ranks of battle was determined and they couldn't retreat once things started. You couldn't "have a day off" from the miners' strike if you lived in a pit village.

 

14.In addition to a day off, you can "mix and match": I have met people who do community organizing one day, and the next are on a flotilla to Gaza; then they pop up working for a think tank on sustainable energy; then they're writing a book about something completely different. I was astonished to find people I had interviewed inside the UCL occupation blogging from Tahrir Square this week.

 

15. People just know more than they used to. Dictatorships rely not just on the suppression of news but on the suppression of narratives and truth. More or less everything you need to know to make sense of the world is available as freely downloadable content on the internet: and it's not pre-digested for you by your teachers, parents, priests, imams. For example there are huge numbers of facts available to me now about the subjects I studied at university that were not known when I was there in the 1980s. Then whole academic terms would be spent disputing basic facts, or trying to research them. Now that is still true but the plane of reasoning can be more complex because people have an instant reference source for the undisputed premises of arguments. It's as if physics has been replaced by quantum physics, but in every discipline.

 

16.There is no Cold War, and the War on Terror is not as effective as the Cold War was in solidifying elites against change. Egypt is proving to be a worked example of this: though it is highly likely things will spiral out of control, post Mubarak - as in all the colour revolutons - the dire warnings of the US right that this will lead to Islamism are a "meme" that has not taken off. In fact you could make an interesting study of how the meme starts, blossoms and fades away over the space of 12 days. To be clear: I am not saying they are wrong - only that the fear of an Islamist takeover in Egypt has not been strong enough to swing the US presidency or the media behind Mubarak.

 

17. It is - with international pressure and some powerful NGOs - possible to bring down a repressive government without having to spend years in the jungle as a guerilla, or years in the urban underground: instead the oppositional youth - both in the west in repressive regimes like Tunisia/Egypt, and above all in China - live in a virtual undergrowth online and through digital comms networks. The internet is not key here - it is for example the things people swap by text message, the music they swap with each other etc: the hidden meanings in graffiti, street art etc which those in authority fail to spot.

 

18. People have a better understanding of power. The activists have read their Chomsky and their Hardt-Negri, but the ideas therein have become mimetic: young people believe the issues are no longer class and economics but simply power: they are clever to the point of expertise in knowing how to mess up hierarchies and see the various "revolutions" in their own lives as part of an "exodus" from oppression, not - as previous generations did - as a "diversion into the personal". While Foucault could tell Gilles Deleuze: "We had to wait until the nineteenth century before we began to understand the nature of exploitation, and to this day, we have yet to fully comprehend the nature of power",- that's probably changed.

 

19. As the algebraic sum of all these factors it feels like the protest "meme" that is sweeping the world - if that premise is indeed true - is profoundly less radical on economics than the one that swept the world in the 1910s and 1920s; they don't seek a total overturn: they seek a moderation of excesses. However on politics the common theme is the dissolution of centralized power and the demand for "autonomy" and personal freedom in addition to formal democracy and an end to corrupt, family based power-elites.

 

20. Technology has - in many ways, from the contraceptive pill to the iPod, the blog and the CCTV camera - expanded the space and power of the individual.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2011/02/twenty_reasons_why_its_kicking.html

 

Do you ever comment on the contents of what you've ripped off another site? Forum rules are you cannot simply post a link without comment on what is being linked to, you seem to be circumnavigating this rule by simply copying the entire contents of other webpages rather than linking to it.

[spindrift]

Do you have anything constructive to add, or will you just cheer and / or snipe from the sidelines?

 

Spindrift's technique is not much different to yours, other than you're both at opposite ends of the political spectrum

 

x

 

I disagree violently with a lot of what you say, but thanks for that.

[natjack]

How long did it take to type all of that?

Is that meant to be a [q] ... [/q] from someone else or is spindrift a journalist now? Aren't you supposed to add your own comments to a link?

 

As to thread title, I don't think it will, or not in any meaningful way.

 

ETA: not asking you SiSiSi, it's meant for spindrift.

[mj.scuba]

Do you have anything constructive to add, or will you just cheer and / or snipe from the sidelines?

 

Spindrift's technique is not much different to yours, other than you're both at opposite ends of the political spectrum

 

x

 

Wrong, I post an opinions on what I'm linking to to or copying from, especially if I start the thread.

 

x

[Vague_Boy]

It won't kick off here, thanks to our glorious welfare state

 

I dunno, if there was a 70s style power cut and televisual opiate such as X-Factor or the latest hour long Corrie special (X discovers that Y has been sleeping with Z) was denied to the masses, it's just possible that some sort of nascent spark of consciousness might begin to form.

 

But I think the power would need to be off for ten years or more.

[spindrift]

I dunno, if there was a 70s style power cut and televisual opiate such as X-Factor or the latest hour long Corrie special (X discovers that Y has been sleeping with Z) was denied to the masses, it's just possible that some sort of nascent spark of consciousness might begin to form.

 

But I think the power would need to be off for ten years or more.

 

Chris Morris posited the surefire way of fomenting utter panic in this country would be to assassinate ten random celebrities.

 

The article's less concerned with violence than the rapid dissemination of information.

[Frank Sidney]

ctrl c?

 

ctrl v?

 

That's funny Mel.........

[Jason Bourne]

Wrong, I post an opinions on what I'm linking to to or copying from, especially if I start the thread.

 

x

 

Then give us your opinion on this topic then. Or continue sniping from the sidelines, it's up to you.

 

x x

[mj.scuba]

Then give us your opinion on this topic then. Or continue sniping from the sidelines, it's up to you.

 

x x

 

An Egyptian anti-government demonstrator holds a baby, wearing a hat bearing the words "Leave", in Tahrir Square, Cairo. Photograph: Lefteris Pitarakis/AP

 

The news dribbled in to Tahrir Square in phone calls, text messages, by word of mouth. The details were vague but the demonstrators, some of whom have been camped in the square for nearly a fortnight, agreed that concessions offered by the man who increasingly appears to run Egypt, the vice president and former intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, were a good sign. The regime was crumbling.

 

But what of President Hosni Mubarak? The news was disappointing.

 

Tens of thousands of people packed in to Tahrir Square again, as determined now to rid Egypt of the man who has ruled for 30 years as they were when the uprising began nearly a fortnight ago.

 

Some welcomed news of talks between Suleiman and opposition figures as further evidence that the regime's power is waning. But they still wanted to see the protests through until their central demand – for Mubarak's resignation – has been met.

 

Many were wary of the apparent deal being cooked up between Washington and Suleiman, with European backing, for the old regime to oversee the transition to democracy.

 

"If Mubarak is still president, nothing will happen. If he will leave, then Omar Suleiman, no problem if he meets our demands," said Amr Mahmoud, who has spent 12 days in the square with his wife, Reem. "But Suleiman was part of the old system. We want a new system."

 

Mahmoud was among many pro-democracy demonstrators suspicious of US backing for Suleiman's plan to control the transition. After all, Suleiman was head of the intelligence services that played a commanding role in suppressing political dissent and free speech.

 

He also served the US in co-operating with its rendition of alleged terrorists, some of whom were interrogated under torture on behalf of the Americans in Egyptian jails.

 

"Why does America want to work with this man?" asked Mahmoud. "He has not been good for Egypt. He has not been good for us. He has served Mubarak and he has served America. We do no trust him and if they have chosen him, then we do not trust America. We will stay here until we get what we want."

 

There was no particular anti-US sentiment in Tahrir Square, but there was a wariness of its role.

 

Had the US pushed Mubarak out the door last week, it might have taken the sting out of the protests and made it easier to sell the arrangement Washington is now promoting.

 

But Mubarak remains and some of the protesters were concerned that the US was attempting to manoeuvre Suleiman into power to perpetuate a pliable regime or at least keep out a more hostile one.

 

Widespread scepticism greeted the US claim that its primary concern was to maintain stability on the path to free elections. To many Egyptians, the American definition of stability can be seen in the context of concern about Israel's security and fear of Islam.

 

Washington's focus on the role of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the demands from some in American politicians that it be kept from power at all costs, concerns large numbers of people who see the organisation as part of the patchwork of their country's politics - even if some Egyptians share American fears.

 

The protesters sought to demonstrate to the outside world that no religious division exists among them, with services to remember those killed in the protests. Officially the death toll stands at 12 but the UN says as many as 300 people may have been killed with significant numbers of casualties in cities beyond Cairo where the protests against the government have been just as vigorous.

 

In Tahrir Square, Christians and Muslims held hands and formed protective guards at each other's services in a demonstration of solidarity designed to convey that the protesters are united in common cause and that heated debate in the west about the role of the Muslim Brotherhood is of less concern to Egyptians.

 

Beyond the square, banks reopened for the first time in days, relieving a desperate shortage of cash for many people who did not have money to buy food.

 

The authorities called on people to return to their jobs today, the first day of the working week in Egypt.

 

The government also wanted the stock market to reopen in the morning after a fortnight's closure in a drive to restore normality and stem the financial losses caused by the uprising, but the move was cancelled.

 

Bankers estimate that the upheaval has cost the economy more than $3bn (£1.87bn) over the past fortnight. The prime minister said one million tourists had fled the country and there was little sign of them returning soon.

 

But in Tahrir Square, there appeared to be little interest in getting the country back to normal.

 

"We don't want normal with Mubarak. We want normal without Mubarak," said Ayman Faroud, who has spent 10 days living and sleeping in the square. "Normal will be when we elect our president, elect our parliament, do not have a secret police and we never have to think about Mubarak again. Right now we think about him every minute of the day because that is the only reason we are here."

 

As fear of the regime subsides, some big names joined the protesters. Nader ElSayed, a goalkeeper for the Egyptian national team, led chants of: "People will overthrow the regime."

 

Not everyone in the square was quite so enamoured at the idea of change.

 

Oma Abu Aziza owns a small gift shop down one of the side streets barricaded by the protesters. He doesn't sell anything Egyptians want to buy and the tourists have evaporated. The mass-produced wooden pharaohs and bottles of lotus oil sit have been sitting untouched on the glass shelves.

 

"It's a very bad 12 days. If you have money, you've spent it to eat," he said. "I like Mubarak. Mubarak is a good man. The people are wrong. The president has done a lot of things for them but they don't believe in him."

 

Abu Aziza ticked off Mubarak's achievements – head of the air force, confronting the Muslim Brotherhood, bringing stability to Egypt for 30 years – but then acknowledged that there had been problems recently. "The price rises. That is a big problem. Sugar was E£1 [11p]. Now it is E£6. Meat was E£7. Now it is E£70," he said.

 

Abu Aziza is not blind to reality. The people may be wrong but outside the window of his empty gift shop they have been speaking for much of Egypt and the political momentum remains with them.

 

"If the people do not want him, Mubarak should go home now. He should stay at home. We Egyptians do not need to fight brother against brother. They are right. Let's have an election," he said.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/06/egypt-tahrir-square-omar-suleiman

[ricgem2002]

1. mass unemployment
   
2. government cuts
   
3. higher taxes
   
4. mass immigration
   
5. fiddling mps
   
6. companies not paying tax because of loopholes
   
7. corrupt bankers sorry i cant find anymore but i guess someone will