# Contact info submission url: exile-blog.blogspot.com site_owner: address1: address2: city: state: country: postal_code: phone_number: display_email: site_name: site_description: The Exile

E-Mail Me

My Twitter

Top Blogs


Campaign 4 Public Ownership



Mothers For Justice

Ian Josephs

UKSecretCourt's Videos


Chris Paul

David Lindsay

Heresy Corner


Martin Meenagh

Neil Clark

Organised Rage

Renegade Eye

Serb Blog

Splintered Sunrise

Star of Vergina

Unrepentant Communist


British Politics

Censorship 01






New Britain 01

New Britain 02


Social Work Industry


Working Class

Atom Feed

XML Feed

15 August 2008
South Ossetia & the British Working Class
On one level the war over South Ossetia was an old fashioned land grab, but on another level it reflected, in however vulgar a form, a fight between the forces of post-modern globalisation and its enemies.

Again, on one level, Georgia was turned back by Russia, but on another level globalisation was defeated by a combination of pre-modern and modern forms of organisation. Russia with its nationally based capitalist system and ideology is obviously the modern example, but let's not forget all those tribally based Cossack hosts and Ossetian militia groups - to say nothing of the Chechen and other militias that arrived to join in the fun.

Russia may have arrived to relieve them, but had Moscow decided not to get involved those groups would still have gone into action, and given the numbers that were piling in each day, it is not too much to speculate that in the fullness of time they would have defeated Georgia.

Globalised capitalism is the beast that threatens all of us. In response to it, people across the world are falling back on older traditions and forms of social organisation. As this blog argued three years ago:
As states collapse, their peoples are not suddenly becoming docile consumers of the latest Western pap: older loyalties are re-emerging, and beliefs and values that the West thought long dead and buried are emerging into the daylight once again. In a world that has gone mad an individual’s family will provide his basic support. Extend the family to cousins, uncles and the like and you have the makings of a clan. Extend it still further to take in the clans who live around yours, probably those clans who share the valley with you, perhaps those who are engaged in similar economic activities to you; then you have the beginnings of a tribe. As the state collapses these loyalties will become more and more apparent.
South Ossetia and Abkhazia both go a long way towards proving those points. So does Iraq, come to think of it, as well as Afghanistan.

As a northern British working man, this writer looks on in horror as quite serious people argue that the great northern towns and cities should just be abandoned because globalised capitalism, which wrecked them in the first place, can no longer extract a profit from them. The same horror is felt when reading the words of this creature of Rupert Murdoch who has quite wittily come up with a Neil Kinnock Test. The wheeze is to ask his Nu-Labour chums if they approve of the Tory victories against the Kinnock led Labour Party in 1987 and 1992? Most of the fuckers do, because most of the fuckers are of the pretty element in society that believes that we should all keep our noses firmly jammed up the arseholes of whoever is in charge. Kinnock for all his faults and flaws tried to represent the class that he was born to in the fight against those who wished to destroy it. The point here is that the human maggots who helped to reduce us to penury by cheering on the Tories in those years are the same human maggots who cheered on Georgia's doomed war of aggression. They are the enemy of all of us.

Our friends are a mixed bunch of tribal and religious warriors, leavened with the nationally based capitalists in places like Russia. We are the geographically rooted working people of Britain, based mainly in the wrecked industrial cities.

So, working men of all countries unite? Hardly a good slogan, these days. Why don't we all take a long, cold look at our common enemy, think about what we will do to him in our various independent, sovereign countries, and then draw on a far older set of ideas? Genghis Khan was the speaker, and this is what he said:
The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.
Now then, we need to organise locally in our towns and on our estates. We should use the issues that will rally our tribe, and then keep pressing them. We must ignore the divisive social issues that we are indifferent about, anyway. (Yes, in case anyone is wondering, that is a dig at the fools who think that you can attack Catholicism and expect working class Catholics to still rally when called). Above all else, we should cease criticising our friends who are fighting the same enemy, but with different ends in mind for their lands.

At the end of the day, the only argument between British working men, Cossack irregular cavalrymen and Iraqi militias should be over who gets first go at the wives and daughters.

Labels: , ,


Good attempt at drawing up connections between South Ossetia and the British working class, but it won't stand up. Georgia as an exemplar of globalised capitalism? It isn't Georgia that's elbowed its way into the G8, and it isn't Georgians who are buying up half of London and murdering each other on our streets (I remember your censure on Zimbabweans fighting their battles in our capital city).

The only interest the British working class has in that part of the world is what happens to the gas price. No they're not fighting the same enemy as some tribal group. We need a bit less attention paid to the bourgeoisie wringing their hands over what's happening in some hell-hole, which might cause them some superficial pain but won't really matter, and a bit more to punching them in the face and taking their money away.

15 August 2008 at 23:48  

Why is it that you think our sense of kinship can extend beyond the family to clans and then to tribes, but not to humanity as a whole? Stopping at the tribe is what the tribal patriarchs want, but our interest is in a tribe as big as humanity.

Instead of stoking up or plugging into tribal loyalties (and tribal rivalries), we should be working out how to make people disloyal to their tribes and loyal to humanity.

16 August 2008 at 10:25  

Humanity as a whole involves the two-legged cockroaches who are raking it in whilst my nephews are on the social. It involves arse-licking scabs who help keep them down by siding with the boss class. Finally, and travelling right down the line, it also involves those pathetic little maggots with their risible poly degrees and their puerile desire for status who produce nothing, consume plenty, and make my people's lives a misery. I am thinking about the social work filth and the like there, Bob.

Socialism exists to collectivise the economy and to ensure that people like us do not have to bust a bollock. To get anywhere near that stage means that the scum discussed above have to be buried. They are not going to give up their privileges just because you whinge about brotherly fucking love.

And I haven't even got started on revenge as a good motive...

16 August 2008 at 20:43  

You are quite right, Exile, but Russian rights in South Ossetia, Georgia or anywhere else, don't quite qualify as "issues that will rally our tribe". Even the main bourgeois papers are now weakening on taxes on the rich, so why don't we start there? I'm currently working on a book demolishing the idea that our economy depends on keeping rich bastards happy. And if that means chasing the Russians out of London, fine!! The line that anyone who rakes in more than £100k a year has fucking stolen it and needs shaking down is surely clear enough, isn't it? Takes in the revenge aspect too....

17 August 2008 at 22:52  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home