Whose Olympics?

On the 27th July, the much-hyped London 2012 Olympics will finally be upon us. As well as providing a means for every financial parasite, corporate tax-dodger and government cutter to distract our attention and make us feel warm and patriotic for around a month, the Olympics mean big buck for big business, at our expense.

The choice of sponsors for the Paralympics have already raised more than a few eyebrows. Atos, the French IT firm better known to many as the modern-day Scrooges who profit from kicking the disabled off benefits through dodgy tests, are using the games as a means to distract from their horrific and life-destroying actions towards the physically and mentally handicapped.Likewise Dow Chemicals, the company responsible for the 1984 gas-leak disaster in Bhopal, India, which killed 20,000 people and has caused many more to be born with birth defects, will also be a sponsor. This is the same company which produced the infamous Agent Orange in the Vietnam War, which has caused over 4.8 million birth defects. Organiser Meredith Alexander resigned over the company’s connection with the Paralympics, while complaints have flooded in from Indian Olympians, the Vietnamese Government, and a number of campaign groups.

Both these firms are responsible for creating untold hardship for hundreds of thousands of disabled people and their families, and yet are using the Paralympics as a way of covering their arses and trying to restore credibility to their names.

But that’s not even the half of it. A number of international corporations are set to profit off the Olympics, despite the fact that the public will have to pay over £11 billion for the event (a huge amount compared to the initial £2.4 billion that the government said it would cost when they first put in the bid).

The huge appeal of the Olympics for these companies has been the right to claim a monopoly over aspects of the games. VISA will be the only usable credit card at any of the events, while Coca Cola will be the only company allowed to sell branded drinks, and McDonalds (!) the only company allowed to sell branded food. Rival companies will have their adverts and signs covered or removed in the areas around the Olympic Stadium, ensuring that those who won the scramble for the stadium are guaranteed to make a killing.

Other companies such as Nike, Adidas and Puma are all trying to increase their profits by being the official advertisers for various teams and notable athletes. This is in spite of the fact that they have been repeatedly found breaking labour laws by paying employees in South East Asia poverty pay.

The iron strength of these monopolies was recently demonstrated when an 81-year old grandma was told that she shouldn’t sell a doll with a knitted jumper with ‘London 2012′ on the front as part of a charity fund-raiser, lest she incur the wrath of the Olympian lawyers.

Since the recession first started, private investors have been increasingly reluctant to pay for the infrastructure (Olympic apartments, road improvements, etc) necessary to host the games, meaning that the government has filled the gap using taxpayers’ money. If you are expecting to see the public purse grow from this investment, you’d do well to look at the Olympics village which became totally state-funded in 2009, before being sold off at a £275 million loss to the Qatari ruling family’s property firm.

The Olympics is being used as another way to siphon public money into private pockets. Just as the cuts have stripped back the welfare state and allowed companies new markets and areas to profit from, the Games have sunk our cash into creating a bubble filled with tourists, sports fans and athletes whom the private sector can profit from through aggressive advertising and monopoly rights.

While the government says that we will benefit from tourism and spending during the games, reports on the impact of previous games on countries’ economies have shown there are no winners except for a few private firms who milk them for all they’re worth. At the end of the day it’s us who foot the bill so that multinationals with a track record of violating human rights, profiting from mass poverty, and fundamentally not giving a fuck about anyone except their shareholders, can make a quick buck in turbulent times. Whoever ends up winning the Olympics, we’re still coming out as the losers.

Olympics security uses civilians as human shields

Makes you feel real safe right?

Air defence missle systems, fighter jets, armoured cars and an aircraft carrier sailing up the Thames… you could be forgiven for thinking East London had turned into a film set when the government launched a propaganda exercise designed to flaunt Britain’s militarisation of London ahead of the Olympics.

With just over two months to go, tens of thousands of police, soldiers and private security are completing preparations for London Lock-Down 2012.

The escalation of the military presence in and around London is greater than anything seen since WW2. It’s hard to imagine what kind of threat Britain faces that means we need our biggest warship docked in the Thames.

Plans to place High Velocity Missiles on the Lexington Building in Tower Hamlets and the Fred Wigg Tower in Waltham Forest, both in east London have provoked furious opposition from residents, who resent being used as human shields.

Rapier missiles would be positioned on Blackheath Common and in Oxleas Wood, both in south east London, and at William Girling Reservoir Chain in Enfield and Barn Hill at Netherhouse Farm in Epping Forest, both in north London, as though World War 3 had been declared.

The policy of siting huge numbers of soldiers in civilian areas exposes the hypocrisy of a government which excuses the murder of Palestinians in Gaza on the grounds that resistance fighters are ‘hiding’ amongst civilians. Yet when it comes to London, it becomes perfectly OK to set up their killing machines on our rooftops.

Some of the buildings are residential flats and the occupants have had no consultation of the deploying of the missiles which would see people’s homes overrun by armed police and soldiers for several weeks… with enough explosives packed on their roof to demolish several city blocks.

The Ministry of Defence claims the missile systems will pose no threat to residents, and that anyway they should be grateful because the systems will deter terrorists.

Are we at war?

The supposed threat of terrorism has been a goldmine for the international arms trade – in which British companies are some of the biggest players.

The militarisation of London during the Olympics has given the merchants of death a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fleece the taxpayer.

The original estimated cost for hosting the Olympics has ballooned from £2.4billion to £12 billion largely as a result of the cost of stationing an army capable of repelling a full-scale invasion.

Londoners in particular are being rinsed to fund the Olympics which is becoming a playground for multi-national corporations. Londoners have had a £20 levy slapped onto their council tax, while the word ‘Olympics’ has been exclusively reserved for those who can fork out the exorbitant licensing fee.

The Olympics will see 14, 000 British soldiers patrolling the streets of London – more than are currently fighting in Afghanistan.

In reality, the latest military exercise is designed to create a level of fear of terrorism way out of proportion to the actual threat. Sailing an aircraft up the Thames and posting soldiers on our doorsteps is nothing more than a crude attempt at intimidation.

With a ban on all assembly and protest in the area for the period of the Olympics, we can see the government is determined to use the Olympics as a cover for ramping up the power of its security apparatus.

Having invested this kind of money into it, they are very unlikely to simply ditch the whole scheme at the end of the Olympics.

Despite all the money we’re spending on ‘keeping London safe’ the United States are still brining a private army of 500 FBI agents – and the US refuses to let any of it’s citizens be subject to foreign laws.

The security is not about keeping Londoners safe, it’s a giant advert for Britain’s shiny (and very expensive) weapons which Cameron is desperate to sell to any regime that wants such toys to menace it’s people with.

The Con-Dems cuts have thrown Britain back into a new recession. With millions of Londoners living in unfit housing, suffering from high rents and mass unemployment amongst youth, do we really need to be wasting billions on a travelling circus which will come and go leaving no positive benefit for those who paid for it.

 

Conscious music gives voice to the voiceless

Matt and Sam from Manchester look at the rise of politically conscious music fuelled by mass resistance to cuts, war and capitalism.

Dealing with issues such as war, poverty, alienation, racism, oppression and the other savage symptoms of profit-over-people capitalism, a range of different artists and bands are expressing their contempt for the system we live under.

It’s not every day that such a frank and explicit protest song makes it onto the BBC Radio 1 playlist, especially one that so obviously raises the issue of class consciousness, but Plan B’s Ill Manors song and music video has proved to be a serious contribution to debates concerning social inequality, class divisions and the August Riots.

The song raises, with no apology, the issues of being young and poor in the UK. Plan B attacks the intolerance of working class kids in the media and wider society.

Ill Manors is a breath of fresh air to anyone who feels alienated by capitalism’s constant attacks on the working class; it deals with the cause of the riots, the closing down of community centres, attacks by Boris Johnson and the Tories, the Olympics and increasing police aggravation.

The song rightfully puts the blame of the riots not on those out rioting, but those who created the conditions that caused them to feel they had nothing to lose.

Plan B’s support of working class people is symptomatic of the ever-spreading discontent, especially amongst young people, and this is reflected in a resurgence in the number of musicians focusing on the inequalities of society.

Ranging from hardcore acts such as Pay No Respect (whose latest video, the anger-filled “This World Is Ours” has reached an average of 2000 hits a day) to hip-hop collective Broken Dialect (who blew up on the revolutionary scene during the student movement.)
Perhaps the biggest success story of recent times for revolutionary music has been UK electronic/post-hardcore band Enter Shikari’s latest album “A Flash Flood of Colour” which attacks the excesses of Capitalism and the effects it has on both humanity and the planet. They sum up the fundamental flaws of Capitalism with these lyrics….

“Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t think the primary purpose of your life, of my life and the entirety of the human race’s is just to blindingly consume to support a failing economy and a faulty system. Forever and ever until we run out of every resource and fall to the result to blowing each other up to ensure our own survival. I don’t think we’re supposed to sit by either while we continue to use a long outdated system that produces war, poverty, collusion, corruption, ruins our environment and threatens every aspect of our health and does nothing but divide and segregate us. I don’t think how much military equipment we are selling to other countries, how many hydrocarbons we’re burning, how much money is being printed and exchanged, is a good measure of how healthy our society is but I do think I can speak for everyone when I say, we’re sick of this shit.”

Musicians don’t need to quote classical philosophers to be political. When artists like Jamie T or N.W.A deal with issues like growing up in a working class area or police brutality, they are fusing class-consciousness and music.

The resurgence of class-conscious music is an international phenomenon, the long list of artists promoting revolutionary ideas and leading the fightback against bland corporately-endorsed music today include : Akala, First Blood, Flobots, Suheir Hammad, Immortal Technique, Stray From The Path, El Haqed, Born From Pain, Lowkey, Final Prayer, The King Blues, Shadia Mansour, Logic and Simon Cowell’s worst nightmare…Rage Against The Machine.

Encompassing a huge variety of genres, these artists draw on a tradition of music that speaks out against injustice and oppression. British artists such as Billy Bragg and The Clash have spoken out against inequality for decades. Artists such as Paul Robeson and Woody Guthrie fought racism and McCarthyism in the United States in the 1950’s and 1960’s and many popular musicians including The Beatles spoke out against the American invasion of Vietnam.

The artists named in this article are just some of the best from a tradition of political music that spans all countries, cultures and genres. They show that it’s possible to break out of the Top 40 ghetto and bring a message to the people. Their general lack of mainstream support by the big music corporations also shows how capitalist society has the power to control which ideas get a say and which don’t. Do your bit, spread their tunes, join the resistance!

Lowkey lays down the mic

REVOLUTION wishes to express its sadness at the decision by Lowkey, the UK-based rapper and political activist to take a hiatus from music. Lowkey has fought against the imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as being a champion to the Palestinian people and their struggle for freedom, he has exposed police brutality in the UK and the extreme inequalities of capitalism both in the UK and overseas. By fusing strong ethics and political convictions with his unmistakable musical style Lowkey brought domestic and international political issues into the minds of many, both young and old. REVOLUTION thanks Lowkey for his unmatchable contribution to politics and music over the last few years and hopes that the future will see him once again turn his mic against the imperialist butchers and those who protect them.

Make Bradford British: one step forward, two steps back

With its provocative (and xenophobic) title and Big-Brother-meets-Wife-Swap format, Make Bradford British was destined to be trash TV. But there were some interesting twists and turns along the way. Dan Edwards reviews C4’s latest effort at Diversity Telly.

The basic premise is pretty simple- get eight born-and-bred British people from a variety of backgrounds who all fail the British citizenship test (used to deny immigrants and refugees the right to live here) to live together as a group for a few days, and then partner them up to live each others’ lifestyles for a further couple of days. What could possibly go wrong?

Well let’s start with the biggest problems first. It portrays Bradford as highly segregated, with communities virtually at war with one another due to differences in lifestyle. I’m not denying that are racial tensions in Bradford, but it fails to point out that this is far from universal- when the thugs of the EDL tried to start a riot in Bradford, few locals joined them, and the anti-fascist turnout was incredibly racially and culturally diverse. The show also failed to look at how increasing poverty in Bradford, caused by Thatcher’s gutting of northern industries, has been manipulated by the far-right to stoke racial tension.

The programme also assumes that the way to overcome racism is simply by getting people to befriend people of different backgrounds. While greater social mixing is definitely a good thing and can help individuals overcome unfounded fears and prejudices of different ethnic groups, it overlooks the fact that racism is a problem with societies rather than individual people. When a racist says ‘I’m not racist, one of my best friends is black,’ they’re not necessarily lying to you- it’s just that they view the overall threat of the black community as different and separate to the relationship they have with one or two black people. Mixed-race landlady Audrey was an excellent example of this- though she had Asian family members she was also incredibly prejudiced and came out with a lot of phrases that wouldn’t be out of place in the worst right-wing rags.

There were some genuinely interesting aspects of this program. When the whole house had to live together, Rashid’s frequent trips to the Mosque to pray were repeatedly criticised by the rest of the house, and he was portrayed as not willing to help the collective out because he didn’t get to the shops in time to buy the ingredients to make dinner, and instead ended up getting everyone a take-away. While this intolerance was not commented upon by ‘diversity experts’ Laurie Trott and Taiba Yasseen, who acted as hosts, other instances were. Why should this guy be singled out for going to pray? Knowing that prayer would prevent him from buying the chicken, why wasn’t someone else asked to go? Why is this intolerance overlooked and legitimised?

Another moment from the same episode provided a bit more hope for anti-racists, as a discussion over the use of racist words seemed to genuinely change the housemates’ opinions. While a couple of the white members of the house and Audrey felt perfectly comfortable saying ‘paki’ when they first came in, the pain caused by racist words – permanent reminders of a colonial past and oppressive present –  soon became pretty obvious and they stopped using them. The only person who didn’t feel this way was (surprise, surprise) an ex-cop. This prick aside, it was a nice moment.

Perhaps the most worrying moment in the two-part series came when Muslim woman Sabbiyah tried a day’s work in a city centre pub. While there two customers racially abused her, with a burly thick-as-shit piece of EDL-fodder insisting she should wear a mini-skirt while in ‘his’ country, while touching her legs and cornering her. This was painful viewing and has even prompted complaints from Bradford city councillors, who question why the programme-makers didn’t intervene to stop this racist and sexual harassment.

Overall I think we should be grateful that Make Bradford British showed that cultural differences don’t inevitably lead to conflict (a great moment was watching white sheet-metal worker Jacob overcome his assumption that Muslims are all terrorists and extremists), and that the idea of an all-encompassing ‘British culture’ is unrealistic and unhelpful.

But, by failing to look at the material deprivation of Bradford, or the relationships between other ethnic/cultural communities in the city, the programme ultimately helped to reinforce the prevalent idea that Britain is being torn apart by the divide between the white working-class and Asian Muslims. One step forwards, two step back.

Iron Lady review: tragedy through rose-tinted glasses

The Iron Lady is a film which shows the life of Margaret Thatcher, told through flashbacks from an old and mentally ill Thatcher.

The film places its focus on the personal, rather than the political: Thatcher seeing the ghost of her husband Dennis, being a “woman in a man’s world” and the Falklands conflict. This attempt to personalize such a divisive figure was always going to be tricky.

We hear about mass privatisations and yet we don’t learn about the awful effects these had on people. We are treated to an interesting yet wrong analogy about cuts being like “medicine for a sick man”; of course when you simplify economics to abstract metaphors the audience is almost forced to agree with Thatcher’s decisions unless they have extensive knowledge of the issues (like milions of working-class people who remember losing their jobs under Thatcher do).

Many more things which were highly relevant to Thatcher’s awful reign are cut out or given very little attention in the film. Millions of unemployed, pit closures, anti-union laws, Ireland and many other issues are glossed over, despite the huge impact these policies continue to have to this day.

This leads to the film giving a totally one-sided view of Thatcher. When we see people protesting against Thatcher, the audience is invited to feel sympathy for a Prime Minister who caused misery and grief for millions of working families and can’t understand why these people hate her so much. After all, the cuts to state-owned industries were “just like medicine for a dying man” , the pit closures were necessary because Thatcher said they were “uneconomically sustainable” and poll taxes were meant to bring about some strange community spirit; only fools would be against these perfectly sound and ethical decisions that Margaret Thatcher made, right? Wrong.

Nonetheless Meryl Streep plays the role excellently and manages to humanize a thoroughly inhuman character albeit with the directors’ glossing over and ignoring many of her most infamous decisions while exaggerating the popularity of others.

Ideas, culture and media under capitalism

The scandal involving News International’s phone-hacking and corrupt deals with world governments was not the exposure of a ‘rogue operator’. Instead it merely exposed, in dramatic style, the underlying basis of the media under capitalism. Run by multi-national corporations, their purpose is to promote the interests of their billionaire owners.

In the 21st century, the links between media and government have consolidated decades of growing co-operation, overlapping into a revolving-door complex which sees spin-doctors shuttle between governments, media outlets and PR agencies.

In the advanced capitalist countries, much is made of the ‘imminent’ collapse of the newspaper. It is true that all the major dailies are loss-making and free media and the internet is hastening this demise. Surely the laws of capitalist competition mean that bosses ought to let loss-making newspapers collapse and be replaced by a higher (more profitable) form of media production?

Whose ideas?

The answer to print media’s longevity lies in the role of ideas in class society. The dominant ideas in any society are the ideas of the ruling class.

The reasons are twofold: firstly, membership of the ruling class and privileged layers allows access to education and the leisure to become immersed in all expressions of culture. The second is that it is the capitalists who control the media, either through outright ownership, or through their control of the means of mass production and dissemination (TV stations, satellites, printing presses, art galleries).

For example, Wal-Mart, the biggest retailer in the USA has a massive impact on popular culture by dictating what it will and won’t stock, forcing artists to tailor their creative expression to what is acceptable to Wal-Mart.

The majority of cultural works such as books, films and art reflect the attitudes and ideas of their creators – predominantly members of the ruling class, who’s cultural output it aimed at alternately masking, justifying and promoting the social form which guarantees their privileges.

But before being exposed to the public consciousness these ideas must be packaged and sanitised by the distribution networks, who are not concerned with such abstract notions as truth or artistic integrity, but the financial impact on the company’s profits and image. The arena of distribution and marketing is where the capitalists’ power really comes into play in terms of commercial control over artistic content.

Just think of all the album covers, books and films which have been censored, replaced or banned outright, as was the case with the sequel to the Human Centipede (google it).

Companies like Wal-Mart refuse to stock certain works because those works contradict what Wal-Mart sees as the social attitudes and values of its customer base. However, since its customer base is hardly a niche market, it is clear that what it is actually concerned about is the power of reactionary lobby groups advocating against abortion, blasphemy and swearing, and in favour of marriage, abstinence and other equally regressive social institutions.

While dominant ideas and popular culture are interlinked in the public consciousness, with the rise and fall of social norms dictated by changing customs, new technology and social movements, capitalist control of production ensures the unchallenged pre-eminence of certain values. The most obvious example of this is in the portrayal of women, and particularly women’s sexuality in popular culture.

The rise of the struggle for sexual liberation with the advent of the Pill and a new wave of feminism in the 1960s and 70s is now reflected by the commodification of this liberation. In the west, women’s bodies are no longer hidden away, but rather exposed, subjected to an unrealistic beauty norm and sold back to men and women on Page 3, in lads’ mags and beauty pageants.

The 21st century has brought us the idea that women should be juggle childcare and cooking with a desire to break through the glass ceiling. Equally racism did not disappear with the US civil rights movement. Now it takes the form of nationalism, Islamophobia and ideas of cultural superiority.

But clearly the task of maintaining a system of ideas which says capitalism is invincible, that there is no alternative, and that ‘we’ve never had it so good’ cannot be left exclusively to artists and intellectuals, whose relation to capital is not based on the direct exploitation of workers. That is, the material privilege of authors, artists and journalists doesn’t depend on their ability to increase exploitation. It is this relative independence from the permanent struggle between classes over the distribution of social wealth which permits intellectuals to promote ideas which undermine or directly challenge the status quo.

This then, is the principal reason for the existence of a loss-making print media. Newspapers provide a further dimension in which to wage the battle of ideas in society. For example, French broadsheet Le Figaro is owned by the same capitalist who also owns the biggest TV station and a company holding huge government contracts in construction and defense.

Needless to say, Le Figaro is a consistent champion of increased military spending, even when this results in contracts worth billions of euros for fighter jets which stand rusting in depots because they are too expensive to be sold on the international market.

Apart from the media, education is the most important battle-ground of ideas in society. The Tories recognise this, which is why they are making pro-marriage relationship education a central plank of the curriculum in their ‘free’ schools and academies.

Certainly, they won’t say that women suffering from domestic violence should remain married at all costs… but if you hammer the supposed benefits of marriage to your health, family and happiness into children for years, then that will do the job of ensuring the growth of utterly reactionary attitudes to divorce and women’s role in the home.

Censorship and the state

Different countries have varying degrees of regulation of the mass media. This regulation can be overt, in the form of state or self-censorship, or through ‘independent’ regulators who use guidelines and fines to enforce some level of neutrality.

Such ‘impartiality’ counts for nothing, however, when the editors who determine content owe their positions to unnaccountable governments and millionaires determined to promote their own world-view.

In the many semi-colonial and dictatorial countries, a government-owned media is the norm. State control over the media is simply the clearest expression of its role in presenting and interpreting the dominant ideas in society. The western media dismisses government-controlled media as biased propaganda – ignoring that it too has its paymasters who pull the editors’ strings.

In countries with high illiteracy and poor access to education, a state-run media achieves the dual tasks of mystification and indoctrination. Mystification is achieved by masking the roots of social and economic oppression, indoctrination is achieved by tight control over content, preventing news of domestic protests and sanitizing international coverage.

The elevated levels of censorship in wartime, through self-censorship and the use of the Official Secrets Act is the most developed expression of the ruling class’s need to control the flow and appearance of ideas in society. The example of Prince Harry’s deployment to Afghanistan where the entire media agreed to the government’s request not to report the fact is just one relatively minor example of how freedom of information is ultimately always subordinated to the ‘national interest’. The national interest in its turn, is defined according to the interests of those with the most power in society.

So we see that we live in a society where control of production and distribution of ideas by a social elite simply results in the reproduction of the same oppressive ideas and social values which maintains that elite; i.e. promoting social attitudes which enforce the oppression of women, and preventing the organisation of the majority against this tyranny by using racism and religious intolerance to stir up artificial divisions.

The rise of social media

The 21st century has thrown up many challenges to the existing means of media control. Many claim that the spread of the internet and particularly social networking has fundamentally shifted the balance of power away from the media barons in favour of the masses,.

This is an illusion. Despite the hype, the Arab Spring was not sparked, mobilized or organized via social networking. In countries with very low internet coverage, the mobilization of millions through a few thousand tweets never looked credible. Certainly the internet can be a powerful tool in the hands of those organizing to defend their rights, but it can never substitute for the living democracy of councils of workers, youth and unemployed.

The idea that social media is somehow empowering the working class, is just another reflection of the private media’s ability to shape our conception of our place in society, and what constitutes power.

The prominence given to the role of social media by the capitalist media reflects its efforts to mask the democratic organization of millions of Egyptian workers in new trade unions, local committees and popular militias. This newfound power drove the revolutionary general strike which brought down Mubarak. Of course, the western media barons are not likely to accurately report the tactics of a revolutionary working class, instead they promote the elite, partial and atomized ‘democracy’ of the internet.

In reality the Arab dictatorships clamped down on internet access within days, while the freedom of internet in the West is tolerated only while it doesn’t challenge the social status quo.

Nevertheless, revolutionaries must use every form of media available to spread socialist ideas and everywhere expose the propaganda behind the ruling class ideologies. The struggle against censorship laws is a permanent task of socialists in order to enable the working class to play its part in the battle of ideas.

Therefore we fight for an end to all forms of censorship in the print, online and broadcast media.

We campaign for the right to organize politically within education and the workplace.

We oppose private ownership of the means of producing and disseminating information.

Read more

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The system we live in: Capitalism

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

We live in a class society

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The state: what is it and what is it’s role?

.…………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

 

Hip-Hop For Who?

Hip-hop music originated in 1970’s block parties in New York, especially in poorer areas like The Bronx. This genre and culture was born from a sense of community and sharing, people lucky enough to have expensive loud sound systems would throw huge outdoor parties, drawing together the community. Any debate about who owns hip-hop needs to start where the genre started – in the ghettos, musical and physical – of 1970s East Coast USA.

The birth of Hip-hop is well-documented, but as with any emerging musical fashion, some are now asking the question of who owns the genre. Just as the anti-corporate imagery of the grunge era was subverted by MTV and multi-million $ record deals, so people question whether Hip-hop is merely the latest chapter in the commercialisation of Black culture.

There are those who claim that Hip-hop lives in the experiences and lives of the poor and the oppressed. Nevertheless, ‘ownership’ of Hip-hop must be determined by who is able to produce and market it. Therefore to a large extent we must accept that Hip-hop’s material (if not spiritual) home is in the board rooms of EMI, Sony Music, BMG, etc.

This makes it necessary for fans and artists to question whose interests rappers are serving, and why that is. The hip-hop we are being sold through the mainstream, instead of challenging power, is often serving the interests of the rich and powerful elite that maintained the terrible conditions which conditioned the development of Black culture.

It is in the interests of the major record labels to only sell hip-hop that justifies the economic tyranny of a minority over the majority. So when we see images of Jay-Z, one of the biggest rap artists of our time, sat in the White House, we have to question whether these artists interests are compatible with that of the majority of the world’s poor. Of course they aren’t.

How can someone with millions of dollars possibly have similar collective interests to the majority of people in the world who live off the equivalent of a few dollars a week? Artists are certainly subject to exploitative record deals, but income from merchandise, ticket-sales and sponsorship still rests on the exploitative wage-slavery of capitalism.

In the UK we can see the negative influence on youth culture by the romanticised gang-culture in the Hip-hop we’re being sold. The right-wing media claims that a generation of young people are buying into a culture of gang violence. This is clearly an exaggeration, but we shouldn’t underestimate the attraction of the slick, platinum encrusted lottery reflected in mainstream Hip-hop.

It is no wonder that the youth of communities which face demonization in the media, police repression and criminalisation can be attracted to gangs to provide safety initially, and then a potential route out of the life of poverty and alienation which they see all around them.

But fundamentally, this is a culture that stems from the material poverty which many White, but particularly Black and Asian communities in our cities remain mired in. 50% of young Black people are unemployed in Britain, and the cuts to Education and public services will have devastating consequences for those who are already worst-off in our society.

So, latching onto the shared suffering of working-class communities across the world, what we see is a disturbing glorification of the results of poverty and oppression marketed through mainstream hip-hop. This displays the power inherent within the music industry to shape social consciousness, and therefore the awareness and behaviour of its audience. We see this repeated in the printed media too. Newspapers don’t make anybody a profit anymore, but they are so effective at reinforcing the ruling class’s propaganda that billionaires like Rupert Murdoch maintain entire media empires.

From a young age we are taught that if the things we make don’t make the rich richer, then they’re worthless. If it doesn’t make a profit for the bosses then it won’t be played on the radio or TV. Therefore artists are constantly forced to use new alternative methods to promote their material, Youtube, Myspace, etc.

All entertainment, and especially hip-hop, should inspire, stimulate, question and move us as human beings in some way or another, instead the music we are sold is totally un-challenging to human thought, violent, and materialistic – all attributes that benefit the ruling classes. If we are un-educated they can justify controlling our lives, if we are violent we are dividing ourselves instead of uniting against our common enemy, and of course if we are materialistic, the rich stay rich by selling us shit that we don’t need.

Hip-hop used to be a reflection of society and culture, but now those who control the mainstream production, can artificially manufacture the culture it is supposed to be representing. Mainstream hip-hop is a commodity to big corporations, so its motive for production will always be to make money. It is profitable to condition the youth to focus entirely on material possessions and achieving wealth, so rappers who promote a message of human need over corporate greed, like Akala, Immortal Technique, Lowkey etc, aren’t played on the radio. Young people are encouraged to aspire to be known and praised for being famous, instead of for having talent or meaning or helping progress hip-hop as a liberating form of entertainment.

In most rappers’ music videos you will see the glorification of expensive things, selling the idea to young people that ‘you can make it’ and be rich just like your favourite rappers, when in reality, the chances of climbing out of poverty for most people in the world are non-existent. This is similar in films, theatre and video games, but music is considered the most subversive and most consumed form of entertainment.

It is greatly beneficial to the ruling classes to play people against each other, examples of which can be seen throughout history. For example under Slavery, ‘field’ slaves were played against the ‘house’ slaves, through slightly improved conditions for those working in the house, because when people are fighting among themselves, they aren’t fighting the real cause of their poverty and oppression. This kind of rhetoric is prevalent in mainstream hip-hop because as the next generation of working people, we are much weaker when we are divided.

‘Independent’ or ‘underground’ Hip-hop may be starting to shape youth consciousness with no help from major record labels. During the youth resistance against education cuts in 2010/11, artists like Lowkey, Logic, and Crazy-Haze, who are involved in ‘The People’s Army’, have proved that Hip-hop’s rightful place is in the struggle, not just here in the UK, but across the world, from Egypt to Palestine to Afghanistan.

Their lyrics don’t just speak of the need to show tolerance and humility to each other as human beings (although they do this very well). They also show their understanding of the need not just to fight against our governments, but to fight against capitalism and imperialism on an international scale. The need to show solidarity with all those in struggle across the world. These positive and progressive messages will only continue to be more understood and accepted as people learn through struggle that we can only be stronger by uniting against the exploiting class of bankers, bosses and their governments.

The capitalists know that knowledge is our power, so they sell us ignorance; they know that unity is our strength, so they keep us divided. It’s time we reclaim hip-hop, and all forms of entertainment for the benefit of society, not the profit of the capitalist minority.

Social Media Icons Powered by Acurax Website Design Expert
Visit Us On TwitterVisit Us On FacebookVisit Us On Youtube