Thursday, 2 June 2011


This poem means a lot to me.

It comes bound with memories of infatuation. 

I would like to point out that I am NOT the author of this poem.

She has his love once, twice and threece;
His heart is lax, his soul at peace;
Brain’s opiate, mind’s release;
This sallow town, a once sated geese;
He hastened away, the bond did cease;
Brain’s opiate, mind’s release;

Back he is, this lonesome geese;
His heart awash and up for lease;
Brain’s opiate, mind’s release;
This scoundrel here tries to fleece;
Their hopes, dreams, on does he feasts;
Brain’s opiate, mind’s release;

Her soul to his, without a crease;
He longs for her, that he left to cease;
Brain’s opiate, mind’s release.


Friday, 6 May 2011

Well that was an experience.

Our TUSC candidates, agents and guests attended the Count for the Council elections last night. It was fascinating. Shame about the people though...

It's bullshit - the whole institution.

Politics works in a world totally and utterly void of any implemention of "ideology".

What the people actually want is in absolutely no way reflected in what actually happens.

We have a Conservative moaning about how his expenses do not make up for his loss of earnings in his business, and I quote:
"I often feel that the money I spend in allowances is not reflective of that of what I've lost in my business"
 Then we have a Liberal Democrat promoting values that her own party leadership does not represent. I believe whole heatedly that what grassroots Lib-Dems stand for is amazing, however when in power they are nothing more than scape-goated puppets who fall even before the first hurdle. 

I think it's clear, and fair, and justified to say that politics and millionaires as a coalition have successfully isolated themselves from the day-to-day reality of Joe Public. Not one of them has a bloody clue what actually happens in life. 

It's all about media coverage, and the power of money. It's about what sells and what attracts people - It has nothing to do with values and standards. Or beliefs and conviction. The days of real representation in political power are long gone.

But then I guess that's life.

It doesn't matter who wins. It is the entire institution of political power that has failed. but that happened a long long time ago.

Yet since the addition of Media PR and distractions (which fool the majority), we're further away from the utopian democracy than ever before.

THAT'S why I'm a Socialist. 

Thursday, 5 May 2011

TUSC against CUTS

Grassroots campaigners, unionists and students are joining together to be part of a growing movement. But this movement has the edge. It is about every day people fighting for their quality of life. It is about working class people, disabled people, rich people, poor people, students, teachers, black people, white people, tall people, small people, married people, single people, parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren: you get the picture - this campaign belongs to everyone. It is a campaign to defend our liberties from the unnecessary, unfair and unjust cuts. The ConDem Government is not run by leading economists and the risks they are taking by implementing such deep cuts is terrifying.  It was their billionaire banker friends’ risky gambling habits which created the deficit in the first and now they are treating our economy with the same risky hasty, careless ideas.

Deep cuts slow down the economy – they reduce the tax take and therefore make the deficit practically-impossible to close.  We are being fed rubbish about “work shy benefit scroungers” and “the problem with immigration” and our “crisis-state economy” but these are tactics to convince Joe Public that the cuts are… and here’s that word again… “Necessary”.

Cutting benefits is not a fast-track into work, it is a (proven) fast-track to crime and theft. It is illogical and hypocritical to suggest that you can take peoples benefits away so they have to get a job when the wave of job-cuts means that there simply isn’t the work out there. We need investment in employment programs investment in new innovative green energy resources which would create jobs, solve our energy problems and finally give Britain a lucrative trade export.
The cuts are not necessary – they are a class attack. Think about it this way, tax-payers money bailed the banks out (we are talking £trillions) and now they’re cutting out services, our arts, our jobs, our benefits, our education to put that money back? That is not OK. The banks owe US money and they’re still not lending to small business. The banks owe US money and yet they still got their bonuses. The banks owe US money, yet are stills stealing all ours.

Say no to cuts. Fight for the alternative - because there are many alternatives. It’s about people – not profit.

Saturday, 30 April 2011

To feel this way again.

It's this feeling again,
It returns now and then,
When I think things are well
I become lost again
Directions are blurred
Destination obscured
It is the climax of indecisiveness
It is the pinnacle of bored
"I know where I'm going,
I know what I want,
I know how to get there."
... Or not

It is frustrating, decapitating, humiliating
To feel this way again
When will it end?
Have I gone round the bend?

I feel like I'm lying to you
Have I made it all up?

Its not all in my head
It's not all in my head
Is it all in my head?

It is my head that is the problem
It is these thoughts - I can't stop them
And I feel I've forgotten
How to do normal things 
How to just blend in.

When speaking I lose my words
When interacting I lose my thoughts
When thinking I lose my track
Am i just immature? 
I have been here before.

The activity in my mind
Works quicker than rhymes
And I've not got the time
To describe what I find
So I get left behind
When neurology unwinds
It seems my reality is defined
By sociological lies
And broken ties
And the absence of rhyme
Or self-define
So now it is all mime
But none of it is mine.

Now I'm losing grip
I am losing it
I am bored of psychosis
Repetitive social osmosis
Reactive neurosis
It looks like I have lost this
and I feel this way again

Thursday, 28 April 2011

The Benefits.

I remember, and it wasn't that long ago, having a conversation with my wonderful Mum about work ethics. The pair of us were tired after a long, work-overloaded week and were whinging because we wanted a holiday but could not afford it (despite stupidly long hours!) It was then that we started to discuss the perks of benefit claimants.

Now please don't misunderstand, this is not the majority-rule situation, but there are a minority of people who fall through loopholes in the benefit system and as a result, are able to claim incredible amounts of money, enabling purchases of holidays, cars and other luxuries. It seems unfair that people get this "free" money to do with as they please when we are working constantly and still skint.

It then became apparent throughout the conversation that we were harboring quite a prejudice towards all those on benefits - How unfair!

Recently I've become more aware of the brain-washing prejudice being fed through media and word-of-mouth. Of course there are a small minority of people who are milking the system but for Gods sake, it's not the fault of the system, its the fault of human greed. The ConDem plans to attack social security and "shake-up" the benefit system is terrifying, because like my Mum and I, they are going at it with all the wrong ideas and with so much prejudice.

When you step back and look at the reality of the situation, you will see just how dangerous it would be to "shake-up" our system. Claimants whose lives depend on benefits will find themselves with even less than their current pitiful allowance. That in itself will cause a huge string of tragic circumstances and will surely lead to more than a few horror stories.

We, the British Public, have a social security system in place. And it works. It could be better, it could be improved. But it most certainly should not be slashed and destroyed.

When you read headlines about "lazy" or "work-shy" people, ask yourself about Cameron's work-shy millionaire friends. Who've barely-legally made millions and billions of pounds of your money through tax evading and avoiding.

So Mr Joe Bloggs down the road claims an extra tenner a week because he once fell over a million years ago and can still claim disability benefits. No, he shouldn't be claiming benefits that aren't in place for him. But the Government shouldn't be countering this by taking away those benefits from people who will genuinely see themselves at serious risk without the help. Just because Joe Bloggs was illegally claiming Disability Living Allowance, it doesn't mean that this should be slashed so that Mrs Smith - who has a life-sentence illness - should go hungry, or go without.

British people should be bloody proud of our social security, of the measures that our Governments have put in place so that we are (usually) protected. But there are still cases that slip through the net. There is still so much tragedy in Britain. So much homelessness, poverty, prejudice and ill-treatment of our basic human rights.

So when you get like my Mum and Me, you get angry at working such long hours and having f**k all to show for it, don't blame people on Social Security - they are an example of the fantastic, responsible protection measures that governments have put in place - get angry at the Capitalism for being the evil that took all your money. 

Tuesday, 26 April 2011

Eyedea and the genius within.

Thanks to a like-minded friend, I recently stumbled across an underground rap-artist who, in any other situations, I would not have found. His name is Micheal Larson (aka "Eyedea") and he was a well-known freestyle battle champion and underground rapper. I found the video to "Even Shadows Have Shadows" on youtube and have been hooked ever since. At just 29 years old, he tragically died in his sleep but tribute should continue to be made to his deep, self-critical lyrics and incredible rap skills.

I particularly want to draw attention to the last part (my favourite part) which gave me tingling goosebumps of familiarity and respect for an artist who truly understood so much.

Cause even shadows have shadows
and my secrets are eating me eagerly feeding
I scream in my dreams away but they keep on defeating me
Even Shadows have Shadows
Welcome to the dusty subconscious of an actor
Who murdered his childhood to stop the audience's laughter
Even Shadows have Shadows
How am I to break free from my fears
When I don't like what I see and I can't feel what I hear
Even Shadows have Shadows
So don't judge my book by it's cover
Cause my story's just fucked up as any other

Let me know what you think...

Wednesday, 20 April 2011

What's the difference between socialism and communism?

I've been asking myself this question for a while and found any response was a little vague. I feel that this extract from Huberman and Sweezy, "Introduction to Socialism," is brilliant and thought I'd share it with all those who are wondering... 

SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism grows directly out of capitalism; it is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of socialism.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds (socialism). From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (communism).
The socialist principle of distribution according to deeds— that is, for quality and quantity of work performed, is immediately possible and practical. On the other hand, the communist principle of distribution according to needs is not immediately possible and practical—it is an ultimate goal.
Obviously, before it can be achieved, production must reach undreamed of heights—to satisfy everyone’s needs there must be the greatest of plenty of everything. In addition, there must have developed a change in the attitude of people toward work—instead of working because they have to, people will work because they want to, both out of a sense of responsibility to society and because work satisfies a felt need in their own lives.
Socialism is the first step in the process of developing the productive forces to achieve abundance and changing the mental and spiritual outlook of the people. It is the necessary transition stage from capitalism to communism.
It must not be assumed, from the distinction between socialism and communism, that the political parties all over the world which call themselves Socialist advocate socialism, while those which call themselves Communist advocate communism. That is not the case. Since the immediate successor to capitalism can only be socialism, the Communist parties,-like the Socialist parties, have as their goal the establishment of socialism.
Are there, then, no differences between the Socialist and Communist parties? Yes, there are.
The Communists believe that as soon as the working class and its allies are in a position to do so they must make a basic change in the character of the state; they must replace capitalist dictatorship over the working class with workers’ dictatorship over the capitalist class as the first step in the process by which the existence of capitalists as a class (but not as individuals) is ended and a classless society is eventually ushered in. Socialism cannot be built merely by taking over and using the old capitalist machinery of government; the workers must destroy the old and set up their own new state apparatus. The workers’ state must give the old ruling class no opportunity to organize a counter-revolution; it must use its armed strength to crush capitalist resistance when it arises.
The Socialists, on the other hand, believe that it is possible to make the transition from capitalism to socialism without a basic change in the character of the state. They hold this view because they do not think of the capitalist state as essentially an institution for the dictatorship of the capitalist class, but rather as a perfectly good piece of machinery which can be used in the interest of whichever class gets command of it. No need, then, for the working class in power to smash the old capitalist state apparatus and set up its own—the march to socialism can be made step by step within the framework of the democratic forms of the capitalist state.
The attitude of both parties toward the Soviet Union grows directly out of their approach to this problem. Generally speaking, Communist parties praise the Soviet Union; Socialist parties denounce it in varying degrees. For the Communists, the Soviet Union merits the applause of all true believers in socialism because it has transformed the socialist dream into a reality; for the Socialists, the Soviet Union deserves only condemnation because it has not built socialism at all—at least not the socialism they dreamed of.
Instead of wanting to take away people’s private property, socialists want more people to have more private property than ever before.
There are two kinds of private property. There is property which is personal in nature, consumer’s goods, used for private enjoyment. Then there is the kind of private property which is not personal in nature, property in the means of production. This kind of property is not used for private enjoyment, but to produce the consumer’s goods which are.
Socialism does not mean taking away the first kind of private property, e.g. your suit of clothes; it does mean taking away the second kind of private property, e.g. your factory for making suits of clothes. It means taking away private property in the means of production from the few so that there will be much more private property in the means of consumption for the many. That part of the wealth which is produced by workers and taken from them in the form of profits would be theirs, under socialism, to buy more private property, more suits of clothes, more furniture, more food, more tickets to the movies.
More private property for use and enjoyment. No private property for oppression and exploitation. That’s socialism.

So does that answer your questions?

Tuesday, 19 April 2011

Letter to the Local Newspaper

Dear Sir/Madam,

I felt obliged to write in following the recent debate between Mr Johnson and Mr Duff.  It is so disappointing when people apathetically agree with whatever they are told and believe one simple line which scapegoats the government axe and measures of austerity: “Oh well, we’re all in it together.”

Cobblers I say. I fail to see how we can accept such drastic cuts to our lifestyles, our culture and our livelihoods with a pitiful explanation of “it’s necessary”. This deficit is no larger than it has been for 200 years and the rubbish reasoning of “there are no alternatives” is just plain offensive. Of course there are alternatives. Maybe if Cameron’s billionaire friends hadn’t been making money out of the recession, he would be more inclined to invest in the economy to effectively pull us out of it.

As intelligent, free-minded individuals, it is our responsibility to look for the facts and not just lap up the rubbish we’re fed. The facts are simple: failures in the world’s financial system created a recession which inevitably created a deficit. To encourage regrowth within the economy it is absurd to suggest cuts to spending; we should be investing. While the national debt is higher than it's been for some time, it's still lower than it's been for most of the last century. Debt has often been higher in the past – and it goes up after national emergencies such as wars and worldwide recessions.

The first thing we have to do here is junk the idea that the national economy is like a household's. Every time a politician says we have to do with the nation's finances what a prudent householder would do with a credit card bill, you can stop listening. It's nonsense.

The fact is, the rich got richer during the recession. After the initial loss from the financial crisis, a stock market rebound helped the world's ranks of millionaires climb 17 percent to 10 million, while their collective wealth surged 19 percent to $39 trillion. So whilst you miss out on quality, vital services and think “yes ok we’re all in this together”, remember that people are making money from our lack-of. 

I certainly did not gamble unfathomable amounts of money away on risky rumour-led banking predictions. I just paid my tazes. I haven’t enjoyed the financial benefit of off-shore tax havens saving me trillions of pounds. I just went to work.

But it is our university fees that will triple. (Remember our Politicians and the ruling class enjoyed free university education.) It is our job prospects looking empty. (Our ruling class are all sitting comfortably) and it will be  our futures that are tainted and disregarded.

And all I did was go to work and pay my taxes. So now tell me we’re all in this together.

Yours Sincerely 

Racism and Socialism

A recent discussion I had with friends had us concluding that "Capitalism isn't working.". I've never really considered myself a socialist but the latest involvement with anti-racism/prejudice campaigns has founded the idea that capitalism has failed. Racism is on the up again, prejudice is growing and equality is regressing. Please read on...
A few questions I want answered are:

  1. What role does Socialism have in reducing racism, prejudice and discrimination?
  2. What are the origins of racism?
  3. What local examples of racism are apparent in Shepway?

When googling “what is racism” I was met with pretty similar definitions:

CBBC (the children's wing of BBC) says that...
"Racism is when someone thinks different skin colour or religious beliefs make some people better than others."
Wikipedia says that...
“Racism is the belief that the genetic factors that constitute race, ethnicity, or nationality are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and those ethnic differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”

But when reading into a yahoo forum you are met with angry public opinions. I found bold controversies such as:

“"Racist" the label used to silence anyone who speaks outside the box of political correctness.”

Or this, from the comment section of the Daily Telegraph website:

“A racist is someone on the right/centre who says something that the liberal/left does not like. It is a product of the Toynbee Factory and like many of its products, is a fake.”

There is a growing trend in anti-anti-racism. It seems people are increasingly becoming frustrated at the “walking on eggshells” effect of political correctness and this in itself is causing prejudice. This in itself has caused a complete u-turn on the progress we were making on equality and has caused an angry reaction to “political correctness” or “equality acts”. But with everything – it can be taken too far. The foundations for political correctness laws etc were essentially fantastic. It is progressive to have restrictions in place directing people towards an equal society however these rules and regulations have been used as a political scapegoat for right-wing propaganda and have been dramatised for effect to inspire and ignite a British racism disease that is spreading like wildfire today.

It is the fault of the government that UK welfare claimants are on the increase; it is the fault of the government that jobs are scarce. It is the fault of Capitalism that the gap between the rich and poor is growing at a terrifying rate. And it is the result of these things that we are faced with a generally accepted racism.

In Folkestone especially, racism is in its most dangerous form. Most of our towns’ population will come out with rubbishes like “I’m not a racist, I’ve got black friends, but…” and it is this exact mind-frame that fuels racist groups like the BNP or the street-thug EDL. It’s practically daily that I will hear someone say “the problem with this country is the lax rules on immigration.” Or “all those immigrants coming to sponge off our welfare state”. Or “Why should an immigrant get a housing benefit before me?”

I’ve actually just stumbled across a website called” which describes itself as “an independent, voluntary, non political body which is concerned about the present scale of immigration into the UK.” How scary.

The myths and lies that are government fed about the effects of immigration have caused a totally ridiculous but completely accepted opinion that immigration is a worrying thing. The website uses terrifyingly large figures of increase in a factual explanation of Britain’s current immigration situation. It says that “Net immigration quadrupled to 237,000 a year between 1997 and 2007. In 2009 it was 196,000. 3 million immigrants have arrived since 1997.”
Whilst these figures seem alarming on the surface, we must address the facts and stop encouraging the scare-mongering, scape-goating tactics of government-run media.
More people does not mean less wealth or a lower quality of life. Holland has almost twice as high density of population but is a rich country. Albania is half as densely populated but is very poor. There is not a fixed cake of wealth within each nation, with the slices getting thinner each time a new person arrives. Every immigrant is a person who can contribute to society and immigrants are on average younger than the existing population so can help support the old.
Migrants make a huge contribution to the UK economy, paying £2.5 billion more in tax each year than they take out in services. The taxes and national insurance contributions paid by migrant workers into the UK economy provide more resources to fund our public services.

So why are the Government feeding us these lies about immigration and migration? It ignites such a horrible prejudice and fuels any underlying racism. It is to steer away from the facts and failures of capitalism. The realities of our society are that jobs are scarce and job-seekers are abundant. This is not due to open floodgates of hundreds of immigrants. It is due to the spread of wealth becoming class-focused and disproportional. The ruling class are making money from the lower class and their misguided greed creates a complete cock-up of economy management.

So what role does socialism play in anti-fascism or racism? Will the overhaul of the economic structure mean that minority groups are not dropped straight into the poverty black-hole? 

I strongly believe that racism is not innate. It is a product of society mis-management, and part of our modern-day blame culture. Will a socialist society then stamp out these effects? 

What do you think…