a farewell to kings

good  morning! good morning! 

wander over to the velodrome yesterday morning with TG.

horsemouth has collaged the government's new definition of extremism with the all that is solid melts into air portion from chapter 1 of the  communist manifesto (the paragraph beginning with 'the bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production...'). 

horsemouth supposes that this point in the communist manifesto is that capitalism (via its class the bourgeoisie) drives change, and it must drive this change or cease to exist, and that this change, acts (to quote the government definition of extremism) to;

1) negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or 

2) undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or 

3) intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).

it can be objected that in many ways capitalism brought  the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights into existence, but this system is not identical with capitalism and therefore may well be destroyed by it when its usefulness to capitalism is over. just as capitalism destroyed the feudal order in order to come into being.  it may destroy the existing order if there is a faster buck in it.

similarly capitalism is not identical with 'the fundamental rights and freedoms of others'  and may destroy these also if that is what capitalism requires. 

so to recap, by its action in which all that is solid melts into air. all that is holy is profaned it may create a permissive environment to undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights or negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

by horsemouth's argument (thus) capitalism is extremism. 

ok so we have the aims of extremism (as characterised in the government's new definition), those that it acts to achieve. but what is extremism itself?

'extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance.'

horsemouth has lent his copy of on violence (hannah arendt) to his brother. but (other than sorel) is there an ideology of violence? or of hatred? or of intolerance? does not everybody claim to be motivated by love and what is good (eventually). e.g. white power racists tend to claim that they love the white race.   

but it is not this end of the wedge that will be brought to bear but the thin end of this wedge. and the thin end of the wedge  is the  '(to) intentionally create a permissive environment'  clause.  

in some ways the redefinition of extremism  is an attack by the state upon the symptoms (populism, racism, islamism)  unleashed by the changes in capitalism/ western foreign policy but it is also an attempt to capitalise on those populist symptoms electorally. it is an engaging monkey trap but horsemouth doesn't think the electorate are that interested - they have already decided the tories are dead meat.

and, indeed,  capitalism may itself be in the process of being destroyed (and replaced by something worse). 

last night horsemouth watched the rise and fall of boris johnson - it was the final episode (so presumably we are into the fall). but what's this? boris returning? boris returning to campaign for the tories in exchange for being made a lord? that may be a good enough place to temporarily park his ambitions while the tories are in opposition and whilst the necessary post-defeat blood-letting goes on, but what then?

will he swim out to sea like reggie perrin? or will, unchastened, he return to be crowned king again. 

today horsemouth has no plans. he has some pasta to keep him going and the remains of the fake bread. the antonia white diaries 1926-1957 goes well. saturday horsemouth will be writing about the algerian (kabyle) rebellion against the french in 1871.