Mick Brooks reviews Why it’s kicking off everywhere, by Paul Mason, published by Verso, price £12.99 pbk.

Paul Mason sets out to analyse the reasons for the revolutionary wave that has rocked the world since the Arab Spring began a year ago. Mason is a brilliant journalist, giving vivid first hand accounts of struggles around the world.

Mason’s book reminds us that, to the surprise of many, revolution and counter-revolution are very much back on the agenda. He correctly connects the revolts to the recession that began in 2008. Of course, there is no mechanical correlation between deprivation and radicalisation. To the big question: “Why is it happening now?” he replies, “Ultimately the explanation lies in three big social changes: in the demographics of revolt, in technology and in human behaviour itself.”

By demographics, Mason means the existence of a mass of unemployed youth, including graduates, with no future. Capitalism has made this a fact of life from Cadiz to Cairo. The older generation has often written off today’s youth as incurably materialistic and apolitical. Now they have shown their mettle. These young people have been in the vanguard of revolt from Tahrir Square to the Occupy movement all over the world.

Mason stresses that capitalism has produced a massive underclass of urban slum dwellers, living on the margins of existence. “Commodity price inflation,” he goes on, “turns the ‘acceptable’ poverty of $2 per day into utter destitution.” In Egypt food prices rose by 19% during the year before Mubarak’s overthrow. Barings Asset Management found that the level of inflation in food prices correlated exactly with the level of unrest in different countries last year. In fact, it caused the upheavals in exactly the same way as it triggered the revolutions of 1848. No wonder the cry in Egypt was, ‘Bread, freedom, social justice!’

As to the significance of communication by Blackberry and the importance of Facebook and Twitter in drawing people together for a cause, Mason comes over as a technological determinist. With snappy talk of “the Jacobin with a  laptop” and “ the networked revolution” he surmises that, “The revolts, then, are the results of a technological revolution driven by the deployment of digital communications at work, in social life, and now in the forms of protest.”

I think this is wrong. They didn’t have Facebook in 1789 or 1917. The fundamental factor in making a revolution is a determination to change society, plus human ingenuity. That is a permanent characteristic of human behaviour. Technology can help or it can hinder. In fact Mubarak shut down the internet and the mobile phone networks in Egypt. It didn’t stop his overthrow. In addition the idea floated by Mason that exposure to Foucault’s postmodernist gobbledygook helped to radicalise a generation of young people is frankly bonkers.

Mason underestimates the significance of the organised labour movement. He doesn’t mention the big union battles in 2011 in the USA. An insurrectionary mood developed in Wisconsin, where Governor Scott Walker moved to eliminate public sector trade union collective bargaining. On the other hand, the unions won a great victory in Ohio over the right-wing Republicans. In a referendum Ohioans voted overwhelmingly against a proposal to ban public sector strikes and shred bargaining rights. This shows how public opinion can be mobilised behind the cause of labour.

The unions have shown their solidarity with the Occupy movement. For instance the Occupy movement in New York survived with moral and material support from the rank and file of the teachers’ union and the healthcare union SEIU. The two movements are in the process of coalescing.

Before the high profile mobilisation in Tahrir Square, the Egyptian Revolution had been prepared by years of a bitter and significant strike wave. There were 3,000 labour actions between 2004 and 2010. Mason mentions the virtual uprising in Mahalla in 2008. It arose out of a strike at Misra Spinning and Weaving mill which employs 27,000 workers. The movement there was led by the working class, drawing the unemployed and the intelligentsia behind them. That shows what is possible.

Mason puts his finger on the nub of the issue. “If you were to summarise the problem for the mainstream left in the present crisis, it comes down to three points: free market capitalism has failed; there’s a wave of resistance to wage cuts and austerity; the political leaders of social democracy cannot accept points one and two.” That’s spot on. It’s no wonder rebellious youth are not attracted to politicians who misunderstand the nature of our times so fundamentally.

Suki Pryce explains the ideas dealt with in depth in her book A New Evolutionary Perspective on Happiness, O-Books, £14.99.

What a mess we’re in! Modern life is full of problems – in individuals and in society too. Increasingly we see pervasive discontent and unhappiness, addictions of many kinds, mental health problems, damaged and disturbed children, perverted sexuality, antisocial behaviour and crime, cruelty, violence and war. Most people today believe that this state of affairs is inevitable because human nature is intrinsically warlike, aggressive and competitive, for this is what our culture teaches us to believe.

Our roots: partnership societies

Surely it makes sense to ask: does life have to be this way? Was life always like this for humans beings? We’ve been around in some form for at least 100,000 years and more likely around two million: surely we didn’t evolve to live such difficult and dysfunctional lives? If we research a bit more thoroughly, we find that there is a different way of looking at human nature and that, in fact, there has always been evidence – particularly from anthropology – to show that humans are capable of being naturally happy, egalitarian, peaceful and co-operative. Moreover, there is now ever-increasing information from other fields such as archaeology, child development, neuroscience and animal behaviour to indicate that human beings developed into a prosocial species at least 100,000 years ago, and stayed that way until the start of farming about 10,000 years ago. This means that we humans have spent at least 90% of our time on earth in a much happier state than most of us exist in now; and that our species is innately capable of being far more ‘sane’ and unscrewed up than modern society considers possible.
Since those early times, our prosocial (or “partnership” qualities, as scholar and activist Riane Eisler called them) have survived in their pure form mainly among hunter-gatherers, and to a lesser extent among some tribal peoples; so it’s from these societies that we can get the best idea of what our prehistoric forebears were like. Here we find peoples who are rich in admirable qualities: cheerful, kind, fun-loving, playful, good-humoured, affectionate, unscrewed up about sex or the body, spiritually tuned-in, non-materialistic, confident, brave… Tellingly, these simpler peoples all live in societies which are matriarchal or have a classificatory-kinship style structure to some extent, which shows that there is a link between those ancient forms of community, and partnership-type qualities.

The last 10,000 years: dominator societies
In contrast to partnership-type communities, “dominator” societies (as Eisler termed them), are what we’re used to now, and what most of us believe to be natural, normal and inevitable. Such societies are – to a greater or lesser extent – hierarchical, patriarchal, oppressive, competitive and materialistic; tend to use coercion or force to achieve their ends; and produce unequal, unjust, and fairly unhappy and screwed up societies. Most people today assume that such societies are the only type possible because they result from “human nature” – which is presumed to be intrinsically selfish and aggressive. And it’s clearly in dominator society’s interest to maintain this belief, and to sustain the impression that “things have always been this way”. The very idea of partnership life is therefore a threat to the status quo – which means that there’s continuous (though largely unconscious?) pressure to suppress knowledge about our partnership roots. This is done principally by withholding, sidelining and “minimising” information about partnership-style life and peoples, and deriding their plausibility or even their very existence.

Harmful childhoods

A key factor in creating and sustaining dominator society appears to be the harmful forms of childrearing which are the norm in these cultures and which are radically less nurturing than the “continuum” type upbringings practised by hunter-gatherers. These damaging childhoods qualitatively change what human beings are like – screw them up. Even more unnerving to contemplate is the fact that this screwing-up process is probably actually required by dominator culture for its own perpetuation (because damaging childhoods produce the type of citizens who are susceptible or suited to hierarchical, unjust societies.) This means that dominator culture is – has to be – intrinsically opposed to all attempts to fundamentally improve our childrearing methods or revert to partnership ways (yes, The Big Society is only wanted when it suits politicians…).

What are we to do?

We can’t go back to being pristine hunter-gatherers in an unspoilt, sparsely populated world. But if we start to realise that it’s our birthright to be unscrewed-up, happy, cheerful and free, that’s a first step in steering our lives towards a more partnership-style future.

• Suki Pryce BSc, MPhil, is a former university lecturer and experienced author, with a life-long interest in indigenous peoples, mind body spirit matters, and what simpler cultures have to teach us today. Her book Do We Need To Be So Screwed Up?! is published on 27th April 2012.

Mike Phipps reviews School Wars, by Melissa Benn, published by Verso, price £10.99 pbk.

Education is one of the main points of conflict within the coalition. The Lib-Dems fought the 2010 election on a platform of opposition to free schools and extending academies. Now the biggest structural change to education in a generation is being accompanied by massive spending cuts, including the school buildings programme, Educational Maintenance Allowance and the trebling of university fees.

Education was once the subject of a political consensus. This included the move to comprehensive schooling which, Benn argues, was bipartisan, piecemeal and slow. The private sector was left intact. The Church exerted huge pressure to keep its influence. Comprehensive schools were often adopted as a pragmatic last resort, as opposition grew to the inequalities of selection at age eleven. This included middle class parents whose children failed the exam that would separate them educationally and socially, perhaps irrevocably.

The failure to fight for a new vision of educational equality opened comprehensive education to attack. By the Thatcher years, it was being undermined by centrally funded schools that could opt out of local authority control – a model for future academies. Micro-management of the curriculum by government accompanied endless testing in key subjects. Music and sport – as school playing fields were sold off on a vast scale – fell by the wayside.
New Labour was little better, with Blair unable to conceal his antipathy to comprehensive education – “academic vandalism”, he called it. It was his academy programme – schools outside of local authority control partnering with the Church or private sector – which opened the door to the present mess.

Three features characterise current government attitudes. First, Education Secretary Michael Gove favours “a traditional education, sitting in rows, learning the kings and queens of England.” Second is the passion for free schools, which are divisive, often motivated by a desire for social separation. Seven out of ten free school applications register a faith-based ethos. Some £28 million of public money funded the first free school in Wandsworth, and £21 million was given to consultants to promote the policy.

Ultimately this is a distraction compared to the third aspect of government policy: the hundreds of schools now being forced to become independent of local authorities under the extension of the academies programme. As schools “follow the money”, the financial inducements proffered to would-be academies, local authorities are left underfunded with what’s left.

All these “reforms” are trumpeted in the name of “choice”. Far from strengthening parental choice, every piece of legislation over the last 25 years has resulted in more, not less, selection. Academies are now creaming off chosen students using social selection on the basis of faith and class.
Half of all children on free school meals are concentrated in just a quarter of UK schools. The assumption that poorer kids will do worse is a huge waste of potential. International evidence indicates that genuinely non-selective education routinely tops the world league tables. The evidence is also clear in Britain. Corporate sponsorship of academies means that what they offer is often geared to the needs of local employers, which in some cases means low-paid service sector work like hairdressing. Equally worrying is the growth of private chains which are set to make millions out of taking over state schools – such as Cognita, which made £3 million profit from running one London school alone.

The future looks even more fragmented. Ethnic segregation is already a reality in some areas. Free schools will entrench religious segregation. Privatisation is now creeping even into the primary sector. As everywhere in the private sector, the pressure to cut costs, primarily by cutting qualified staff, is a real imperative.

It’s not all doom and gloom, however. Melissa Benn proposes a range of solutions, based on experiences elsewhere in the world. Restoring trust in teachers would be a start, but there are many imaginative ideas also considered in this thoughtful and well-researched book.

Will Boisseau reviews A Walk-On Part: Diaries 1994-1999, by Chris Mullin, published by Profile Books, price £25 hbk.

The third volume of Chris Mullin’s highly-esteemed diaries, and the earliest in  chronological order, covers the period from John Smith’s death in 1994 until two years into Blair’s first term in office. Unlike the volumes covering New Labour’s later years – when Mullin became “Minister for Folding Deckchairs” before being unceremoniously dumped by Blair – there is a sense of hope in these pages, hope of the prospect of real change under a Labour Government.

Mullin introduces the volume by apologising for his “tendency towards pessimism”, but there is a sense of tragic optimism throughout the book. On the night of Labour’s 1997 victory Mullin declares that: “From now on, Britain will be governed on behalf of all its people. Not merely on behalf of the fortunate.” Mullin never becomes entirely disillusioned with Blair and remains proud of Labour’s modest achievements – but for the reader, knowing what is to come, his optimism is heartbreaking.

It’s impossible to read this book and not feel an overwhelming fondness for Mullin the man. Readers will immediately warm to his self-deprecating humour and fundamental decency. One Christmas Eve, the MP reads of a constituent whose Christmas presents have been stolen and he immediately goes round to her house with £50 inside a Christmas card. There follows an awkward conversation and much agonising from Mullin: “Did I do the right thing? ... I expect she can make better use of the money than I can.”

These human asides, and the tales of raising two tyrannical toddlers, make Mullin an everyman whose opinions we begin to trust. When the MP decides to back Blair for the leadership in 1994 because “I am in the Win The Next Election Camp”, it seems to be the only logical option for a politician who wants to improve the lives of his poorest constituents. However, Mullin – who is loosely and perhaps unhelpfully described as “soft left” – is not immune from reactionary or wrong opinions. For instance, he is determined that “we must never surrender” to public sector trade unions wanting to improve the pay of their members.

Mullin clearly approaches every decision with a genuine desire to create a fairer, more equal society. It is impossible to imagine that New Labour would have followed the path it did if all backbenchers had had the strength of character of the Sunderland South MP. Mullin’s greatest failing is falling head-over-heels for Blair – or “The Man”, as he is affectionately referred to. When Cherie Blair, “complaining about money problems”, moans that her husband won’t accept fees for lecture tours after leaving office because he is “an idealist … [and] wants to go and teach in Africa”, Mullin seems to accept this as more evidence that the Prime Minister shares his commitment to progressive social change.

The diaries are edited by Ruth Winstone, who also edited Tony Benn’s diaries. It’s impossible to tell what ended up on the cutting-room floor, but what remains is an expertly considered balance between personal, constituency and Westminster life. It also feels that issues with contemporary relevance have been brought to the fore in the editing process. For instance there is a preoccupation with Murdoch in the early years of this volume, which can be read with some satisfaction after recent events.

The pivotal event of the volume is, of course, Labour’s 1997 election victory. Speaking to a group of sixth form students days before the election, Mullin tells them: “There was only one major issue – the huge gulf that had grown up between the fortunate and the unfortunate. If they wanted it to widen, they should vote Conservative. If they wanted it to narrow, they should vote Labour.” The tragedy is that the gap did not narrow. This volume will be read by historians and activists as an attempt to understand why inequality was not halted under Labour.