With Usura Canto XLV - Ezra Pound

Anglo Saxon Economics

The Banning of Oi! Political Subversion in Popular Music

Written as part of my degree at the University of Brighton (2005)


It has long been known that music has the power to inspire emotion into the hearts of audiences. This fact has been utilised historically by politicians, activists, military leaders, musicians and film makers as a way to manipulate the subconscious of the listener into considering a certain ideological message to be more credible.

“Plato worried that music might generate lawlessness; new types of song and forms of music that were created within a society, or music that came from outside, could have a direct impact on the entire society.” Negus (p. 200)

Words that on their own have little effect on those who hear them, attain new significance and meaning when spoken or sang over a piece of music. The political sentiment or intent of the artist is sometimes manipulated and assigned new political meanings by those who wish to benefit from the ideological power of music.

“In 1987 Imagine was collectively sung at a Conservative party conference in Britain to greet Margaret Thatcher – one of Britain’s most right-wing leaders, who led one of the governments least sympathetic to social democratic principles since the Second World War.” Negus (p.195)

John Lennon’s Imagine is largely recognised as an expression of socialist values; however it was effectively used in an opposing political context by the Conservative party. This can be seen as an example of the Marxist Antonio Gramsci’s theory of hegemony in which those with power adopt a variety of cultural symbols to promote their own ideological message. In Britain during the 1970s and 1980s there was a great deal of music associated with both left and right wing politics. Both used the issue of racial tension as a way of rallying support for their causes.

The Rock Against Racism (RAR) concerts started in the 1970’s and were associated with punk rock and reggae music. The movement claimed to be a response to racist organisations but was also clearly an attack on opposing political values, “It was a movement formed in reaction to rising xenophobia and racism fuelled by Nazi organisations like the National Front.” (RAR website) Popular punk musicians such as Tom Robinson, The Clash and X-Ray Spex were aligned to the movement, however all of those were renowned for their left wing politics. The movement attracted its following through talk of racial equality and ending violent attacks, but beneath these objectives was the hidden motive to subvert Marxist politics to a generation of young and impressionable music fans.

“RAR strengthened the idea that rock music could be about more than entertainment, and in a sense provided the inspiration for similar campaigns in the 1980s” Shuker

A rival movement Rock Against Communism (RAC) was started in 1978 which also used music to communicate a political message to young people. RAC concerts were usually held in opposition to rival political groups such as Anti-Fascist Action and the Anti-Nazi League. They were often headlined by Skrewdriver, the most well known of right wing punk rock bands, but also featured other prominent groups.

The RAC was loosely associated with organisations like the National Front, and appealed to working class, white rock fans who were opposed to the communist propaganda prevalent in rock music at the time. RAC bands and their fans were concerned with social problems like unemployment and the increasing immigrant population.

“Europe what have they got to do to make you come alive?
What has happened to the heritage that once was yours and mine?
A capitalistic economy, the communists rule the streets.
The old people aren't safe outside, what solution do we seek?” Ian Stuart

Skrewdriver – Europe Awake (1984)

The political divide within punk resulted in disturbing outbreaks of violence which prevented bands such as Sham 69, who attracted fans from both political ideologies, from playing gigs. Sham 69 were able to acquire a wide fan base because their lyrics were based on personal politics and the issues that working class people of Britain are familiar with such as drinking, football, unemployment and a general mistrust of all politicians. This was noticeably different from Tom Robinson, Billy Bragg and Skrewdriver who were vocal about their political ideologies and used music as a way of trying to influence others and align them to their own ideology.

Other bands started to do the same and eventually a sub-genre of punk was formed known as Oi! the creation of which was credited to journalist Garry Bushell who intended to help launch a genuinely working class punk movement, with the emphasis on skinheads. Oi! differed from punk because it attracted more of a skinhead audience; creating rock music with specific relevance to the British working class. However, as with Sham69, the non political music attracted a politically active fan base.

“A big problem with skinheads was despite their fondness of Jamaican music, many 60s/early 70s skins were, paradoxically, racist. To Bushell and the majority of the ‘New Breed’, skin was much more innocent, an affirmation of working class pride” Terrorizer#96 January 2002

The movement was subject to much criticism and was accused of being racist. Although there were leftist political Oi! bands such as The Oppressed and The Angelic Upstarts who were both outspoken about their socialist beliefs, the majority of Oi! bands were proud of their anti-political message that suggested people could make their own decisions without aligning themselves to a preconceived political ideology. The movement undeniably attracted a partially racist audience which resulted in a riot in Southall July 1981, after members of the local South-Asian community set fire to the Hamborough Tavern which was hosting an Oi! concert featuring The Business, The Last Resort and 4 Skins, none of which were racist bands. The bands went to organisations such as RAR in an attempt be cleared of the racist tag assigned to them by lying journalists, like those working for the BBC, but they faced difficulties...

“One such difficulty arose in 1981, when a concert was organised under the banner of ‘Oi! Against Racism’ [...] Proponents of Oi, who defended it as working class music, not white music, wanted to polish its tarnished image through links with RAR. But RAR were wary of such moves, and they turned down a suggestion for a gig under the RAR banner in Southall; the bill was to have included a reggae band, An Asian group, and the 4 Skins […] RAR were suspicious of both the interests of the organizers and of the motives of the 4 Skins, and made their own counter suggestion: an Anti-Racist Skinhead concert in Sheffield, where local skinheads had been vocal in their denunciation of racism. RAR also suggested that none of the Southall bands be involved, preferring an Oi group with proven support for RAR.” (Street, 1986)

This is evidence of the hidden motives of musical organisations like RAR and more recently ANTIFA. Their intention was not merely to eliminate racism from youth culture, but to use this goal as a means to rally support for an exclusively Communist movement, the festivals of which had no room for bands that merely wanted to express their support for anti-racist causes. Such events have come under media criticism for failing to make any progress in race relations in Britain, as a result of their policy only to preach to the converted.

“The last festival of this ilk that I attended, in Burgess Park in South London, was a wonderful day out – but I do not recall a single person uttering to their skinhead mate; “It was a good thing I came today. I was racist but now I’ve seen the light.” Instead, what I saw, among the youths on a day out with their mates, were thousands of middle-class white folks patting themselves on the back for being so tolerant.” Taylor, The Guardian

The Oi! movement became a taboo subject in media and journalism circles after being tarnished by the right wing image associated with what was in fact a small minority of fans. The lyrics of the songs, however,  demonstrated mistrust of politicians from both sides.

“Vote for Maggie Thatcher or Tony Benn, you’ll always lose you’ll never win.”
4 Skins – Manifesto (1982)

The racist element was exaggerated by left-wing organisations who were threatened by a movement that encouraged young people to question the left wing hegemony in anti-Thatcherite politics. But it was the media’s demonisation of Oi fans as racist skinhead yobs that led to a moral panic and ultimately censorship of the music from broadcast, performance and distribution. There are eye witness accounts of journalists from The Times paying crowds of young skinheads to "Sieg Heil" for the camera so that the photograph would support the accusations made so frequently in reports. Cohen explains how a moral panic may arise around the emergence of a youth subculture.

“A condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to be defined as a threat to societal values and interests; its nature is presented in a stylised and stereotypical fashion by the mass media; the moral barricades are manned by editors, bishops, politicians and other right-thinking people; socially accredited experts pronounce their diagnoses and solutions; ways of coping are evolved or (more often) resorted to; the condition then disappears, submerges or deteriorates and becomes more visible.”
(Cohen, 1980: 9)

BBC news broadcasted an expose on Oi! interviewing the 4-skins and doing their best to depict the movement as dangerous and racist. Only DJ John Peel leapt to the defence of the movement, pointing out that unlike 4skins, popular acts such as Joy Division did use Nazi imagery and slogans in their lyrics but were not attacked by the media. The focus of the program, other than the Southall riots, was journalist Garry Bushell’s compilation ‘Strength thru Oi!’ (1981) which shop keepers were arrested for attempting to sell after it was learned that the title was a play on the Nazi slogan ‘strength through joy.’ The bands on the compilation were not racist but the lyrics did encourage violence against police which contributed to it being banned.

The movement was therefore attacked by left wing movements and media for accusations of racism, but also attacked by the Conservative government who banned the music from being sold, broadcast or performed in Britain. Oi! is comparable to rap in the fact that the controversial issues raised by young musicians were attacked by both the right and left wing.

“In 1990 rap music became the main target of the anti-rock, pro censorship lobby. The new genre had already been attacked from the left for its sexism and homophobia, and was now criticised from the right for its profanity and obscenity.” Shuker (page 267)

Like gangster rap, Oi! music was criticised for advocating violence and general encouragement of criminal activity (theft, benefit fraud, football violence). Unlike rap, Oi! music rarely glamorised violence, and condemned the use of guns. Oi! described how those born into poverty must adopt violent behaviour in order to survive; it also has a strong sense of community and family values which generates the patriotic element of the movement which some misinterpreted as fascism. If the movement were right wing in the institutional sense then it would have been unlikely that the Conservative government would have opposed it. The movement was above all else a reaction against Margaret Thatcher and the Conservative government of the 1980’s.

“Margaret Thatcher the stupid bitch

Takes from the poor and gives to the rich

She thinks we can’t see her plan,

To kill the spirit of the working class man,

Make us redundant; put us on the dole,

Put us in prison without parole.”

The Last Resort – We Rule O.K.

The fact that the bands were so critical of the Conservative government and left wing activists is probably the most likely reason that the movement was so viciously slandered and attacked by the respective camps. This is why two opposing political ideologies were able to unite in the common purpose of banning an art form that encouraged intellectual working class independence and a coherent national identity for British youth. The climate of fear generated by the media was required in order to rally public hatred against the movement.

“a moral panic takes place within what Gramsci defines as a developing ‘crisis of hegemony’, arising out of a particular historical context where the dominant class is endeavouring to win domination and consent through ideological means.” Shuker

Although claiming to be non-political, the politics of the genre were clear; they were an expression of the real activities that young men were occupying their time with in 1980’s Britain. The way the media, government and certain leftist political organisations tried to censor the movement is comparable to the efforts of the Nazi party attempting to ban jazz music in Germany during World War Two.

“The Nazi party were particularly concerned about the influence of jazz, which was considered to be a ‘degenerate music’ […] The Nazis began further to regulate the repertoire that musicians used in performance and also monitored and controlled the catalogues of songs that were printed and distributed by music publishers.” Negus

By this definition the actions of the Conservative government and of ANTIFA and RAR attempting to regulate freedom of expression through music are more comparable to the actions of the Nazi party than are those of the young men who expressed criticism of the government and other political organisations through the medium of Oi! music.


Bibliography
Cohen, S (1980) Folk Devils and Moral Panics, Oxford: Robertson
Street, J. (1986) Rebel Rock: The Politics of Popular Music, London: Blackwell
Taylor, A. Music Festivals against racism give everyone a grand day out – but are they any use? Monday May 29, 2006 The Guardian
Negus, K, (1996) Popular Music in Theory: An Introduction. Polity
Shuker, R, (2002) Understanding Popular Music. Routledge
Selzer, J(January 2002) Under the Skin. Terrorizer issue number 96
RAR website
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart.


Discography

4-Skins – ‘The good the bad and the 4-skins’ Secret Records, 1982
The Last Resort – ‘A way of life’ Captain Oi! 1982
The Business – ‘The anger and the truth’ Hellcat records, 1997
Skrewdriver – ‘Hail the New Dawn’ LP.’ Rock-O-Rama. 1984

Breast Surgery in Revolutionary Venezuela

Fake Tits in Venezuela – The ultimate degeneration or an indication of democracy at work?

Venezuela is a country of extreme contrasts. The landscape ranges from the Andean mountains to Caribbean coast and Amazon jungle. The people descend from  primitive indigenous tribes, imported African slaves and European conquerors. Venezuela was liberated by national hero Simon Bolivar with the aid of the British army. The modern political history is just as turbulent. Since liberation, a variety of tyrants from all political persuasions have sought to exploit the many natural resources of the country; oil, gold, diamonds, water and the people themselves. The current president, an ex-convict, socialist coup leader, Hugo Chavez, is no less controversial than his predecessors. He has been criticised by globalist powers for manipulating world oil prices after being made president of OPEC, socialising with the likes of Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein and also for making un-diplomatic statements such as referring to the king of Spain as a fascist and George Bush as the devil.

In the West we hear a lot of negative things about the Venezuelan government and although it is true there is a certain amount of incompetence for which they should be held accountable, the idea that they are imposing some kind of undemocratic communist dictatorship is not true. The press is free to write slanderous lies about the government, more so even than they are in England (there are fewer libel laws in Venezuela). Claiming the elections are not fair and democratic is far-fetched as they were overseen by the ex-US president Jimmy Carter and utilise an electronic system that can’t fall prey to the confusion caused by the cross or tick problems seen in Florida.

Chavez is an outspoken kind of politician, never afraid to speak his mind on the most trivial of issues; he even has his own day time TV talk-show called Hello President which is like a cross between Jeremy Kyle and Question time. One of the statements made on the show last September was a criticism of the Venezuelan attitude towards cosmetic surgery and female beauty; particularly the popular phenomenon of teenage girls being given breast enlargements as birthday presents from their parents.

"Now some people think, 'my daughter's turning 15, let's give her breast enlargements.' That's horrible. It's the ultimate degeneration."

Venezuela is world renowned for its beauty queens, producing more international pageant winners than any other country. If you visit the beaches and cities you can’t help but notice the number of women sporting over-sized artificial breasts. There is no social stigma associated with cosmetic surgery. Middle class women are almost expected to be vain and image obsessed. There was once a mayor of Chacao, a wealthy district in the nation’s capital Caracas, who had previously been a beauty pageant winner. She also ran for president but could not compete with Chavez. I was told that businessmen whose secretaries are not well endowed may be perceived as being losers. This attitude toward a women’s body suggests a sexist culture, this however is not an accurate perception.

Women in Venezuela have infiltrated all areas of power, from science to the military. They are also usually the head of the household; it is not uncommon for a woman to have children with a number of fathers and take her children with her, gaining support from interchangeable husbands. Despite the fact the women are culturally independent and certainly not passive slaves to patriarchal tyranny, one can’t help but wonder if some of these doctors are taking advantage of the insecurities of young women who aspire toward the national ideal of pageant winning beauty, plastic tits and bleached blonde hair. Essentially the same ideal of beauty as is prevalent in California. Chavez also criticised the culture, claiming it was indicative of an Americanised Barbie doll ideal, totally inappropriate for a largely brown skinned country like Venezuela.


When I asked young women about their reasons for wanting surgery, they were defensive in their responses, perhaps seeing the question as an attempt to invalidate their decision. Typically they said that they were doing it for themselves and not being pressured into it by peers or boyfriends but when pushed they would admit to doing it for their careers or because they had a negative self-image. This could be attributed to the way the media in Venezuela constantly portray Americanised visions of beauty as an ideal for women to aspire to; whether on the popular soaps known as telenovelas or on the billboard beer commercials with bikini clad Barbie beach babes, almost always white and no strangers to the surgeon's knife. The popularity of breast surgery and other non essential cosmetic surgery seems unashamedly decadent when you consider that Venezuela is a country where the vast majority of the population live in cinder block houses in vast crime ridden shanty towns. These shanty towns known as barrios are amongst the most dangerous neighbourhoods on the entire American landmass, and it is here that Chavez finds support.

The underclass has been repressed for decades and their problems ignored by a succession of governments, but Chavez’ Bolivarian revolution promised to change this and to some extent it has, with a number of projects and education initiatives providing university education for free as well as housing and food discounts for students. There are also initiatives to provide low level education for children and adults as well as healthcare to those who have fallen through the nets, all paid for with the country’s vast oil wealth, much to the dismay of the old leaders of nationalised oil company PDVSA, who had previously profited in unfair proportions from the oil money. Chavez has registered those living in the Barrios as official citizens with the power to vote. Under the previous president Carlos Andres Perez, they weren't even acknowledged as citizens of Venezuela because their shanty town dwellings are built illegally and births are often unregistered. To the young women of the barrios, breast surgery is a ridiculous luxury that they hold little to no interest in. The young women of the barrios now have hope, They can afford to become students as there are no fees and students get housing and food for heavily reduced rates. Many of them are using the new opportunities to promote the revolution and are ferocious supporters of Hugo Chavez.

There is a lot of tension between the privileged oligarchy and the underclass and the political propaganda of Chavez’ party and the opposition parties tend to exasperate the situation. Opposition supporters sometimes call for the assassination of Chavez who they see as an under-qualified maniac who has given power to a dangerous criminal under class. Chavistas on the other hand regard the wealthier class as decadent, bigoted, right-wing tyrants, whose greed fuels their hatred for the revolution. This tension is certainly not helped by the vast and obvious wealth divide. While some women can go on weekend shopping sprees to Miami, live in waterfront mansions or luxury penthouses and spend a huge amount on luxury items and services such as breast enlargements and designer clothing, other women struggle to keep their children fed and clothed. There are large families living under corrugated iron roofs in tropical conditions where dengue and malaria are a constant threat to their children’s lives and medical treatment is still difficult to acquire.

Many medical professionals in Venezuela refuse to work in public hospitals and won’t go near the practices set up in the Barrios to give treatment to those that need it most. The president tried to overcome this by importing doctors from Cuba, which his good friend Castro was happy to supply. Instead Venezuelan doctors go where the money is, either working for a private practice in Venezuela or perhaps more frequently working abroad. Of course, a career in cosmetic surgery is a lucrative pursuit in Venezuela or California. I saw plastic surgery practices in every city centre and was shocked how easy it was to get surgery. Virtually no checks are made in regards to the ethics of treatment. When I interviewed a surgeon, he said as long as they are of legal age or below age but have parental consent and can pay, then there is no ethical concern. I asked him if he thought that his skills could be put to better use elsewhere for the services of his country “I have to make a living too” was his nonchalant reply. It seems that as long as it is convenient and financially viable to exploit people rather than to help them, then Venezuela’s people will continue to suffer and the divide between rich and poor will continue to grow.

Challenging the Media War on Chavez.

Hugo Chavez - President of Venezuela

I had been planning a trip to Venezuela for some time now, I’d been reading about the history of the country; power handed from one group to the next, the natives and imported negro slaves being reduced, like the land itself, to commodities to be exploited by Europeans. The country has fascinated me since childhood, when I read Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Lost World; conjuring up an image of Mount Roraima covered in luscious green Amazonian vegetation as far as the eye can see, rich with unusual and exotic animals. But this image of the country has been replaced in more recent years by that depicted by the media. I am filled with doubt and concern when I try to learn more about the reality of life in Venezuela under the rule of Hugo Chavez. There seem to be only two types of information distributed, both heavily coloured by emotional defence of deeply held ideological beliefs, whose assumptions are often so far apart, that it makes the work of a journalist attempting to fill in the gaps rather difficult.

So it was with a certain sense of optimism and hope that I stepped through the doors of the Venezuelan embassy in London on a pleasant April evening where his Excellency the Venezuelan ambassador Samuel Moncada was to give a speech. A speech in which I hoped the record would be set straight in regards to the relationship between Chavez and the people of Venezuela. I have no doubt that just as Chavez and Moncada say, the Western media is biased against his government. The night marked the 6th anniversary of the military coup that attempted to overthrow the government of President Hugo Chávez and to reverse Venezuela's social gains. Since then there have been ongoing attempts to isolate the Chávez government, including through the dissemination of misinformation. Sure enough, nearly all the news I have heard with regards to Venezuela has been negative; Student protests, widespread hunger, violation of the right to freedom of expression, exchanging insults with the king of Spain, dodgy oil deals with everyone from mayor of London Ken Livingston to President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Most of all - personal attacks on Chavez, who, if certain aspects of the media are to be believed, is taking away the rights of Venezuelans and destroying rival parties. I am assured by Samuel Moncada and the secretary and founder of the Venezuela Information Centre, Gordon Hutchinson, that this is all lies. Chavez, they say, is merely proposing a coalition of all the left wing parties, but opposition still exists and he allows free elections. The media say that Chavez has made a huge mistake allowing oil to be sold so cheaply in his country, and that many are starving, Mr. Moncada and Mr. Hutchinson say that social and economic progress has never been so advanced, and that the majority of their energy needs are met by hydro electric power, and that they are progressive in respect to investing in renewable energy technology.

Samuel Moncada - Venezuelan Ambassador

For every unsubstantiated claim made by Western journalists, both of liberal and conservative persuasions, there is a Venezuelan official or Chavez admiring socialist defender to call it lies and offer their own propaganda. To sort the truth from lies from half way across the world is virtually impossible for two reasons; firstly that the Western media is a propaganda tool obviously used as a means of perpetuating Western ideology and defending a global free market, secondly that some aspects of the media of Venezuela and many of the alternative sources of information such as the lecture of that evening, are merely a forum for socialist back-slapping and feeding the fires of anti capitalist conspiracy theories. The speakers at this evening's lecture were seemingly honest in that they acknowledged there are people in Venezuela, particularly middle class whites, who oppose Chavez, but they said as well as anti socialist students there are pro Chavez students. Their main concern was not just that the Western media makes up lies but more that it disproportionately reports political events in Venezuela with the intention of rallying Western support for deposing Chavez as a dictator despite the fact the vast majority of Venezuelans love him.

The evening ends with questions from the floor. Several people stand up to make vaguely relevant points about biased media broadcasts and socialist uprising in South America. There are also some contributions from bizarre individuals eager for any opportunity to shout their heads off about the evils of capitalism; none asks a proper question, which irritated me. I wanted to ask about speculations of Chavez being involved with the FARC and claims in the American media that evidence had been found on a laptop proving Chavez’ secret involvement with that Colombian terrorist organisation. Mr. Moncada doesn’t address this issue, but he makes it clear anyone who attempts to describe Colombia and Venezuela as being clearly defined separate nations with separate cultural traditions is misinformed; "they are as one" he exclaims, and many of the members of the Venezuelan government are Colombian or have Colombian ancestry. I walk away from the lecture even more confused than before. I respect Chavez’ government for making a stand against the Northern American superpower and raising the standard of living in Venezuela for those at the bottom of the pile but I have my suspicions that like in many Socialist countries, the voices of some citizens in Venezuela are being suppressed and the truth distorted amidst the barrage of lies being thrown back and forth by the government and their enemies, specifically European and North American media organisations.

“Come to Venezuela and see for yourself that the media are free and we have fully functional education and health care schemes” they say at the embassy. I intend to do just that.

(I travelled to Venezuela later that year)