I've just been looking at an online magazine that I thought might be of interest to other impdecers.
It's called Spiked and describes itself thusly:
Spiked is an independent online phenomenon dedicated to raising the horizons of humanity by waging a culture war of words against misanthropy, priggishness, prejudice, luddism, illiberalism and irrationalism in all their ancient and modern forms. spiked is endorsed by free-thinkers such as John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx, and hated by the narrow-minded such as Torquemada and Stalin. Or it would be, if they were lucky enough to be around to read it.
I can't vouch for all its contents - I've glanced at a couple of articles on Free Speech that I quite liked the look of - but I think it's worth checking out. As I understand it, spiked is a descendant of Living Marxism, its founders being former members of the Revolutionary Communist Party, who have since metamorphosed into pro-corporate libertarians. (They seem to oppose a lot of the conventional wisdom on climate change, which at the very least suggests they are willing to march to the beat of their own drum. Or more specifically, that they'd like to march up and down on George Monbiot.) Frank Furedi is one of their regulars.
On a personal note, I like them because they oppose the band on junk food advertising to kids. (It's a TV thing.)
Anyhoo, see what you think.
7 comments:
I have a soft spot for reformed Lefties like Christopher Hitchens and Paul Berman. Better that than "we are all Hezbollah now", which seems the main alternative route.
Do either of them write for Spike?
Not that I'm aware of. And I'm not sure if they're quite 'reformed' lefties in the same sense. From what I've read about about the RCP and Living Marxism, their current libertarianism developed out of their interpretation of Marx, rather than being a Damascene conversion and rejection of all they had previously thought. Furedi's family fled Hungary in '56, so I think he was pretty anti-Stalin from a very early age.
However, I don't know that much about him/them. I think Andy's read more, so he may be able to give more detail.
Both Hitchens and Spiked share an uncompromising commitment to free speech, but I think Spiked is less hawkish and more sceptical regarding the Iraq War than Hitch. (Here is a Spiked piece by Brendan O'Neill on Iraq.)
It seems to be well regarded by other journalists though. For instance, Melanie Phillips quotes with approval another Spiked article (again by Brendan O'Neill) on the green lobby here (although she obviously doesn't share their opinion on Iraq.)
Excellent article on the veil debate from Spiked:
Let's have a heated debate
Munira Mirza
Here's a fun competition on Spiked:
Who should be crowned King of the Killjoys?
From turning off the Christmas lights to cutting down conker trees: we want your nominations for Miserabilist of the Year.
spiked is taking a stand against these sad sourpusses by launching a competition to name the Miserabilist of the Year, the King of the Killjoys, the man or woman who has done most to spread doom and gloom about humanity and its habits in 2006. We’re thinking of those who dress up austerity in green garb, demanding that we do less, consume less, eat less and have fun less in the name of reducing our carbon bootprint on the planet’s face forever. In their view, holidays are wasteful, shopping is a sin, leaving your TV on is an indicator of extreme moral turpitude, and getting around on anything other than a pushbike is a grime against humanity©.
We’re thinking of those health and safety officials who in attempting to ban accidents are effectively banning life. Newcastle City Council is surely a contender for the Miserabilist of the Year award after it sent men in cranes to strip the city’s horse chestnut trees of their nuts, lest local children risk life and limb by climbing up in search of conkers. ‘By taking the conkers off the problem trees it reduces the chances of kids getting hurt’, said Steve Charlton of Newcastle’s environmental services last month (2). By the same reasoning you may as well chop down all trees (in 2004 South Tyneside Borough Council actually did chop down conker trees, in order to put a stop to the pesky schoolyard game), dismantle playgrounds and hang ‘Danger: do not enter!’ signs on the gates to football and netball pitches, as that would also reduce the chances of kids ever getting hurt.
I reckon Monbiot will win by a country mile.
Another excellent Spiked article , this one's about Government nursery rhyme lessons for Parents:
"As one of the speakers at the National Family and Parenting Institute conference in London earlier this week, I had the dubious pleasure of hearing firsthand how Beverley Hughes, UK minister for children, young people and families, plans to strengthen the family unit.
The government is doing a grand job, she stressed, and shouldn’t aim to make any fundamental changes to its family policies. ‘Instead, what we need now is more of the same - more money and more practical support’, said Hughes. As parents have lost confidence in their ability to bring up their children properly, ‘the government must take a lead’, she argued, and offer parents ‘empowering support’ to ‘unlock the potential’ of their children.
A noble aspiration, surely? But what does it mean? Well, singing lessons, for a start. The government aims to provide parents with lessons in how to sing nursery rhymes, which, we were told, help to get children off to ‘a flying start’. That’s not all. The government is also funding the creation next autumn of the National Academy for Parenting Practitioners, with the express aim of training a ‘parenting workforce’ to provide reliable child-rearing advice to the mums and dads of the nation.
Not surpisingly, Hughes’ nursery rhyme intervention has been derided by commentators as intrusive and patronising. ‘Think Mao’s cultural revolution, but led by Wee Willie Winkie’, said one columnist for the Daily Telegraph, scathingly. You can’t help but wonder what on Earth the government is going to come up with next.
Where Hughes has got a point, though, is when she says that parents seem to be losing confidence in their abilities. But she should ask herself why this might be the case. Could it be that endless government initiatives intervening in the minutiae of family life – premised on the idea that most adults are ‘emotionally illiterate’ - have contributed to a continuing corrosion of parents’ self-confidence?"
Excellent Spiked article on the up-coming 'Junk Food' ad ban.
Advertising is a free speech issue
Brendan O'Neill
The quotes:
'I can’t have been the only person who, upon hearing that the Office for Communications planned to introduce a widespread ban on junk food advertising on British TV, thought to himself: ‘Who the hell do these poncy unelected suits think they are?’
And yet there has been little outcry over the ban. Ofcom announced this week that in March 2007 it will introduce a ‘total ban’ on ads for hamburgers, crisps, chocolate and other foodstuffs high in fat, salt or sugar during all children’s programming, on all children’s channels and during any other programmes that have a ‘particular appeal’ to 16-year-olds and under. The only complaint is that Ofcom hasn’t gone far enough. The failure to extend the ban to adults programmes that children also watch – like Coronation Street or, come to think of it, pretty much any show on TV – was a ‘betrayal’ of future generations, who now face the prospect of obesity, ill-health and early death, said health campaigners and commentators.
[...]
And Ofcom relies on very shaky evidence for its basic premise that banning junk food ads will change children’s eating habits. One of its pieces of evidence is an email from a self-selected group of parents called NetMums, who claim that ‘TV ads for junk food do work – they make children demand junk food which inevitably means more consumption of junk food.’ (4) More serious studies have found little evidence of a clear link between ads and eating habits. As one news report said this week, there is a ‘relative paucity of evidence that TV advertising has much effect on children’s food choices’ (5). An academic study found that ‘just two per cent of all children’s food choices were influenced by TV advertising’ (6).
[...]
From Ofcom’s attack on junk food ads to those campaign groups who demand bans on ads for 4x4s, cheap flights, cigarettes and booze: the argument seems to be that people are gullible and thus must be watched over by caring men and women in positions of power. Funnily enough, that is the same justification used by censors throughout history, from Torquemada to Tony Blair: all of their bans are about giving a sedative to society, sanitising public discussion, and protecting people from an alleged harm. Thanks, but no thanks.
For Karl Marx, the ‘chatter’ of consumerist society was one of the more positive aspects of capitalism. The capitalist ‘searches for means to spur [people] on to consumption, to give his wares new charms, to inspire [people] with new needs by constant chatter etc. It is precisely this side of the relation of capital and labour which is an essential civilising moment…’ (8) So what if ads are sometimes irritating and get into our heads? Forever knowing the tune to ‘Opal Fruits, made to make your mouth water’ is a small price to pay for openness in public space and chatter.'
Post a Comment