Why It's Still Kicking Off Everywhere: The New Global Revolutions

by Paul Mason

Originally published in 2012 to wide acclaim, this updated edition, Why It's Still Kicking Off Everywhere, includes coverage of the most recent events in the wave of revolt and revolution sweeping the planet-riots in Athens, student occupations in the UK, Quebec and Moscow, the emergence of the Occupy Movement and the tumult of the Arab Spring. Economic crisis, social networking and a new political consciousness have come together to ignite a new generation of radicals.BBC journalist and author Paul Mason combines the anecdotes gleaned through first-hand reportage with political, economic and historical analysis to tell the story of today's networked revolution. Why It's Still Kicking Off Everywhere not only addresses contemporary struggles, it provides insights into the future of global revolt.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, History, Economics, Activism, Society, Current Affairs

335 pages, Kindle Edition

Published March 12, 2013

About the author

Note: Paul^^Mason

Paul Mason is an English journalist and broadcaster. He is economics editor of the BBC's Newsnight television programme and the author of several books.

Reviews

[Andrea · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this, learned a great deal about recent events in parts of the world I don't know too much about, and it really made me think. So I'd definitely recommend it.

This is an updated and expanded version of the original published in 2011, and he argues

the essence of my argument remains unchanged. We're in the middle of a revolution caused by the near collapse of free-market capitalism combined with an upswing in technical innovation, a surge in desire for individual freedom and a change in human consciousness about what freedom means. An economic crisis is making the powerful look powerless, while the powerless are forced to adopt tactics that were once the preserve of niche protest groups.

A lot in this book is very interesting, a lot I don't think I would understand without having been involved in the British Left -- I find it a very British take on world revolution -- and perhaps the International Socialist Organisation in the States, and some of the remaining American '-ists'. In the very grassroots and awesome community organising groups that I worked with, people trace a different lineage back through the Black Panthers, Cesar Chavez, 3rd world liberation movements, Latin American revolution and Freirean popular education and liberation theology. I'm in agreement that they are really where it's 'at'. The parallels to 1848 and the Paris Commune that are drawn here are interesting, but not consumingly interesting as they are to the UK left. And so I find that a limit. To relentlessly draw worldwide events into a European framework I find tiring sometimes, and in talking about 'organisation' or 'hierarchy' he usually seems to be speaking of Trotskyist party politics in the UK. I had never met a Trotskyist before coming to the UK. While I think the US would do well to reclaim our socialist and communist history, I don't frankly think my revolutionary skills or analysis have been much enriched by some of the interminable discussions about the Bolsheviks. I don't think it requires much insight to see that it, generally speaking, turns people off. But I also don't know that Deleuze & Guattari and Hardt & Negri and Foucault are going to show us the way forward. Around and side to side maybe, and over some striations, and way hey, the multitude is magically progressive and building the commonwealth just like that (I don't particularly like Hardt and Negri, you can tell).

So that out of my system, what I did find interesting was what technology allows us to do. I like this idea: 'For the first time in decades, people are using methods of protest that do not seem archaic or at odds with the modern contemporary world; the protesters seem more in tune with modernity than the methods of their rulers'. I liked this:

The ability to deploy, without expert knowledge, a whole suite of information tools has allowed protesters across the world to outwit the police, to beam their message into the newsrooms of global media, and above all to assert a cool, cutting-edge identity in the face of what Auden once called 'the elderly rubbish dictators talk'. It has given today's protest movements a massive psychological advantage, one that no revolt has enjoyed since 1968.

I realised I have to read Andre Gorz (this is not the first book to quote him that made me realise this). Gorz defines the new revolution as

Taking power implies taking it away from its holders, not by occupying their posts but by making it permanently impossible for them to keep their machinery of domination running. Revolution is first and
foremost the irreversible destruction of this machinery. It implies a form of collective practice capable of bypassing and superseding it through the development of an alternative network of relations.

which is a very interesting way of thinking of power and social change. More interesting to me personally than revivifying the humanist Marx and species-being, though I don't mind that at all. And I do agree that technology has changed things completely and utterly.

Technology-through the web browser, the cellphone, the GPS device, the iPod, the instant messaging service, the digital camera and above all the smartphone, which contains each of these things-has accelerated what the contraceptive pill and divorce laws started: it has expanded the power and space of the individual.

At the same time, it has allowed the creation of virtual 'societies' just as real as the cramped analog social networks we created for ourselves in the pre-digital era.

Yes and yes. We are different in our online lives, and you can see all around you 'the rise of the networked individual, the multiple self, the 'leaky self' and the collective consciousness' and this undoubtedly challenges quite a lot. It makes so much more possible I think, in particular giving everyone some kind of voice, and connecting people in new and incredibly exciting ways. And yes, it has changed how we can organise things. Flash mobs are awesome and I'm so glad we can use mobiles to create them. In the occupations social media was incredible for solidarity and action. I think it's interesting to think about a new kind of individual that is consonant with a new society (not totally sold on that either, but we have undoubtedly been changed by our technology)

The new technology underpins our ability to be at the same time more individualistic and more collective; it shapes our consciousness and magnifies the crucial driver of all revolutions-the perceived difference between what could be and what is.

In turn, the networked protest has a better chance of achieving its basic goals because it is congruent with the economic and technological conditions of modern society-it mirrors social life, financial structures and production patterns. It speaks to the mental conceptions that flow from the networked life we live. And to an extent, as we will see, it is satisfied with the conquest of space within the system rather than seeking to smash the system.

I do, however, think that some of the same old things still really matter. I think this adds to some older ways of organising, not replaces it. Some of the greatest struggles in the US and UK at least, are the battle against gentrification, the struggle for the right of working people and the poor to live in the city. The right to stay in our homes. The fight against racism and vicious police brutality. So when Mason argues this:

'At the centre of all the protest movements is a new sociological type: the graduate with no future.'

I have to say, I don't see much of a future in that. Give those kids some kind of a future and their struggle is done. Unless we deliberately and consciously build links between them and the poor (and we can't be blind to the distances of race and class that divide them if we want to bridge it), build love and a deep empathy and understanding of the crisis that those at the bottom have long been facing, they will never fight all the way to a new society. Why should they? In our own local organising students were involved and they were brilliant. They brought energy and spirit, and we accomplished some things we probably wouldn't have if they hadn't been there. But they didn't stick. Finals time came and they were gone, graduation came and they were away into the real world. I'm sure some of them are still in the movement, but not all of them. The rest of us are still fighting.

That's why I also find problematic this strange duality of hierarchy and networks. The Trotskyist parties really do suffer from hierarchy, but when he writes 'The impact of social networks on knowledge, community and individuals constitutes a challenge to three kinds of hierarchies that stood at the heart of twentieth-century reality: repressive states, corporations and hermetically sealed ideologies'...well. Hermetically sealed ideologies are a function of a small portion of the left. There are a lot of examples of organisation that aren't either/or, but a flexible combination of horizontality and accountability and specified roles. As a long time community organiser, I have to say...you don't necessarily need hierarchy, but you need structure if you are going to build something for the long term. And we have to. There's no reason that can't combine with completely open networks, in fact that would be brilliant. But I find that in ongoing work, where there is no formal structure, there is an informal one. Where there is no formal and accountable division of power, there is an informal, and often invisible one until it marginalises you. When you can't keep debate alive and well (smothering it with consensus) but also devise a method to ensure process supports collective action, I think you end up here:

With hindsight, late 2011 was the moment the sheen on horizontalism faded. In Egypt, the atmosphere of networked tolerance that had prevailed during the initial Tahrir Square occupation dulled as real, hierarchical forces emerged. In Spain, the leading voices within the indignado movement became frustrated as the obsession with 'process', the tyranny of consensus and the refusal to advocate political demands sucked away its momentum. With Occupy Wall Street, critics point to an emergent self-obsession

Thing is, democracy is something we have to practice, something that is learned. I think we have a lot to learn about how that works, but it is through this amazing movements that we do learn. And there are a lot of people who ave been working on this for a long time. A lot of people to learn from.

I think times are indeed changing, but I'm not sure they are changing that much unless you are standing in a traditional British party looking out. Technology is an amazing tool, direct democracy something that is spreading and that we really need to work on. People can connect in many different ways now, spread the word, publicise abuse, build solidarity. I don't think that replaces the work of grassroots organisation involved in base building and organising and fighting tooth and nail against the destruction of their communities, against the prison system, against the tearing down of education as a public institution...and for healthy food, community gardens, community ownership of land. I could go on. When the great mass of people move, the strength of this kind of positive organisation and energy will hopefully be enough to shape and direct the rage and hope into something that makes it 'permanently impossible for them to keep their machinery of domination running' and creates something better. There are signs of this everywhere. But pain and horror and cruelty and fascism too. I'm not entirely sure which will win if it comes down to it.

He finishes in a hopeful way, and I'm not totally convinced, but also hopeful:

It's an easy step from such manifest negativity to the conclusion that 2011, the year it all kicked off, was a flash in the pan. But to conclude that would be totally wrong.

The Arab Spring and the Occupy movement-with their echoes as far afield as Santiago and Quebec-have unleashed something real and important, and it has not yet gone away. I am confident enough now to call it a revolution. Some of its processes conform to the templates laid down in 1848, but many do not. Above all the relationship between the physical and the mental, the political and the cultural, seem inverted.

There is a change in consciousness, the intuition that something big is possible; that a great change in the world's priorities is within people's grasp. The essence of it is, as Manuel Castells has written, the collapse of trust in the old regime, combined with the inability to go on living the pre-crisis lifestyle: 'The perceived incapacity of the political elite to solve their problems destroyed trust in the institutions in charge of managing the crisis.'

It's definitely made me want to think more about how technology changes the relationship between individual freedom and collective action, and how it changes us. I'm looking forward to reading some Castells when I get a chance...

[Jim Rimmer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Most succinct review is the cover blurb by the Guardian's Andy Beckett, "compact, urgent, present-tense, declarative, and addictive.”

Read it.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Washington Post Publisher Philip L. Graham famously described journalism as “the first rough draft of history” and these words kept coming back to me as I read this. As reportage, Paul Mason’s 2011 book (read here in its updated 2012 edition) is wonderful – he gives us vivid pictures of the people he meets around the world, from the “Arab Spring” protestors of Tahrir Square in Egypt and Zuccotti Park, heart of the Occupy movement, to the casualties of globalization in the slums of the Philippines and the trailer parks of America. Meeting these people can’t help but make you angry at a global settlement that destroys so much life and aspiration.

But as analysis the book often falls down. There are certainly some interesting ideas here, no doubt, and of course, reviewing this book in 2016, I have the advantage of 5 years of hindsight over the author, but too often I found myself unconvinced by the arguments he built from his reporting (and to be fair, the final chapter of the 2012 edition faces up to some of these failings, while remaining full of sharp observations). For example, an important figure in his analysis is the networked individual, connected to other individuals via social media and able to communicate information rapidly (in the heat of a protest, say, but also to disseminate ideas). Mason proposes that truth travels faster than fiction among these networks, but it seems to me that it is as often the case that self-serving, self-reinforcing myth is even more likely to run riot in a closed network. It’s perhaps easier to see an example of this amongst those who aren’t of our tribe, politically: the US Tea Party movement for example where, reinforced by the echo chamber of a highly selective range of approved media (Fox News etc), clear fictions like the paranoid Birther myth remain stubbornly popular. And it seems to me that the Tea Party’s highly selective interest in history as propaganda is not a million miles removed from the disinterest in any analysis longer than a tweet of the London Art School activist that Mason meets early on in the book.

I enjoyed the book a great deal, but it felt incomplete. A compelling first draft of history, even if only a very rough one.

[Kahn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Unless you've been living in a cave for the past few years, you may have noticed things have been a bit feisty out there in the real world.
From Egypt to America via the Middle East, a of the generation left without a future has been getting its voice heard.
But was this just a series of random events that even managed to shake Russia, or was there a wider common cause and links to the different events?
Thankfully, Paul Mason is here to join the dots and explain the events in a way that is both engaging and easy to grasp.
Through interviews with some of the protagonists plus his own first-hand experiences covering riots and protests, Mason guides us through the smoke and tear gas - giving shape to the disparate stories.
What comes through loud and clear is both the message of the protesters - one of feeling abandoned, feeling that the future is not what was once promised - and the inability of those in charge to actually effect change.
The anger is given focus, the messages given meaning, and Mason puts a human face on the news stories we have been bombarded with.
While a heavy subject, Mason's deft touch means we are treated to a light, engaging read that draws you in and keeps you both gripped and entertained.
While I didn't feel a need for the revisiting of his blog post that started the whole thing off for him, his final conclusion is a warning that should be heeded.

[Jenn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is very well written. Paul Mason has an astonishing breath of knowledge, his strength is you feel he has actually witnessed first hand the events he is writing about. I enjoyed his discussion of global economics too, not being as knowledgeable as I would like to be... for instance how quantitative easing triggered the Arab spring.
Of course the trouble with such a book is it is it of date as soon as it is written...2012 is a long time ago in global politics. I would be interested in his take on Brexit, the Donald Trump phenomenon, the refugee crisis and the coup in Turkey. I don't feel the world is in a very positive place at the moment.
His analysis of the networked youth is interesting, but I am not as optimistic about the phenomenon as he is, though he admits as much by the end of the book. He mentions the apathy of people in Greece that has succeeded their anger... their 'retreat into their iPods' . He obviously feels that Greece is a touchstone as to the strength of democracy in Europe.
I thought he doesn't take enough account of religious fundamentalism. To my knowledge it becomes stronger in times of austerity rather than weaker. I think it will be a major force in the next fifty years.
Having said that I will be very interested in any further books he has written and in his blog too.

[Nick Gerrard · Rating 5 out of 5]

A text book of and for our times.
A Journalistic firsthand account of the political uprisings, struggles and protests of the last 5 years or so around the globe.
For everyone who wants to know what the hell's going on, been going on, and what’s maybe to come.
A bit of history, economics and science thrown into the political Molotov too.
And really nicely written in an easy going, sometimes humorous, but always well-informed travelogue style that keeps you interested throughout.
Should be read by all the fogies who exclaim they have no idea what’s going on these days or anyone who wonders what all those videos and tweets of rioters getting beaten by cops on Facebook is all about.
And let’s make it compulsory reading in schools, before or maybe so the kids burn it down.

[Panos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Paul Mason explains neoliberalism's failure in three main facts: its economic model has collapsed, its promise for a better future for young people has decayed and lastly because it had created a new generation of selfish people it can't provide peace, security and freedom.

The book is his account of the uprisings and protests that started after 2008, including the arab spring, Greece, London and many more and why technology today has a crucial part in that. Because of his journalistic account of those events, most of the time you feel like you are taking part in it. Paul asks questions like can global protesters be unified in a horizontal way? Is the new networked individual going to bring a completely different kind of society or just a transformation of capitalism?

[Geert Hofman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although a little bit dated, this book clearly illustrates the inner workings of the protest movements (from Arab spring to Occupy ...) of 2010/12 and the perils they are confronted with.

If it shows one thing it's that these protests are part of a set of complex processes and that they are not unique for the current time frame. That is probably even the most impressive part of the book: it shows that Paul Mason knows his history. I learned a lot about parallel developments in the 19th and 20th century, but was also introduced to the fundamental differences between now and then.

Very much worth reading. I'm looking forward to read his seminal work "Post Capitalism".

[Sarah Harkness · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some of this was fascinating, particularly the chapter covering the impact of the 2008 Financial Crisis on the world, including the Middle east and US politics. I picked this book up hoping it would explain where we are today, 2015. With hindsight the author has underestimated the power of religious fundamentalism in these cataclysmic world events. But I enjoyed his comparisons with 1789, 1848 and the 1930s...nothing new under the sun! and his humanity shines through...

[Zana · Rating 5 out of 5]

Enjoyed this a great deal and might reread. Paul Mason claims that this book aims to answer why social movements erupted as they did from late 2010, more so than answer the question of why they fail or what should they do. However, Mason does include some notes on how several movements progress beyond the protests - further supporting Tufekci's claim that protests need to go beyond size and rage, but how you organise and mobilise them pre, during and post movements.

[Jan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love Paul Mason. This book is a great piece of investigative journalism-cum-editorial on the popular protests of 2011-2. Would've got five stars if I'd read it on publication; rather than reading about such hope and outrage knowing what the subsequent five years would bring. Lesson: read journalism on time!

[Gregg · Rating 4 out of 5]

wow. Worth reading if you want to understand the current state of Western politics.

[Hannah · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lots of fascinating stuff, most either still very applicable to current politics or fascinating to read considering where things have gone since

[Maíra · Rating 2 out of 5]

finalmente

[Sarah · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting reads to get a feeling of what happened between 2009 and 2011. But most analysis and conclusions, most of predictive statements were off. Because of that the book seems quite dated.

[Derek Baldwin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Patchy, in particular the lazy last few (additional) chapters. Paul mason's main problem is his inability to distinguish between genuinely aggrieved protesters and agents provocateurs, and his transparent conditioned response towards Official Enemies: Syria, Iran, Russia.

So: a useful idiot and not even that convincing a lot of the time.

There are glimpses of good writing here and there, but the trusting naivety with which he swallows the anecdotes of really very few sources seriously undermines this. Most egregiously there's his utter inability to work out that the penniless 'student without a future' that he meets in a protest at UCL, who turns up in Cairo not very many days later, is highly unlikely to be the epitome of an emergent new type of revolutionary but very much more probably a spook. But to admit the later possibility would pretty much trash his whole flimsy hypothesis.

Despite these misgivings, and despite having it on good authority that Mason is a warmonger of the first degree, this was not a bad book.

[Raffael Hirt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Starts off strongly with descriptions of the Arab Spring and other protest in the early 2010s (a decade ago already!)—the author is a TV reporter and witnessed many "kicking-offs" first-hand. The following, more theoretical sections are a bit turgid in my opinion, but Mason then synthesizes it all nicely.
At times, I became almost nostalgic for the world before filter bubbles and Trumpism, partly because Mason was a bit too optimistic in places about what Occupy et al. could achieve. To his credit, in the sections he added for this second edition he very much tunes that hopefulness down.
I hadn't read Mason's original blogpost. It would have made sense to do that because he only alludes to it in the beginning before revisiting his twenty points as to why it was kicking off everywhere in the conclusion.

[Michael Macdonald · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book has aged badly: scrappy and selective journalism seeing support for his own vague radicalism in every protest, even when it is clear that it is regressive, Shiws an utter inability to understand alternative views which undermines his optimistic view that history favours his politics.