Discourse

‘…Listen,’ he uttered, pulling his chair closer to the other man. ‘But this is so interesting!’

The other one only sighed, content.

‘Yeah, yeah,’ he said with a grin, ‘very interesting…’

But the other didn’t wish to remain entrenched along the lines of these rather abstract words, so he again opened his mouth, two or three times kind of hesitated as if the sounds surrounding them, that were henceforth seemingly unnoticeable to him, began to threaten the empty space, surrounding the two of them, the space he believed to be reserved for his voice; anyway he finally started:

‘Listen…’ he began, dragging his chair closer, even closer than before. ‘But here’s the thing – I wanted to tell you about an altogether different matter.’

The other one sighed, yet this time – not content at all; however, he sighed quieter, without as much pomp, without noticing, as if off-guard.

‘Listen…’ (this word started to get into even his nerves already) the other said. ‘Maybe we could go out for a while, because I don‘t hear anything here…’

‘Right, hmm…’ his interlocutor muttered, stood up, stroke his crumpled trousers with his hands, as if feeling in need of being dusted after such a prolonged period of monotonous sitting. The other one stood up too, somewhat clumsily, as if it was an irritating wish of his interlocutor that forced him up to his feet and not his own suggestion. All around a crowd was making a lot of noise. Well, to call that group of persons, less than twenty of them, ‘a crowd’ would be perhaps an overstatement, yet they managed to cause some noise: music on, a TV set sadly kept broadcasting – sadly, because it was forgotten, like some old and unwanted acquaintance. Someone switched it on and forgot what he or she wanted to watch… It was pitch-dark outside and inside there was a twilight of sorts in places, yet in other places, on the contrary, a kind of exaggerated lighting that seemed to indicate that ‘something is about to happen’, because usually no one feels a need for such intense lighting when they are simply biding their time. The crowd amassed here consisted of less than twenty persons: lads and girls, part of them already soundly boozed; the voices of some were constantly echoed in all of the rooms, and another part seemed to be innately mute and born to listen.

The two men went out to the staircase, the one who was asked to go out didn’t close the door completely; the steel door, it’s cross-section now exposed, looked like a hatch in a spacecraft, hermetic and commanding respect. The man, as it were, seemed not to expect a long exchange and to show his determination he held the doors with his hand, even slightly swinging it, just like he had been playing with his glass, when he was sitting in the armchair, almost right in front of the TV set…      

‘What did you want?’ He said now, and when uttering ‘want’, his eyes touched the face of his interlocutor, touched even somewhat indecently, too rudely even. Sensing that, his interlocutor cringed, but, was he to be questioned on the spot, he would have certainly testified, without any confusion whatsoever, that it was the cold, nothing else but the cold that made him cringe.

‘Eh, I don’t even know…’ he began; it was evident that this signified a beginning of a long speech; he seemed by now to have retained his humours, though, when he just got out of that strange flat, he seemed somewhat confused, perhaps due to a sudden change of temperature and lighting. ‘Paulius,’ he continued, ‘don’t you know that I feel uncomfortable here – there’s plenty of people who are so alien to me, I don’t know anyone here, do you know them – this I don’t know as well, and, then again, they are so noisy and get drunk way too soon, before I manage to find a way to get acquainted with them, they’re already unable to get acquainted with’ he paused and then went on. ‘But you’ve got to understand: I came here only to talk to you, even if I regret it now…’      

The last phrase came across almost arrogant and the man now stood on tiptoe, drew himself up, reclined his head a bit, his hand brushing off a lock of hair off his forehead, and then began to rub his nose somewhat hysterically. He behaved as if the words – here, on the staircase, under a dim lamp, just now – fell out of his mouth unwittingly, involuntarily; thus, he wasn’t to be judged…

‘And so?’ Paulius said. His interlocutor, it seemed, was now confused. At that very moment, beyond the slightly opened door a new wave of screams could be heard, accompanied by an increase in the volume of the music; both unwittingly turned towards the door, but Paulius didn’t open it any more than previously.

‘Could we go outside?’ His interlocutor proposed, even somewhat bravely, this time braver than before. Paulius sighed, as if the man had profoundly bothered him by now. But quickly said: ‘Alright, alright, let’s go.’ 

He almost grabbed his interlocutor, who again seemed stupefied, by the hand; the man, having asked and having received a positive answer, now stood frozen to the spot, like it all had nothing to do with him. He instinctively escaped Paulius’s hand and they both went down the staircase; it had gotten colder noticeably, and so it was a good idea to first stay for a while upstairs, otherwise the cold would overwhelm them even. Simply as a matter of surprise. Since the two of them sat here throughout the evening whilst the public amassed here gradually got drunk; first there was much talking, then talking gravitated towards certain spots throughout the flat, so that one common discourse disappeared without a trace… 

‘So, after all, what did you want?’ Paulius inquired. Then added, after a moment: ‘So cold here.’

His interlocutor indeed had just felt the bitter cold. Queuing at the staircase, as it seems, did not at all amortize the sudden blow of cold that awaited them. Paulius lighted up a cigarette. The other one stood frozen to the spot, his eyes fixed on the already heavily trodden snow; he suddenly felt nausea rising in him, some kind of unpleasant sense of nonsense, as if he had forgotten something – something very important – and spent the whole evening in a dubious company doing dubious stuff; indeed, he was rarely a guest at such parties and the mere fact that he knew next to no one here confused him greatly; one thought didn’t leave him alone: if he was to end his existence in one of the rooms of this noisy flat, drenched in twilight and sounds of music, no one – it seemed to him – would miss him, save for the true owners of the place or their parents… And even that after some time.        

‘What is it that interests you here?’ he asked Paulius. Having exhaled the smoke, radiating total self-assuredness, total peace of mind and calm, Paulius answered: ‘Here’s lots of action, lots of activity.’

‘There isn’t any activity here whatsoever, Paulius!’ his interlocutor almost yelled. The other one laughed, combing his hair with his fingers, that were stiffened by the bitter cold, then inhaled some cold air.

‘Everything’s here, just not for you, Tomas,’ he uttered. Tomas felt like just having received a blow to the nose – just a moment and he felt like breaking down in tears. As if it would be a rather efficient tactic, he raised his eyes to Paulius, like he could suddenly make him change his mind about the whole world.  

‘And for whom then?’ he asked quietly.

‘For all of us, the ones who can accept life as it is, for goodness’ sake,’ Paulius swallowed the excess of saliva in his mouth and resumed. ‘You, you don’t understand a thing, you’re rigid, dull – fuck, how does anybody even put up with here, I wonder… You’ve got to understand,’ he continued, whilst Tomas was futilely trying to interfere, his mouth open in an awkward way, ‘that it’s not for you that everything here takes place and there’s no reason to be so pompous. Sitting in the corner, like some sulking child, for goodness’ sake…’  Paulius said, while Tomas again desperately yet awkwardly tried to interfere. ‘Like some sort of personified reproach, you piss everyone off here…’  

‘But it’s not this that I wanted to talk about!’ Tomas shouted out, instantly looking around, was there anyone around – there was no one. 

‘And about what?’ Paulius laughed and his eyes sparkled.

‘About life – about what I feel, what I think, what I see around – there is so much!’ Tomas cried almost hopelessly in a squeaky voice… 

‘Listen, man,’ Paulius patted him on the shoulder with his fat rough hand, slowly and patronizingly. ‘I’m going and you – do as you please, if anything, we’ll meet at the exams.’  

He turned around and went away, slowly and graciously, like some sort of huge majestic animal, that isn’t bothered by those lesser than it. Tomas stood frozen to the spot and only when the code door was slammed and closed, did he wake up.

2015, translated from the Lithuanian by the author in 2017, translation revised in 2019 (Original can be found here)

How Much More Feminism is Needed?

Once, when I was studying philosophy, during a seminar on feminism, one female coursemate, who had been presenting one of the mandatory texts on the topic, openly expressed surprise at the fact that the text she had read did not appear to be as bad as she thought it would. And she added that feminism, in her opinion, is the worst thing in the world – after Marxism and postmodernism… In recent times, being ‘against feminism’, however one would look, has become popular in more and more social groups. Maybe feminism has indeed reached its limit – either every goal has been reached, or feminism has always been a dubious thing, only that now its shortcomings have become more clearly visible? I will not be analysing this question as thoroughly as I perhaps should. Instead I will try to present my own vision of what feminism should be and what should its goal be.

I think that the main tenet of feminism should be equality of the sexes: men and women are equal and should enjoy equal opportunities to strive for the same things. In my understanding this thesis is based on a hypothesis that has become unpopular these days – that gender [1] is a ‘social construct’. Gender is a concept that is literally driving people mad. Critics of feminism refuse to accept that sex could have a social dimension [2] – they insist there is only ‘biological sex’ [3]. Girls like pink, whereas boys like blue, girls like to play with dolls, whereas boys like to play with toy cars, girls like to cook, whereas boys like to construct. Such is ‘Nature’, critics of feminism say, and one cannot fight against Nature – however, paradoxically, they themselves insist feminism is bad precisely because it ‘fights against Nature’… Anyway, if we agree that human sex as a fact of nature constitutes itself for our consciousness only socially, that as a naked fact it ‘does not mean anything’, is unintelligible, before it is understood through culture, it is obvious that girls and boys understand themselves as girls and boys only with the aid of society and not ‘of their own accord’. Gender roles are not innate and do not directly flow from sex. During the aforementioned seminar, another female coursemate said that girls, even if they are not given dolls, cover knives with towels as if with blankets, whilst playing mothers. Thus, girls supposedly as ‘simply’ ‘caring’ and ‘sweet’. Back then I thought that such facts are worthless, since there is no neutral environment, where it would be possible to find out whether boys and girls, raised in the same way, will behave in the same way. If we want to pursue the goal of equality of the sexes – and this is what justice demands us to do – we must accept the presupposition that men and women are equal. Arguments that ‘scientists have found’ that the brains of men and women differ or that there exist ‘male’ and ‘female’ brains, should not bother us.

But the latter idea has nowadays regained traction – it is foundational for the trans movement. The statement that a man ‘feels’ that he is a woman (or vice versa) problematize gender and solidify the match of sex and gender as an ideal to be pursued. But radical feminists, who reject the trans movement as ‘directed against women’ and one that puts female ‘safe’ spaces in jeopardy, do exactly the same. So, transwomen claim that they are ‘just as much women’ as ‘biological’ women, i.e. women born as women. But the problem is that both sides depend on a certain presupposition of ‘eternal femininity’, only transgender people try to detach it from sex and attach it to self-identification, whereas radical feminists seek to continue associating it with sex and to deter ‘men’ from ‘attacking’ it. My argument that gender is a social construct precisely was meant to reject an essentialist concept of gender. A feminism that defends ‘eternal femininity’ is merely a movement seeking segregation and ghettoization. Such a position creates the conditions for questioning the very basis of granting women equal rights. Such a feminism seeks to blow the difference between men and women out of proportion, as if there lays a void between them, any understanding is impossible, there are no common interests, only ‘the war of the sexes’. It is ironic, but such a view is not that different from the conservative position that claims differences between men and women and natural and speaks about ‘complementarity of the sexes’. ‘Eternal femininity’ imprisons a woman in her sex, to which contingent qualities, that have emerged throughout history, are ascribed. Feminism should seek to liberate people from gender [4]. Sex should not shackle a person but should be just another fact of nature, whereas the trans movement turns gender into a central concept, that determines the whole of human existence. This movement does not transcend gender but solidifies gender stereotypes that feminism has long fought against. Gender should cease to be a political issue and become a private matter.

The goals of feminism, in my opinion, ought to be the abolition of gender as a criterion, based on which people are categorised. This looks like a goal that is hard to reach, but it is worth pursuing. If the reader would say that this is absurd, that sex is a biological fact, and that men fundamentally differ from women, I may respond that a person’s height, the colour of his/her eyes or hair, the form of his/her ears or nose, left-handedness or right-handedness are also biological facts but people usually are not categorised, based on these facts, except in specific cases. But sex is still considered a fact of such tremendous importance that the whole social reality is delineated based on it. It is precisely this that feminism should strive to abolish. Differences between the sexes should become no longer relevant.

But a feminism that accentuates peculiar female ‘experience’ that is supposedly accessible to women only, tries to turn these differences into a problem. But is this experience really transparent to the subject? And what does it mean to feel like being a man or a woman anyway? I think it is nothing more than empty talk. That gender can be irrelevant in no way runs counter to everyday experience. I find it hard to say, whether I eat like a man, count like a man, think like a man – or maybe like a woman… Do you look at the sky like a man or like a woman? Only overtly feminine women, macho men and transgender people identify with their gender roles all of the time. If you are not transgender, that does not necessarily mean that you are a masculine man or a feminine woman.

A feminism that states that we should fight for gender equality by seeking arithmetical equality in all spheres of life, also makes a mistake, since it solidifies the present situation of women as a given, that can only be regulated. Thus such feminists wish that in the Seimas [5] or in the Government at least half the seats would be held by women. The competence, political positions, ideas and human qualities of concrete female politicians are irrelevant to these feminists. If half of the Seimas would be comprised of women like Agnė Širinskienė [6], Vilija Aleknaitė-Abramikienė [7] and so on, the conditions of women (and men) in Lithuania would hardly improve. Also, an influx of such politicians could cause citizens’ discontent with women’s rights overall. On the other hand, a woman who had formally reached the heights of her career because of gender quotas, could legitimately feel humiliated. ‘She became Director only because she’s a woman’, subordinates would say quietly. That she became Director since she was the most competent applicant and surpassed all her male rivals, will not matter to anyone. If people and not men or women would be assessed, a competent woman would have the same chances to reach a top position in one or another sphere of life as a man would. But – feminists would reply – it is not like that, since sexism is rampant in our society. But can we change this situation, if we consider sexism a ‘natural’ position? Such feminists themselves do not believe that someone could support a woman – only under pressure. Besides, an attempt to impose such equal representation presupposes the potential of the individual to fit in anywhere, assuming that women, if only given the chance, would definitely choose a ‘manly’ profession and that they must do that for it to be possible to talk of gender equality.

                         

With the imposition of quotas for women, their lower status would be legally recognized. A woman would once again be a creature in need of care, support and help, that is not able to free itself from the manifold problems it itself has created. And how could conservatives not agree with this? But here ‘feminine writing’ is already being celebrated and female writers lauded – for being female. Such a feminism, instead of unmasking the sexism that had long been hiding behind evaluations of achievements in culture and science and seeking to open the fields of art, politics and science to women too, tries to secure a patch of land in each of them, where all the women who have gotten in anyway would be driven, and where a place would be reserved for those taken in simply to make the numbers look better, with all of them being treated equally as merely women. The culture of previous epochs is ‘unmasked’ as sexist, its universalism – as male. Such a feminism too renders sexual difference a wall between people no one can climb that runs right through the fields of culture, politics, science, philosophy – it only matter that it should run in the middle, so that nowhere an ‘all male panel’ [9] would emerge. An ‘all female panel’ [9] can exist. And why – because the weak, the weaker sex should be given priority – something that the man who learned the lessons of patriarchy, whom the aforementioned feminists deride, and who gives way to a woman, understands. Such a feminism promotes considering women victims, potential or such that are yet to learn they are victims – something that supposedly only the control of all spheres of life could save from: as Slavoj Žižek notes, in the era of #MeToo sexual intercourse has become the subject of a contract, just like any other transaction in the age of neoliberalism. A feminism that demands to see the person and not gender, cannot support gender quotas or assuming women to be inherently in need of care.

Anyway, is not contemporary feminism identifying with the status quo too much, simply hoping to accommodate itself to it? Feminism often is used to defend the existing order. Instead of questioning militarism, women are urged to serve in the army, female generals, who are in charge of the bombing of some remote country, are lauded without asking whether these actions are right; instead of questioning liberal democracy, the rise in the number of female politicians is sought without asking whether they are good politicians; instead of questioning capitalism, it is sought that women would fill top positions in corporations without asking is what they are doing right. Those asking are labelled sexist, since who else could not support a woman?

Justice is impossible without equality between the sexes. To reject feminism as such, ignoring its achievements, used by its critics, like the coursemate I mentioned, as well, would be a mistake, just like it would be to say that wishing people to be evaluated not according to their gender but according to general human criteria is absurd. As long as this goal is not reached, there will have not been enough feminism. But it is questionable whether contemporary feminism is pursuing this goal. Ignoring growing resistance and being naively self-assured, it risks paving the way for the triumph of a new ‘common sense’ sexism. Feminism must again prove itself necessary. The wish to underline differences and the refusal to see the commonalities that are precisely what allows us to understand each other, is what is actually absurd.

2018, translated from the Lithuanian by the author in 2018-2019.

Endnotes:

[1] In Lithuanian the concept of ‘gender’ is nearly always expressed as, literally, ‘social sex’ (socialinė lytis) as opposed to ‘biological sex’ (what would be simply ‘sex’ in English). Note that throughout the text the Lithuanian word lytis is translated as ‘sex’ or ‘gender’ based on context (whilst trying to avoid automatically reducing ‘sex’ to ‘gender’ as is often the case in English), and socialinė lytis as ‘gender’ except in some cases. (All notes by the Translator) 

[2] In other words, that what can be broadly called ‘sex’ (Lithuanian lytis), has an element that is social, i.e. ‘gender’.

[3] I.e. ‘sex’.

[4] Both ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ could be used here but note that the Lithuanian lytis (used here) designates ‘sex’ in a broad sense.

[5] The Lithuanian Parliament.

[6] A Lithuanian MP (b. 1975) from the ruling Lithuanian Peasants and Greens Union, chair of the Committee of Legal Affairs, known for her homophobic statements and hard-line traditionalist stance on issues such as abortion, IVF, sex education, alcohol consumption and so on.

[7] A former long-time Lithuanian MP (b. 1957) from the Homeland Union-Lithuanian Christian Democrats party (the main conservative party, currently the biggest opposition party), known for her anti-feminist, homophobic and reactionary statements and hard-line traditionalist stance on abortion, sex education, same-sex partnership; a proponent of ‘family values’ and ‘Law and Order’ policies.

[8] English in the original.

[9] English in the original.

The Importance of Not Voting

As the General Election approaches, I would like to present my thoughts on the subject in a quite specific way – not by endorsing either party or enthusiastically urging people (especially young people) to vote for whomever they want, but to consider whether one should or should not vote in elections.

First of all, one begins by asking the simple question: ‘How am I to make a difference?’ The simple answer is – take part in politics. The most general way in which citizens do this in a democracy, is by voting in general and local elections (and presidential elections elsewhere). Thus we – so we are told – decide what will become of our lives in the next 4-5 years. ‘Britain decides’ – we hear here and there as the vote looms. If we do, we decide for those who do not take part in elections too.

Suppose I vote. When I cast my ballot, I effectively endorse the system in toto. I endorse its very structure – I take part in the general will (Rousseau) and give in to it. When people say that only those who voted can criticise the ones elected, they are wrong: a vote for Labour is a vote for the Tories as well, since you agree your local Labour MP will take his or her seat in the House of Commons made up of representatives of all parties, the Tories included. This in itself is not yet enough to panic. After all, if we agree to take part in the democratic process, we must endorse it as a whole never mind the consequences that we ourselves might be opposed to profoundly. This is the basic rule of modern democracy.

But what if I see that my vote does not anyhow affect the system itself, since most questions – indeed, the most fundamental ones – are usually agreed upon by all parties taking part. Here we counter what theorists call the post-political condition. Simply put, it means politics lose their political essence. What is left is administration of citizens via techniques of governmentality (Michel Foucault’s term). So, we see decision-making turn from a political thing to simple calculation, best done by computers and not humans; ideas and metaphysical concepts give way to efficiency and pragmatism that leave no place for human action, that, according to Hannah Arendt, is essential to politics.

     

Here two strategies emerge. Firstly, if I refuse to vote, not wishing to endorse the system, it may be because I wish for certain reforms, even if limited – say, changes to the voting system. Or maybe I wish the actors in the political game would again get political. I might wait for a better day, when politicians would come up with new ideas and allow me to choose between qualitatively – not quantitatively – differing visions for our future. Rosa Luxemburg once said that back in the day clashes between different ideas and classes were honest. If it was about ‘Socialism vs. Capitalism’, she argued, it would be a clear choice. This is what I might want as well – a clear choice. However, I see this choice as anyway within the limits of the system.

Secondly, I might want to abolish of the system itself. That is, I can reject elections if I see voting is essentially flawed and the system makes no change possible at all. Thus, I reject the system altogether. Party politics are illusory and only hide the basic unity of the system. Guy Debord thought the voting system is conservative, whilst capitalism is constantly revolutionising itself. If I realise that proposed amendments that would supposedly improve the living conditions of the poor and vulnerable, are merely like rearranging the seats on the Titanic, my only answer is not voting.

So, the former reason for abstaining is based on a belief in the system but with a wish for certain changes, that would reinvigorate it (or a return to basics), while the latter means rejecting the system as the root of all problems which different parties promise to solve.

Refusing to take part in elections is not uncommon today and is proposed by well-known theorists like Slavoj Žižek or Alain Badiou and in the past has been advocated by a wide array of critics of representative democracy and government. They note the fact that elections do not actually change anything, and not simply because particular people are not suited to govern, but because of the very nature of the system. It cannot be changed piecemeal, only rejected as a whole, they argue.

  

The ones who argue against voting from the perspective of bettering the system without getting rid of it are often the ones endorsing ‘political’ movements, or so-called populists. They see such forces as marking a return to genuine politics after what Francis Fukuyama called ‘the end of History’. When a new movement/party emerges or people like Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn get into the spotlight, those wishing a return to politics feel like they are actually witnessing it. So, they go back to voting and support new populist mass movements. A Trump or a Marine Le Pen echoes their sentiment of rejecting the Establishment. Tired of patronizing administrators, people embrace a new kind of politics manifestly at odds with the status quo. As these supposed radicals constantly reminds us of this, even if they do not in principle oppose the system, the fact that they receive massive support, speaks volumes about how deeply people are fed up with post-politics.

So, if I decide not to vote, it’s perhaps because: 1) I feel it is meaningless, because things never change; 2) I reject all participants of the election and wish for better politicians. In the latter case, it is easy to see what I should do – engage with the party I most support and do my best that they change for the better, or start my own one. This requires patience and an ability to compromise, to talk to people, to engage in debate. However, it also means I can hope to see some change. In the former case, I am left unsure what to do – if I reject the system, I am side-lined and feel out of sync with the world (election coverage on TV, but I ‘don’t care’); I simply live my life with no hope for change or dreaming one day it will come, but perhaps not in my lifetime.

Before I move on to discussing the issues with not voting, maybe I ought to consider voting, after all.

The main reason for voting is usually a belief that at least this time we all have a duty to ensure someone with a horrendous agenda does not get elected. That is, I might decide to vote because I see a rise to power of some people, who threaten something much bigger than the status quo. After all, it is about avoiding the worst case scenario. Flawed Labour seems a more reasonable choice than five more years of Tory domination. And, you may ask, should not I help to stop a Trump or a Le Pen from government? I might detest Clinton, as did a significant part of her voters, but I might endorse her to save us all from supposed fascism. Here we see that if I am unsure about voting, what motivates me to go to the polling station is not a new-found love for Labour or for Clinton but fear of impeding terror and more suffering. To prevent the worst I choose the lesser evil.

There are obvious ways of criticising this benevolent wish. The system finds pleasure at portraying its enemies as a threat to its very essence and to the stability of our everyday life. If the Establishment is out of ideas, it can always employ fear. Coaxed out of my place on Election Day, I cast my ballot for people I utterly detest because I am horrified by a perspective of Trump or the Front National. The status quo makes me endorse it by making up spectacular encounters between supposed polar opposites.

So if this last try to prove I need to vote proved unconvincing at best, what now? It is clear that the choice between two evils is what is evil about elections. However, two counter-arguments can be presented against abstaining.

First, what kind of system does such a position entail? If we follow the unrepentant Maoist Badiou, it would be communism which is not only unlikely, but disturbingly vague – as if Marx’s formulation wasn’t! If we follow Debord, it would be council communism. If we follow anarchists, obviously we get various forms of self-governance. At best, these ideas are vague. At worst, a distorted ideology might lead to totalitarianism or a more low-key dictatorship. Again, we return to the concept of the lesser evil: the choice between the status quo and Stalin’s Russia or Pol Pot’s Cambodia is a no-brainer. Like those voting for the Establishment’s candidate, we could say that better we elect him or her and relentlessly fight them for the next four or five years than lapse into fascism.

Second, what effect does not voting actually have on our living conditions? That is, if I do not vote, what will change? While I may continue to occasionally entertain dreams about the coming victory of communism or anarchism, I will be forced to carry on with my life, to use social services kindly provided by the system and nothing will change for the better, since at best I could speak at meetings or write essays like the one you are currently reading. As Timothy B. Lee argues: “<…> “principled” non-voters have the luxury of not participating in the political process because millions of others are doing the hard work of making democracy work <…>.”

How to respond to such arguments? Well, obviously no one would like to choose outward dictatorship in the stead of democracy, however flawed, but if at the end of the day the two are less different than we think (as noted by Giorgio Agamben), this choice is obfuscating the innate unity of the Spectacle, to use Debord’s term. Then again, if the system can impose itself on us because it exists, this does not mean it is equal to life itself. As for the supposed laziness of the apathetic voter, who does not want to take part anymore, again, we fall prey to false choices because we still believe in capitalist virtues and we want to see anti-capitalism act in a capitalist way and we want to see some ‘action’ to entertain ourselves, but actions in the context of this system only help it thrive as we waste energy not when we think, but when we take up various spectacular forms of action, taking part in a political circus of colourful protests, contemporary art performances or being Social Justice Warriors – it all is less that futile – it is detrimental to the struggle against capitalism. Nevertheless, I admit it is worth questioning whether your not voting is helpful.

  

So, after all, should you vote on June 8^th? I would say better do not to vote or at least do not to vote Tory, who would lead Britain to more poverty and suffering – stably and under strong leadership. By not voting, you refuse to engage with the system that is leading not only Britain, but the whole world to a catastrophe – ecological, demographical, economic… Vote, if you believe it will bring change. If you vote Labour, you might think you will get kinder capitalism, but the thing is that capitalism is essentially the opposite of kindness. I would be dishonest if I would not admit I enjoyed seeing Labour surge in the polls, but can they deliver? The inert mass of Labour MPs, who supported Blair and Brown, neoliberalism and the Iraq War, is here to stay. Corbyn needs them to win, but they hardly need him. Don’t vote but think, before acting.

The Short-Sighted Revenge of the 'Dumb' Masses

A few weeks ago the UK woke up to the news that the EU referendum was won by the supporters of Britain leaving the EU by a slim margin – 52% to 48%. This quickly proved to be shocking news both for Britain and Europe, and the whole world, after all. Feeling that victory is inevitable, the Remain camp felt confident. And here this confidence proved unfounded as the very few prominent Leave campaigners cheered. The UK woke up and anger, disbelief and uncertainty prevailed, especially across the world of celebrities and pop stars. The markets responded as well with a dazzling fall for the pound shares. PM David Cameron added some fuel to the fire with breaking his promise not to resign, albeit on a condition that the new PM would be announced later on. As the Tories threw themselves right in the middle of a brutal leadership competition, a long-awaited mutiny took place in Labour as well. So, what can be said of this, as pundits claim, historic event, the UK deciding to leave the European Union? Embittered Remainers lament the future of the young and of Britain itself and desperately call for a second referendum, while the less notable Leavers cheer at their supposed victory in gaining independence for the UK, though much of what pro-Brexit campaigners have offered to the public, has since been discarded by themselves. How we should view the results and the aftermath of the referendum and what lesson do these events teach us all, including people in other European countries? This I will try to answer in my short essay.

Reading the papers and various internet sites after the results of the referendum had been announced made me wonder about a rather fringe topic in the general discussions, namely the class and mentality divisions that were brought to the fore by the fierce discussions and comments from devastated Remainers. As the Glastonbury festival went ahead, musicians whom I knew and whom I have never heard of (or just happen to know their names) stormed social media to lament the result of the referendum. Things said included a wish for the selfish old, who voted Leave and robbed the young of their future, to die off already, shaming of ‘Mondeo driving bigots’, calling opponents racists and xenophobes and generally decrying the result as a win for the selfish, the self-serving, the narrow-minded, old white Englishmen. To set the record straight, having followed the campaign for a long time, I myself would have voted, was I a British citizen, to Remain. Later I will try to explain my position but now it will suffice to say that despite my general sentiment that the EU must be repaired and fixed, not dismantled, I feel the Remain campaign was as shameful as the often racist and xenophobic, often lying Leave campaign. The ideas brought up by the Glastonbury festival and its participants warrant attention. Compassion and conscious consumption were named as the tenets of the ‘us’ it stood for. Fears of unrestrained migration and a lack of democracy were broadly attacked, not addressed, as racist, selfish, backwards-thinking remarks from self-serving and bigoted ‘little Englanders’. The Remain campaign, in my opinion signed its own death warrant because the cause of staying in the EU was promoted with scaremongering and name-calling, and advocates campaigning for Remain tended to be millionaires and ‘experts’. All this played into the hands of the anti-Establishment sentiment, evident on the side of those who voted Leave. The wish to kick the Tories, kick Cameron and kick the Establishment, the City, the banksters, the system was what led Leave to victory. And Remain only help to maintain this sentiment by promoting the image of young, diverse, vibrant and hipster Britain, who loves refugees for the sake of loving them, who consume consciously and have learned the latest updated vocabulary of political correctness, who are compassionate and empathetic and open-minded, successful and smiling, competent and qualified, so that the less better off, unemployed, old, forgotten, hopeless, embittered and discontent with the Government and with the system in general would even better realize how unwanted they are, how useless and not cared for they are. The resentment felt in England, in the communities that are left behind and forgotten resulted in a basic understanding that the only way to kick the Establishment is to vote Leave. Why? Not only because immigration is a big problem for many, but because Cameron says to vote Remain, because Remain is all about the young, the better off, the successful, the ones who have some perspective in this life, thus people apparently thought this is the way to punish them for ignoring the voters, ignoring the poor, the discontented, the old. The whinnying that followed after the results were announced, the childish demands for a second referendum, backed by the likes of Thom Yorke and Jarvis Cocker, only proved these points. I bet a second referendum might have ended with a similar result if not with a bigger win for Leave. The ones who wanted to be heard, again were shouted down and ridiculed as those who would better be dead or who are bigots, backwards-minded and so on. The mentality that was exhibited by the Remain campaign accentuated the stark differences of class and ideology that defined the campaign, as the Leave camp was ridiculed as clowns and xenophobes and those who voted Leave later being described in purely classist terms as, to put it simply, the vengeful poor old people, stealing the future from the millenials (whatever that means) and consigning the UK to the rubbish bin of history, leaving it on the fringe of world politics. This, I believe, was a huge mistake. The Remain camp made grave mistakes by appealing to scaremongering and presenting any potential Leave voters as worthless scum. The embittered masses have fought back and what has followed the result must have even further emboldened them. Some, indeed, were emboldened way too much. But the divisions not only between Scotland and England, but divisions based on age and on class have proved important and have been worsened by the result. The gap between the anti-Establishment working class people and the middle class young professionals, aspiring to live in a compassionate and open-minded world was widened and both sides bear responsibility for that, but the Remain camp has especially been good at digging its own grave with sneers at everyone who is not as optimistic about the EU as they are. This proved a dreadful tactic. However, sadly, no signs of remorse have been showed.

So, telling Leavers that they were wrong does not help. The mistake they have made – having kicked themselves as well as the Establishment – might be realised sooner or later, but the general sentiment will prevail. Because there is no viable alternative to it. People who find themselves amongst the out-dated and outmoded crowd that is wary of immigrants, wary of ‘openness’, wary of political correctness and identity politics have to either go all right wing as if to prove their opponents right about themselves, or they need a true alternative. An alternative, as I would like to argue, that the Left has not provided. The results of the referendum highlight the tension in society that is not restricted to the UK, far from it. It is widespread and dangerous. The alternative to the open-minded and politically correct neoliberalism is a kind of stripped-down neoliberalism with values. The brutal and frank capitalism, exhibited in the rhetoric of Donald Trump, in the appeal to values and national pride that marks Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan. This kind of honest politics, based on fear of the Other, on emotion, anger and paranoia is gaining ground throughout Europe and in America. Make no mistake, it is far from revolutionary – the capital transactions still take place anyway… The difference is in attitude, in the way this system does not bother to present itself with a veneer of ‘progressive’ politics, with a veil of compassion and empathy that has long become the mark of mealy-mouthed and hollow leftist politicians. It tells people ‘You have been fooled by these pricks, their words are empty, this is not how the world works’. People nod in approval. The silence on certain matters, the toe-curling inability to be honest and down to Earth of mainstream politics has reached such a point that the voters sigh with deep relief when hearing an honest and unapologetic Trump. The fact that he is not just politically incorrect but simply impolite and rude, a person who enjoys bullying with a sadist’s lust does not alert the voters. This speaks volumes of the overall quality of discourse in politics. The detached and patronizing, condescending and predictable mainstream politicians have pissed off the society to an extent that even a raving lunatic looks better to people. Their desire to hear honest and anti-elitist politicians makes them an easy target for bullying and manipulating right wing types. The working class and disenfranchised masses think such prophets of brutal capitalism will help them through with their problems. Of course they are wrong, but the more the leftist liberals relax in their ivory towers, the bigger the chances that right wingers appealing to the low instincts of the forgotten and the embittered will gain grounds. 

The problem with Britain leaving the EU is that it is a clear symptom of a rotting political system. As Slavoj Zizek noticed, we live in a post-political system that tends to sneer at old definitions of ‘Left’ and ‘Right’, ‘true’ and ‘false’, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, instead opting for a practical, pragmatic and effective outlook. Politics have been consistently drained of any meaning, any beliefs, any ideology. Instead we are served an expert-led government that concentrates on efficiency and positive thinking. We should be optimistic, as we allow ourselves to be governed by experts, by people holding no views or beliefs other than the utilitarian and the practical outlook of a tradesman. Issues such as human rights, poverty and climate change again are presented as not ideological, but practical. Homophobia is bad because it does not pay off. Politics being based on rational calculations made by experts and non-politicians, everything else in this life has been subsumed by emotion. The laments of celebrities after the results of the referendum had been announced are a good example. The lure of right wing neoliberalism with values is that it focuses on the core aspects of a market economy and instead of the high-brow attitude of leftist liberals who feel like being responsible for all the world's woes, they give people an appealing alternative – deriding everyone around, blaming others and circle-jerking around ‘national identity’, ‘national pride’, ‘tradition’; it is designed for those tired of forcefully smiling at customers, tired of playing the role of a concerned citizen of the World, for those wishing for something more brutal and frank. The post-political system did not take away the need of people to appeal to values and customs, identities and ideology. Whilst it tried to peddle cheap mass-produced substitutes, such as identity politics and positive psychology, it is at a loss here. What people across the world are being offered is honest and understandable politics, based on principles such as ‘Might is right’ and on a general disregard for politeness and good taste. Putin, Trump, Erdogan, the PM of Hungary Viktor Orbán and leaders of far-right parties across Europe talk straight and expose the elites for what they are, pointing out their arrogance and hypocrisy. Underneath it all we still find capitalism and the right wingers hardly bring whatever change they argue for. The comment made by the Polish Minister Witold Waszczykowski is worth attention. He named the enemies of the right wing government as ‘vegetarians’, ‘cyclists’, those who use ‘renewable energy’ and want to ‘mix all the nationalities and races’. Painting such a vivid picture, he appealed to the fear and misunderstandings prevalent among the working class that generally gets looked down by the political elites. And in the end this government seeks to cut down one of the last primeval forests in Europe simply because they want to do it. This points at a future, for which the Leave campaign fought – no more regard for ‘European regulations’, just brutal management.

What is the future of Europe in the face of ‘Brexit’ and a patent rise in unapologetic bigotry and opposition to the post-political consensus peddled by the Establishment? I fail to imagine an EU falling apart. The blow dealt to the Brussels Establishment was huge but not a knock-out. Nation states like Poland, Hungary, Slovakia or the Czech Republic may indulge in nationalist and far-right sentiments but the money that keeps flowing from the EU in various ways does not allow them to seriously consider leaving the union. Fear of ‘cultural Marxism’ or ‘cyclists and vegetarians’ might continue to rise but the pragmatic nature of neoliberalism with values does not allow them a way out of the EU as the masses that hate it will hardly cheer at the result of leaving it even in short term. Countries that sneer at their Eastern neighbours exactly for what those are grateful to the EU – money flowing their way and migrant workers in Western European countries – might wish to leave but the Establishment is still well-equipped and strong enough to hold the tide back. Uncertainty might outweigh nationalism and fear of migrants. Of course, the refugee crisis might add fuel but I would imagine the EU making concessions to avoid further damage. Too much money and too much bureaucracy is there to be made redundant for the union to give up so easily. However, the disenchanted masses need to be contented one way or another, especially in the face of ‘Brexit’. Will the Establishment and the leftist liberals learn? Sadly, I do not see any perspective in waiting for this. The urge to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn that sends the right of Labour into trepidation is yet another sign of this.

So, the UK leaving the EU may have made a fatal mistake, but the Establisment and supercilious leftist liberals making up the most conspicuos part of the Remain campaign have paved the way for it. Embittered with the elites, the working class, the forgotten, the unwanted and the useless fought back albeit in a self-harming way. Regaining control might simply mean closing yourself in a prison cell and kindly handing the keys to a Tory or to a Ukipper. Instead of hypocritical leftist liberal empathy they will receive honest, frank, direct and brutal Thatcherism. Hardly a good bargain, yet it proves to what extent did mainstream politics lose touch with the real world, so that it has become a key market of manipulators and bullies from the far-right. While the Establishment and left-leaning media are clueless as to how could have the tamed and allegedly contented voter turned into a jeering bully, supporting Trump, Farage, Boris Johnson and others, the voters are equally clueless in their choice of a rich and loud-mouthed manipulator and liar. They miss the point that this is not as much as an alternative to the current system, as a new way of contenting the society – this time with hate and rudeness. Apathetic voters cheer at the site of a shouting foam at the mouth bigot. They have learned the biggest lesson of the market economy – one needs to care for image, not substance. Liars and tycoons play such people like a fiddle and as long as anger is vented and previously ducked questions and being addressed in a direct and ‘understandable’ manner, people feel alright. The Remain campaign tried to frighten those who feel like they have nothing to lose. It is not pragmatic questions, but an appeal to reason, showing the true colours of Leave that should have been made, addressing issues and discussing them honestly, but all this needs an alternative that the Left does not have. And so we are left with two brands of neoliberalism, the more cheesy and hipster one, for the upper-class people and the brutally honest capitalism with values, with nationalism, with ‘dignity’, and the Remain loss show the power the manipulative and brutal version has gained over the years of post-political pragmatics. After all, significant change in tone and reasoning needs to occur before a change of heart could take place amongst the embittered masses that sadomasochistically dragged the UK out.

Everyday Revolution

Any political revolution, as history has vividly proved so far, is bound to end in terror and dictatorship. But social revolutions have the quality of being inevitable as our life rapidly changes due to technological progress, resulting in social change as well. But in this essay I do not intend to discuss either. Instead, I want to highlight what I see as the way to disobey the kind of rule we all our subjected to. And, in short, I see this last resort of resistance in doing meaningless and naturally unbound things such as walking. I will try to show the importance of activities that do not bring profit and do not have any practical use in the way it is understood in our society in countering the dehumanizing nature of our everyday life.

1. We all tend to travel every day. We commute to school, to university/college, to work and when our day is off, we go back. In doing so, people either choose to use their own cars, either they use public transport. Either way, streets are full of cars and busses, people have to wait, they get angry and try to relax, they dream of other places, of a different world, where the person in question would be able to drive at maximum speed seeing no obstacles. Travelling to work or to school is seen as an inevitable if uncomfortable part of everyday city life. What is the underlying concept behind it is that commuting is yet another way of control. Here we see nothing new if we're acquainted with the theory of the French philosopher Michel Foucault. First of all, if you have a car and use it, you are subject to individualization (i.e. your individual and unique number plate, your driving license with your personal information), then you are subject to rules, which if you disobey, you are punished, and finally, by controlling parking you are pretty much easy to track from home to work to home. If, again, you use public transport, the system is a bit different, however, you are once again fully subject to control – CCTV, e-tickets and conductors make sure everything happens as it should. The level of individualization is less obvious, however, it is still easy to find out who you are and when were you in a given place or where were you in a given moment in time. Control and surveillance – things that frighten us when we are presented with the way they function, yet governments tend to picture it in different terms – in terms of 'safety', 'obeying rules', 'you're better off that way' etc. What, in short, is the way to disobey the rules which govern our lives? Walking. Walking is a rather useless activity in a world where only speed and efficiency is what matters. Traveling by foot distances you from the crowd as it's an intrinsically solitary activity, even if you eventually meet some people on the road you take – they have their own, individual routes and for the bigger part you will follow your own individual path. It also loosens the ties that hold you together with society- being together in a packed bus, wasting your time in a traffic jam, having to take into account fellow drivers, being visible and responsible – when you walk, you are alone, you are as free as our society allows you to be, probably. And this kind of activity does not have a price tag on it too – a dangerous thing for our capitalist society, where everything depends on the price and is commoditised. Such consumer capitalist 'alternatives' as Northern walking is merely a way to present an intrinsically free thing in an oh-so-different way, that is labelled cooler and requires, surprisingly enough, buying certain sticks that legitimate your walking as something of a valuable experience. Otherwise, walking instead of using public transport or any transport whatsoever is basically the kind of resistance that is hard to supress. It is a way to disobey the monotonous rule of society of control, a concept used by Gilles Deleuze.

2. Walking is a unique way to stray away from beaten paths and find your specific way of seeing your surroundings. Instead of a mediated mode of seeing, looking out of the window of a car or a bus, when travelling on foot, you find a less mediated way of perceiving your surroundings. Furthermore, you can regain control over the tempo and rhythm of your movement in the city. When driving or going by bus you are not free to choose your own rhythm, even traffic lights are controlled to help you maintain a certain rhythm. Walking gives you a chance to claim the indefinite. It is the opposite of fixed routes and roads, controlled by traffic lights in the city. Marshal McLuhan argued, that media is what extends a given organ or limb, or our power. However, the other part of it is that the power we extend via media is also ‘amputated’ and ‘anaesthetised’. Thus we lose it, but get a ‘better’ version of it. For instance, when you choose to drive, instead of walking, your body and legs suffer in the long run – you are less and less able to walk, in fact. Your body is weakening, because you got this remarkable power to travel huge distances without putting in all your strength. And think about planes then… One might think these changes are for the better, however, we are plagues by obesity and various disorders related to fatigue these days precisely because we can get away with less and less physical activity. Ironically, we now pay for a chance to legitimately exercise (in gyms), whilst also paying for our car or bus. We got so much, but we lost a lot as well. So, walking enables you to break this vicious cycle and reclaim your freedom to stay indefinite. And it is important psychologically as it is physiologically. Mind you, I do not propose trekking as a sport. It is an experience that escapes commodification. And a return to being without the cheesy and completely fake ‘back to Nature’, proposed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Friedrich Nietzsche, himself a huge fan of walking, rightly scorned Rousseau’s idea. Trekking is a way of avoiding the Gaze of the system and a way to reclaim your freedom to wander and find your own way of seeing your environment without paying and without succumbing to the logic of the market.

3. Here we come to the strangest part of this essay. I have already mentioned ‘wandering’ as an important term. When Friedrich Nietzsche, whom I have already mentioned above, spoke of ‘eternally being childish’, he proposed a specific way of seeing the world as a game, as play, without claiming any fixed identity and following rules imposed on us from without, nevertheless, following some rules, as a game by definition is linked to certain rules. He as well spoke of nomadic modes of thinking. This idea was the picked up by the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze. Even more interesting things were argued by the Situationists, especially their leader Guy Debord. The Situationists talked not only of detour as a way to subvert the society of the spectacle that we all live in, but also of unique ways of movement in the urban environment, that should be taken to be a battlefield and thought of in terms of strategy and tactics. I find it hard to accept the term ‘nomad’ as a suitable term, as well as seeing a difference between the idea of prowling through the city along so-called paths of least resistance and being a wanderer. A traveller, I propose, is an individual, who travels without any objective, without any goal. A nomad, on the other hand, as I understand, is a person, dependent on his or her surroundings in one way or another (think, for instance, of a homeless person). A traveller is someone who has no need to go anywhere, but no place to stay. He is sort of mad – if allowed, he would go on and on, or turn around, if he wants to. The world revolves around him in ways that are strange and unexpected to him and escape conceptualisation. He can walk and walks as if there is a place where he goes, but there is no such place. Nevertheless, the Situationist idea of a detour, of walking where you please in an urban environment is very important to the everyday revolution, a thing they spoke of as well. It is precisely that walking is useless and inefficient, a horrible thing nowadays, and brings us back to the indefinite, to places lost and found, where we have been so many times, but never actually noticed anything; I remember walking along the road, going home from school, and seeing a trolleybus packed full with people – I might have been amongst them, because actually I should have taken it to the place where I would catch a bus – and I felt relief, that I can walk on the side of the road and do not have to be part of this mess all of them are into.

So, trekking is a way to subvert your everyday routine and break the rules of efficiency and the logic of the neoliberal world we all live in. Walking is a philosophical activity, because it enables you to find your own way of seeing things and reclaim your ability to walk, to look around, to wander. It is a way to get rid of constraint we are forced to submit to. Losing ties with the society of the spectacle and with herd morality, with pitiful feelings of powerlessness, that you feel stuck in a crowded bus, is better than being efficient and a useful part of the system, a cog in the mechanism. As Jean Baudrillard observes, even fatigue is a way of resistance, as well as animals in farms, who break the rule of profit by being inefficient and killing themselves – for they have nothing else to do. We can do something and that is to resist in our everyday lives. Walking is one particular way of doing it. It is antisocial, but a philosophical way of life is not to be comfy.

Books mentioned in this essay, among others, are Jean Baudrillard “Consumer Society: Myths and Structures”, Jean Baudrillard “Simulacra and simulation”, Guy Debord, “Society of the Spectacle”, Gilles Deleuze “A Postscipt on the society of control” (in “Negotiations”), Michel Foucault “Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison”, “History of Sexuality” (vol. 1-3), I also recommend writings by Friedrich Nietzsche, for instance, “The Twilight of Idols”, “Beyond Good and Evil”, “Gay Science” and a book specifically dedicated to the subject I write about – Frederic Gros’s book on walking as a philosophical activity, “A Philosophy of Walking”. (Also, a wonderful if a bit strange interview with Gros is here).

AeMu'15

Taigi, belieka paskelbti metų geriausius muzikoje ir pristatyti man labiausiai patikusias 10 dainų. Dar galiu pridėti, kad tai buvo paskutinieji, aštuntieji, tokio pobūdžio muzikiniai apdovanojimai.//
So, all that's left this year is to name the best things in music and the top 10 songs of the year, what will constitute the 'results' and will end the long history of such awards – as this was the last, eighth, awards.

Metų atlikėjas/grupė: [Artist/band of the year]

Battles (JAV/US)

Nariai/Members: gitaristas, klavišininkas, programuotojas/guitar, keyboards, programming Ian Williams, gitaristas, bosistas/guitar, bass guitar Dave Kanopka, būgnininkas/drums John Stanier.    

Metų albumas: [Album of the year]

Battles – La Di Da Di (Warp)

Metų singlas: [Single of the year]

The Soft Moon – Far

Metų vaizdo klipas: [Music video of the year]

Battles – The Yabba (dir.  Roger Guàrdia)



TOP10:

10. The Soft Moon – Far

9. Tyondai Braxton – Scout1

8. Patricia – Mercury In Retrograde
 
7. Floating Points – Silhouettes I, II & III


6. Money – You Look Like A Sad Painting On Both Sides Of The Sky

5. Earl Sweatshirt – Grief

4. Death Grips – Pss Pss

3. Oneohtrix Point Never – Ezra
2. Arca – Snakes

1. Battles – The Yabba

AltMU'15

So, I've decided to offer an alternative to the eight year long sequence of "my music awards", that have been always the same through the years. So, this time, before you find out the winners of "AeMu", here's a new type of list. Here, I will present only two nominations: Album of the year and a short list of the best songs of the year. However, this time, instead of simply naming the winner and going to bed on New Year's Eve, I'll present a TOP10 list here. And instead of naming 10 songs that I liked the most in 2015, I will present 20 songs. Will this strange awards become the new standard or will I quit doing ridiculous recaps altogether, I don't know. Before I start, I would like to point out that readers should not expect to find differences between both lists. They do coincide instead of being alternatives, as I am not a multiple.

Album of the year:

1. Battles – La Di Da Di (Warp)
2. Floating Points – Elaenia (Pluto)
3. Patricia – Bem Inventory (Opal Tapes)
4. Oneohtrix Point Never – Garden of Delete (Warp)
5. Earl Sweatshirt – I Don't Like Shit, I Don't Go Outside (Columbia)
6. Wire – Wire (Pink Flag)
7. The Soft Moon – Deeper (Captured Tracks)
8. Young Fathers – White Men Are Black Men Too (Big Dada)
9. Holly Herndon – Platform (4AD)
10. Lapalux – Lustmore (Brainfeeder)

TOP20 songs:

20. Belle & Sebastian – Cat With The Cream

19. Oneohtrix Point Never – Mutant Standard

18. Young Fathers – Rain or Shine

17. Battles – Summer Simmer

[Live versions on YouTube]

16. Patricia – Just Visiting (with Cloudface)

15. The Soft Moon – Wasting

14. Wire – Harpooned
13. Floating Points – Peroration Six

12. Battles – Non-Violence

[No YouTube]

11. Earl Sweatshirt – DNA (feat. Na'Kel)

10. The Soft Moon – Far

9. Tyondai Braxton – Scout1

8. Patricia – Mercury In Retrograde
 
7. Floating Points – Silhouettes I, II & III


6. Money – You Look Like A Sad Painting On Both Sides Of The Sky

5. Earl Sweatshirt – Grief

4. Death Grips – Pss Pss

3. Oneohtrix Point Never – Ezra
2. Arca – Snakes

1. Battles – The Yabba