UNITY TO DRIVE OUT YRE CHARLATANS!
From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: Unity To Drive Out YRE CHARLATANS!
Date: 02 July 2001 18:11
--- In UK_Left_Network@y..., "Phil Hamilton" <mhdasein@y...> wrote:
> The following article appeared in the latest issue of The Socialist.
>
> Comradely,
> Phil Hamilton
>
> Unity To Drive Out Fascists!
> LAST WEEKEND, there were successive nights of serious fighting in
> Burnley, Lancashire, apparently triggered by an argument over noise
> at a party.
>
> By a member of Youth against Racism in Europe (YRE)
>
> After Asian neighbours complained, white party-goers responded with
> threats, and a van suspected of belonging to a British National
Party
> (BNP) supporter arrived.
>
> Violence followed. An Asian taxi driver had his car stoned, and his
> cheek broken with a hammer. Vehicles, pubs and shops were attacked
> and burned.
>
> Afterwards, the establishment "condemned" the violence and appealed
> for calm - easy to say!
>
> Equally quickly they claim that 'this is not another Oldham'. Yet
> there are similarities in the events, and in the tasks facing anti-
> racists and socialists.
>
> In Burnley the BNP polled 4,151 votes in the general election; in
> nearby Pendle they polled 1,976. The BNP are clearly targeting
> Burnley and this must be resisted.
>
> As in Oldham, the Nazis use violence to peddle racist lies
> about 'rights for whites' - an excuse to encourage racist attacks
on
> non-whites.
>
> This will mean more Oldham-style riots and/or attacks, in which
rage,
> frustration, racial attacks and fascist provocations will combine
in
> explosions.
>
> Our response must be based on labour movement and community
> residents' united action and self-organisation. Burnley's Labour MP
> Peter Pike refuses extra resources for Burnley on the incredible
> pretext that this would encourage violence!
>
> Worse still, in a racist move, Oldham council has diverted
resources
> from Asian areas to white areas. We won't fight each other over
> scraps but will unite to demand our full and rightful share.
>
> The public-sector union UNISON's recent conference resolved to
> organise a demonstration in the North West against racism and
> fascism. Socialist Party and YRE members are building locally and
> nationally in the unions for this.
>
> Support exists - it must be mobilised. A united campaign should
> demand a halt to cuts and sell-offs - as is happening with Oldham
> council housing; for decent homes and public services; for full
> employment on living wages; for free and fully funded education.
>
> Action in Oldham must be linked to action in Burnley, and in
Tameside
> where the BNP got 1,600 votes.
>
> The Nazis have no real roots; they whip up trouble but have no
> serious answers to our problems.
>
> The Lancashire labour movement is potentially very powerful;
> organising thousands of workers of all races alongside community
> groups can drive the fascists back into the sewer.
>
> On an anti-fascist programme of social demands we can beat the BNP,
> cut across racism, and win real advances for the workers, youth and
> poor of the Lancashire region.
What is clear from cliche driven articles like the above: "drive the
fascists back into the sewers" that could have been written at any
time in the 1990's just change the name of the towns, is so far from
the BNP having "no serious answers" to working class problems it is
reality the left who have none.
"The Nazis have no real roots" (apart from about 20,000 voters in 5
constituencies): "the Lancashire Labour Movement is potentially very
powerful": (there is now no such thing as a labour 'movement': there
are trade unions and there is the labour party for whom they are
conmsidering formal divorce) "worse still in a racist move the
council have diverted from Asian areas to white areas" (the
allocation on grounds of race was what caused the problems in the
first place, presumably the 'socialist/anti-fascist' solution is to
continue with the racialisation of social problems. If so the BNP
could not agree more, as they have choosen to back the other side -
the overwhelming majority in case our armchair anti-fascists had not
noticed.)
As for the YRE it is a phantom organsation that to my knowledge never
lifted a meaningful finger when the BNP were still marginalised in
the early 1990's. The likes of The Socialist, and Socialist Worker
may think we are all mugs, but in reality they are only fooling
themselves - and each other.
From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: Unity To Drive Out the BNP, not YRE!
Date: 06 July 2001 20:19
--- In UK_Left_Network@y..., asocialist@h... wrote:
> What evidence is there for your assertion that resources were
> allocated in Oldham or anywhere else on a "racial" basis? It
> sounds like sounds like one more example of racist claptrap.
>
> Do you believe that the making of such unsubstantiated allegations
is
> the way to combat divisions within the working class?
>
> Youth Against Racism in Europe(YRE) organised a militant anti-
fascist
> demo outside the BNP Head Office in Welling in 1993. They actually
> tried to storm it. Then, later that year, they jointly organised a
> demo of tens of thousands of people in the same area. Thousands of
> police, some armed with plastic bullets, were deployed to prevent
the
> anti-fascists getting anywhere near the building.
>
> YRE members took part in several other actions too.
>
> Now, you may not agree with these actions, or you may think that
the
> YRE was remiss in winding down such activities, but does is it
really
> fair to compare it with the BNP?
>
> If you actually do want to "Drive Out YRE CHARLATANS" rather
> than drive out fascists, as the title of your contribution
suggests,
> then you have no business being a member of this forum.
>
> >... the BNP having "no serious answers" to working class problems
it
> >is reality the left who have none.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that "the left"
> advocates such policies as building more council houses, creating
> more jobs, improving the health service, increasing the minimum
wage,
> reducing the length of the working week, improving public transport
> and combating pollution.
>
> Are you seriously suggesting that such policies are not at least
> attempts to tackle working class problems? What about the
> socialisation of the means of production? Is that totally
irrelevant
> to the working class?
>
> Surely you are not suggesting that the BNP DOES have serious
answers
> to working class problems?
>
> Yes, the vote for the BNP in certain areas is alarming to leftists,
> but it nonetheless remains true that the BNP has marginal support
and
> that the organised working class in Lancashire potentially has
> massive power. Are not trades unions and leftist parties part of
the
> labour movement?
>
> How do suggest that we prevent that support from growing? Or is the
> aim of your contribution merely to be destructive, rather than
> constructive?
>
> Regards
>
Neil, you are so dogmatic you cannot even remember what was in your
own post. For instance you ask for evidence of money being allocated
on a racial basis, when in the YRE post you are defending it
denounces as "racist" a move by the council 'to divert money' "from
Asian areas to white areas". In your eyes, presumably it would have
been anti-racist and therefore politically to be applauded, had it
been the other way round. It is this support for the 'racialisation
of social issues' by the liberal Left that is the primary cause of
the problem. The political term for the allocation of resources on
racial lines is called multiculturalism in case you didn't know. As
for the shallow defence of the record of the YRE I will make no
comment. None is necessary. The prosecution rests.
BBC : 'THE WORKING CLASS STINK OF PISS'
From: <gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk>
To: <UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 1:20 AM
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] BBC: 'The working class stink of piss'
Around midnight I was tuned into some programme on Radio Five Live
about something or other. I was half listening. Then the commentator
mentioned that when she was at school, she was very much aware of how
people targetted for GCSE's were being "steered out of the system".
And she laughed. This was followed by the comment from a guest
speaker, who quickly added that in his opinion being forced to sit
GCSE's was the same as being categorised with the "kids who stank of
urine". And everyone laughed.
As a militant anti-fascist I have had on occassion to deal with the
media. What gradually dawned on me, was how the media's contempt for
racism was almost uniformly expressed, not from a political or
holistic opposition to fascism, but from an undisguised contempt for
what they saw as the ignorance of the working class.
However almost as soon as Griffin, Cambridge graduate, 'boxing blue'
became leader of the BNP, it was noticeable how suddenly all were
agreed that the 'new BNP' was now 'ingenious'; 'clever' etc. Today's
Guardian editorial even described the BNP as "egregious", I have no
idea what it means, but it is I suspect, in a political context, in
some way laudatory.
The point is when the media met AFA reps, who came from the same
class as the fascists, it gradually dawned on me (a bit a slow you
see) from the odd throw-away comment over the years, that the
contempt they all too happily expressed for the 'fash', in reality
also extended to us. For them, we too were like them the kids
who 'stank of piss'.
I am not going to bore you here with analogies about extending the
basic metaphor to Blacks or Jews: instead I would ask you all, with a
some honourable exceptions, to look at the contempt with which AFA,
and more precisely Red Action contributions are often greeted on this
site, (check if you are so minded the wall of class hatred we were
greeted with in June/July last year 2000) and convince me the base
instincts of the revolutionary Left, as represented here, are
considerably different from that of the media?
While I'm at it, I'll let you all into another little secret.
Tonight I was out canvassing for support for a small IWCA initative
in south Islington. Contrary to the media spin Islington, is 70%
solid working class.The contrast with the easy acceptance by the
working class of the IWCA on run-down estates in south Islington,
with the suspicion, and the thinly veiled contempt which I am told RA
delegates were greeted with on the LSA steering committee is quite
stunning. On more than one occassion RA delegate's expressed their
astonishment, at the all thinly disguised rancour.
What I was surprised at, was that they were surprised. The funny
thing is, the people I talked with and joked with tonight, would not
have been.
From: James Tait <juche_86@lineone.net>
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [UK_Left_Network] BBC: 'The working class stink of piss'
Date: 03 July 2001 05:17
I don't think any of this is a surprise to any working-class communists. The
utter contempt (and it is a contempt born from a wilfull ignorance and fear)
in which middle-class people hold working-class people is something that has
been rampant within the Left for 30 odd years now (and it's roots can be
traced directly to the University born "New Left" of the late sixties, from
which the roots of pretty much nearly all of today's 'far-left' can be
traced). As long as the Left continues to be dominated by the politics and
culture of the middle-classes it will continue not only to be useless as a
vehicle for working-class representation, but will be utterly hostile to any
attempts at such representation which are not under it's control and don't
fit in with it's liberal cultural and political agenda . Such bigotry
against working-class people and concerns is to be seen, for example in the
front page article in this weeks 'Weekly Worker', penned by their
National-Organiser Mark Fischer.
The political expression of the middle-classes is "liberalism". And as the
saying goes, "Scratch a liberal, find a Tory". Todays Left is a classic
expression of liberalism.
An obvious example is in the way in which AFA has always been subject to
middle-class anti-working-class prejudices, most notably in the oft heard
accusations of it's members being "macho", "thugs", "racist", "sexist",
"lumpen", "laddish"," fascistic" etc, etc. The simple truth is that the
middle-classes have neither the stomach for, nor any real inclination
towards, genuine communist politics (ie Working-Class politics) which would
by definition require them subordinating their own actions and views to
those that "stink of piss".
The culture of the political Sect much closer approximates the culture in
which middle-class people are used to operating. A small group of
University educted dilletantes looking down on the rest of us, whilst
licking the arses of their boss.
The slogan "working-class rule for working-class areas" should be made to
apply to our organisations as much as to our communities.
J
500 DEFY POLICE BAN IN BURNLEY
From the ANL website:
500 defy police ban in Burnley
A magnificent ANL meeting, attended by 500 people, was the response
to police attempts to ban it. The meeting was attended by Sahid
Malik, who received five stitches after being attacked by riot
police. He is an NEC member of the Labour Party and CRE Commissioner.
He was joined by his father, the Deputy Mayor, with three County
Councillors and many local
councillors. They were joined by trade unionists, anti-racist
campaigners and hundreds of people determined to roll back the gains
made by the British Nazi Party and stop the racist violence in the
town.
Black, Asian and white crammed into a room, provided by the local
Mosque at the last minute. Police were in force outside the meeting,
in a show of intimidation. Mounted police were joined by vans with
dogs and vans of police.
In a show of defiance, every part of the local community showed up
and cheered as platform speakers launched a summer of anti-Nazi
activity, culminating in a mass demonstration and carnival in early
September.
Mohammed Arrif, a taxi driver, spoke of his horror at the police
response to the attack on his fellow worker. he told the audience
that he has lived in Burnley for 35 years and never felt the need to
be political, but the events of the last week have made him stand up
and be counted. He told of the taxi driver lying in a pool of blood,
unconscious, having been battered by a hammer over the head and face.
It took the police 45 minutes to respond to the call! He welcomed the
white faces in the audience, saying that when a white ANL member
visited the hospital with flowers and a card he was overcome with
emotion.
Every Asian speaker talked of unity with the white community, of
breaking down the divisions and challenging the myths. Every white
speaker was positve about achieving unity and building a vibrant anti-
Nazi movement.
The police tried to ban our meeting by the back door and we defied
them.
Now, they have a legal ban for a month to stop any similar meetings
taking place!
The Anti-Nazi League will continue to organise in Burnley, organising
the anti-racist majority into a force for change.
From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: 500 attend ANL meeting in Burnley
Date: 06 July 2001 21:31
Neil, Is it any wonder people in Oldham vote BNP if people like you
egister as the opposition. What has anti-fascism got to do with the
increasingly idiotic statements you are happy to be identified with.
An attack on Saheed Malik 'is an attack on us all'. Really? This is
the same victim who has to uncanny ability to recall taking 'punches
and kicks' from the police when claiming to be 'unconscious'.
The 'modest' Mr Malik who announced that in attacking him,
the 'police had made the biggest mistake in history'. The Saheed of
the 'mis-spent youth', who boasts he practically grew up in a pool
hall, except that the town in which the pool hall was situated
changes in relation to the constituency association whose nomination
he is after, in his increasingly fevered attempts to become a Labour
MP.
Yep, in terms of selecting 'champions' the ANL and co certainly can
pick 'em.
On this occasion in terms of duplicity, the SWP/ANL may at least have
met their match.
Even at this early stage the ANL campaign promises to be a compound
of all the crass blunders that led to the BNP taking almost 20,000
votes in the area in the first place. Bad as things are, the ANL
approach, which was incapable of stopping a miniscule NF in
Bermondsey, (in four attempts!) can only succed in making things far
worse.
Already Griffin must be thinking: "Who needs a campaign strategy for
May 2002 when the ANL are determined to do the work for you?"
Increasingly it can be seen that the whole drive of the ANL strategy,
the appeals to censor, sack, jail opponents has more to do with right-
wing witch hunts, than tactics that would historically be identified
with anti-fascism. Like their allies Searchlight they are more than
happy to identify with state; with the liberal elite, with the
political establishment.
But here's the rub - the BNP are more than happy to let them.
The real question is of course - are we?
SAHID MALIK, LABOUR WANNABE OR WORKERS 'CHAMPION'?
From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Sahid Malik, Labour wannabe or workers 'champion'?
Date: 07 July 2001 17:15
--- In UK_Left_Network@y..., asocialist@h... wrote:
> From where do you get all your information regarding Mr Malik?
>
> As I recall, it was reported that he said that he was unconscious
> briefly. Thus of course it is possible that he could recall the
> police assaulting him.
>
> Believe it or not, victims of state oppression are often not
saints.
> Thus it is not strictly relevant, if it is true, that Mr Malik is
> immodest or has rewritten certain aspects of his personal history.
>
> Do you think he beat himself up?
>
> Are you saying that he should not be defended because he wants to
> become a Labour MP? The implication of such a line would be that
you
> would join in a united front with the state in attacking the Labour
> Party.
>
> That sounds like the worst kind of Third Period sectarian Stalinism.
>
Neil, for someome who evidently knows so litle you might try and
sound a little less impatient. To answers your questions:
the info on Malik is from the Guardian, via the Red Action discussion
site.
two, no matter how you cut it, you cannot be aware of taking kicks
and punches while 'unconscious'. Either he was unconscious, and
unaware of the additional assault, or he was not.
It is also noticeable, that though in a position where no defence was
possible; prone and unconscious at the feet of PC Plod, his youthful
visage, bar the cut on the brow, conspiciously bears no evidence of
the damage from boots and fists, he claims was inflicted afterwards.
I am not saying he should not be defended because he wants ever so
desperately to be an MP, even though his lying about it continually
may disqualify him, but that if the liberal left had any respect for
itself and the working class of Oldham, white and Asian alike, they
would unlike you, not be in such a damn hurry to embrace him as
a 'workers champion'. As for the remarks abou the 'state attacking
the Labour party', has it evaded your notice, that the party of which
he is a member is both politically right of centre, as well as being
the party of government?
HOW TO STOP THE BNP? - 'HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY'
From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 07 July 2001 18:53
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] How to stop the BNP? - 'honesty is the best policy'
-- In UK_Left_Network@y..., asocialist@h... wrote:
> If state resources are allocated on the basis of need and a
> predominately Asian or Black area happens to have greater need,
then
> that area will get more resources than a White area with less need.
I
> expect that there is a higher level of public expenditure in
Brixton,
> say, then in Mayfair. That does not mean that there is
> discrimination in favour of Black people.
>
> What evidence do you have that resources in Oldham were originally
> allocated to Asian areas on the basis of "race" rather than
> need? None.
>
> Of course I am not in favour of "robbing Peter to pay Paul."
> What I am opposed to is resources being redistributed from an
> extremely deprived area to a slightly less deprived area, which is
> what appears to have happened in Oldham. It seems to me that the
> local council is actually kow-towing to fascist voters.
>
> That is not to say that White working class people in Oldham are
not
> deprived. It would appear that competition for scare resources is a
> key factor in the divisions in Oldham. Socialists should demand
> enough resources for everybody.
>
> I thought multiculturalism was something to do with the acceptance
> that the England, Scotland and Wales are not mono-cultural and that
> different cultures have the right to coexist.
>
> Multicultural education involves children being taught about
> different ways of life, so they grow up with a knowledge of
cultures
> other than their own. I happen to think that this is a good thing.
I
> hope that you agree. I would have thought that that would be common
> ground amongst all who call themselves socialists or communists.
>
> The propagation of false claims that Asian working class people are
> benefiting at the expense of White working class people is
> unlikely to play a role in healing divisions in the working class.
> On the contrary, it likely to aid the growth of the BNP.
>
> Speaking of which, you have not answered my question: how DO you
> suggest that we prevent growth in support for the BNP?
Neil, you really are horribly confused aren't you. You ask for
evidence of the allocation of money based on race and then supply the
answer yourself with the admission "that competition for scarce
resources is a key factor in the divisions in Oldham". What is the
basis for this 'competition' which you acknowledge, if not on a
racial one? Everyone knows this anyway, bar devout readers of
Socialist Worker. The question is to heal the division. This cannot
be done while the basis for the division is not admitted.
Furthermore like all liberals you maintain a belief in
multiculturalism. Even if the 'promotion of diversity' acts as
intended, to divide the class on ethnic lines? Not only between black
and white, but between Pakistani Hindu and Bangladeshi. Locals in
Glodwick happily admit that prior to the conflict between the
population there and local white communities erupted, the tensions
existed between the Pakistani and Bangladeshi populations. Particular
resentment arose from the councils decision to reserve a new housing
scheme for Bangaldeshi's - only. Now if the resentment, was from
whites, people like you would automatically denounce it as racist.
And maybe it still is? Certainly, there are the classic intimations
of cultural superiorioty.
But where does any of that hand-wringing and navel-gazing get us?
Exactly nowhere. Tossing in intended smears such as racist and
Stalinist dosen't help either, but don't let that stop you. The fact
is as your own posts amply demonstrate, where the left is not
genuinely ignorant, it has a tendency to work on assumptions as a
basis for policy. When policy, meets reality, there is feverish work
to choreograph the facts to fit.
Accordingly, even though race attack statistics -Asian on white-
stretch back to 1993, Socialist Review continues to describe the
reality as "a myth". It also maintains that the far-right has "a
fraction of it's influence" in the 1970's. Conveniently ignoring,
that the Griffin 16.4% vote was even better than Martin Websters in a
West Bromich in the NF's heyday in 1977. There is absolutely no
evidence to suggest the BNP has 'peaked', quite the contrary, but
yet the SWP still seek to sedate with talk of the Nazis "declining
strength", and how they are "divided" and so on.
More outrageously, the ANL's Julie Waterson spreads the lie, that
while the "1990's were a rollercoaster for European Nazis, who gained
votes and credibility one minute to have them stolen by a surge to
the left through workers struggles, or through anti-racists
organising and resisting. We have to learn thse lessons again". Even
for her, quite unbelievable. Particularly as 'the lessons' of Europe
are ones the SWP/ANL are determined that no one will learn.
For 16 years any reverses suffered by the far-right in Europe have
invariably been at it's own hand. The Left have not laid a glove on
them. Thus there is no known antidote to euro-nationalism.
Even in France where the FN and MNR split, presented the left with an
unlikely to be repeated opportunity, the fascists, to a background of
celebratory noises from Guardian editorials the fascists have quietly
picked themselves up, dusted themselves down, and got on with it.
While they MNR and FN both did badly in the European elections with
just 3 and 5% respectively, in the municipal lections this time round
the MNR stood in 400 towns, more than the FN did prior to the split.
It recieved over 20% of the vote in 30 of the them, and over 5% in
all 95 French departments. As here, liberals only to quick and eager
to predict the far-right demise actually disabled anti-fascism from
seizing the opportunity.
You notice too the clamour from what you describe as 'leftists', for
the Haider's head, (at one stage the Guardian demanded the Austrian
general election be annulled!) has not be matched by a similar
clamour against Fini, leader of far-right National Alliance, and
deputy prime minister, of Italy no less? Instead we have Blair making
alliances with Berlusconi who appointed him, while the SWP in further
evidence of a the 'drift' to the right, recently described the
National Allaince is "post-fascist", and therefore presumably
respectable.
This is pragmatic capitulation; the flip-side of the entirely
artifical hysteria generated by the ANL in relation say, to the non-
existent political threat posed by the likes of the NF. As has been
pointed out before the ANL relationship to the NF is a symbiotic one.
In real terms the strategy announced against the BNP will prove
similarily complimentary. Putting it brutally, the SWP is being
allowed to prostitute anti-fascism for *imagined* party advantage.
Objectively all that is happening, is that the pattern of Europe is
repeating itself over here.
"How do we prevent the growth of the BNP?" you ask. 'What is the best
policy'? In revolutionary terms, as always - 'honesty is the best
policy'.
If the BNP is to be caught, much less stopped, honesty has got to be
the starting point. As the archives on this site show, it is
a 'starting point' far harder to arrive at than you might
imagine.
BRADFORD : 'THE DAY THE ANL-NF PANTOMIME HORSE BOLTED'
From: Red Action <bryantnicholas@hotmail.com>
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 11 July 2001 21:36
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] BRADFORD : 'THE DAY THE ANL-NF PANTOMIME HORSE BOLTED'
BRADFORD : 'THE DAY THE ANL-NF PANTOMIME HORSE BOLTED'
9th July '01
For years the ANL has followed a policy of calling
counter-demonstrations against far-right initiatives in the full knowledge
that either they would not take place, had been scheduled for an
alternative venue, or had simply been cancelled. This meant that even, or
particularly when, the SWP/ANL knew the fascists were not coming, every
effort was made to maximise turn-out, for pretty venal reasons. It would for
instance, allow the ANL to claim that it's presence had intimidated the
fascists, it would allow unparalled
access by the SWP to a fresh layer of potential recruits unhindered by any
serious distractions, and it would allow the ANL to chalk up the event as 'a
victory', something the ANL has found increasingly elusive in the real
world. So the policy of besting absent foes has a threefold attraction for
the SWP central committee.
For the ANL, things probably began to go wrong in Bermondsey
earlier in the year, where despite facing an NF unable to muster more than a
couple of dozen for a national demo, the ANL strategy, was on a
humiliatingly repetitive basis, publicly shown to be entirely impotent
against even them. Morale and turn-out duly suffered. It also became
painfully apparent that the national publicity being generated for the NF
and it's policies would not be happening without the ANL gearing, - as it
has done since the re-launch in 1992, - ALL it's propaganda with the media
in mind. This led critics including, when the action shifted up north, the
Oldham Chronicle, to conclude that the ANL was effectively 'doing the NF's
job for it'. However as events in Oldham would show, the ANL, unable
to understand much less deal with the more sophisticated strategy being
pursued by the BNP, need the NF as much as the NF need the ANL. Objectively,
each can justify it's existence only through the reaction of the other. One
senior militant anti-fascist described the relationship as akin to 'a
pantomime horse; where ever the NF went the ANL followed'.
When earlier in the year, the NF called a march in Oldham the
ANL responded with a counter-demo. But even when the NF officially announced
more than a week in advance, that it had cancelled, the ANL blithely ignored
them, even when aware that when
hundreds turned out, many of them young militant Asians, there would be no
fascists for them to engage with. It did not seem to matter at the time.
There was no serious trouble and after all, 'Oldham had united against the
Nazis'.
So in Bradford when the scenario repeated itself, the ANL
stuck to the script, apparently indifferent to the heightened tensions that
had exploded in riots in the same area only weeks previously. It is one of
many miscalculations. The principle problem is that the ANL is not an
anti-fascist organisation in the understood sense. It does not in itself
seek physical confrontation with the far-right. Indeed it condemns such
activity, even when its own members are victims. Instead its whole strategy
is based on 'pinning the Nazi label' on those targeted - via the media
mostly. In that sense it is spectacularly ill-equipped to control or channel
those elements who answer the call to 'smash the National Front' - but take
the slogan literally. This lack of physical control and credibility at a
street level is heightened, when among those who turn up are many who, when
denied authentic fascist targets, seem perfectly content to exercise their
'anti-fascism' in random and indiscriminate attacks against any people who
'look right'. In Bradford on Saturday trouble was sparked by the presence in
pub near the rally of National Front 'supporters'.
They may have been 'supporters' in a loose sense though even
this is arguable, at least one witness described them as 'local drunks'. For
the purposes of riot, all that mattered was that they looked like they might
have been. Justification enough these days it seems.
But even if justified why then were they not properly dealt
with as AFA stewards would have ensured happened?
The inability and reluctance of the SWP/ANL to properly
organise their mobilisations, means that what has served the ANL perfectly
well when dealing with Poly students, becomes seriously counter-productive
when the invited audience are almost exclusively
militant Muslims, possibly armed with an agenda, political or otherwise, all
of their own.
Labour MP Terry Rooney who spoke at the ANL rally insists
that a 'hard core' manipulated the situation. "Over the last five years we
have had a battle for control over drugs in Bradford which this hard core
has won." Whatever the merits of the argument
that it was the ANL who was manipulated, in any event as an article in Red
Action in 1994 pointed out when it comes down to it pacifistic solutions
such as "petitions are not likely to satisfy Asian youth. Retaliations will
still occur, but in the absence of collaboration with more experienced
anti-fascists, or accurate intelligence, they will and can only be arbitrary
and indiscriminate." At the height of the riots one exasperated local Asian
asked: "Where is the logic, where is the protest, where is the National
Front".
Good point. One estimate put the number of NF as high as 20,
while the Sunday Times reported that a mere five 'Fronters' had been
persuaded to turn back at the railway station. Such figures make the ANL
claim that "2,000 defended Bradford" seriously surreal. Writing in the
Independent, Ian Herbert describes the rioting as "a copybook National Front
sting,and it left the more reflective among Bradford's teenage Asians
wondering how on earth they fell for it. Just as in Oldham, one of the
former mill towns to have burnt on sultry Saturday nights these six weeks
past, the National Front stoked the fire days ago by announcing plans for a
march. They knew full well it would be banned by the Home Secretary but it
would serve the purpose of bringing out the white liberal Anti Fascist
League in force with Asians and national television crews in tow".
As in Bradford, Oldham, Burnley and Bradford, the combination
of ANL, young Asians, and no fascists, has led to much random and
indiscriminate activity. For liberals generally the symbolic fire-bombing
and gutting of the Manningham Labour Club may disabuse them of the idea that
the rioters intentions are uniformly progressive. For the ANL, who follow,
as they readily admit a 'liberal bourgeois agenda', their unique
responsibility in events ought to give pause for thought. After all high
profile sponsors such as Labour
Cabinet Minister Peter Hain can hardly be overjoyed with tactics that
produce results exactly opposite of those desired.
Headlines such as "Nazis rampage through Bradford" can hardly
hope to convince either, when television pictures showed those 'rampaging'
to be almost exclusively Asian. "The cause of the violence in Bradford,
Oldham, and Burnley lies solely with the Nazis and police inaction against
them." is equally naive and ridiculous on a whole number of levels.
Not least, that the ANL seem blissfully unaware of the damage
it is surely inflicting - on itself. It is for instance unlikely the ANL
will continue to get unconditional Cabinet minister endorsement when it is
perceived to be acting as a recruitment sergeant for the BNP. Labour MP
Marsha Singh for one, has called for the "ANL to be banned" insisting the
"price is too high". Another Labour MP Sion Simon, also denounces the role
of the ANL: "one might have thought the supposed anti-Nazis would recognise
their own
leading role in bringing it [recruitment to the far-right] about as
counterproductive." But not only is the ANL being brought into disrepute,
but on a more fundamental level anti-fascist principles are being
prostituted along with it. For example the impact of events on the core
message, and on working class consciousness that 'fascism is the enemy of
all', is taking a severe beating to no useful effect, when the political
threat lies not with the NF 'stoking of fires', but with the BNP's ability
to capitalise on them.
As both AFA and Red Action, have continually pointed out this
where the strategic danger lies. Ever so reluctantly even Searchlight have
come to recognise that it is the BNP - and only the BNP - who are
benefiting from the NF- ANL political play-acting. If
even now the ANL cannot see the objective role they are playing, then the
pantomime horse really has bolted, and it increasingly looks like it will
require someone other than the SWP leadership to rein it in.
From: Nicky Bryant <bryantnicholas@hotmail.com>
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 12 July 2001 20:00
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] re: BRADFORD : 'THE DAY THE ANL-NF PANTOMIME HORSE BOLTED'
I posted the above Red Action newspage article yesterday and then realised
someone else had already posted it. However, despite two cracks at the
cherry no-one has yet responded to it. This seems to say a lot about the
state of the left and their impotence in face of reality. For a good
discussion of the article, see the Red Action discussion page at
HYPERLINK http://www.redaction.org/wwwboard/discussion.html http://www.redaction.org/wwwboard/discussion.html
From: ernestolynch2000@yahoo.com
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: BRADFORD : 'THE DAY THE ANL-NF PANTOMIME HORSE BOLTED'
Date: 12 July 2001 20:13
I agree ... there are more socialists and communists with brains on
the RA board. No offence but this "My dick's bigger than yours"
arguments is t-e-d-i-o-u-s.
It's not debate its just petty.
From: macneiceuk@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 12 July 2001 21:24
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: BRADFORD : 'THE DAY THE ANL-NF PANTOMIME HORSE BOLTED'
Maybe the reason no one here has picked up on the RA article is
because if they are right then virtally everybody here is not just
wrong re. the BNP but dangerously wrong. It takes a very brave and
honest sort of person to look at them selves and own up to their
mistakes; it can feel much safer to carry on embracing the old
certainties and closing your mind to questioning voices - not very
Marxist though.
Yours question everything - Louis MacNeice
From: james.carroll <james.carroll@tinyworld.co.uk>
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 12 July 2001 21:44
Subject: Re: [UK_Left_Network] Re: BRADFORD : 'THE DAY THE ANL-NF PANTOMIME HORSE BOLTED'
I think that quite a few of the people who post on this list also post on
the RA board under other names. Probably, there has been so little
discussion of Bradford on this list is because there is a limit to the
amount of times in a month that people can jump up and state that they agree
with the RA analysis which most of the active participants on this list
obviously do. Every time you read an ANL statement its like Groundhog day.
What is now becoming clear is that the ANL wheteher conciously or not is
becoming a factor in the moves by the Blairites to muzzle dissent. As the
more concious elements of the Left always warned moves to ban or restrict
the NF would sooner or later be used against the Left. That is the Scenario
that the ANL is now creating by this mad tactic of chasing the phantom
armies of the NF around the Country without any analysis of the situation in
the communities they are invading and no strategy to control the reaction
that they create.
Jim Carroll
From: ernestolynch2000@yahoo.com
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: BRADFORD : 'THE DAY THE ANL-NF PANTOMIME HORSE BOLTED'
Date: 12 July 2001 22:01
I think it's time the ANL were just referred to as the SWP. Ditto
this 'Globalise Resistance' thing.
Like the SWP turning people off political issues, even making people
reactionary against the Left, the ANL turn events like Bradford into
a hugely racially divided issue. You either support the Muslim
rioters in Manningham and Lidget Green or you are a (shout it loud!)
WHITE NAZI.
Never mind the fact that in Bradford things are far more complicated
than what Will and Cynthia in the Durham Uni SWSS think they are.
Imagine now how long a SA/ANL canvasser would last in say the
Buttershaw estate, or Thornton? I would love to hear their script,
and the reaction to it.
From: Lawrie Coombs <redlorry30s@hotmail.com>
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 13 July 2001 00:26
Subject: Re: [UK_Left_Network] re: BRADFORD : 'THE DAY THE ANL-NF PANTOMIME HORSE BOLTED'
I think Nick that the reason there has been little take up on this isssue is
that by and large most of the regular contributors on this list tend to
agree with your position and the SWPers on this list either ignore or cannot
be bothered to reply.
Lawrie
From: gaismair@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: BRADFORD : 'THE DAY THE ANL-NF PANTOMIME HORSE BOLTED'
Date: 13 July 2001 08:21
Personally I wouldn't go that far Lawrie. It seems to me that there
are two parts to this. The first is the accurate attacks by RA/AFA on
the ANL. The ANL 'strategy' is so patently flawed (popular front, no
democracy SWP front organisation, love of celebraties etc.) that
these attacks are easy when it comes to hitting the target. However,
I would be more critical when it comes to what RA actually propose
instead.
Perhaps Nick will correct me if I'm wrong here, but I've yet to see
anything in RA postings either here or on their own site that present
a practical strategy for uniting working class communities. Such a
strategy would ineviatably attempt to win asian youth to a position
where they would become part of united working class defence squads
against the fascists and with as much labour movement support as was
possible to win. This is by no means an easy strategy of course. It
is beyond doubt that a significant section of young asians in these
areas are themselves acting in a racist way, seeing an Islamic form
of black nationalism as the way out of their poverty dead end
(although it is also the case that criminal drug gangs have also
played some role here in territory fights). But the overall basis for
such a strategy is the recognition that the Pakistani and Bangladeshi
communities in areas like Oldham and Bradford are amoung the poorest
working class areas anywhere in the country, having not only suffered
economically as workers in areas where manufacturing industry has
largely collapsed, but also as black people who have suffered decades
of racism (unemployment is higher among asians than the equivialant
poor whites in the towns). In the fight for limited resources, and in
facing right wing Labour councils who have introduced cuts in jobs,
services and housing budgets, the white working class areas have in
some cases been susceptable to the "tuppence half-penny looking down
on tuppence" syndrome (as Eamon McCann put it in a similar
economic/ethnicity situation in Derry in the 70s).
Against seperatism we as socialists pose working class unity and
revolutionary integrationism. However, unity and integration cannot
be imposed from above. Only be patient work on the ground, and the
taking up of economic demands as well as the issues of race and
discrimination, can it begin to come about. RA seem to have part of
this correct when they talk about day to day work in the estates
around issues that matter to wiorking class people, rather than
sending another batch of students off to throw some bricks at coppers
in Europe (as in the big SWP Genoa crusade). However, RA seem to
concentrate exclusively on 'white' workers and estates in their
analysis. There is little or no talk about systematic work in asian
working class areas. Even more worrying is the tone of much of what
appears on the RA message board. It states that it is moderated and
that posts may take time to appear because of this. However, it is
noticable that regular racist postings make their apperarance on that
site, often with little real counter comment (the anti-black
immigrant thread a while back on 'white minority Ireland' is a case
in point). Now, I'm not for one minute suggesting that these posts
are from RA members, but why are they allowed to be made in the first
place?
The other major flaw with RA is that they ignore or dismiss the need
for equally systematic and patient work in the labour movement, and
in particular the unions. Of course it is the case that unions mean
little to unemployed youth, white and asian, in towns like Bradford,
but there are lessons from history here. In Germany in the
late '20s/early '30s the unions, often led by SPD members, largely
ignored the plight of unemployed workers. The German CP didn't, but
then because of the ultra-left 'Third Period' stalinist line they
were then persuing they also dismissed much of the organised movement
as 'social fascists'. The result was a dangerously divided working
class, and a layer of declassed workers who joined the SA fascists.
On a smaller scale we can see similar processes at work now. A labour
movement isolated from the struggles of poor unemployed workers on
the estates in areas like Bradford, and led largely by Labour Party
reactionaries, and the poor white and asian youth alienated from the
traditional movement and susceptable to either the reactionary far
right or the reactionary religious nationalists. A socialist strategy
would not dismiss the unions, but work within them against the
bureaucratic leadrships and try and form rank and file movemnets that
would link with workers outside their structures. At the same time
systematic work would be carried out in the working class estates
(both white and asian) that would concentrate on economic struggles
and give a socialist political explanation for them.
It would seem to me that in addressing the issues raised by a divided
working class, RA have only got it part right.
Fraternally,
Jim D. Liverpool.
From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] 'Red action only part right'?
Date: 14 July 2001 20:28
Jim, I notice you've had a couple of pops on the same theme so I'll
venture a reply.
1. You make the point that Asian youth ought to be won to a position
where "they could become part of a united working class defence
squads against fascists".
You haven't be paying attention have you? As both RA and AFA have
tirelessly pointed out on here and elsewhere - there simply are no
fascist for the squads to engage. The BNP have not had a single
publicly organised event ie march public meeting etc in over - 7
years! The NF numbers about 150 tops, while C18 has never been
anything more than a Searchlight 'creation'. How long will it take
before the penny drops? How long will it take before the left
generally develop an immunity to 'SWP/ANLspeak'?
2. You also make a number of references to the "labour movement". The
need "to do patient work"; "rank and file movements" etc. Again you
need to face up to the fact that these days, the majority of the
working class who might previously have made up the 'anti-fascist
squads' are simply no longer unionised. The only unions the left have
any influence in, is in the white collar sections of the working
class. Even when the fascists were pursuing an insurrectionary
strategy very very few from from this strata proved of any practical
use. When can go into why this might be so, but the reasons are self-
evident. It was particularly true of Germany in the 1930's.
More pertinetly, the figure for those in low-paid non-union work was
given at over 7 million five years ago. Probably more now. For a
variety of reasons this is the section RA would argue, the left ought
to be trying to reach - but for the reasons outlined this cannot be
achieved through "patient rank&file work" in unions, - when these
millions are not unionised.
Moreover the term 'labour movemnt' is itself past it sell by date.
Currently, certain unions like the FBU and others are openly talking
about disaffiliation - from what is generally accepted is a right of
centre party. If the union wing of the movement is incapable of
organising and representing the bottom 40% of society, and the
parliamentary party is shamelessly pitching the message to middle
England, what precisely is left of the labour *movement* to do the
patient work in?
3. Finally there is the disengenous remark that "RA seem to
concenterate exclusively on 'white' workers and estates in their
analysis." In fact RA draw no distinction on colour what so ever. On
the contrary it is multiculturalism which pretends that racially
divided communities are all homogenous. Any reference to the 'white
working class' by the CRE or Guardian editorails etc is usually
derogatory, but it is noticeable there is NEVER any corresponding
reference to 'the working class in Glodwick' etc. This absence of a
class position is also markedly absent in ANL literature. It is not
RA but THEY who have the preference for colour-coding. It is in only
in trying to disentangle the mixture of lies and half-truths that RA
ever mentions colour.
That apart, from a class perspective it has not escaped our notice
anyway, that the overwhelming majority of the working class in
Britain ARE white. Is that something we should be wary of, and they
should be ashamed of? Should we concenterate all our efforts on the
minority of the class which happens to be non-white, indeed should we
champion them in their "fight for limited resurces" against OTHER
impoverished sections of the class?
Many on the Left (though it is never applied in practice of course)
would tacity recomend such a course: a pious humbug which more often
than not,rightly earns the contempt of the - entire class. Not only
that, but if such a course was ever seriously pursued, beyond simply
liberal rhetoric, it will become noticeable enroute that the BNP are
already in postion as ambassadors for the 'majority'. Is that the
ground you think anti-fascism ought to choose to fight on? Before you
are tempted to respond positively, this is they same type of anti-
fascism 0PP0SED to the working class, that has worked so wonderfully
in Italy, Belgium, Austria, Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden,
Gernmany, France etc over the last decade and a half. Griffin for
one, would heartily recomend it be formally adopted here too! Indeed
in many ways he is relying on it.
4. I may have spent more time on this than was necessary as, you
mention colour only as an anteroom for what' really "worrying" you:
the "regular racist postings on the RA discussion site with little or
no counter comment...Now I'm not for one minute suggesting that these
posts are from RA members, but why are they allowed to be made in the
first place?"
The policy on the RA site, is open to ALL political comment. Only
when the contributions are without political value, repetitive in
nature, or descend into personal abuse is a halt called. Liberals
might feel uneasy as the very idea of allowing racist comment but to
whom then do you put, and hone your counter-arguments? The converted?
Again in case you haven't noticed racism, racist ideas and more to
the point racist solutions are widespread.
(Banal contributions racial or other wise rarely attract "counter
comment" on any discusion site. The only really embarassing moments
on the RA site is when lefty visitors blunder in quite indignant;
have a hissy fit, and leave the racists pointing the finger at RA for
the rest of the week!)
Part of the reason racism is widespread, apart that is from the 'race
industry', is that people like you have encouraged the 'hear no evil
see no evil approach'. Even recently on here some twit from the SWP
presumably, denounced a BNP press release, on I think Bradford being
posted here. Does it really help that we do not know what they are
thinking and saying? Wilful ignorance; the denial of fascist
advances, and the sneering at their ambitions does not help anti-
fascism -it DISARMS it.
If as you say "that in addressing the issues raised by a divided
working class, Red Action have only got it part right" what does this
say about the contribution of the majority of the SA who would
violently disagree with the "part" you agree RA has got right?
Objectively, this puts them in fairly shady,dare I say it,'fifth
column company don't you think?
From: gaismair@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: 'Red action only part right'?
Date: 16 July 2001 23:18
Point taken about actual fascist membership. However, you ignore the
fact that there have been significant and long running attacks on
asian targets such as shops and houses for years. When an isolated
asian family in Burnley regularly get swastikas painted on their
house and bricks through their windows, or when a shopkeeper in
Lancaster gets bullets fired through his bedroom window in the middle
of the night, then whether the people doing this are actual card
carrying members of a far right group is frankly irrellevant. These
people need defending, simple as that.
> 2. You also make a number of references to the "labour movement".
The
> need "to do patient work"; "rank and file movements" etc. Again you
> need to face up to the fact that these days, the majority of the
> working class who might previously have made up the 'anti-fascist
> squads' are simply no longer unionised. The only unions the left
have
> any influence in, is in the white collar sections of the working
> class. Even when the fascists were pursuing an insurrectionary
> strategy very very few from from this strata proved of any
practical
> use. When can go into why this might be so, but the reasons are
self-
> evident. It was particularly true of Germany in the 1930's.
>
> More pertinetly, the figure for those in low-paid non-union work
was
> given at over 7 million five years ago. Probably more now. For a
> variety of reasons this is the section RA would argue, the left
ought
> to be trying to reach - but for the reasons outlined this cannot be
> achieved through "patient rank&file work" in unions, - when these
> millions are not unionised.
>
> Moreover the term 'labour movemnt' is itself past it sell by date.
> Currently, certain unions like the FBU and others are openly
talking
> about disaffiliation - from what is generally accepted is a right
of
> centre party. If the union wing of the movement is incapable of
> organising and representing the bottom 40% of society, and the
> parliamentary party is shamelessly pitching the message to middle
> England, what precisely is left of the labour *movement* to do the
> patient work in?
Hmm, something of a contradiction here Gary! You begin by dismissing
the unions where socialists have influence as being white collar (the
inference I take it that they are then to be dismissed?), but then
end with a reference to the FBU, currently on strike in my area, and
a union known for its open exposal of socialism and internationalism.
Have I perhaps missed something! (btw labour movement normally refers
to organised working class bodies such as unions, and is far from
being passed its sell by date!)
Even taking white collar unions, such as Unison or PCS, what is
clearly evident is the vast reduction in pay and status that the
members of these unions now have. In Marxist terms they have clearly
become proletarianised from the middle class staff associations that
they once were fifty years ago. In fact, I find it highly amusing
that some on the left would consider my job as a civil servant to be
middle class when after eight years my gross is £11k, around half
that of a firefighter or production line worker at Fords. But anyway,
I digress! The unions have suffered a decline over the last two
decades, the product of many defeats. The class struggle still
remains at a low ebb, but it looks like it is recovering, and with it
we are witnessing a rise in union membership. Now, I agree that many
workers, particularly in low paid casualised jobs, are non-unionised.
However, it is still the basic organisations of the labour movement
that, weakened as they are, provide the best chance of initiating
serious organisational interventions in the poor working class areas
of towns like Oldham and Burnley. It is they who can mount fight over
housing or example, and it is they who can, with the right
interventions of socialists, begin to put together - by uniting with
those in the communities - the start of united workers self defence
bodies to protect homes and families under attack.
The problem with Red Action, and to a large extent the CPGB, is that
even though they may talk in very generalised terms about the need
for self defence bodies, because both organisations dismiss serious
work in the movement, and particularly the unions, they find that
they are largely incapable of suggesting real practical ways in which
this can be achieved.
> 3. Finally there is the disengenous remark that "RA seem to
> concenterate exclusively on 'white' workers and estates in their
> analysis." In fact RA draw no distinction on colour what so ever.
On
> the contrary it is multiculturalism which pretends that racially
> divided communities are all homogenous. Any reference to the 'white
> working class' by the CRE or Guardian editorails etc is usually
> derogatory, but it is noticeable there is NEVER any corresponding
> reference to 'the working class in Glodwick' etc. This absence of a
> class position is also markedly absent in ANL literature. It is not
> RA but THEY who have the preference for colour-coding. It is in
only
> in trying to disentangle the mixture of lies and half-truths that
RA
> ever mentions colour.
>
> That apart, from a class perspective it has not escaped our notice
> anyway, that the overwhelming majority of the working class in
> Britain ARE white. Is that something we should be wary of, and they
> should be ashamed of? Should we concenterate all our efforts on the
> minority of the class which happens to be non-white, indeed should
we
> champion them in their "fight for limited resurces" against OTHER
> impoverished sections of the class?
>
> Many on the Left (though it is never applied in practice of course)
> would tacity recomend such a course: a pious humbug which more
often
> than not,rightly earns the contempt of the - entire class. Not only
> that, but if such a course was ever seriously pursued, beyond
simply
> liberal rhetoric, it will become noticeable enroute that the BNP
are
> already in postion as ambassadors for the 'majority'. Is that the
> ground you think anti-fascism ought to choose to fight on? Before
you
> are tempted to respond positively, this is they same type of anti-
> fascism 0PP0SED to the working class, that has worked so
wonderfully
> in Italy, Belgium, Austria, Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden,
> Gernmany, France etc over the last decade and a half. Griffin for
> one, would heartily recomend it be formally adopted here too!
Indeed
> in many ways he is relying on it.
You are right to question the use of the term 'asian community'
or 'black community' etc. when they are used to ignore class
divisions. However, the problem of your own standpoint becomes
evident when you state that RA never talks about colour, only class.
This 'workerist' response has very great dangers. Firstly, it ignores
that workers are not just oppressed economically. There are many
other degrees of oppression that are not simply the product of the
relationship to the means of production. Oppression based on race,
religion, nationality, sexuality and gender for example. Should we as
socialists ignore all of these, and merely talk of class? Should we
dismiss the struggles of colonial peoples for national liberation on
the basis that they inveriably form cross class alliances based on
community? No, of course not. But RA does when it comes to analysing
the double oppression faced by a worker who is also at the same time
an asian in a racist society. This failure, and with it a hostility
to self organisation by ethnic minorities, means an inability to
seriously relate to minority groups when it comes to building united
action and from that genuine integration based on joint struggle.
None of this means that this should be at the expense of any other
workers, particularly white workers. But in attempting to orientate
to often declassed poor white workers in inner city estates RA can
become guilty of adapting to their prejudices, like for example RA's
position on immigration controlls.
> 4. I may have spent more time on this than was necessary as, you
> mention colour only as an anteroom for what' really "worrying" you:
> the "regular racist postings on the RA discussion site with little
or
> no counter comment...Now I'm not for one minute suggesting that
these
> posts are from RA members, but why are they allowed to be made in
the
> first place?"
>
> The policy on the RA site, is open to ALL political comment. Only
> when the contributions are without political value, repetitive in
> nature, or descend into personal abuse is a halt called. Liberals
> might feel uneasy as the very idea of allowing racist comment but
to
> whom then do you put, and hone your counter-arguments? The
converted?
> Again in case you haven't noticed racism, racist ideas and more to
> the point racist solutions are widespread.
> (Banal contributions racial or other wise rarely attract "counter
> comment" on any discusion site. The only really embarassing moments
> on the RA site is when lefty visitors blunder in quite indignant;
> have a hissy fit, and leave the racists pointing the finger at RA
for
> the rest of the week!)
>
> Part of the reason racism is widespread, apart that is from
the 'race
> industry', is that people like you have encouraged the 'hear no
evil
> see no evil approach'. Even recently on here some twit from the SWP
> presumably, denounced a BNP press release, on I think Bradford
being
> posted here. Does it really help that we do not know what they are
> thinking and saying? Wilful ignorance; the denial of fascist
> advances, and the sneering at their ambitions does not help anti-
> fascism -it DISARMS it.
>
> If as you say "that in addressing the issues raised by a divided
> working class, Red Action have only got it part right" what does
this
> say about the contribution of the majority of the SA who would
> violently disagree with the "part" you agree RA has got right?
> Objectively, this puts them in fairly shady,dare I say it,'fifth
> column company don't you think?
I can't comment on the SA, not being a member. But what I will say is
that I, along with other union reps where I work, will not tolerate
racism in the workplace, be it in racist remarks or racist 'jokes'.
Such a line does not stop someone being a racist, but it does if
enforced make clear the class line of what is acceptable behaviour.
Your libertarian position (which is actually a far right position) of
letting people get away with this because racism exists in society
and we need to know about it is ridiculous. I suppose you would be
happy to still have 'Love Thy Nieghbour' shown on the telly would
you? It's not a question of 'see no evil' but of confronting anti-
working class ideology head on and attempting to gain socialist
hegemony in the process.
Fraternally,
Jim, Liverpool.
From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 18 July 2001 16:56
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: 'Red action only part right'?
GO'H: It is deeply ironic that you accuse either RA and AFA of
ignoring race attacks. In fact AFA has been the only organisations to
consistently try and draw attention to the rise in race attacks for
over a decade. It did so first back in 1988 with 2,0000 strong march
to the Cenotaph on Rememberance Day. In 1991 AFA led a 4,000 strong
march through, the then BNP heartland of Bethnal Green, unopposed I
might add.
In other ways too we have contstantly highlighted the issue, pointing
out for instance in 1998 that estimates of race attacks had risen
four fold in a decade from 70,000 to 290,000. Of course the figures
have jumped again since then. When AFA tried to introduce the issue
within the National Civil Rights Movement a couple of years ago we
were met with studied silence. When in October 1999 AFA held a public
discussion with among others the ANL, the signifigance of the rise in
race attacks was considered pivotal to the discussion by AFA speakers
but once again ignored: 'the war is over and we [the aNL] won it" AFA
was informed.
Finally, it is not "frankly irrelevant whether the attackers are card
carrying members of far-right groups" IF you want to devise a
strategy to combat the epidemic. Who is involved, and why is of
obvious interest if you are seriously attempting to remedy the
situation. Your research and knowledge of the subject, judging by
your recipe ie 'self-defence squads' evidently stretches no further
than attempting to score a cheap point or two I suspect.
> The problem with Red Action, and to a large extent the CPGB, is
that
> even though they may talk in very generalised terms about the need
> for self defence bodies, because both organisations dismiss serious
> work in the movement, and particularly the unions, they find that
> they are largely incapable of suggesting real practical ways in
which
> this can be achieved.
G'OH replies: what a load of ill-informed nonsense. To begin with any
use of the term 'Movement' in political terms infers that there is a
common objective shared by various wings of the said 'movement'.
Traditionally the Republican Movement has had a political and an
armed wing. The British Labour Movement traditionally comprised a
trade union and a parliamentary wing. What I am saying is that
without the parliamentary party sharing common objectives - there can
be no labour 'movement'. There is a right of centre Labour Party
increasingly OPPOSED by growing neumber of unions.
Red Action have never "talked in generalised terms about the need for
self defense bodies" and I challenge you to produce anything RA has
said on the subject on physical force anti-fascism that includes
anyone of the "workers militia" nonsense favoured by the CPGB and
others. You're just making this up.
to often declassed poor white workers in inner city estates RA can
> become guilty of adapting to their prejudices, like for example
RA's
> position on immigration controlls.
GO'H: How pat. But again as is almost always the way, you first
misquote to make a point eg: "You state that Red Action never talks
about colour only class". You describe this as "workerist" a lazy non-
specific allegation that is not even gramattical. But rather than
labour that particular point, what I actually said (and you can
hardly dispute this) is that "Red Action draws no distinction based
on colour whatsoever." So I will ignore all that flowed from the mis-
quote. In attempting to relate to ..."declassed workers"? Lefty
solutions to everything, 'they only reject us because they are
declassed' you know. What a load of toss.
ou? It's not a question of 'see no evil' but of confronting anti-
> working class ideology head on and attempting to gain socialist
> hegemony in the process.
>
G'OH:
What a giveaway, I always suspected people like you assumed your
little world and the rules of behaviour in it, have universal
application. They don't. If you and the ANL ever left that cosy
envoirnment, and worked or lived or drank amonsgt the working class
proper, you would'nt come out with all the old cobblers you do. Look,
where finger-wagging at the working class from behind some civil
servant desk has got the left. You are all but washed up or haven't
you noticed. Laughably, you talk 'about letting people get away with
racism' as being a specific RA trait, apart from raising points of
order in your Nalgo/Unioson/CPSA branch, I wonder what other risks
have you taken for the cause?
BRADFORD - "THIS IS NOT A GAME"
From: Nicky Bryant <bryantnicholas@hotmail.com>
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 15 July 2001 17:30
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Bradford - "this is not a game"
This is from the AFA news site
July 11 2001
Bradford - "this is not a game"
"With the best will in the world for those who are anti-fascist, this is not
a game we are in - this is serious politics." So said the Home Secretary,
David Blunkett, speaking on Radio 4 in the aftermath of the recent riots in
Bradford. Not being an active anti-fascist it is unlikely he appreciated the
significance of his words.
From an anti-fascist perspective, the role of the ANL with regard to events
on Saturday 7th July is a disgrace. Despite the NF march (inevitably) being
banned the week before, the ANL insisted on going ahead with their rally,
regardless of recent events in Burnley and Oldham, the outcome of which has
seen white and Asian working class ommunities even further apart than before
as opposed to becoming more united. As Red Action have said: "the impact of
[these] events on
the core message, and on working class consciousness, that 'fascism is the
enemy of all', is taking a severe beating to no useful effect."
As we continue to lose sight of the real problems that exist in both
communities, as anti-fascism becomes more and more discredited in the eyes
of the white working class, it becomes hard to disagree even with the
sentiments expressed by New Labour MP Sion Simon: "Given that the recent
riots have been such a fillip for the neo-Nazis - giving them publicity,
exciting fear and xenophobia and thus promoting the recruitment which is
their prime objective - one might have thought
the supposed anti-Nazis would recognise their own leading role in bringing
it about as counterproductive."
The ANL crowed that the NF leadership (already banned, remember!) were
"conspicuous by their absence", but then so too were the ANL. The ANL rally
attracted about 500 "mainly Asian young men" and whatever the ANL/SWP may
hope for - they weren't ANL activists. With the ANL incapable of controlling
events, the situation soon got out of hand, and while the Independent
(9/7/01) pointed out: "this had nothing to do with white supremacists come
the evening, they had all disappeared", they failed to mention that so too
had the ANL.
So why is AFA so hostile to the ANL? Because every lesson learnt by the
anti-fascist movement over the last 25 years has been ignored. It is hard to
imagine anything more irresponsible than for the ANL to organise a rally to
bring 500 young Asians into the city centre, watch another riot break out
that drives a bigger wedge between the two communities, and then to walk
away and blame everybody else.
An anti-fascist activity must be designed to isolate fascists and racists
from the wider community, not help to keep the two communities divided along
racial lines.
Did the ANL rally achieve this? Clearly not.
Anti-fascists must be able to steward their own activities, to set their own
agenda, be in control - not rely on the police. Why weren't ANL stewards in
control of the pubs in the area to prevent racists mobbing up? Why were the
racists allowed to launch an attack? Given the volatile nature of the
situation, there needed to be a level of planning and stewarding way beyond
the capabilities of the ANL.
In contrast to the incompetence of the ANL, AFA has managed to operate
successfully in the north of England, confronting the BNP before they
withdrew from the streets and isolating them from the wider community. For
example in September 1993 AFA mobilised against a BNP election rally in
Burnley. A group of BNP supporters encouraged the local football firm to
attack the 'lefties', but the attack was firmly dealt with. This
successfully alienated the locals from the BNP, and negotiations were held
with 'spokesmen' for the Burnley firm who declared themselves neutral,
which is the bottom line. AFA was able to deal with local people without
driving them into the arms of the fascists. In fact, several BNP members got
slapped around by irate Burnley fans later in the day for their trouble.
When AFA led a 4,000-strong demonstration through the East End of London in
November 1991 some of the marchers over-reacted to some verbal abuse from an
old couple in some flats. The police tried to use this as an opportunity to
attack the march. AFA stewards took control of the situation, prevented the
police from getting into the march, and then ensured the marchers remained
disciplined.
At Waterloo in 1992, when 1000 anti-fascists fought running battles with
Blood & Honour boneheads for four hours, the violence was restricted to
strictly political targets. Only fascists were attacked, only fascist cars
were wrecked; demonstrators were guided by AFA stewards who rigidly stuck to
the game plan even in the middle of all the mayhem.
When the level of race attacks increased in South East London in the early
90s, AFA drew up a map of the area marking where the local fascists lived,
which pubs they used, and where the attacks took place. This allowed
anti-fascists to identify a pattern, to see the link between the attacks and
the fascists, and draw up a plan of action based on solid information.
As we've shown above, it is possible for anti-fascists to operate
effectively, even in the most difficult of circumstances, but from the
outset you must be clear about what you want to achieve; planning,
organisation and an attention to detail are essential. This is serious
politics, and if the ANL aren't prepared to take it seriously they should
withdraw from the arena.
From: james.carroll <james.carroll@tinyworld.co.uk>
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 15 July 2001 21:18
Subject: Re: [UK_Left_Network] Bradford - "this is not a game"
Surely the simple answer to this is, that the ANL is not an organisation
capable of conducting the sort of operations that Nick suggests. It has
neither the will or the capability or the worldview needed to run operations
like taking over oubs or targetting areas of Fascist activity. The ANL in
its modern form is essentially a propaganda front first and foremost
concerned with labelling the BNP as Nazis. and at a very banal level at
that. The ANL position for me was summed up years ago by the chant often
heard on demos "We hate the Nazis, The Nazis make us sick, Bleaagh.".
JC
SHERIDAN NEEDS A SLAP!
From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 16 July 2001 17:22
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Sheridan needs a slap!
Just picked up a copy of Weekly Worker. Inside a interview with Tommy
Sheridan. Here's what the 'workers leader' has to say about the
BNP. "In fact the BNP and NF results fell between 1997 and 2001."
Fucking unbelievable. Not even the ANL had the balls to suggest the
BNP vote actually went DOWN! Then he takes up the 'special
conditions' much favoured by Guardian editorials and liberals
everywhere.
There is a thin line between complacency, indifference and
capitulation, and I would say Sheridan has crossed it.
From: Eddie Truman <eddie.truman@bigfoot.com>
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 16 July 2001 17:45
Subject: RE: [UK_Left_Network] Sheridan needs a slap!
I posted the full text of the interview on UKLN on Saturday.
Here is the section on the BNP.
(Tam) I think the British National Party result in Oldham was distinctly to
do with the circumstances within that city at that time. If you examine the
BNP and National Front results in other parts of the country, they did
nowhere near as well. In fact the BNP and NF results fell between 1997 and
2001. It's not the case that they've been striding forward on all fronts.
There was a specific racial tension which has been built up in Oldham and
Burnley.
These incidents have undoubtedly given an edge to BNP organisers of an
English nationalist outlook. I think the BNP has been clever in promoting
this rather than its racist/fascist agenda. In fact they have changed a lot
of their policies. The BNP used to be very proud of its forced repatriation
policy. They've actually changed that to say that now, instead of forced
repatriation, they would rather see separate development. There would be
separate areas for black and whites, which is a new form of apartheid. The
point being that it's just as disgusting and poisonous as repatriation, but
it does show you they're trying to be more clever: because they were getting
nowhere with their forced repatriation, they are trying to fuel the poison
of racist division on the basis of separate development.
They've concentrated on the one area where there have been specific problems
in terms of the race riots. I think that the left's job is to try and
intervene on the basis of fighting poverty and inequality and offering a
political voice to the disillusioned white and Asian youth rather that
allowing the BNP to offer their poisonous solution to the white youth in
particular.
From: marc jones <mv.jones@virgin.net>
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 16 July 2001 18:09
Subject: Re: [UK_Left_Network] Sheridan needs a slap!
Sheridan's analysis of the BNP is interesting because it is concentrating
far more on whipping up English nationalist racism.
It didn't stand any candidates in Scotland and its one candidate in Wales
polled v poorly - 278 votes in an area where there have been tensions due to
asylum seekers. Don't get me wrong - there's anti-black and Asian racism in
Wales and Scotland too - but there is obviously a lot mileage to be had in
some segregated poverty-stricken areas of England.
Sheridan is right to say the vote fell - it did, but there were fewer
candidates. Do you know that this wasn't edited out of what was a fairly
long interview?
Finally, why is everyone on this list so ready to hit, shoot, icepick
otherr socialists? Too much sun or keyboard bravado?
Marc
From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 16 July 2001 21:00
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: Sheridan needs a slap!
Marc, The BNP vote fell did it? Because of less candidates? Oh I
see. That's interesting. Seeing as how you seem to be statitician you
wouldn't like to produce any figures to back Sheridan's quite
outrageous falsification would you?
From: Mal Content <mal_content1927@yahoo.co.uk>
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 17 July 2001 12:51
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: Sheridan needs a slap!
In the 1997 General Election the BNP stood 53 candidates gaining
34,868 votes, in the 2001 General Election they stood 33 candidates
and received a total of 47195 votes. Which means the BNP gained 12327
extra votes with twenty less candidates.
1997 BNP candidate averaged 658 votes 1.2%
2001 BNP candidate averaged 1430 votes 3.9%
The following quote is taken from July's issue of Searchlight "If
one removes the five seats contested in the North West, the average
falls to 2.8%."
So even taking out the 'special circumstances' in the North West the
BNP still more then doubled their percentage on 1997.
It is would be intresting to see how you or Tommy can manipulate the
statistics to show any diffrent.
People trying to convince themselves that the BNP are an irrelevance
to modern British politics are just deceiving themselves. On Friday
8th June while the Left was hand wringing and trying to convince
themselves that they had made a breakthrough into the mainstream of
British politics, the BNP were starting their campaign for the local
elections in May 2002. In the weeks following the General Election
the BNP went back to the areas they stood, delivering 'Thank you, for
your vote' leaflets and canvassing for the the May local elections.
And the left has done what???
What will the Left be doing to counter the BNP in the May 2002
elections? ANL choirs giving adrenaline pumped chourses of 'Nazi
scum, off our streets'. Or, the other old favourites lobbying
politicians and police to ban and imprison.
If as is expected the BNP gain coucil seats, in May, how soon after
will the debate on this board go back to 'Hands off Cuba'.
Mal.
From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 17 July 2001 15:31
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: More importantly is Tommy Sheridan a big eegit too?
--- In UK_Left_Network@y..., "marc jones" <mv.jones@v...> wrote:
> Hands up - my mistake. Can I blame the capitalist system for my
inability to
> count?
> More importantly, what is the left doing for the 2002 local
elections in
> England? (in Wales it's 2003)
>
> Marc
>
> Marc, with all due respect I hardly think 'counting' come into it.
It is hardly a narrow gap. Missing out 12,000 BNP votes (the entire
BNP vote in Oldham interestingly) is not a lapse that can be put down
to 'bog standard comprehensives'. More like you subliminally bought
into ANL liberal crap, easily found in the Observer/Guardian, and
made the assumption you did on what you read there. Candidates down -
vote down, oh goody: when in actual fact it is instead - candidates
down - but BNP vote UP!. Not so goody. Particularly as you point out
with 2002 in mind.
So you were wrong. More importantly, Tommy Sheridan the most
recognisable left-winger in Britain is wrong too. No disrespect Marc,
but you making such an error is an *individual* matter - when Tommy
Sheridan does so, particularly in an interview, it does tend to send
the message that the the influence of the far-right in working class
areas is NOT a cause for undue concern: no need for Plan B.
Precisely because it is so inextricably linked to the mainstream
liberal and ANL reassurances that everything is 'okedoke' is why,
even it is a genuine boo-boo, it has got to be challenged, and why it
has got be corrected. Putting it bluntly, either Sheridan was
suckered by the voluminous amounts of ANL propaganda, as you (and how
many others?) were - or more cynically Tommy Sheridan MSP actually
endorses the sedation of the left and the wider working class
movement. One way or the other, some explanation needs to be
forthcoming.
----------
From: Eddie Truman <eddie.truman@bigfoot.com>
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 17 July 2001 15:43
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: More importantly is Tommy Sheridan a big eegit too?
I have forwarded the respective mails to Tommy, highlighting the points that
the comrades have made regarding the BNP vote.
Eddie
From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 17 July 2001 20:10
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: If Tommy Sheridan is a big eegit: what about Weekly Worker
Fair enough lets hear what Sheridan says - if he replies. But lets
make it clear right now, it is not simply a matter of numbers, for
what is at least as damaging is the totally flawed theory that flows
from the obviously doctored election results. Which is where Weekly
Worker who devote a front page to 'expert' analysis, on the Bradford
and the BNP come in. Frankly the article in question is too obviously
self-serving and contradictory to even bother to seriously analyse,
but the fact remains that Tommy's blunder is shared by the editorial
team of Weekly Worker. Did they too think the BNP vote
actually "fell", or were they collectively seduced by Tommy's
soothing logic? It would of course be 'nice' if Tommy was right, as
this is the assumption Weekly Worker had been working on prior to the
election. Whatever way you look at it, it beggars belief how a proof
reader who claims to be any kind of anti-fascict could miss Tommy's
howler?
More damningly, Weekly Worker have two other whole pages devoted to
attacking Scargill's attempts to - "obscure the fact". Along with
it, under the headline "Fact and Fiction" there is an obsessive
breakdown of the figures between the - SLP in 1997 the SLP in 2001 -
and the SA vote. This is cross referenced with SA/SSP vote taken
together, as against the SLP returns, and also the SA v the SLP in
Wales, plus the SSP and the SLP in Scotland and so forth.
Whatever the merits of the argument, what starkly stands out, is that
in all the squabbling, in the majority of cases, the differences, are
a wretched couple of hundred votes one way or the other. Who's
kidding who?
Taken together, as a snapshot of the Left's introspection it can
hardly be surpassed.
Meanwhile as we await Tommy's reply, lets see what the Weekly Worker
come up with?
From: Nick Bryant <bryantnicholas@hotmail.com>
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 17 July 2001 23:40
Subject: Re: [UK_Left_Network] Re: More importantly is Tommy Sheridan a big eegit too?
In light of Mr Sheridan's economy with the truth, it is worth pointing out a
few facts. Twenty five years ago, it was always a truism that the fascists
generally lied and the left generally told the truth. Now though its all
changed. If you look at the election responses of, for example, the SWP, the
CPGB and Tommy Sheridan, the left are not telling the truth. However, the
BNP are more than happy to tell the truth.
The fact that the left is forced to resort to lying about their opposition
is a sign that they're almost beaten already. How will they explain away BNP
councillors next May?
Nick
From: Eddie Truman <eddie.truman@bigfoot.com>
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 18 July 2001 00:07
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: More importantly is Tommy Sheridan a big eegit too?
Nick,
Why should Tommy have to shoulder the blame for the uselessness of
the London based left ?
From our point of view, the BNP did not put up a single candidate in
Scotland and so *from the point of view of June 2001* election
results, they didn't figure much in events.
In the Scottish Socialist Party's list of priorities, the English
local elections of 2002 don't figure very highly.
I thought that, generally, Tommy reflected a fair degree of the
analysis that Red Action has brought to the rise of the BNP v2 in the
interview in Weekly Worker.
As I've said already, I've pointed out to him the points that you've
made in relation to the BNP vote.
Eddie
From: MarxistMark@aol.com
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 18 July 2001 13:29
Subject: Re: [UK_Left_Network] Re: More importantly is Tommy Sheridan a big eegit too?
hi; nick.im sure alot of people across the left agree with you and see AFA'S
analysis as the correct history of events; and the correct channels to
proceed through in the future.
but what advice do you give to people who are willing to provide
support for these actions asked for by AFA; not everyone is hard as nails
across the left.but genuinely are willing to provide other services including
perhaps financial help.can or will they get a friendly welcome or a shouting
down; is physical support the only help youll take.as you say the BNP has
changed tactics; so the physical support as you could say perhaps isnt at the
top of the agenda.
so will you welcome organisations or individuals; or will they get a
roasting.AFA'S role is im sure been noted across the left in gallant brave
terms; your analysis is near perfect in respect of the neglection of the
working class.
so with your attacks on the wrong doings of the liberal
left over the years and your calls for the left to radicalize; will you
welcome people who can provide various kinds of help/support.
cheers mark
From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 18 July 2001 01:36
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Sheridan or Trotsky?
1997 BNP 35,000
2001 BNP 47,000
Tommy: "In fact the BNP and NF results fell between 1997 and 2001"
(Weekly Worker July 12 2001)
Leon: "The first characteristic of a really revolutionary party is -
to be able to look reality in the face."
(The Turn in the Communist International and the German situation.
1930)
Tommy or Leon?
Judging by the reponse so far, many find it too close to call. Tough
shout alright.
From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 18 July 2001 20:40
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: What are ANY OF YOU going to do about Sheridan?
--- In UK_Left_Network@y..., andrew.g.cutting@b... wrote:
> In the aftermath of WW2 Trotskyism found itself isolated,
> divided and confused. To generalise slightly, those who weren't
> killed in the war either dropped out or formed close knit
> groupings whose primary concern was to survive and overcome
> isolation. You might call them sects depending on your sympathies
> but those from non Trotskyist traditions should take a good look
> at these organisations because today we all find ourselves in the
> same boat.
>
> Firstly and formostly Trotskyist propaganda is about providing
> *the* solution as opposed to Stalinists and social democrats.
> Its about hegemony. The solution might appear in the form of
> 'eventually under socialism' or 'get active in our campaign'
> but the solution is there because (whether its whispered or
> bellowed) 'we are the vanguard'.
>
> I believe the 'crisis of leadership' became a disproportionate
> obsession. It is essentially the belief that everything would
> be alright if Trostkyist group X were in charge. Little time is
> wasted explaining why Trostkyist group X weren't in charge in
> the first place.
>
> I'm speaking very generally of course and I'm including on the
> one hand Healyite hyper-activism and at the other extreme Ted
> Grant's strategy of controling the youth sections of the Labour
> Party and waiting for workers to flood in. (By the way it is a
> myth that the Militant Tendency was about waging a war in the
> Labour Party, their own literature explains that it is only
> a strategy to overcome isolation and by all accounts they were
> not particular active as Party members.)
>
> In that sense the unity projects (SSP and SA's) are a direct
> continuation from the bad old days of division. They are about
> uniting activists around issues. That is, keeping the bandwagon
> going.
>
> The problem is that more often than not there is no quick fix
> solution to most of life's problems. There is no particular reason
> to think that activism solves more problems than it creates.
> Activist's unity, is not necessarily a great step forward, it
> might even be a step backwards.
>
> When Red Action critise the Anti Nazi League, many murmur in
> agreement. However the refrain 'what are YOU doing about it
> though?' is usually the next question.
>
> In my opinion this just shows that the lessons of the last 50 years
> have not been learnt. If party discipline, party program and
> talk about unity confuse you then my advise is to forget them
> (at least for the minute) take a good hard and most importantly
> honest look at the world and remember that revolutions are made
> by the class and not by the activists.
>
> Andrew
Andrew, I don't disagree with a word you said. However even in the
midst of all the cynicism such a strategy must engenders, the relaxed
manner in which most have greeted the exposure of Tommy Sheridan
using a blatant lie to justify the continuation of the strategy
against a far-right renaissance both here and across Europe, surely
demonstrates the use of the term 'revolutionary' when referring to
unreconstructed socialism is a) ridiculous, and b) even though
Trotskyism has had a good run, that such degenerate behaviour is
publicly tolerated, must signal that the run is finally to end. 'May
2002' is my guess.
BOYCOTT ITALY !
From: secr <info@unitedpeoples.net>
To:
Date: 29 July 2001 11:20
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] BOYCOTT ITALY !
The fascist community in Italy headed by
Berlusconi of course don't give in to any pressure
of moral kind. They only understand the language
of power, including money.
So let us start a boycott of all Italian products
and beaches, until all the prisoners have been
released and compensation paid to the parents of
Carlo Giulianni and all other victims of the
fascist attrocities.
From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 29 July 2001 14:29
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: BOYCOTT ITALY /anull the elections?
Yes why not, the 'boycott' tactic was implemented with impressive
succes in Austria only last year was it not? Perhaps while we are at
it we should also 'annull' the results of the Italian elections as
the Guardian recomended should have been done in Austria. While we
are at it lets elect a new Italian working class.
RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK
From: Red Action <bryantnicholas@hotmail.com>
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 30 July 2001 22:06
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK
Red Action news page
30th July '01
Even before Oldham, Burnley or Bradford erupted and even
before the BNP were clearly seen to be profiting by the application of
multiculural logic it was noticeable that an increasing number of
journalists and columists ,among them, Ros Coward,Alibhai-Brown, Geoffrey
Wheatcroft, Minette Marin, Darcus Howe, and even Faisal Bodi were prepared
to openly question and challenge the logic behind certain anti-racist
orthodoxies. Julie Burchill can now be added to the list. None of the above
are deemed politically radical in the accepted sense, which makes the
attitude of the ANL/SWP and the Socialist Alliance who hide behind official
racial pieties appear all the more craven and conservative. Here we re-print
Ms Burchill's inimitable contribution to the debate from the Guardian, 28th
July:
If I live to be a hundred, or even 43, I'll never understand
why "multiculturalism" is accepted to be a progressive, leftist idea rather
than a reactionary, rightwing one. Logically, if one should be automatically
proud of one's accidental heritage, then the white ethnic English should be
proud of being what they are. And then people wonder why that stuff happens
in Bradford!
I'm old enough to remember Grunwick - a massive 70s strike
powered by Asian women workers who had arrived here only a couple of years
before, courtesy of the African nationalist madman Idi Amin forcing them out
of their homes in Uganda.
In the 70s, when class was king - "Soak the rich!" cried the
"rightwing" Labour chancellor Denis Healey, "squeeze them till the pips
squeak!" - the British proletariat constituted a massive force, and their
unions ruled the roost. But as the unions were
gradually destroyed, "multiculturalism" came up as a vivacious booby prize,
a decorative decoy.
The idea that whites oppress blacks more than the ruling
class - of whatever colour - oppress the working class - ditto - was the
greatest rightwing confidence trick of the 20th century. In his book
Ornamentalism, David Cannadine details mercilessly how the
architects of the British Empire conspired with the potentates of Asia and
Africa to sell and receive a whole class into slavery and subjection, while
still totally respecting each other's status. Race riots in the exploiting
country, when they occur many decades later,
are sleekly and shamelessly passed off, by those whose class made a profit
from colonial slavery, as the fault of an ignorant and vicious working
class. It's enough to make you chuck.
It's understandable and all too believable that the white
ruling class would want to set the various ethnic working classes against
each other - it's that old classic, divide and rule.
What we have to try to get our heads around, though, is that the various
ethnic "workers" and "leaders" who encourage race- rather than
class-consciousness, are just as loathsome and protective of their position.
And the way that they invariably protect their ludicrous logic - just what
has Keith Vaz got in common with an unemployed Brick Lane Bengali teen, any
more than Princess Margaret has in common with a white female street
sleeper? - has caused just as much sorrow and strife as the tall stories of
the white nationalists... There's the usual nonsense about all men being
brothers and it's got to be a
free-for-all. But the bourgeois journalists who advocate an open-door policy
when it comes to immigration either aren't aware or don't care that when a
country welcomes all-comers without making its original guests comfy, it is
whizzing up a recipe for disaster.
I think governments do it on purpose; just chuck every
immigrant group in, one upon the other, without attempting to sort it out
one at a time. Though they say they don't like them, I think our government
loves "race riots", because then the working class are
fighting each other and not the evil bastards who've destroyed their chances
of employment through the slime of globalisation.
So I really resent it, actually, when I hear some posh
pigging liberal telling me that if I don't want a bunch of white Czechs over
here getting housed before some Brit single mother, it's the same as
turning back the German Jews in the 30s; and that if I don't want legions of
Albanians knifing prostitutes on Dover Beach, it's as bad as turning back
the Windrush. It's not the same at all; even a redneck like me can see that
all those Indians, all those blacks, were first interfered with and then
performed totally beyond the call of duty during that war. They won their
place here a hundred times over; I just don't think that a greedy Croatian's
the same. So sue me!
But I'm white, and therefore a racist; thank God, then, for
the ethnic Brits who do realise that it's far too soon for this country to
pile undeserving whitey on top of our more than deserving dark citizens.
Guardian July 28
From: gaismair@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 01 August 2001 02:32
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK
Hmm, interesting that yet again certain Red Action comrades see
something progressive in the reactionary rants of bourgeois journo
Birchill. Is she a RA sleeper perhaps? Or just another ranting psuedo
stalinist that RA thinks offers a valuable insight?
Birchill has always been keen to shock, without actually challenging
the system that employs her. From her early days on The Face, where
she bastardised her dad's stalinist views if it offered good copy, to
her employment by various capitalist papers (where even industrial
action by the workforce didn't deter her quest for profit), she has
never actually stood for a progressive working class viewpoint,
whatever her nods in the direction of class have been.
Her views on multi-cultralism are designed to mildly upset her
bourgeois mates, while at the same time maintaining her one constant
political belief of English superiority and nationalism (witness how
proud she was that a black woman attacked gypsies, thereby showing
her English credentials).
So why are RA so desperate for allies that they uncritically reprint
this reactionary tosh (and, interestingly, cut of its worst racist
content without aknowledgement by RA that they have done so)? Are
they so willing to ignore genuine cultural differences, many of which
were so vividly exposed and analysed by revolutionary socialists like
CLR James, that they lapse into a crude stalinist workerism of the
kind that says if only we can talk of class then racism will as if by
magic dissapear? Will we for once see a positive socialist programme
from RA that can unite working class communities from different
ethnic backrounds, rather than their normal limited, if easily
effective, attacks on the libralism inherant in the SWP/ANL strategy?
Jim D. Liverpool.
From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 01 August 2001 12:14
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK
I thought I answered much your rather tired and dishonest criticisms
in an extensive exchange not too long ago. Typically you choose to
ignore it. As RA has repeatedly pointed out, the SWP/ANL (and now
Socialist Alliance) strategy is merely a *symptom* of a wider
political dysfunction. In terms of race and class that dysfunction is
best illustrated by the happy clappy support for the racialisation
of practically all social issues. There are genuine cultural
differences within the working class, not all based on colour either.
So the choice is simple; you either choose to overcome the
differences or to - exaggerate them and set them in stone. The BNP
are unrepentant about what they see as a solution, what about you?
For a fuller analyis see Race and Class: www.redaction.org
In the meantime skulking behind ungrammatical phrases
like 'workerism' adds nothing to the debate.
From: hfbj_parasol@hotmail.com
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 01 August 2001 12:49
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK
--- In UK_Left_Network@y..., gary_ohalloran@y... wrote:
> In the meantime skulking behind ungrammatical phrases
> like 'workerism' adds nothing to the debate.
Firstly 'workerism' is a word not a phrase so trying to dodge a
political point by attacking Jim's grammar kind of falls flat...
Now, his charge of workerism is perfectly valid- you do
downplay 'race' in favour of bread and butter 'class' issues. By
contrast you say 'the left' exaggerate racial issues and thus
contribute to the 'problem'.
The irony is that when it comes to Ireland you take a diametrically
opposed line. If you were consistent you would reject Republicanism
as being part of the problem and say that 'if only' Catholics and
Protestants would unite over 'class' issues everything would be hunky-
dory.
Rob.
From: Jim Drysdale <jimd48@btinternet.com>
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 01 August 2001 13:25
Subject: Re: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK
From Jim Drysdale,
***** Rob writes....
SNIP> If you were consistent you would reject Republicanism
>as being part of the problem and say that 'if only' Catholics and
>Protestants would unite over 'class' issues everything would be hunky-
>dory.
***** Whether or not things would be honky dory, the fact is that as
capital declines *united working class solutions* become what they have
always been in capitalist society.....the *only* solutions. The only
solutions to all ills of this declining society no matter where, with whom,
between whom and on every single issue, without exception. So, we can wind
and water away, but this process *is* going on regardless of how much wind
and water we generate.
***** Declining forms are always the last to see there own decline. Ask
*any* sectarian group. Some may think that they have the moral high
ground.....but that was *given* to them by capital and *not* because
intrinsically they are better human beings. Would oppressed sections of the
working class have *historically refused* the better paid jobs if offered
them on mass? I think not. The protestant work ethic is a figment created
for capital by capital. And many a good catholic buys right into it for the
self-same reasons.
***** try to see decline chaps and chappesses. Holding to old biases or
prejudices means only that some *fail* to see the essence of decline. The
biggest problem is.......it wastes f*......* time. Nonetheless,
historical prejudice can be a comfort zone for those who will not think for
themselves. Un - f* ingfortunately, this is still the majority.
comradely,
Jim.
From: Nick Bryant <bryantnicholas@hotmail.com>
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 02 August 2001 00:11
Subject: Re: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK
So what does this all mean?
1. 'Workerism' is as we all know a 'Trotskyist' term of abuse. In the real
world, no-one would use it because it is bad English. Essentially, it is a
meaningless term. However Jim equates it with Lenin's use of the phrase
'Economism', wrongly in my opinion but why waste time on this, which meant
strategies that dealt only with the consequence of strikes and immediate
labour issues, that didn't take up political issues. He then jumps from that
definition to one related to the left in post apartheid South Africa, where,
he says, "In that situation 'workerism' was actually a very progressive
label. In the context of RA and race and class I think my meaning is pretty
obvious."
Which means what? I don't have a clue. I suspect that all he is saying,
without any evidence of course, is that Red Action are 'bad' or not 'Trots'
(If I'm not wrong, tell me why)for whatever reason comes to mind.
However, there is another reason for RA being attacked as workerist, which
is more important and that is because we are a working class organisation,
that has pro-working class politics. This is why we are attacked for beind
'skinheads', 'racists' etc.
2. "There are other forms of oppression that are only very loosly
tied to the means of production, which is why Lenin spoke of the need
for socialists to be 'tribunes of the people' and to take up all
forms of oppression, including for example religious oppression."
And we don't? RA has been involved for many years with struggles to do with
racism (Bermondsey, Greenwich and others), Ireland (National oppression),
Scotland (National oppression). Amongst many others.
3. Generally Jim, your politics haven't changed since you were in the SWP,
have they? You still don't have a rounded Marxist analysis of society. Have
a look at the RAa website, (www.redaction.org) and weep
Nick
From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 02 August 2001 18:00
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK
Jim Dye: Gary,
>
> Please tell me in what way my criticism of RA uncrtically using
> Birchill was 'dishonest'? Also, you need to expand your reading
> somewhat. Workerism as a term within Marxist debates has been
> around …
ReplY: Why is your approach dishonest? For a whole raft of reasons.
One you attack Burchill for who she is, rather than for what she
wrote. Her crticicims of multiculuralism are never addressed. You
suggest her motivations are reactionary but step around the symmetry
between euro-nationalism and multiculturalism eg mutual calls for
segregated schooling, housing etc. You repeat as mantra that 'RA have
not presented anything postive' when in reality RA are practically
the only ones to address the divide in the working class as a
problem. The majority of the left remain, despite Oldham, Bradford,
Burnley, in denial. A point perfectly illustrated by Tommy Sheridan,
when to justify the existing strategy he was obliged to lie about the
other wise strikingly obvious growth in BNP influence.
(Interestingly, given what subscribers have been drummed off the UK
list for - there was no similar clamour from 'Marxists' for a
rebuttal or a retraction from Sheridan.)
More than anything your dishonesty is exemplified by, and this is by
no means a personal attack, the method of approaching the issue from
the outset. Like much of the left you seem to have learned your
debating skills at college. There, it appears the objective is to
score points at your opponents expense, rather than get to the
truth. 'Winning the argument' rather than resolving the problem is
given primacy. Therefore if your opponent introduces 'the
particular', you parry by empasising the abstract. And vice a versa.
When that dosen't work red herrings are introduced by the box full.
If in really serious trouble there always the retreat in some
orthodoxy or another. (Look at your last post for an example of the
method at work) This is generally how debate is conducted. When on
the rare occassion, you decided in our last discussion to go toe to
toe so to speak, you came out badly. So naturally your return to
dealing with everything as far as is possible, in the abstract:
subjective over objective. In your world then then are no facts
merely - opinions. Thus you can never lose. In the real world, as
events increasingly testify, such a thoroughly dis-honest and of
course self-defeating approach means - you can never win.
Anti-racism is not winning because your approach is rife. But who'll
admit it. Multiculturalism is not progressive, but because it's
confusing to look at alternative strategies, let's all pretend it is.
The BNP are the 'radical alternative' but if Tommy's says their vote
is actually collapsing who are we to argue?
Is this what you call Marxism Jim? While we're on the
subject,'workerism' is not a Marxist term. Marx never used it. It is
instead one of these hackneyed defensives, employed whenever working
class opinion, aspiration or interests come in conflict, or confound
the analysis of people who present themselves as the vanguard. In my
experience, it is most often used as a code word to express some anti-
working class sentiments, but without of course doing so honestly.It
is therefore as thoroughly a *anti-marxist* term as you could
concieve.
RA has not got 'a rounded Marxist perspective' you maintain. Ooh?
Which is why as supposedly anti-marxists RA can identify currents,
indeed predict events, that the ever so Marxists (with big M's)deny
exist. You then demand RA present a 'positive programme' to heal the
racial divide in working class communties, when you and the majority
on the list continue to deny the problems exists, or pretend they
already know the answer. Until you honestly come to terms with why
such a 'positive' strategy is necessary, you are I'm afraid, simply
not ready for it.
Gary
From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK
Date: 02 August 2001 19:23
- In UK_Left_Network@y..., asocialist@h... wrote:
> Ms Burchill's rant has already been posted.
……..
> Whatever happened to Workers of the World Unite?
>
> Neil
Claiming that "all West Indians are muggers" as the NF used to do in
1970's is not best countered by insisting as people like you tend do;
that no black youth are involved in street crime.
From: andrew.g.cutting@btinternet.com
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 02 August 2001 19:24
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK
Julie Burchill's comments here are very astute. The points raised
are.
1) The relation between immigration policy and multiculturalism.
A people (to use a loose term) have a common outlook, common
religion, common culture etc. Throwing together different cultures
divides them in the short term at least. The policy of
multiculturalism reinforces the division. Burchill points out that
this is not a nationalist argument but an internationalist one.
History is richer than the simple division of society into classes.
It is essential to be able to recognise and characterise a national
outlooks. This was very much the method of Marx and Engels. It is
now racsist. Which brings me to:
2) The bit Red Action snipped about Albanians. Eastern Europe has
gone through a series of counter revolutions with the failure of
the old 'socialist' regimes. There have been all manner of illusions
in Western capitalism and in some cases the very fabric of society
has decayed. Witness the rise of the far right in Romania for example.
People in these countries are in despair, they either go forward
to capitalism or backward to stalinism and they don't like either.
The positive program of the Hungarian revolution 1956 seems lost.
It is perfectly reasonable to characterise Albania as a bastion of
reaction. Furthermore, aside from the genuinely persecuted, it is
perfectly reasonable to expect those who flee their own countries to
be the most atomised examples.
Why did Red Action snip this bit? I think they still have
stalinophobic hangups.
3) Thirdly Burchill recognises that the 80's saw a victory for the
right and an adaption to the right by the left. This goes beyond
New Labour...
Andrew
From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 02 August 2001 19:26
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK
-- In UK_Left_Network@y..., hfbj_parasol@h... wrote:
> --- In UK_Left_Network@y..., gary_ohalloran@y... wrote:
> > In the meantime skulking behind ungrammatical phrases
> > like 'workerism' adds nothing to the debate.
>
> Firstly 'workerism' is a word not a phrase so trying to dodge a
> political point by attacking Jim's grammar kind of falls flat.…..
Rob
Reply: Spoken like a perfect idiot Rob, everything in the abstract.
From: gaismair@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 02 August 2001 20:21
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK
A few points...
I'm told, apparently without irony, that 'workerism' is not a marxist
term because Marx never used it. Well, if that is the level of
anyones 'marxism' then I feel a great deal of pity for them. Marxism
is a method, NOT a recourse to holy texts and Victorian linguistic
styles. Using this method of distinguishing marxism I'm afraid you
would have to discount some important contributions from people like
Lenin on the grounds that Marx never used his terminology...
Now, on the subject under debate, I find it interesting that when Red
Action get challenged for uncritically using a pretty nasty and
offensive article by Birchill simply because part of it backed up
their own worldview, not one of their supporters on this list answers
the criticism, or explains why one of the most racist comments from
Birchill was cut without aknowledgement. Now, I'll admit I don't like
Birchill, and never have done. Her politics, such as they are, are a
of a confused and bastardised version of stalinism that she inherited
from her dad (which she has often aknowleged), combined with a
tabloid journalist instinct for simplistic shock value rants. That is
why she was so popular for a time working for Murdoch. As to this
particular article I thought it was a few valid points on the failure
of liberalist anti-racist strategies mixed with a vile nationalism...
As to multi-cultralism, well we are certainly not going to be able to
cover this broad subject properly here, but I will make a few points.
Firstly, I believe that RA use it simply in terms of how the liberals
have done. Furthermore, when it comes to issues like seperate
religious schools etc then I am totally opposed to that also. In fact
the goverments proposals to increase state funded religious schools
have been largely opposed by the Labour Party rank and file who
correctly see it as an attack on the traditional commitments to
secular comprehensive education. Also, when seen as merely self
interested community leaders fighting over limited local authority
handouts, then again this is not a multi-cultralism that I would
defend.
However, the concept is not inherently reactionary, it depends what
class and what class interessts are involved. The unions are are good
example where much good anti-racist campaigning among the memberships
has been done on the basis of combining class unity with respect for
cultural differences. As part of this, the ability of ethnic
monorities to self-organise within the unions has been hard won, but
very effective when it comes to making black voices heard in what
have often been quite racist institutions. The result is that those
who have suffered from decades of racism (overt and
institutionalised) have gained some power to develop strategies to
combat it. In my expetrience this has aided anti-racist work within
class organisations without weakening class unity. My impression is
that RA pay very little attention to this area of working class
organisation (and before anyone raises the point I'm not ignoring the
fact that in areas of high unemployment this has limited effects).
I also want to briefly reiterate one of the criticisms already made
against RA in this debate that the logic of their position on race
should lead them to oppose nationalist organisations such as the IRA,
for example. Or what of cultral nationalism such as the fight to
defend the Welsh language? Do RA attack this in the same way they
atack the wishes of ethnic minority communities to maintain their
traditions and culture? And if they don't attack Welsh nationalists
(or Scottish or Irish ones for that matter) then why not? You see,
minority communities wishing to maintain their culture is not in
itself reactionary (and I include white English communities here).
Nor does it necessarily lead to a situation where class unity breaks
down. What has happened is that the liberal multi-cultural agenda,
and the labourite local authorities who force communities to fight
for crumbs, have allowed the situation of increasing racial tensions
to develop that we are witnessing today simply because class has been
lost. Just like in the unions, respect for cultural differences, and
allowences for them, is not wrong. What is wrong is the failure of
the left to develop a socialist strategy that welcomes and accepts
working class diversity but at the same time fights for a
revolutionary class line. That is why I'll repat what I said a while
back, RA have only got it part right...
Fraternally,
Jim D. Liverpool.
From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 04 August 2001 17:00
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK
Jim D:
Apart from the various caveats which I will deal with, it does appear
the core message is getting through albiet ...slowly.
The funniest bit in your reply is that "RA use it [multiculturalism]
in terms of how the liberals have done". Yes it is true RA interpret
multiculturalism - as it is applied. It is applied and supported by
liberals. It is afterall of liberal design is it not? That should
have been sufficient reason to regard it from the ourset with
suspicion. Particularly as this is a strategy that emphatically
places 'culture'; a mere euphemism for race, over class. "Not
inherently reactionary" you maintain. Tell that to the BNP!
You then point out that "minority communities wishing to maintain
their own culture is not in itself reactionary." Well, who said it
was? However it is a point that goes to the heart of the matter.
Cultures are living things; and as such they change. Preserving
culture or attempting to do so, is an attempt to pretend that things
remain the same. But multiculturalism is not simply about respecting
cultures or respecting differences, it is about searching out, and
promoting difference. As the municipal funds devoted to the project
testify, it is overwhelmingly a POLITICAL strategy. It is a political
strategy moreover which has the fulsome support of all the major
parties. Nor is it trendy. For with varying degrees of emphasis
the 'promotion of diversity' has been government policy since - 1963.
Now ask yourself why for forty years, the British establishment has
backed a strategy that promotes and indeed funds racial and cultural
differences?
Why for that matter does culture, to be maintained, need to be
funded? After all Irish culture survived 800 years of oppression and
the famine. Jewish culture survived the Holocaust. Stripped down
multiculturalism is not about 'respect' it is about dividing the
class enemy against itself, at a grass roots community level (the
precise opposite to anti-racism when you think about it). The
divisions that have been sown are now manifesting themselves
politically - inter communal riots being the extreme end of a build
up of mutual hatred and resentment. So multiculturalism IS working.
Rather too well for certain members of the establishment,particularly
as Griffin's BNP is appropriating the language and more importantly
the logic of ethnic seperatism and funding, and using it to
attack 'ivory tower liberalism' that originated the plan in the first
place.
Ultimately as is increasingly obvious; the choice for the left is
between an anti-racism, 'where everyone is treated the same', and
sticking with multiculuralism where everyone is treated - different.
As for the other points raised:
Burchill: the lengthy quotes from her article were used, as it
explained in the introduction, to illustrate how increasingly the
mainstream media is seeing through the multicultural pieties, and the
contrast with so-called revolutionary left who steadfastedly stand by
an establishment strategy -even when the only beneficaries are the
far-right.
Marxism: yes 'Marxism' is not an idelogy but a method. But try
explaining that to Trotskyites!
The IRA: this I beleive is a red-herring, introduced by I'd say an
SWP member unable to deal with the issues raised head on. But again
the answer is straighforward: in the fight against the British ruling
class, you either support the IRA against the common enemy or you
support the common front sponsored by the state against the IRA.
Afterall the support for the IRA in the Six Counties particularly
amongst the working class, was chiefly because Unionist 'culture'
demanded that nationalists be suppressed. SF/IRA is still demanding
even now that everyone be treated 'the same'. Once again the majority
of the Left (if not all) as with with multiculturalism, are on the
wrong side of the argument. As for the fcuking Labour Party...
From: JBooth9192@aol.com
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 04 August 2001 19:16
Subject: Re: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK
> The IRA: this I beleive is a red-herring, introduced by I'd say an SWP
> member unable to deal with the issues raised head on. But again the answer
> is straighforward: in the fight against the British ruling class, you
> either support the IRA against the common enemy or you support the common
> front sponsored by the state against the IRA.
Sorry, but I don't think this answer is 'straightforward' at all. In other
arguments, you have urged us (usually correctly, sometimes
over-simplistically) to see things in cut-and-dried class terms. Yet on this
issue, you don't. Instead, you follow a line of "my enemy's enemy is my
friend". If independent working-class politics is to come to the fore in
Ireland, we have to challenge the notion of uncritical support for a party /
movement based only on one community.
And on the issue of multi-culturalism ... You make valid points about how
bourgeois multiculturalism has promoted difference and obscured class.
However, I think to condemn the notion of 'multiculturalism' per se is to
throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think it is a good thing to promote
tolerance and understanding amongst our class. The ruling class's version of
'multiculturalism' does not do that: but working-class militants should.
What would you do if ...?
... an opinion pollster stopped you in the street and asked 'Do you believe
in multi-culturalism?', giving only a Yes/No choice? I would answer 'Yes'.
And a lot of scumbags would answer 'No'.
... and my son's nursery is holding an 'international week' in a couple of
weeks' time. Do I think this is a good thing? Yes. Will I also try to explain
to him that it doesn't matter what country people come from? Yes.
I know these are simplistic, even trivial, examples. But I am concerned that
some people are adding 'multiculturalism' to the list of things that
socialists should condemn. I don't think that is helpful: it could even be
dangerous.
Janine
From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 04 August 2001 22:30
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK
-- In UK_Left_Network@y..., JBooth9192@a... wrote:
> Janine
Janine, RA has never argued that support for the republican movement
was 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' . Nor did I do so. Now, or in the
past, in 'cut and dried class terms' support of revolutionaries for
the goals of a united Ireland, and indeed the armed struggle, should
have been axiomatic. Today in relation to both the Six Counties and
in Ireland as a whole Sinn Fein should be recognised as progressive.
Instead is attacked by so-called socialists as 'anti-working class'.
A particularly silly allegation when it self evidently is party which
is itself top to bottom, working class, and more to the point enjoys
mass working class support - unlike I might add its detractors.
Janine you also argue that SF should not be given uncritical support,
when, as far as can see it it does not get even *critical* support.
Instead there comes from the Brit Left more or less uncritical
condemnation. Is it republicans fault that working class loyalism is
most accurately defined as 'parochial fascism'? A little bit hard on
republicans to blamed for this, when along with Britian's military
occupation, it is this most reactionary of forces politically and
militarily it is actually confronting.
On the other hand SF is itself steadily working toward
an 'independent working class position' - where it is able - in the
26 Counties. RA believes they should be encouraged. Indeed there is
much to admire.
Instead, along with some others you have tried to tease out some
contradiction between RA's criticism of multiculuralism and support
for republicanism. There is none. Or at least, when you consider that
not a single multiculturalist condemned the attempts to deliberatley
incinerate the drinkers in the working mens club during the Bradford
riots, not on our side. If you get my drift.
>
Finally I notice you refer to the 'ruling classes multiculturalism'
and 'bourgeois multiculturalism'. What other kind is there? Next
you'll be seeking to make a distinction between 'our loyalism' and
the 'bourgeois version'. I think you'll find the Socialist Party
already have that angle well covered.
From: JBooth9192@aol.com
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 07 August 2001 21:17
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK
gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk writes:
> Finally I notice you refer to the 'ruling classes multiculturalism' and
> 'bourgeois multiculturalism'. What other kind is there?
Working-class multi-culturalism. Just as there also is:
- ruling-class justice and working-class justice;
- bourgeois democracy and working-class democracy;
- their morality and ours.
I accept many of the points about how counter-productive state-sponsored
'multi-culturalism' is - and also how some approaches on the left have
over-emphasised race and obscured class. (I also think some 'multi-cultural'
approaches have excused the oppression of women.)
However, I think it is positively healthy to campaign for tolerance and
mutual respect amongst working-class communities. I also think that the
creativity of working-class people the world over has produced a rich
treasury of culture - and that we should all enjoy its great diversity.
The problem with your condemning multi-culturalism is that it can be taken to
mean that you want a uniform, white British culture free from foreign
pollution. That's what the BNP mean when they oppose 'multi-culturalism
forced on an unwilling native population'. How to distinguish your views from
those of the BNP? Be clearer about what you mean; and don't throw the baby
out with the bathwater.
Janine
From: Jim Drysdale
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 08 August 2001 01:49
Subject: Re: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK
From Jim Drysdale,
***** some comment on Janine's words....
***** Janine writes....
>
>Working-class multi-culturalism. Just as there also is:
>- ruling-class justice and working-class justice;
>- bourgeois democracy and working-class democracy;
>- their morality and ours.
***** this, from Janine, IMO, fairly typical of romantic notions of, and
moral righteousness given, to the working class. Point.....as of yet, the
working class are in themselves but are not for themselves. Thus, to see
them as having a sense of justice or a sense of democracy or higher moral
standards separate from the ruling capitalist class is irrational. Not
irrational merely in its articulation but irrational in its essence.
Moreover, this form of idealistic thought can lead to dangers. Not the
least being that those who are in a position to deliver it to our class are
doing so from a totally subjective position having absolutely no bearing on
reality. The struggle for socialism *is not* a competition between the
classes fought on the battle grounds of wish lists, moral argument or high
ideals. Class struggle, in capitalist society, is the fight over access to
amounts of value. For the worker this is expressed in wage. For the
capitalist, profit as amounts of surplus value. Capital has not one atom
of humanity. It neither thinks nor feels nor has morals. The
personifications of capital, the capitalist class, are, like the rest of us,
driven by the dynamic of capital. Evolving society and all evolving social
relations the result. Including, thought. Thus, future society, where
social relations progressively cease to be between the value of things and
more in the conscious interactions of the direct producers, will indeed
manifest different forms of social relationships. As of now, comrade, it is
romantic to see future society as already here. And, dangerous. Suggest
that you acquire more in-depth understanding of the essence of the society
that you actually live in.
***** you write....
>
>I accept many of the points about how counter-productive state-sponsored
>'multi-culturalism' is - and also how some approaches on the left have
>over-emphasised race and obscured class. (I also think some 'multi-cultural'
>approaches have excused the oppression of women.)
***** On this I merely state that the atomisation and fragmentation of the
working class (in its entirety) is both created by capital and encouraged by
the personifications of capital.....solely in the interests of capital. So,
again, absolutely no moral argument. And, the only time that any section
of the working class, including women, will cease to be exploited (oppressed
if 'you' wish) is precisely when capital has been superseded. Not a second
before.
***** you write.....
>
>However, I think it is positively healthy to campaign for tolerance and
>mutual respect amongst working-class communities. I also think that the
>creativity of working-class people the world over has produced a rich
>treasury of culture - and that we should all enjoy its great diversity.
***** It is positively irrational to campaign (morally) for tolerance and
mutual respect amongst working class communities when what unites these
communities is poverty and deprivation created solely by capital. Even
more so by capital in decline. It would suit more on the left bettter if
they came to terms with capital. Then, this kind of bleeding heart *common
sense* socialism would be consigned to the dustbin were it belongs. The
left are not elastoplast nannies. Our class require understanding of their
plight not celebration of it. It's not tolerance between deprived
communities that the left should be encouraging but total and abject
intolerance, based on clarity, of the singular all-encompassing reason of
why they are deprived and impoverished. Countless millions of our class
are only too aware of the harshness of their poverty.
And, almost all of what you call working class culture (that focusses on the
plight of the class) comes from deep deep alienation. Why we should all
enjoy this diversity, god only knows. If you are referring to festivals etc
then, seeing these as the pinnacle of working class culture, means *only*
the pinnacle that can be achieved in capitalist society. Bastardised and
travestied. As are all other human relations in this society.
***** Read comrade and escape from the chains of *common sense* socialism.
comradely,
Jim
