When you're a whining critical arsehole like me, you get asked a lot: "What would YOU do then?" It's a fair question.
While personally, I like to think well of Long-Bailey, and as such I think she made a mistake rather than actually being an anti-semite - (after all, it wasn't her interview, most of which was about how much the Tories suck) I can also see that clearly, some house cleaning has to be done on the Left.
How, who knows - or if it's even possible, considering just how quick the British Left is to blame Israel for everything, even when it's literally on a different continent to the problem at hand, I would say it is definitely systemically anti-semitic - yet there's always hope.
I don't know how to get there, the journey would have to involve some kind of period of long, sober reflection, but I know what the end product should be.
So what should a New New Left look like? What should the Left do?
* The Left is nothing if it isn't ultimately about economics - cold hard cash.
So the New New Left would be laser-focussed on economic matters. The anarcho-capitalists are right, money really does unite us all, we all need more, and we are all being robbed blind by the same system. Without in any way wanting to detract from wider social justice struggles, which can (and should) belong to the wider society, the Left should be more about money, about prosperity and why that prosperity isn't being shared.
* The Left should of course support social justice, environmental, and minority rights struggles. But it should not, and MUST NOT attempt to monopolize or hijack them.
We've seen it time and again, on the one hand with miserable Trots like the SWP hijacking these issues for their own purposes, and on the other with Leftists generally taking their eyes off the prize of economic redistribution and latching onto increasingly obscure issues such as the endless conflict in the Middle East, which has become a toxic running sore beloved of racists and arseholes the world over.
The Left should cut through that nonsense and issue general memoranda of support for peace where the problem is complicated and intractable, as with Israel / Palestine, and issue specific statements in support of no-brainers such as BLM, where the problem is simple but not directly related to the wider economic issues.
Again, the focus must remain on the distribution of wealth in the wider society. Don't get caught up in the Right's culture wars, they are designed to divide people, not unite them.
* The Left must change its own culture.
From one where those it supports are patronized as victims, to one where the proletariat are genuinely supported and lifted up, emotionally as well as economically, as those who actually do the work in society. Nobody likes to be told they are a loser, and right now the Left poisons its support base with a patronizing narrative in which the poor, pathetic working classes are patted on the head and told they deserve more handouts, rather than shown how they too can gain real concrete results for themselves.
* Leftist discourse must be about bringing people up, not pulling them down.
Leftist discourse has also become poisonous in the way it treats people generally - The classic example is how Twitter leftists are constantly pulling each other down, or trying to bring down celebrities who have in some way trespassed. Policing public morality is not our job. Our job is to gain political power and facilitate the transfer of power and wealth towards to the proletariat. It's not supposed to be about "cancelling" people we don't like and bringing people down - it is supposed to be about bringing people up.
* The Left MUST STOP supporting causes and organisations that actively harm it.
There are two obvious examples - the aforementioned poisonous and intractable Middle East conflict, and (to a much, much lower degree), its obsession with defending the BBC. Everything that can be said about the Middle East has already been said, so I'll talk about the Left's relationship with the BBC, which is a good example of this phenomenon but without the emotional baggage of the miserable, horrible Israel / Palestine debate.
The BBC is a State broadcaster. As such, it is a tool of the government of the day. If the Tories really do want to shoot themselves in the foot by doing away with it, that is their mistake to make - do not, under any circumstances, defend that gang of propagandists. They aren't your friends, they certainly aren't journalists, they are a tool of government - and you will have to treat them every bit as roughly as the Tories do if you ever gain power.
This is not to say, don't be media savvy - you must be media savvy. But don't spend hours and hours going on about how much you love the licence fee - remember, the TV licence fee is a regressive tax which is levied on rich and poor alike so as to benefit a giant corporation, and therefore profoundly and intrinsically reactionary. It should be abolished anyway.
Monday 29 June 2020
Saturday 20 June 2020
"Churchill was antifa!"
"Churchill was antifa!"
I came up with this zinger myself, but it's hardly original. Billy Bragg Tweeted it once, and copped a load of shit as a result. Me, I just thought it would be a cool thing to yell at fascists.
It made me think, though: How has it got to the point where fascists can appropriate Churchill, possibly history's most famous anti-fascist, and anti-fascists routinely condemn Churchill?
How, in short, has anti-fascism become an extreme position?
Anti-fascism is traditionally a mainstream position - and it has been until now. Not only WWII but the Falklands War and both Gulf Wars were fought on the basis of a bipartisan consensus that Fascism was bad, and resisting Fascism was, you know, good. The normal point of view.
The problem seems to be that anti-fascism as a political position has been appropriated by the anarchist contingent in particular, and what some call the "extreme" Left in general. This may have been inevitable as mainstream politics became more Rightwing, but modern antifascist activists have accelerated the process when, counter-intuitively, they should have been resisting it.
Then there is the issue of historical revisionism on the Left, which has chosen this exact moment to demonize Churchill. Now, Churchill really was kind of a bastard (to put it mildly), however it is spectacularly bad timing to "cancel" him just as the far Right are making a demigod out of him, when you consider that he led a coalition that destroyed Fascism.
The main problem though, is this: The anarchists have managed to make anti-fascism seem like an extreme position. They have played straight into the hands of the extreme Right, who try to portray themselves as reasonable, calm, interested in debate, and above all, holders of a mainstream, "normal" position - and then along come a load of sinister looking, black clad weirdoes who hide their identities and scream abuse - and the effect on anti-fascist activity is devastating.
When Fascists started showing up in my town, around 2012 or so, they were run out on a rail. At their peak, the anti-EDL demos had the entire city out on the streets - every decent, ordinary person showed up. This was in the mid 2010s.
Now, you're lucky to get an overgrown bus queue.
Some advice for the comrades
So here's my advice for the Left:
(1) STOP going on about fucking Churchill. I don't care what he did - you are NOT going to win a culture war on the subject of his legacy as he is still VERY POPULAR in England, you're just gonna have to leave that argument for another day. Pick your battles - There are more important things to talk about and do right now.
(2) BROADEN the anti-fascist movement. I don't mean broaden as in, let the Trots in (as they will run it into the ground like they do everything). I mean, broaden it as in let everyone in who subscribes to a basic premise that the far Right are not welcome on our streets (except the Trots, because fuck those guys).
Do this even if you have to work with Lib Dems and Tories (I mean, if you have to) - but especially with a view to recruiting what the online Right call "normies", people who consider themselves either apolitical or part of the political mainstream. Why? Because (a) that's how the Fascists came back - they did everything possible to appeal to "normal people", not freaks like us - and (b) anti-fascism used to be so mainstream that even Churchill, an arch-rightwinger, was anti-fascist. In fact, since the Fash seem to be trying to appropriate the man, you should probably make a point of mentioning that. Every time you see one of those skinheads: "Churchill was an anti-fascist!"
This brings me to another mistake that anti-fascists make, which is assuming that only violence can get fascists off the streets. Now I'm no pacifist... but surely the major reason fascists show up is because there is a promise of some violence! As long as there are more of them than there are of you, you aren't going to win - it's a numbers game.
If half the city shows up, you won't need to use violence - or rather, if it is necessary to use it, our side is guaranteed to win because the Fash will be outnumbered ten, twenty, a hundred to one! But you can only do that if you get anti-fascism out of the anarchist / leftist ghetto and back into the mainstream.
Obligatory quote time
I have a favourite Churchill quote of my own:
“If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.”
This remark was supposedly made during World War II, when Churchill was considering an alliance with Stalin's Soviet Union following the Nazi invasion of Russia. As a right wing, racist Tory bastard, he had to build an alliance with a Communist state, people whom he had attacked in the past and would consider attacking four years later - HAD TO, because their mutual enemy was even more dangerous to him.
You can't afford to be overly picky about your allies when the Nazis are on the march, and the only reason they're able to paint you as extremists right now is because you ARE extremists. You've made yourselves into that by insisting that your supporters pass all kinds of political purity tests and vigorously denouncing people who are on your side when they fail to live up to your very high expectations.
I happen to quite like you guys, and I agree with most of what you say - but nonetheless, anarcho-communism isn't a mainstream political position and you're not going to build an effective anti-fascist movement on the back of it. So forget the purity tests and start recruiting normies - your future depends on it.
I came up with this zinger myself, but it's hardly original. Billy Bragg Tweeted it once, and copped a load of shit as a result. Me, I just thought it would be a cool thing to yell at fascists.
It made me think, though: How has it got to the point where fascists can appropriate Churchill, possibly history's most famous anti-fascist, and anti-fascists routinely condemn Churchill?
How, in short, has anti-fascism become an extreme position?
Anti-fascism is traditionally a mainstream position - and it has been until now. Not only WWII but the Falklands War and both Gulf Wars were fought on the basis of a bipartisan consensus that Fascism was bad, and resisting Fascism was, you know, good. The normal point of view.
The problem seems to be that anti-fascism as a political position has been appropriated by the anarchist contingent in particular, and what some call the "extreme" Left in general. This may have been inevitable as mainstream politics became more Rightwing, but modern antifascist activists have accelerated the process when, counter-intuitively, they should have been resisting it.
Then there is the issue of historical revisionism on the Left, which has chosen this exact moment to demonize Churchill. Now, Churchill really was kind of a bastard (to put it mildly), however it is spectacularly bad timing to "cancel" him just as the far Right are making a demigod out of him, when you consider that he led a coalition that destroyed Fascism.
The main problem though, is this: The anarchists have managed to make anti-fascism seem like an extreme position. They have played straight into the hands of the extreme Right, who try to portray themselves as reasonable, calm, interested in debate, and above all, holders of a mainstream, "normal" position - and then along come a load of sinister looking, black clad weirdoes who hide their identities and scream abuse - and the effect on anti-fascist activity is devastating.
When Fascists started showing up in my town, around 2012 or so, they were run out on a rail. At their peak, the anti-EDL demos had the entire city out on the streets - every decent, ordinary person showed up. This was in the mid 2010s.
Now, you're lucky to get an overgrown bus queue.
Some advice for the comrades
So here's my advice for the Left:
(1) STOP going on about fucking Churchill. I don't care what he did - you are NOT going to win a culture war on the subject of his legacy as he is still VERY POPULAR in England, you're just gonna have to leave that argument for another day. Pick your battles - There are more important things to talk about and do right now.
(2) BROADEN the anti-fascist movement. I don't mean broaden as in, let the Trots in (as they will run it into the ground like they do everything). I mean, broaden it as in let everyone in who subscribes to a basic premise that the far Right are not welcome on our streets (except the Trots, because fuck those guys).
Do this even if you have to work with Lib Dems and Tories (I mean, if you have to) - but especially with a view to recruiting what the online Right call "normies", people who consider themselves either apolitical or part of the political mainstream. Why? Because (a) that's how the Fascists came back - they did everything possible to appeal to "normal people", not freaks like us - and (b) anti-fascism used to be so mainstream that even Churchill, an arch-rightwinger, was anti-fascist. In fact, since the Fash seem to be trying to appropriate the man, you should probably make a point of mentioning that. Every time you see one of those skinheads: "Churchill was an anti-fascist!"
This brings me to another mistake that anti-fascists make, which is assuming that only violence can get fascists off the streets. Now I'm no pacifist... but surely the major reason fascists show up is because there is a promise of some violence! As long as there are more of them than there are of you, you aren't going to win - it's a numbers game.
If half the city shows up, you won't need to use violence - or rather, if it is necessary to use it, our side is guaranteed to win because the Fash will be outnumbered ten, twenty, a hundred to one! But you can only do that if you get anti-fascism out of the anarchist / leftist ghetto and back into the mainstream.
Obligatory quote time
I have a favourite Churchill quote of my own:
“If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.”
This remark was supposedly made during World War II, when Churchill was considering an alliance with Stalin's Soviet Union following the Nazi invasion of Russia. As a right wing, racist Tory bastard, he had to build an alliance with a Communist state, people whom he had attacked in the past and would consider attacking four years later - HAD TO, because their mutual enemy was even more dangerous to him.
You can't afford to be overly picky about your allies when the Nazis are on the march, and the only reason they're able to paint you as extremists right now is because you ARE extremists. You've made yourselves into that by insisting that your supporters pass all kinds of political purity tests and vigorously denouncing people who are on your side when they fail to live up to your very high expectations.
I happen to quite like you guys, and I agree with most of what you say - but nonetheless, anarcho-communism isn't a mainstream political position and you're not going to build an effective anti-fascist movement on the back of it. So forget the purity tests and start recruiting normies - your future depends on it.
Tuesday 16 June 2020
A letter from a white guy to black people (CC'd to other white leftists)
I live in Bristol, and I didn't make the big demo when Colston fell, or any of the other ones. I have been thinking a lot about what's going on, and here is a letter to black people explaining some of my, perhaps even our (ie, white people's) thought processes. White leftists should read it as well, although it is not addressed to them.
I don't know if it's even called for - but I have to say something, I have to explain myself.
I'm chicken. I'm afraid of catching and / or spreading COVID-19, I'm afraid of having my head stoved in, I'm afraid of ending up in a boring, pointless time suck of a poxy leftie demo, and, I have to admit, to my shame, to some extent I'm afraid of black people. (If it's any consolation, I'm not that crazy about whites, either.)
I really did think there was a chance that the demo could turn into a violent settling of scores. I'd seen footage of the disturbances in London, something like 17 coppers badly battered and who knows how many demonstrators (in one clip, I saw a horse bolting into the crowd) - and while I happen to know there are indeed legitimate scores to be settled between Bristol's black community and the local cops, I don't desire to join in. I guess you could say that was my white privelige - as a middle aged white man I do not have any personal beef with the cops and my heart just wouldn't be in it. Also, I don't want to get arrested.
In my defence, I also have to say that I am very mouthy and have a very short temper, especially when it comes to this sort of thing. I can easily see myself getting into a situation where I could cause trouble for other people. I've also been known to go off half cocked at my own side. I didn't think the protest needed an angry white man who likes to make everything about himself - it's not for me to say what black people should do at their own demos!
My background, politically speaking, is Marxist. We Marxists don't have a lot of time for discussions about race. It makes us feel uncomfortable. Our stock response tends to be of the "we're all the same, unite and fight" variety, and we see racism as an unpleasant throwback to pre-modern times which the ruling classes use as a distraction from The Class Struggle, which is our main, if not our only concern.
We're a lot more like the unconsciously racist white liberals than we like to think - we see ourselves as allies, sure, but we complain incessantly about being "guilt tripped" and frequently refer to Black struggles as "a distraction", even a "bourgeois" one.
You are, it should go without saying, not a bourgeois distraction.
We need to listen and think
That is what we are like. We don't generally want to be assholes and we're not generally personally racist, but it's definitely true that many of us are reluctant to listen and learn, and the racism of the wider society does trickle down to us. I suppose we are all a little bit racist.
I for one appreciate the patience and restraint of Black activists. Again, we genuinely want to help - but there is indeed resistance. Nobody likes being told home truths about themselves.
Anyone who is involved in politics is liable to be somewhat narcissistic - it's a peril of the trade. That certainly goes for me. Narcissists don't like to listen and think - they (we?) already know we are the centre of the universe and that we know everything. We have an opinion about everything, even, sometimes especially, things we know nothing about. We like to make things about ourselves.
But it's not a futile effort. We may be narcissistic, but most of us are not full on, medically diagnosable narcissists. We can be reached. We were all shocked and horrified by the murder of George Floyd and the current situation is teaching us, slowly but surely.
Please bear with us.
White Privilege
About a year or so ago, I had several conversations online about White Privilege. This was in the context of the Extinction Rebellion protests and the lack of Black involvement. I strongly resisted the notion that I, a long term benefit claimant, ex-homeless, resident of a council estate, was in any way "privileged". What about Barack Obama? My opinion was that White Privilege was a middle class, academic construct designed to divide people and detract from The Class Struggle with grievance politics.
I was wrong.
I now understand that the white privilege isn't that you get to live in a cramped council flat - it's that you get to live at all.
White Privilege isn't that you get to live in shitty squats for years on end because you are homeless - it's that you get to break into empty buildings and change the locks on a regular basis without getting arrested. Why do you think there are so few black squatters?
White Privilege isn't that you get to interact with coppers without fearing arrest - it's that you get to interact with the police without fearing death.
Yes, people do get aggravated in online discussions - don't you? In fact, that's another privilege we whites enjoy - we get to be pissed off. When white people are all pissed off, we're "just blowing off steam" or at most, "trolling" - when black people are all pissed off, you've "got a chip on your shoulder", and are "causing drama". I appreciate this now.
I am so, so sorry. I love you all.
I don't know if it's even called for - but I have to say something, I have to explain myself.
I'm chicken. I'm afraid of catching and / or spreading COVID-19, I'm afraid of having my head stoved in, I'm afraid of ending up in a boring, pointless time suck of a poxy leftie demo, and, I have to admit, to my shame, to some extent I'm afraid of black people. (If it's any consolation, I'm not that crazy about whites, either.)
I really did think there was a chance that the demo could turn into a violent settling of scores. I'd seen footage of the disturbances in London, something like 17 coppers badly battered and who knows how many demonstrators (in one clip, I saw a horse bolting into the crowd) - and while I happen to know there are indeed legitimate scores to be settled between Bristol's black community and the local cops, I don't desire to join in. I guess you could say that was my white privelige - as a middle aged white man I do not have any personal beef with the cops and my heart just wouldn't be in it. Also, I don't want to get arrested.
In my defence, I also have to say that I am very mouthy and have a very short temper, especially when it comes to this sort of thing. I can easily see myself getting into a situation where I could cause trouble for other people. I've also been known to go off half cocked at my own side. I didn't think the protest needed an angry white man who likes to make everything about himself - it's not for me to say what black people should do at their own demos!
My background, politically speaking, is Marxist. We Marxists don't have a lot of time for discussions about race. It makes us feel uncomfortable. Our stock response tends to be of the "we're all the same, unite and fight" variety, and we see racism as an unpleasant throwback to pre-modern times which the ruling classes use as a distraction from The Class Struggle, which is our main, if not our only concern.
We're a lot more like the unconsciously racist white liberals than we like to think - we see ourselves as allies, sure, but we complain incessantly about being "guilt tripped" and frequently refer to Black struggles as "a distraction", even a "bourgeois" one.
You are, it should go without saying, not a bourgeois distraction.
We need to listen and think
That is what we are like. We don't generally want to be assholes and we're not generally personally racist, but it's definitely true that many of us are reluctant to listen and learn, and the racism of the wider society does trickle down to us. I suppose we are all a little bit racist.
I for one appreciate the patience and restraint of Black activists. Again, we genuinely want to help - but there is indeed resistance. Nobody likes being told home truths about themselves.
Anyone who is involved in politics is liable to be somewhat narcissistic - it's a peril of the trade. That certainly goes for me. Narcissists don't like to listen and think - they (we?) already know we are the centre of the universe and that we know everything. We have an opinion about everything, even, sometimes especially, things we know nothing about. We like to make things about ourselves.
But it's not a futile effort. We may be narcissistic, but most of us are not full on, medically diagnosable narcissists. We can be reached. We were all shocked and horrified by the murder of George Floyd and the current situation is teaching us, slowly but surely.
Please bear with us.
White Privilege
About a year or so ago, I had several conversations online about White Privilege. This was in the context of the Extinction Rebellion protests and the lack of Black involvement. I strongly resisted the notion that I, a long term benefit claimant, ex-homeless, resident of a council estate, was in any way "privileged". What about Barack Obama? My opinion was that White Privilege was a middle class, academic construct designed to divide people and detract from The Class Struggle with grievance politics.
I was wrong.
I now understand that the white privilege isn't that you get to live in a cramped council flat - it's that you get to live at all.
White Privilege isn't that you get to live in shitty squats for years on end because you are homeless - it's that you get to break into empty buildings and change the locks on a regular basis without getting arrested. Why do you think there are so few black squatters?
White Privilege isn't that you get to interact with coppers without fearing arrest - it's that you get to interact with the police without fearing death.
Yes, people do get aggravated in online discussions - don't you? In fact, that's another privilege we whites enjoy - we get to be pissed off. When white people are all pissed off, we're "just blowing off steam" or at most, "trolling" - when black people are all pissed off, you've "got a chip on your shoulder", and are "causing drama". I appreciate this now.
I am so, so sorry. I love you all.
Saturday 13 June 2020
Liberalism vs Radicalism: A primer for the BLM generation
There seems to be some confusion in the world about the difference between Radicalism and Liberalism(or as I will put it, liberal reformism).
While both have their strong points and their weak points, it is vital not to confuse the two. So, in the spirit of getting our facts right, I present a primer:
Liberal Reformism vs Radicalism
Liberal reformism is guilt tripping people into being more "woke".
Liberal reformism is throwing the mob a few goodies to placate them.
Liberal reformism is firing a few bigots from their job, but not asking why "non-essential workers" get paid ten, twenty, a hundred times as much as "essential" workers.
Liberal reformism is a company putting the Rainbow Flag or a BLM sticker on their logo - but only in rich, Western countries where that's profitable.
Liberal reformism is all about the things that divide us, but nothing about what unites us.
Liberal reformism, ultimately, is more female drone pilots. Great for those who desire the profession of drone pilot - but people still end up getting bombed.
Its only advantage is that it's less dangerous than radicalism.
(This isn't nearly as cowardly as it sounds - As anyone from Russia, China, or Cambodia will tell you, the new boss is frequently even more brutal than the old boss)
Meanwhile....
Radicalism is bigots actually realizing for themselves that it's fucking stupid to be a bigot when we all have the same enemies.
Radicalism is every fucker going on strike - rent strike as well as labour strike.
Radicalism is taking over posh hotels and empty condominiums and using them to house the homeless.
Radicalism is people organising mass shoplifting raids on supermarkets to feed the community.
Radicalism is massive CHAZ type areas springing up in every city, the cops bottling it and abandoning their posts while the factories and farms and stuff are taken over for the people.
Radicalism is people storming the prisons, liberating the camps, and imprisoning the guards.
Radicalism is people marching on the White House and the soldiers turning their guns on Trump and his goons.
Radicalism is mass defections from the army and police because nobody wants to back the losing side.
Radicalism is when you take all the rich corporate bastards who have fucked up the world, round 'em up, put 'em on trial, and hang them for crimes against humanity.
You might be in favour of one or the other or neither or both - but don't get them confused!
While both have their strong points and their weak points, it is vital not to confuse the two. So, in the spirit of getting our facts right, I present a primer:
Liberal Reformism vs Radicalism
Liberal reformism is guilt tripping people into being more "woke".
Liberal reformism is throwing the mob a few goodies to placate them.
Liberal reformism is firing a few bigots from their job, but not asking why "non-essential workers" get paid ten, twenty, a hundred times as much as "essential" workers.
Liberal reformism is a company putting the Rainbow Flag or a BLM sticker on their logo - but only in rich, Western countries where that's profitable.
Liberal reformism is all about the things that divide us, but nothing about what unites us.
Liberal reformism, ultimately, is more female drone pilots. Great for those who desire the profession of drone pilot - but people still end up getting bombed.
Its only advantage is that it's less dangerous than radicalism.
(This isn't nearly as cowardly as it sounds - As anyone from Russia, China, or Cambodia will tell you, the new boss is frequently even more brutal than the old boss)
Meanwhile....
Radicalism is bigots actually realizing for themselves that it's fucking stupid to be a bigot when we all have the same enemies.
Radicalism is every fucker going on strike - rent strike as well as labour strike.
Radicalism is taking over posh hotels and empty condominiums and using them to house the homeless.
Radicalism is people organising mass shoplifting raids on supermarkets to feed the community.
Radicalism is massive CHAZ type areas springing up in every city, the cops bottling it and abandoning their posts while the factories and farms and stuff are taken over for the people.
Radicalism is people storming the prisons, liberating the camps, and imprisoning the guards.
Radicalism is people marching on the White House and the soldiers turning their guns on Trump and his goons.
Radicalism is mass defections from the army and police because nobody wants to back the losing side.
Radicalism is when you take all the rich corporate bastards who have fucked up the world, round 'em up, put 'em on trial, and hang them for crimes against humanity.
You might be in favour of one or the other or neither or both - but don't get them confused!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)