UAF bullied Searchlight out of their coalition, by claiming that they were “Zionists”.

By this, they meant that the organisation contained a number of Jews.

Given that UAF is run jointly by Socialist Action and the SWP, nobody should be surprised that it regards “Zionism” as the greatest threat to the United Kingdom.

It doesn’t surprise me that this is happening. By chance I’ve actually just written about something in line with this, as on Richard Barnbrook’s blog it seems some of his more controversial postings have disappeared.

David T,

I don’t know much about Socialist Action, but I do know a few people in the SWP, and your allegation certainly does surprise me, if what you intend is to call the SWP anti-semitic (leaving aside that noone on the hard left, to my knowledge, regards Zionism, properly understood [or, as in your case, not] as a threat to the United Kingdom).

Do you, or does anyone else, have some more substantial evidence to back up such claims?

I agree that silly sectarian squabbling is only good for the BNP, but also doubt the UAF event made much difference. As Steve says, the old “the BNP are Nazis” formula doesn’t cut it any more. Instead of attracting the converted to feel good carnivals where nice anti-racists can feel good about ourselves for not being “Nazis”, we need to be engaging with the working class communities in places like Stoke and Barking.

Big carnivals in central London might sustain the anti-racist movement morally, but they don’t actually make a blind bit of difference to the potential converts of the BNP.

Pablo K-

The SWP host vicious antisemite Gilad Atzmon at their annual Marxism [sic] events. They invite leading members of Hezbollah to address peace [sic] rallies. They spent years in alliance with George Galloway and the Muslim Brotherhood in Respect [sic]. Their hacks in the University and College Union have pushed through a motion leading human rights lawyers have identified as institutionally racist against Jews and therefore illegal. Although some of the SWP’s best friends, indeed some of their members, are Jewish, their rabid anti-Zionism suggests that actually they do see Zionism as a threat to the UK.

Having said that, I wouldn’t touch Searchlight with a bargepole either, so I’m obviously one of Comrade Platt’s sectarians…

Hi,

thanks for a really interesting post.

I’m really glad this has been brought up on LC, and in honest and intelligent way.

As a bit of background, MT is a site for mixed (race/religion/caste) couples who face family pressure to split up.

Coming from that perspective, I would have to say that the left is at a bit of a crossroads when it comes to tackling the BNP.

The challenge is to own the equality agenda, and at the moment the BNP is winning, in a sense.

They are the only party who are active in pointing out that racism cuts both ways.

Today that fact is becoming increasingly obvious to a population who might have looked to blame themselves for the racism a decade or so ago.

MixTogether, and registered organisations like Karma Nirvana, are struggling to promote a common-sense approach to some of the most backward racial and cultural attitudes that exist in the UK, but find that misplaced cultural sensitivity is a massive and un-necessary barrier to our work.

I utterly lament the fact that the only political organisation calling for equal standards to be applied in race matters is the BNP.

That is a common-sense message.

It is also a message which I fear could resonate with families we come across on MixTogether. These are people who have welcomed someone from a different background into their own and their family lives, but ended up being rejected on the basis of religion or skin colour. Where those families have to live with the realisation that it was their race or culture not their personal qualities that disqualified them, it is a bitter pill to swallow. And where (in the majority of cases know to us) that person is white, it is very difficult to understand the double standard.

The none of the 3 mainstream political movements has said anything of substance to promote common sense in these areas.

I suspect many of those making the BNP website the most hit political website are not, and never would be, nazis or white supremacists but are just desperately looking for some plain speech about matters they can see with their own eyes.

If one of the main political parties cannot reclaim a common-sense, anti ALL racism agenda, then it should not surprise anyone that they are losing supporters to a party with sinister intentions, dressed as the voice of reason.

I am bemused by the criticisms of Saturday’s demo. Were any of you there? Did any of you see the quite extraordinary trade union presence? Certainly none of you have mentioned it. Why not? The speeches went on for 90 mins, and I counted 2 SWP members. The point of these events is to inspire people to do the hard work of setting up local groups, knocking on doors etc. And that’s how it felt to me and all the people I spoke to on the march. How else would you propose organising people in this way, if not though an event like Sunday’s?

“their rabid anti-Zionism suggests that actually they do see Zionism as a threat to the UK. ”

I’m sorry, but I don’t see that at all. Certainly, the British Government’s unwavering suport for Zionism is damaging to our perception abroad, but it doesn’t follow that, because you oppose a political ideology, you see it as a “threat to the UK”. I’m anti-Mugabe, but I don’t see ZANU’s ideology as a threat to the UK.

The BNP *are* a threat to Britain, and it’s ridiculous that “the left” refuse to work together on the problem because of differing opinions on Middle Eastern political ideologies.

Well, I feel a little bit better about my own inability to write about only one thing at a time when a former editor of the New Statesman does the same!

It’s perhaps indicative of the problem Steve rightly points to that the bulk of the comments so far have addressed the faction fighting rather than the rise of the BNP.
I have no quarrel with his analysis: indeed, I would suggest he could take it further.

The left has never had anything useful or intelligent to say about the issue of race or nationality. We are capable only of class and (not that it has so far mattered in mainland Britain) anti-confessional politics. The social-democratic or “welfare capitalist” consensus actually presupposes a kind of racism: the late Bernie Grant’s call for the abolition of all immigration controls never struck a chord, even though there is no possible theoretical justification for them – I tried arguing with him that it wasn’t very socialist to rely on market forces to determine who lived where, but I don’t know that I even convinced myself.

Global capitalism means that race will become as important as class in determining how people vote, and while I don’t think that the BNP is fit for purpose in its ambition to become a major party, I do expect, within the next ten years, it to provide a lot of the stuffing and foot-sloggers for such a party – a populist right-wing outfit at least as well positioned as Labour or the Lib Dems to capitalise on resentment against the Cameron government. All the far right currently lacks is a celebrity leader and a multi-millionaire to pay the bills. International experience suggests that these will duly appear.

And what do we say against them? That they’re thugs? You mean – there aren’t any in the other parties? A competent far-right Party is hardly likely to pick candidates with tattoos on their fingers (they’ll leave that to Scottish Labour). That their councillors are lazy? That too will change as they near power at local level. As Steve points out, the Nazi connection resonates only with older people (and younger ones who have taken history at “A” level).

And what do we say on the race issue? Do we support the Muslims – or anyone else – who live here to keep to themselves, and as far as possible live by their own customs, law and language? Do we support refugees when they seek to regain power in their own countries by fair means or foul? (They aren’t all helpless victims, you know.) And when we insist that non-white people have at least a nodding acquaintance with our white values and practices – renouncing any hope, for example, of deriving benefit from a patronage system which, in one form or another, is actually the strongest social glue humanity has ever invented – in what sense is our quarrel with the far right one of kind, rather than degree? How does it differ from a debate over whether NHS targets should be process- or outcome-driven?

The BNP, and a fortiori their more plausible and politically savvy succesors, are not arguing for pogroms or ethnic cleansing. And suggesting that’s their hidden agenda won’t get us very far either, not least because none of us know whether it is or it isn’t.

Perhaps it’s time to accept that the world view that contributors to this blog share is in fact attractive, as in America, to only 30% or so of the voters. Of course, that might be changed by a sustained campaign of political education… but I’m not holding my breath.

Bob,

I take your point about Atzmon, which I think was unforgivable, no matter what excuses could be made about him only being there for the music, although I would also say that there was quite a fight in the SWP about that. I don’t really take your other points since some of the cases have nothing to do with anti-semitism and in some the anti-semitism was ‘incidental’ to the SWP’s motives. None of which is to say that they were wise choices or a good move for anti-racism as a whole.

Mike,

The left has nothing useful or intelligent to say on race and nationality? Really? Paul Gilroy, Edward Said, C L R James, MLK, bell hooks, Cornell West, Mandela – would you really say that none of these figures haven’t at least contributed intelligent analysis, even if you don’t find it ‘useful’ in electoral terms?

As for the rest, I take your point about developing a coherent strategy. However…

– I think your real culprit is the ‘liberal’ part of ‘liberal-left’ – I’m not sure that the left has that much difficulty combining race and class analysis and not seeing them in some kind of competition with each other for which governs all social issues. Part of the point of that is that race becomes more salient when it is combined with class issues. BNP supporters are not complaining about Polish immigration only because it involves Polish people but because they have a sense that this is materially impacting on their communities in terms of jobs and benefits;

– We should, as both you and Steve say, be prepared to change tack from a BNP=Nazis line. That may be tactically smart and I don’t think anyone would disagree that they are different beasts. But we also shouldn’t ignore that there is a lineage, that this is not only about the BNP but also about the unreconstructed National Front, which polled as well as the BNP in May’s elections, at least in London, and that ‘ethnic cleansing’ is on the agenda, if only privately (that’s exactly what “send them back” means). I’m not sure this is so ‘hidden’ as you claim – I’ve certainly heard this kind of language in several documentaries and reports on the hard right in the UK;

– ‘Non-white’ vs. ‘white’ values? You’ll have to explain that one to me, I’m afraid. I regard that as very much a question of kind rather than degree and one that any real anti-racist movement must maintain at its core;

– By all means, let us tailor the message to maximise effectiveness. But let’s not also not get too neophiliac about this. If later generations are not clear about what racism on the hard right means historically, this is as much an argument for making the links clear as it is for ditching all talk of the Nazis. If the BNP continue to claim that they are ‘for all people’, etc, this is as much a reason to point out the hypocrisy as it is to stop talking about their view of ethnic exclusivity. And if the BNP try to ditch their image as useless at public administration, this is as much a reason to highlight their record at the local level as it is to buy into their new facade.

The rise of the BNP is largely due to the Labour Party and other left wing parties treating with contempt those of average and below average income on issues such as housing , skills training, security of employment, the NHS resources in inner city Britain,
lack of support for the Armed Forces, crime in inner city Britain and immigration. The Labour Party and other left wing parties are no longer parties of the craftsmen and /or those who undertake physically arduous work in dangerous environments. the Labour Party is the party of the middle class white collar technically illiterate bureaucrat who works for the Governmenr in one form or other. The simple fact that or much of post 1945 the middle class socialist has considered patriotism as the same as Nazism is a major cause of the problem. Therefore only the BNP flew the Union Jack. There is no reason why a craftsmen such as an electrician , plumber or any other skilled caftsmen who has served in the Armed Forces or is still in the TA/Reserves should vote for Labour. It is not just that people vote for the BNP it is the fact that they cannot be bothered to vote for the Labour Party.
The ban on hunting showed the middle class Labour votere for whom they are. The biggest adverse impact was on the rural working class whose income was related to the hunting. When the middle class had protest marches in 1968 this did nothing for the working classes. What would have improved the quality of life of the working class would have been ensuring a high quality of crafts training, indoor lavatories, bathrooms in all homes, damp proof courses in all homes, good insulation, and plentiful supply of washing machines and dryers, investment in R and D. By the late 60s the rise of Japan as an industrial giant was obvious and British manufacturing could still have been saved. Investing in middle class education in such subjects as sociology at Sussex University was a waste of resources. Teaching thermodynamics to car mechanics and electronic design to electricians may have saved our industries.
If we can recreate a successful high value manufacturing capability which exports to the rest of the Word, then the BNP will wither away. However this will mean taking resouces away from left middle class white collar bureaucratic employment . Close down all those media courses at the ex- polys and non- jobs in local government and invest in technical training from GNVQ to post graduate degree level. Chemistry departments are closing at an alarming rate because they are expensive to run. We have a world class pharmaceutical industry which exports to the rest of the World but for how long? Secure and well paid employment in the manfacturing/ advanced technical industries whichh enables the individual to develop a sense of self respect from attaining high levels of skills and responsibilities will destroy the BNP.

[9] Pablo – I think we’re making the same point. Writers like Edward Said or CLR James are not offering suggestions as to what white Europeans should do about anything: they are exploring to what extent the European Enlightenment (whose children, whether we think of ourselves primarily as liberals or as socialists, we all are) offers a model for Arabs, Afro-Caribbeans etc and to what extent it is part of the problem.

The Enlightenment offered a vision for humanity which was very attractive to a generation of African and Asian leaders, of whom only Nelson Mandela is left. Their children and grandchildren have increasingly seen the vision as more problematic than helpful.

[10] I don’t understand why the UK should win a race to privde high quality electro-mechanical kit to the rest of the world. Why won’t Asian countries be able to skill up at least as quickly, and continue to win on price? You’re right that Britain has long slighted technology but there was a good reason why men who worked down mines or bashing metal wanted something else for their children. Oh, and the only person with a science degree ever to have tenanted 10, Downing Street was… Margaret Thatcher.

Mike , you demonstrate a lack of knowledge of what we can still achieve which amounts to contempt to those people who take pride in the work they do. From my experience what people wanted for their children was high craft training.To describe the high precision work which is required to manufacture a Rolls Royce aircraft engine shows ignorance and contempt in equal measure. Much of the R and D plus manufacturing for F1 occurs in Britain because of the skills we have.

It is almost as bad as Patricia Hodge saying stacking shelves at Tescos is a perfectly suitable job for skilled crafstmen from Longbridge. If we had increased R and D in mining we would still have a deep mine coal industry.You also slight the skills of the modern miner, mine electrician, mining engineer , mine surveyor, manufacturers of mining equipment and mine contractors.

Killingworth,

Quite frankly, you don’t know what you’re on about.

The Enlightenment offered a vision for humanity which was very attractive to a generation of African and Asian leaders, of whom only Nelson Mandela is left. Their children and grandchildren have increasingly seen the vision as more problematic than helpful.

Hume was a white supremacist. See, in particular, footnote 10 of National Character (my emphasis):

I am apt to suspect the negroes, and in general all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the whites, such as the ancient GERMANS, the present TARTARS, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction betwixt these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are NEGROE slaves dispersed all over EUROPE, of which none ever discovered any symptoms of ingenuity; tho’ low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In JAMAICA indeed they talk of one negroe as a man of parts and learning; but ’tis likely he is admired for very slender accomplishments, like a parrot, who speaks a few words plainly.

Indeed, Hume were source for pro-slavery arguments. Note also that at the time Hume was writing this, there was a professor of philosophy in Europe (Anton-Wilhelm Amo), and a well-known military engineer at the Russian court – Adam Petrovich Gannibal – both of whom were black.

Kant was also a white supremacist and a racist. In Lectures on Anthropology, he claims that: “Humanity is at its greatest perfection in the race of whites.” In Observations on the Beautiful and the Sublime the blackness of a carpenter is taken to be proof of his stupidity.

Eze’s Race and the Enlightenment has much, much more; it’s the most comprehensive source I know for this sort of thing.

[12] I really don’t know how you derive the opinions you foster on me from what I said, Charlie. My father was a metallurgist, as it happens.

Anyone who states that something they wrote in February 1985 is something they could have equally written yesterday admits the irrelevance of their thinking and their inability to adapt to the times – a lot has changed in 23 years.

Similarly those who make retrospective judgements on historical figures outside of their historical contexts demean themselves and the memory of those they imagine they are defending. Does #13 mean to suggest Hume supported Auschwitz?!

Similarly those who make retrospective judgements on historical figures outside of their historical contexts demean themselves and the memory of those they imagine they are defending. Does #13 mean to suggest Hume supported Auschwitz?!

I’d like to enter the argument about making judgements on historical figures, although, in this case, I suspect you’re going to engage in a bit of strategic moral relativism.

So it may be worth pointing out that even at the time Hume’s opinions were abhorred. James Ramsay and James Beattie, both his (rough) contemporaries, argued against Hume on the matter of black inferiority. Ramsay argued that Hume might as well have denied intelligence to those who were as fat as he was. (See Julie K Ward’s essay in Subjugation and Bondage). Beattie spends a chunk of a chapter of his Nature and Immutability of Truth arguing that Hume’s views on the inferiority of non-whites are seriously mistaken (See p. 463 onwards). Further, there were accomplished black people in Europe and elsewhere, even then, some of whom were known, or ought to have been known to Hume. To argue as he did, he would have had to ignore, wilfully, all the evidence to the contrary. That, unfortunately, is the mark of the bigot.

This shows that even at the time of their writing, Hume’s comments were bigoted and recognised as bigoted. So no defence is available for Hume’s comments on the ground that they were in some way characteristic of their time.

Whether or not Hume supported Auschwitz is irrelevant to the question whether he was a racist: that a racist does not support genocide is no proof that he is not a racist. In any case, the remark has done very great harm as it is: Hume was an authority, his endorsement of white supremacy, therefore, was very widely quoted by racists, white supremacists, and defenders of slavery in the 19th century. (Although, in fairness, he seems to have opposed slavery.)