Saturday 24 October 2009

BNP At The BBC

After much ado, the BBC invited the BNP leader on to its “Question Time” programme. It looks as though the invite was part of a choreographed attempt, by the British State, and its various arms, to rein in the BNP, which has, over the last couple of years, started to become a hindrance to the interests of Capital. In the days leading up to the show, the BNP was attacked in the media by former Generals, by a new organisation of soldiers and ex soldiers, and by even the rabid, racist press such as the Mail, Sun, Express, and Star, whose vile attacks on immigrants, and asylum seekers, and Little Englander attacks on the EU, have largely been responsible for creating the kind of narrow minded, nationalist climate in which the BNP has thrived. The fact that the bosses State has decided, for now, to put the fascists back in their box, should not, of course, blind us to what the fascists are, or lead us to place any kind of reliance on the bosses and their State for dealing with the fascists.

The fascists remain what they have always been, the bosses’ last resort, to be used when their backs are against the wall, and they fear the working class. Only because the bosses backs are not against the wall, only because the working class is still relatively weak, only because under those conditions the activities of the fascists are destabilising, are the bosses and their State acting against the BNP. As Marxists, we understand what the State is. It is the means by which the bosses maintain their rule, through a complex of organisations, that range from the physical means of suppressing workers struggles, such as the armed forces, the police, the Courts and prisons, to more subtle means such as the Church, Schools, Colleges, Universities and the media, to even more subtle means such as the basic units of Capitalist society like the family, which act to socialise workers, and to transmit all of the ideas, morals and customs that arise out of the material conditions of Capitalist Society.

For that reason, Marxists do not delude workers into believing that this State is in any way neutral, or that it can be persuaded to act in their interests. We do not make any calls on this State, then, to act in that way, whether it be to look after the workers economic interests by, say, nationalisation, or by acting as some kind of impartial arbitrator in industrial disputes, like the current Postal strike, nor in the workers political interests by, for example, acting against the fascists, or even defending basic bourgeois freedoms such as free speech. On the contrary, we point out that, if the State does any of those things, it does it, not for the workers interests, but the interests of the bosses. As such it will always do so in a way that meets that goal. That is why we are against State Bans, for example, banning the Dutch politician Geert Wilders; it is why we are against that State acting as a censor, by banning certain publications, plays etc. All of these things will be, and have been, used far more extensively against the working class than they will be used against the fascists. The State has regularly banned free movement of workers – Immigration Controls are an obvious example – as it did by preventing Miners free movement during the 1984 strike. In the early part of the last century, and during WWII, the Communist Party was banned. But, more importantly, as Marxists we believe that the only force that can liberate the whole of society, and create Socialism, is the working class itself, through its own activity and effort. For that reason, above all, we try to get workers to rely on their own strength, initiative and organisation to achieve all these things.

The SWP, was completely wrong to try to get the BBC to ban Griffin’s appearance. If Griffin was to be stopped then the way to do it was for BBC workers to have simply pulled the plug on the programme, just as in the past print workers have blanked pages of newspapers. Griffin’s appearance has created some discussion on the Left, though, about whether we should abandon the idea of “No Platform For Fascists” as a principle, rather than seeing it simply as a tactic. The Weekly Worker, in recent weeks has carried stories about the way in the 1920’s, Communists shared platforms with fascists, and in doing so not only undermined the fascists arguments, but won over some of the fascists supporters.

The SP, too, seems to be coming around to the idea that in a situation where the fascists are regularly being interviewed by the bourgeois media, refusing to appear alongside them challenging their views just gives them a free ride. It is not the fascists who are No Platformed, but the Socialists doing it to themselves. Of course, as the “Question Time” programme demonstrated, this in itself provides a problem, because the question then arises who should actually confront the fascists ideas? What has become clear over recent months is that the organisations that currently exist to oppose the fascists be it the UAF, or various local anti-fascist groups linked to Searchlight, are woefully inadequate. They are inadequate, because they operate on the basis of a limited, negative ant-fascism, not on the basis of providing workers with a realistic solution to their problems, as an alternative to the easy solutions offered by the racists and fascists. Still less can we expect the bourgeois politicians like those on the Question Time Programme to provide such an alternative. They cannot because they are themselves advocates of that very Capitalist system, which creates the problems that affect the workers, and upon which the BNP breed.

Although the newspapers and media commentators talked about Griffin being at bay, in fact, I thought that in many ways, Griffin came out of the confrontation with several gains. Yes, he was left stumbling and mumbling in trying to defend his positions on the Holocaust, and sharing a platform with David Dukes, but some of that will be over the head of many viewers, will be swallowed up by the hard core racists, and will be looked at by others as resulting from the fact that here was one man, being attacked by four panellists and David Dimbleby, and a largely hostile audience. Griffin was right that, in fact, all of the attack was against him as an individual rather than a debate about politics, and that stems directly from that limited anti-fascism that has been the hallmark of all anti-fascist activity, plus the fact that bourgeois politicians like Straw are hard pressed to defend the anti-working class policies that they have pursued.

A classic example of that was Straw’s ridiculous attempt to portray Griffin – an extreme Nationalist – as in some way unpatriotic! Straw, decried Griffin’s statement that were he alive today Churchill would have been a member of the BNP. Actually, Griffin is right, he may well have been. Churchill was a well-known maverick. His views were well-known to be rabidly anti-semitic, and anti-working class. He sent troops to shoot striking miners in Tonypandy for instance. In the 1920’s and 1930’s like large sections of the Capitalist class, and alongside glowing Editorials and articles in papers like the Daily Mail, he was enthralled by the success of fascists like Mussolini and Hitler in smashing the working classes in their countries in order that the bosses could hold on to power, and increase their profits. None of that prevented Churchill as a Nationalist and representative of BRITISH Capital, from going to War with Hitler and Mussolini who equally represented the interests of German and Italian Capital in a War, to secure control over markets, and the right to exploit labour around the globe! Trying, then to portray Griffin and the BNP as Nazis, which, in this case, simply means equating them with German Nationalists, is not only ridiculous, but is itself thoroughly racist, because it leads to the idea that what was objectionable was not the set of ideas that the fascists represented, but was itself a function of the fact that they were German. Given the overhang of that from World War I, where it was suggested that these traits were in some way a national characteristic, the racist content of that is clear. Its ironic, but perhaps not surprising, that in utilising this kind of image of “Anti-Nazism”, the “socialists” of the SWP, themselves end up as proponents of racism. Not surprising, because much of the SWP’s attitude to the question of Israel and the Palestinians falls into the same trap, its politics are presented not as a struggle of Palestinian and Jewish workers against Capital, but of a struggle of all Palestinians against all Jews, who are tarred with the brush of the Israeli State.

And, having gone down this route, Straw was hung with his own rope, as Griffin retorted that, whereas his Father had served in the RAF during the War, Straw’s Father had been in gaol, for refusing to fight. In addition, because Griffin is a consistent Nationalist as opposed to the bourgeois politicians for whom Nationalism is just a convenient tool to be picked up and dropped as and when the occasion suits, Griffin was able to turn this attack on his patriotism around by pointing out that it was Straw and his Government that had handed over power to Brussels, who had refused to grant a referendum to British people on the Lisbon Treaty etc. On all those points, the groundswell of narrow minded nationalism, that the media, like the Mail, has created over the last decade or so, the fear that bourgeois politicians have created by their hyping up of the danger of terrorism, their own demonising of immigrants and asylum seekers through detention centres, immigration limits and so on, must have seen Griffin as being the one who was being consistent, and dealing with the fears that have been engendered. The bourgeois press, and politicians have created that situation, now they are reaping what they have sown.

Of course, none of these politicians on Question Time could take on Griffin on the ground on which he really should have been challenged, because to do so, they would have to have denied their own politics too. At the end of the day, all of these politicians Griffin included, stand on the same side of the class barricade. That is not to make the same claims as the Stalinists of the Third Period, who said that everyone who was not a Stalinist was some kind of fascist. Not at all, there are clear differences between the Labour politicians and the Tory and Liberal politicians, just as there are clear differences between the Tory and Liberal politicians and the fascists. But, as bourgeois politicians they do all serve the interests of Capital, not of workers. Only had there been a representative on the panel of workers could those politics have been taken up. Ironically, though Griffin complains about being subject to a lynch mob – even more ironical given the link to the KKK – had there been such a representative of the workers on the programme, it would have been they who would have been subject to the hostility of the Panel, if not of the audience.

Only a representative of workers could have pointed out that the reason there are not enough affordable houses for workers is not due to immigration, but is due to the fact that the bosses’ state prefers to spend billions on foreign wars and expensive missile systems than on workers housing needs, and that because Capitalists own the big construction companies, their decisions on whether to build or not are dependent not upon the needs of society for decent houses, but on their individual need to make large profits. That the reason house prices had soared beyond the ability of many workers to buy them, was the action of the bosses State to print huge amounts of money to keep the system afloat, that led to the Banks making loans to people they knew could not pay them back, on the basis that those Banks could always sell those houses later when the prices had risen. In short that the workers housing problems were not at all due to immigration, but were due to the Capitalist Casino economy, whose croupiers continue to pay themselves huge bonuses out of taxpayers money!

Only a workers representative could have pointed out that the reason there are insufficient jobs is nothing to do with immigration, but is due to the workings of that same Capitalist Casino economy, which produces without knowing that there are customers for its products, which wastes vast sums on paying astronomical salaries to a few already rich executives, whose decisions are based not on what is good for society, but what is good for themselves and their shareholders, whose motivation is the maximisation of profit not employment, and who, therefore, have shifted production overseas where they have been able to employ cheap labour.

Only a workers’ representative could have argued that the reason for low pay, and poor conditions is not the immigrants coming in to fill these low-paid jobs, but is the actions of the bosses who control the means of production, and take advantage of ALL workers wherever they can to impose such pay and conditions. Only a workers representative could explain that the reason that the NHS fails to meet the basic needs of workers has nothing to do with immigration – without which most of the hospitals and Care Homes would have no staff – but is due to the inefficiency, and bureaucracy of State capitalist provision, which wastes huge resources on the pay of top bureaucrats and Consultants, and much more on the empires they create to sustain their status and position, as opposed to the provision of a service to the public. Only a workers representative could explain that the reason our schools provide an inadequate education, and that there are inadequate places, is not due to immigration, but is due to the fact that for the bosses and their state, education like health and social care is an unwelcome but necessary overhead for the running of their system, and so they keep spending on it down to the bare minimum compatible with meeting its requirements for providing workers.

For all those reasons the bourgeois politicians could offer no real political challenge to Griffin. And, its because organisation like UAF seek to ally with these bourgeois politicians, even including some rabid Tories, that they too can never present a real political alternative to the fascists, and instead fall back on personal attacks, and straightforward negativism. A strategy, which is not only bound to fail, but quite clearly has failed as the BNP has continued to gain ground.

What we need is not just a movement that is “anti-fascist”, let alone “Anti-Nazi” (with all the racist anti-German connotations that has), but which is pro-socialist, pro-working class. Even a limited programme that provided a series of working-class solutions to these problems – for example, the creation of Estate Co-ops to manage workers housing estates, and from there Construction Co-ops to begin to build decent workers housing, and create construction jobs at decent wages and conditions; the demand for real democratic control of the NHS in each area, prior to workers ownership of health provision, real democratic control over education and school facilities so that they can be opened up properly to all workers within the community to advance themselves and through which real workers education can be conducted; for a large increase in the Minimum Wage, and demand that all work done in Britain be paid at proper Trade Union rates of pay; that the various European Social Democratic Parties work towards the creation of a single European Workers Party linked to a single European Trade Union Movement; that such a Movement campaign for and commit its MEP’s to a democratisation of the EU, abolishing the unelected bodies, and vesting sovereignty in the elected Parliament, and campaigns for and commits its representatives to a single set of Pensions, Benefits and conditions, for all workers throughout the EU, to prevent bosses in one country suppressing wages and conditions to undercut another – could be put forward as an alternative to the racist solutions of the BNP, and could be hammered home by the spokespeople of such a movement in confronting the BNP whenever the media give them a platform. On that basis if that media refused to allow such a spokesperson to present this alternative to the bile of the BNP, we would have every reason to point out the bias of the bosses media, and call on the workers employed in it to act accordingly.

The problem at the moment is that the Labour Movement is itself so infected with bourgeois ideas that even the solutions of the Left amount to nothing more than radical bourgeois solutions such as State Capitalism. We have to rediscover the ideas of Marx, we have to re-arm the Labour Movement with those ideas, only on that basis can we move forward.

32 comments:

Dave said...

“What has become clear over recent months is that the organisations that currently exist to oppose the fascists be it the UAF, or various local anti-fascist groups linked to Searchlight, are woefully inadequate.”

You talk like these were created on some sort of whim, but whether you like it or not these organisations will exist. People have to defend themselves and their communities, so when some knuckle headed fascists march down someone’s street there will be a counter march to stop them.

“Trying, then to portray Griffin and the BNP as Nazis, which, in this case, simply means equating them with German Nationalists, is not only ridiculous, but is itself thoroughly racist, because it leads to the idea that what was objectionable was not the set of ideas that the fascists represented, but was itself a function of the fact that they were German.”

What utter bullshit!

Saying the BNP are Nazi’s is shorthand for a set of nationalist and racial beliefs, what a dishonest piece of muck-slinging. Shame because overall the article is pretty good, sums up the left really. Good analysis let down by petty sectarian gripes.

Boffy said...

Dave,

The fact that these organisations were not created on a whim does not change the fact that politically they are inadequate. The Popular Fronts of the 1930's were not created on a whim either. Nevetheless they led the workers to disaster and marxists had to say why they would. They do now too.

As I've said before, I have no problem with such organisations as simply a means of mobiliisng larger numbres to counter the fascists. If members of some Tory Rugby Club turn out to fight a bunch of fascists menacing Asians on an Estate, good. But, the fascists have to be confronted politically, and you can't do that if your politics are constrained by the need to accommodate bouregois allies.

You say call the BNP Nazis is just shorthand. But, the reality is that on Question Time Jack Straw DID equate the BNP with Germany's war against Britain!!!! That was the whole point about objecting to the use of the Spitfire image, Churchill and so on. A few months ago when I raised objections to trying to claim these nationalistic and imperialistic symbols, member sof my anti-fascist group not only objected, but came out strongly to defend Churchill and the Empire, and the War!!!

Dave said...

Arthur,

I should point out that I was responding to the following,

"Given the overhang of that from World War I, where it was suggested that these traits were in some way a national characteristic, the racist content of that is clear. Its ironic, but perhaps not surprising, that in utilising this kind of image of “Anti-Nazism”, the “socialists” of the SWP, themselves end up as proponents of racism.”

And in particular the slur that the SWP are racists, as I said this is utter dishonest bullshit and the worst kind of sectarian slur. Actually it is the kind of truth twisting I would expect to see on Fox news.

Shame a perfectly good piece of analysis should be spoiled by this unnecessary crap and hardly the best way to persuade people on the left of the merits of your position.

Boffy said...

Dave,

The fact that someone propounds an argument that is inherently racist does not make the person who makes that argument themselves racist! For that to be the case there is a requirement of intent. Marx and Engels in quite a bit of their writing were Eurocentric, which at least borders on arguments that are inherently racist. But that does not at all mean that M&E were racists.


I think it is unfortunately the case that the SWP in their political method are prey to this danger. I am not the only person on the Left who has pointed this out in relation to the SWP's politics of Left Anti-Semitism, for instance.

I am not in any way suggesting that the SWP or anyone else on the Left or even Jack Straw, are racist - just as though who refer to the Left anti-semitism of the SWP, are clear to emphasise that this is a function of the arguments they make not a deliberate attempt to whip up hatred of Jews. But, that is the consequence of attempting to simply equate the BNP with the Nazis, because ask any average person what they think about when they think about the word NAZI and they will first refer to Hitler and so on, but then if oushed further will include all those German soldiers fighting against Britain in the War. They will not even equate it with the Italian fascists let alone think about Griffin. That is what let's Griffin and the BNP off the hook.

Couple that with the drive to deny the BNP all those symbols of the British Imperialist side in that war, and its no wonder the average person makes that connection. Nazi simply becomes subsumed under Bosch.

Dave said...

Sorry not buying this, you said the SWP were proponents of racism, that is an outrageous smear.

On Marx and Engels, forget their Eurocentrict attitude. They often talked of a German or English or American character or a German or English method etc.

And of course there are those who would say Marx was anti-Semitic

Boffy said...

Dave,

I'm sorry that you do not recognise the difference between being a proponent of an argument which is inherently racist - and therefore being a proponent of racism - and actually being a racist.

The fact, is that there is a long tradiiton in Britain whereby the cause of WWI and WWII is seen sa being due to the innate qualities of the German people. That is a racist argument. All of the nationalistic trappings that surround WWII play into the idea that this was not a War against fascism - though the bnourgeoisie use that where it suits them to justify their imperialist war - but that Fascism was just a function of this aspect of the German character, a propensity to militarism, and authortarianism.

The word NAZI rather than fascist is inextricably linked with that perception. I remember in fact when the "Anti-Nazi League" was first set up, some of the people I worked with being very confused saying to me, "Aren't you 30 years too late, isn't the war over?"

By propounding this argument - and the SWP HAVE NOT distanced themselves from all the Nationalist sentiment that attacks the BNP for trying to claim Churchill, the Spitfire etc., and does link the fight against the BNP to the Second Word War. They do not tackle these Nationalist and racist arguments bcause to do so would alienate all the bouregois elements the bishops and vicars etc. around which their Popular Front politics are based.

The same is essentially true of their politics in relation to Israel/Palestine. They cannot advocate a class struggle position because it would frighten off the liberal bouregois, not to mention the reactionary Islamist elements with which they have jumped into bed, and consequently end up adopting a thoroughly Nationalistic, and Left anti-semitic position.

Dave said...

Arhtur,

"I'm sorry that you do not recognise the difference between being a proponent of an argument which is inherently racist - and therefore being a proponent of racism - and actually being a racist."

I am sorry you can't see that this really is just splitting hairs and how much of a dishonest slur this is.

"The fact, is that there is a long tradiiton in Britain whereby the cause of WWI and WWII is seen sa being due to the innate qualities of the German people.

Not among the SWP there isn't!

I remember in fact when the "Anti-Nazi League" was first set up, some of the people I worked with being very confused saying to me, "Aren't you 30 years too late, isn't the war over?"

Well I hope you put those people straight.

"The word NAZI rather than fascist is inextricably linked with that perception."

If it had been the anti Fascist league I presume those people who thought the war had ended 30 years ago, would have had to ask, what is a fascist? In fact they may not have asked any questions as they may not identify with the word fascist at all. So using Nazi got people talking and highlighted the issue. seems like the correct decision to me.

Boffy said...

Dave,

No its not splitting hairs at all, its fundamental to understanding how to relate to people and the ideas they have. The majority of workers support the idea of Immigration Controls. Immigration Controls are inherently racist. Are you then saying that the majority of workers are racist. Is it splitting hairs to understand this difference?

I never said there was a long tradition in the SWP of anti-German sentiment. But, there is within British society, and its for that reason you have to be very careful what you say does not play into it. Take a different argument. Take the word "Paki". In and of itself the word cannot be considered any more offensive than the term "Afghan", "Kurd", or "Uzbek" and so on. Each are simply a shortening of the name of various countries whose name ends in "Stan" to refer to someone from those countries. However, although we refer to "Pakistanis", we do not refer to "Afghanistanis" and so on generally. Why? Because, there is a history of the word "Paki" being used derogatively in Britain. There is no history of it being so used in the SWP, so on your argument it would be fine for SWP members to refer to "Pakis".

Worse, as I said, not only have the SWP NOT distanced themselves from all of the nationalistic crap that equates the fight against fascism with the fight of British Imperialism against German Imperialism, but they encourage it themselves!

Yes, of course I straightened people out about the ANL, but as many of us argued at that time too, it would have been easier not to have had to deal with the confusion, and not to have played on wartime anti-german sentiment to garner support.

On what if it has been the "Anti-Fascist League", actually when we first set up anti-fascist groups some years before the ANL they WERE called anti-fascist, and we expereienced none of the problems in udnerstanding you refer to. In fact, using your argument here its much more likely that if people are not going to ask a question it would simply because they DID equate NAZI with its wartime connotation.

Dave said...

Ok let’s take a look at your cheap sectarian smear once again,

“the SWP, themselves end up as proponents of racism”

Now let’s look at the argument you put forward to back up this cheap sectarian smear.

You begin by introducing a group of people, let’s call them the hypotheticals, who will misconstrue the word ‘Nazi’ to mean Germans. And that anyone who uses the word Nazi automatically becomes a proponent of racism because this third party, the hypotheticals do not fully understand the argument being presented.

So what is happening here? Certainly not what you claim. The worst that can be said is that the people using such terms are not sensitive enough to the ignorant members of a particular society and are themselves ignorant of the fact that their term could be misused.

Your argument in the following comment highlights the confusion of your idea,

“The majority of workers support the idea of Immigration Controls. Immigration Controls are inherently racist. Are you then saying that the majority of workers are racist?”

Now you take an example that bears no relation to the SWP using the word Nazi. You ditch the idea of a word and replace it with a concept, immigration control. You then take the 2 parties, the SWP and the hypotheticals and replace them with just the hypotheticals. So now we are left with an entirely different philosophical question, which is, “If someone actually holds to a racist concept does that make them racist”, compare this to the other question, “If someone uses terms that others (but not themselves) may then misuse to hold a racist concept does this make them racist”.

You concluded your argument by saying,

“On what if it has been the "Anti-Fascist League", actually when we first set up anti-fascist groups some years before the ANL they WERE called anti-fascist, and we expereienced none of the problems in udnerstanding you refer to.”

Ditto. I have never experienced the problem you raise, however anecdote is not proof. I would also relate this to your ‘Paki’ argument, I am fully aware and so are the SWP that the word ‘Paki’ is a derogatory term used against people of many ethnic backgrounds, including no doubt Afghans, Kurds etc but I am not aware of the word Nazi being used exclusively about Germans in a derogatory fashion. In popular culture, on TV and the like, the word Nazi has come to mean many things –over officious types, racists etc but has no doubt been broken from its link exclusively with Germans. I think society today is aware of this fact and understands that Anti Nazi means Anti Fascist.

I repeat again, this was nothing other than a cheap sectarian smear, quite ironic considering your views on sectarianism.

Boffy said...

I am not aware that there is anything "hypothetical" about the British people!!!! Nor is there anything hypothetical about the ingrained attitudes to Germans - the jokes about "Two World Wars one world Cup", for instance, or the "Don't mention the war" refernces from Fawlty Towers, or the jokes about invading Poland that stretch out to Germans putting their towels on sunbeds in holiday resorts.

Ask any average person what they understand by the term Nazi and they will mention the War. And as I said the SWP by conjuring up WWII imagery play to those ideas. This is not just a lack of sensitivity as you suggest, but a definite ploy to use that sentiment! The same thing can be seen in the SWP's politics in relation to Israel/Palestine, which ends up attacking Jews rather than attacking the Zionist state.

But your semantic argument here is incorrect anyway. The argument you put forward in relation to the hypotheticals is applicable to the argument in relation to use of the word "Paki", not in relation to whether simply putting forward an argument that is racist makes you a racist. You have confused the two arguments.

Your argument about the hypotheticals would certainly lead you to conclude that someone using the term "Paki" innocently was not propounding racism, but I have never sugegsted anything differently. In fact, I didn't say that anyone in the SWP did use the term innocently or otherwise.

The point is that you are trying despeately to put words in my mouth I have never used. No matter how you try to mangle my words not only have I never said that the SWP were racists, but I have now several times stated openly that I am not saying that. Unless you have access to a lie detector there is little I can do if you insist on trying to make my words mean the opposite of what they say.

The argument you want to make is that there is no difference between pointing out that the argument someone makes is inherently racist, and calling the person making it racist. I have demonstrated that is not the case. Let's take anotehr "non-hypothetical" case. The CP and Labour Lefts in the AES argued for Import Controls - in fact some CP'ers actually support Immigration Controls too. In pointing out that in doing so they are promoting racist arguments does this mean that they are being branded as racists!!!! Clearly not.

Given that much of this argument has arisen PRECISELY BECAUSE OF opposition by UAF and various liberal anti-fascists to the use of WWII symbols by the BNP, I find it bizarre that you go to such lengths to deny the link. If only the SWP would go to such lengths to separate themselves from that link too, by denouncing the attempts to attack the BNP by wrapping those attacks in the flag, by pointing out exactly what that War was about, and why those symbols like Churchill, the Spitfire and so on are ones that ARE more appropriate to the BNP than to a socialist opposition to fascism!

But, then Opportunists and supporters of the Popular Front have always criticised those who point out the relity of those politics s being sectarian even when those involved are often themselves inveterate sectarians when it comes to the working class and its party.

Boffy said...

Just for clarity, it would be useful if you could tell us whether you believe that the second world war was an inter-imprtialist war, or a war against Nazism.

Dave said...

Inter imperialist war, just like the first. Except in the second a bunch of Fascists were ruling one of the competing powers.

I am not putting words in your mouth, I just reject your basic premise.

Boffy said...

Dave,

Before I come to the second part of your last comment, I'd like to know what significance if any there is to you pointing out that one of the sides in this inter-imperialist war was ruled by fascists.

Dave said...

Apart from the holocaust?

Ok I’ll assume that is a yes. One significance is that this war is seen among workers as a justified war, whereas the first is seen as a terrible waste of human life. So even if we recognise it as imperialists squabbling over colonies etc, this fact would not change people’s mind over the merits of the war.
But this really has nothing to do with the debate we were discussing unless I am missing something.

You claim that when the SWP use the word Nazi, they are proponents of racism because this taps into anti German feeling among the population or a section of it. I happen to think that when someone calls Griffin a Nazi the overwhelming majority recognise that this refers to his nationalistic, racial ideology, rather than any connection with a German character. He is English after all.

I think this is petty sectarian sniping but even if it isn’t, if you really want to win over the left, try fucking flattery for a change. You’re the most useless diplomat I have ever come across, which is more laughable when you are trying to be one. When you are attempting, as a matter of revolutionary duty, to bring the left into what you call the class struggle.

As a tip, write an article in praise of the SWP exposing the scab postal outlets. Explain how their great efforts could be put to even better use. Then they might just listen to you in good faith.

Boffy said...

Dave,

Let’s look at your argument. It is exclusively that I am guilty of a “cheap sectarian smear” against the SWP, because I have said that in making the connection between the BNP and the Nazis, and by wrapping themselves in the flag in trying to deny the BNP the symbols of WWII, the SWP end up making an inherently racist argument. You have insisted that the smear consists of the fact that in making this charge I am accusing the SWP of being racists. You said, “And in particular the slur that the SWP are racists, as I said this is utter dishonest bullshit and the worst kind of sectarian slur.”...

But, what is a smear? It is a charge levelled against someone solely for the purpose of discrediting them without any evidence being given to substantiate the charge. You have provided no evidence that the SWP do not do what I say. At the same time I have said clearly that I was NOT accusing the SWP of being racists. In fact, if I were to use your own methodology I could just as easily accuse you of a “cheap sectarian smear” against me.

In order for my charge to be a smear you would need to demonstrate that when I say that I am not saying the SWP are racists I do not actually mean that! But, you not only say, “I am not putting words in your mouth,” which can only mean you accept that when I say I’m not calling them racists you accept that, but also “I just reject your basic premise”, which can only mean that I begin from an argument which I believe to be true, but which you disagree with. In the language of semantic logic this means that we have arrived at a disproof of the argument on the basis of what is termed reductio ad absurdum, that is the argument is render absurd because we end up with two mutually contradictory conclusions. A smear can only be a smear if the person making it believes it to be untrue. Yet, when I say that I am not calling the SWP racists you now say you are not putting the words “The SWP are racists” in my mouth. On the contrary, you say you merely disagree with my premise that in pursuing the course of action they have this amounts to advocating a racist argument. These two statements from you are mutually exclusive, both cannot both be true.

As I believe what I say when I say I am not calling the SWP racists, and as I am happy to accept your statements that you are not putting words in my mouth to the contrary, and that you merely disagree with my premise, this means that the original statement is disproved on the basis of your own assumptions and argumentation. Clearly, I am not guilty of a smear, and you should withdraw that charge.

Now on to the question of whether the actual premise is correct or not. I have not simply said that by using the word “Nazi” the SWP are guilty of propounding a racist argument. The whole framework in which this discussion occurred was that in which the use of this term was merely a part of a wider argument about the attempt by the BNP to utilise WWII imagery such as the Spitfire and Churchill for their purposes, and the attempt by the UAF, and other liberal anti-fascists not only to deny these symbols to the BNP, but to claim them for themselves i.e. to wrap that anti-fascism in the flag of nationalism and patriotism. Indeed, the whole discussion of that in my original post started from the charge by Jack Straw against Griffin, and Griffin’s retort that his father was in the RAF whereas Straw’s was in gaol. Straw himself has commented that a common thread extends from UKIP on one end to the SWP on the other, all of whom stand on the same ground against the BNP. That, of course, is true, because the SWP have told activists not to attack UKIP, and even have people like Teddy Taylor as sponsors of the UAF!!!!

Boffy said...

It is not a smear to say that the SWP not only accommodate to, but utilise this right-wing Nationalistic crap in opposing the BNP, it is a simple fact! Moreover, it is a fact that many others on the Left also point to. By all means challenge that premise, but do so by providing some actual evidence to show that the SWP do NOT do these things rather than simply using your own “cheap sectarian smear” against me for having the temerity to point out these truths.

But, does the utilisation of this patriotism and Nationalism actually amount to propounding racist ideas? Yes, it does for the reasons I have previously outlined, and for the reasons that become clear from your own latest responses. I have already pointed out that for the majority of people the second world war was seen as essentially the same as the first. It was seen not as a war between two imperialism, nor between Fascism and Democracy, but between Britain and Germany. In fact, even to the extent that it was portrayed as a war of Democracy against Fascism, it was seen as no different from the First World War, where the rule of the Kaiser was equally portrayed as the rule of a dictator and a militaristic state. All of these traits were portrayed as flowing from the specific character of Germans. That someone can propound what is then a racist argument by playing to these Nationalistic sentiments is not at all the same thing as that person being a racist, and deliberately stirring up racial antagonism.

This is clear from your own latest statements. I asked you if you viewed the second world war as an inter-imperialist war or a war of democracy against fascism. You said it was an inter-imperialist war, but needed to add that one side was ruled by fascists. When I asked why you needed to add this statement you referred to the Holocaust. Now, of course, the Holocaust was a damnable act. No one would seek to diminish its significance, and it is clear how as an atrocity it flows from Nazism – again I refer to Nazism, because it would not have arisen logically from Italian Fascism. For that fact alone it should be clear what dangers there are in referring to Nazism in the context of the further use of the Second World War symbolism. In other words this was a peculiarly GERMAN atrocity. But, in referring to it you further play into that Nationalist and Bourgeois Democratic mentality. Why only refer to the Holocaust? In one single night British Democracy murdered 57,000 men, women and children in Dresden. Had the Nazis been that efficient at mass murder for the course of the war the number would not have been 6 million, but tens of millions. And, of course, even the efficiency in murdering innocent civilians demonstrated by British democracy was eclipsed by the US in dropping two atomic bombs on Japan!!! That is before we even consider the atrocities committed by Britain outside the context of WWII; its enslavement and murder of millions of colonial slaves, the death of a quarter of the Irish population as a result of the famine, the introduction of concentration camps for women and children during the Boer War, and so on.

In Britain the history of imperialism, nationalism and racism runs very deep even into the Labour Movement. We do not do anything to challenge that if we adopt that standpoint of British Nationalism ourselves even in opposition to vile regimes like that of the Nazis, nor do we challenge the fascism of the BNP by trying to wrap ourselves in that same flag, to which in reality they as consistent Nationalists have far more claim.

Boffy said...

As for diplomacy I’ll leave that for the bourgeois politicians. As Trotsky pointed out such diplomacy was the main weakness of the Second International which in the interest of maintaining such diplomatic relations between its various sections avoided the necessary debates over the differences of opinion. It is not the fact that the various sects have violent arguments between themselves which determines them as being sectarian, but the fact that these arguments prevent them from working together in the same Party – and often even looser organisations – and working with the working class in its Party. They are like Trotsky’s characterisation of Oehler all intent on being First Class citizens in whatever organisation they are a part. In the real Workers Parties there are very wide disparities of views from left to Right, yet the workers in these parties are able to live with these differences and proceed together on the basis of basic democratic principle. My main argument in my post Why The Sectarian Left Really Hate the LP , is precisely that. It is not in reality the politics of the LP that they cannot stand, but the fact that unable to convince the working class – inside or outside the LP – of their ideas, the sectarians demand the right to act as though they have won such support, they demand to be treated as First Class Citizens within the organisation with a set of rules, rights and privileges specific to them. They wish to be free to continue in their main activity of sterile debate, and carping against the existing leadership rather than doing something constructive to build the existing organisations. It is the denial of that right which leads them to prefer obscurity and isolation to working in the Workers Parties. It is the same thing which leads them not only to split from the Workers Party, but to increasingly split from each other. My comments are aimed not at the leaders of these organisations who have a vested interest in continuing such a trajectory, but to the ordinary members of those organisations, and to those who might be attracted to them, who do not.

Finally, if you look at some of my other posts you will see I have supported some of the actions and statements of the SWP in relation to Vestas. I have equally supported the actions of the SP, CPGB etc. in relation to the LOR strikes. I have even supported the AWL in its arguments over Israel, and other issues.

Dave said...

Arthur,

Here's part one but please view the reply as a whole.

I will rephrase my last comment from “I just reject your basic premise” to “I just reject your basic premise in bad faith”.

Your insult that the SWP are “Proponents of racism” is an inflammatory accusation if ever there was one. Anyone on the left would know this and I think your accusation was premeditated to cause offence. So while I do not put words in your mouth I claim those words were written with malice aforethought.

So I refuse to withdraw the charge.

Dave said...

Part 2,

Now onto fighting fascism, where the black and white world you inhabit is really very very grey indeed.

You claim that ‘I have not simply said that by using the word “Nazi” the SWP are guilty of propounding a racist argument.’ But this does form part of your argument and it is a logic I reject for reasons already given.

You then discuss some tactics used by anti fascists to appeal to the masses, such as the Spitfire. While personally I think this takes compromise too far I do not see it as being “Proponents of racism” but being part of the practicalities of everyday struggle. Something that Marxists inside the Labour party would know all about! Using the symbol of the Spitfire is a practical way of engaging with the masses and their 'pride' in the ‘victory against fascism’. It isn’t saying anything about the character of the Germans. Again this goes too far for me but I understand the reasons.

You then seem to make a claim which could be viewed as even more insulting and sectarian than your racism comment, you said “That, of course, is true, because the SWP have told activists not to attack UKIP, and even have people like Teddy Taylor as sponsors of the UAF!!!!”

Really! This crap just confirms my suspicions of malice aforethought. Anyone with the ability to think objectively and honestly will conclude that the SWP and UKIP stand at opposite sides of the barricades. The SWP output is full of anger at the bosses state and its treatment of workers, the SWP are an organisation built to fight the ruling class, to which UKIP goes loyal support.

“It is not a smear to say that the SWP not only accommodate to, but utilise this right-wing Nationalistic crap in opposing the BNP, it is a simple fact!” –Show me the articles to back up this slander.

Actually on this point something has struck me. I noticed reading your article “Why we need a socialist campaign for a Labour victory” that you included a set of very well thought out demands that I whole heartedly support. One of the demands read thus, “Scrap all immigration controls. Race is not a problem; racism is” Now this would have them cheering in the aisles at a SWP rally, whereas the Labour party would politely ask you to look at their market research before showing you the door!

“Moreover, it is a fact that many others on the Left also point to” –What is that the very left you yourself accuse of being sectarian!!!!!

Dave said...

Final part,

“I have already pointed out that for the majority of people the second world war was seen as essentially the same as the first. It was seen not as a war between two imperialism, nor between Fascism and Democracy, but between Britain and Germany.”

I totally reject this; I think people see this war as a battle against the ‘evil’ Hitler and not the evil Germans.

“Now, of course, the Holocaust was a damnable act. No one would seek to diminish its significance, and it is clear how as an atrocity it flows from Nazism – again I refer to Nazism, because it would not have arisen logically from Italian Fascism. For that fact alone it should be clear what dangers there are in referring to Nazism in the context of the further use of the Second World War symbolism. In other words this was a peculiarly GERMAN atrocity.”

The significance of this is that the BNP model themselves on the Nazi’s more than the Italian fascists. Why do I say this? Enter the Muslims. The parallel with the Jews is as obvious as it is alarming. The Holocaust had century’s long prejudice and bigotry behind it, the same prejudice and bigotry that is becoming normalised against Muslims in the West today. I for one will not be ignorant of history’s lessons.

All the stuff about the Atom bomb is irrelevant as I don’t dispute your argument here and only mention that one side in the Second World War was run by fascists to back up my claim that most people falsely view it as a war against fascism.

On diplomacy Marx often criticised other comrades for their lack of skill in this important area. (God only knows what he would make of you). To reject an important tactic because it is ‘bourgeois’ is extremely foolhardy and infantile.

Boffy said...

“I will rephrase my last comment … to “I just reject your basic premise in bad faith”.”..

Which means that your other comment that you were not putting words in my mouth has to be rejected, because what you are saying here is that when I say “I am not calling the SWP racists”, I am lying I am really meaning “The SWP are racists”!

”Your insult that the SWP are “Proponents of racism” is an inflammatory accusation if ever there was one.”..

No its not anymore than it was an inflammatory accusation by the SWP amongst others to point out that the demand by the CP and others for Import Controls was racist.

“You claim that ‘I have not simply said that by using the word “Nazi” the SWP are guilty of propounding a racist argument.’ But this does form part of your argument and it is a logic I reject for reasons already given.”..

But basing your scurrilous accusation on something that that only forms “part” or my argument i.e. taking it out of context, is precisely what makes it scurrilous!!

”You then discuss some tactics used by anti fascists to appeal to the masses, such as the Spitfire. While personally I think this takes compromise too far I do not see it as being “Proponents of racism” but being part of the practicalities of everyday struggle.”..

But, all you are saying here is what you actually said in your original comment about disagreeing with the premise, before you decided you’d better change that because it logically defeated your argument. You are, of course, free to continue to believe that its okay to oppose fascism by appealing to Nationalistic sentiment, just as the CP are free to believe that Import Controls are not racist. But please do not try then to close down debate, by denying me the right to disagree with this premise on pain of being accused of acting in bad faith, or with malice aforethought!

“Something that Marxists inside the Labour party would know all about! Using the symbol of the Spitfire is a practical way of engaging with the masses and their 'pride' in the ‘victory against fascism’. It isn’t saying anything about the character of the Germans. Again this goes too far for me but I understand the reasons.”..

Marxists in the LP as anywhere else do not accommodate to prejudice and backwardness. We recognise its existence, we refuse to allow its existence to prevent us from making common cause with the workers, but its our duty to speak out against it, and try to educate the workers away from it. You do not do that by accommodating to it, just as you do not fight Nationalism by adopting the symbols of Nationalism opportunistically to secure a short term victory!

”Really! This crap just confirms my suspicions of malice aforethought. Anyone with the ability to think objectively and honestly will conclude that the SWP and UKIP stand at opposite sides of the barricades. The SWP output is full of anger at the bosses state and its treatment of workers, the SWP are an organisation built to fight the ruling class, to which UKIP goes loyal support.”..

So, why then did the SWP make common cause with UKIP recently at the Griffin meeting? Why does the UAF have Teddy Taylor as a sponsor. Why at the Leeds demo against the EDL did the SWP and UAF have as one of the speakers on its platform a Leeds Councillor who is part of the ruling group currently engaged in a vicious anti-trade union action against the City Council workers???? After all, the BNP claim to be the real representatives of the white working class, and claim that the left is just part of the “Liberal establishment”. Doesn’t such action confirm in the eyes of those workers for whom this scab politician is the immediate enemy the truth of that claim?

Boffy said...

”Actually on this point something has struck me. I noticed reading your article “Why we need a socialist campaign for a Labour victory” that you included a set of very well thought out demands that I whole heartedly support. One of the demands read thus, “Scrap all immigration controls. Race is not a problem; racism is” Now this would have them cheering in the aisles at a SWP rally, whereas the Labour party would politely ask you to look at their market research before showing you the door!”..

Actually, in the LP you are still free to put forward such ideas and to try to win support for them. This is very different from the situation in most sects including the SWP where you are supposed to toe the Party line. The propensity to expel people to split and so on is still far higher within the ranks of the sects than it is within the Workers Party.

“Moreover, it is a fact that many others on the Left also point to” –What is that the very left you yourself accuse of being sectarian!!!!!..

The CIA used to say “Just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean you are not being followed”. Just because these organisations are sectarian doesn’t mean their charges against the SWP are wrong, especially given the rotten record of the SWP over recent years, which even its own membership seems to be recognising.

”I totally reject this; I think people see this war as a battle against the ‘evil’ Hitler and not the evil Germans.”

So why for years after the War was it then that people continued to hate Germans?? Indeed some still do. A few years ago my wife and I were touring Europe and went to Germany for the first time. She doesn’t hate Germans, and had to admit when we stopped in one village how nice it was. But, she would be the first to admit that she really didn’t fancy going there because her picture of Germany and Germans had been indelibly stained with all those war films and propaganda. People do not talk about one victory over the Kaiser and one over Hitler’s fascists and one world cup. And its not Hitler they are referring to when they make jokes about Germans taking over the beaches and so on.

”The significance of this is that the BNP model themselves on the Nazi’s more than the Italian fascists. Why do I say this? Enter the Muslims. The parallel with the Jews is as obvious as it is alarming. The Holocaust had century’s long prejudice and bigotry behind it, the same prejudice and bigotry that is becoming normalised against Muslims in the West today. I for one will not be ignorant of history’s lessons.”..

Actually, I’m not sure how much this is true. I think there is some validity in some of the arguments in WW just lately about the fact that Griffin is trying to turn the BNP into an equivalent of the Front National i.e. he is serious about trying to ditch the Nazi image and so on. But, even were it true opposing that by appealing to all of that Nationalistic and racist sentiment mobilised against Germany during the War is not something that a socialist should be doing, and its that which I criticise the SWP and UAF along with all those other Liberal anti-fascists for doing.

Boffy said...

”All the stuff about the Atom bomb is irrelevant as I don’t dispute your argument here and only mention that one side in the Second World War was run by fascists to back up my claim that most people falsely view it as a war against fascism.”..

But, the whole point is that you do not deny, but only refer to the atrocities committed by Germany. You did not say an inter-imperialist war with one side run by a bunch of blood thirsty liberals responsible for the death of millions over the last few centuries!!! Moreover, according to my old man there were not a just a few soldiers who served with him during the War who actually thought that Hitler had done a good job!!! They certainly didn’t see themselves fighting against fascism, but against Germany, or more correctly FOR Britain. In other words just as with WWI it was a purely Nationalist sentiment. The whole point is that a Marxist analysis would be that it would not matter whether Germany had had a fascist or bourgeois democratic Government in determining whether the two countries went to War, and the experience of other wars is that Britain would have found no shortage of nationalist sentiment to mobilise in order to fight such a war.

”On diplomacy Marx often criticised other comrades for their lack of skill in this important area. (God only knows what he would make of you). To reject an important tactic because it is ‘bourgeois’ is extremely foolhardy and infantile.”..

Marx himself was not slow to criticise other socialists when he thought they were badly wrong. The wording of his polemics against Proudhon, and that of Engels against Duhring are hardly couched in diplomatic language.

Dave said...

Arthur

Part 1,

“No its not anymore than it was an inflammatory accusation by the SWP amongst others to point out that the demand by the CP and others for Import Controls was racist.”

In your subjective opinion maybe. But it still doesn’t change the fact that your accusation was inflammatory does it.

“But basing your scurrilous accusation on something that that only forms “part” or my argument i.e. taking it out of context, is precisely what makes it scurrilous!!”

No, I dealt with the Spitfire argument also. And please stop negating the debate by pretending my criticism of you personally can be equated with criticising an entire organisation. I don’t think you can be sectarian against an individual!

“But please do not try then to close down debate, by denying me the right to disagree with this premise on pain of being accused of acting in bad faith, or with malice aforethought”

I am not closing down the debate or we wouldn’t be having this conversation. No ‘rights’ are being denied but I am claiming you are acting with malice aforethought and that your right to question is being done dishonestly and in a spirit that makes people you are trying to reach instinctively hostile. Or in a nutshell you attack the SWP in a sectarian manner, which is ironic considering your views on sectarianism.

“Marxists in the LP as anywhere else do not accommodate to prejudice and backwardness. We recognise its existence, we refuse to allow its existence to prevent us from making common cause with the workers”

Orthodoxy and practice rarely go hand in hand! No but they would work with individuals who do accommodate prejudice. They would have to follow a set of policies that pander to the level of development of the electorate –yes not exclusively the proletariat but the electorate!
The LP would not allow you to publically make the case for getting rid of immigration controls; it is not something they would want associated with the party. Why, because they do and always will pander to prejudice, especially when polls put that prejudice at 90%+! If you want to get that message across you could do worse than joining the SWP.

Dave said...

Final part,

“So, why then did the SWP make common cause with UKIP recently at the Griffin meeting…bullshit….bullshit….more bullshit”

Sometimes in certain isolated issues such as fighting fascists in your own country, alliances are necessary and again form part of the practical struggle. Orthodoxy and practice!
But when viewed honestly, objectively and in a non sectarian way, it can be seen that the SWP spend a great deal of time fighting the forces that UKIP and Teddy Taylor represent and that the SWP stand opposed to them.

“People do not talk about one victory over the Kaiser and one over Hitler’s fascists and one world cup. And its not Hitler they are referring to when they make jokes about Germans taking over the beaches and so on.”

You need to be careful to distinguish between banter and humour and actual belief.
Now there is some prejudice against Germans but the Second World War is seen as a fight against Fascism and all its ‘evils’. That’s why all those documentaries on the History channel etc focus on the Nazi’s and not the Germans.

“that Griffin is trying to turn the BNP into an equivalent of the Front National i.e. he is serious about trying to ditch the Nazi image and so on.”

But the change is superficial. He realises that the Nazi link doesn’t help his election chances. Good job some people see through this, shame others do not!!!!

“But, the whole point is that you do not deny, but only refer to the atrocities committed by Germany. You did not say an inter-imperialist war with one side run by a bunch of blood thirsty liberals”

So to you who run the capitalist state is of zero interest, how comforting for the ruling class.
It doesn’t matter if it is fascists or liberals. So the current demos in Iran in favour of establishment politician Mousavi are of no interest are they?
It is of no interest if the bosses wish to ban trade unions, ban freedom of the press or freedom of association. All bourgeois are the same so why question them? This sounds more like Bakunin than Marx.

Boffy said...

“In your subjective opinion maybe. But it still doesn’t change the fact that your accusation was inflammatory does it.”..
In your subjective opinion maybe, but objectively my statement could only be interpreted as inflammatory if I was actually saying that the SWP were racists. Given that I have repeatedly stated that I am definitely NOT saying that the SWP are racists, then no it could not be interpreted by any rational person, acting in good faith to be inflammatory.

”No, I dealt with the Spitfire argument also. And please stop negating the debate by pretending my criticism of you personally can be equated with criticising an entire organisation. I don’t think you can be sectarian against an individual!”..
I didn’t say your argument was sectarian, I said it was scurrilous. In your opinion you believe you have dealt with the Spitfire argument. In my opinion you have not for the reasons I have given.

”I am not closing down the debate or we wouldn’t be having this conversation. No ‘rights’ are being denied but I am claiming you are acting with malice aforethought and that your right to question is being done dishonestly and in a spirit that makes people you are trying to reach instinctively hostile. Or in a nutshell you attack the SWP in a sectarian manner, which is ironic considering your views on sectarianism.”..
I didn’t say you were closing down debate only attempting to do so “by denying me the right to disagree with this premise on pain of being accused of acting in bad faith, or with malice aforethought”. If individuals or organisations cannot raise criticisms of others for fear of being accused of “sectarian” etc. then that is an attempt to close down debate. In fact, the SWP do this on a much wider scale. If an attempt is raised to criticise their positions in relation to Islamism then those raising such criticisms are labelled “racist” or “Islamophobic”. Notice that this is in contrast to my own position where I have NOT said the SWP are racist, but have pointed out that in pursuing a particular line of argument to deny the BNP use of Nationalistic symbols they pursue an argument that is inherently racist. Similarly, those who challenge the SWP’s position on Israel/Palestine and their kowtowing to Hesbollah and Hamas, are labelled “Zionist”.
Sectarianism has nothing whatsoever to do with what you say, but with what you do! You can be as diplomatic and as uncritical of someone else’s position as you like, and yet if you refuse to work with them to achieve a common goal then you are a sectarian. I most certainly would not refuse to work with the SWP to fight fascism despite the fact that I believe that their politics are rotten.

Boffy said...

”Orthodoxy and practice rarely go hand in hand! No but they would work with individuals who do accommodate prejudice. They would have to follow a set of policies that pander to the level of development of the electorate –yes not exclusively the proletariat but the electorate!”
If you mean by working with individuals who accommodate prejudice, working with the average worker, then yes, absolutely, just as they do in the Trade Unions and workplaces!!! If you mean accommodating and working with hardcore racists then no. Nor does being a member of the LP require you to “follow” any particular set of policies other than in the same degree that that would be required in a Trade Union.
“The LP would not allow you to publically make the case for getting rid of immigration controls; it is not something they would want associated with the party. Why, because they do and always will pander to prejudice, especially when polls put that prejudice at 90%+! If you want to get that message across you could do worse than joining the SWP.”..
What absolute bunk. You said you read the blog about the SCLV. In that case you should have read that such a demand formed part of its original platform – a platform supported by a number of CLP’s, dozens of branches and Trade Union branches, and a number of MP’s like Jeremy Corbyn!!!! You may have noticed that he is still an MP! I am perfectly free to argue for a policy of opposition to all Immigration Laws if I choose, provided I make clear that I am speaking in my own capacity and not in the name of the LP. That is in contrast to the SWP where its members are not even allowed to form factions other than for a very small period before its Conference.
As for being able to get any message across there is far more chance of doing that given the LP’s links to the Trade Unions and class in general than via any of the irrelevant sects like the SWP, that workers hardly even realise exist.
“Sometimes in certain isolated issues such as fighting fascists in your own country, alliances are necessary and again form part of the practical struggle. Orthodoxy and practice!”..
In other words the Stalinist Popular Front! Look at5 the consequences of that for workers in China in the 1920’s, or in Spain in the 1930’s. Yes, we’ve seen the practice, and it leads to disaster.
“But when viewed honestly, objectively and in a non sectarian way, it can be seen that the SWP spend a great deal of time fighting the forces that UKIP and Teddy Taylor represent and that the SWP stand opposed to them.”..
Which only causes confusion and disillusion in the minds of workers when they see socialists in alliances with such people. How can anyone have confidence in an organisation that is supposed to be opposed to racism, but which has as its sponsors people with the well-known views of Teddy Taylor, and which blocs with UKIP. How can they trust such an organisation that puts on its platforms the representatives of the bosses who in that very City are undertaking savage attacks on the workers it is trying to mobilise. No wonder the workers attending the rally in Leeds gave the SWP such a hard time!
And, when it comes down to it the SWP have demonstrated that they place their allegiance to the working class below their alliances with such people even more blatantly than the example of Leeds. They have supported the reactionary Islamists in Iran at the same time that they have been murdering socialists. They have one the same in Iraq, in Palestine and Lebanon. They did the same thing, subordinating their socialist politics to Communalism in Respect, which even led their own members to rebel eventually.

”You need to be careful to distinguish between banter and humour and actual belief.”..
So racist jokes are fine in your book then??? All those jokes about thick Irish people did not at all reflect a deep in bred racism?

Boffy said...

“Now there is some prejudice against Germans but the Second World War is seen as a fight against Fascism and all its ‘evils’. That’s why all those documentaries on the History channel etc focus on the Nazi’s and not the Germans.”..
And how many people watch those documentaries? How many more in comparison have watched programmes like “Dad’s Army”, or “Hello, Hello”, and so on? If you think that people signed up to fight in WWII because they thought they were fighting fascism, you are deluding yourself. How many signed up to fight that same fascism in Spain? In fact, during that same period millions of workers and middle class people continued to buy the Daily Mail, and vote for Conservative politicians who were telling them what wonderful fellows Hitler and Mussolini were for putting down their Communists!
Moreover, I’m sure a lot of people do not hate Muslims as such. But they do hate terrorists, and they do hate a lot of the reactionary elements of Islam and Sharia Law. That is, of course, why the BNP, and EDL do not openly say they are opposing Muslims per se, but are opposing terrorism, and fundamentalism. They realise that in practice people do not make the same fine distinctions that you want to draw between anti-Nazi propaganda and anti-German propaganda during the war.

”But the change is superficial. He realises that the Nazi link doesn’t help his election chances. Good job some people see through this, shame others do not!!!!”..
But, the change is not superficial is it? The BNP gave up the classic Nazi tactics more than a decade ago. The BNP have gone out of their way to criticise the EDL for adopting those very tactics and so on.

Boffy said...

”So to you who run the capitalist state is of zero interest, how comforting for the ruling class.

It doesn’t matter if it is fascists or liberals. So the current demos in Iran in favour of establishment politician Mousavi are of no interest are they?

It is of no interest if the bosses wish to ban trade unions, ban freedom of the press or freedom of association. All bourgeois are the same so why question them? This sounds more like Bakunin than Marx.”
..
So, if we take your argument here then we can take it that as with WWII, you would be in favour of the democratic imperialists of Britain and the US, doing what they did against Hitler. That is you would like to see them declare war on those dictators in Iran and elsewhere, and would call for the workers to support such a war against “Fascism”. I don’t think your comrades in the SWP would welcome such a demand!!!! This is not the politics of Marx or Bakunin, but of those Second International leaders who made exactly the same argument in lining up the workers behind their own imperialism, because you see “the other side are a thoroughly bad lot”.
Of course, to a Marxist it matters which set of bourgeois politicians are in charge, or as Trotsky put it, which mask the Bourgeois Dictatorship is wearing. But, that fact does not lead a Marxist into advising workers to throw in their lot with the bourgeoisie, precisely because as the experience of China and Spain demonstrated, that bourgeoisie will immediately throw off its democratic mask, in favour of the fascist mask whenever it feels threatened by the workers. As in Spain the workers will find that they have subordinated their own politics and interests not for an allegiance with the bourgeoisie, but with its shadow, whilst the real bourgeoisie has already gone over to the reaction.
And, whilst this concern to defend bourgeois democratic freedoms against fascist reaction conditions the Marxists tactics WITHIN any given state, it in no way determines our politics in conflicts BETWEEN states. As Trotsky said in a conflict between Brazil and its fascist regime, and Britain and its “democratic” regime, he would be on the side of Brazil.
You seem to be advocating the same kind of pro-imperialist position as that put forward by the AWL, and their mentor Max Schachtman, who using your argument supported the US’s War in Vietnam against Stalinist dictators.
I’ve dealt with this approach in my blog Trotsky & The Epigones.

Dave said...

Arthur,

part 1,

Arthur,

I think the central debate has run its course.

I will just say that of it is obviously normal to criticise but there are ways and means. The ways and means decide if something is sectarian or not. And accusing a group on the left of being “Proponents of racism” is guaranteed to cause hostility and make dialogue very difficult. If you can’t see that then you are a useless diplomat and that makes you the wrong man to persuade the left to ditch its own sectarianism.

For those of honest mind please read the following article (Daly Mail vs the Nazi’s) in the current edition of socialist worker, I think it makes my point:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=19454

”Which only causes confusion and disillusion in the minds of workers when they see socialists in alliances with such people.”

Imagine how they feel when you present your immigration ideas! Imagine what that does to the image of socialism in their eyes but you are correct not to pander to ignorance and the SWP are correct also. And anyway most workers can view this objectively, those that can’t need to be taught.

“All those jokes about thick Irish people did not at all reflect a deep in bred racism?”

I am not sure they do anymore actually. They have evolved into banter, that is my impression. Just like the jokes against the Germans.

“But, the change is not superficial is it? The BNP gave up the classic Nazi tactics more than a decade ago.”

As I said shame some do not see through this sham!!!

Dave said...

final part,

Your response to my Bakunin jibe was thoroughly confused. I will try to summarise as best I can my take on this immense topic.

I do not agree with the pro imperialist position of the AWL for a variety of reason, but I think Marxists should have opinions on international matters. Of course those opinions must be based absolutely on the interests of the class struggle. We should also distinguish a conflict between imperialists and those wars of domination by imperialists against weaker states.
Marx allowed himself to have an opinion on the war between Germany and France that led to the Paris Commune and at the same time he tasked the international to “put the conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground, and everywhere to side openly with Ireland”.

On the Second World War I agree with many of your factual observations but looking back after the event we should see the differences in the warring states and recognise that for many people this was seen as a ‘just’ war against the evils of fascism. Here I am not talking about the people who fought in the war but subsequent generations who look back with hindsight. So bringing this back to the debate in question I regard the word Nazi as synonymous with ‘evil’ Fascists and not ‘evil’ Germans.
I do not think Marx would have looked at this conflict and concluded that they were all as bad as each other so it didn’t matter what the outcome was. He often voiced his preference of sides in such conflicts.
To quote Marx verbatim “You see what a caricature he [Bakunin] has made of my doctrines! As the transformation of the existing States into Associations is our last end, we must allow the governments, those great Trade-Unions of the ruling classes, to do as they like, because to occupy ourselves with them is to acknowledge them.”

Your interpretation of my position I think shows you do not look at these events with the class struggle in mind, as your absurd implication that I would support the USA against Vietnam shows. Actually the opposite would be true.

For example, I wouldn’t support an attack on Iran but I would welcome an end to the clerical dictators by an uprising within Iran, even if the outcome was a more liberal ruling class. This would allow us to establish better links with the advanced workers in Iran. An attack by the West would set back that possibility for generations.

For a Marxist you seem to be pretty shabby on the intricacies of Marxist principles in these international affairs.

Boffy said...

”I will just say that of it is obviously normal to criticise but there are ways and means. The ways and means decide if something is sectarian or not. And accusing a group on the left of being “Proponents of racism” is guaranteed to cause hostility and make dialogue very difficult. If you can’t see that then you are a useless diplomat and that makes you the wrong man to persuade the left to ditch its own sectarianism...
Given the SWP’s propensity to throw around accusations of racism, Zionism etc. against others on the Left, I think this is a bit rich! As I have said repeatedly, not only did I not call the SWP racists, but also I have several times repeated that I was specifically NOT saying that. In fact, if you read what I actually said I did not simply make even the statement “The SWP are proponents of racism” either. What I actually said was, “Its ironic, but perhaps not surprising, that in utilising this kind of image of “Anti-Nazism”, the “socialists” of the SWP, themselves end up as proponents of racism.”..
The key words for any “diplomat” here are “ironic”, and “end up”. Given the context in which it was made of explaining that it was precisely the reliance on mobilising that anti-German sentiment surrounding WWII, and the fact that it was a continuation of the anti-German sentiment from WWI, it is abundantly clear that, not only was I not saying that the SWP were racists, but that they also only “end up” as proponents of racism, ironically i.e. in contrast to their actual intention because of the logic of those arguments. You are, of course, free to disagree with the premise upon which that argument is based i.e. that by fostering the kind of anti-German sentiment that surrounds the War, and certainly the Nationalist sentiment that surrounds the question of the Spitfire, Churchill etc., you are led to put forwarding an argument that is inherently racist, but what you are quite clearly not justified in doing is claiming that in making that argument I am acting in bad faith, out of malice, on in any meaningful sense in a sectarian way. But, as I said that is just another version of what the SWP do whenever criticism of their politics is raised, in order to avoid actual discussion of those politics.

I agree that this part of the debate has reached its limit. I have replied to your furhter points, therfore in a separate blog post here.