Zivela Bosna! - and a bit of history
18 hours ago
Friday, 21 March 2008
Getting real about the BNP
Benjamin Klein takes issue with comrades Jim Grant and Dave Isaacson on the nature of the far right and the threat it poses
There is one underlying problem with the comrades’ article (Weekly Worker February 21) that runs through all of their arguments - the failure to provide some sort of definition of fascism upon which to base their analysis.
Of course, fascism is, and indeed always has been, a protean phenomenon - it is difficult to understand on the basis of programme, simply because fascists have tended to travel very light in terms of theory, adopting vastly different ideological platforms in different places and at different times. What must, however, be stressed in terms of contemporary Britain, is that any serious fascist movement would surely come draped in the union jack and have a specifically British character.
The idea that it will assume the form of Hitlerism under ‘Nazi’ Führer Nick Griffin is absurd. Griffin may of course have a Nazi background and hold a certain admiration for Hitler, but the notion that a movement whose partisans display the swastika and give each other straight-arm salutes could gain mass support in Britain does not bear examination.
After all, one of the cornerstones of British nationalism is built around the myth that Britons sacrificed everything to pull together and defeat the ‘Krauts’ in World War II. No, fascist counterrevolution in Britain will be British through and through - an organisation akin to the Countryside Alliance could definitely fit the bill in terms reactionary ideological outlook, class basis and numbers mobilised.
What should be emphasised in this debate, however, is that the question as to whether the BNP is fascist is not the key issue. It is the false assessment of the threat posed by the BNP and the response put forward by comrades Grant and Isaacson against this perceived threat that I would like to take issue with.
‘Labour of Sisyphus’
The comrades state that “in the present period, anti-fascism’s purpose is containment. It is to stem the growing influence of fascism in any way possible, to whatever extent possible.”
I am not at all convinced by this argument. We are not in a period where fascism is waiting at the door and where sections of the bourgeoisie are contemplating asking them in. The bourgeoisie happily controls the working class with the aid of the class-collaborationist trade union bureaucracy. Smashing the trade union movement is hardly a political priority in such circumstances. Similarly the revolutionary left, far from leading millions, is isolated and without mass influence. In such conditions our task is self-evident: we need to build up our own working class organisations, not mobilise against some as yet non-existent force that will threaten them in the future.
Jim has referred to this as the “Sisyphean task” of the modern anti-fascist movement, but it lies in the future. Our overriding priority for this period is that of left regroupment and recreating organs of independent working class struggle - crucially a Communist Party.
In terms of contemporary Britain, then, to attempt to ‘contain’ reactionary ideas by preventing them from gaining an audience is not only to miss the point, but actually to ensure that ‘anti-fascist’ activity does assume the form of a Sisyphean task - a task that is not just unnecessary, but one that we will, unless we start to rethink, be condemned to ceaselessly repeat. It is the reactionary mainstream ideology of respectable nationalism that sustains the far right, and it this that needs to be defeated in the here and now. It was Gordon Brown, not Nick Griffin, who advocated “British jobs for British people” - the allegiance of nation, not class, is dominant.
Free speech
The comrades are absolutely correct to assert that communists fight for free speech in opposition to the encroachments of the bourgeois state, and that this right to free speech does not include the right to shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded cinema. Yet they seem to be arguing against the idea that “free speech and the widest democracy provide the best conditions for Marxism to grow and flourish and for the formation of the working class into a future ruling class.”
Given the decay of the Marxist left and the real sense of powerlessness experienced by millions, all sorts of reactionary, eccentric and irrational ideas prevail. What is the response of Marxists to this? We constantly uphold a scientific approach and strive to establish the truth. It is quite clear that we must argue for free speech at all levels of society - we are convinced that our ideas offer coherent explanation and can defeat the alien ideas that are spontaneously reproduced within our class - nationalism, sectionalism, homophobia, etc, etc. But only if those alien ideas are exposed to the light of day through criticism.
The comrades argue: “Surely the violent suppression of fascists is an infringement of free speech?” Of course, if we forcefully closed down a fascist meeting we would be preventing the free expression of ideas at that meeting. But we are not talking about defending the right of thugs. Surely we would only employ such violence as a defensive or pre-emptive measure to uphold the right of the majority. In other words, as with the ‘right’ to shout ‘Fire!’ in a cinema, free speech is not an absolute.
However, within such limits we defend the right of free speech for everyone, even for fascists. Attempting to prevent the articulation of ideas that are repulsive or anti-working class is in any case impossible. A reactionary idea that is able to gain ground will only do so because it seems to provide an answer to questions posed by concrete conditions. So it is the conditions that give rise to the reactionary ideas that need to be tackled. It is also extremely patronising for the left to argue that workers must be prevented from encountering ideas of which the left disapproves.
No matter how many no-platform demonstrations we hold, their dissemination will continue largely unabated in churches, pubs, rugby clubs and workplaces. Griffin and his types will use such stunts - like the Oxford Union mobilisation last year - to bolster their claims that they are ‘being gagged for telling the truth’.
Alternative
Of course, even the staunchest UAF activist would argue for the need to articulate some sort of alternative. But the question is, what sort of alternative? This in my opinion is the key question - not far-right containment, but far-left regroupment and the re-articulation of Marxism within the workers’ movement. This has profound implications for the prioritising of anti-fascist work as compared with other forms of work.
What this whole debate serves to underline is that the extreme right is sometimes able to pose its alternative in a way the left can only dream of. That is why we need to take the question of programme much more seriously.
In the past both the Trotskyist united front and the ‘official communist’ popular front were predicated on an over-exaggeration of the threat posed by fascism and the related necessity of the workers’ movement stemming “the growing influence of fascism in any way possible, to whatever extent possible”, as comrades Jim and Dave put it. The truth is that, whether of not the BNP is defined as fascist, chasing it in this period is a diversion - a diversion from the vital task of developing a programmatic alternative and building the organisation capable of fulfilling its goals.
There is one underlying problem with the comrades’ article (Weekly Worker February 21) that runs through all of their arguments - the failure to provide some sort of definition of fascism upon which to base their analysis.
Of course, fascism is, and indeed always has been, a protean phenomenon - it is difficult to understand on the basis of programme, simply because fascists have tended to travel very light in terms of theory, adopting vastly different ideological platforms in different places and at different times. What must, however, be stressed in terms of contemporary Britain, is that any serious fascist movement would surely come draped in the union jack and have a specifically British character.
The idea that it will assume the form of Hitlerism under ‘Nazi’ Führer Nick Griffin is absurd. Griffin may of course have a Nazi background and hold a certain admiration for Hitler, but the notion that a movement whose partisans display the swastika and give each other straight-arm salutes could gain mass support in Britain does not bear examination.
After all, one of the cornerstones of British nationalism is built around the myth that Britons sacrificed everything to pull together and defeat the ‘Krauts’ in World War II. No, fascist counterrevolution in Britain will be British through and through - an organisation akin to the Countryside Alliance could definitely fit the bill in terms reactionary ideological outlook, class basis and numbers mobilised.
What should be emphasised in this debate, however, is that the question as to whether the BNP is fascist is not the key issue. It is the false assessment of the threat posed by the BNP and the response put forward by comrades Grant and Isaacson against this perceived threat that I would like to take issue with.
‘Labour of Sisyphus’
The comrades state that “in the present period, anti-fascism’s purpose is containment. It is to stem the growing influence of fascism in any way possible, to whatever extent possible.”
I am not at all convinced by this argument. We are not in a period where fascism is waiting at the door and where sections of the bourgeoisie are contemplating asking them in. The bourgeoisie happily controls the working class with the aid of the class-collaborationist trade union bureaucracy. Smashing the trade union movement is hardly a political priority in such circumstances. Similarly the revolutionary left, far from leading millions, is isolated and without mass influence. In such conditions our task is self-evident: we need to build up our own working class organisations, not mobilise against some as yet non-existent force that will threaten them in the future.
Jim has referred to this as the “Sisyphean task” of the modern anti-fascist movement, but it lies in the future. Our overriding priority for this period is that of left regroupment and recreating organs of independent working class struggle - crucially a Communist Party.
In terms of contemporary Britain, then, to attempt to ‘contain’ reactionary ideas by preventing them from gaining an audience is not only to miss the point, but actually to ensure that ‘anti-fascist’ activity does assume the form of a Sisyphean task - a task that is not just unnecessary, but one that we will, unless we start to rethink, be condemned to ceaselessly repeat. It is the reactionary mainstream ideology of respectable nationalism that sustains the far right, and it this that needs to be defeated in the here and now. It was Gordon Brown, not Nick Griffin, who advocated “British jobs for British people” - the allegiance of nation, not class, is dominant.
Free speech
The comrades are absolutely correct to assert that communists fight for free speech in opposition to the encroachments of the bourgeois state, and that this right to free speech does not include the right to shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded cinema. Yet they seem to be arguing against the idea that “free speech and the widest democracy provide the best conditions for Marxism to grow and flourish and for the formation of the working class into a future ruling class.”
Given the decay of the Marxist left and the real sense of powerlessness experienced by millions, all sorts of reactionary, eccentric and irrational ideas prevail. What is the response of Marxists to this? We constantly uphold a scientific approach and strive to establish the truth. It is quite clear that we must argue for free speech at all levels of society - we are convinced that our ideas offer coherent explanation and can defeat the alien ideas that are spontaneously reproduced within our class - nationalism, sectionalism, homophobia, etc, etc. But only if those alien ideas are exposed to the light of day through criticism.
The comrades argue: “Surely the violent suppression of fascists is an infringement of free speech?” Of course, if we forcefully closed down a fascist meeting we would be preventing the free expression of ideas at that meeting. But we are not talking about defending the right of thugs. Surely we would only employ such violence as a defensive or pre-emptive measure to uphold the right of the majority. In other words, as with the ‘right’ to shout ‘Fire!’ in a cinema, free speech is not an absolute.
However, within such limits we defend the right of free speech for everyone, even for fascists. Attempting to prevent the articulation of ideas that are repulsive or anti-working class is in any case impossible. A reactionary idea that is able to gain ground will only do so because it seems to provide an answer to questions posed by concrete conditions. So it is the conditions that give rise to the reactionary ideas that need to be tackled. It is also extremely patronising for the left to argue that workers must be prevented from encountering ideas of which the left disapproves.
No matter how many no-platform demonstrations we hold, their dissemination will continue largely unabated in churches, pubs, rugby clubs and workplaces. Griffin and his types will use such stunts - like the Oxford Union mobilisation last year - to bolster their claims that they are ‘being gagged for telling the truth’.
Alternative
Of course, even the staunchest UAF activist would argue for the need to articulate some sort of alternative. But the question is, what sort of alternative? This in my opinion is the key question - not far-right containment, but far-left regroupment and the re-articulation of Marxism within the workers’ movement. This has profound implications for the prioritising of anti-fascist work as compared with other forms of work.
What this whole debate serves to underline is that the extreme right is sometimes able to pose its alternative in a way the left can only dream of. That is why we need to take the question of programme much more seriously.
In the past both the Trotskyist united front and the ‘official communist’ popular front were predicated on an over-exaggeration of the threat posed by fascism and the related necessity of the workers’ movement stemming “the growing influence of fascism in any way possible, to whatever extent possible”, as comrades Jim and Dave put it. The truth is that, whether of not the BNP is defined as fascist, chasing it in this period is a diversion - a diversion from the vital task of developing a programmatic alternative and building the organisation capable of fulfilling its goals.
Thursday, 13 March 2008
Galloway: "Not true" that gay people are executed in Iran?
I don't think this video needs much comment. As if a war can be stopped by telling lies about Iran and apologising for the theocracy's actions. What the anti-war movement needs is a clear and principled approach, not the utter nonsense spouted by people like Galloway - it is really does bring shame upon our movement:
Still marching, still not leading
My review of "Five years on: why we are still marching" by Chris Nineham and Andrew Burgin : Stop the War Coalition, pp24, £1.00
This pamphlet has particular relevance to me and doubtless thousands of other people, in that it briefly outlines five years that have changed the lives of thousands of activists within Britain, politicising a new generation and throwing people from all backgrounds into political struggle - often for the first time in their lives.
Who can forget the militancy and resolve with which school students responded to the threat of war? Walkouts, meetings and the defiance of threats of expulsion all undermined the myth that the youth of today do not care about politics or big issues. February 15 2003 - or, in the words of cultural commentator John Harris, “the day when politics stopped working” for millions across the globe - will certainly go down in history.
Yet where are these people today? Where is the political verve and resolve that swept across anti-war branches, student unions and sixth form common rooms? Demonstrations are smaller, activists often disillusioned and local Stop the War Coalition branches - a select few aside - effectively cease to operate. It is in this context that we must analyse the latest STWC pamphlet. Although not explicitly stated, it attempts to come to terms with the last five years - not through ruthless and honest self-criticism, but through making a liberal, moralistic case as to why it is necessary to keep on marching, despite the fact that five years of doing precisely this has unfortunately seen numbers dwindle and the masses gradually retreat from the political stage back into passivity.
Activists who have walked up and down the hill in the name of peace will therefore not be surprised - there is no real attempt to articulate new ideas about the future of the anti-war movement and the political tactics it must adopt if it is to successfully channel the still latent sentiment into some sort of challenge to undermine the war in the Middle East.
The pamphlet appeals to our moral outrage at the horrors of war by highlighting some in part shocking figures from Oxfam surveys and ‘human rights’ case studies. It does not attempt to grasp the dynamics of the US war drive. Although the section on the ‘forgotten war’ in Afghanistan is of much better quality than the others, it offers nothing new to readers of the liberal press.
Tony Benn’s extremely brief foreword epitomises the political shortcomings of the STWC - an organisation that once was full of verve and energy but, because of the directionlessness of its ‘Marxist’ misleaders, is unwilling and unable to provide answers in the face of the permanent ‘war on terror’ and its disastrous consequences.
In this sense, the pamphlet can actually be viewed as a step backwards compared to some previous material produced by the coalition, such as Lindsey German’s and Andrew Murray’s 2005 Stop the war: the story of Britain’s biggest ever mass movement. Whereas Murray and German were previously willing to make hollow concessions to the obvious fact that “the anti-war movement failed to stop the war because it was insufficiently implanted in a militant working class movement”, the pamphlet is loathe to even admit this, let alone ask why this was the case. Instead the reader is subjected to desperate exaggeration and hyperbole in order to make the case for the STWC “making a difference” - as one section of the pamphlet is titled. Not only has Tony Blair “been driven from office”, but - and this really is something to be proud of - “the strength of the anti-war movement has forced the US to put its plans for an attack on Iran on hold” (p23).
It is hardly the case that Tony Blair was ejected from office into political insignificance with his tail between his legs. True, Iraq plus frustrated ambitions within the upper echelons of his own party forced him to announce his resignation date earlier than he would have liked. But he managed to see out 10 years as prime minister, was appointed Middle East ‘peace envoy’ and looks destined for a high-profile role in the European Union.
The claim about Iran ignores the fact that, as well as seeing Tehran as an enemy, the Bush administration is also holding out the offer of a deal. Moreover, the authors seem to forget that in a sense the war against Iran has already begun in the shape of sanctions.
According to Burgin and Nineham, US aggression is “driven by fear of economic competition from China and the emerging powers” and that is why “further use of overwhelmingly military force by the US, whoever is president, remains a serious threat” (p22). But there is no mention of US economic decline in the conditions of imperialist moribund capitalism and the necessity of war for US capital. The glaring failure to mention, let alone concretely analyse, imperialism is also more frustrating in that it fails to tackle head-on one of the deep-seated political misconceptions within the anti-war movement: namely that the occupation of Iraq would be somehow ‘just’ or ‘more respectable’ with the backing of the United Nations den of thieves who, in the aftermath of the invasion, declared the occupation legal and legitimised the puppet regime.
The section on Iraq makes some sound points about the chaos inflicted on Iraq by the occupying forces, especially in terms of the chronic lack of resources in the country due to a destroyed social infrastructure and the sealing off of key districts. It also does an adequate job of tackling the media’s concerted efforts to focus reporting on individualised sectarian terrorist attacks, downplay Britain’s role as invader and manufacture the impression that the continuation of the occupation was some sort of ‘peace-keeping’ operation to prevent the country sliding into civil war. Given that even certain elements of the organised ‘left’ can see the ‘progressive’ side of the occupation, it is important that the pamphlet attempts to deal with this question and highlight the destructive US-UK ‘divide and rule’ strategy.
Nevertheless, this is not the same thing as implying that there are no deep-seated divisions within Iraq itself. The pamphlet reassuringly says, for instance, that “Iraq has little history of inter-communal tensions” (p7). But what about today? While we insist on an immediate and unconditional end to the occupation, we are under no illusions that this will instantly produce peace, light and harmony. However, in line with the STWC’s policy of ‘keeping it broad’, comrades Nineham and Burgin do not call for immediate and unconditional withdrawal - in fact they make no specific demands whatsoever. (True, the section on Afghanistan ends with the statement that “It is time for the troops to leave.” But when was it the right time for them to be there in the first place?)
Yet to discuss Iraqi social divisions in a serious manner would certainly get the comrades into some difficulty. The US “switch in political alliances” (p6), which is described as helping to stabilise the country, is actually linked to its increasingly complex relationship with the (supposedly anti-imperialist) Iranian regime, which exerts huge influence in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is probably why there is next to nothing written on Iran and the threat against it.
Aside from the hardly novel assertions that the “America and Israel are directly threatening Iran” (p2), the pamphlet devotes little attention to the issue and the extremely complex social dynamics unfolding within the wider Middle East region as a whole. It does not mention sanctions and the ramifications for Iranian society. Given the STWC leadership’s cynical manoeuvres to prevent Hands Off the People of Iran and Communist Students from affiliating for having the gall to speak out against the Tehran regime, and its own preference for pro-Iran apologetics, the absence of material is surely not insignificant.
It is here that we see the fundamental political problem with the coalition. Although Tony Benn marvels at the “broad” coalition that has been built with “people from all nationalities” represented (p2), the reality is that the Socialist Workers Party is more than willing to make concession after concession to forces to its right, while looking to silence and exclude critical voices - crucially from the left. So exiled Iranian socialists in Hopi are told they are not welcome, but a tour around the country is laid on for Hezbollah.
It is clear that things are now a lot different from the heady days of 2003. But, reading this pamphlet, you can perhaps see why. Firstly, as I have pointed out, it does not even address the question of decreasing support. Secondly, just as it makes no demands, it fails to outline any tasks either for the STWC or the movement more generally. Marching is about the limit of it.
The pamphlet combines statistics, personal reflections and (some oddly placed and largely irrelevant) graphs and maps to make its pacifistic, liberal case against war. Yet unless the left can pose a democratic, working class alternative, then there is a real danger of an attack on Iran - and not only that, but many more wars besides.
This pamphlet has particular relevance to me and doubtless thousands of other people, in that it briefly outlines five years that have changed the lives of thousands of activists within Britain, politicising a new generation and throwing people from all backgrounds into political struggle - often for the first time in their lives.
Who can forget the militancy and resolve with which school students responded to the threat of war? Walkouts, meetings and the defiance of threats of expulsion all undermined the myth that the youth of today do not care about politics or big issues. February 15 2003 - or, in the words of cultural commentator John Harris, “the day when politics stopped working” for millions across the globe - will certainly go down in history.
Yet where are these people today? Where is the political verve and resolve that swept across anti-war branches, student unions and sixth form common rooms? Demonstrations are smaller, activists often disillusioned and local Stop the War Coalition branches - a select few aside - effectively cease to operate. It is in this context that we must analyse the latest STWC pamphlet. Although not explicitly stated, it attempts to come to terms with the last five years - not through ruthless and honest self-criticism, but through making a liberal, moralistic case as to why it is necessary to keep on marching, despite the fact that five years of doing precisely this has unfortunately seen numbers dwindle and the masses gradually retreat from the political stage back into passivity.
Activists who have walked up and down the hill in the name of peace will therefore not be surprised - there is no real attempt to articulate new ideas about the future of the anti-war movement and the political tactics it must adopt if it is to successfully channel the still latent sentiment into some sort of challenge to undermine the war in the Middle East.
The pamphlet appeals to our moral outrage at the horrors of war by highlighting some in part shocking figures from Oxfam surveys and ‘human rights’ case studies. It does not attempt to grasp the dynamics of the US war drive. Although the section on the ‘forgotten war’ in Afghanistan is of much better quality than the others, it offers nothing new to readers of the liberal press.
Tony Benn’s extremely brief foreword epitomises the political shortcomings of the STWC - an organisation that once was full of verve and energy but, because of the directionlessness of its ‘Marxist’ misleaders, is unwilling and unable to provide answers in the face of the permanent ‘war on terror’ and its disastrous consequences.
In this sense, the pamphlet can actually be viewed as a step backwards compared to some previous material produced by the coalition, such as Lindsey German’s and Andrew Murray’s 2005 Stop the war: the story of Britain’s biggest ever mass movement. Whereas Murray and German were previously willing to make hollow concessions to the obvious fact that “the anti-war movement failed to stop the war because it was insufficiently implanted in a militant working class movement”, the pamphlet is loathe to even admit this, let alone ask why this was the case. Instead the reader is subjected to desperate exaggeration and hyperbole in order to make the case for the STWC “making a difference” - as one section of the pamphlet is titled. Not only has Tony Blair “been driven from office”, but - and this really is something to be proud of - “the strength of the anti-war movement has forced the US to put its plans for an attack on Iran on hold” (p23).
It is hardly the case that Tony Blair was ejected from office into political insignificance with his tail between his legs. True, Iraq plus frustrated ambitions within the upper echelons of his own party forced him to announce his resignation date earlier than he would have liked. But he managed to see out 10 years as prime minister, was appointed Middle East ‘peace envoy’ and looks destined for a high-profile role in the European Union.
The claim about Iran ignores the fact that, as well as seeing Tehran as an enemy, the Bush administration is also holding out the offer of a deal. Moreover, the authors seem to forget that in a sense the war against Iran has already begun in the shape of sanctions.
According to Burgin and Nineham, US aggression is “driven by fear of economic competition from China and the emerging powers” and that is why “further use of overwhelmingly military force by the US, whoever is president, remains a serious threat” (p22). But there is no mention of US economic decline in the conditions of imperialist moribund capitalism and the necessity of war for US capital. The glaring failure to mention, let alone concretely analyse, imperialism is also more frustrating in that it fails to tackle head-on one of the deep-seated political misconceptions within the anti-war movement: namely that the occupation of Iraq would be somehow ‘just’ or ‘more respectable’ with the backing of the United Nations den of thieves who, in the aftermath of the invasion, declared the occupation legal and legitimised the puppet regime.
The section on Iraq makes some sound points about the chaos inflicted on Iraq by the occupying forces, especially in terms of the chronic lack of resources in the country due to a destroyed social infrastructure and the sealing off of key districts. It also does an adequate job of tackling the media’s concerted efforts to focus reporting on individualised sectarian terrorist attacks, downplay Britain’s role as invader and manufacture the impression that the continuation of the occupation was some sort of ‘peace-keeping’ operation to prevent the country sliding into civil war. Given that even certain elements of the organised ‘left’ can see the ‘progressive’ side of the occupation, it is important that the pamphlet attempts to deal with this question and highlight the destructive US-UK ‘divide and rule’ strategy.
Nevertheless, this is not the same thing as implying that there are no deep-seated divisions within Iraq itself. The pamphlet reassuringly says, for instance, that “Iraq has little history of inter-communal tensions” (p7). But what about today? While we insist on an immediate and unconditional end to the occupation, we are under no illusions that this will instantly produce peace, light and harmony. However, in line with the STWC’s policy of ‘keeping it broad’, comrades Nineham and Burgin do not call for immediate and unconditional withdrawal - in fact they make no specific demands whatsoever. (True, the section on Afghanistan ends with the statement that “It is time for the troops to leave.” But when was it the right time for them to be there in the first place?)
Yet to discuss Iraqi social divisions in a serious manner would certainly get the comrades into some difficulty. The US “switch in political alliances” (p6), which is described as helping to stabilise the country, is actually linked to its increasingly complex relationship with the (supposedly anti-imperialist) Iranian regime, which exerts huge influence in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is probably why there is next to nothing written on Iran and the threat against it.
Aside from the hardly novel assertions that the “America and Israel are directly threatening Iran” (p2), the pamphlet devotes little attention to the issue and the extremely complex social dynamics unfolding within the wider Middle East region as a whole. It does not mention sanctions and the ramifications for Iranian society. Given the STWC leadership’s cynical manoeuvres to prevent Hands Off the People of Iran and Communist Students from affiliating for having the gall to speak out against the Tehran regime, and its own preference for pro-Iran apologetics, the absence of material is surely not insignificant.
It is here that we see the fundamental political problem with the coalition. Although Tony Benn marvels at the “broad” coalition that has been built with “people from all nationalities” represented (p2), the reality is that the Socialist Workers Party is more than willing to make concession after concession to forces to its right, while looking to silence and exclude critical voices - crucially from the left. So exiled Iranian socialists in Hopi are told they are not welcome, but a tour around the country is laid on for Hezbollah.
It is clear that things are now a lot different from the heady days of 2003. But, reading this pamphlet, you can perhaps see why. Firstly, as I have pointed out, it does not even address the question of decreasing support. Secondly, just as it makes no demands, it fails to outline any tasks either for the STWC or the movement more generally. Marching is about the limit of it.
The pamphlet combines statistics, personal reflections and (some oddly placed and largely irrelevant) graphs and maps to make its pacifistic, liberal case against war. Yet unless the left can pose a democratic, working class alternative, then there is a real danger of an attack on Iran - and not only that, but many more wars besides.
Wednesday, 5 March 2008
Bertolt Brecht: An die Nachgeborenen
An die Nachgeborenen
I
Wirklich, ich lebe in finsteren Zeiten!
Das arglose Wort ist töricht. Eine glatte Stirn
Deutet auf Unempfindlichkeit hin. Der Lachende
Hat die furchtbare Nachricht
Nur noch nicht empfangen.
Was sind das für Zeiten, wo
Ein Gespräch über Bäume fast ein Verbrechen ist
Weil es ein Schweigen über so viele Untaten einschließt!
Der dort ruhig über die Straße geht
Ist wohl nicht mehr erreichbar für seine Freunde
Die in Not sind?
Es ist wahr: ich verdiene noch meinen Unterhalt
Aber glaubt mir: das ist nur ein Zufall. Nichts
Von dem, was ich tue, berechtigt mich dazu, mich sattzuessen.
Zufällig bin ich verschont. (Wenn mein Glück aussetzt, bin ich verloren.)
Man sagt mir: Iß und trink du! Sei froh, daß du hast!
Aber wie kann ich essen und trinken, wenn
Ich dem Hungernden entreiße, was ich esse, und
Mein Glas Wasser einem Verdurstenden fehlt?
Und doch esse und trinke ich.
Ich wäre gerne auch weise.
In den alten Büchern steht, was weise ist:
Sich aus dem Streit der Welt halten und die kurze Zeit
Ohne Furcht verbringen
Auch ohne Gewalt auskommen
Böses mit Gutem vergelten
Seine Wünsche nicht erfüllen, sondern vergessen
Gilt für weise.
Alles das kann ich nicht:
Wirklich, ich lebe in finsteren Zeiten!
II
In die Städte kam ich zur Zeit der Unordnung
Als da Hunger herrschte.
Unter die Menschen kam ich zu der Zeit des Aufruhrs
Und ich empörte mich mit ihnen.
So verging meine Zeit
Die auf Erden mir gegeben war.
Mein Essen aß ich zwischen den Schlachten
Schlafen legte ich mich unter die Mörder
Der Liebe pflegte ich achtlos
Und die Natur sah ich ohne Geduld.
So verging meine Zeit
Die auf Erden mich gegeben war.
Die Straßen führten in den Sumpf zu meiner Zeit.
Die Sprache verriet mich dem Schlächter.
Ich vermochte nur wenig. Aber die Herrschenden
Saßen ohne mich sicherer, das hoffte ich.
So verging meine Zeit
Die auf Erden mir gegeben war.
Die Kräfte waren gering. Das Ziel
Lag in großer Ferne
Es war deutlich sichtbar, wenn auch für mich
Kaum zu erreichen.
So verging meine Zeit
Die auf Erden mir gegeben war.
III
Ihr, die ihr auftauchen werdet aus der Flut
In der wir untergegangen sind
Gedenkt
Wenn ihr von unseren Schwächen sprecht
Auch der finsteren Zeit
Der ihr entronnen seid.
Gingen wir doch, öfter als die Schuhe die Länder wechselnd
Durch die Kriege der Klassen, verzweifelt
Wenn da nur Unrecht war und keine Empörung.
Dabei wissen wir doch:
Auch der Haß gegen die Niedrigkeit
Verzerrt die Züge.
Auch der Zorn über das Unrecht
Macht die Stimme heiser. Ach, wir
Die wir den Boden bereiten wollten für Freundlichkeit
Konnten selber nicht freundlich sein.
Ihr aber, wenn es so weit sein wird
Daß der Mensch dem Menschen ein Helfer ist
Gedenkt unsrer
Mit Nachsicht.
I
Wirklich, ich lebe in finsteren Zeiten!
Das arglose Wort ist töricht. Eine glatte Stirn
Deutet auf Unempfindlichkeit hin. Der Lachende
Hat die furchtbare Nachricht
Nur noch nicht empfangen.
Was sind das für Zeiten, wo
Ein Gespräch über Bäume fast ein Verbrechen ist
Weil es ein Schweigen über so viele Untaten einschließt!
Der dort ruhig über die Straße geht
Ist wohl nicht mehr erreichbar für seine Freunde
Die in Not sind?
Es ist wahr: ich verdiene noch meinen Unterhalt
Aber glaubt mir: das ist nur ein Zufall. Nichts
Von dem, was ich tue, berechtigt mich dazu, mich sattzuessen.
Zufällig bin ich verschont. (Wenn mein Glück aussetzt, bin ich verloren.)
Man sagt mir: Iß und trink du! Sei froh, daß du hast!
Aber wie kann ich essen und trinken, wenn
Ich dem Hungernden entreiße, was ich esse, und
Mein Glas Wasser einem Verdurstenden fehlt?
Und doch esse und trinke ich.
Ich wäre gerne auch weise.
In den alten Büchern steht, was weise ist:
Sich aus dem Streit der Welt halten und die kurze Zeit
Ohne Furcht verbringen
Auch ohne Gewalt auskommen
Böses mit Gutem vergelten
Seine Wünsche nicht erfüllen, sondern vergessen
Gilt für weise.
Alles das kann ich nicht:
Wirklich, ich lebe in finsteren Zeiten!
II
In die Städte kam ich zur Zeit der Unordnung
Als da Hunger herrschte.
Unter die Menschen kam ich zu der Zeit des Aufruhrs
Und ich empörte mich mit ihnen.
So verging meine Zeit
Die auf Erden mir gegeben war.
Mein Essen aß ich zwischen den Schlachten
Schlafen legte ich mich unter die Mörder
Der Liebe pflegte ich achtlos
Und die Natur sah ich ohne Geduld.
So verging meine Zeit
Die auf Erden mich gegeben war.
Die Straßen führten in den Sumpf zu meiner Zeit.
Die Sprache verriet mich dem Schlächter.
Ich vermochte nur wenig. Aber die Herrschenden
Saßen ohne mich sicherer, das hoffte ich.
So verging meine Zeit
Die auf Erden mir gegeben war.
Die Kräfte waren gering. Das Ziel
Lag in großer Ferne
Es war deutlich sichtbar, wenn auch für mich
Kaum zu erreichen.
So verging meine Zeit
Die auf Erden mir gegeben war.
III
Ihr, die ihr auftauchen werdet aus der Flut
In der wir untergegangen sind
Gedenkt
Wenn ihr von unseren Schwächen sprecht
Auch der finsteren Zeit
Der ihr entronnen seid.
Gingen wir doch, öfter als die Schuhe die Länder wechselnd
Durch die Kriege der Klassen, verzweifelt
Wenn da nur Unrecht war und keine Empörung.
Dabei wissen wir doch:
Auch der Haß gegen die Niedrigkeit
Verzerrt die Züge.
Auch der Zorn über das Unrecht
Macht die Stimme heiser. Ach, wir
Die wir den Boden bereiten wollten für Freundlichkeit
Konnten selber nicht freundlich sein.
Ihr aber, wenn es so weit sein wird
Daß der Mensch dem Menschen ein Helfer ist
Gedenkt unsrer
Mit Nachsicht.
Tuesday, 4 March 2008
Pro-Imperialists Snubbed
Hopi is adamant that it will not blur the sharp political message it sends out to the anti-war movement. Whilst making clear that the Tehran regime is in no way an ally of the international working class, it will not make concessions to groups that have a lot to say about oppression in Iran but downplay or remain indifferent to the basic fact that it is the forces of imperialism that represent the main threat in the world. It is therefore to be welcomed that the Hopi steering committee took a principled and clear stand on the question of organising a meeting with the AWL-dominated Education Not for Sale.
ENS has called for the election of Anoosheh Azaadbar, a student imprisoned in Iran for her political activities, as NUS honorary vice-president. Hopi is supporting this call as one way of raising the profile of our comrades’ struggles in Iran and of strengthening the anti-war message by arguing that only the democratic and working class forces can be anti-imperialist in any meaningful sense.
However, we most definitely reject the social-imperialism of the AWL. We all know its record when it comes to the Middle East and it is definitely something that should not be allowed to taint Hopi. The AWL’s patriarch, Sean Matgmana, defines himself as a “Zionist”, whereas his number two Martin Thomas is merely “a little bit Zionist”.
It should be of little surprise then, that AWL student organiser Sacha Ismail objects to Hopi’s insistence in its founding statement on “opposition to Israeli expansionism and aggression” which, apparently, is irrelevant to Iran. Where has Sacha been all these years? Does he not think it possible that Israel could nuke Iran? Comrade Thomas has recently mused on the desirability of a “surgical” operation to remove Ahmadinejad from power and stop Iran getting a nuclear bomb and it is quite possible that Israeli aggression would have a role to play in that eventuality too (Solidarity October 29 2007).
Comrade Ismail actually attempts to draw an equals sign between the US-backed Israeli nuclear state and Iranian expanisionism, saying that “to be involved [with Hopi] you have to have the right position on Israel, but nothing is said about the national minorities oppressed by Iran or its role in Iraq and Afghanistan!”
Although I do agree that the Hopi statement is weak on the oppression of national minorities in Iran (something that needs to be rectified), who on the left (apart from the AWL, obviously) could suggest that opposition to a state that is armed to the teeth and openly talks about a ‘pre-emptive’ strike against Iran might not be the “right position on Israel”?
The AWL also complains that the name, Hands Off the People of Iran, is biased towards and focused on “getting external ‘hands’ off the ‘people’ of Iran, at a time when Tehran’s power in the region is on the rise, workers’ struggles are on the rise in Iran, and US or Israeli military attack is only a possibility”.1 What utter nonsense. The word ‘people’ was included in the name precisely to distinguish Hopi from those who would defend the regime. We side with the “people” of Iran against both the islamic republic and the imperialists (while a nuclear strike is “only” a possibility, sanctions that always hit ordinary workers first and foremost are in operation right now).
Not only did the AWL refuse to call for the defeat of the imperialist project in Iraq (purportedly because this would necessarily imply solidarity with the Ba’athists); it now, despite all that has happened and continues to happen in Iraq, dogmatically clings to the idea that to call for an immediate end to the occupation is to support the programmes of al-Sadr and other reactionary forces.
Comrades in the solidarity movement should welcome AWL member David Broder’s latest post on internationalism in the Middle East,2 which lampoons the political conclusions that the majority of the AWL draw. He is completely correct when he asserts that “the AWL acquiesces to imperialist involvement in the region in the here and now in the belief that it will be able to hold islamism at bay and so create breathing space for the workers’ movement to grow. Of course, we are always living in the ‘here and now’, while the question of how and why the Iraqi left and trade unions are meant to grow in the ‘meantime’ before the troops leave is barely considered.” Unlike some supposed ‘oppositionists’ within the AWL, he does at least seem willing to challenge the majority line on the Middle East.
The response
After the Hopi steering committee rejected the ENS call for a joint meeting, comrade Ismail posted our response on the ENS discussion list with the comment that “a meeting on Iran organised and pitched as a debate between different sections of the pro-solidarity left doesn’t make sense in this context”. He explained his wish to “have an Iranian student speaking”, given that the NUS left is heavily influenced by the Socialist Workers Party and its take on Iran. So what would be good about a pro-intervention student attacking the STWC? We would not want to be associated with such a dupe, though we would be prepared to engage in an honest debate.***
We could also, for example, debate comrade Ismael’s statement that in the event of a US attack on Iran, “we should oppose the war on both sides, not talk about ‘imperialism’ as if it was a matter of predator and victim. There are two predators of different sizes here.”
While there would be no question of Hopi calling for defence of the Iran regime, the fact that Washington and Tehran are “of different sizes” is of considerable relevance. Clearly the US is capable of mounting a devastating air assault on Iran - and is actually threatening to do so - whereas the opposite scenario is inconceivable. In fact Iran would have very little defence against such an assault. So there is something peculiar about the call to “oppose the war on both sides” when it would clearly be a very one-sided affair.
Yes, Iran is fully integrated into the world capitalist system and is looking to gain a higher status in the pecking order, but the point is that it is the vastly more powerful US that poses the main threat to the entire region. Yet the AWL’s social-imperialist majority wants its troops to remain in Iraq, since it ludicrously claims this will help ‘protect the Iraqi labour movement’. It is true that Iran too is playing a negative role in Iraq, but the reason for its increased influence can be traced back to - wait for it - the US invasion and occupation, which was, of course, supported by Tehran.
Comrade Ismail asks: “What does [defeatism] mean? That we should favour the defeat of the US? But that means supporting the victory of Iran. I’m not a liberal; as I say, in some circumstances, I would favour the defeat of the US and the victory of its opponent (while opposing the regime, etc, etc). But if … Iran is an aspirant regional imperialist power, how does favouring its victory make sense?”
It betrays a certain formal logic to argue that calling for the defeat of one’s ‘own’ imperialist state means automatically supporting the forces it happens to be in conflict with. We call for the defeat of the US and UK because they are imperialist states and their actions are therefore against the international interests of the working class. But we do not support the regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad any more than we supported that of Saddam Hussein. We wish to see their defeat too - at the hands of the working class! But there is no question as to which is the greater enemy - imperialism, not Saddam, Ahmadinejad or political islam.
During my exchanges with comrade Ismail on the ENS list I made the concrete proposal that a possible debate could revolve around the theme, ‘Iran and the Middle East: can US-led imperialism play a progressive role?’ To which he responded by asking why the question should be posed in this way when “nobody involved” is of this opinion. In fact the AWL majority does actually hold the view - as David Broder has shown - that imperialism, or in the very least certain aspects of imperialism, can play a progressive role in the Middle East. It may be shamefaced in this view and loath to admit it, but there is no other way to explain the AWL’s refusal to call for an immediate imperialist withdrawal.
Let us hope that opponents of this line within the AWL can gain in influence and help break it from its crass social-imperialist economism.
Notes
1. www.workersliberty.org/node/9731
2. trotskyist.blogspot.com/2008/02/working-class-internationalism-and.html
***This point should be elaborated on somewhat. Although the point made in and of itself is valid, ENS had no plans to invite such a speaker, and indeed had suggested speakers who are close to HOPI - i.e. definitely NOT in favour of intervention in Iran. I should have noticed this and changed it.
ENS has called for the election of Anoosheh Azaadbar, a student imprisoned in Iran for her political activities, as NUS honorary vice-president. Hopi is supporting this call as one way of raising the profile of our comrades’ struggles in Iran and of strengthening the anti-war message by arguing that only the democratic and working class forces can be anti-imperialist in any meaningful sense.
However, we most definitely reject the social-imperialism of the AWL. We all know its record when it comes to the Middle East and it is definitely something that should not be allowed to taint Hopi. The AWL’s patriarch, Sean Matgmana, defines himself as a “Zionist”, whereas his number two Martin Thomas is merely “a little bit Zionist”.
It should be of little surprise then, that AWL student organiser Sacha Ismail objects to Hopi’s insistence in its founding statement on “opposition to Israeli expansionism and aggression” which, apparently, is irrelevant to Iran. Where has Sacha been all these years? Does he not think it possible that Israel could nuke Iran? Comrade Thomas has recently mused on the desirability of a “surgical” operation to remove Ahmadinejad from power and stop Iran getting a nuclear bomb and it is quite possible that Israeli aggression would have a role to play in that eventuality too (Solidarity October 29 2007).
Comrade Ismail actually attempts to draw an equals sign between the US-backed Israeli nuclear state and Iranian expanisionism, saying that “to be involved [with Hopi] you have to have the right position on Israel, but nothing is said about the national minorities oppressed by Iran or its role in Iraq and Afghanistan!”
Although I do agree that the Hopi statement is weak on the oppression of national minorities in Iran (something that needs to be rectified), who on the left (apart from the AWL, obviously) could suggest that opposition to a state that is armed to the teeth and openly talks about a ‘pre-emptive’ strike against Iran might not be the “right position on Israel”?
The AWL also complains that the name, Hands Off the People of Iran, is biased towards and focused on “getting external ‘hands’ off the ‘people’ of Iran, at a time when Tehran’s power in the region is on the rise, workers’ struggles are on the rise in Iran, and US or Israeli military attack is only a possibility”.1 What utter nonsense. The word ‘people’ was included in the name precisely to distinguish Hopi from those who would defend the regime. We side with the “people” of Iran against both the islamic republic and the imperialists (while a nuclear strike is “only” a possibility, sanctions that always hit ordinary workers first and foremost are in operation right now).
Not only did the AWL refuse to call for the defeat of the imperialist project in Iraq (purportedly because this would necessarily imply solidarity with the Ba’athists); it now, despite all that has happened and continues to happen in Iraq, dogmatically clings to the idea that to call for an immediate end to the occupation is to support the programmes of al-Sadr and other reactionary forces.
Comrades in the solidarity movement should welcome AWL member David Broder’s latest post on internationalism in the Middle East,2 which lampoons the political conclusions that the majority of the AWL draw. He is completely correct when he asserts that “the AWL acquiesces to imperialist involvement in the region in the here and now in the belief that it will be able to hold islamism at bay and so create breathing space for the workers’ movement to grow. Of course, we are always living in the ‘here and now’, while the question of how and why the Iraqi left and trade unions are meant to grow in the ‘meantime’ before the troops leave is barely considered.” Unlike some supposed ‘oppositionists’ within the AWL, he does at least seem willing to challenge the majority line on the Middle East.
The response
After the Hopi steering committee rejected the ENS call for a joint meeting, comrade Ismail posted our response on the ENS discussion list with the comment that “a meeting on Iran organised and pitched as a debate between different sections of the pro-solidarity left doesn’t make sense in this context”. He explained his wish to “have an Iranian student speaking”, given that the NUS left is heavily influenced by the Socialist Workers Party and its take on Iran. So what would be good about a pro-intervention student attacking the STWC? We would not want to be associated with such a dupe, though we would be prepared to engage in an honest debate.***
We could also, for example, debate comrade Ismael’s statement that in the event of a US attack on Iran, “we should oppose the war on both sides, not talk about ‘imperialism’ as if it was a matter of predator and victim. There are two predators of different sizes here.”
While there would be no question of Hopi calling for defence of the Iran regime, the fact that Washington and Tehran are “of different sizes” is of considerable relevance. Clearly the US is capable of mounting a devastating air assault on Iran - and is actually threatening to do so - whereas the opposite scenario is inconceivable. In fact Iran would have very little defence against such an assault. So there is something peculiar about the call to “oppose the war on both sides” when it would clearly be a very one-sided affair.
Yes, Iran is fully integrated into the world capitalist system and is looking to gain a higher status in the pecking order, but the point is that it is the vastly more powerful US that poses the main threat to the entire region. Yet the AWL’s social-imperialist majority wants its troops to remain in Iraq, since it ludicrously claims this will help ‘protect the Iraqi labour movement’. It is true that Iran too is playing a negative role in Iraq, but the reason for its increased influence can be traced back to - wait for it - the US invasion and occupation, which was, of course, supported by Tehran.
Comrade Ismail asks: “What does [defeatism] mean? That we should favour the defeat of the US? But that means supporting the victory of Iran. I’m not a liberal; as I say, in some circumstances, I would favour the defeat of the US and the victory of its opponent (while opposing the regime, etc, etc). But if … Iran is an aspirant regional imperialist power, how does favouring its victory make sense?”
It betrays a certain formal logic to argue that calling for the defeat of one’s ‘own’ imperialist state means automatically supporting the forces it happens to be in conflict with. We call for the defeat of the US and UK because they are imperialist states and their actions are therefore against the international interests of the working class. But we do not support the regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad any more than we supported that of Saddam Hussein. We wish to see their defeat too - at the hands of the working class! But there is no question as to which is the greater enemy - imperialism, not Saddam, Ahmadinejad or political islam.
During my exchanges with comrade Ismail on the ENS list I made the concrete proposal that a possible debate could revolve around the theme, ‘Iran and the Middle East: can US-led imperialism play a progressive role?’ To which he responded by asking why the question should be posed in this way when “nobody involved” is of this opinion. In fact the AWL majority does actually hold the view - as David Broder has shown - that imperialism, or in the very least certain aspects of imperialism, can play a progressive role in the Middle East. It may be shamefaced in this view and loath to admit it, but there is no other way to explain the AWL’s refusal to call for an immediate imperialist withdrawal.
Let us hope that opponents of this line within the AWL can gain in influence and help break it from its crass social-imperialist economism.
Notes
1. www.workersliberty.org/node/9731
2. trotskyist.blogspot.com/2008/02/working-class-internationalism-and.html
***This point should be elaborated on somewhat. Although the point made in and of itself is valid, ENS had no plans to invite such a speaker, and indeed had suggested speakers who are close to HOPI - i.e. definitely NOT in favour of intervention in Iran. I should have noticed this and changed it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)