The bitter fruits of racism and imperialism
rs21 •We comment on the recent attack on Charlie Hebdo.
The attack at the offices of Charlie Hebdo is something no one can justify. But, if we don’t understand the roots of these events, we risk being pulled ever further into a spiral of increasing violence.
Let’s not forget, then, that within France, racism against Muslims has escalated to horrific levels. The fascist National Front leads in presidential polls, and are mobilising for a national demonstration next week to exploit the current situation. There are bans on women wearing the hijab in schools, and the niqab, which covers the face, anywhere in public. Such measures are supposed to protect the dignity of women, but have quite the opposite effect – as seen in the summer of 2013, when a young Muslim woman, four months pregnant, was attacked for wearing a niqab in a Paris suburb, kicked in the stomach and miscarried.
We should also remember the treatment of Muslims and Muslim-majority countries by the west in recent years. The invasion of Afghanistan killed 20,000 people according to the Guardian, and the invasion of Iraq over 600,000 according to the Lancet. Israel, armed by the west, killed over 2,000 people last summer in Gaza, including 500 children. Of course France sat out the invasion of Iraq, but this morning’s Guardian reports that “About 3,000 soldiers are deployed in a vast area from Mauritania to Niger and Chad, following an earlier French intervention in Mali in 2013 to counter an Islamist insurgency.”
In the context of such Islamophobia, internationally and within France, individuals will inevitably go over the edge. This is not to justify the attack on Charlie Hebdo, any more than we can justify the attacks of 9/11. But it is to say that, as after 9/11, we need to understand the reason for such events if we are to stop them in future. We need to avoid repeating the drive to further violence and oppression which followed that attack, and which, over twelve years on, is a key part of the context of the attack in Paris.
This means that we cannot agree with French president François Hollande that this is a matter of civilisation versus barbarity – there is all too much barbarity on the side of the French state, with its long track record of murderous racism in Algeria and elsewhere. And we cannot raise the slogan “Je Suis Charlie” when we look at that magazine’s track record of attacking Muslims. If the Financial Times can refer to Charlie Hebdo as a “Muslim-bating magazine” as they did yesterday, there is no reason for revolutionaries to fight shy of saying that satire against the powerful and mocking the oppressed are two very different things. Nor does it excuse Charlie Hebdo to say that it was associated to some extent with the left, or that it also attacked other groups, such as the Catholic church – caricatures of black people are still racist, even if printed in a publication that also makes fun of the pope.
Our main impulse of solidarity at this time is with Muslims, throughout the world and particularly in France, who will face a horrible backlash following this attack. The main thing that can be done to prevent such attacks in future is for the rulers of the west to end their repeated attacks on Muslim-majority countries so as to further their own power – the events in Paris yesterday are the bitter fruit of those imperialist adventures.
65 comments
So not much solidarity with the journalists, cartoonists and workers who were shot dead then. Most of them identified with the left whatever their recent obsessions with Islamic extremism and their errors. Defending the right of magazines to exist without threat of murder seems to me to be a slogan we have to put alongside all the undoubtedly correct things you say about imperialism’s responsibliites. Clearly condemning the politics behind the Islamist group might be useful too in a piece of this sort.
I think you are off-base regarding Charle Hebdo. It has never attacked Muslims per se. In my memory, it cartoons poke fun at religious extremism, and the ‘Muslim’ cartoons are clearly in this vein. It has also taken a clearly anti-imperialist stance. I have not seen any Charlie cartoons ‘mocking the oppressed’, just the contrary…
responding to franglais:
The way Muslims are caricatured in CH is racist: Muslim men are always drawn as brown with big noses and a black beard. Examples:
-http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2011/11/02/charlie-hebdo-french-satire-magazine-s-shocking-covers-photos.html#22ca13d4-2b68-4df6-8b7e-978927214fdd
– http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/galleries/2011/11/02/charlie-hebdo-french-satire-magazine-s-shocking-covers-photos/jcr:content/gallery/49606600-1e16-49a1-beee-cf295e392c8b/image.img.160.160.jpg/1420746289125.cached.jpg
-http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/galleries/2011/11/02/charlie-hebdo-french-satire-magazine-s-shocking-covers-photos/jcr:content/gallery/78cc5a13-e7f3-4428-b0ff-a53e4d42d8f9/image.img.500.333.jpg/1420647135847.cached.jpg
There’s also an instance where two Muslim men (who are implied to be pedophiles) are shown as having flies buzzing around them, but I remember where I saw that one. They represent Jews just as poorly.
I can’t believe that this is satire or hard-hitting criticism of religious fundamentalism.
Watching newsnight and reports from Paris I’m very much reminded of the mood shortly after 9/11 in initial reports from New York etc. This began by drawing in many who were genuinely shocked by what had happened-but over a period hardened into a hugely reactionary current of opinion whose consequences we are all familiar with. Its very clear that it will take very little to transform the defence of ‘our values’ into attacks on minorities. The difference seems paper thin to me. Already. Its all about ‘our’ values and ‘theirs’. Bernard Kouchner holding forth on the need to bring democracy to the middle east, others speaking of the need for Muslims who have ‘chosen to live among us’ to reform their religion etc. And much worse to follow I feel. The Hebdo magazine was at the sharp end of promoting these kinds of resentments about Muslims in France for a very long period of time (and yes it was indeed a magazine with a background in the left in 68, but this doesn’t change much: if anything it makes it worse). What is rapidly becoming an almost compulsory ideological gesture of solidarity is one which means that, like after 9/11, many will be too frightened to tell the other side of this story: the racism, the disenfranchisment, the discrimination, the utter lack of solidarity every day and in every way.
This is not anti-racism, this is not solidarity, this is not opposition to to fundementalism, this is not freedom of speech. This is a kind of compulsory loyalty oath and is really about intimidating anyone who wants to speak otherwise and not according to the script. Its considerably more difficult to speak out against this script then it is to talk about how ‘its time to have an open discussion about Islam’ (a conversation that has been going on non stop now for a decade).
The left need to break this silence: not help impose it. The left should be speaking about the urban uprisings against police oppression, about the near segregration in employment and in housing, about the disenfranchisement, about the diiscrimination, about the wars ravaging large parts of the world. None of which is happening because of a failure of Muslims who live here to ‘reform their relligion’. This idealist rubbish about evil ideologies masquerading as the values of Enlightenment and Secularism is in fact the dominant ideology of a world where these horrors actually occur. Those who are being left isolated are not those who think that it is a priority to establish the right to mock the religous beliefs of minorities, but those minorities worried and frightened by what the future holds living in a society caught up in this kind of triumphalist chauvinism where every basic liberal and leftist value appears twisted and upside down. And those are the people the left has a duty of solidarity towards, whether or not we agree with this or that religious belief. That actually is the real meaning of Voltaire. The defence of minorities against majorities, not the other way about.
Reblogged this on CuteDollars' Blog.
Yeah… Stop being so stiff. I don’t care whether CH was actually offensive or not. The problem with humanity (or rather its burden, as I see it) is religion. What if Orientalism is still part of abstract caricatures? It is part of tourism pamphlets of countries in the East (look what you made me say, I hate East/West terminology!) And yet you won’t make a post about it. Chillax, it is perfectly safe to make fun of people who believe in invisible men who live in the sky (regardless of the colour of their skin), or at least it should be. Just like science is mocked on a daily basis in allegedly advanced countries like the USA, and I won’t see anyone defend it properly. I find your “any picture of a black person is racism”-attitude quite racist, to be honest. Let’s be egalitarian in a realistic way (one that trascends ethnicity? I Can’t really formulate your approach without seeming a tad racist!) or your revolutionary socialism will remain cornered on the internet. The worst part comes when I realise that this article is not signed, but has been posted as a consensus piece. Definitely sad for a site bearing a name like this… You sound too old-school!
The best way to show solidarity with Muslim communities in Europe is to stop apologising for the Islamists as some kind of understandable or justifiable reaction to wars, poverty and racism. Far from it, they are liberated by such things. Did the sectarians in Iraq rise up against the invaders? No they immediately initiated a brutal civil war killing a million people in order to turn themselves into the new neo-colonial elite. In Syria are they taking on the tyrant and butcher Assad? No, they are moving into the areas liberated by the revolution and slaughtering the democratic aspirations of the Syrian people. The overwhelming majority of the victims of Islamist sectarians and fascists are Muslims. These people are not the defenders of the faith they are dragging it through the muck. There is no excuse for this carnage. No excuse. And 99% of the Muslim population whilst they may not like these cartoons which are more provocations than satire or humour agree and simply get on with their lives secure in their faith and in the knowledge that god does not need men to defend him and it is from these murdering blasphemous heathens and gangsters that the faith really needs to be defended not against some penny-hapenny magazine which should be allowed to publish and be damned by public opinion without fear of its contributors being mercilessly gunned down by psychopaths.
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/how-france-sees-muslims-very-positively–xJWty9Wt9x
The moment you started coming out with this “Israeli aggression against Gaza” rubbish, I stopped reading. Well done.
I think what sums up the so-called “march for freedom of speech” were those leading it including dictators, including those from Egypt, and racists such as Netanyahu whose solution to anti-semitism is to encourage Jews to move to an apartheid state in the Middle East. It’s a disgrace for anyone on the left to march in solidarity with these despicable despots.
Not sure you’ve thought that one through, have you Ray? Might it not be possible that there were in effect several marches in Paris? The leaders’ march and all that that meant…and then other marches in which people of many backgrounds and many versions of ‘France’ and ‘Republic’ marched together. France very rarely expresses its multiculturalism in public. And don’t misrepresent this as me saying that I thought the politics of the leaders of the march was right, or anything like it. I’m talking about the event and its meaning for those (other than the leaders) who went on it.
Ray B – yeah right, 4 million supporters of dictatorship and racism marched in France on Sunday.
What ill-informed drivel!
If you’d bothered to follow what actually happened, you might have realised that the march was called by the CGT and Left Front, supported by the Parti de Gauche and PCF.
If the left hadn’t made this call, the FN would have stood more chance of making political capital out of the atrocities in Paris.
As it turned out, the FN’s pathetic little rally in Beaucaire attracted only a thousand people. Jean Marie Le Pen was a great pains to say “I’m not Charlie”, because the magazine has always satirised him and his daughter and faced a law suit for it.
The so-called “leaders” of the march you describe, spent half an hour on a photo-opportunity before being hustled away by their armed guards. (the US officials were too cowardly to show their faces)
The Parti de Gauche issued a statement before the march, criticising Hollande for inviting the world leaders, representatives of NATO and the Troika.
But they said:-
“….it is out of the question for us to abandon the streets of Paris. So we’ll be there with our fellow citizens, away from the leading contingent. We say yes to the unity of the people, not the national unity, with our comrades of the Left Front and all those who wish to take the third path via the Bastille. “
This was a far healthier response than the NPA and Lutte Ouvriere, which boycotted the march and isolated themselves.
Thanks for referencing that prianikoff. I think you’ll find that Ray will go quiet on this one. He’s jumped the gun on what will be the SWP’s line and looks at the moment like a lone sectarian nut raging in the dense forest of a marxist-leninism that no one can see or hear. He’ll extricate himself, denying that he meant what he said (or said what he meant), and incorporate what you’ve written and said at the next branch meeting without crediting you for it. In the meantime, it’s with great regret I can say that today’s copy of SW will supersede last week’s which contained a brilliant marxist analysis of why it is that what Prince Andrew is alleged to be doing with a 17 year old woman is wrong and typical of what rich and powerful men do. The gaping space in the middle of this analysis is any self-reflection on the part of the SWP – which perhaps could have used this moment to reveal to its readers how even they, in their own organisation – with all this knowledge of sexual politics – could have failed to give such matters the proper process they required. How was this possible? they could have asked. ‘Subjective factors’? Or institutional ones? Or both? Or something else?
Are you both really arguing that there isn’t anything wrong with the left lining up with dictators to encourage and enforce reactionary attitudes towards Muslims? The FN obviously didn’t need to call the march because of the misguided actions of part of the left who blatantly tried to jump the tide of reaction without any critical response. Who do you seriously think will benefit from this though?
Do you really think that with the anti-Muslim mood stirred up by these murders and the reactionary media backlash following this event that the march was the place to have a critical argument? The reports of French Muslims on the march feeling really uncomfortable because of the underlying Islamophobia – and you patronisingly bleat on about “French unity”? The French state is printing millions of copies of Charlie replete with racist cartoons as a nice souvenir to commemorate this march. Hopefully you won’t be defending this as well as the thousands, including some on the left, holding aloft these racist cartoons on the march in the name of “French unity”!
When defending reaction it’s usually liberals who invoke the rights of women and LGBT’s. But you really don’t understand the “LGBT community” if you think we are all in favour of an uncritical response to what happened in Paris. Without a critical response to the growing Islamophobia in France and the UK, of which this march will feed into, then what exactly are YOU defending here? I think it’s sad but unsurprising how you drop your politics in the face of popular reaction and turn this terrible event into another attempt to take a pop at the SWP.
The key issue for socialists in relating to this march is one of political strategy. Regardless of the intentions of individuals or groups who attended the march, the left has a responsibility to challenge the ideological propaganda being used to justify popular reaction. The arguments being used by the state and the media to justify this march are that it is in defence of free speech. It doesn’t matter how many people regurgitate this argument on the internet it is a lie because free speech should not include the right to publish racist cartoons.
Secondly, by the left intervening on the march what is hoped to be achieved? Is our presence going to undermine the overwhelming narrative that the march is about defending (a reactionary conception of) “French unity” or will the left be viewed as legitimising this narrative? I believe the latter, which is why even part of the French left, who have been pretty hopeless at challenging Islamophobia, didn’t attend.
The hounding of those who have had even a remotely critical response to the murders and what followed (e.g. Will Self) is a clear indication that the left needs to challenge this festival of reaction otherwise the right will continue to cultivate and benefit from it. It was quite shocking to see that when BBC and Channel 4 reporters (not known for their anti-ideological stance) interviewing those on the march questioned how the depiction of French Muslims might cause offence only those who identified as Muslim were concerned about this. The majority interviewed defiantly responded that it was a question of free speech and “French values”. Obviously, for the majority of those on the march, and the majority define its character, these reactionary arguments were convincing.
How we challenge rising Islamophobia is open to debate but uncritically marching alongside dictators is not the solution.
It’s very important for you Ray to ignore almost everything that prianikoff wrote, so you did that very well. Well done. Moving on, do you ever get the impression you’re sitting in a sound-proof room with the door closed?
oh and if you’re worried about the ‘pop’ at the SWP, perhaps you could revisit the word ‘opportunism’ some time. Of course we all have lots to say about the Prince Andrew matter, but it’s one of those subjects where a legitimate response to the commenter is to say to him or her, ‘Hark who’s talking!’ You don’t seem to understand how the pages of SW are undermined by the acts of the past.
I directly addressed prianikoff’s claim that the march had a left cover because some on the left supported it. It beggers all belief that you and he try to put a left spin on a mass demo sanctioning racist cartoons and reactionary “French values”. Tomorrow we will again reap the fallout of the racist cartoons as millions of these images are printed and distributed by the French state. Meanwhile 25,000 in Dresden (up from 18,000 at the beginning of Jan) march against so-called “Islamification”. No connection there then? I can guarantee you the German left will be on the counter-demonstrations.
As for opportunism, turning a thread about these murders into an attack on the SWP about its coverage of the Prince Andrew case is priceless. In his latest missive Ian Birchall wrongly criticises the SWP for failing to cover cases of abuse during 2013/14 and you now complain when it does. Quite a turn around for you after I pointed out in this forum how wrong you were when you made similar criticisms to Birchall in the past.
I believe your phrase ‘left cover’ is specious. Hundreds of thousands of people went to the demonstration without anyone covering anything. Many of the people who went have written and spoken about it are not racists. People are entitled to express outrage at people being murdered for drawing or writing – yes, even if what they draw is racist. Many of the people who went have written and spoken about not wanting people to be killed just because they’re Jews. You don’t have to be Jewish, Zionist or racist to think such things. The various left groupings in France were entitled to try to position themselves in terms of which part or side of the demo they supported. I suspect that it gave them some leverage to be both principled about what they stood for, without setting themselves apart from the kinds of people we would hope to see in a left wing movement. People carried posters and banners with many different logos other than Je suisCharlie, such as Je suisAhmad, along with the name of the guy who saved the people in the Jewish supermarket. Such people and ideas should be supported.
In truth, as I’ve written elsewhere it wasn’t one demo. It was several.
In the second part of your answer, you are under the mistaken impression that I am Ian Birchall or that Ian Birchall is me. This is a sickening old trick pulled by western stalinist parties, a tradition that you repeatedly resemble. I repeat, SW having a go at Prince Andrew while failing to explain how come a revolutionary socialist party could make the mistakes it later apologised for, nor explain why it didn’t have OK procedures in place is, in your party’s own terms a disaster.
Not sure why you’re delivering a lecture to me about the German demo. Another bit of classic demagoguery: assume your readership is ignorant, thick and suspicious of political activism and stick a bit of it in their face. Sheesh…do you go about trying to recruit people talking like that? Bleurchhhh.
By the way, Ray, have you noticed how something has got rather submerged in all this talk? The two sets of murders are very different in intention: the CH murders were to eliminate those who draw and wrote stuff. The supermarket murders were to take out people for what they are – their supposed links to Zionism and/or some dangerous world jewish entity. The two sets of murders seem to be very different in kind. I’m not sure the ‘legacy of imperialism’ explains both.
You have to be master of the bleeding obvious to state that the march was attended by a diverse range of people. This tells us nothing about the character of the march or the dominant ideology shaping it. You conflate the real fear and horror at these attacks with the underlying reactionary politics of those leading this march. But you appear to ignore the fear and horror of French Muslims (who have nothing to do with terrorism) at the rising tide of Islamophobia which this march and the propaganda surrounding it legitimises. The French state and right wing media however are anything but silent and eagerly propagandise by characterising Muslims as intolerant, uncivilised terrorists. How are you going to encourage people on the march (or anywhere else for that matter) to oppose Islamophobia if you won’t even challenge the very basis for its legitimisation bound up in the narrative of those leading the march? A political intervention in this case has to be a critical one.
Remember when the left actually took a lead rather than tail-ending popular reaction? If you want to see those days again then offer a political analysis of what’s at stake here such as rising Islamophobia (and consequent anti-Semitism from the Right) rather than moralising about so-called “entitlement”. The left is not “entitled” to march in support of racist cartoons or reactionary “French values”. No matter how horrendous the terrorist attacks. The fact that you can’t distinguish between individual reactions to the attack and the politics of the march is because your politics evidently collapses into liberal intolerance of anyone questioning it. You appear to believe the left should be accountable for its response to the march otherwise you wouldn’t agree with prianikoff but not if it’s critical of your position?
As for the Stalinist shtick, since when did you become a Cold War demagogue whenever anyone on the far left disagrees with you?
“By the way, Ray, have you noticed how something has got rather submerged in all this talk? The two sets of murders are very different in intention: the CH murders were to eliminate those who draw and wrote stuff. The supermarket murders were to take out people for what they are – their supposed links to Zionism and/or some dangerous world jewish entity. The two sets of murders seem to be very different in kind. I’m not sure the ‘legacy of imperialism’ explains both.”
I’m not sure what to make of this? Are you claiming that one terrorist attack was more legitimate than another? I condemn both! They offer no solution to Islamophobia or Western imperialism. Whatever individual motivations led to these attacks is not going to explain why people resort to terrorism. The issue at stake here is how we on the left respond to these terrible acts. At the decisive moment simply condemning them without challenging the dominant ideology of our own state and that of the French state does nothing to undermine the pull of sectarian radicalisation or growing racism. The claim by some of the liberal left that we must equate random acts of terrorism with a concerted and widespread campaign by the state to demonise Muslims (“both as bad as the other”) would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerously irresponsible. Even worse, are those on the left who blame religion for sectarian violence. The left must offer an alternative to these reactionary narratives.
On the eve of the republication of millions of copies of Charlie’s racist cartoons its worth reading about exactly what kind of language is being defended by the march organisers and the French state:
http://posthypnotic.randomstatic.net/charliehebdo/Charlie_Hebdo_article%2011.htm
Too late to comment on all this. One point: I just that people being killed for what they draw is different from killing people for what they are. I didn’t say better or worse, or more significant. Just different.
‘thought that’
While there might be some crossover between the long history of anti-Semitism of the French state and the revolting racist conspiracies of the French fascists I doubt that this was the primary motivation of the terrorists. What particular set of reactionary ideas motivated them to target a Jewish supermarket is open to question but I think a clue to this particular attack is in the title of this article. It comes as no surprise that Netanyahu, invited to lead the march, should call for French Jews to move to the racist state of Israel which has spent over 60 years painstakingly associating Judaism with the Zionist state and brutally oppressing Palestinians, many of whom identify as Muslim. This association doesn’t legitimise anti-Semitic terrorist attacks but it turns it into a political question raised by the title of this article. The best way to undermine anti-Semitism and Islamophobia is to build a broad based anti-racist movement in France and reject the nationalist form of “French unity” promoted on the march that seeks to enshrine the right to discriminate against minorities, including Muslims and Jews. Sadly, the republication of the racist cartoons will only aggravate the situation by increasing the confidence of racists to target both Muslims and Jews in France.
Ray B
“Are you both really arguing that there isn’t anything wrong with the left lining up with dictators to encourage and enforce reactionary attitudes towards Muslims?”
Obviously not.
But it’s a pure invention on your part, as is the idea that the marches incited racism.
Your only argument for this is that “Charlie Hebdo” is a racist publication.
This obviously is not true.
It has carried numerous satires on the FN, on Catholics and on leading French politicians.
e.g.
http://p2.storage.canalblog.com/25/61/177230/90438006_o.jpg
While I don’t endorse the liberal “Je suis Charlie” slogan, the
attack was completely indefensible, as was the attack on “Hyper-Cacher”.
That , and not a growing wave of racism, was why 4 million people demonstrated in France last Sunday
Elsewhere I’ve criticised the PCF’s line on “Republican Unity”.
But the statement issued by the FdG last Saturday was better.
They said they supported the march on the basis of:
“people together in the name of republican principles, anti-racism, secularism, the refusal of any stigma, the fight against all forms of fundamentalism and fascism, towards those who want to drag us into a clash of civilizations.”
Obviously there could be no common platform between the left and the likes of Netanyahu, Poroshenko, Davutoglu or Nuland.
But as they obviously weren’t in a position to organise a 4 million strong demonstration of their own, the NPA and LO could have, at the very least, leafletted the marchers with an even stronger condemnation of French imperialist interventions and state repression.
I realise I’m arguing with people who called on the Ukrainian left to join the right-wing dominated Maidan movement, which actually propelled a coalition of right-wing neo-liberals, NATO stooges and fascists into Power. But surely, this is a no brainer?
You’d probably need to have a PhD to come up with the argument that all the marchers in France were racists!
One of the difficulties in all this is the rhetoric about ‘the Republic’. At one level it’s an abstract idea which exists above and beyond ‘France’, enshrined in principles laid down in the spirit of the enlightenment at the end of the eighteenth century. As we know, like a lot of abstract principles they can be adopted and recuperated by people with very different motives. On the one hand, say, Emile Zola could use them to attack racism in the 1890s, and the Resistance could invoke them but so also could de Gaulle and obviously now so can Hollande. Brits and Britain don’t really have the equivalent in such a shorthand theoretical abstract way so it’s difficult to see how and why it becomes such a battleground. Remember, we observe the absurd picture of e.g. someone like Sarkozy singing the national anthem which says, ‘Aux armes,citoyens.!” (to arms, citizens!)
If nothing else, all this poses problems for the left about how to position itself in relation to this. It can, as some suggest, to treat it as a load of old phooey, just a cover for imperialism, exploitation, oppression etc. Or it can try to ‘use’ it as a means to expose how rulers use the phraseology hypocritically and dishonestly. In a situation in which 4 million people came out on to the streets – many of them, not for racist reasons, but for non-racism, then I would have thought yes, the best approach was to join the march – stay away from the leaders and whatever they were doing (this apparently was very easy because essentially all they did was turn up for the photo op) and get on with engaging with people in the streets and putting out statements which showed clearly where you stood. For this you would get some media exposure so people could hear this as an alternative.
As for Ray’s wail about what happened to the time when the Left took a lead in such matters, you have to smile grimly. It’s not clear why he should level this wail at prianikoff or me, though. Perhaps he can spend some time in a dark room, meditating on how and why his organisation have had the ‘right line’ on everything for the last 50 years but have about 2000 active members. In truth I have to direct that at myself too because in broad terms and on many of the specifics I’ve agreed with much of that line. However, recent events (i.e. the debacle over the last 3 years) has given me much food for thought – in particular about means and ends. When Ray writes the sort of stuff he’s written above, and when I read SW and SR, I’m struck by the great gulf between what is said and the position of the writers in the world. Or, put another way, there is this far-reaching narrative and analysis, these programmes for action, the ever-onward triumphalist tone, the certainty that their way is the right way (and by implication or by demonstration) that everyone else has got it wrong yet all this is a million miles away from the 99.999 % of the rest of the population. For good reasons or bad, in one stroke Russell Brand can say on certain things almost the same sort of thing and a million people buy his book. Do Ray and the comrades know what kind of suspicions, doubts and plain rejection sits outside of the SWP in the minds of people who sympathise with at least some of what they say and do? Why would that be? What is it about the organisation, the structure of the organisation, the way in which members of the organisation treat others, that gives rise to this hostility? So, when Ray (and, SW this week, actually) talks at and over the heads of the Paris marchers to this ideal, perfect , true course of action, it starts to take on the texture of the dissenting preachers of small dissenting sects in the 18th century.
“Republican Unity” was betrayed quite early on in the French revolution.
The ancestors of “Charlie Hebdo”, the Hebertistes, who came up with the famous “Fuck the Pope” headline ended up on the guillotine. As did Robespierre, St Just and the most radical Jacobins. Thermidor triumphed, Napoleon crowned himself emperor and invaded Haiti.
France’s colonial subjects there, in Indo-China, North & West Africa didn’t enjoy freedom of the press.
Nevertheless, the Marseillaise was still being sung by Socialists at the time of the Russian Revolution and as Mike Rosen points out, contains some uncomfortable lines (for the ruling class) about barricade fighting.
We oppose the betrayal of the principles of the French Revolution.
I’m still waiting for the likes of Ray B, John Game or Seymour to condemn the jailing and flogging of the Saudi blogger Raif Badawi for “insulting Islam”.
Ah – Saudi Arabia. And there lies the rub. On the one hand there is a relationship between Britain and Saudi Arabia (which I heard justified on the Today programme either yesterday or today in terms of ‘our national interest) and a set of injustices that in any other circumstances would be condemned unequivocally by all those clamouring for the rooting out of ‘Islamification’ AND, as you say, everyone on the left. However, yes, we do some muting of response to what goes on there. Are we entitled to suspect that there is a bit of manoeuvring going on here along the lines that the ‘danger’ of attacking Saudi Arabia is that it would give succour to Islamophobia? And yet in the past, I remember reading eloquent stuff about the betrayal of the Palestinians by the Arab ruling class etc etc.
I meant to write ‘we do see some muting of response”
The march on Sunday was organised by the French state. Prianikoff’s claim that there was a left gloss to it is nonsense. It’s nothing more than a liberal excuse for backing a deeply reactionary agenda in the name of so-called “French unity”. Such an asinine euphemism covering up such reactionary nonsense.
As for Michael’s suspicions of the SWP’s motivations – what’s new? Quite honestly his “man of the people” persona is about as relevant as a a pair of flares.
‘organised’??? Apart from announcing it, what did the ‘state’ do about ‘organising’ it?
re ‘left gloss’ – how would you describe the posters that didn’t mention Charlie Hebdo? why did some interviewees express a wish for unity between the diverse population and who didn’t mention ‘French unity’ as such? Why insult people who turned up with good intentions? Oh I know, because you’re in the vanguard.
By the way you’re beginning to suffer from the adjectival runs: ‘deeply reactionary’ ‘asinine’ ‘reactionary nonsense’ etc.
Based on Prianikoff’s reply s/he wholeheartedly supports the premise of the march which is to reinforce reactionary nonsense about the democratic nature of French secularism. S/he also denies that the cartoons are racist. If the left takes this position then it is colluding with racism.
Of course the French state had nothing to do with Sunday’s march except invite a load of dictators, deploy the army and police and use it to propagandise about the unique qualities of French secularism. You have a strange concept of unity Michael. One that defends the right to be racist towards Muslims. I’m sure many on the march had the best intentions as do many who vote UKIP in protest against the political establishment but that doesn’t legitimise their mistaken beliefs. My criticism is with those on the left who supported it.
Apart from having a laugh, you don’t really think that I hold to the idea that it’s OK to be racist to Muslims, do you? The interviewees I heard speak made clear they were Muslims. This wasn’t a one-slogan, one-banner, one-meaning march. People were there for a wide set of motives and beliefs, as was clear from banners which explicitly didn’t follow the national line. Yes, you do have a ‘criticism of those on the Left…’That’s where I came in 60 years ago and it’s where I’ll go out.
I respect Milne here for making this statement in the Guardian today without attacking the marchers or the ‘Left’.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/15/paris-warning-no-insulation-wars-arab-muslim-world
And I look forward, Ray, to the ‘vote without illusion’ message in May. Quite right too. However, clearly it was impossible (in your book) to march without illusion.
If you paid attention to my posts (instead of concocting juvenile put downs) I criticise those on the French Left who support the publication of racist cartoons and defend French nationalism in the guise of secularism. This kind of reactionary propaganda dominated Sunday’s march, anyone disagreeing with it became a target of a witchhunt, so your attempt to put a progressive spin on it by claiming that the march was diverse or that a minority didn’t agree with the dominant message is a red herring.
Does that mean everyone on the march was a frothing at the mouth racist? Obviously not – but to deny the reactionary character of this march is a gift to those who want the state to force through even more vicious attacks on Muslims and who view their supporters on the left, such as Prianikoff, as useful idiots. Opposing this toxic alliance is hardly a controversial position for a socialist to take. It also doesn’t prevent us from having this debate with people as part of our daily political activity. Despite the witchhunt, unsurprisingly many people we relate to politically were disturbed by the message on this march and the republication of the racist cartoons. So your conceit that you are the voice of diversity and minority views is sadly mistaken.
You’re getting distracted by your celebrity-complex again, Ray. I’m not the ‘voice’ of anything. Telling me that I’m not is only another way of you struggling with that. All I’ve said is that the march meant different things to different people. Tough idea to cope with in Ray 2D World. No worries. I enjoy reading you. It helps confirm a lot of things for me. Thanks.
In my view the March was in some respects mixed and of course many people went with differing agendas and motivations. If the left should have participated is obviously a difficult tactical issue. The French left has overall I think a very poor record on Islamaphobia and this has been a major weakness eg banning the veil etc.
Personally I am not principally opposed to being on the March with a clear message against racism and imperialism etc. but this is not without complications.
The continuing sniping by Micheal regarding more or less anything the SWP says or does is tiresome. ,Whatever it’s faults it is by far and away the most consistent far left organisation in fighting racism in all its forms and yes will be out on the streets doing its bit to counter the increasing anti Muslim rhetoric.
Ray B: “Based on Prianikoff’s reply s/he wholeheartedly supports the premise of the march which is to reinforce reactionary nonsense about the democratic nature of French secularism. S/he also denies that the cartoons are racist. If the left takes this position then it is colluding with racism”
It’s almost impossible to have a serious debate with someone who, doesn’t seriously engage with any points I make, but simply ignores the evidence while making abusive political amalgams
To repeat my case:-
1) The intiative for the march in Paris came from the left and the unions.
(evidence: statements by the PdG & PCF)
2) The vast majority of the 4 million people who marched in France were not animated by racism or Islamophobia.
Insulting them all in this way shows a complete inability to connect with mass politics.
A left wing leadership worth its salt would have printed a million leaflets attacking French imperialist intervention abroad and opposing increasing state repression.
Instead, the NPA refused to participate to maintain its revolutionary purity.
In LO’s case this was just their standard act of self isolation.
3) The March was not “led” by Hollande or the various international heads of state, diplomats etc who were photographed “at its head”. They were its political hi-jackers.
Here’s what their real relationship to the march was:-
http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/c2c/share/38/383/388/3838846_370.jpg
4) I’ve never made any reference to the offending cartoons at all.
All I did was point out that many of CH’s covers have lampooned the NF, Christianity, the American right etc.
The paper may have offended various groups, but given its low readership (about 14% of “Private Eye’s”), Charlie Hebdo was best ignored.
Only Al Qaeda and the Le Pens thought otherwise.
5) Straight after they attacked the CH office, the Koachi’s announced they had “avenged the prophet”. They didn’t say CH was “racist”
If the “blasphemy” had been published by a Muslim, in a Muslim country, they would have done the same thing.
(I await your condemnation of the flogging and jailing of the Saudi blogger Badawi – perhaps you think he’s just a tool of the imperialists?)
If you put together the sort of dogmatic sectarianism which RS21 shares with various other splinters from of the ISO and USEC, what comes into focus is:-
(i) Tail-ending the FSA in Syria and their lack of programme; refusal to condemn the role Turkey or the united front between the FSA and Qaeda which led to its marginalisation.
(ii) Tail-ending the Libyan “revolution”, where the assassination of Ghaddafi was carried out in collaboration with the French air force
(iii) Tail-ending the right wing dominated Maidan in Ukraine, which has led to a coalition of Oligarchs, pro-Nato stooges and fascists.
(iv) Tail-ending the MB in Egypt, then failing to recognise that the main threat of a counter-revolutionary coup came from the military.
(v) A sectarian attitude towards entering Syriza in Greece.
(vi) Endorsing academic nonsense about inter-sectionality, while not recognising the primacy of class. (If you did, you’d realise that the religious domination of society is a form of class domination)
All of this means you are unable to develop a socialist programme and fight for it within mass organisations.
Despite not being a member of RS21 I find your criticisms of them to be largely irrelevant to the subject under discussion which is about the character of Sundays march. I’m taking a position on how the left should have related to the terrorist attacks in response to the dubious position you and many of the liberal left have taken over this issue.
1) The issue is not whether some left group or trade union claimed to have “initiated” the march. What is relevant is the dominant character of the event and who led it. On every news broadcast I saw Western leaders and their dictator friends were the spokes people for the march – not the left.
2) “Mass politics”? I assume by this vague apolitical definition you mean popularism? If this is the best analysis of the march you can come up then no wonder you can’t distinguish between who led it, the dominant ideology on it or how that shapes the character of a demo.
3) Well these “hijackers” certainly did a great job because you’d need a cigarette paper to fill the gap left for any other voices. So much for all those millions of leaflets you believe would have turned things around – not that any of the organisations you mention attempted to do this so your point is pretty much irrelevant.
4) No, you just denied that the cartoons were racist like an ostrich burying its head in the sand.
5) You cling onto such a superficial understanding of these events don’t you? According to you, Charlie’s racism had no connection to it becoming a target. If it did then you’d have to admit that the cartoons were racist and that’s something the left cannot defend.
James, let’s go back to ‘by far and away the most consistent far left organisation in fighting racism’. Let’s leave out the absurd league-table-minded triumphalism of the rhetoric. Let’s for a moment say that it’s true (without checking whether it is or not)…and ask this: the purpose of the kind of far left organisation you’re talking about is to build and recruit. At one level, it’s a numbers game. If it doesn’t grow, it’s not doing what it’s supposed to be doing. Anti-racist activity is not only ‘right’ in principle but is also part of the building, recruiting, growing. Or it’s supposed to be. I’ve been involved in quite a few of the old International Socialists and SWP’s activities and campaigns in this respect, though the fact the Comrade Delta got me involved in one particular one, long after he should have been suspended, is a matter of some regret on my part. So, given that this consistent anti-racist activity has been going on since 1967 (to my knowledge) how come the ranks of the SWP isn’t jam packed with members of those groups who have been targeted by racists?
Now you can take this as ‘tiresome’ (a good way to deflect criticism, if ever there was one), you can take it as hostile, or you can take it as a contribution to a debate about the radical left and its relation to racism, oppression, colonialism and imperialism. It strikes me as central to whatever it is any of us are trying to do. As a reference point, we might compare the matter to what happened in the US from the 1930s to the 1960s in relation to the CP over there, where it seems (someone correct me if I’m wrong) that the US CP was in many ways quite successful in representing African American demands for civil rights etc etc. So, apart from constantly patting yourselves on the back (‘our record is second to none…’ etc etc),we could take a pause for thought and wonder why one key aspect of the matter doesn’t progress. I note that in the latest blood-letting following the latest blood-letting in the Delta affair, are indeed people of colour….I wonder what they would say are the reasons for all this.
“I note that in the latest blood-letting following the latest blood-letting in the Delta affair, are indeed people of colour….I wonder what they would say are the reasons for all this.”- No idea what this refers to.
“If it doesn’t grow, it’s not doing what it’s supposed to be doing”-
This is an interesting arguement. It is of course one which is totally subjective in that wether a revolutionary type organisation grows or not is totally dependent on its own activity. So at an extreme example (and before anyone jumps up and down I am not saying this is what it is like today.) The Bolsheviks lost huge numbers in the aftermath of the 1905 Russian Revolution, or another example Trotsky and his followers were not able to grow in Europe in any real sense during the 1930’s..despite it seems to me Trotsky’s brilliant anaylisis of the rise of German Fascism, Spain etc etc
In terms of the SWP, it experienced a significant loss of membership in the early 1980’s as the confidence of many workers receded and the labour left grew massively.
To simply equate lack of growth to what an organisation does subjectively is too give an increadible weight to the role of a party in any circumstances.
Now then, what about the more recent past of the SWP. I think there was a real problem regarding how the party conducted itself around stop the war at its height..collapsing branches etc..this has been much debated and in my view that debate was way overdue.
Has the recent crisis of the SWP and the Delta affair had a detrimental effect on the party- absolutely yes. It has effected its ability in many collegues where sections of the left look to ban the SWP and the charge of Rape apologist is by its nature extremely damaging- how could it not be so.
In my experience however the SWP has more Muslim members for example than it did 20 years ago for obvious reasons..and no its not enough and yes we need to be more like the composition of the UK than we are etc.
I am not a member who thinks everything the SWP does its 100% brilliant, far from it. I do not think the present CC is the best we have ever had etc. However I guess I do find the constant attacks by Michael a tad boring now. Michael, you come across as someone who seems to think the real problem facing the socialist movement is the SWP. Now, maybe thats what you really think, fine. But it would be useful to hear from you what you think is the way for the left to proceed. I dont think the SWP is beyond criticism and all is fair game but lets have a sense of perspective.
I am proud of the SWP and its record on racism and fighting fascism both historically and today. Yes it is better than the other main orgnisations of the left. This may make you flinch Michael but if you can name another lleft organisation which a better record both politically and practically on the question then fire away.
No, I didn’t think you’d dive in and answer that query. No matter. Here are my thoughts on the latest outbursts from Theresa May and Eric Pickles: http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/two-speeches-may-and-pickles.html
“and ask this: the purpose of the kind of far left organisation you’re talking about is to build and recruit. At one level, it’s a numbers game. If it doesn’t grow, it’s not doing what it’s supposed to be doing. ”
This is interesting arguement from Michael. The question of wether an organisation grows is solely and completely dependent on what it does or doesn’t do. The level of struggle, the political context both domestically and internationally have no bearing for Michael on how a revolutionary organisation fares. So the Bolsheviks being decimated after 1907 has nothing whatever to do with the defeat of the revolution in 1905 ..its reason is to be found in the mistakes of the Bolsheviks. Why would pogroms, mass victimisation of worker militants have any impact on the Bolsheviks? That’s to look at an explanation on the wider world and Michael can’t have that. Likewise perhaps the tiny number around Trotsky in the 1930’s is not to be located in the rise of Stalinism and the victory of fascism…no it must be the failure of Trotsky and his small band to get things right.Now before Michael goes off the deep end I am not saying in any way the situation is in any sense comparable but just wanted to make the point that his method is very poor and a historical.
In terms of the SWP has the crisis it has been through over the last number of years had a serious impact on its membership etc..clearly yes. Does it have an impact for the SWP to be labelled rape apologists, well obviously yes this is damaging. Do sections of the left wanting to ban the SWP from campuses have a negative impact then again it’s is obvious that it has…and is the pope a catholic!
But hang on, RS21 have not grown, they have I understand less members now than when the split happend…clearly Michael they are doing something wrong, left unity..claiming a year ago 10,000 members now 2,500… Clearly something wrong..the ISN..well god knows..they seem to have split again over how much you need to hate the SWP and wether physically assaulting anyone in the organisation is justified! NPA in France recently split and far less members..something wrong..so the idea it’s just the SWP who have found it difficult is not evident by the above examples…there are organisations on the left who have done well, in the main not ones who claim to be revolutionary but a radical left reformism.
In short, Michael thre is something more objective about why the revolutionary left have found it very hard and not just the internal situation inside the SWP. Anyway if you have any positive advice to give about how the left should carry on that would be interesting otherwise I will await the next stinging critique of the SWP with baited breath.
” I note that in the latest blood-letting following the latest blood-letting in the Delta affair, are indeed people of colour….I wonder what they would say are the reasons for all this.”
Have not a clue what this refers too!
I don’t really know where James gets his figures from. And I don’t really want to engage in the numbers game. But we have modestly grown in the last 12 months, reflected in our very successful national meeting attended by 35% of our membership. A large student group in Oxford and a new group in Carlisle – neither of which have members who were ever in the SWP (with 1 person excepted). And last night we had a huge meeting in Oxford on Charlie Hebdo with an attendance of just under 250.
Great Neil, the more people attracted to rev soc politics the better but that’s not the point James is making. He’s pointing to the fallacy of simplistically associating recruitment with organisation and strategy. If membership figures validate both of these factors then it follows that reformist parties must be more correct than revolutionary ones during a period when class struggle is low or gradually reviving. This doesn’t mean that socialist organisations don’t need to have an ongoing assessment of these factors but there’s not a direct relationship as Michael keeps implying.
That wasn’t the point he was making. Numbers are far from everything. You cannot build a mass revolutionary organisation by the one plus one technique. But the comment was sneering at rs21 losing members and that was far from the truth. We exist, and we have grown a little and we have achieved a few things. Modest success in a grim period.
It was the point I was making..see above ! Now if you are claiming 300 members this is total bull and you know it. But onto more substantive issues..why no mention of the NHS strike? A session on the NHS and no call out to support the strikers..seems a bit odd to me. Here we have health workers taking industrial action and the rs21 do not think it warrants a mention. Now either that is a poor judgement and oversight by RS21 or it thinks it not important, either way it is a dreadful mistake don’t you agree Neil?. Maybe the anti public sector workers which many in Rs21 express has come to such a stage that it doesn’t seem to bothered about NHS workers taking strike action. Secondly, why no mention to build the anti racism demo being held in March, repeat of last years dreadful sectarian rant by leading members of RS21 on why the March is dreadful and it therefore only had about 20 members on the demo..at Neil’s reckoning less than 7% of the members! My conversation with the few rs21 members I remain in contact with is that the organisation has a few areas in which branches exist but overall it’s has been very difficult and much harder than they imagined and members are much less active than they were.
Regardless of which organisation we belong to we shouldn’t be seduced by the populist argument that numbers equal legitimacy especially when it’s combined with vague notions about the virtue of so-called “horizontal” and “autonomous” forms of organisation. It’s part of a long tradition of criticism from reformists about the relevancy of the rev left that’s informed by a gradualist, ahistorical analysis.
Yes, Ray, all criticism of the SWP is reformist. Well done.
And James, I get the message: all’s well, change nothing, nothing needs to change, press on, sell more papers.
In the meantime, capitalism is more naked, more savage in tooth and claw than it has been in my lifetime and marxism and marxist organisations can’t make headway: The Daily Mirror does more to expose what’s going on than we do!!! Copy this and paste it into your browser:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/poor-poorer-britains-richest-40billion-5001859?ICID=FB_mirror_main
Ah, I see the link came up red anyway. No need to copy and paste.
Here’s a tweet that’s just come up:
TUSC @TUSCoalition 1m1 minute ago
Charlie Kimber – we need to appeal outside of all left parties #TUSC #TUSC15
Hands up anyone who can think of any reason why anyone might find any kind of problem with Charlie Kimber ‘appealing’ to the ‘outside’???? Hands up anyone who might think that any woman who heard how the SWP handled the sexual harassment case might possibly find it worrying that many of the same people who ‘dealt with’ the matter are still on the executive and might therefore have reservations about joining or being appealed to????
“” I note that in the latest blood-letting following the latest blood-letting in the Delta affair, are indeed people of colour….I wonder what they would say are the reasons for all this.”
Have not a clue what this refers too!”
Ah yes, I was incoherent there. I was making the simple point that no ‘radical left’ or marxist parties seem ever to have much success in the UK in recruiting people of colour. Why’s that? cf USA CP from circa 1930 – 1968 which it seems was relatively successful.
A photo has just come up on twitter of the TUSC meeting on No to Austerity. Four speakers on a platform above the levels of everyone: everyone in the audience, apart from the front row, looking at the backs of each other’s heads. No people of colour visible. Platform made up of three blokes and one woman.
With different clothes, this could be a photo of the equivalent meeting any time in the last 150 years. Imagine a meeting saying No to Austerity, which began with groups of people sharing their experience of ‘austerity’ and what they understood to be the effects, and what they and their work colleagues had or had not been able to do about it. Then imagine quick report-backs from those groups…
And then a platform trying to draw something together out of that, perhaps….
Take it all back – twitter says they’re ‘moving amendments’ ! (ironic guffaw).
On the eve of a predicted Syriza victory the question of reform or revolution is all the more relevant and it’s not just a question that revolutionaries are discussing – the debate has already been happening on the left, even in Syriza.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/01/phase-one/
Criticism of Syriza, Podemos and, yes, even the SWP occurs in this context and that includes the debate around recruitment and growth. As the article I linked to expresses – many of us wants this movement to spread and to avoid potential disillusionment in the face of the very real threat from the international ruling class. There’s a lot at stake here, not just for the Greek working class but for the rest of us in Europe.
RayB
“On every news broadcast I saw Western leaders and their dictator friends were the spokes people for the march – not the left.” …..
Well the reason for that is pretty obvious isn’t it – the ruling class controls the mass media, so it can it can always twist the story to suit its own interests.
All the more reason *not* to isolate oneself from the 4 million ordinary people who were there. Only an idiot sectarian could possibly believe that all of them were supporting racism and imperialism!
As to your accusations of “populism” –
You ought to consult the history of the Bolsheviks.
In particular their attitude to the police unions formed by Sergei Vasilyevich Zubatov and the mass marches led by Father Gapon.
So you accept that the march was dominated by the French state including all their despotic mates around the world. What connection this has to Father Gapon or police unions is unclear. Are you claiming that the march was progressive? While I stand in solidarity with the much maligned “idiots” of this world I have no truck with the very duplicitous characters who cast the French state in such a light.
When I came to the uk in 2000 I was really happy the way all the English people treated me as teacher and as a person it was not until 2010 that I started working for the first time with Afrocaribbeans and Asian that I experienced the most brutal racism i like different cultures but there is not always reciprocity
LILLY from Argentina