Days like these Part. 5Guest blogger Gerry Fitzpatrick
First, an update on previous entries: The Labour revolt over the abolition of 10p lower tax band lead by back bencher Frank Field is now at an end, as he announced in the House of Commons. After having secured a pledge that its negative effects will be removed, Mr Field said that his war with the government ‘is now over’ (the Labour Lefts’ mini is now safely back in neutral mode). Unfortunately it will be of little help to the poor as the price of oil, wheat and rice sky rocket. Labour after the May council elections and the Crewe by-election will not be able to remain in power by seeking more advice from the free market Gurus. A parliamentary researcher friend tells me that those government ministers, who have managed to give up the gurus, have given up being Labour politicians as well.
I see that Mr Brendan Barber and the TUC have managed at last to kick their way into the headlines (well into the London Independent at least). He has promised a Summer of Discontent for the government – interesting that the Independent put it like that - weren’t the workers of the Winter of Discontent defeated? The question now is, can Mr Barber become the new Frank Field? Watch this space!
The BBC
Rather than debate the value if this publicly owned institution, an evaluation of its effectiveness in aftermath of the disaster of the Hutton Report would be more in order. For it is clear that the Hutton Report was the largest political defeat for the corporation in its history. It was also the most obvious political white-wash of a government since the Bloody Sunday Widgery Tribunal into the Derry killings in 1972 (Hutton, as is widely known, played a controversial role in condemning the coroner after the bloody Sunday Killings for expressing a view that the victims were unlawfully killed). When his report on the death of the government scientist Dr David Kelly was published, it avoided the question of what may have caused his death - such as the government leaking the scientists’ name to the press - and condemning the BBC for helping the scientist express his views anonymously. However, BBC unions missed their chance when it would have been very easy to get public support for a political strike against Hutton and the Government and to protest against one of the most blatant political whitewashes in recent history.
Since then, post the Hutton report, the BBC has tried to recover some of its political influence. To a certain extent it has regained that influence, mostly as a consequence of the UK public moving to oppose and protest against the New Labour disaster. However, the BBC has also retained the right to run the usual immigrant scare stories – thus maintaining the Corporation dubious sense of ‘balance.’
The SWP
The Socialist Workers Party, or the International Socialists as the organisation was before 1976, have managed to become what they used to campaign against – an organisation devoted to identity politics. If anyone was in any doubt as to the change or what it means for socialist campaigns, they should listen to the SWP mayoral candidate Lindsey German speaking at the last Stop the War Conference. Rather than emphasize the collective action of all groups and the international role of the War and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the anti war leader repeatedly infers that the war is also a Muslim issue. It is only a Muslim issue in so far as the minority of Muslims say that it is. The wars and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are not a Muslim issue - in the same way the occupation of the North of Ireland is a not catholic (or a protestant) issue.
It is anti-imperialist issue and the socialist aim in any anti-imperialist campaign is the forging of links between all those who oppose the imperial project. As a consequence of the SWP line the involvement of millions was thrown away in the hope that appealing to one group –the Muslim community (no matter how important) would help expand the group’s political influence. That strategy has failed, but the SWP like New Labour and the New Labour leadership, will continue to pile up disaster on disaster - thoroughly convinced that it is everyone else ‘who doesn’t get it’. And that’s one thing the SWP and New Labour are right about.
4 comments:
“the socialist aim in any anti-imperialist campaign is the forging of links between all those who oppose the imperial project”
Yes, but in the case of Iran , Socialist Democracy is supporting the HOPI group which is clearly Islamophobic .You can forget about forging links with the people of Iran Gerry ; the population is overwhelmingly Muslim . No Muslim would even talk to a group associated with the sort of ersatz racism that HOPIeire regularly posts to Indymedia Ireland . For some examples see my comment to this socialist democracy blog.
http://socialistdemocracy.blogspot.com/2007/12/from-islamophobia-to-islam.html )
tomeile
But the people of Ireland are overwhelmingly catholic, does this mean Irish anti imperialism should have a catholic character? Can the workers of Ireland or Iran be reduced to the particular sectarian ideology they have been born into or does objective developments in capitalism throw them into opposition to imperialism in spite of, rather than because of, their religious beliefs? Is religion a hindrance or a help to anti imperialism? If it is a help then was the mullahs' victory over the socialists in Iran in the 1970s progressive?
I’ll try to answer some of those questions , but the point I was really trying to make is that it isn’t possible to forge links with anybody if you deliberately set out to insult their deeply held religious convictions . I thought that would have been obvious to anyone. If the bolshevics had started out like that at Baku they wouldn’t have got anywhere .
“But the people of Ireland are overwhelmingly catholic, does this mean Irish anti imperialism should have a catholic character? “
No ,but if those anti-imperialists are also catholics or muslims they shouldn’t be insulted
for it . If the Sun launches a pro-imperialist campaign depicting Irish Catholics as sub–human , socialists should oppose that , not support it like Hopi did when its representative wholeheartedly endorsed and even re-published the Danish cartoon provocation .
“Can the workers of Ireland or Iran be reduced to the particular sectarian ideology they have been born into or does objective developments in capitalism throw them into opposition to imperialism in spite of, rather than because of, their religious beliefs?”
There is an objective opposition between the working class and imperialism which is the highest stage of capitalism . History shows that the ideological expression of political opposition to imperialism can take different forms though ,even reactionary ones - the people who fought the British in 1916 were mostly Catholics . Marxists should be able to see the difference between form and content .
Is religion a hindrance or a help to anti imperialism?
Religion is both the opium of the people and the cry of the oppressed. Bigotry and intolerance towards members of a religious group actually reinforces religion. If HOPI had been around in 1798 they would presumably have denounced the United Irishmen’s call for unity between Catholic , Protestant and Dissenter as an impediment to the growth of a genuine anti-imperialist movement .
At a time when imperialism is deliberately provoking sectarian hatred and division in Iraq , HOPI is incapable of saying “Sunni and Shia unite and fight imperialism !” Their solution to religious sectarianism is to say that there should be no Sunni and no Shiite. “No Shiite ... No Sunni… ours is humanitarian identity" http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84857
If we were all humanitarians and atheists in other words , then everything would be alright. That might have sounded ok thirty years ago coming from John Lennon ,but today it’s just idealism - which is actually the ideological underpinning for religion.
If it is a help then was the mullahs' victory over the socialists in Iran in the 1970s progressive?
It wasn’t essentially “the mullahs” that achieved a victory over socialists in 1979 , but a section of the Iranian bourgeoisie . HOPI takes the view that this section of the Iranian bourgeoisie -represented by Khomeini at the time and now by Ahmadinejad - constitutes a comprador regime that would like to do nothing more than curl up at Bush’s feet . That’s more idealism .
I don’t think that it is the case that Iranian regime would like to ingratiate themselves with the American regime in that way , but even if they did want to do such a thing, they are not in a position to do so . And really if the Iranian regime was a comprador one, America would not be hostile to them as they most surely are.. There is a real conflict between the interests of the American regime and the Iranian one .
Firstly, thank you for your response. I would like to point out that I do not speaak for HOPI or S.D. nor do I set out to insult anyone's religious beliefs. I do however set out to make it absolutely clear that I oppose those beliefs because they blind oppressed people to the real causes of their oppression. If your views on religion are different to those you seek to influence you must make this clear and seek to contradict their positions. In this way you are engaged in a unity of opposites a dynamic that will issue in a synthesis - progress. If you merely "unite" with them, avoid the hard questions and opportunistically settle for unity without opposition then there is no synthesis, no progress. You are right that history does show the "ideological expression of political opposition to imperialism can take different forms", but does Marxism not seek an end to "ideology" and the promotion of a scientific approach? Bear in mind that history also shows that the Irish bourgeois anti imperialists will ultimately compromise with imperialism and that international support for Irish anti imperialism that did not primarily support an independant working class movement ultimately weakened the anti imperialist struggle. I accept your piece is very short but you seem also to make assumptions about the Iranian people. There is a long tradition of Marxism there and your concentration on people "with deeply held religious beliefs" contributes to the marginalisation, internationally of the secular tradition. Your reference to the Bolsheviks in Baku is a little vague but, assuming you are refering to the 1920 conference, bear in mind they had just carried out a successful revolution and were attracting people that were in transition towards a revolutionary position. I would also suggest the opinion that the Baku conference was considered a failure because Zinoviev contented himself with calling for a "holy war against imperialism" rather than concentrating on consistant work in building cadres among the people. I also feel that your slogan of "Sunni and Shia unite and fight imperialism" is as meaningful as "Catholic and Protestant unite and fight imperialism". Neither slogan takes in to account class divisions or class issues within either sect and suggests a top down alliance. This is not to say that rejection of religion should be a prerequisite for resistance to imperialism, it is just to say that unless the left clears a space for itself and fights for its position in opposition to religious sectarianism there will not be a socialist revolution. There may be a revolt, uprising, or coup, initially anti imperialist but ultimately compromising with it. Look at the history of petit bourgeois revolts. On the victory of the mullahs. Yes I agree it was a section of the Iranian bourgeoisie that triumphed, but they compounded their victory by utilising a reactionary religious ideology. Opposition to the bourgeoisie means opposition to their religion. It is they who sell the opium to the masses and it is not enough to allow the poor to continue to "sigh" in their oppression. Atheism is a liberation. Yours in solidarity, Notforprophet.
Post a Comment