SHERIDAN NEEDS A SLAP!

From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 16 July 2001 17:22
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Sheridan needs a slap!

Just picked up a copy of Weekly Worker. Inside a interview with Tommy
Sheridan. Here's what the 'workers leader' has to say about the
BNP. "In fact the BNP and NF results fell between 1997 and 2001."
Fucking unbelievable. Not even the ANL had the balls to suggest the
BNP vote actually went DOWN! Then he takes up the 'special
conditions' much favoured by Guardian editorials and liberals
everywhere.
There is a thin line between complacency, indifference and
capitulation, and I would say Sheridan has crossed it.

From: Eddie Truman <eddie.truman@bigfoot.com>
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 16 July 2001 17:45
Subject: RE: [UK_Left_Network] Sheridan needs a slap!

I posted the full text of the interview on UKLN on Saturday.
Here is the section on the BNP.

(Tam) I think the British National Party result in Oldham was distinctly to
do with the circumstances within that city at that time. If you examine the
BNP and National Front results in other parts of the country, they did
nowhere near as well. In fact the BNP and NF results fell between 1997 and
2001. It's not the case that they've been striding forward on all fronts.
There was a specific racial tension which has been built up in Oldham and
Burnley.

These incidents have undoubtedly given an edge to BNP organisers of an
English nationalist outlook. I think the BNP has been clever in promoting
this rather than its racist/fascist agenda. In fact they have changed a lot
of their policies. The BNP used to be very proud of its forced repatriation
policy. They've actually changed that to say that now, instead of forced
repatriation, they would rather see separate development. There would be
separate areas for black and whites, which is a new form of apartheid. The
point being that it's just as disgusting and poisonous as repatriation, but
it does show you they're trying to be more clever: because they were getting
nowhere with their forced repatriation, they are trying to fuel the poison
of racist division on the basis of separate development.

They've concentrated on the one area where there have been specific problems
in terms of the race riots. I think that the left's job is to try and
intervene on the basis of fighting poverty and inequality and offering a
political voice to the disillusioned white and Asian youth rather that
allowing the BNP to offer their poisonous solution to the white youth in
particular.

From: marc jones <mv.jones@virgin.net>
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 16 July 2001 18:09
Subject: Re: [UK_Left_Network] Sheridan needs a slap!

Sheridan's analysis of the BNP is interesting because it is concentrating
far more on whipping up English nationalist racism.
It didn't stand any candidates in Scotland and its one candidate in Wales
polled v poorly - 278 votes in an area where there have been tensions due to
asylum seekers. Don't get me wrong - there's anti-black and Asian racism in
Wales and Scotland too - but there is obviously a lot mileage to be had in
some segregated poverty-stricken areas of England.
Sheridan is right to say the vote fell - it did, but there were fewer
candidates. Do you know that this wasn't edited out of what was a fairly
long interview?

Finally, why is everyone on this list so ready to hit, shoot, icepick
otherr socialists? Too much sun or keyboard bravado?

Marc

From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 16 July 2001 21:00
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: Sheridan needs a slap!

Marc, The BNP vote fell did it? Because of less candidates? Oh I
see. That's interesting. Seeing as how you seem to be statitician you
wouldn't like to produce any figures to back Sheridan's quite
outrageous falsification would you?

From: Mal Content <mal_content1927@yahoo.co.uk>
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 17 July 2001 12:51
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: Sheridan needs a slap!

In the 1997 General Election the BNP stood 53 candidates gaining
34,868 votes, in the 2001 General Election they stood 33 candidates
and received a total of 47195 votes. Which means the BNP gained 12327
extra votes with twenty less candidates.

1997 BNP candidate averaged 658 votes 1.2%
2001 BNP candidate averaged 1430 votes 3.9%

The following quote is taken from July's issue of Searchlight "If
one removes the five seats contested in the North West, the average
falls to 2.8%."

So even taking out the 'special circumstances' in the North West the
BNP still more then doubled their percentage on 1997.

It is would be intresting to see how you or Tommy can manipulate the
statistics to show any diffrent.

People trying to convince themselves that the BNP are an irrelevance
to modern British politics are just deceiving themselves. On Friday
8th June while the Left was hand wringing and trying to convince
themselves that they had made a breakthrough into the mainstream of
British politics, the BNP were starting their campaign for the local
elections in May 2002. In the weeks following the General Election
the BNP went back to the areas they stood, delivering 'Thank you, for
your vote' leaflets and canvassing for the the May local elections.
And the left has done what???

What will the Left be doing to counter the BNP in the May 2002
elections? ANL choirs giving adrenaline pumped chourses of 'Nazi
scum, off our streets'. Or, the other old favourites lobbying
politicians and police to ban and imprison.

If as is expected the BNP gain coucil seats, in May, how soon after
will the debate on this board go back to 'Hands off Cuba'.

Mal.

From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 17 July 2001 15:31
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: More importantly is Tommy Sheridan a big eegit too?

--- In UK_Left_Network@y..., "marc jones" <mv.jones@v...> wrote:
> Hands up - my mistake. Can I blame the capitalist system for my
inability to
> count?
> More importantly, what is the left doing for the 2002 local
elections in
> England? (in Wales it's 2003)
>
> Marc
>
> Marc, with all due respect I hardly think 'counting' come into it.
It is hardly a narrow gap. Missing out 12,000 BNP votes (the entire
BNP vote in Oldham interestingly) is not a lapse that can be put down
to 'bog standard comprehensives'. More like you subliminally bought
into ANL liberal crap, easily found in the Observer/Guardian, and
made the assumption you did on what you read there. Candidates down -
vote down, oh goody: when in actual fact it is instead - candidates
down - but BNP vote UP!. Not so goody. Particularly as you point out
with 2002 in mind.

So you were wrong. More importantly, Tommy Sheridan the most
recognisable left-winger in Britain is wrong too. No disrespect Marc,
but you making such an error is an *individual* matter - when Tommy
Sheridan does so, particularly in an interview, it does tend to send
the message that the the influence of the far-right in working class
areas is NOT a cause for undue concern: no need for Plan B.

Precisely because it is so inextricably linked to the mainstream
liberal and ANL reassurances that everything is 'okedoke' is why,
even it is a genuine boo-boo, it has got to be challenged, and why it
has got be corrected. Putting it bluntly, either Sheridan was
suckered by the voluminous amounts of ANL propaganda, as you (and how
many others?) were - or more cynically Tommy Sheridan MSP actually
endorses the sedation of the left and the wider working class
movement. One way or the other, some explanation needs to be
forthcoming.
----------

From: Eddie Truman <eddie.truman@bigfoot.com>
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 17 July 2001 15:43
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: More importantly is Tommy Sheridan a big eegit too?

I have forwarded the respective mails to Tommy, highlighting the points that
the comrades have made regarding the BNP vote.

Eddie

From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 17 July 2001 20:10
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: If Tommy Sheridan is a big eegit: what about Weekly Worker

Fair enough lets hear what Sheridan says - if he replies. But lets
make it clear right now, it is not simply a matter of numbers, for
what is at least as damaging is the totally flawed theory that flows
from the obviously doctored election results. Which is where Weekly
Worker who devote a front page to 'expert' analysis, on the Bradford
and the BNP come in. Frankly the article in question is too obviously
self-serving and contradictory to even bother to seriously analyse,
but the fact remains that Tommy's blunder is shared by the editorial
team of Weekly Worker. Did they too think the BNP vote
actually "fell", or were they collectively seduced by Tommy's
soothing logic? It would of course be 'nice' if Tommy was right, as
this is the assumption Weekly Worker had been working on prior to the
election. Whatever way you look at it, it beggars belief how a proof
reader who claims to be any kind of anti-fascict could miss Tommy's
howler?

More damningly, Weekly Worker have two other whole pages devoted to
attacking Scargill's attempts to - "obscure the fact". Along with
it, under the headline "Fact and Fiction" there is an obsessive
breakdown of the figures between the - SLP in 1997 the SLP in 2001 -
and the SA vote. This is cross referenced with SA/SSP vote taken
together, as against the SLP returns, and also the SA v the SLP in
Wales, plus the SSP and the SLP in Scotland and so forth.

Whatever the merits of the argument, what starkly stands out, is that
in all the squabbling, in the majority of cases, the differences, are
a wretched couple of hundred votes one way or the other. Who's
kidding who?

Taken together, as a snapshot of the Left's introspection it can
hardly be surpassed.
Meanwhile as we await Tommy's reply, lets see what the Weekly Worker
come up with?

From: Nick Bryant <bryantnicholas@hotmail.com>
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 17 July 2001 23:40
Subject: Re: [UK_Left_Network] Re: More importantly is Tommy Sheridan a big eegit too?

In light of Mr Sheridan's economy with the truth, it is worth pointing out a
few facts. Twenty five years ago, it was always a truism that the fascists
generally lied and the left generally told the truth. Now though its all
changed. If you look at the election responses of, for example, the SWP, the
CPGB and Tommy Sheridan, the left are not telling the truth. However, the
BNP are more than happy to tell the truth.

The fact that the left is forced to resort to lying about their opposition
is a sign that they're almost beaten already. How will they explain away BNP
councillors next May?

Nick

From: Eddie Truman <eddie.truman@bigfoot.com>
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 18 July 2001 00:07
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: More importantly is Tommy Sheridan a big eegit too?

Nick,
Why should Tommy have to shoulder the blame for the uselessness of
the London based left ?
From our point of view, the BNP did not put up a single candidate in
Scotland and so *from the point of view of June 2001* election
results, they didn't figure much in events.
In the Scottish Socialist Party's list of priorities, the English
local elections of 2002 don't figure very highly.
I thought that, generally, Tommy reflected a fair degree of the
analysis that Red Action has brought to the rise of the BNP v2 in the
interview in Weekly Worker.
As I've said already, I've pointed out to him the points that you've
made in relation to the BNP vote.

Eddie

From: MarxistMark@aol.com
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 18 July 2001 13:29
Subject: Re: [UK_Left_Network] Re: More importantly is Tommy Sheridan a big eegit too?

hi; nick.im sure alot of people across the left agree with you and see AFA'S
analysis as the correct history of events; and the correct channels to
proceed through in the future.

but what advice do you give to people who are willing to provide
support for these actions asked for by AFA; not everyone is hard as nails
across the left.but genuinely are willing to provide other services including
perhaps financial help.can or will they get a friendly welcome or a shouting
down; is physical support the only help youll take.as you say the BNP has
changed tactics; so the physical support as you could say perhaps isnt at the
top of the agenda.

so will you welcome organisations or individuals; or will they get a
roasting.AFA'S role is im sure been noted across the left in gallant brave
terms; your analysis is near perfect in respect of the neglection of the
working class.

so with your attacks on the wrong doings of the liberal
left over the years and your calls for the left to radicalize; will you
welcome people who can provide various kinds of help/support.

cheers mark

From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 18 July 2001 01:36
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Sheridan or Trotsky?

1997 BNP 35,000
2001 BNP 47,000

Tommy: "In fact the BNP and NF results fell between 1997 and 2001"
(Weekly Worker July 12 2001)
Leon: "The first characteristic of a really revolutionary party is -
to be able to look reality in the face."
(The Turn in the Communist International and the German situation.
1930)
Tommy or Leon?
Judging by the reponse so far, many find it too close to call. Tough
shout alright.

From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 18 July 2001 20:40
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: What are ANY OF YOU going to do about Sheridan?

--- In UK_Left_Network@y..., andrew.g.cutting@b... wrote:
> In the aftermath of WW2 Trotskyism found itself isolated,
> divided and confused. To generalise slightly, those who weren't
> killed in the war either dropped out or formed close knit
> groupings whose primary concern was to survive and overcome
> isolation. You might call them sects depending on your sympathies
> but those from non Trotskyist traditions should take a good look
> at these organisations because today we all find ourselves in the
> same boat.
>
> Firstly and formostly Trotskyist propaganda is about providing
> *the* solution as opposed to Stalinists and social democrats.
> Its about hegemony. The solution might appear in the form of
> 'eventually under socialism' or 'get active in our campaign'
> but the solution is there because (whether its whispered or
> bellowed) 'we are the vanguard'.
>
> I believe the 'crisis of leadership' became a disproportionate
> obsession. It is essentially the belief that everything would
> be alright if Trostkyist group X were in charge. Little time is
> wasted explaining why Trostkyist group X weren't in charge in
> the first place.
>
> I'm speaking very generally of course and I'm including on the
> one hand Healyite hyper-activism and at the other extreme Ted
> Grant's strategy of controling the youth sections of the Labour
> Party and waiting for workers to flood in. (By the way it is a
> myth that the Militant Tendency was about waging a war in the
> Labour Party, their own literature explains that it is only
> a strategy to overcome isolation and by all accounts they were
> not particular active as Party members.)
>
> In that sense the unity projects (SSP and SA's) are a direct
> continuation from the bad old days of division. They are about
> uniting activists around issues. That is, keeping the bandwagon
> going.
>
> The problem is that more often than not there is no quick fix
> solution to most of life's problems. There is no particular reason
> to think that activism solves more problems than it creates.
> Activist's unity, is not necessarily a great step forward, it
> might even be a step backwards.
>
> When Red Action critise the Anti Nazi League, many murmur in
> agreement. However the refrain 'what are YOU doing about it
> though?' is usually the next question.
>
> In my opinion this just shows that the lessons of the last 50 years
> have not been learnt. If party discipline, party program and
> talk about unity confuse you then my advise is to forget them
> (at least for the minute) take a good hard and most importantly
> honest look at the world and remember that revolutions are made
> by the class and not by the activists.
>
> Andrew
Andrew, I don't disagree with a word you said. However even in the
midst of all the cynicism such a strategy must engenders, the relaxed
manner in which most have greeted the exposure of Tommy Sheridan
using a blatant lie to justify the continuation of the strategy
against a far-right renaissance both here and across Europe, surely
demonstrates the use of the term 'revolutionary' when referring to
unreconstructed socialism is a) ridiculous, and b) even though
Trotskyism has had a good run, that such degenerate behaviour is
publicly tolerated, must signal that the run is finally to end. 'May
2002' is my guess.

Thread index

BOYCOTT ITALY !

From: secr <info@unitedpeoples.net>
To:
Date: 29 July 2001 11:20
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] BOYCOTT ITALY !

The fascist community in Italy headed by
Berlusconi of course don't give in to any pressure
of moral kind. They only understand the language
of power, including money.

So let us start a boycott of all Italian products
and beaches, until all the prisoners have been
released and compensation paid to the parents of
Carlo Giulianni and all other victims of the
fascist attrocities.

From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 29 July 2001 14:29
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: BOYCOTT ITALY /anull the elections?

Yes why not, the 'boycott' tactic was implemented with impressive
succes in Austria only last year was it not? Perhaps while we are at
it we should also 'annull' the results of the Italian elections as
the Guardian recomended should have been done in Austria. While we
are at it lets elect a new Italian working class.

Thread index

RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK

From: Red Action <bryantnicholas@hotmail.com>
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 30 July 2001 22:06
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK

Red Action news page
30th July '01

Even before Oldham, Burnley or Bradford erupted and even
before the BNP were clearly seen to be profiting by the application of
multiculural logic it was noticeable that an increasing number of
journalists and columists ,among them, Ros Coward,Alibhai-Brown, Geoffrey
Wheatcroft, Minette Marin, Darcus Howe, and even Faisal Bodi were prepared
to openly question and challenge the logic behind certain anti-racist
orthodoxies. Julie Burchill can now be added to the list. None of the above
are deemed politically radical in the accepted sense, which makes the
attitude of the ANL/SWP and the Socialist Alliance who hide behind official
racial pieties appear all the more craven and conservative. Here we re-print
Ms Burchill's inimitable contribution to the debate from the Guardian, 28th
July:

If I live to be a hundred, or even 43, I'll never understand
why "multiculturalism" is accepted to be a progressive, leftist idea rather
than a reactionary, rightwing one. Logically, if one should be automatically
proud of one's accidental heritage, then the white ethnic English should be
proud of being what they are. And then people wonder why that stuff happens
in Bradford!

I'm old enough to remember Grunwick - a massive 70s strike
powered by Asian women workers who had arrived here only a couple of years
before, courtesy of the African nationalist madman Idi Amin forcing them out
of their homes in Uganda.

In the 70s, when class was king - "Soak the rich!" cried the
"rightwing" Labour chancellor Denis Healey, "squeeze them till the pips
squeak!" - the British proletariat constituted a massive force, and their
unions ruled the roost. But as the unions were
gradually destroyed, "multiculturalism" came up as a vivacious booby prize,
a decorative decoy.

The idea that whites oppress blacks more than the ruling
class - of whatever colour - oppress the working class - ditto - was the
greatest rightwing confidence trick of the 20th century. In his book
Ornamentalism, David Cannadine details mercilessly how the
architects of the British Empire conspired with the potentates of Asia and
Africa to sell and receive a whole class into slavery and subjection, while
still totally respecting each other's status. Race riots in the exploiting
country, when they occur many decades later,
are sleekly and shamelessly passed off, by those whose class made a profit
from colonial slavery, as the fault of an ignorant and vicious working
class. It's enough to make you chuck.

It's understandable and all too believable that the white
ruling class would want to set the various ethnic working classes against
each other - it's that old classic, divide and rule.
What we have to try to get our heads around, though, is that the various
ethnic "workers" and "leaders" who encourage race- rather than
class-consciousness, are just as loathsome and protective of their position.
And the way that they invariably protect their ludicrous logic - just what
has Keith Vaz got in common with an unemployed Brick Lane Bengali teen, any
more than Princess Margaret has in common with a white female street
sleeper? - has caused just as much sorrow and strife as the tall stories of
the white nationalists... There's the usual nonsense about all men being
brothers and it's got to be a
free-for-all. But the bourgeois journalists who advocate an open-door policy
when it comes to immigration either aren't aware or don't care that when a
country welcomes all-comers without making its original guests comfy, it is
whizzing up a recipe for disaster.
I think governments do it on purpose; just chuck every
immigrant group in, one upon the other, without attempting to sort it out
one at a time. Though they say they don't like them, I think our government
loves "race riots", because then the working class are
fighting each other and not the evil bastards who've destroyed their chances
of employment through the slime of globalisation.

So I really resent it, actually, when I hear some posh
pigging liberal telling me that if I don't want a bunch of white Czechs over
here getting housed before some Brit single mother, it's the same as
turning back the German Jews in the 30s; and that if I don't want legions of
Albanians knifing prostitutes on Dover Beach, it's as bad as turning back
the Windrush. It's not the same at all; even a redneck like me can see that
all those Indians, all those blacks, were first interfered with and then
performed totally beyond the call of duty during that war. They won their
place here a hundred times over; I just don't think that a greedy Croatian's
the same. So sue me!

But I'm white, and therefore a racist; thank God, then, for
the ethnic Brits who do realise that it's far too soon for this country to
pile undeserving whitey on top of our more than deserving dark citizens.

Guardian July 28

From: gaismair@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 01 August 2001 02:32
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK

Hmm, interesting that yet again certain Red Action comrades see
something progressive in the reactionary rants of bourgeois journo
Birchill. Is she a RA sleeper perhaps? Or just another ranting psuedo
stalinist that RA thinks offers a valuable insight?

Birchill has always been keen to shock, without actually challenging
the system that employs her. From her early days on The Face, where
she bastardised her dad's stalinist views if it offered good copy, to
her employment by various capitalist papers (where even industrial
action by the workforce didn't deter her quest for profit), she has
never actually stood for a progressive working class viewpoint,
whatever her nods in the direction of class have been.

Her views on multi-cultralism are designed to mildly upset her
bourgeois mates, while at the same time maintaining her one constant
political belief of English superiority and nationalism (witness how
proud she was that a black woman attacked gypsies, thereby showing
her English credentials).

So why are RA so desperate for allies that they uncritically reprint
this reactionary tosh (and, interestingly, cut of its worst racist
content without aknowledgement by RA that they have done so)? Are
they so willing to ignore genuine cultural differences, many of which
were so vividly exposed and analysed by revolutionary socialists like
CLR James, that they lapse into a crude stalinist workerism of the
kind that says if only we can talk of class then racism will as if by
magic dissapear? Will we for once see a positive socialist programme
from RA that can unite working class communities from different
ethnic backrounds, rather than their normal limited, if easily
effective, attacks on the libralism inherant in the SWP/ANL strategy?

Jim D. Liverpool.

From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 01 August 2001 12:14
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK

I thought I answered much your rather tired and dishonest criticisms
in an extensive exchange not too long ago. Typically you choose to
ignore it. As RA has repeatedly pointed out, the SWP/ANL (and now
Socialist Alliance) strategy is merely a *symptom* of a wider
political dysfunction. In terms of race and class that dysfunction is
best illustrated by the happy clappy support for the racialisation
of practically all social issues. There are genuine cultural
differences within the working class, not all based on colour either.
So the choice is simple; you either choose to overcome the
differences or to - exaggerate them and set them in stone. The BNP
are unrepentant about what they see as a solution, what about you?

For a fuller analyis see Race and Class: www.redaction.org

In the meantime skulking behind ungrammatical phrases
like 'workerism' adds nothing to the debate.

From: hfbj_parasol@hotmail.com
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 01 August 2001 12:49
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK

--- In UK_Left_Network@y..., gary_ohalloran@y... wrote:
> In the meantime skulking behind ungrammatical phrases
> like 'workerism' adds nothing to the debate.

Firstly 'workerism' is a word not a phrase so trying to dodge a
political point by attacking Jim's grammar kind of falls flat...

Now, his charge of workerism is perfectly valid- you do
downplay 'race' in favour of bread and butter 'class' issues. By
contrast you say 'the left' exaggerate racial issues and thus
contribute to the 'problem'.

The irony is that when it comes to Ireland you take a diametrically
opposed line. If you were consistent you would reject Republicanism
as being part of the problem and say that 'if only' Catholics and
Protestants would unite over 'class' issues everything would be hunky-
dory.

Rob.

From: Jim Drysdale <jimd48@btinternet.com>
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 01 August 2001 13:25
Subject: Re: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK

From Jim Drysdale,

***** Rob writes....

SNIP> If you were consistent you would reject Republicanism
>as being part of the problem and say that 'if only' Catholics and
>Protestants would unite over 'class' issues everything would be hunky-
>dory.

***** Whether or not things would be honky dory, the fact is that as
capital declines *united working class solutions* become what they have
always been in capitalist society.....the *only* solutions. The only
solutions to all ills of this declining society no matter where, with whom,
between whom and on every single issue, without exception. So, we can wind
and water away, but this process *is* going on regardless of how much wind
and water we generate.

***** Declining forms are always the last to see there own decline. Ask
*any* sectarian group. Some may think that they have the moral high
ground.....but that was *given* to them by capital and *not* because
intrinsically they are better human beings. Would oppressed sections of the
working class have *historically refused* the better paid jobs if offered
them on mass? I think not. The protestant work ethic is a figment created
for capital by capital. And many a good catholic buys right into it for the
self-same reasons.

***** try to see decline chaps and chappesses. Holding to old biases or
prejudices means only that some *fail* to see the essence of decline. The
biggest problem is.......it wastes f*......* time. Nonetheless,
historical prejudice can be a comfort zone for those who will not think for
themselves. Un - f* ingfortunately, this is still the majority.

comradely,

Jim.

From: Nick Bryant <bryantnicholas@hotmail.com>
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 02 August 2001 00:11
Subject: Re: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK

So what does this all mean?

1. 'Workerism' is as we all know a 'Trotskyist' term of abuse. In the real
world, no-one would use it because it is bad English. Essentially, it is a
meaningless term. However Jim equates it with Lenin's use of the phrase
'Economism', wrongly in my opinion but why waste time on this, which meant
strategies that dealt only with the consequence of strikes and immediate
labour issues, that didn't take up political issues. He then jumps from that
definition to one related to the left in post apartheid South Africa, where,
he says, "In that situation 'workerism' was actually a very progressive
label. In the context of RA and race and class I think my meaning is pretty
obvious."

Which means what? I don't have a clue. I suspect that all he is saying,
without any evidence of course, is that Red Action are 'bad' or not 'Trots'
(If I'm not wrong, tell me why)for whatever reason comes to mind.

However, there is another reason for RA being attacked as workerist, which
is more important and that is because we are a working class organisation,
that has pro-working class politics. This is why we are attacked for beind
'skinheads', 'racists' etc.

2. "There are other forms of oppression that are only very loosly
tied to the means of production, which is why Lenin spoke of the need
for socialists to be 'tribunes of the people' and to take up all
forms of oppression, including for example religious oppression."
And we don't? RA has been involved for many years with struggles to do with
racism (Bermondsey, Greenwich and others), Ireland (National oppression),
Scotland (National oppression). Amongst many others.

3. Generally Jim, your politics haven't changed since you were in the SWP,
have they? You still don't have a rounded Marxist analysis of society. Have
a look at the RAa website, (www.redaction.org) and weep

Nick

From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 02 August 2001 18:00
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK

Jim Dye: Gary,
>
> Please tell me in what way my criticism of RA uncrtically using
> Birchill was 'dishonest'? Also, you need to expand your reading
> somewhat. Workerism as a term within Marxist debates has been
> around …

ReplY: Why is your approach dishonest? For a whole raft of reasons.
One you attack Burchill for who she is, rather than for what she
wrote. Her crticicims of multiculuralism are never addressed. You
suggest her motivations are reactionary but step around the symmetry
between euro-nationalism and multiculturalism eg mutual calls for
segregated schooling, housing etc. You repeat as mantra that 'RA have
not presented anything postive' when in reality RA are practically
the only ones to address the divide in the working class as a
problem. The majority of the left remain, despite Oldham, Bradford,
Burnley, in denial. A point perfectly illustrated by Tommy Sheridan,
when to justify the existing strategy he was obliged to lie about the
other wise strikingly obvious growth in BNP influence.
(Interestingly, given what subscribers have been drummed off the UK
list for - there was no similar clamour from 'Marxists' for a
rebuttal or a retraction from Sheridan.)

More than anything your dishonesty is exemplified by, and this is by
no means a personal attack, the method of approaching the issue from
the outset. Like much of the left you seem to have learned your
debating skills at college. There, it appears the objective is to
score points at your opponents expense, rather than get to the
truth. 'Winning the argument' rather than resolving the problem is
given primacy. Therefore if your opponent introduces 'the
particular', you parry by empasising the abstract. And vice a versa.
When that dosen't work red herrings are introduced by the box full.
If in really serious trouble there always the retreat in some
orthodoxy or another. (Look at your last post for an example of the
method at work) This is generally how debate is conducted. When on
the rare occassion, you decided in our last discussion to go toe to
toe so to speak, you came out badly. So naturally your return to
dealing with everything as far as is possible, in the abstract:
subjective over objective. In your world then then are no facts
merely - opinions. Thus you can never lose. In the real world, as
events increasingly testify, such a thoroughly dis-honest and of
course self-defeating approach means - you can never win.

Anti-racism is not winning because your approach is rife. But who'll
admit it. Multiculturalism is not progressive, but because it's
confusing to look at alternative strategies, let's all pretend it is.
The BNP are the 'radical alternative' but if Tommy's says their vote
is actually collapsing who are we to argue?

Is this what you call Marxism Jim? While we're on the
subject,'workerism' is not a Marxist term. Marx never used it. It is
instead one of these hackneyed defensives, employed whenever working
class opinion, aspiration or interests come in conflict, or confound
the analysis of people who present themselves as the vanguard. In my
experience, it is most often used as a code word to express some anti-
working class sentiments, but without of course doing so honestly.It
is therefore as thoroughly a *anti-marxist* term as you could
concieve.

RA has not got 'a rounded Marxist perspective' you maintain. Ooh?
Which is why as supposedly anti-marxists RA can identify currents,
indeed predict events, that the ever so Marxists (with big M's)deny
exist. You then demand RA present a 'positive programme' to heal the
racial divide in working class communties, when you and the majority
on the list continue to deny the problems exists, or pretend they
already know the answer. Until you honestly come to terms with why
such a 'positive' strategy is necessary, you are I'm afraid, simply
not ready for it.
Gary

From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK
Date: 02 August 2001 19:23

- In UK_Left_Network@y..., asocialist@h... wrote:
> Ms Burchill's rant has already been posted.
……..
> Whatever happened to Workers of the World Unite?
>
> Neil

Claiming that "all West Indians are muggers" as the NF used to do in
1970's is not best countered by insisting as people like you tend do;
that no black youth are involved in street crime.

From: andrew.g.cutting@btinternet.com
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 02 August 2001 19:24
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK

Julie Burchill's comments here are very astute. The points raised
are.

1) The relation between immigration policy and multiculturalism.
A people (to use a loose term) have a common outlook, common
religion, common culture etc. Throwing together different cultures
divides them in the short term at least. The policy of
multiculturalism reinforces the division. Burchill points out that
this is not a nationalist argument but an internationalist one.
History is richer than the simple division of society into classes.
It is essential to be able to recognise and characterise a national
outlooks. This was very much the method of Marx and Engels. It is
now racsist. Which brings me to:

2) The bit Red Action snipped about Albanians. Eastern Europe has
gone through a series of counter revolutions with the failure of
the old 'socialist' regimes. There have been all manner of illusions
in Western capitalism and in some cases the very fabric of society
has decayed. Witness the rise of the far right in Romania for example.
People in these countries are in despair, they either go forward
to capitalism or backward to stalinism and they don't like either.
The positive program of the Hungarian revolution 1956 seems lost.
It is perfectly reasonable to characterise Albania as a bastion of
reaction. Furthermore, aside from the genuinely persecuted, it is
perfectly reasonable to expect those who flee their own countries to
be the most atomised examples.

Why did Red Action snip this bit? I think they still have
stalinophobic hangups.

3) Thirdly Burchill recognises that the 80's saw a victory for the
right and an adaption to the right by the left. This goes beyond
New Labour...

Andrew

From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 02 August 2001 19:26
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK

-- In UK_Left_Network@y..., hfbj_parasol@h... wrote:
> --- In UK_Left_Network@y..., gary_ohalloran@y... wrote:
> > In the meantime skulking behind ungrammatical phrases
> > like 'workerism' adds nothing to the debate.
>
> Firstly 'workerism' is a word not a phrase so trying to dodge a
> political point by attacking Jim's grammar kind of falls flat.…..
Rob

Reply: Spoken like a perfect idiot Rob, everything in the abstract.

From: gaismair@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 02 August 2001 20:21
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK

A few points...

I'm told, apparently without irony, that 'workerism' is not a marxist
term because Marx never used it. Well, if that is the level of
anyones 'marxism' then I feel a great deal of pity for them. Marxism
is a method, NOT a recourse to holy texts and Victorian linguistic
styles. Using this method of distinguishing marxism I'm afraid you
would have to discount some important contributions from people like
Lenin on the grounds that Marx never used his terminology...

Now, on the subject under debate, I find it interesting that when Red
Action get challenged for uncritically using a pretty nasty and
offensive article by Birchill simply because part of it backed up
their own worldview, not one of their supporters on this list answers
the criticism, or explains why one of the most racist comments from
Birchill was cut without aknowledgement. Now, I'll admit I don't like
Birchill, and never have done. Her politics, such as they are, are a
of a confused and bastardised version of stalinism that she inherited
from her dad (which she has often aknowleged), combined with a
tabloid journalist instinct for simplistic shock value rants. That is
why she was so popular for a time working for Murdoch. As to this
particular article I thought it was a few valid points on the failure
of liberalist anti-racist strategies mixed with a vile nationalism...

As to multi-cultralism, well we are certainly not going to be able to
cover this broad subject properly here, but I will make a few points.
Firstly, I believe that RA use it simply in terms of how the liberals
have done. Furthermore, when it comes to issues like seperate
religious schools etc then I am totally opposed to that also. In fact
the goverments proposals to increase state funded religious schools
have been largely opposed by the Labour Party rank and file who
correctly see it as an attack on the traditional commitments to
secular comprehensive education. Also, when seen as merely self
interested community leaders fighting over limited local authority
handouts, then again this is not a multi-cultralism that I would
defend.

However, the concept is not inherently reactionary, it depends what
class and what class interessts are involved. The unions are are good
example where much good anti-racist campaigning among the memberships
has been done on the basis of combining class unity with respect for
cultural differences. As part of this, the ability of ethnic
monorities to self-organise within the unions has been hard won, but
very effective when it comes to making black voices heard in what
have often been quite racist institutions. The result is that those
who have suffered from decades of racism (overt and
institutionalised) have gained some power to develop strategies to
combat it. In my expetrience this has aided anti-racist work within
class organisations without weakening class unity. My impression is
that RA pay very little attention to this area of working class
organisation (and before anyone raises the point I'm not ignoring the
fact that in areas of high unemployment this has limited effects).

I also want to briefly reiterate one of the criticisms already made
against RA in this debate that the logic of their position on race
should lead them to oppose nationalist organisations such as the IRA,
for example. Or what of cultral nationalism such as the fight to
defend the Welsh language? Do RA attack this in the same way they
atack the wishes of ethnic minority communities to maintain their
traditions and culture? And if they don't attack Welsh nationalists
(or Scottish or Irish ones for that matter) then why not? You see,
minority communities wishing to maintain their culture is not in
itself reactionary (and I include white English communities here).
Nor does it necessarily lead to a situation where class unity breaks
down. What has happened is that the liberal multi-cultural agenda,
and the labourite local authorities who force communities to fight
for crumbs, have allowed the situation of increasing racial tensions
to develop that we are witnessing today simply because class has been
lost. Just like in the unions, respect for cultural differences, and
allowences for them, is not wrong. What is wrong is the failure of
the left to develop a socialist strategy that welcomes and accepts
working class diversity but at the same time fights for a
revolutionary class line. That is why I'll repat what I said a while
back, RA have only got it part right...

Fraternally,
Jim D. Liverpool.

From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 04 August 2001 17:00
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK

Jim D:
Apart from the various caveats which I will deal with, it does appear
the core message is getting through albiet ...slowly.

The funniest bit in your reply is that "RA use it [multiculturalism]
in terms of how the liberals have done". Yes it is true RA interpret
multiculturalism - as it is applied. It is applied and supported by
liberals. It is afterall of liberal design is it not? That should
have been sufficient reason to regard it from the ourset with
suspicion. Particularly as this is a strategy that emphatically
places 'culture'; a mere euphemism for race, over class. "Not
inherently reactionary" you maintain. Tell that to the BNP!

You then point out that "minority communities wishing to maintain
their own culture is not in itself reactionary." Well, who said it
was? However it is a point that goes to the heart of the matter.
Cultures are living things; and as such they change. Preserving
culture or attempting to do so, is an attempt to pretend that things
remain the same. But multiculturalism is not simply about respecting
cultures or respecting differences, it is about searching out, and
promoting difference. As the municipal funds devoted to the project
testify, it is overwhelmingly a POLITICAL strategy. It is a political
strategy moreover which has the fulsome support of all the major
parties. Nor is it trendy. For with varying degrees of emphasis
the 'promotion of diversity' has been government policy since - 1963.
Now ask yourself why for forty years, the British establishment has
backed a strategy that promotes and indeed funds racial and cultural
differences?

Why for that matter does culture, to be maintained, need to be
funded? After all Irish culture survived 800 years of oppression and
the famine. Jewish culture survived the Holocaust. Stripped down
multiculturalism is not about 'respect' it is about dividing the
class enemy against itself, at a grass roots community level (the
precise opposite to anti-racism when you think about it). The
divisions that have been sown are now manifesting themselves
politically - inter communal riots being the extreme end of a build
up of mutual hatred and resentment. So multiculturalism IS working.
Rather too well for certain members of the establishment,particularly
as Griffin's BNP is appropriating the language and more importantly
the logic of ethnic seperatism and funding, and using it to
attack 'ivory tower liberalism' that originated the plan in the first
place.
Ultimately as is increasingly obvious; the choice for the left is
between an anti-racism, 'where everyone is treated the same', and
sticking with multiculuralism where everyone is treated - different.

As for the other points raised:
Burchill: the lengthy quotes from her article were used, as it
explained in the introduction, to illustrate how increasingly the
mainstream media is seeing through the multicultural pieties, and the
contrast with so-called revolutionary left who steadfastedly stand by
an establishment strategy -even when the only beneficaries are the
far-right.

Marxism: yes 'Marxism' is not an idelogy but a method. But try
explaining that to Trotskyites!

The IRA: this I beleive is a red-herring, introduced by I'd say an
SWP member unable to deal with the issues raised head on. But again
the answer is straighforward: in the fight against the British ruling
class, you either support the IRA against the common enemy or you
support the common front sponsored by the state against the IRA.
Afterall the support for the IRA in the Six Counties particularly
amongst the working class, was chiefly because Unionist 'culture'
demanded that nationalists be suppressed. SF/IRA is still demanding
even now that everyone be treated 'the same'. Once again the majority
of the Left (if not all) as with with multiculturalism, are on the
wrong side of the argument. As for the fcuking Labour Party...

From: JBooth9192@aol.com
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 04 August 2001 19:16
Subject: Re: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK

> The IRA: this I beleive is a red-herring, introduced by I'd say an SWP
> member unable to deal with the issues raised head on. But again the answer
> is straighforward: in the fight against the British ruling class, you
> either support the IRA against the common enemy or you support the common
> front sponsored by the state against the IRA.

Sorry, but I don't think this answer is 'straightforward' at all. In other
arguments, you have urged us (usually correctly, sometimes
over-simplistically) to see things in cut-and-dried class terms. Yet on this
issue, you don't. Instead, you follow a line of "my enemy's enemy is my
friend". If independent working-class politics is to come to the fore in
Ireland, we have to challenge the notion of uncritical support for a party /
movement based only on one community.

And on the issue of multi-culturalism ... You make valid points about how
bourgeois multiculturalism has promoted difference and obscured class.
However, I think to condemn the notion of 'multiculturalism' per se is to
throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think it is a good thing to promote
tolerance and understanding amongst our class. The ruling class's version of
'multiculturalism' does not do that: but working-class militants should.

What would you do if ...?
... an opinion pollster stopped you in the street and asked 'Do you believe
in multi-culturalism?', giving only a Yes/No choice? I would answer 'Yes'.
And a lot of scumbags would answer 'No'.
... and my son's nursery is holding an 'international week' in a couple of
weeks' time. Do I think this is a good thing? Yes. Will I also try to explain
to him that it doesn't matter what country people come from? Yes.

I know these are simplistic, even trivial, examples. But I am concerned that
some people are adding 'multiculturalism' to the list of things that
socialists should condemn. I don't think that is helpful: it could even be
dangerous.

Janine

From: gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 04 August 2001 22:30
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK

-- In UK_Left_Network@y..., JBooth9192@a... wrote:

> Janine

Janine, RA has never argued that support for the republican movement
was 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' . Nor did I do so. Now, or in the
past, in 'cut and dried class terms' support of revolutionaries for
the goals of a united Ireland, and indeed the armed struggle, should
have been axiomatic. Today in relation to both the Six Counties and
in Ireland as a whole Sinn Fein should be recognised as progressive.
Instead is attacked by so-called socialists as 'anti-working class'.
A particularly silly allegation when it self evidently is party which
is itself top to bottom, working class, and more to the point enjoys
mass working class support - unlike I might add its detractors.

Janine you also argue that SF should not be given uncritical support,
when, as far as can see it it does not get even *critical* support.
Instead there comes from the Brit Left more or less uncritical
condemnation. Is it republicans fault that working class loyalism is
most accurately defined as 'parochial fascism'? A little bit hard on
republicans to blamed for this, when along with Britian's military
occupation, it is this most reactionary of forces politically and
militarily it is actually confronting.
On the other hand SF is itself steadily working toward
an 'independent working class position' - where it is able - in the
26 Counties. RA believes they should be encouraged. Indeed there is
much to admire.
Instead, along with some others you have tried to tease out some
contradiction between RA's criticism of multiculuralism and support
for republicanism. There is none. Or at least, when you consider that
not a single multiculturalist condemned the attempts to deliberatley
incinerate the drinkers in the working mens club during the Bradford
riots, not on our side. If you get my drift.
>

Finally I notice you refer to the 'ruling classes multiculturalism'
and 'bourgeois multiculturalism'. What other kind is there? Next
you'll be seeking to make a distinction between 'our loyalism' and
the 'bourgeois version'. I think you'll find the Socialist Party
already have that angle well covered.

From: JBooth9192@aol.com
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 07 August 2001 21:17
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK

gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk writes:

> Finally I notice you refer to the 'ruling classes multiculturalism' and
> 'bourgeois multiculturalism'. What other kind is there?

Working-class multi-culturalism. Just as there also is:
- ruling-class justice and working-class justice;
- bourgeois democracy and working-class democracy;
- their morality and ours.

I accept many of the points about how counter-productive state-sponsored
'multi-culturalism' is - and also how some approaches on the left have
over-emphasised race and obscured class. (I also think some 'multi-cultural'
approaches have excused the oppression of women.)

However, I think it is positively healthy to campaign for tolerance and
mutual respect amongst working-class communities. I also think that the
creativity of working-class people the world over has produced a rich
treasury of culture - and that we should all enjoy its great diversity.

The problem with your condemning multi-culturalism is that it can be taken to
mean that you want a uniform, white British culture free from foreign
pollution. That's what the BNP mean when they oppose 'multi-culturalism
forced on an unwilling native population'. How to distinguish your views from
those of the BNP? Be clearer about what you mean; and don't throw the baby
out with the bathwater.

Janine



From: Jim Drysdale
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Date: 08 August 2001 01:49
Subject: Re: [UK_Left_Network] Re: RACIAL ORTHODOXY UNDER ATTACK

From Jim Drysdale,

***** some comment on Janine's words....
***** Janine writes....
>
>Working-class multi-culturalism. Just as there also is:
>- ruling-class justice and working-class justice;
>- bourgeois democracy and working-class democracy;
>- their morality and ours.

***** this, from Janine, IMO, fairly typical of romantic notions of, and
moral righteousness given, to the working class. Point.....as of yet, the
working class are in themselves but are not for themselves. Thus, to see
them as having a sense of justice or a sense of democracy or higher moral
standards separate from the ruling capitalist class is irrational. Not
irrational merely in its articulation but irrational in its essence.
Moreover, this form of idealistic thought can lead to dangers. Not the
least being that those who are in a position to deliver it to our class are
doing so from a totally subjective position having absolutely no bearing on
reality. The struggle for socialism *is not* a competition between the
classes fought on the battle grounds of wish lists, moral argument or high
ideals. Class struggle, in capitalist society, is the fight over access to
amounts of value. For the worker this is expressed in wage. For the
capitalist, profit as amounts of surplus value. Capital has not one atom
of humanity. It neither thinks nor feels nor has morals. The
personifications of capital, the capitalist class, are, like the rest of us,
driven by the dynamic of capital. Evolving society and all evolving social
relations the result. Including, thought. Thus, future society, where
social relations progressively cease to be between the value of things and
more in the conscious interactions of the direct producers, will indeed
manifest different forms of social relationships. As of now, comrade, it is
romantic to see future society as already here. And, dangerous. Suggest
that you acquire more in-depth understanding of the essence of the society
that you actually live in.

***** you write....
>
>I accept many of the points about how counter-productive state-sponsored
>'multi-culturalism' is - and also how some approaches on the left have
>over-emphasised race and obscured class. (I also think some 'multi-cultural'
>approaches have excused the oppression of women.)

***** On this I merely state that the atomisation and fragmentation of the
working class (in its entirety) is both created by capital and encouraged by
the personifications of capital.....solely in the interests of capital. So,
again, absolutely no moral argument. And, the only time that any section
of the working class, including women, will cease to be exploited (oppressed
if 'you' wish) is precisely when capital has been superseded. Not a second
before.

***** you write.....
>
>However, I think it is positively healthy to campaign for tolerance and
>mutual respect amongst working-class communities. I also think that the
>creativity of working-class people the world over has produced a rich
>treasury of culture - and that we should all enjoy its great diversity.

***** It is positively irrational to campaign (morally) for tolerance and
mutual respect amongst working class communities when what unites these
communities is poverty and deprivation created solely by capital. Even
more so by capital in decline. It would suit more on the left bettter if
they came to terms with capital. Then, this kind of bleeding heart *common
sense* socialism would be consigned to the dustbin were it belongs. The
left are not elastoplast nannies. Our class require understanding of their
plight not celebration of it. It's not tolerance between deprived
communities that the left should be encouraging but total and abject
intolerance, based on clarity, of the singular all-encompassing reason of
why they are deprived and impoverished. Countless millions of our class
are only too aware of the harshness of their poverty.
And, almost all of what you call working class culture (that focusses on the
plight of the class) comes from deep deep alienation. Why we should all
enjoy this diversity, god only knows. If you are referring to festivals etc
then, seeing these as the pinnacle of working class culture, means *only*
the pinnacle that can be achieved in capitalist society. Bastardised and
travestied. As are all other human relations in this society.

***** Read comrade and escape from the chains of *common sense* socialism.

comradely,

Jim

Thread index