critical-mass.net

THE WANDERING WHO?
By Gilad Atzmon.

This book is sub-titled ‘A study of Jewish identity politics’, and this is exactly what methodically unfolds throughout the book. With refreshing honesty, Gilad Atzmon, traces his own progress, from birth in a Zionist family, through youthful enthusiasm for Israel, to eventual horror at its brutality. The latter perception arising when in the Israeli army he realised that the Palestinians he witnessed in a Lebanese ‘concentration camp’, were the equivalent of 1940’s Jews and that he and his army comrades were the post-war equivalent of Nazis.  From then on he progressively engaged with the struggle for Palestinian rights and critically with the state of Israel, Zionism and the concept of Jewish-ness. In the book he rejects the biological assertion of Jews as a race or that modern Jews can now be defined by adherence to the religion of Judaism. He, therefore, distinguishes three categories of those who say they are Jews: a) those who follow Judaism; b) those who regard themselves as human beings – who happen to be of Jewish birth; and c) those who put their Jewish-ness over all other traits.  It is the latter, 3rd category Jews, which he argues create the problem for Palestinians and others because those who assign themselves to this ‘political’ category, raise it over and above all others. He convincingly argues that what unites most Jews in the modern era is their ‘identification’ with a separatist, anti-assimilation, re-constructed ideology.  It is, he argues, an ideology of ‘Jewish-ness’.

Thus, he points out that modern Jewish ‘identity’ is a political choice to identify with – “…ideas, narratives, thinking modes, certain world views, perceptions, physical identifiers and so on.“ (p 35).  The concept of Jewish-ness in modern times, he reasons, is therefore, a form of ‘affiliation” which due to its fabulous construction can be “..nothing but a myth or fantasy“.  It is a myth or fantasy-construct which serves to unite those of left, right or centre persuasions.  He notes that this ideology of ‘Jewish-ness’, as with many other ideologies, is a recently (19th century) manufactured one. What Gilad Atzmon made clear to me, during the reading of his book, is that ‘Jewish-ness’ as subscribed to by Zionism and even by anti-Zionist Jews, is an ideology selected and fabricated from a number of overlapping strands. Some strands originating within the original tribal tradition, (ie endogamy, matrilineality, food and body taboos), other strands coming from the later adoption of monotheism, (eg. a mythic ‘saving’ Torah history along with rituals such as circumcision, and celebrations, such as Passover and Purim.) and yet other strands emanating from 19th century nationalist ideas (ie potentially oxymoronic abstractions such as a ‘distinct people’, a discrete ‘nation’ and ‘self-determination‘). Thus, the ideology of ‘Jewish-ness’ is, as he writes, a ‘strange hybrid’ . This suggests to me that the concept of ‘Jewish-ness’ serves as a discrete, club-menu from which selections can be made by a wide range of those who aspire to membership. Those who choose to affiliate can, therefore, select what kind of authenticity they feel comfortable with, from either tribal, religious, secular, nationalist or even semi-humanist sources. He gives the example of so-called ‘left’ secular Jews, who although atheists still carry out celebrations derived from biblical foundations, such as those noted above.

He notes that whilst religious Jews are defined by what they are not (ie not Christians or Muslims etc.) as well as what they are – followers of the Torah/Tanach – secular Jews are only defined by what they are not.  The most important of these seems to be that they are not assimilated with the rest of humanity. This, as Gilad Atzmon argues, leads to a dialectics of negation in relationship to identity and more problematic  – a politics of hate. And he notes;

“Seemingly, the journey between ‘dialectic of negation’ and ‘politics of hate’ is rather short.” (p 65)

In this latter regard, he comments on an interesting twist to the Zionist concept of anti-Semitism. He writes;

“Whilst in the past and ‘anti-Semite’ was someone who hates Jews, nowadays it is the other way around, an anti-Semite is someone the Jews hate“.(p 54)

Gilad Atzmon, emphatically rules out the racist notions of a Jewish conspiracy, and instead points to the decentralised nature of the widespread movement of Zionism and its ‘support for Israel’ along with the open promotion of its intentions. He writes; “It has no head but a lot of hands“ (p 76). It becomes clear that Zionism, as with other political ideologies, such as ‘communism’, ‘fascism‘ or ‘neo-liberalism‘, leads the adherents of these ideologies to raise their chosen goals and purposes above all other human concerns and pursue them ruthlessly. It is a given in such ideologically derived separatist movements, that the ethics developed there, relate directly to the perceived interests of the movement, rather than the human community as a whole. Using extracts, from early Zionist authors (Herzl, Weizman, Jabotinsky, Borochov) and later ones (Ostrovsky, Lapid) he establishes that this elevation of difference and fear of assimilation, is no individual quirk, but a central part of the ideology of Jewish-ness as prescribed by Zionism. He adds that the aim of separatist ideas and exclusionary practices is to create barriers between groups of human beings. He thus defines Zionism in much broader terms than simply the defence of Israel as an exclusively Jewish State. He describes Zionism at the international and global level – as a ‘tribal Jewish preservation project aimed at the prevention of assimilation.’ (p 70)

Within the book, he notes a further complication with the ideology of Jewish-ness in that some adherents ‘think tribal, but speak universal’. This often makes it difficult to recognise what is actually taking place or where its advocates are coming from. It is a phenomena which he suggests, frequently manifests itself in either conscious deceit or an element of schizophrenia.  Quoting Jewish authors such as Frommer, Borochov and Nordau, he notes these early Zionists expressed disagreeable opinions of their fellow Jews in such terms as ‘caricatures‘, ‘neurotic‘, ‘grabbing‘, ‘insecure and ‘ridiculous’. Therefore the original project, advocated by the early champions of secular or political Zionism, (Herzl and those above, etc.) was to create the conditions (a state of their own) which would overcome these problems and make them a people like any other. This was however, was something which could not happen, for at least two reasons. First because all other ‘peoples’ and ‘nations’ are actually ‘mixed‘! Second because its achievement was at the expense of the country of Palestine, via the 1948 Nakba and the continuous Zionist war to be rid of the physical existence of  Palestinians since. He astutely observes that;

“To abandon religion doesn’t necessarily mean becoming a humanist and secularisation doesn’t imply universalism or any other ethical stand.“ (p 71)

In this one short sentence Gilad Atzmon puts his finger on a crucially important point which sums up all the religious and non-religious strands of 19th, 20th and 21st century socio-political movements – including the brutal Zionist movement. Even those who have left God behind for secularised politics, left, right and centre, have frequently only substituted another form of ’higher-power’ separatist ideology above the rest of humanity. ’Fascist’ (elevates, elite, authoritarian rule), ’Bolshevik/Stalinist’ (elevates the ‘Party‘ above all else), ’Liberal Democratic’ (elevates the ‘Free Market’ above society) or Zionist (elevates ‘Jewish-ness’ survival above all else).  Neither adherence to God or abandoning the mystical being has produced a consistent humanist and ethical economics, social life or form of politics. In this general ‘exclusivist’ context he notes that his right-wing Zionist grandfather saw the inconsistencies in the concept of ‘Jewish Socialism‘ and the reader is reminded by the author, of Lenin‘s fierce opposition to the purpose and programme of the Jewish Bund.  He further makes the following perceptive analogy that; ‘tribalism and universalism are like oil and water, they don’t mix well.’ (p 78)  In exploring why some activists insist on promoting their separatist identity before what they oppose, he notes the absence of any other such ethnic activist identifiers, never having heard of;

 ‘Aryan Palestinian Solidarity’, ‘Aryan for Peace’ group or even Caucasian Anti-War campaigners.” (p 62)

In pursuing and developing a possible locus of the common identity which unites Jewish Zionists and Jewish anti-Zionists he quotes from the book ‘My Life’ by Golda Meir, the ultra-Zionist Prime Minister of Israel in the 1970’s who declared;

“To me being Jewish means and has always meant being proud to be part of a people that has maintained its distinct identity for more than 2000 years, with all the pain and torment that has been inflicted upon it.” (quoted on p 75)

The notable emphasis placed here by Golda Meir is on the pride of being – ‘part of a ‘people that has maintained its distinct identity’. Such ‘Jewish-ness’ sentiments still exist despite the fact that as the historian Shlomo Sand and others before him have repeatedly identified, this ’distinct identity’ is actually a mythic invention. Most of those claiming Jewish-ness have no common or shared religious, biological, ethnic or geographical origin. Gilad Atzmon also comments on how prominent the ‘holocaust’ features in Zionist discourse, which is deliberately used to reinforce a symptom of ‘fear anticipation’ or what he terms a ‘Pre-Traumatic stress Syndrome’ (p 129). That is to say stress induced about an imagined possible future trauma, rather than the direct experience of an actual one as defined in the term Post-Traumatic Syndrome.

Although the author Norman Finkelstein has categorised the ‘Holocaust’ as an industry, constructed predominantly for political and economic gain, Gilad Atzmon notes that it has also become something of a surrogate religion. He points out that it has its own ’priests’, ‘prophets’ ‘rituals’, commandments, places of pilgrimage, unchallengeable dogmas and ’Anti-Christ’ like heretics.  In this way he argues, ‘holocaust religion’ perpetuates three things. First, the ideological assertion of a genocidal Judeophobic tendency among all non-Jews as contained in the book of Esther (ie kill all Jews allegedly suggested by Haman in exilic Persia) and Exodus (ie kill all male Jews allegedly suggested by Pharaoh in exilic Egypt).  The second thing it perpetuates is a culture of ’fear’ which also helps maintain a negative opinion of non-Jews – the Goyim. The third thing it perpetuates is the above noted characteristic of ‘a politics of ’hate’ directed against anyone who challenges some or all of the Jewish-ness ideology.

Interestingly, in a chapter entitled ‘Eretz Yisrael vs. Galut‘, Gilad Atzmon notes that modern young secular Israelis are not necessarily Zionist. He comments that the new generation of Israelis “are concerned largely with personal survival“ not with pursuing the expensive, expansionist, Zionist dream. Written before the recent massive youth demonstrations centred in Tel Aviv over jobs, housing and food prices, the accuracy of this assessment is indicative of the authors carefully studied approach. Towards the end of the book, he logically concludes that;

“..Israel is the Jewish state and Jewish-ness is an ethno-centric ideology driven by exclusiveness, exceptionalism, racial supremacy and a deep inherent inclination toward segregation. For Israel and Israelis to become people like other people, all traces of Jewish ideological superiority must be eliminated first.” (p 188.)

To sum up then. This is a very perceptive and instructive book. It explores in considerable detail the ‘connective tissues’ which attach individuals to the ideology of Jewish-ness, irrespective of their lack of; a) affiliation to the religion of Judaism, b) any trace of Hebrew biological ancestry; or c) any support for Zionist genocidal extremes. The author has written his critique of the ideology of Jewish-ness, with a keenness of mind and in a generous spirit. Throughout the book, he has combined rigorous criticism with a consistent humanity. This talented author and brilliant musician stands head and shoulders above many, if not all, of his dwindling number of detractors. Their Zionist hatred of him must also be tinged with – not a little envy – at his intellectual and musical abilities to which they cannot ever hope to aspire, let alone match. Yet generously, Mr Atzmon concludes this important volume with a sincere acknowledgement to the most vociferous of his sectarian detractors. He writes;

“I cannot let this opportunity pass without thanking from the bottom of my heart my half the dozen Jewish Marxist detractors who have been stalking me and my music career day and night for years, without whom I would never have grasped the real depth of tribal ferocity.” (p 191)

(From rogue state to client state?)

The confusing and fluidly changing situation in Libya has been further distorted by the differing perspectives of the various news media.  However, what has been common to most media outlets has been posing of the struggle in terms of nationality and governance.  It is to be expected from the current pro-capitalist news media that issues of class will be generally submerged and only surface occasionally in lukewarm rhetoric on the right of trade union organisation within the future national form of governance. Hence this has caused their contrasting focus on the autocratic governance of Gaddafi versus that of the National Transitional Council (NTC) and its projected metamorphosis into a liberal-democratic form of governance. The distribution of Libyan social complexity along such dualistic and simplistic lines does not help the anti-capitalist movement to make sense of the situation and/or orient its perspectives with any degree of accuracy. The following analysis will try to contribute to a clearer understanding from an anti-capitalist and revolutionary-humanist perspective.

1) THE MOTIVES OF THE WEST FOR INVOLVEMENT.

Confusion over the motives of the interventionist strategy in Libya by Europe and North America is also rampant and most frequently posited dualistically between only two competing assertions – humanitarian concern versus concern for oil. This is far too simplistic.  It is clear that the western political elite have been happy to do deals with autocrats wherever they exist and indeed have been instrumental in putting some of them in place. It is also a fact that they were initially reluctant to bless the uprisings taking place during the Arab Spring. The ‘interests’ which determine the concerns and actions of the western elites require stability of regime, which will enable their economic system to function in terms of maintaining access to essential raw materials and markets. The political elite of Europe and North America do not expend several hundreds of billions of dollars, pounds and euro’s to help introduce democratic governance. Their concerns are not predominantly for democracy, but the ability to do contractual, realisable deals with the those who govern. It was only when certain autocratic regimes proved to be terminally unstable that the western political elites switched sides and directed their rhetoric in support of some of the uprisings. And, in the case of Libya, it is not only the exceptional quality of their particular grade of oil deposits, which caused their involvement. In the countries of the middle east and north Africa, as elsewhere, the ‘interests’ of the western economic and political elites are focussed around the following interconnected issues.

 A. Economic. There are substantial European and North American economic ‘interests’ in the oil industry and numerous commercial outlets within Libya. There was also a financial concern in the prior moves by Gaddafi to undermine the domination of western agencies in the international payments system. Such is the instability of the economic and financial system upon which the democracies of Europe and North America are based, that any such payment alternatives, possible reductions in oil supplies or increases in oil prices, would increase the likelihood of a catastrophic financial breakdown and failure of the western economies – with all the internal tensions and repercussions such a collapse would engender. The Gaddafi regime, although courted assiduously by Europe and North American elite, remained in their eyes, an unreliable rogue state. What their economic ‘interests’ require is a system of ‘corruptible’ client states, not only in Libya, but throughout the middle east and North Africa.

    B. Fear of Islamic governance. The spectre of a sequence of perhaps incorruptible Islamic governments taking control throughout the middle-east and North Africa is alarming for the European and North American economic and political elite. Such an outcome, as with the case of Iran, is likely to promote a form of governance, which may not entirely subscribe to the preferred middle-east programme of Europe and North America.  Islamic leaning  governments, even if not fundamentalist, may be less prone to bribery and also argue for a more egalitarian distribution of wealth, which would increase raw material costs. Particularly alarming to Europe and North America, is that the barbaric Zionist colonial enterprise of Israel (an important US and European client state) is likely to be held to greater account even by governments with only moderate Islamic leanings.

    C. The need to re-legitimise western capitalist democracy.  The 19th century reputation of Europe and North America for aggressive military interventions has been primarily reinforced in the 21st by the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. The need to improve relations with the Arab world was admitted by the Obama faction of the US political elite, when he was first elected. However, in having to represent the economic interests of the elite in general, the Obama faction needed to continue the occupation of Iraq and increase the armed forces in Afghanistan. The requirement to try to counter this continuing imperialist image was necessary for the future peaceful intrusion and penetration of the West’s economic categories of raw material extraction and ‘free’ markets for the sale of their surplus production.

Individual political elites or factions may favour one or other of the above and some may have entirely other reasons, but each of the issues noted have been effective in promoting the unified political elite willingness to prompt a request or respond to one made by the NTC in the early days of their consolidation in Benghazi. The UN resolution purporting to allow intervention in order to defend the civilian population was of course, just camouflage to allow regime change to be undertaken. The missile attacks, laser guided or not, involve civilian deaths as the military euphemism ‘collateral damage’ reluctantly admits. Indeed, the West’s involvement has probably strengthened support for Gaddafi and therefore prolonged the struggle and in this way increased the number of civilian deaths. This outcome occurs in any war and it is a fact well known and cynically accepted as ‘worth the cost‘, by the West’s political and military leaders. The West’s intervention in Libya is yet another criminal war. The bombing of civilians and civilian infrastructure targets, such as banks, power stations, hospitals, schools and houses are not simply mistakes but deliberate acts aimed at impoverishing and demoralising civilian non-combatants. The destruction of such non-military ‘assets’ also conveniently engender future Libyan dependence upon European loans and building contracts in the inevitable process of post-civil war reconstruction.

2) THE INTERNAL FORCES INVOLVED.

i) Pro-Gaddafi fighters.  These comprise of Islamists and secularists, who are also nationalists. They also generally share a militant anti-Imperialist stance which unites them in defence of Gaddafi, whether or not they are also self-interested ‘clients’ of Gaddafi’s family regime or not. The simplistic dualistic positing of all Gaddafi supporters as ‘good‘ or as ‘bad’ guys misses this essential human complexity.

It cannot be beyond possibility that some, who where critical of Gaddafi or indifferent to his regime, may have joined the Gaddafi forces only when the NATO military forces took the side of the Benghazi rebels. Yet it is clear that during the forty plus years of Gaddafi’s rule, self-governance and self-reliance of the Libyan  population was not promoted by him or his regime. The superficial trappings of people’s committees, with his son’s appointed as leaders, did not promote or deliver an egalitarian society either in embryo or in further development. The wealth was not distributed according to citizen consensus or ‘free’ majority vote. Workers had no control over their own production or the surplus value they created.  Thus when the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt provided an example of the power of popular resistance, this example was copied by many in Libya.

ii) Anti-Gaddafi fighters (the ‘rebels‘).  These are a coalition of forces comprising of the following elements; a) pro-west democratic liberals; b) anti-west Islamic liberals; c) anti-west Islamic fundamentalists; d) pro-west secularists; e) anti-west secularists; f) anti-capitalists; and probably g) gung-ho opportunists. Each of these categories, may also be comprised of sub-groups. Thus the dynamics of this side of the conflict are also misunderstood if they are all lumped together.

For this reason also there is, therefore, no real unity of purpose among these ‘rebel’ forces beyond agreement over the removal of Gaddafi. Even before the overthrow of Gaddafi, and during the ‘to and fro’ struggles, differences have emerged within those fighting forces forming the coalition headed by the NATO favoured Transitional National Council. The assassination of General Fatah Younes may have been at the hands of one of the internal coalition groups and many sections of the coalition front-line fighters were not content with the form nor the content of the NATO support. There may be many more instances of such internal frictions. It is the pro-west democratic liberals category (a) who currently dominate the National Transitional Council and have been promoted (and assisted) by the European and North American elites. Thus it will be these who will have a disproportional degree of control over the immediate future of post-Gaddafi Libya. It is into these hands which the frozen assets will be released and the pens for the signing of contracts (before, during and after the Qatar conference and the 1st September ‘contact group’ meeting) will be placed. It is to support these liberal-democratic elements that the full force of NATO and the European and North American governments resources, military and clandestine has been – and will continue to be – directed.  Whether this will give them legitimacy in the eyes of sufficient citizens is as yet an open question, but it will make at least some of them not eligible to govern beyond the ending of hostilities.

3) POST-GADDAFI LIBYA.

Sadly, instead of a united opposition of the Libyan people to the inroads of Europe and North America, military or economic, we have a situation of severe disunity and further potential conflict. Gaddafi, by not relying upon the self-activity and self-organisation of egalitarian communities of working people, has played an instrumental part in the present civil war situation. His reliance on a family elite, internal and external clients, disproportional wealth distribution and a draconian internal ‘security’ force has provoked continued and corrosive opposition. It was a growing opposition which has resulted in this final uprising. In one really tragic sense the actual face-to-face fighting has been cast in the form of a civil war between the pro-Gaddafi anti-Imperialists and the anti-Gaddafi categories of (b, c, d, e and f) above – which include anti-Imperialists. This split and the destruction of one tendency of anti-Imperialists will undoubtedly weaken the Libyan resistance to the encroachments of the West, at least in the short term. Whether the other groups of anti-west Islamic liberals and fundamentalists, anti-west secularists and anti-capitalists, will initially be strong enough or achieve sufficient unity to resist the above-noted imposition of client-state status, has yet to be seen. It is of course, possible that the end of this civil war between pro-Gaddafi supporters and anti-Gaddafi rebels, a further one will develop from within the ’rebel’ coalition between pro-western modernists and anti-western nationalists. To circumvent this possibility and given the NTC’s priority of establishing ‘security and stability’ we can expect his pro-western faction to invite a UN military presence, rather than rely upon the current organisations of fighters in the process of stabilisation. For the same reason we can also expect an invitation to European countries for expertise in policing. Given the almost universal adherence to Islam within Libya and the financial power granted to the NTC by Europe, the most likely medium term outcome, will be the introduction of a form of liberal-democracy overseen by European agencies with some electoral participation by Islamist parties. However, this will be a result from which only the Libyan and international bourgeoisie will benefit economically to any considerable degree. In the hands of the leaders of the NTC, Libya, liberated from Gaddafi, will be ushered into the hands of the neo-liberal globalisation process.

3) ISLAM AND CAPITALISM.

Despite the public statement by Abdel Jalil of the NTC that Libyan ‘wealth will be shared out equally’, there can be no guarantee of this under NTC leadership. From the perspective of the working classes and the poor, the outlook for their welfare under any form of Islamic governance, partial or full, is as bad as that under secularised liberal-democratic governance. That is to say economic standards of living will be unlikely to improve, even though they may well be able to complain more openly about their fate.  The reason is that although Islamist thinkers and activists, correctly condemn the consumerism, exploitation and oppression of the west, many of them have understood this as caused by a socio-moral breakdown due to the domination of Judaism, Christianity and Secularism. Despite some concern for the oppressed, a concern shared by other religions, Muslims, in general do not see oppression arising from the mode of production. For various reasons (ideological and practical), like many citizens under capitalist systems, they have not understood that such negative characteristics emanate from the long-term socio-economic imperative of capital. These negative phenomena are primarily the symptoms of the underlying economic system, not symptoms of any variant of monotheistic religious ideology. It is this economic system which really dominates the west and dilutes, and in certain cases negates, the humanity of so many people.  It is an economic domination which the religion of Christianity and the later ideas of secularism have failed to prevent or roll-back. And it is an economic domination which Islam, as currently understood and practiced, will also be unable to prevent or even control.

The reason for the above assertion arises from the example of the revolutionary transformation of Iran and its subsequent evolution. The Islamic state of Iran provides the most visible and extensive example of the integration of Islam in power with capitalism. Not only is there a comfortable existence between the Iranian Islamic government and the usual pre-IMF (Chicago economic school) levels of capital insertion into the productive capacity of the total Iranian community, it has lately  decided to embrace much more. On its PRESS TV station, Iran has recently announced (23 August 2011) a Thatcher-like enthusiastic programme of privatisation of public assets, in line with IMF suggestions. The path of Islamic capitalism in Iran has already caused economic and social problems within Iranian society which has episodically sought a political expression. The new programme of privatisation, if fulfilled, will only cause more social unrest in the long term. This is because privatisation of previous state assets, in order to maximise profits, does two things. First it sheds labour and secondly increases the prices charged for necessities, such as gas, electricity, water, telephones etc. Both of which, even if buttressed by welfare payments for a time, turn the screw on the working classes and poorest sections of society.

4) THE KNOCK-ON EFFECT.

Yet even a limited success for the uprising and subsequent civil-war in Libya and the removal of the Gaddafi regime, will provide inspiration and renewed efforts in other countries involved by the Arab Spring. The lifting of spirits in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain, at the premature news of Gaddafi’s fall, indicates that the Arab Street is not only active, but taking an active interest in the progress of other uprisings and challenges to the existing systems. The stalemates in Tunisia and Egypt where the regime remnants are still in control, under the protection of the military, and the street not powerful or organised enough to challenge this control are examples of changes ‘stuck in transition’. They have been going nowhere in the last few months except perhaps creeping backward. However, even in these arrested developments, frustrations are building up and the examples of Libya, both positive and negative will undoubtedly be learned. In Egypt the weakest links in the seemingly impervious military rule is over its continued accommodation to Israel and the dire economic state of affairs. Since the Generals have the power and resources to act positively on these issues, anti-capitalist and anti-regime activists there will benefit from concentrating their criticism on these issues and creating a wedge between the rank and file soldiers and the Generals. In the event of a further popular protest and demonstration, (and even before) the raising of the proposal to form local, regional and national committees of action, should be made. Of course, in all countries with uprisings, there will continue to be collusion between the remnants of the various regimes and the overt and covert agencies of the European and North American political elite. The public exposing of these links will be an important part of the activity of those seeking to develop the self-activity of the population against the imposition of policies against their own general interests.

R.Ratcliffe (August 2011)

The ‘Big Society’, as promoted by Cameron, his Tory handlers and Lib-dem followers, was at first rather slow to get off the ground, but now it is gathering pace, if not in the form some people had naively hoped. In the early part of 2011, reports appeared in the news media, that very few people in the UK, particularly those under 20 years of age, had actually understood the concept. I doubt that is the case now. For, it soon became crystal clear that the Cameron-inspired rhetoric of a ‘caring’ post-Thatcher Toryism, was simply an electoral façade. And ‘big’ was not necessarily going to mean ‘better‘ – especially for young people. As Phase 1 of the Con-Dem ‘big society’ unfolded it was revealed to actually involve the following;

1. Big cuts in Public Services such as Libraries and Advice centres.

2. Big redundancies from local government employment.

3. Big increases in student tuition fees.

4. Big increases in petrol and food prices.

5. Big increases in interest payments for loans.

6. Big gaps in anticipated pension funds.

7. Big increases in the re-possessions of peoples homes.

8. Big increases in profits for big businesses in industry, commerce and banks.

9. Big (very BIG) bonuses for bankers and city speculators.

10.  Big bull-shit from Politicians and their minders.

So much for phase 1. However, as the summer progressed, phase 2 of the ‘big society’ has been revealed to be again something in stark (and dark) contrast to the earlier rhetoric of ‘we are all in this together’.  Despite dubious arguments about the need for austerity those in power and those in ‘waiting’ for power have managed to find the means for a ‘big’ military involvement in Libya, ‘big’ interest payments for government ‘bond-holders’ (guess who those are?) and of course now we have  ‘big’ sentences for mild misdemeanours. Six months for stealing a bottle of water and four years for suggesting a riot – but not actually carrying one out. It is at this point that middle Britain, Tory, Liberal and Labour, has nudged us a little nearer to the type of ‘zero-tolerance’ so beloved of totalitarian forms of elite governance. The ’thought-crime’ so eloquently depicted in George Orwell’s fictional rendition of Stalinist Russia is more than a little pre-figured in this latter dangerous development. It seems now that we don’t have to actually do something, we only have to think it or say it to be categorised, and treated as a criminal. Middle-England’s suggestion during the post-riot discourse, that we should ‘betray’ any of our neighbours, friends and family who were in any way involved in riots, is not too distantly reminiscent of the Nazi inspired obligation to do the same in matters of state concern. One of the clearest expressions of leanings toward this tendency was reported by the Independent newspaper as follows;

“Let us leave the EEC, abolish the Human Rights Laws, take the TV sets [and] pool tables,  out of prisons,  Bring back both corporal and capital punishment, slash benefits and put single mothers into hostels instead of giving them council flats. Finally if we chucked out all the illegal immigrants and asylum seekers there would be enough jobs for everybody.“ (Ken Bates, chair of Leeds United Football Club. Independent 18/8/11)

Note that this tirade, as with others of a similar content, is not levelled just at the hardened serial criminals among our communities, but at all the present systems victims. In this regard, it is a recognisable fact that the dissatisfied middle-classes in 20th century Germany, Italy, Spain and Latin America, were the strong leadership constituencies pressing in the direction which led to eventually to ‘strong’, ‘resolute’ governance in the form of fascism. For this reason we should not underestimate the membership profile and potential trajectory of those in the 21st century English Defence League and the British National Party.

The contrast between a position of ’zero-tolerance’, adopted toward the underclass of youth created by middle-Britain and that of indulgent tolerance to those from the ’upper class’ has also been starkly revealed. It was finally revealed that ‘big’ cases of phone hacking were kept quiet by the police for years, and ‘big’ bribes received in these ‘establishment’ quarters have been allowed to fade into the background. ‘Big’ miscalculations in military requisitions has led to the deaths of unemployed youth, recruited into the armed forces, and sent on the various ill-conceived ‘crusades’ of death and destruction around the world. The ‘big’ (hugely ‘big’) problems for the environment and the resources essential to life caused by pollution and over-production of ‘big’ industry and commerce hardly registers on the Richter scale of middle-England’s opportunist sensitivities. There is undoubtedly a ‘big’ silence by some parts of middle-England on the massive wealth differences in the UK and a ‘big‘ denial by others that it has anything to do with contemporary social tensions. There is also notable ‘big’ silence over the political, economic and military support for Israeli atrocities on youth and adults in Gaza and the ‘occupied’ territories of Palestine. Middle-England, if allowed, will be prepared to overlook, these ‘big’ problems for the rest of us, because they think these offer no threat to the form of society they benefit from. In this they are wrong. In a bizarre parody of George Orwell’s ‘Newspeak’ dissimulation (ie War is Peace) middle-England’s war against the youth, they think means peace for their system. The battle by middle-England against the uprisings and protests of white and blue-collar working class youth of today, is one in defence of a system of anarchy and privilege which is in fundamental and irresolvable crisis. The very wealth they wish to invest and protect is the creator of the problems we all face in the areas of finance, commerce, production and ecological destruction. The unemployed youth of today are just the victims of a system in decay and the systems middle-England upholders have a long, self-serving, track record of  ‘blaming the victims‘.

R. Ratcliffe (August 2011.)

The recent riots have struck fear into the very heart of middle England. The socio-economic system they support is in economic and financial melt-down and as they further tear up the post 2nd world war Beveridge social contract, the lower orders are once again getting more than just individually restless. The August 2011 riots have proved, as the earlier uprisings in the Middle East, that the peaceful streets and calm which most of us desire, rests upon the consent of all citizens, not simply upon the numbers of police or the level of the lethal equipment they wield. In the UK it took only a few hundred determined and violent youth to cause absolute mayhem. To end this wild and ill-advised youth rampage required the marshalling and deployment of 16,000 police in London and the complete lock-down of whole urban areas. Many of the 16,000 were removed from their own normal duties, leaving other regions or cities insufficiently staffed to deal with their own problems. These facts alone demonstrate how fragile is the public order in societies in which the social contract is such that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and middle sectors, carry on as if nothing significant is wrong. The reaction of middle England to the riots, however, proves that this sector is incapable of understanding any other point of view than that stemming from its own immediate self-interests. Middle England managed to eliminate from short-term memory the repeated indignity of ‘stop-and-search‘, overlooked previous ‘deaths-in-custody‘, quickly blanked out past and recent ‘police-corruption’, and chose to ignore the earlier suspicious shooting of a black youth. During the week, middle England also failed to call for a much needed re-distribution of wealth. Neither did its representatives suggest the creation of jobs in the areas of greatest deprivation. No one from middle England called for the reinstatement of youth clubs and youth projects or the re-introduction of free university education. Instead middle England, left, right and centre bayed for the blood of a small group of rebellious, misguided lumpen proletariat it has itself helped to create.

Lets be clear: sink estates, derelict terraces, large-scale unemployment, poor quality over-shop housing, disaffected youth, drugs and gang-culture, did not just appear in the middle of the night by courtesy of some ‘yob‘ fairies. Nor did these young people create the economic, social and environmental conditions in which many of them now exist. They, and in many cases their parents, are the human victims of a political and economic system, managed by middle England for the last 50 years. It is a system overseen by a middle England which for profit, chose to export capital and jobs to foreign, low-wage economies and leave unemployment behind. These unemployed populations are now the alienated victims of a middle England, which backed Thatcher in the almost complete destruction of the working class trade union resistance to the present state of affairs. The youth and their parents are the victims of a social housing policy, designed by middle England, which has built high-density, sub-standard housing and simply dumped them there. The unemployed youth themselves are victims of pre-meditated unemployment and an education system, run by middle England, which packs up to 30 or more pupils per class into leaky primary and crumbling secondary school buildings with hard pressed teachers overburdened with testing. At the hands of middle England you would think that all these impositions were punishment enough, but they have yet more in store.

Yet it is an undeniable fact that not all the rioters killed or hurt people or set alight to property – only a few. Nevertheless, all participants have been typecast and treated as if they were all of a kind. Furthermore, not all the opportunist looters, were from the poorest section of society, but you wouldn’t have guessed that from middle England’s outbursts. It is also a fact that the riots did not start by looting but by protest which only hours later became violent. It was only later still that others joined in and initiated a process leading over several days to looting, arson and killing. Yet all this week (7 – 14 August 2011) middle England has stridently demanded ‘robust sentencing’ for all participants and one who simply grabbed a bottle of water in passing got this. This week, we have been repeatedly told by middle England that the rioters should have been quickly ‘kettled‘ and then rapidly ‘locked up’. Middle Englanders have further, suggested the future imposition of curfews and tagging. The latest call from a part of middle England has been to make homeless those convicted of rioting, where this is possible. So blinded by self interest is middle England that its representatives seem intent on making matters worse. They are in fact suggesting that all those who have been disadvantaged should be further disadvantaged and thus become even more marginalised and rebellious. They have suggested that those who are most susceptible to becoming criminals should be locked up with professional criminals which of course will complete their education in criminality and further any drug dependence some may already have. These measures will effectively be reverse ‘investments in people’’ which will almost guarantee a payout in the form of future indiscriminate unrest and violence. Unrest which middle England will escape behind its gated walls and other surveillance rich fences. Eventually these even further disadvantaged, disgruntled and drug-dependent people will be discharged into working class communities for them to deal with. Interestingly, so incensed was middle England this week that, with an eye perhaps to the future organised and disciplined protests to come, some of its representatives have also called for the ending of the Human Rights Act. Those among the ordinary citizens who have been sucked in and carried along on the wave of middle England horror and hysteria will get an unpleasant surprise when, on the back of these disturbances, all that is now being put into place will be turned upon them.

The only bright spot in this whole recent development is the embryonic response of ordinary people to come together to protect their communities. Working class, multi-ethnic defence squads will probably be an essential requirement in any future periods of turmoil. For we have seen that the police, can sit-back and watch, (for whatever reason) or pile in indiscriminately according to the instructions of their commanders, or their own prejudiced moods. This means that working people will not always be able to rely on such prejudiced and unpredictable assistance. The policy of middle England, left, right and centre, is to carry out the needs and dictates of the system which provides them with their wealth and security. It is a system which is dominated by the financial needs and desires of the rich and powerful. Enough wealth from this obscene elite trickles down to satisfy them at the moment and they will thus carry out the economic and social policies demanded by these so-called ‘market’ forces. Riots, uprisings and further disturbances are inevitable in the present state of the world as the rich and powerful, organised in the IMF, European Central Bank and other financial institutions, seek to manage the economic and financial crisis in their own interests. And this financial manipulation will in turn require them to delegate the management of the social and political crisis which the imposition of their dictates will provoke. The management of this crisis – and future ones – will involve the political class and its agents, creating divisions among the oppressed and attempting to recruit sections of the working class to their own particular survival agenda. In this matter they have already begun. By using crocodile tears over the terrible deaths and property loss, things they have never before even given a fig about, they seek to perpetuate the illusion that, as with the banking crisis, we are all in this together. No matter what the temporary appearances suggest – we are definitely not! And this fact, when they move against one or other of the organised protests to come, will become obvious – if it is not blatantly so already.

If you keep abreast of the current economic pronouncements by politicians and economics analysts you will discover there is no Plan B for dealing with the ongoing economic and financial crises. This is because there is unanimous agreement between them on the economic and political strategy they think is needed. It is an approach that has been adopted by all left, right and centre politicians in Europe and North America. It is a single strategy which I shall refer to as Plan A.  It is one which is guaranteed to increase social tensions and resurrect the open class warfare of the Thatcher era in 21st century Europe and perhaps also in North America. The reasons for predicting this are unmistakable. Governmental Plan A’s involves, the following 3 essential strategic elements.

1.  placate the financial bond market and continue borrowing money from it.

2.  increase prices and reduce wages along with state welfare expenditure.

3.  try to encourage and stimulate economic growth.

On close examination, the differences on this line of attack between left, right and centre politicians in the western democracies are not substantive. They merely differ over the speed of price increases and/or the intensity of welfare cuts. On everything else there is comprehensive agreement between them. This single plan, promoted by the economic and political elite, emerges from their confused and incomplete understanding of the dynamics of capitalist economics.  If they really understood the system they are up to the neck in, they would realise that these three elements are exactly the same ones that produced the present financial and social crisis in the first place.  Suggesting Plan A is like hoping to put out an already burning fire by providing it with more oxygen.  Let us consider each of the above three elements in turn.

Element 1. Government borrowing. If Governments spend more than what they receive, they like anyone else get into debt. For the last 50 years, governmental debt in general has been rising, but this for a short time was offset to some degree by the increased taxes from businesses and from those in employment. However, these two sources of government income have become radically reduced in Europe and North America because of two main factors. The first was the increasing productivity of post-war industry and commerce from the introduction of automation and new technology. Although this created increased wealth, for the rich, it also resulted in a gradual reduction of the number of workers required by industry and commerce and thus a loss of their income tax deductions for governments. At the same time these unemployed workers increased the welfare expenditure of the state through unemployment pay and other benefits. The second factor was the deliberate export of productive capacity to low-wage economies, in the rest of the world. This too reduced taxes from employment and businesses. It is estimated that there is now a spectacular 25 million people unemployed in North America alone. The numbers across the EEC countries are not be far behind.  Such high unemployment also means there are fewer people to purchase products and services at price which creates profit, leading to further business failures and losses in tax revenue.  The combined result was less tax from businesses, zero taxes from the growing numbers of unemployed and increased welfare expenditure. This growing difference between the shrinking amount of state income and growing state expenditure has been filled by government borrowing from the issue of government ‘bonds‘. As this debt-gap increased the interest demanded by the lenders has also increased to its present levels. In other words, because of the economic re-structuring of capitalism, there has been a need to increase government borrowing and this became an increasingly serious problem until in 2011 the lenders are threatening not to lend unless governments take drastic measures to close the gap. Hence the so-called debt-cisis.

It is important to recognise that the previously noted tendency for capitalist enterprise to increase productivity, seek lower wage costs and thus reduce the numbers employed is an integral part of the capitalist system. It cannot be stopped or even slowed down as long as the system of capital dominates the form of production. Thus tax revenues, from the two above sources will continue to fall even with any future economic growth. This is because under competitive, capital investment, modern economic growth will employ the latest technology, require fewer workers, will seek lower wage costs and demand considerable tax breaks. Therefore, even with growth, the only way to reduce government expenditure in the future, as in the present, will be to radically reduce the expenditure of the state. Given that European and North American governments – of all shades – will seek to maintain huge (and rising) expenditure on armed forces and the other state institutions necessary for their own rule, reductions will impact greatest upon those institutions fundamental to the welfare of working people, education, pensions, wages, health services and welfare benefits.. This will present ordinary people with two choices. Either to resist their deliberate gradual or sudden impoverishment or to just passively accept their fate. Recent events, globally as well as in Europe, have demonstrated it will not be the latter.

Element 2. Price increases and welfare cuts. Despite large-scale unemployment and growing relative poverty, there has been a consistent rise in prices of basic necessities, such as housing, heating and energy. Such price increases have occurred despite the fact, that due to the productivity of labour, the real value and costs of these necessities has actually gone down. These apparent increases in prices, have not been the result of rising difficulties or costs in production, but the effective devaluation of currency paid to working people.  This is most startlingly revealed with regard house prices or bars of Gold. It is a fact that in 1970 a typical working class house in the UK could be purchased for between 1000 and 2000 pounds sterling yet in 2000 the same house with very little improvements would need 100,000 to 200,000 to purchase it. Houses, in such cases (even with improvements) have not gone up so much in real value, if at all, but the value of currency has certainly gone down.  It is public knowledge that government politicians have repeatedly de-valued the various currencies of Europe and North America. The same logic applies to the value and price of Gold. And of course, a similar effect has been seen with regard to wages. Wages appear to have gone up, but in actual fact it is the value of currency which has mostly gone down.

When governments claim expenditure has been increased for welfare it is often the case that this too is merely due to the deflated value of currency. More monetary units are provided but each unit purchases less. This act of deliberate de-valuing has been done again recently with the policy of ‘quantitative easing’. This is just a technical term for printing more money, which in effect further devalues what commodities and services the basic unit of currency will purchase. An additional source of increased prices, particularly in the UK was given an accelerated development when the Thatcher Government privatised, electricity, gas, water. For the government this gave a ‘once-only’ relatively small boost to its revenue. Later transport and other areas were also privatised with the same so-called ‘windfall’ boost to government revenue and yet further price increases for the ordinary citizen.  All these privatised essential services increased the costs of living to a disproportional degree for working people. The next phase is to privatise health services. This whole process is where the economic dynamic of capitalist economic and political decisions created, and continues to create, social and political instability and re-stimulate forms of defensive class struggle.

Element 3. Economic growth. The encouragement of economic growth has been the consistent mantra from all political parties within the advanced countries of Europe and North America. Indeed, since the end of the Second World War, there has been unprecedented economic growth. Such was the productivity of working people in these ‘advanced’ countries, that for a decade or two, exports were absolutely necessary to absorb the rapidly growing surplus production. The global market quickly became a frantic reality as consumer markets were negotiated, created and manipulated in every country of the world. During that period (1950’s – 1990’s) wealth accumulated so fast in the hands of the capitalist class that eventually much of it could not find a source of further profitable investment within direct productive activities. Like other wealth before it, it became excess capital in terms of direct manufacturing and productive requirements. For these reasons, the owners of this wealth increasingly sought investment alternatives in the purely financial sectors of the capitalist system.  Two developments in this financial sector bear crucially upon the recent and continuing economic and financial crisis and the present governmental debt crisis. The first development was the introduction of ‘futures’ markets and financial instruments known as ‘derivatives‘. These two investment vehicles were purely speculative and created no new real wealth but simply captured a considerable share of the wealth created by others.  They ‘appeared’ to create enormous wealth in figures, but most of it was fictitious. This became apparent when such speculative adventures became dramatically unstuck, most recently visible in the field of mortgage investments (USA and UK predominantly). These and other ’toxic debts’ (ie bad speculative investments) sparked the chain reaction of dramatic bank failures in 2008 which then had to be rescued by tax-payer money.

The second development was that a lot of the excess capital, created by the economic growth, noted above, was funnelled into the safer, less speculative,  bond market. Here we come full circle. As noted above, bond markets are where governments and others borrow big money. As also noted, governments needed to extend their borrowing because of the flight of capital, and on hand was a ready made source of excess capital.  In other words the movement of one section of capital (productive capital) away from Europe and North America provided a golden opportunity for another section of capital (finance capital) to exploit the gap in government revenue and make further profits out of it. This group bought the government bonds of European, North American and other countries and now intend that the worker (as tax-payer) will have to pay them back plus interest, no matter what further hardship this entails. For them it is just another taken-for-granted profit opportunity! So we can see; the system basically works like this. Workers produce the wealth in the first instance as wage slaves – and then the wealth they created is used to exploit them yet again – as slaves to government debt!  The owners of capital are the economic equivalent of a flock of vampire bats restlessly searching for every artery from which to suck the life-blood out of working communities. [see ‘The return of Marx-1 at <critical-mass.net> for a more detailed analysis. ] So in terms of Plan A the lesson is obvious! Further economic growth, under the system of capital, will not create sufficient jobs, it will just produce more surplus capital. It will create more wealth which will fund further bouts of speculation and/or go to finance further government debt. Under capitalism it is heads the capitalist win; tails the rest of us lose. Furthermore, with regard to the mantra of economic growth, the planet is already suffocating under the pollution and ecological destruction caused by the past and present levels of production. Further growth, even if this becomes possible, under this system, just means further pollution and further environmental degradation.  In short, Plan A means yet more of the same, for the ordinary citizen, the working person and the environment. It is no way out of the problems facing humanity. The planet and working people need Plan A like we each need a hole in the head.

A plan B is therefore necessary and it will have to come from those who will suffer most from Plan A. Since the present system is incapable of reform, all interim tinkering with the system will ultimately fail. More radical measures will be required. Plan B will need to involve the following basic requirements. Production will have to be taken out of the hands of capitalists for their greed knows no bounds. Production will have to become sustainable because nature, unlike capital, has very definite bounds. All speculation will have to be prevented and governance taken out of the hands of pro-capitalist politicians of all shades and placed in the hands of collectives of ordinary people. The working out of, and the working for a Plan B, is the most difficult undertaking which faces humanity. In the coming struggles of resistance by working people to the imposition of Plan A, this Plan B task and the reason for it, needs to be patiently and consistently explained. This explanatory objective is the responsibility of those who have seen through the ‘emperors new clothes’ of economic growth and has already come to this revolutionary conclusion.

R. Ratcliffe (August 2011.)

Since Sunday (7/8/11)UK politicians of left right and centre have been queuing up to spout their venom, using vigorous language, such as that above. They have been using it to condemn what they consider as ‘opportunist criminals’ who have been pronounced guilty of ‘deplorable looting‘. These politicians have promised to pursue the ‘criminals’ with all the force of the law. Their targets for such unanimous outbursts are not the bankers who looted billions from the tax-payer, who evicted hard-working families from their homes (repossessed) and who opportunistically granted themselves ‘unacceptable’ bonuses. The targets are not futures market speculators who have criminally forced up the prices of raw materials and food supplies causing shortages often with fatal consequences. Nor are the targets the credit rating agencies who ‘irresponsibly’ downgraded the status of whole peoples and threaten the looting of national assets. The private companies who for the last 30 years, have removed production from the UK and set up in low-wage countries in order to obtain more profit and left unemployment in their wake have failed to attract any comparable condemnation. Such words have not been used in relationship to those who have unfortunately died by the hands or guns of the UK law enforcement agencies. Nor for that matter has the obscene violence, demolition and looting by the Israeli government against the Palestinians attracted such heartfelt condemnation. All these well-funded, powerful and calculating ‘criminals’ have escaped such venom and resolve for their actions, by the political class. Instead it has now been directed this week at the youth of deprived, under-resourced, communities in the UK capital, London.

For over thirty years, the UK government has ‘fiddled’ (literally and metaphorically) whilst a large section of working people have been ground down by unemployment, poverty and official, bureaucratic oppression. A whole generation of adults (in many cases the parents of the rioting youth) have grown up without any hope of improvement from the status forced upon them as welfare benefit recipients. In reconciling themselves to this permanent, low-status, low income, existence, many have also been unacceptably classed as ‘scroungers’ with all the disrespect and prejudice that such a label attracts. Their offspring have in general inherited a similar or identical status and their future looks even bleaker than that of their parents. Under the present regime of public spending cuts, even the few scraps granted them, such as youth clubs and educational support grants have been removed. These young people are well aware that the government can find billions to pursue wars of intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya, but can find little or nothing for them. They are also quite aware of the ‘fiddling‘ and ‘looting’ of the rich against the poor and they are also well aware of the double standards of justice between the rich and the poor. On top of all this, they daily experience, the oppressive forces of the state, in the form of bureaucratic social services, and the law enforcements agencies, which is also endemically racist.

So what else should people have expected than when an opportunity came along and a particularly outrageous provocation, sparked the smouldering pent-up resentment, that a riot of the disadvantaged would occur? What else should be expected than that symbols of their oppression should be set upon and damaged? Is it any surprise that those with very little wealth might take advantage of an opportunity to loot or that even those better off would join them? The financial speculators seize an opportunity on a daily basis, even when many of them are already well-heeled. Of course, the sporadic violence and looting will not solve the problems facing young people, nor will such actions ensure their futures improve. The political crisis, facing the UK and other European countries, is a symptom of the global economic crisis and this will not go away. Indeed it will yet get worse. The interests of these young people, as well as the adults facing this unfolding situation, will be best served by becoming a responsible, disciplined part of a movement to change the system. As the youth of Spain declared ‘The problem is the system’ and the solution is to join together and work for a new system which will treat all human beings as people, not as economic units to be exploited at work or some left to rot on the dole.

The recent question on how to ‘get a General Strike’ by the SWP is sadly a typically ill-thought out rhetorical enquiry reminiscent of the many proposals made by numerous sectarian left groups in the 1990’s. And it probably stems from the same motivations. 1. the delusion that a few people, usually in the leadership ranks of a sectarian group, are capable of articulating the ’correct’ strategies or ‘solution’ for every stage of the struggle against capital. 2. The attempt during a period of unrest to appear the most radical group in order to attract new members. Such reckless and premature schemes to instigate General Strikes did then (in the 90’s) and does now a great disservice to the actual struggle facing working people. In general there are lots of problems with inappropriately advocating this tactic for it trivialises the preparations necessary for the success of such an important class-wide action and ignores the actual social and economic circumstances which are necessary for its usefulness in the process of transforming the existing crisis-ridden capitalist system. The fact that to some people ‘it sounds like a good idea’ – is simply not sufficient reason to raise such a serious question and particularly from within the ranks of a small organisation, that according to a number of former members, is itself in something of an internal crisis.

In the case of the preparations for a General Strike in the UK by the Triple Alliance (1919 – 1921) despite the incredibly detailed planning, (alternative money printed, local committees and food distribution networks formed, etc), despite the fortuitous circumstance and extensive support among workers, the trade union leadership of the day were prepared to, and able to, sabotage the entire project. When the circumstances had changed and the previous preparations had atrophied, the eventual General Strike called in 1926 was easily defeated with momentous and long-lasting set-backs for working people. The whole history of that struggle has been insufficiently studied, evaluated and disseminated among the anti-capitalist left, let alone sufficiently informing the broad movements of working people. Furthermore, the circumstances in 2011 UK I suggest are still far from those which warrant the posing of such a serious and important question, which in any case should emerge from the actual development of the struggle itself, rather than from any individual sects urging. The very question of such a momentous stage in the struggle against capitalism, needs lengthy discussion and the clear presentation of the successes and failures such strikes have had. For if such an idea is not already being widely discussed and absorbed within and among the organised and unorganised workers it has little chance of occurring. Plus if it has not become widely obvious to all, that such a step and its subsequent implications to many, are not only possible, but millions are ready for it because nothing else has worked, then such calls are premature and can even be self-defeating.

This call by one ’left’ group and not others, also illustrates another crucial problem in the contemporary struggle against the systems reactionary developments. It is the complete fragmentation of the left, into competing mini-organisations. Each one of whom imagine they are the basis of some future leading vanguard which only needs augmenting by a sufficient infusion of militant workers. The role of such groups in any future mass actions will in some cases be counter-productive for they will not only continue to confuse people with the use of ill-thought out slogans and terminology, but also serve to nurture separate solidarity actions in which they promote their own particular line, irrespective of its resonance or otherwise with the class movement as a whole. In some cases, as they have in the past, they will formally or informally boycott solidarity actions which they do not ‘lead’ or do not fully agree with. In one of many statements about this trend of anti-capitalist sectarianism, Marx noted;

“..The sect sees its raison d’etra and its point of honour not, in what it has in common with the class movement, but in the particular shibboleth which distinguishes it from the movement.” (Marx to Schweitzer 13/10/1868. Marx Engels, Selected Correspondence. Page 201.)

The date of the above letter is informative with regard to the longevity of sectarianism within the left in general. Its continuance still plagues the anti-capitalist movement as it did during Marx‘s lifetime. When Marx later declared he was not a ‘Marxist’ it was this trend he was disassociating himself from. These important observations get precious little consideration these days. It is, therefore, worth considering the range of sectarian characteristics which are manifested by such behaviour within the anti-capitalist movement.

a) The characteristics of Sectarianism.

1. Sectarians maintain they have the solution, the ‘key’ to problems in their doctrines or principles.
2. The reason for their existence is some ‘special’ criteria which sets them apart from the rest.
3. Sectarians have a religious-type unshakeable belief in their correctness and humanities ‘need’ for their guidance.
4. Sectarians carry out serious struggle against each other even in the face of common danger.
5. Sectarians often elevate trivialities to the level of principles in order to keep themselves separate or to engineer a split.
6. Sectarians often shout loudest for unity, whilst continuing to undermine it by their actions.
7. Sectarians are often extremely bitter polemicists and frequently poison the atmosphere of debate.
8. Sectarians are often boastful and arrogant, in their actions and their certainty of being ‘correct’.
9. Sectarians are generally satisfied by logical deductions and the use of abstractions.
10. Sectarians, explicitly or implicitly demand that the whole opposition movement should follow them.

This list is constructed from the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky and yet it is possible to find groups simultaneously displaying several of these characteristics and some even displaying them all, yet claiming to follow one or more of the above named anti-capitalist intellectuals. So it is worth noting the implications of such sectarian activity taken from the same sources.. This time I have included the particular source of the opinion.

b)The effects of Sectarianism.

1. It repels serious working people. (Trotsky)
2. Sectarianism is essentially reactionary. (Marx)
3. Sectarians do not create leaders among working people. (Lenin)
4. Where they exist they infect or adulterate the workers movement. (Engels.)
5. Sectarians transform theory into dogma. (Marx/Engels/Lenin.)
6. Sectarianism is a pernicious menace. (Lenin)

c) The causes of Sectarianism.

1. The immaturity of the working class movement. (Marx)
2. Certain people become static and cannot advance. (Engels)
3. A downturn or an ebb in the revolutionary movement. (Trotsky)
4. The existence within the movement of people with force and ability who think themselves and their ideas as superior.(Marx/Engels/Trotsky.)

Since human beings are products, not simply of natural processes, but of the form of human society in which they live, we can also trace the underlying cause of modern sectarianism in the nature of modern capital-dominated society. It is obvious that the influences of the external world (natural and social) upon human beings manifest themselves as thoughts, feelings, reflexes and tendencies in the brains of individuals and groups. We also know that the world dominated by capital is characterised at every level by contradictions; between wealth and poverty; co-operation and competition; ideology and practice; rhetoric and reality etc. It is therefore inevitable that these and similar contradictions manifest themselves, in the political structures of modern society. From the working class perspective we see this intrusion most profoundly in the reformist political parties and trade union movements with their respective oligarchic controls. From time to time, these contradictions also emerge within the anti-capitalist movement. How could they not? Capital dominated societies, due to their material circumstances, not only produce thoughts and feelings of solidarity emanating from the experience of working and oppressed classes, but also those of competition and accentuated individualism much of which haemorrhages corrosively from the experience of other classes.

We are all subject to these conflicting and contradictory pressures. Despite any good intentions (or in some cases grandiose pretensions), the numerous ‘brands’ of ‘left’ groups competitively struggling among the masses, for superior ‘product identity’, have in many ways become a distorted reflection of the capitalist ‘service sector’ – also limited only by their own niche-market customer base. The two extreme ‘poles’ of socialised production and individual capitalist advocacy contained within the totality of capitalist relations, I suggest, are often reflected in the totality of the workers movement by the two extreme ‘poles’ of workers self-activity and sectarian vanguard superiority.  In other words the elitist assertion of leaders and led. In this sense, anti-capitalist sectarianism and vanguard elitism (for me, two sides of the same bourgeois ideological currency) are direct manifestations of the bourgeois and petite-bourgeois competitive ethos within the workers movement. As such they need to be consistently and strenuously opposed. If they are not, they will remain a primary source of division and disunity among the working class anti-capitalist forces. In addition, without continuous, careful identification and isolation, in the event of a successful, overthrow of the capitalist system, sectarianism will also become the main cause any future post-capitalist degeneration – as it did so disastrously in the Soviet experiment 1917 – 1922, before Stalin and his clique took it to its logical conclusions.

d) The cures for Sectarianism.

Of course there can be no hope of overcoming sectarianism within the anti-capitalist workers movement unless it is recognised that a serious problem of sectarianism exists. In my view a difficulty in the past in clearly recognising the extent of the problem has been caused by the lack of sufficient analysis of its characteristics. By using the previous lists of characteristics and effects we can examine our own and others conduct in the continuing struggle against capital and take the necessary steps to oppose it where it exists. I suggest the following points as logical steps in that process.

1. A determination to get rid of sectarianism.
2. A refusal to allow different interpretations to prevent a positive unity of the anti-capitalist movement.
3. The elevation of the needs of the anti-capitalist workers movement above the needs of ones’ own group and questioning the reason for the groups’ separate existence.
4. A refusal to hero worship individuals.
5. A re-examination of the concept of leadership within the revolutionary struggle against capital.
6. The identification of working-class men and women as non-sectarian facilitators among their class and the anti-capitalist movement.

We can see from the combined analysis of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, that sectarianism is an egocentric pattern of behaviour. A pattern which displays arrogance and an unshakeable belief in the correctness of a particular set of views – often in the form of logical deductions, speculative ‘abstractions’ and political ‘trade marks’. In its political form it is a deep seated and long lasting tendency within and around left wing revolutionary, anti-capitalist and even nationalist politics. As with religious sectarianism, it is ideologically parasitic on the humanist aspirations of those suffering exploitation and oppression and wishing to end it. For sectarians (religious and political) feed off this humanistic aspiration, in order to justify their existence, whilst they simultaneously destroy it by their divisive practices. Practices that only serve to undermine the potential achievement of those post-capitalist aspirations.

We need only ask ourselves a few simple but searching questions at this point. What would be the result of giving such sectarian individuals considerable power? If anti-capitalist (or religious) sectarians were ever to succeed in their quest to have the working class put them in power, what would happen? If, as a result of an anti-capitalist or anti-imperialist revolution they found at their disposal armed forces of coercion with the power and authority to implement their ideas, how would they go about it? Points 1 to 10 (in the previous contribution) provide us with an indication of how these questions might be answered. We need only go back over those ten points one by one and ask ourselves how sectarians with full control of state power would conduct themselves; with power to implement their policies with an unshakeable belief in their correctness. Men of arrogance and extreme bitterness – in control of weapons of oppression and destruction. Some sectarians even without state power can be dangerous enough in unleashing indiscriminate acts of vilification, character assassination, vengeance and even terror, it makes one shudder to contemplate their control of even greater forces. Can we really expect such people to lead humanity into a non-oppressive future? The effects as summarised in points 1 to 6 (section ‘b’ above) are serious enough when the sectarians in question have little or no power and authority. To see the extreme effects of these political sectarian characteristics, when displayed by men with unlimited power to back them up, we need only examine reality as it unfolded in Cambodia under Pol Pot, in the Soviet Union under Stalin, or for that matter, under National Socialism in Nazi Germany.

Although it is quite correct to apply the term ‘sectarian’ to small groupings which display divisive and bigoted behaviour by sectarian ‘leaders’ and ‘followers’, these characteristics are not necessarily exclusive to small groups. They are merely more frequently found there. The characteristics of sectarianism, since they arise from the actions of individuals, singly and in groups, can arise within large political movements as well as small ones. It should be noted, therefore, that sectarian behaviour takes place wherever the mixture of the previously noted characteristics is strong enough to organise as a distinct political (or religious) tendency or manifest itself within one. It is essential to recognise the full range of sectarian characteristics, identified and not just the most extreme or bizarre. Otherwise, groups or individuals, who are thoroughly sectarian, yet do not manifest the more extreme symptoms, can mask their sectarianism, for long periods of time. Long enough to do important damage to the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist struggle. All the characteristics are important, but in one sense it is more important that the subtle and hidden characteristics of sectarianism are given serious consideration. It is obvious that the more bizarre aspects are easily identifiable, whilst other aspects can go on almost unnoticed – until it is too late!

Once in existence sectarianism is divisive, corrosive and leads to disgust and disillusionment amongst working people and others in the anti-capitalist struggle and in other struggles against oppression. It could not be otherwise in movements with a humanist purpose, because sectarianism so clearly contradicts that purpose. This much could perhaps have been established by a study of existing sectarian organisations and without recourse to the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin or Trotsky. However, the response of sectarians, claiming orthodoxy with Marx, Engels, Lenin or Trotsky, may have led to attempts to rebuff such challenges. Many are often in what elsewhere, might be classified as – a psychological state of ‘denial’. Alternatively, many undoubtedly claim that their ready-made answers and ‘unshakeable beliefs’ derive from a superior knowledge of their originators thoughts. Sectarian defensive rationalisation often attempts to represent its bitterness and poison as revolutionary zeal and political steel; their use of logical deductions and abstractions as flowing from their advanced theoretical grasp. Now at least, in order to rationalise any continued sectarianism, anti-capitalist sectarians will have to take into account their own ideological forerunners.

To sum up.

It should no longer escape the notice of anyone but the most dogmatic and blind sectarian, that sectarianism is not just a minor aberration, but cuts to the very heart of the opposition to the capitalist system. In all its forms, religious and political the tendency focuses on differences and exacerbates divisions. It’s anti-capitalist adherents turn materialist dialectics into fixed categories or dogma. They frequently make ill-judged demands upon workers along with inappropriately idealistic calls, such as the above one ‘to follow other countries where general strikes’ have allegedly taken place. All this before adequate preparations and serious evaluations have taken place. As a political tendency, 21st century sectarianism invariably repels serious working people and other potential anti-capitalists, as it did in the 19th and 20th. Marx considered sectarianism as quite simply reactionary! There can be no greater verbal indictments than those encountered so far. The implications of these combined observations are clear. Sectarianism, within the ranks of those opposed to the capitalist or imperialist system, can undermine that opposition to such a degree that it becomes a significant factor – if not the most significant factor in the present period. A factor which is effective in preventing unity of the anti-capitalist forces. In the 21st century it is not enough simply to be part of the anti-capitalist struggle: in order to further that struggle, we need also to seriously combat sectarianism.

[The above article contains material from chapter 1 of a book ‘Revolutionary-Humanism and the Anti-capitalist Struggle’, by R. Ratcliffe. Copies of which can be obtained by contacting Roy at; (royratcliffe@yahoo.com)]

For a further update on sectarianism in its more subtle modern forms see http://criticalmassdotnet.wordpress.com/