Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

Archive for the ‘European Left’ Category

Spiked, Frank Furedi, Unherd, and National Populism are Back in the Spotlight.

with 9 comments

RED TORY TO BLUE LABOUR How Spiked and Unherd are Keeping National Populism Alive

Jon Bloomfield and David Edgar

There have been a fair number of articles about Spiked, the ex-RCP Network, and national populism. This is one of the most important. For a start, not all have linked them to Unherd. An obvious connection, which this excellent piece does not mention, is that one Frank Furedi, former leader of the Revolutionary Communist Party, is at the centre of Réseau Spiked, while his son, Jacob Furedi, is Deputy Editor of UnHerd. The area is a vast one. One should also add that Frankie is something of a full time publicist for the Hungarian national populist government of Viktor Orbán these days. (The EU wants to bring Hungary to its knees.)

The central issue is, as the authors write, that these forces “whose project is to deride the mainstream left and promote nationalist populism here and abroad” have a large audience, pots of money, influence in the Tory Party, and one could note, the far right Reform UK and a host of right-wing populist front-organisations on free speech, on ‘gender issues’, tame columnists, including Julie Birchill, and renegade leftists such as (from Class War no less!) Lisa McKenzie, and lots of air time, from Sky to the far-right alt-news programmes like GB News to Talk TV.

I note this, of interest. One of the author’s of the piece below, with extracts, David Edgar, the celebrated playwright, was the author of an influential pamphlet on the National Front in the 1970s, Racism, Fascism and the Politics of the National Front (Race and Class Pamphlet 1977). Widely read by anti-fascist activists at the time it helped alert a wide audience to character of the NF and its place within wider British politics. It would not be amiss to say that Edgar pointed to the kind of links between wider politics and the growth of John Tyndall’s party, that the present study makes between national populism, Spiked, and UnHerd.

“As the next general election approaches, will the Conservatives abandon the national populism which proved so successful in 2019? And what is the role of online ideologues – notably writers for the websites Spiked and Unherd – in the battle for the party’s soul?

We fear that the death of national populism – both praised and mourned in the brief moment of Trussite market ascendancy – has been much exaggerated. Despite the heartening – but whisker-thin – victory of Lula da Silva in Brazil, national populists have gained ground in Sweden, won power in Italy, and are edging closer than ever to the French presidency. While the American mid-terms checked the expected resurgence of Trumpist Republicans, the Grand Old Party remains heavily under the influence of conspiratorialist Trumpians.”

While many of us are very far from conceding that the Rassemblement National are edging closer to power in France, this is an important starting point.

Here are some further extracts.

The role of The Spectator is well-known but this article focuses on the profound influence of two websites: Unherd and Spiked

What makes these sites so significant and successful is that many of their lead writers originate not on the right but on the mainstream and indeed the far left, and now promote ideologies that seem contradictory but – in practice – are increasingly allied.

Or as this Blog has argued for some time, drawing on French studies and political interventions, confusionnismes are the birthplace of national populism and the present day far right. In La grande confusion. Comment l’extrême droite gagne la bataille des idées (2021) Philippe Corcuff argues that the word confusionnisme refers to, ““the current name of a relative disaggregation of political benchmarks previously stabilised around the left-right cleavage and the development of rhetorical bridges between extreme right, right, moderate left and radical left” 

By way of an introduction to the article below,

Imagine a country where a former extreme left party has recycled itself as a Tribune against Woke and publishes articles defending the national populist ruler of Hungary, Viktor Orbán. Think of a political scene, where this party- become-network, joined with members of a Communist Party committed to the fight against globalisation, and a wing of a social democratic party, nostalgic for the ‘real’ working working class. Imagine these defenders of the ‘somewhere people’ and the traditional values of family faith and flag, up in arms behind national sovereignty against the European Union. That they came together to fight for the right-wing side, of a Referendum. Think, if you can, of these old revolutionary girls and boys actively supporting a far-right party with a marked hostility to immigration and getting one their number elected as a MEP, and then given a Peerage…

September 2021. La grande confusion: Comment l’extrême-droite gagne la bataille des idées. The Great Confusion: How the Far-Right is Winning the Battle of Ideas. Philippe Corcuff. Review.

Bloomfield and Edgar,

The construction of this new divide has encouraged strange, paradoxical political alliances – exemplified in the mirroring of the Red Tory and Blue Labour tendencies within the two main political parties. Even stranger is the ideological overlap between the website of a formerly Marxist, now right-libertarian think tank and the main online home of anti-liberal communitarianism. So why – on the issues that are tearing Britain apart – do Spiked and Unherd appear to be bedfellows?   

Both are prolific sites supplying a daily flow of political and cultural commentary. Spiked is an outgrowth of the  Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), which developed an increasingly eccentric version of Trotskyism with its magazine Living Marxism, and was successfully sued by ITN over allegations of fabricating pictures of Serbian concentration camps and closed down.  

Unherd has more conventional origins within the Conservative party.  Its founder Tim Montgomerie  set out its stall in Prospect arguing for a “social Thatcherism,” which would re-balance “from a conservatism of freedom to a conservatism of locality and security.” Montgomerie argued that within the Tory Party “the magnetism of national sovereignty has finally overtaken the magnetism of free markets.” 

However, Unherd has also attracted former left polemicists, including ex-Labour-supporting, Prospect-editing and Demos-running journalist David Goodhart – now ‘Head of Demography, Immigration and Integration’ at the right-wing think-tank Policy Exchange; academic turned national-populist advocate Matthew Goodwin; trade union activist and anti-woke campaigner Paul Embery; and the ex SWP-flirting, Tory-convert vicar Giles Fraser. 

Embery’s recent anti-woke polemic in Spiked adds him to a growing list of pundits who happily write both for the right-libertarian Spiked and the communitarian Unherd. As we write, Spiked is running a 45-minute conversation between Spiked’s Brendan O’Neill and Unherd’s Matthew Goodwin, both agreeing that Rishi Sunak is really a cultural conservative who understands the Red Wall electorate and its cultural concerns. Perhaps most strikingly, the right-libertarian Spiked has just run long extracts from the latest book by Blue Labour guru Maurice Glasman.

This is a key point:

The reason for this unexpected cross-fertilisation of ex-Trotskyites, traditionalist Tories and communitarian, socially-conservative Labourites is their ideological alignment on many of the key cultural controversies of the day. A fervent commitment to Brexit and belief in the unreformed UK nation-state are central, but what gives the two platforms their raison d’etre is the consistent vitriol directed at the mainstream Left and the new social movements that have emerged around it over the last few decades. A bitter animosity against social liberalism and a caricatured ‘woke’ Left is their most distinctive, current and common thrust. 

Neither website is short of funds. Both receive hefty support from key figures associated with the populist Right.  Unherd is funded by an endowment from Sir Paul Marshall, a senior hedge fund manager and ardent supporter of Brexit, who gave £500,000 to the Tories in 2019 and is a supporter of and for a short period chaired GB News. Spiked’s backing includes $300,000 from the Koch brothers, who have been one of the most substantial funders of Donald Trump.

 

Both have significant readerships.  In April 2022  Unherd’s monthly figure was 2.7 million while Spiked’s figure was 1.4 million (by comparison, the New Statesman’s monthly readership is 1.5m). But their main impact is the way their ideas – particularly on multiculturalism and the ‘woke agenda’ – have been eagerly lapped up by the mainstream right-wing media. 

Unherd editor Freddie Sayers wrote a set of columns in the Daily Telegraph throughout the COVID crisis attacking lockdowns, while Spiked deputy editor Ella Whelan has a regular column almost exclusively devoted to culture wars.   

Mick Hume, former editor of Living Marxism and then of Spiked,  is an established figure on the right-wing press circuit, having had a decade-long stint with The Times, as well as blasting off occasional polemics in The Sun and now enjoying a regular slot in the Daily Mail.

Read the full article.

This will be interesting: In Part 2 of this analysis, we’ll discuss how and why they agree and what the progressive left should do to oppose them.

Written by Andrew Coates

December 8, 2022 at 5:53 pm

For a New Internationalism. Daphne Lawless (Fightback, New Zealand/Australia).

with 2 comments

For a new internationalism.

Anti-authoritarian forces have organised their own international units within the Territorial Defence Force of Ukraine. Image from Resistance Committee.

By DAPHNE LAWLESS. Written for Fightback’s magazine issue on Organisation

This is an important article. Posting only the first part we urge people to read the full piece linked to above. Many of the arguments, presented clearly by Daphne Lawless, will be shared by those of the internationalist left in these Isles, and in other parts of Europe. The following will receive a wide echo, “We reject the campist attempt to pretend that the kleptocrats in Moscow or the bureaucrats in Beijing are allies of the oppressed of the earth – just as we reject its liberal/neoconservative flipside, the belief that Washington bullets and Brussels banks will bring global freedom.”

Fightback says, “We implore the internationalist socialists and anti-capitalists in Ukraine, Europe, the United States and elsewhere to urgently come together – firstly, for practical solidarity for the struggles in Ukraine and other peoples under attack by Western as well as non-Western imperialism; and building out of that, to share experiences and build infrastructure that could create a new global unity. A global conference of socialist internationalists – online and in-person – might be a good first practical step.”

The Kurdish struggle and solidarity with the people of Iran against the Islamic Republic further illustrate the need for international solidarity.

I.                Once again, against campism

Fightback proudly positions itself as a socialist internationalist publication. Since 2015, we have set ourselves against what we call campism:

the metaphor that the world is divided into several military “camps”, with the largest being the Western camp led by the United States. Therefore, any government which disagrees with American foreign policy – no matter how oppressive to its own people, or however wedded to neoliberal market economics – can be supported. These governments are even called “anti-imperialist” – as if there were only one imperialism, that of the Western bloc.[1]

These politics have led a significant section of the activist Left – in Australasia and elsewhere – to endorse the Syrian state’s brutal crushing of the democracy movement; to support Chinese suppression of protests in Hong Kong and attempted genocide of Uighurs; and, most recently, to defend Russia’s incompetent but still deadly military intervention in Ukraine. Or, alternatively, to conduct a shamefaced “whatabout” defence of all those actions – even if they are bad, so the line goes, Western imperialism is always the central issue. Therefore, any uprising or struggle against a State which poses as hostile to the USA/”the West” must be assumed to be part of Western imperialism’s schemes, if not an outright CIA plot. Therefore, we must support “the other guys” – whatever their brutal track record or antipathy to basic human rights, let alone socialism.

Campism, we believe, is based on a fatal misconception about how the global order works. That misconception is that Western imperialism is the basis for global capitalism, rather than the other way around. Once you believe that, then it follows that weakening Western imperialism – towards some kind of capitalist “multipolarity”, with Moscow or Beijing getting the upper hand over Washington, London and Brussels – is the necessary precondition for pushing back against capitalism. Which means judging every single struggle by whether “the West” supports it – if so, we must be against it. As British-Lebanese journalist Joey Ayoub puts it: “The term anti-imperialism became a shorthand for people who actually mean multipolarity. They’re not against imperialism. They just want other powers to do that.”[2]

This sophisticated geopolitics often fails to convince, due to basic human empathy for the oppressed and suffering. The more degraded campists are then forced to resort to what experts in domestic violence call DARVO – Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.[3] This aims to counteract the impulse to solidarity by portraying the apparent victims of violence as in fact the bad guys. Hence, fighters for a Free Syria become “ISIS-like headchoppers”, who gassed their own children to make Russia look bad. Ukraine is not a country with an ugly Nazi subculture – like almost all capitalist nations – but an actual Nazi state which wants to exterminate all Russian-speakers (whose president, interestingly, is a Russian-speaking Jew).[4]

The disinformation required to maintain this bubble of “alternative facts” is readily supplied by Western activists and journalists (and the occasional rock star) who identify as Left-wing, but who – like their counterparts on the Trumpist or anti-vaxxer Right – happily use faked evidence, bad logic, the war propaganda of non-Western authoritarians, or outright smears to support their predetermined geopolitics of “West always to blame”. The campist Left have developed a media culture which resembles nothing less than the “information bubble” in which the Trumpist right or anti-vaxxers live. Journalism from outside the bubble is rejected as “MSM/state lies”, while non-Western state media and shadily-funded attack websites such as The GrayzoneGlobal Research or MintPress are taken as trustworthy sources.

The predominance of these beliefs – and the unwillingness to openly debate them – led Fightback to withdraw from the Organise Aotearoa project.[5] But contrary to what those not familiar with the activist-Left subculture might suppose, these beliefs are not restricted to those who self-identify as Marxist-Leninists, or even “tankies”. They are the common sense of many veterans of the progressive Left in this country, especially those grouped around The Daily Blog – for example, veteran activist John Minto or former Alliance MP Matt Robson – or this country’s major Left-wing podcast, 1 of 200.[6]

In contrast, Fightback believes that solidarity with all the oppressed and deprived is not only a moral duty, but the basic step in building a global movement to replace capitalism and imperialism. This requires us to see things from the point of view of those struggling for their lives and freedom, not from the viewpoint of which imperialist team might score points. In this sense, our job is not so much to oppose Russia, certainly not to back “the West”, and not even to support “Ukraine”; but to help Ukrainians resisting genocide – and indeed, to oppose their own government when it claws back their rights. We support the Ukrainian struggle despite the Zelenskyy government and the fascist fringe represented by the Azov regiment, just as we support Palestinian struggle despite the reactionary agenda and anti-Semitism of Hamas. Our solidarity lies always and everywhere with the people whose lives and dignity are under attack. Accordingly, Fightback has given material aid to leftist and anti-authoritarian militias resisting Russian aggression, rather than to Ukrainian state forces.

We do not accept the argument that it is “colonialism” or “white saviourism” for activists in the Western states to do anything but oppose “our own state”. On the contrary, we maintain that – despite its pretences at being “anti-colonial” – campism is itself actually a disguised form of Western chauvinism. How else can we describe refusing support to the oppressed fighting back against their oppressors, unless they can be seen to benefit the Western left in its struggle against “its own” ruling class? How else can we describe Ukrainian socialists who defend their right to receive arms (from whatever source) to defend their lives and homes being called “imperialists” or even “Nazis” by well-fed American socialists?[7] Quite apart from being morally repulsive, this tarnishes the reputation, not only of the Western left, but of the very concept of socialism itself, in the eyes of oppressed and exploited people worldwide. What are Ukrainians under fire supposed to think, when reactionaries like Boris Johnson come to their aid, while socialists like Jeremy Corbyn try to “both-sides” the conflict, and excuse Russia’s destruction and pillaging as something that NATO made them do?

We understand that one imperialist power will only help those oppressed by another if by doing so it furthers its own selfish interests. But we do not consider these inter-imperialist wranglings to be the central issue. We do not assume the right to tell any peoples in struggle what forms of help they are permitted to receive, if they want our own support; we might of course warn them that Western help always comes with strings attached, but amazingly enough, they usually already understand that. We reject the campist attempt to pretend that the kleptocrats in Moscow or the bureaucrats in Beijing are allies of the oppressed of the earth – just as we reject its liberal/neoconservative flipside, the belief that Washington bullets and Brussels banks will bring global freedom.

Written by Andrew Coates

December 8, 2022 at 1:26 pm

The New Age of Empire: How Racism and Colonialism Still Rule the World. Kehinde Andrews. Review: “A fraudulent portait of the Enlightenment”. 

with 4 comments

“Kant “used his ‘intellect’ to devise way to inflict torture on Africans.”

The New Age of Empire: How Racism and Colonialism Still Rule the World  Kehinde Andrews.

Thomas Clarkson (1760 – 1846) was one of the greatest of the abolitionists. In 1786 he published An essay on the slavery and commerce of the human species, particularly the African. In 1887 he helped found the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade. In contact with Abbé Gregoire, of the Société des amis des Noirs, which argued during the French Revolution for extending liberty, equality and fraternity to the colonised and abolishing slavery, he took a keen interest in debates on this in the Assemblée Nationale. He had reports published,  “two researchers, Andrew Coates and David Jones, have recently unearthed a long series of unsigned articles about French events and the Haitian Revolution which Clarkson quietly sent to the provincial newspaper in Ipswich, Suffolk.” (English Abolition: The Movie. Adam Hochshild.) The articles burn with enthusiasm for Enlightenment ideals, for popular rule and for human rights. For revolts against slavery Clarkson had nothing but solidarity.

Early in 1792 abolitionist leader Thomas Clarkson insisted that while the French Revolution had presented the slaves with an opportunity to vindicate their humanity, the insurrection in Saint-Domingue could be attributed only to the slave trade and the oppressive system it produced. [Yet] despite the radical principles of the French Revolution, there was awareness that the French government, whose bankruptcy ignited the revolutionary crisis, drew crucial revenues from slave colonies; and that millions of French jobs in port cities like Bordeaux depended on the slave trade and the stability of the slave system. Thus the French slave trade continued to receive an official subsidy until 1793 – even after the abolition of the monarchy and the execution of Louis XVI.”

Slave Revolts in the French Colonies.

Sympathetic to domestic radical causes, which caused him difficulty during the period of British reaction against the Revolution, and the war with France, of great personal warmth, a friend of the essayist and poet Charles Lamb and his advanced circle, Clarkson is buried in Playford, near Ipswich under a monument that commemorates his life-long fight for freedom and equality. A street near the town centre is named after him.

“It is not possible to think of anything in the world, or indeed out of it, that can be held to be good without limitation except a good will.” declared Immanuel Kant (Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals 1785). Clarkson could be said, if we can apply this precept in the light of his extant biography, to have lived out his life on such a basis. On the evidence of The New Age of Empire: How Racism and Colonialism Still Rule the World, whose opening chapter describes the German philosopher as a “violent and ugly racist”, the author, Kehinde Andrews, is limited to the worst of wills.

In the section flagged up as the “Enlightenment as white identity politics” the Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, we hear of “so-called universal human rights” and their bond to “racial science”. Locke, Hume, Kant, Voltaire and Hegel are applaud for their heroic theories of individual rights and freedom. The only problem is that you cannot separate their theories of rights from their racism, which goes to the core of their intellectual output.” Having established this on the basis of an extensive knowledge of a few collections of excerpts from their works, and some secondary commentaries, Andrews declares, “The Enlightenment was a product of the first stage of Western imperialism, with slavery and colonialism clearing the ground for its intellectual project.” Kant “used his ‘intellect’ to devise way to inflict torture on Africans.” He “is one of the most important architects of the new age of Empire.”

The ill-featured philosopher of Königsberg had habits so regular that housewives could set their watches by his legendary afternoon walk, only interrupted once, the story has it, when news of the French Revolution reached him. His views on race, many argue, are incompatible with the universalism of his ethical framework. That much takes a moment’s reflection.

Exploring the theme in more depth, an authority on Kant, the American philosopher Allen W. Wood, argued, “Kantian anthropology is anything but a deterministic natural science of human behaviour conceived exclusively from the standpoint of a detached observer.””Kantian anthropology assumes from the start that humans are free…” (Kant’s Ethical Thought, 1999) Human history was marked above all was marked by “unsocial sociability”, “antagonism as the engine of history” and the growth of “socially productive powers” which Wood compares to Marx’s picture of class struggle and of economic development.

If Kant, in common with writers of his time, considered Europe as the “civilised world”, this needs exploring in more detail, Pauline Kleingeld, (Kant’s Second Thoughts on Race), has argued, “Kant is perfectly clear about the fact that he regards all ‘races’ as humans, as illustrated by the essay ‘Determination of the Concept of a Human Race’. Furthermore, “Kant changed his earlier views on the status ofnon-whites. The oft-defended thesis that Kant’s racism remained constant thus needs correction, and one should not use evidence from the 1780s in support of claims about his views in the 1790s” “Kant gave up the hierarchical view of the races in the context of his elaboration of his political theory and theory of right. The time when he changed his views on race falls within the period during which his political theory and philosophy of right underwent significant transformations, in the wake of the French Revolution. Examples of other important developments in Kant’s political theory around this time are his notion of citizenship, his republicanism, and the concept of cosmopolitan right.” In brief, the glow that had illuminated Thomas Clarkson touched the writer of a Critique of Pure Reason.

From such ideas it is hard to picture Kant as an inspiration behind present day “regimes of knowledge”. This, one takes, is a garbled reference to Michel Foucault’s picture of the relationship between savoir and puissance. How treating people as, in Kant’s immortal terms, ends in themselves, rather than means to an end, forms part of imperial rule, genocide and oppression, is not explained. Or of relevance to what Andrews asserts is a “global economy” “built in the image of White supremacy that was so neatly outlined by the Enlightenment thinkers” – even Johann Herder, one of their bitterest opponents, to whom the academic erects his own statue in this sombre Pantheon.

The New Age of Empire claims to “provide readers with a solid grounding in the 500-year history of racial capitalism – the enduring significance of the genocide of Native Americans, the transatlantic slave trade and European colonialism – as he works, convincingly, to reveal the “colonial logic and neocolonialism” still at play in the workings of contemporary global institutions such as the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO. ” – as a friendly reviewer put it in the Guardian.

It does nothing of the sort. The book is premised on a fraudulent portait of the Enlightenment, with “whiteness at the heart”. There is little in the way of explaining slavery’s relationship to capitalism, or economic processes, across the vast span of time that begins in antiquity, ancient Empires, and extends to the 20th century’s bonded labour that goes beyond the picture of a kind of racist ‘bounty’. transformed into commodities. That the wealth created in the “horrendous trade in human flesh helped create some of British industry fails to explain why people like Thomas Clarkson would campaign against it. Revolts against the violence of our imperial inheritance, are treated with a less than sketchy account of anti-colonial movements, and the struggles for national liberation. There is little less than nothing on homegrown opposition to Empire and support in Europe for these movements, (to widen from this book’s narrow English speaking focus there is this, amongst many studies, Histoire de l’anticolonialisme en France Claude Liauzau. 2011) Liazau begins from the contradiction between universal human rights, in the first declaration of the rights of Man, the Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen de 1789, “Les hommes naissent et demeurent libres et égaux en droits”, and slavery, its abolition during the convention, its re-establishment under the Consulat and Napoléon. He outlines the glorious role of Toussaint l’ouverture, the Black Jacobin, inspired the revolutionary ideas of 1789, in fighting for the emancipation of slaves and the independence of what would become Haiti. Imprisoned and brought to France he died in 1803, in a French gaol in the Fort de Joux.

The immense historical condescension of a Professor of Black Studies may ignore Toussaint, but The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L’Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution (1938)  of C.L.R. James remains inscribed on many of our hearts, as does this poem by William Wordsworth,

Though fallen thyself, never to rise again,
Live, and take comfort. Thou hast left behind
Powers that will work for thee; air, earth, and skies;
There’s not a breathing of the common wind
That will forget thee; thou hast great allies;
Thy friends are exultations, agonies,
And love, and man’s unconquerable mind.

TO TOUSSAINT L’OUVERTURE. 1803.

Themes, which continues to this time, with the Algerian war of national liberation still in living memory, illustrating the conflict between universal ideals and colonial logic, mark France and countries who had early empires, Britain, Holland, Germany, Spain and Portugal, not to mention the ever-present legacy of the Ottoman Caliphate. The present book, written from an anglo-centric and patriarchal standpoint marked by the author’s own cultural imperialism, imagines that the fight for human rights, which has extended across the globe, fails to notice the extension of the ‘rights’ from men to women, from the propertied to the properties, from the empires to colonies, to raie a whole spectrum of issues, driven the actions of people themselves, not books. It is significant that even within its limited sphere Andrews fails to mention Tom Paine’s Rights of Man, “The book appeared on March 13, 1791, and sold nearly a million copies. It was “eagerly read by reformers, Protestant dissenters, democrats, London craftsmen, and the skilled factory-hands of the new industrial north”  An indictment for seditious liberal followed, for both publisher and author, while government agents followed Paine and instigated mobs, hate meetings, and burnings in effigy. Paine was an abolitionist, calling slaves an “unnatural commodity”. Should Andrews ever become interested in the history of the working class radical movements in Europe and the independence of the US from Britain, and the wider fight for democracy, John Keane’s Tom Paine: A Political Life (2002) is a good place to start.

Post-colonial states politics across the world, from Asia and Africa to Latin America are shrunk because the “real power in the system is in the West”. His alternative to ‘Imperial democracy” is largely found in the USA and Britain. His cockles are warmed by DIY ‘new social movements’ Occupy, – a few sentences on the Arab Spring apart -, Jeremy Corbyn, and much more on the Black Lives Matter movement, which has yet to offer international solidarity with any cause in Africa. “Enlightenment narratives of science and progress as the solution to he world’s ills are still the foundation of the various branches of the left” laments Andrews. Scoring a happy rhyme he continues, “A narrow focus on full humanity for workers in the West, and merely the right to life or those in the Rest”.

What of the future? Andrews sighs, “When the centre of empire shifts to China, or robots take over production, it may well mean the West moves to its next stage. None of these developments will mean ending the racist political and economic system, and ay best they only offer a slightly more bearable format. “”How to “overhaul this wicked system” he asks.” Will violence consume the West, the “chickens come home to roots”? Environmental catastrophe looms. A “radical rethink is necessary for humanity to continue”. “Malcom” as he familiarly reminds us, “was right when he warned that it will be ‘the ballot or the bullet, liberty or death, freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody”.

Who is going to chose the targets of the bullet?

To the surprise of few Kehinde Andrews has launched a media career.

Wikipedia entry:

The New Age of Empire

Written by Andrew Coates

December 1, 2022 at 3:02 pm