Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Anti-Fascism

Arron Banks, Leave EU, “Apologises” for ‘Kraut’ tweet as UK Politics Turns into a Carl Schmitt ‘Friend/Enemy’ Battle.

with 4 comments

Image

Arron Banks Campaign on ‘the Enemy’.

Last night on Channel Four News Timothy Snyder talked about the  Schmittian turn of populist politics in the UK and the US.

Some of today’s politicians have learned propaganda tricks from 1930s fascists, says Yale professor

Democracy is a fragile creation, and the Yale professor and historian of fascism Timothy Snyder should know.

His best selling book, ‘On Tyranny’, offers some practical and political advice for resisting authoritarianism. Professor Snyder had the American reader in mind when he wrote it. But can we learn anything from his work?

I spoke to him earlier and I began by asking him if he saw parallels between the United States and what’s happening in British politics right now.

During the interview Snyder referred to Carl Schmitt and the Friend/Enemy Distinction at the foundation of his extreme right politics.

This, the Yale Professor  argued, is now influencing populism in the US and the UK.

The “Friend “Enemy” distinction outlined by the extreme right German theorist is summed up in the above image.

These are some some of his best-known quote on the topic,

The enemy is not merely any competitor or just any partner of a conflict in general. He is also not the private adversary whom one hates. An enemy exists only when, at least potentially, one fighting collectivity of people confronts a similar collectivity. The enemy is solely the public enemy, because everything that has a relationship to such a collectivity of men, particularly to a whole nation, becomes public by virtue of such a relationship.

Political thought and political instinct prove themselves theoretically and practically in the ability to distinguish friend and enemy. The high points of politics are simultaneously the moments in which the enemy is, in concrete clarity, recognized as the enemy.

From Banks to Cummings these words have become a reality in their  populist campaign to create a national neoliberal regime in Britain.

Leave.EU campaign apologises over tweet calling Merkel a ‘kraut’ and invoking world war

Leave.EU has made a rare apology for a tweet the organisation posted which showed a picture of Angela Merkel with the words: “We didn’t win two world wars to be pushed around by a Kraut.”

The tweet was apparently in response to unfounded reports from a “No 10 source” Ms Merkel had insisted in a phone call to Boris Johnson that Northern Ireland remains within the European Union’s customs union when the rest of the UK leaves the bloc.

After the tweet generated widespread outrage, co-founder of the organisation Arron Banks admitted it “went too far”, but said “the real outrage is the German suggestion that Northern Ireland be separated from the UK”.

He added: “On reflection the point could have been made better.”

Leave.EU tweeted “We’re sorry”, alongside an emoji of a downcast face.

This is a response from a comrade.

Merkel reacted with a great deal of decency to the refugee crisis, a mountain more decency than the UK government ever had,.

Being insulted by these racist pipsqueaks is blood boiling stuff.

Against the left internationalists also stands the Red Brown Front.

They do not just weaken our side by supporting the Brexit project but blur the lines between the left and the national populists with ideas constantly moving in the direction of the right.

Arron Banks – Leave UK – funded the Trade Unionists against the EU.

We await their apology for having anything to do with this gang.

The Morning Star continues to give publicity to Trade Unionists Against the EU, publishing this by the “national officer for Trade Unionists Against the EU” in support of the Tories.

Brexit: why October is good to go.

FAWZI IBRAHIM argues Labour should support the government’s determination to leave the EU at the end of next month

This is the latest project of the Red-Brown Front retweeted from the Full Brexit which the ‘trade unionists against the EU back.

 

Advertisements

Written by Andrew Coates

October 9, 2019 at 10:46 am

Key Thinkers of the Radical Right. Behind the New Threat to Liberal Democracy. Edited by Mark Sedgwick. Review.

with 3 comments

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "key thinkers of the radical right"

Key Thinkers of the Radical Right. Behind the New Threat to Liberal Democracy. Edited by Mark Sedgwick. Oxford University Press. 2019.

Thanks to Feminist Dissent.

“In order to prove effective,” the French far right theorist, Guillaume Faye (1949 – 2019), wrote in his critique of the intellectual strategy of the Nouvelle Droite, “ideological and cultural action must be supported by concrete political forces which it integrates and extends” (Archeofuturism 1998, English Translation. 2010) In the Introduction to this collection of studies on thinkers of the radical right Mark Sedgwick observes that “In Europe, ‘populist’ political parties have pulled the mainstream in their direction” and in the US, after the 2016 election of Donald Trump, “America’s liberal orthodoxy is also challenged”.

Over the last year the wider public has become aware of the radical right. The Christchurch Mosque killings in New Zealand brought the murderer’s reference to the ‘Great Replacement” (grand remplacement), the “contre-colonisation” of the West by immigrants, of Renaud Camus international notoriety. In waging a war, attributed to Antonio Gramsci, for cultural hegemony in the political field, fringe groups such as the “identitarians”, the decentralised US ‘alt-right’, those influenced by the ideas covered in Key Thinkers have become political actors. But perhaps one should follow the warning of a French long-term writer on the far right, Pierre-André Taguieff, and hesitate before aligning national populism, even the most ethnically based, with a radical right that contains overt white nationalism. (1)

Writing as “scholars not activists”, they paint a picture of people with four key themes. These are, apocalypticism, represented by Faye’s “converge of catastrophes”, propelling a war against the “barbarians already here”. There is the fear of global elites, the most widespread populist theme that invites comparison with the extreme right. The word “elite” could be called the greatest ‘floating signifier’, with constantly shifting content, and impossible to pint down, of all. Yet driving the radicals is a deep ‘friend-enemy’ distinction that impels us to take sides, “to preserve one’s own form of existence”, that Carl Schmitt (1888 – 1985) saw as the foundation of politics The Concept of the Political. 2007). Finally there is the strategy of “metapolitics”, the attempt to shape the political terrain as a whole.

Classic Thinkers.

The contributors to Key Thinkers offer introductions and explorations of ‘classic thinkers’. Oswald Spengler’s reflections on the ‘decline of the west’ the novelist of Great War heroism, Ernst Jünger, whose Stahlgewittern (Storm of Steel, 1920) is accused of “legitimising death and destruction”, could be contrasted with anti-war novels, such the left wing Henri Barbusse’s Le Feu (Under Fire. 1916) are cultural framers. These contributions are followed by a useful outline of Carl Schmitt’s “politics of Identity” by Reinhard Mehring, which could be usefully extended to the critical reading of Schmitt by writers such as the ‘left populist’ Chantal Mouffe. The varied writings of Julius Evola, from the ‘integral tradition’ to the lament, aimed at a “special human type” that, “that every organic unity has been dissolved or is dissolving: caste, stock, nation, homeland, and even the family.” (Ride the Tiger, Cavalcare la Tigre Translation, 2003). Evola inspired a “successful movement” writes H.Thonas Hakl, “Campo Hobbit”.

Today’s Ideologues and Identity.

Turning to today the articles deal with self-conscious ideologues, people inclined to offer lists of all the books they have read as ‘influences’. Excellent accounts of Alain de Benoist by Jean-Yves Camus and Stéphane François on Guillaume Faye and Archeofuturism make one regret that they were not preceded by some account of the importance of ‘classic’ influences on the French Nouvelle Droite, from Maurice Barrès to Charles Maurras. This, often warring, couple, have churned out a mountain of phrases over the years, some of which have attracted a wide audience, including the American leftist journal, Telos. Each has flirted with ‘anti-imperialism, the ‘third way’ call for the “peoples’ of the world to rule themselves, and measured positions on ‘the Jewish Question’, in Faye’s case veering from hostility to attacks on far-right Holocaust denial faced with the greater ‘enemy’ of Muslim migration. Faye was marked by this virulent hostility to Muslims (Benoist has been often favourable to Arab nationalism). They each have a different take on the need for ‘paganism’, though both incline in that direction. Underneath genuine learning (do not think that Benoist does not seriously know his ‘Indo-European’ linguistics), apparent liberalism, even their stand for pro-European unity, both writers’ ideas are ultra-conservative. They are best clarified by reference to Barrès on the primacy of memory-transmitted roots of “la terre et les morts” (the soil and the dead). Both are hostile to immigration (underneath Benoist’s belief that is not the immigrants’ fault). Faye has called them a colonising “fifth column” – linking him to Renaud Camus’s later pamphlet. This was his vision in Archeofuturism,

Tomorrow a people will return to be what it has always been, prior to the short interlude of modernity: ethnos, a community both cultural and biological. I insist on the importance of biological kinship to define peoples, and particularly the family of European peoples (as well as all others), not only because humanity – contrary to what the melting pot myth suggests – is increasingly defining itself through ‘ethno-biological blocs’, but also because the inherited characteristics of a people shape its culture and outlook.

This picture could be said to set the scene for the following chapters in Key Thinkers. From ‘paleoconservatism’ to Patrick J. Buchanan and the Death of the West we reach Jared Taylor and White Identity we reach the world of the American right. Unfamiliar with the milieu it is interesting to read of the friendship between ultra-conservative Paul Gottfried and Christopher Lasch. The author of the Culture of Narcissism (1979) described by Seth Bartee as a “right wing populist” is a reference to swathes of French former leftists, the John Humphreys of France’s intellectual life. Jared Taylor, whose White Identity, Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century (2011) reads like a sour parody of Ta-Nehisis Coates, is introduced. His attempt to blend his own “ethnonationalism and white identitarianism” on a European model. No doubt his dislike of immigration and “genetic” prejudice is not far off, but unpleasant references to Hispanics and the Spanish language in his writings suggests some substantial difference in that quarter. The preoccupation with “race”, biological race, is a distinguishing feature of the North American New Right, Graham Macklin suggests, in discussing Greg Johnson.

Eurasianism, propagated by the ‘organic intellectual’ of an invigorated Russian right, Alexander Dugin, with links with European far-rightists, national Stalinists, and the US alt right, – and forces ‘close’ to President Putin – is covered by Marlene Laruelle. It could be expanded into a book.

Key Thinkers covers much more. Some correspond to the conspiracy themes well-known on the far right. The writer Bat Ye’or (Gisèle Littmann), who begins with reasonable sounding criticism of the plight of non-Muslims in states run by Islamic Law, extends them to all Muslim influence in the West and suggests that there is a plan by ‘elites’ to turn Europe into ‘Eurabia’, “EEC and subsequently EU documents reveal the development of a new ideology that is producing demographic and cultural change for the purpose of creating conditions for the fulfillment of the Eurabian vision.”

Others defy easy classification. Used perhaps to the clearer waters of writers such as Louis Althusser it is hard for this reviewer to make head or tail out of Mencius Moldbug and the ‘dark enlightenment’ against the Cathedral. For the initiated there is much to follow up in the sympathetic response (said to have been written during a come-down from Speed), by ‘accelerationist’ Nick Land (The Dark Enlightenment). (4)

Key Thinkers is a valuable book, and essential reading for anybody who wishes to be informed about not just the ideologues behind the present day radical right, but about politics today. Many of their ideas about the people of the West under threat from ‘elites’ have seeped into the political culture of the right, and even the left. The right has seen the birth of their own identity politics. In defence of national populism, sovereignty and Brexit, former Marxist Frank Furedi is amongst many who call for recognition of the land and its dead. “Judaism and Christianity” their “moral principles” and the “contribution of the Ancients – Greeks and Romans – Christian philosophy and the Enlightenment”. Very few, for the moment, make the leap from that waffling to the radical right’s belief in “ethno-biological blocs”. Yet, Faye’s image of ‘archeofuturism’, a technologically ‘futurist’ world, in which the ‘archaic’, original, cultures of antiquity rule politics and society, remains suggestive of Populist ambitions. (5)

*****

  1. Pages 209 – 2013. Macron, miracle ou mirage? Pierre-André Taguieff. Edition l’observatoire. 2017 and La Revanche du nationalism. Pierre-André Taguieff. PUF 2015.
  2. Page 48. Archeofuturism. Guillaume Faye. English Translation. Arkotos. 2010
  3. Bat Ye’or Eurabia. The Euro Arab axis. 2005 Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
  4. Nick Land (The Dark Enlightenment).
  5. Reclaiming Europe from the EU. The EU sees European history as a source of shame. It is wrong. Frank Furedi. 2016.

Review from the extreme right:  Mark Sedgwick’s Key Thinkers of the Radical Right. Greg Johnson.

Written by Andrew Coates

September 25, 2019 at 12:55 pm

Morning Star Backs “Spiked” Against “No Platforming” Eddie Dempsey.

with 15 comments

Image may contain: 1 person, text

Morning Star Backs Red-Brown ‘Spiked’ on this.

As protests against the Johnson coup grow the Morning Star has nothing better to do than to defend Full Brexit Loudmouth and ‘Liberal’ loather Eddie Dempsey.

This is one of Dempsey’s many statements that met opposition from all progressives and people of good will.

Image

RMT’s Eddie Dempsey calls for unity against Boris Johnson after ‘no-platform’ bid by Owen Jones and Ash Sarkar

RMT activist Eddie Dempsey insisted that “bringing people together to call a general election” should be the left’s priority after two activist journalists pulled out of a rally because of his presence.

Ash Sarkar and Owen Jones said they would no longer speak at Tuesday’s People’s Assembly rally calling for a general election after an attack on Twitter by Pete Radcliff, who was expelled from Labour in 2016 for supporting the Alliance for Workers Liberty.

Mr Radcliff said he could not believe that they would “share a platform with someone like Eddie Dempsey who openly supports No Deal in complete opposition to Labour’s policy.”

Ms Sarkar then said that she had agreed “before I saw the speakers list” and would pull out. Owen Jones replied “same — and I’ll be focusing my energy on building for tomorrow’s big #StoptheCoup demo.”

But Mr Dempsey told the Morning Star that the fight to bring down Boris Johnson should not be policed on Leave or Remain lines.

“The referendum has brought out the limits of the political system and what happens when the people vote against that system’s interests,” he said.

“The royal prorogue is just another example and raises the question of moving beyond the last feudal relics of the system. An election is the only way out of this. That requires bringing people together on the socialist left whether they are Leave or Remain, as we have done before and will have to do again when all this is settled. The real problem is we need to own this country, and we don’t.”

Ash Sarkar says,

Others would be less generous, given the background of Dreadful Dempsey.

Here:

Written by Andrew Coates

August 31, 2019 at 10:54 am

After Portland, Trump Bows to Far-Right Demands to Consider ANTIFA “Organisation of Terror”.

with 5 comments

Image may contain: 1 person, text

Proud Boys Deem Portland A Success Because Trump Sided With Right-Wing Extremists

Huff Post.

“Look at Trump’s Twitter … he’s watching antifa. That’s all we wanted,” boasts former Infowars staffer and protest organizer Joe Biggs

A former Infowars staffer who organized the Proud Boys protest in Portland Saturday deemed the “mission” a success Saturday because President Donald Trump sided with the right-wing extremist group against the anti-fascist “antifa.”

“Go look at President Trump’s Twitter,” Joe Biggs told the Oregonian (see the video above). “He talked about Portland, said he’s watching antifa. That’s all we wanted. We wanted national attention, and we got it. Mission success.”

Biggs said he was pleased with the relatively peaceful day between the Proud Boys — which describes its members as “western chauvinists” — and counter-protesters, who included antifa activists. Portland police reported that at least 13 people were arrested and six were injured.

The Proud Boys who organised the racist march:

The Proud Boys is a far-right neo-fascist[9][10] organization that admits only men as members and promotes political violence.[2][11][12][13] It is based in the United States and has a presence in CanadaAustralia, and the United Kingdom.[14][15] The group was started in 2016 by Vice Media co-founder and former commentator Gavin McInnes, taking its name from the song “Proud of Your Boy” from the Disney film Aladdin.[16][17] Proud Boys emerged as part of the alt-right, but in early 2017, McInnes began distancing himself from the alt-right, saying the alt-right’s focus is race while his focus is what he defines as “Western values”. This re-branding effort intensified after the Unite the Right Rally.[18][19]

This their presentation:

The Proud Boys are a men’s organization founded in 2016 by Vice Media co-founder Gavin McInnes. McInnes has described the Proud Boys as a pro-Western fraternal organization for men who refuse to apologize for creating the modern world; aka Western Chauvinists.

Proud Boys‘ values center on the following tenets:

Minimal Government
Maximum Freedom
Anti-Political Correctness
Anti-Drug War
Closed Borders
Anti-Racial Guilt
Anti-Racism
Pro-Free Speech (1st Amendment)
Pro-Gun Rights (2nd Amendment)
Glorifying the Entrepreneur
Venerating the Housewife
Reinstating a Spirit of Western Chauvinism

This caught my attention, “the Proud Boys organization was launched in September 2016, on the website of Taki’s Magazine, a far-right publication for which Richard Spencer was executive editor.”

There is a whole chapter on Richard B.Spencer in Key Thinkers of the Radical Right . Behind the New Threat to Liberal Democracy .(Edited by Mark Sedgwick 2019. Oxford.), Richard B. Spencer and the Alt Right by Tamir Bar-On. 

The Proud Boys say they are “not alt right”.

But their ideas seem to echo many of alt right Spencer’s themes.

He is absolutely barking,

Leftists (who sometimes understand us better than we understand ourselves) have always sensed this; they know that when we talk about immigration, we’re not really talking about immigration.

For us “immigration” is a proxy for race. In that way, immigration can be good or bad: it can be a conquest (as it seems now) . . . or a European in-gathering, something like White Zionism. It all depends on the immigrants. And we should open our minds to the positive possibilities of mass immigration from the White world.

And when White men talks about “restoring the Constitution”—or, more so, “Taking Our Country Back”— leftists and non-Whites are right to view this as threatening and racialist: it implies a return to origins and that the White man once owned America.

Today, in the public imagination, “ethnic-cleansing” has been associated with civil war and mass murder (understandably so). But this need not be the case. 1919 is a real example of successful ethnic redistribution—done by fiat, we should remember, but done peacefully.
The ideal I advocate is the creation of a White Ethno-State on the North American continent.

We must give up the false dreams of equality and democracy—not so that we could “wake up” to reality; reality is boring—but so that we can take up the new dreams of channelling our energies and labor towards the exploration of our universe, towards the fostering of a new people, who are healthier, stronger, more intelligent, more beautiful, more athletic.

And,

Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!”

That’s how Richard B. Spencer saluted more than 200 attendees on Saturday, gathered at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C., for the annual conference of the National Policy Institute, which describes itself as “an independent organization dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of  people of European descent in the United States, and around the world.”

Spencer has popularized the term “alt-right” to describe the movement he leads. Spencer has said his dream is “a new society, an ethno-state that would be a gathering point for all Europeans,” and has called for “peaceful ethnic cleansing.”

He thinks the march was “too weak”.

 

That the US President bows to their pressure is beneath contempt.

Spencer is said to be the person who created the term “alt right”, and is aligned with European Identitarians., although his call for a “white racial empire” is not widely, or publicly, shared on our continent.

Comrade Spencer Sunshine says,

SPENCER SUNSHINE: PROUD BOYS & THE RISE OF FAR RIGHT VIOLENCE

 

In this segment, I speak with Spencer Sunshine — researcher, journalist, activist, and political consultant regarding Far Right movements. Spencer discusses of the recent controversy surrounding Gavin McInnis, founder of the Proud Boys, and his invitation to speak at the Metropolitan Republican Club in New York City, in which a group of Proud Boys openly attacked protesters after the event. We discuss the lack of police interference in the beatings, and the overall trend in policing and law enforcement’s attitude toward Far Right movements in the US. We also discuss the differences and similarities between what has been defined as the “Alt-Right” and the “Alt-Lite,” and what these two camps of Far Right ideology have accomplished in the past year in the expansion and normalization of Far Right rhetoric and violence. We also discuss other strains of Far Right organization and ideology, including Joey Gibson and Patriot Prayer, as well the Left’s altogether lack of preparedness in addressing the looming threat posed by these groups.

 

Written by Andrew Coates

August 18, 2019 at 12:10 pm

The Resistible Rise of the National Populist Brexit Party.

with 5 comments

Nigel Farage, the Brexit Party and National Populism.

Last week Lewis Goodhall published a widely read piece,  Brexit: The conditions are ripe for the biggest backlash imaginable. The “referendum itself might be considered as mere prologue to the main populist act” the Sky political correspondent observed, “ultimately, the referendum will be best understood as the apotheosis of a eurosceptic battle, not as the populist war itself.” Attending a public meeting of the Brexit Party he observed, “I’ve never been to a Trump rally – but I imagine, from everything I’ve seen and heard – that what I experienced on the Fylde wasn’t a million miles away.”

Today opinion polls put the party that is standing in the European elections on the ‘simple’ programme of leaving the European Union with no withdrawal agreement is outperforming Labour and Conservatives combined.

The Observer reports today,

The Opinium survey for the Observer places the Brexit party on 34%, when people were asked how they intended to vote on 23 May, with Labour slipping to 21% and the Conservatives collapsing to just 11%. Ominously for Theresa May, support for the Tories at the European elections is now less than a third of that for Farage’s party, and below that for the Liberal Democrats, who are on 12%.

The Brexit Party was formally launched on the 12th of April. It is now standing candidates across the country for the 23rd of May contest and intends to run in the next General Election. Apart from the support from former Conservative Minister Anne Widdecombe and Annunziata Rees-Mogg the sister of leading Tory Brexiteer, Jacob Rees Mogg, the party attracted attention for the candidacies of former Revolutionary Communist Party members, Claire Fox, Alka Sehgal Cuthbert, James Heartfield and Stuart Waiton now contributors to the Trump admiring libertarian Spiked. George Galloway, former leader of the ‘socialist’ Respect, endorsed the list. A microscopic group the Communist Party of Great Britain-Marxist Leninist, has joined in, calling for support and the hardest Brexit possible.

Matthew Goodwin, the author with Roger Eatwell of National Populism (2018) considers that the Brexit Party indicates that Farage’s party shows that in Britain  “political de-alignment’ is underway. With some echoes of Trump’s support, the Brexit Party is part of the rise in Europe national populist parties. There are conflicts over “values”, “Brexit is certainly one of them but there are many others such as immigration, terrorism, refugees, climate change, minority rights and the steady advance of social liberalism.” Goodwin concludes that this “is also coinciding with a breakdown of tribal loyalty to the main parties, which is making it easier for new populists and other challengers to break through.” (1)

In 2014 Christophe Gilley (Le Crépuscule de la France d’en haut) developed a similar theme. The tribune of la France “périphérique”, the ‘left behind” zones away from the globalised metropolises, asserted that political disaffection led to the “marronage” (on the model of the runaway slaves called ‘maroons’ who established their own free communities in the Caribbean) of the “popular” classes from traditional political parties. For the author voting for (what was then) the Front National indicated defiance of the “modèle mondialisé” (2)

National Populism.

National Populism is a sketch of these populist parties, largely centred on Europe. From UKIP, the French Front National (now Rassemblement National) – never in government – to President Trump, Orban’s Hungary, Matteo Slavini’s  Lega in Italy, the Freedom parties in the Netherlands and Austria.

To explain their growth the book begins with some reasonable sounding phrases, concern at  “rapid ethnic change” a fear of relative deprivation, under the effects of  “neoliberal globalisation” (whose economics are not explored). It continues with the perceived threat of  “ethnic destruction” as the springboard for the National Populist demand for “national independence and identity”. The book ends with this claim, “We do not think the term “racism” should be applied solely because people seek to retain the broad parameters of the ethnic base of country and its national identity, even though this can involve discriminating against outside groups.” (3)

Goodwin’s earlier study of UKIP (with Robert Ford) described Farage’s old party as appealing to “the ageing, shrinking and left behind white working class” which Labour had ignored in its “modernising” years under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. This continues to another sweeping generalisation, “White working class voters no longer saw Labour as a party sensitive to their concerns but as part of the problem.” (4)

It is too early to map the sociology of the Brexit Party. Or to indicate to what degree ‘ethnic’ issues motivate its supporters. But perhaps Goodhall offers a clue. In an outline of the pro-Brexit forces from an after the Referendums, he states, “It was not so much people versus elites but a clear coalition of wealthy and poor, connected and isolated, northern and southern. Far from an outsider clique, its campaign leaders were senior cabinet minister The Brexit Party’s message is simple and familiar: they took your country from you, now they’ve taken your democracy too. And “they” are the elites, those who hate the culture of the people, the values of the people, the democracy of the people.”

A central feature of the Brexit Party itself has yet to be examined. It is, in the mould of a number of new European populist parties, not just Leader dominated but entirely the property of one Nigel Farage. It is, he says, “a company not a political party“. This is in many senses a trait not just of right wing populists. Farage’s rival French President Emmanuel Macron’s La République en Marche, was created like a business ‘start up’ and has only a gestural internal life. La France insoumise of Jean-Luc Mélenchon, is a “movement” a “un lieu de Rassemblement” that is a rallying point, with no competing internal platforms. Policies are decided on-high and then approved by E-Mail. As quickly as anybody who displeases the owner of the Brexit Party critics of Mélenchon discover that they are out on a limb. (5)

Farage’s outfit is everything but the creation of the ‘left behind’ the peripheral regions, the downtrodden working class. It has nothing in common with the British labour movement, created by workers themselves. It is the spin of ponces working in offices on the model of Trump and his alt-right communication specialists – a milieu Farage, along with finance capital, is intimately linked with. It is, and in this we agree with Goodwin, if nothing else, it is national populist, putting their idea of the nation above everything else, against the “non-people”, the rootless cosmopolitan internationalists. That is, it is against the left, the labour movement, and democratic politics.

Betrayal

The Brexit Party has one main story, that of ‘Betrayal”. Apart from the hard-right media, such as the Express, this is promoted by the former leftists of Spiked,  “This betrayal narrative” states Chris Gilligan “that Spiked share with Farage, George Batten (UKIP’s new leader) and Tommy Robinson (former figurehead of the far-right English Defence League (EDL), and currently an ‘adviser’ to UKIP), is a recurring theme in Spiked commentary on Brexit.” Spiked itself boils it down to demanding democracy against the willful manipulations of pro-EU politicians. (6)

This portrayal of the Brexit issue as a conflict between the “democracy of the people” and the treacherous ‘Oligarchy’ may be hard to shape by advocates of Left-wing populism. Chantal Mouffe has spoken of how all demands for democracy could be taken up by the left, may find hard to reshape in their own image. The Brexit Party has, if nothing else, a “strong libidinal investment” in its national “form of identification”. Jean-Luc Mélenchon declares in an interview with El pais this week, that he continues to consider himself not in terms of left and right but in relation to ” “El pueblo y la oligarquía” , the people (against) the oligarchy Jean-Luc Mélenchon ( “Los tratados de la UE niegan a Francia sus necesidades”). But only under 10% of French voters identify with his rally as part of the People. (7)

The difficulty becomes all the more acute in that a large part of the British left, inside or outside the Labour Party has not stood up for the democracy of the peoples, a project to work with the rest of the European left to transform the European Union. There have been feeble attempts to ignore the need to confront Farage, and describe the British divisions over Brexit as a conflict between “two” rival nationalisms. Rhetoric about ‘elites’ may not have reached the paranoiac delirium of Jaun Banco’s recent Crépuscule and its attack on the “imperium” of the “oligarchie parisienne”. But we have seen in the Full Brexit (which brings together Communist Party of Britain members and Spiked writers, including the Brexit Party candidate James Heartfield), and in the writing of New Left review contributor, Wolfgang Streeck, a willingness to indulge the fantasies of the hard-right about a European Empire.  (8)

Is it any wonder that the Weekly Worker prints this last Friday,

The second important motion debated concerned LAW’s attitude to the European elections – especially in view of George Galloway’s call to support the right wing Brexit Party on May 23. Perhaps surprisingly, this had been met with various degrees of approval from some Lexiteers, including comrades on LAW’s unofficial Facebook group.

Can the Labour Party’s European election campaign “unite” both sides of the Brexit debate? Given the issues discussed here, nothing is less probable. The Brexit Party is more than a virtual ballot box and Net operation: it has tapped into public opinion. Only a sustained effort to uproot them, to face them down with an internationalist pro-European stand, and work to expose their hard right, anti-popular politics, can build the electoral coalition to defeat them. If need be street action against the Brexit Bullies may be called for.

Today,

Nigel Farage has meltdown on Andrew Marr accusing him of ‘worst interview ever’.

Nigel Farage flew into a rage at Andrew Marr during a heated exchange, accusing the BBC presenter of ‘the most ridiculous interview ever’. Farage grew increasingly incensed throughout the interview after Marr repeatedly brought up a series of controversial comments the Brexit Party leader had said in the past. He was asked whether he still supported ‘replacing the NHS with a private insurance based system’ and also whether he still believed global warming was the ‘stupidest thing in human history’. The Brexit Party leader also appeared to forget he had advocated a second referendum on membership of the EU, after telling Marr that conducting one would be ‘the ultimate betrayal’. Marr proceeded to play a clip from January 2018, where Farage said ‘we should have a second referendum’. Growing increasingly frustrated, he told Marr: ‘Do you want to discuss these European elections or not?

*****

  1. Are these the last gasps of our old political order? Matthew Goodwin. Unherd. 5th of May.  See also his: The end of trust in our political class

  2. Page 174. Christophe Gilley Le Crépuscule de la France d‘en haut 2017 (2014)

  3. Page 75 National Populism. The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy. Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin. 2018.

  4. Page 133. Revolt on the Right. Explaining Support for the radical Right in Britain.  Robert Ford and Matthew Goodwin. 2014.
  5. À propos du mouvement «La France insoumise». Mélenchon. “ les processus de « démocratie interne » sont également à l’œuvre. Mais dans le mouvement, on s’efforce de ne jamais en faire un sujet de conflictualité interne. Il n’y a donc pas de « majorité », de « minorités », pas de plateformes concurrentes, pas d’orientation générale opposée les unes aux autres. Autrement dit : le mouvement se soucie d’abord d’être inclusif et collectif davantage que formellement « démocratique », sachant à quelles violences et dérives conduisent les soi-disant pratiques « démocratiques » organisées par les règlements intérieur des partis traditionnels. Le mouvement n’a qu’une référence idéologique commune a tous ses membres : le programme.
  6. Brexit and ‘left’ cover for Farage and UKIP by Chris Gilligan
  7. Page 71. For a Left Populism. Chantal Mouffe. Verso. 2018.
  8. Wolfgang Streeck – The European Union is a liberal empire, and it is about to fall

Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) joins the Red-Brown Front.

with 5 comments

Image may contain: text

The harder the Brexit, the more the imperialists will be set back.

Galloway, Farage and the Brexit party

British workers are set to keep demanding Brexit at the upcoming EU elections.

There’s a parallel in the ‘unpardonable to stand with Farage’ line with that taken by many commentators and ‘historians’ who condemned the USSR for ‘standing with Hitler’ or, conversely, ‘standing with Churchill’ during WW2. In fact, the USSR stood with neither; she stood with the workers of the USSR and of all countries. But the tactical alliances she made enabled the Soviet Union to vanquish her mighty imperial enemies.

Brexit, as the CPGB-ML has emphasised since the beginning of the debate leading up to the referendum (in which 17.4 million voted to leave the EU, as opposed to 16.1 million who voted to remain), hurts European, British and US imperialism alike.

The harder the Brexit, the more the imperialists will be set back. Yes, some privileged workers will find that their privileges come under threat from this outcome, but that’s the way the winds of capitalist economic crisis are blowing in any case.

The CPGB (M-L) does not hesitate to cite the mouthpiece of the social-imperialists, RT…against ‘imperialism’.

This farrago continues:

Farage, like that other disrupter US president Donald Trump, may not realise that Brexit is against the broader interests of imperialism, but most of the other imperialists do.

What we are seeing on a global scale, decried as ‘populism’ by imperialist representatives and as a ‘massive shift to the right’ by the imperialist ‘left’ (social democrats, Trotskyites and revisionists), is, in fact, massive disillusionment with the effects of imperialist economic crisis and war, and consequently the established politics of imperialism.

It is the beginnings of a revolutionary temper among the masses, and only our weakness organisationally prevents communists from drawing mass support from this righteous anger and becoming a major force in British political life. This can change, but only if we adopt the correct attitude towards the working class’s desertion of the bourgeois parties: we must embrace it!

The CPGB-ML have thus decided to side with the vehicle of the most reactionary fraction of finance capital (the Brexit Party) against the working class and socialist movement.

Their modestly titled “tactical alliance” with national populists, dreamers of the British Empire, and self-serving free-market nationalists, excldues them from the left and all progressive forces.

It is to be hoped that their presence at any left or trade union event will be met with an appropriate response.

Here is their banner:

A useful history of red-brown alliances is given in this article.

An Investigation Into Red-Brown Alliances: Third Positionism, Russia, Ukraine, Syria, And The Western Left  (Anonymous)

This is particularly relevant.

The start of the Occupation of the Ruhr by France and Belgium in 1923, meant to force Germany to continue paying war reparations, however threatened this cooperation and resulted in rising nationalism in Germany, especially among the working class, and the Comintern subsequently pushed for cooperation between the Communists and the ultra-nationalists. In June 1923 Radek gave a speech to the Enlarged Executive Committee of the Comintern praising Leo Schlageter, a far-right Freikorps member who together with his unit joined the NSDAP in 1921 and engaged in sabotage against the French forces occupying the Ruhr before being executed by them in May 1923. This was a followed by a period of cooperation between the KPD and the Nazis against the Versailles Treaty during which KPD member Ruth Fischer infamously attacked “Jewish capital” in an attempt to appeal to Nazi students, and the KPD’s newspaper reprinted articles by members of the German far-right such as Arthur Moeller van den Bruck even as its rank and file members were fighting against fascists on the streets.

Radek notably declared,

I believe that the great majority of the nationalist-minded masses belong not to the camp of the capitalists but to the camp of the workers. We want to find, and we shall find, the path to these masses. We shall do all in our power to make men like Schlageter, who are prepared to go to their deaths for a common cause, not wanderers into the void, but wanderers into a better future for the whole of mankind; that they should not spill their hot, unselfish blood for the profit of the coal and iron barons, but in the cause of the great toiling German people, which is a member of the family of peoples fighting for their emancipation.

Known as the ‘Schlageter’ line this is ultimately the basis, a common interest between nationalists and national Bolsheviks, which is the ground of the CPGB (M-L)’s position.

It is not to be expected to have any real effect.

Except….by spreading political confusion it will undoubtedly contribute to the growth of the far-right.

Written by Andrew Coates

May 8, 2019 at 11:14 am

Claire Fox (ex-Revolutionary Communist Party and former Warwick Uni student) to stand for far-right Brexit Party.

with 4 comments

Image result for claire fox Brexit party

Class Enemies Hobnobbing. 

I am a former student at Warwick University.

In our days in the 1970s we had an International Marxist Group (IMG) member as President of the Student Union.

You do tend to keep in touch with what’s happened in your old manor.

Just after I left I learnt that a group, which became the Revolutionary Communist Party,  had a base at Warwick.

Their publications indicted that they were far-left. I knew them from the days when they were the RCT (Revolutionary Communist Tendency) and used to shout at us lot in the IMG, for not being real Marxists.

Step forward this type.

 

Claire Fox:

Fox was born to Irish Catholic parents John Fox and Maura Cleary and is the older sister of Fiona and Gemma Fox.[2] After attending St Richard Gwyn Catholic High Schoolin FlintNorth Wales, she studied at the University of Warwick where she graduated with a lower second class degree (2:2) in English and American Literature.[

A mate of mine when I visited the area,  said, “they are not left-wing, they are a cult”.

He was still at Warwick, and like me, on the hard left, had a loathing for her and her friends like venom.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Written by Andrew Coates

April 24, 2019 at 12:20 pm