The Red and the Brown

I have not yet commented on the death of the journalist Paul Foot, but shall be posting in due course a review of his writings. As my conclusion is hostile, I'll leave more time to elapse before doing so - and will at this point acknowledge that I consider at least one of his political books to be prescient and valuable. In The Rise of Enoch Powell, published in 1969, Foot did a fine and original job in dissecting the record of a vastly overrated politician, and his overall judgement of the man could scarcely be bettered. Alluding to Powell's speeches on immigration and race over the previous year, Foot stated:

The truth was that this 'austere' politician, who over more than twenty years of public life had established for himself a reputation for altruism and integrity, had embarked on one of the most dangerous and opportunist escapades in the history of British politics.

Beyond that, having little favourable to say, I shall say little more for the moment. But it is always sad to find a stylish writer reduced to enervating and unintentionally comic prose of the type required by a totalitarian ideology. (Try this, from Foot's brochure for the newly-established Socialist Workers' Party in 1977, Why You Should be a Socialist: "Lenin, the Bolshevik leader, is usually painted as a tyrant. In fact he was the opposite.") And for someone with a much-vaunted enthusiasm for English literature, it was striking how little of the canon he had read that challenged his political views.

In the many encomia that Foot has received, there is not quite an embarrassed silence about his activism for the SWP and its predecessors over 40 years but at least the sense that this was an idiosyncrasy founded on admirable qualities. He was a "passionately committed socialist of the old school", according to The Times; "part of the conscience of the Left", according to The Standard. It's probably therefore worth pointing out that the "socialism of the old school" that the SWP represents is not the democratic socialism of, say, Michael Foot or Fenner Brockway, still less the astringent anti-totalitarianism of Ernest Bevin or George Orwell, but Leninism. The Leninism of the SWP, moreover, is of a type that I consider deserves a more specific ideological description, and that is the subject of this post.

The obituaries also described Paul Foot as an anti-war campaigner, but this was not true. As I have pointed out before, the SWP - the moving force behind the Stop the War Coalition and the Respect Coalition - didn't so much object to the Iraq war as believe the wrong side won it. It explicitly favoured military victory for Saddam Hussein, a tyrant who modelled his regime on that of Nazi Germany. Party ideologue Paul McGarr wrote in Socialist Worker, 23 March 2003:

The best response to war would be protests across the globe which make it impossible for Bush and Blair to continue. But while war lasts by far the lesser evil would be reverses, or defeat, for the US and British forces. That may be unlikely, given the overwhelming military superiority they enjoy. But it would be the best outcome in military terms.

Allying with tyranny in preference to supporting the western democracies is, of course and unfortunately, hardly novel for the far Left. But I want to argue something more. The SWP stands in a more specific and identifiable position of far-Left support for fascism. There are innumerable historical instances of where the term 'fascist Left' has become a literal and not merely metaphorical description. Not only Mussolini, but the French statesman and arch-collaborator Pierre Laval was a pro-Lenin and anti-war socialist in 1914-18. Laval's compatriot the Communist leader Jacques Doriot founded a pro-Nazi and antisemitic party in the 1930s, and was the political mentor of John Amery, the British traitor (and son of the Cabinet Minister Leo Amery) hanged after the war. German Communists actively supported the Nazis in the Prussian referendum of 1931 and the transport strike of 1932. Between 1929 and 1933 the Japanese Communist Party (including members of the Central Committee of the Comintern) adopted en masse the doctrines of race and nation.

Regular readers of this blog may recall a long series of posts last year in which I discussed the neo-Nazi ideology of the terrorist Left associated with the Red Army Fraction in Germany in the 1960s and 1970s. Again, I mean 'neo-Nazi' literally: there are few other terms adequate to describe those who bombed a Berlin synagogue on the anniversary of Kristallnacht in 1969 in order to protest against Israeli policies, or who supported the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games three years later. The principal leftist spokesman who extolled the Munich massacre, Horst Mahler, is these days a spokesman for the far-Right party National Democratic Party, which the German government recently (and unsuccessfully) tried to ban on suspicion of its being implicated in the firebombing of the homes of Turkish immigrants.

I thought I knew Mahler's political history well, but a new book, Bringing the War Home - a study of the revolutionary violence in the US and Germany in this period - by the American historian Jeremy Varon, has taught me something I didn't know. Mahler had another political incarnation before becoming an overt Nazi:

Horst Mahler broke with the [Red Army Fraction] in 1974 and affiliated with traditional Marxism-Leninism.... Mahler ultimately lumped terrorism with unemployment, alcoholism, drug addiction, and criminality as expressions of a society in crisis. Far from being the "cure" for capitalism's pathologies, the RAF was itself one of capitalism's pathologies.

It is my considered view that the SWP is best described as a fascist party of the Left, even without taking into account the Islamist connections that have brought the party such scorn on the liberal Left. It has, moreover, a striking characteristic in common with the far Right: an increasingly overt antisemitism. I am indebted to a correspondent who has brought to my attention a recent instance of this campaigning. The SWP'S recent jamboree, Marxism 2004, was graced by the presence of someone billed as "acclaimed jazz musician Gilad Atzmon". Atzmon was interviewed in Socialist Worker last month under the heading "Zionism is My Enemy", and very predictable he was too:

GILAD ATZMON wanders on stage in Brighton tugging on a customary cigarette. "Smoking kills," he announces. "But Blair kills more." On clarinet or saxophone, Gilad is now among the top UK-resident jazz musicians, winning awards and plaudits from all corners. Last year his Exile album won both the Radio 3 and Time Out awards for jazz album of the year. But Gilad's fearless tirades against Zionism-the ideology behind the Israeli state-have cost him in terms of lost gigs and constant vigilance about personal security. He describes his composition "Jenin" as a warning to what he calls "the BBS axis of evil"-Bush, Blair and Sharon. "I want to see the world as a BBS-free zone. I am working towards that aim," he says.

The interview concludes with a common euphemism for the destruction of the Jewish state, ardently wished for by this former Israeli reservist:

As to the future of Palestine, Gilad has no doubts over the way forward. "Only one way round this problematic issue. One-state solution," he says. "In other words, full equality and a conclusive right of return for the Palestinian people."

Socialist Worker helpfully appends the information:

Gilad Atzmon will speak and perform on Tuesday 13 July at the Marxism 2004 festival and conference in London. You can find out more about his life and work at his website.

Well, here is Atzmon's web site. If you go to the selection of articles under the heading 'Politics', it will take your breath away. Here is Atzmon "review[ing] some current typical Zionist arguments" (emphasis added):

Zionists complain that Jews continue to be associated with a conspiracy to rule the world via political lobbies, media and money. Is the suggestion of conspiracy really an empty accusation? The following list is presented with pride in several Jewish American websites. [There follows a list of Jewish members of the Bush administration.]

Let me assure you, in Clinton's administration the situation was even worse. Even though the Jews only make up 2.9 per cent of the country's population, an astounding 56 per cent of Clinton's appointees were Jews. A coincidence? I don't think so.

We have to ask ourselves what motivates American Jews to gain such political power. Is it a genuine care for American interests? Soon, following the growing number of American casualties in Iraq, American people will start to ask themselves this very question.

Since America currently enjoys the status of the world's only super power and since all the Jews listed above declare themselves as devoted Zionists, we must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously. It is beyond doubt that Zionists, the most radical, racist and nationalistic Jews around, have already managed to turn America into an Israeli mission force. The world's number one super power is there to support the Jewish state's wealth and security matters. The one-sided pro-Zionist take on the Israeli­ Palestinian conflict, the American veto against every 'anti-Israeli' UN resolution, the war against Iraq and now the militant intentions against Syria, all prove beyond doubt that it is Zionist interests that America is serving. American Jewry makes any debate on whether the 'Protocols of the elder of Zion' are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews do try to control the world, by proxy. So far they are doing pretty well for themselves at least. Whether the Americans enjoy the deterioration of their state's affairs will no doubt be revealed soon.

I am thick of skin and firm of constitution, but I find myself almost physically sickened by sentiments like these. According to this man, there is a Jewish conspiracy to control the world that accords with the notorious forgery The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. And to him, the authenticity of the Protocols is a matter of "debate"!

In discussing Jewish concerns about the Mel Gibson film on the passion of Christ, Atzmon makes it clear who the trangressor is: it's the Jews, who are once again crucifying Jesus:

Perhaps the Zionist tendency to associate themselves with their ancestors can help us to understand the oppression and the atrocities against the Palestinian people in terms of a repetition of Christ's via dolorosa, the way of suffering. Apparently the Palestinian people are today's Jesus....

Mr. [Abram] Foxman [of the Anti-Defamation League] realises very well that such an interpretation of Gibson's film will lead western people towards some rethinking. A pang of conscience towards the Palestinians['] misery is inevitable. I would guess that Mr. Foxman and his Zionists allies realise that the artificial myth of Judo-Christian [sic] companionship is about to collapse. Again, it isn't that surprising. A brief reading of the history of those rival beliefs reveals a story rich in bitter conflicts. We are talking here about two distinct worldviews. The differentiation is clearly reflected in the quotes above [from Foxman and Gibson]. While Foxman's reaction is pretty precise, addressing the favourite Jewish topic of economy of hatred, Christianity as it is reflected in Gibson's response is all about "love for each other".

There's more. Much, much more. But you get the idea. My correspondent who drew this stuff to my attention makes the following apt point:

Would an organisation, or a publication, that wasn't anti-Semitic interview someone like this without ever once drawing attention to these views, other than to describe them as "fearless"? No, is my guess.

Mine too, but you can draw your own conclusions.

Comments

[James M]

All the jazz magazines cited plainly refer to Atzmon's thoughts on politics. It should equally be self-evident from all the links posted by myself and others that the SWP is resolutely opposed to antisemitism; I do not know the position of Jazzdimensions, Jazz CDs and Jazz Reviews et al, and it may be instructive to find out. It is, of course, strange that you post a request for an apology onto your blog, rather than emailing Socialist Worker directly. (My apologies, in turn, if you have already contacted the paper.)

"Presumably the party has been too busy agitating for the banning of the Manchester University Jewish Society to examine the matter so far...": notice the misleading present tense when the alleged event you now refer to took place in 1996. The SWP is not trying to ban Manchester University Jewish Society - and, as far as I am aware, has never tried to do so.

[Oliver Kamm]

Your evasions have the merit of unintended humour. Jazz magazines are interested in jazz. Socialist Worker, on the other hand, secured Atzmon as a speaker and praised his 'fearless' activity because of his politics. So far from being 'resolutely opposed to antisemitism', it gave antisemitism a puff piece in the newspaper. Now the paper apparently needs to be prodded into a condemnation of the man's sentiments by a hostile third party: some 'resolute opposition to antisemitism' that is. What the paper needs to do is publish an editorial apologising for having promoted an antisemitic bigot's political views, and having had him speak from the party's platform. It hasn't done so yet, funnily enough. How many will lose their jobs over this affair, do you imagine? What disciplinary action will be taken - or is it an understandable mistake not to have realised that antisemitic conspiracy theories might be a tad embarrassing?

I note your further evasions on Jew-banning without surprise. Rather than condemn the SWP for its initial attempt to ban the Jewish Society at Manchester and its subsequent and current joint activity with the Islamic Society to attempt the same end by a more circuitous route (i.e. get Zionism condemned as racism in order to lay the ground for a ban founded on the 'racism' claim), you protest unfamiliarity with your own party's activities. On that point at least, I believe you.

[James M]

Atzmon made no antisemitic claims in the interview he gave for Socialist Worker; likewise for numerous other interviews he has given for various magazines, many of which also note his website, presumably also in good faith. The SW interview could hardly then be construed as a "puff piece" for antisemitism, the sole grounds for your claim being a reference to Atzmon's website. As has been made perfectly clear now on several occasions, the SWP is explicitly opposed to antisemitism: it is less obvious that numerous jazz publications are, and your incuriousity here is disconcerting. As I suggested, your time may be usefully spent enquiring.

I note that you have failed to correct your misleading use of the present tense when referring to supposed attempts by the SWP to ban the Jewish Society at Manchester University. You made a specific claim about an incident in 1996, which you now reinforce with an insinuation. The specific incident allegedly took place nearly a decade ago, whilst the insinuation can be dismissed as such: you evidently believe there to be a plot or conspiracy of some sort, but present no clear or verifiable claims as to its existence. The use of the present tense is therefore unwarranted.

However, and to repeat: as far as I am aware, the SWP has never tried to ban a Jewish Society at any University. I say this on the basis of a familiarity with the party's activities over the best part of a decade, and a familiarity with its politics more generally; I add "as far as I am aware" since it seems impolite to bluntly suggest you are misinformed.

[Oliver Kamm]

Not so much impolite as ignorant. It has tried on numerous occasions to do so but has always, barring one occasion, been beaten back - hence its current attempts to effect the identical end by a two-stage process. The one exception to its record of defeat was the banning - proposed by an SWP member of the student union executive - of the Jewish Society at Sunderland Polytechnic in 1985. I cite that instance because whereas unsuccessful motions don't typically generate publicity, this is a case of anti-Jewish activism attributable to the SWP that is not open to differing interpretation, where the facts of the matter are easily verifiable, and where the initiative itself came from the party rather than being a line of another antisemitic campaign that the SWP supported. I suggest you gain the familiarity with SWP politics that you erroneously claim already to possess and perhaps ought to have procured before signing up to the party.

Socialist Worker commended Atzmon for his 'fearless' political activities. His political activities are antisemitic. Where's the apology and retraction in the paper?

[James M]

"Ignorant" is indeed a word that springs to mind, tough perchance the context is different: once more, the SWP has not tried to ban Jewish Societies. It does not seek and has not sought to do so. It is not policy. There is no plot or conspiracy.

I am glad you have dropped the silly accusations about Manchester, which - having bothered to check - I am now quite certain are somewhat distanced from the truth; I cannot vouch for individual SWP members' activities, but I assume Sunderland will turn out likewise, not least your suggestions as to "party policy" and a concerted party effort.

It would seem you have once more failed to contact both Socialist Worker and, more seriously, assorted jazz periodicals that (unlike Socialist Worker) seem uncritical of Atzmon's political views. He made no antisemitic claims in his SW interview, and presumably did not make any in many others: taken in good faith, there were no grounds on the basis of his interview to leave him condemned. However, whilst we know Socialist Worker opposes antisemitism, we cannot as yet definitely say the same about the rest. (I do not believe they are antisemitic, but this is unconfirmed.) I am increasingly worried by your lopsided concerns: an evidently anti-racist publication is tarried, but you seem prepared to leave many other publications unmolested. Again, I would advise you to contact the magazines involved and detail your concerns to them.

[e.a.]

Where's the retraction of the following (random) articles?

http://www.swp.ie/socialistworker/1999/sw107/socialistworker-107.htm#6

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=540

The anti-semitic SWP are surely remiss in allowing such stuff to be published under its name, perhaps Mr Kamm should write to them and draw the party's attention to this oversight. This debate is frankly a farce. If you want to know what a party thinks, there are plenty of official statements of policy and you don't need to trawl through stray articles on Jazz in the hope of finding material for defamation. If I want to find out about Labour party policy I don't investigate the activities of their student Union contingent, I don't read between the lines of some article on music or football in the party paper.. but perhaps Mr Kamm is a deconstructionist, reading the margins, the gaps, the letter rather than the spirit. And perhaps not.

[Oliver Kamm]

No, you haven't checked, and your general haziness regarding your party's activities suggests that perhaps you didn't take due care and pay due attention when signing up. If you want to post on this site you should have the courtesy not to waste everyone's time in this way.

One last time, for your benefit. The SWP has periodically tried to ban Jewish societies from university campuses; it succeeded in doing so at Sunderland Polytechnic in 1985 (the student body at my own college sent a letter of protest). The SWP attempted the same course at Manchester University in 1996 and is now returning to promote antisemitic motions in concert (since 2002) with the university Islamists. These activities are easily verified, despite your unwillingness to go about the task. Your belief that antisemitic conspiracy theories are all a bit of a giggle persuades me that there is little to be gained by pursuing this exchange further.