Search:

Last 3 Posts @ July 6, 2008 7:50:38 PM EDT

Field of Women (46 mins ago)

Wendy and I met other Labour women councillors and Maria Eagle MP today at Liverpool Cricket Club to take part in the creation of a giant woman called LUCY, created by...

Louise Baldock

Spinning Survey Data (55 mins ago)

As a short follow up to my recent review of the TUC's interesting pamphlet on democratising public services, I took a look at the CBI's press release demanding the pac...

Union Futures

A Little More Detail would be nice.. (59 mins ago)

I've got in a bit of a scrap defending Jill Saward over at Libcon, although the discussion has led me to raise a point about one of the pro Liberty arguments currently be...

Citizen Andreas

Thursday, April 17, 2008

'Britons fear race violence': draw your own conclusions - 7 comments

It's hard to know quite what to draw from this BBC/Mori poll. For one thing, I can't find any detailed breakdown of the statistics. Perhaps they aren't broken down at all, which would be a tremendous weakness.

The most obvious flaw is the conflation of race, nationality, and immigration. A backlash against immigrants presumably involves opposing nationalities, though it need not - generational and cultural factors also play a part, not to mention economic differentials. Racial differences might play a part too, but a lot of water has flown under the bridge since the assumption held that racist violence was the preserve of predominantly white working-class communities against immigrants from the Caribbean or Indian subcontinent. Such racism still exists, but hardly has anything to do with current patterns of immigration.

Another problem is the assumption, presumably stemming from an odd faith in Enoch Powell's ability to foretell the future, of a contrast between the 'shaky peace' of today, and some kind of future bloodbath. Yet violence between gangs that define themselves on racial, ethnic, or nationalist grounds is hardly unknown, even if it's usually restricted to already violent areas. The absence of the large-scale riots of years past is hardly proof that tension and hostility has been reduced, just perhaps of social atomisation - the groups themselves are smaller.

Racism, nationalism, and hostility to outsiders, are common to all human societies, and the greatest limitation on the development and progress of humanity, but I doubt there's been any serious diminution of these impulses in centuries, with the exception of some large cosmopolitan cities (researchers in this field who are professional enough not to write pieces off the tops of their heads are welcome to comment on this point). Disappointingly, internationalism is a truly tiny movement in the world, and I suspect that socialism in practice has had a thoroughly negative effect, certainly when compared with free markets.

It's nearly two years since I posted this, but the section I quoted from bowblog still sounds to me like the best strategy for maintaining social harmony without surrendering to bigots (my emphasis):
Our effort, in the wealthy world, (where, let's face it, immigrants are going to continue to arrive in large numbers if we're to remain wealthy) must go into improving the capacity of our reception communities [...], boosting the resilience of the bottom social tier, taking working class grievances seriously and easing the pressures produced by ineluctable change. The goal must be to build social solidarity, to neutralise the embitterment and disconnection that feeds the fascists.

Labels: , , , ,

7 comments so far...

At 1:02 AM, April 20, 2008, Blogger Copey86 said...

A weak analysis, dont get upset, hear me out. Racism is a form of psychological projection of negative qualities and of subjective fears, it serves as a form of externalisation. At its most base it is fear of the 'other'. However, your historical assumptions that racism is endemic and a natural as opposed to a historically conditioned social phenomenon are manifestly incorrect.

The first stage in the process of familairisation with a new and unusal thing is one of curiosity, the baby puts it in its mouth, the scientist in a spectral analyser, the white child looks on curious at the black man and so on. This is a universal reaction, racism, nationalism and so on are social constructs. The question to which we must turn then is what these constructs are, where their material foundations lie, and how to overcome them. In short what kind of society are we talking about here?

In short we are dealing with capitalist society, the capitalist mode of production, the conflict between competing nation capitals, competing nation states, competition for wages and private appropriation of the fruits of social labour. This is the foundation of our society, we must then find what it is about this form of the regulation of human affairs which gives rise to racism, nationalism and so on. The competition between workers for wages in the labour market in which they are sold to capital generates fear of unemployment, of poverty. The incoming of the 'other' allows for the previously mentioned externalisation of these concerns resulting from alienation under the capitalist mode of production. No one ever rioted about the free movement of capital leaving the masses unemployed, because that is the illusion of money, of the alienated labour of the class, wheras the movement of people is visible and tangible. You do not adress this, or even recognise this at all.

Instead we get mealey mouthed plattitudes about building 'social solidarity' amongst those layers of society where nationalism and racism are worst without dealing with their actual, material causes. The immigrants are not the cause of these manifestations of alienation, only the trigger. Telling people to feel solidarity in the abstract against the very real pressures of capitalist competition and the ideologies of competing capitalist nation states is patronising and dissmissive of all reality underlying these very problems. Social solidarity against what exactly? If it is against the causes of fear and alienation then it must be against the form of society that produces them - in short, against capitalism. Completely fudging the class issue, the capital issue, the competition issue, and trying to wish away the nasty fascists, while also ascribing to all humanity a 'natural' hatred of the unfamiliar is plain reactionary.

   
At 11:50 PM, April 20, 2008, Blogger Bloggers4Labour said...

Well, sure, my analysis of the roots of nationalism was hardly sufficient, but blogging encourages bad habits like this.

No, I certainly wouldn't like to say that nationalism, and especially not racism, are 'innate'. A certain amount of nationalism is surely a projection of one's attachment to one's own way of life, family, community, region, etc. Beyond that, though, there's the element of nationalism that is fostered by States (and State-builders, 'liberation movements', and so on).

Sadly, given that virtually all past socialist regimes have used State power extensively, either in an attempt to help the population from the centre, or to terrorise them, authoritarianism was always on the cards, and whether enemies happened to be foreigners, or domestic 'classes' the net result has always been the same.

It's ironic that capitalism can be accused of allowing nationalism to develop, given that it stands for the free movement of capital and labour - something no socialist regime has ever stood for - creates multinational entities, and is apparently also content for cultural differences to be eroded in favour of something bland and homogenised. What socialism has generally stood for is exchange/border controls, and has taken advantage of an *existing* nationalism as the swiftest route to power. Only with tremendous effort have former Communist countries, for example, been rescued from nationalism. Capitalist countries have, at times, followed the same course, but the one constant factor is not the economic system, but a lack of individual freedom and democracy.

There are plenty on the left who eschew nationalism, along with state control, but aim to find a way beyond capitalism too. Free market anti-capitalism does exist, and seems to me to be the best way ahead, but it's a minute element, barely recognised by mainstream Statist socialists. Why?

'Social solidarity' might seem like a platitude, but so would 'treat one another as they would treat you', even though it's a value that, however 'sentimental', and if taken on board en-masse, would revolutionise the world from the bottom up. What you appear to gain by imposing a value from the top down you lose in so many other ways.

   
At 1:05 AM, April 21, 2008, Blogger Copey86 said...

"Sadly, given that virtually all past socialist regimes have used State power extensively, either in an attempt to help the population from the centre, or to terrorise them, authoritarianism was always on the cards, and whether enemies happened to be foreigners, or domestic 'classes' the net result has always been the same."

??? Not sure quite how this counts as anything really meaningful. The Stalinist states fostered nationalism? Internal 'classes' in inverted commas? This is all bewildered and ahistorical stuff. The Stalinist ideology was one of 'socialism in one country', internationalism was substituted by nationalism by another name, just as the bureaucracy substitiuted the rule of the working class itself - this was all a consequence of the stalinist counterrevolution, quite what the ascendence of stalinism has to do with socialism or with nationalism under capitalism is beyond me. You ignore the social realities behind all this, just as their are national capitalist classes with their own state, army, police etc which are used in the interests of that class and that class state the soviet bureaucracy formed a 'national interest' of sorts with its own state, army , police and so on. Given that stalinism was a counterrevolution of course it was bloody - thats counterrevolution for you! Anyway, as I say, what this all has to do with racism/nationalism in capitalsim today still confounds me in its irrelevence!

"It's ironic that capitalism can be accused of allowing nationalism to develop, given that it stands for the free movement of capital and labour - something no socialist regime has ever stood for - creates multinational entities, and is apparently also content for cultural differences to be eroded in favour of something bland and homogenised."

Capitalism is not an ideology it is an economic system of the appropriation of the products of social labour by a private class who also have a state to exercise their interests - thus an ideology in general arises from this foundation, the latest part of which is postmodernity, along with the old classics like commodity fetishsim. Nationalism is again a historical/social phenomenon - the international unity of the working class would allow them to overcome national capitalist states - ergo capitalism does not push directly in this direction. However the coming of the world market did abolish distinctions between the rural and the urban one country and another - though not equally or at the same time, the law of combined and uneven development. This is not because capitalism is a unifying social force with regards to nationalism and racism, as I showed previously the material conditions in capitalist societites foster these, and in the case of the German ruling class and middle class in the 1930's supported the rise of hitler to crush the organised workers movement, Hitler would have been but a footnote in history had the capitalst class and state of germany not elevated him to the posisiton he attained. Historically and factually we thus have the constnat fostering, by virtue of material insecurity, inequality and class society, with outright support for nationalism if it supports the interest of the bourgeois state.

"'Social solidarity' might seem like a platitude, but so would 'treat one another as they would treat you', even though it's a value that, however 'sentimental', and if taken on board en-masse, would revolutionise the world from the bottom up. What you appear to gain by imposing a value from the top down you lose in so many other ways."

If it was taken on board. IF it was taken on board. If lots of things but lets deal with reality and with a concrete analysis of concrete conditions. This exemplifys the absolute poverty shown here, reduced to hoping that people in the world will become randomly nicer without any discernible cause! Solidarity, first of all let us define what we are talking about here and WHY and HOW people are to feel this, and then what the next logical motion from it would be shall we, as the 'solidarity; you talk about is undefined, is meaningless, is without cause or foundation. You just somehow hope people will feel it somehow, though you do not define what 'it' even is.

Again I emphasise what I said previously ,these problems - nationalism, racism- are real, are social, are historical - we must deal with them as such. Racism comes from alienation, alienation from capitalist competition, from wage labour and so on. Nationalism neutralises the working class by giving it a false ideology, a false interest with its capitalist state, it is a defensive mechanism for class rule -again see germany and the role of the bourgeoisie there.

   
At 7:20 PM, April 24, 2008, Blogger PaulinLancs said...

The notion of 'social solidarity' may indeed not be based on a sufficiently rigorous critique of the way the capitalist mode of production leads to the externalisation of the other and on to racism, but in its affective appeal to many people's deep rooted socialist convictions, it is at the very least least less status-quo enhancing than the current accepted wisdom of 'social cohesion' - a notion which entirely dismisses material causes of alienation in favour of a disturbing communitarian emphasis on the responsbilities of the 'others'.

See http://communityconfusions.blogspot.com/ for a much more eloquent setting out of this than I can manage

   
At 10:26 PM, April 25, 2008, Blogger Stewart Cowan said...

The article reads,

"Racism, nationalism, and hostility to outsiders, are common to all human societies"

And that is why the UK Government has a policy of mass immigration.

To create what Enoch Powell warned about and more.

To create divisions in society along racial, nationalistic and religious grounds and even where 'sexuality' is an issue.

I bet Mr Powell couldn't have seen that happening.

Anyway, while the people are fighting for their perceived 'rights' at the expense of some other group, the Government makes war, hands our sovereignty to the EU on a plate, authorises GM food trials and turns the country into one dumbed-down, amoral, cesspit.

But who cares about the big issues?

The homosexual lobby fights to try and force Christian adoption agencies to hand over children to homosexuals.

Pressure groups get set up to stop a mosque being built.

The English complain that the Scots and Welsh have cheaper prescriptions.

And all the while the Government gets an easy ride to walk over all of us regardless of race, religion or anything else.

That's why I created this website http://www.thelabourparty.org/index.htm but here's the rub...The Labour Party doesn't want you to know about it or me as they have been censoring my messages all day re. Ken Livingstone.

Vote Labour if you want to lose what freedom you have left and lose what decency remains in society and be afraid to speak your mind.

   
At 11:54 PM, April 25, 2008, Blogger Bloggers4Labour said...

Stewart,

I find your decision to impersonate the Labour Party's website a fairly shabby trick, one that sits ill alongside your adoption of a high moral tone. It's the action of someone - a dictatorial type - who believes the public owes them a hearing, one they've been unable to win through their own efforts. You might think I'm overreacting - ignoring the issues, even - but it does speak volumes.

Other evidence of a dictatorial streak is your professed desire to set the people free - but only free when it comes to your own political hobby-horses. Meanwhile, homosexuals are tarred with the brush of paedophilia; you seek to deny Europeans (us included) the ability to freely transfer their labour across the continent and work wherever they like; and you put the 'interests of Britain' above those of Iraqis who depend on our soldiers to prevent them being blown up by terrorists.

So, I think we'd disagree on a lot.

   
At 5:39 PM, April 26, 2008, Blogger Stewart Cowan said...

Bloggers4Labour....

I think we would disagree on a lot of things.

My website is not a trick, it is a 100% genuine attempt to make people think about the real issues.

Yes, I believe people owe me a hearing as much as your MPs and spinmeisters get a hearing.

Only they have the mainstream media to help them more often than not.

So why ignore the issues?

"homosexuals are tarred with the brush of paedophilia"

Why, because I didn't think Labour MP Chris "Captain Underpants" Bryant should be compiling a report on teaching sex to children.

I would think the same if it was anyone with a fetish for showing off their bodies on 'dating' websites.

You are trying to play the homophobic card which is typical of Labour: shabby!

"you seek to deny Europeans (us included) the ability to freely transfer their labour across the continent and work wherever they like"

Too true. Like most Britons and even immigrants, I don't want any more mass immigration.

Can't you see all the tension it causes. Labour knew this would happen - it's called divide and rule.

That's the shabby trick.

As for Iraq, Hans Blix, said that 'the responsibility for this spectacular tragedy must lie with those who ignored the facts five years ago.'

And I might add, shamelessly lied about it to the public.

And of course Dr David Kelly was murdered by MI5/CIA or else by Iraqi opposition operatives and covered up by UK police/MI5.

I am relieved that I do disagree with you.

I am a patriot - not for selling out to the EU and letting their unelected, petty, controlling, overpaid, corrupt bureaucrats ruin this country.

   

Post a Comment

<< Home

B4L Running Costs

£1,909.77 spent so far this year, which could be met by a donation of £3.77 per blogger.




Join the Labour Party
Sign the Euston Manifesto


Wikispaces