The use of terms such as "left", "right" and "centre have always been at the heart of describing the views of politicians or the parties to which they belong. Add the term "far" and the in general indication is that of political extremism. Most of us have been accustomed to viewing politics from this perspective.
Enter the rise of new political movements that at first sight confirm the traditional terminology and the Corbyn supporting Momentum organisation and others of it's ilk are immediately seen as "left-wing" whilst other formations such as For Britain a breakaway from UKIP is seen as "far-right".
Trouble is in practice both groups defy the traditional analysis used by political commentators. This was particularly brought home to me tonight when looking down the list of "recommended sites on my blog I noticed something odd. Both Spiked! and Sharia Watch had were using the same title for their latest offerings which happens to be So now we're allowed to get angry about terrorism which turned out to be an article about the bombs sent to Democratic politicians in the USA.
Thing is at first I thought they simply had come up with the headline independently. However it turned out that both websites were hosting the same article by Brendan O'Neill. At first this seems to be incongruous with either groups ethos.
Spiked! originated from a far-left organisation the Revolutionary Communist Party which gave up revolutionary politics in the nineties. Sharia Watch is the project of Anne Marie Waters who has transformed from Labour to UKIP and then For Britain, considered to be too far to the right which is why the UKIP leadership campaigned against Waters.
How is it that both can come together without conflict. Now Spiked! sells it's articles so it is possible that this was simply a straightforward financial transaction between the now quite contrarian Spiked! organisation and Sharia Watch but I think it goes much deeper than that.
Both groups fight for "free speech" and make this demand central to the work they do. Sharia Watch/For Britain demand the right to be critical of Islam in particular. Spiked just want to be able to tackle any issue they like in any way they see fit. Neither initial proposition is contrary to democratic discourse and I happen to agree with both.
The next question of course is how to go about using these issues in the political arena. Here are where divisions inevitably appear. But this example is only one of a growing number of contradictions that are beginning to appear on the British political scene.
The Labour Party has been taken over by hard left activists who promote amongst other ideological demands "anti-Zionism". Problem is that this has morphed over the years into both subliminal and arrant anti-Semitism as has been through a whole number of events that have rocked Labour for months on end.
Anti-Semitism is usually associated with the far-right, though was not entirely unheard of on the left, particularly in Bolshevik circles as Russian politics was thoroughly immersed in an anti-Semitic tradition. Even the Anarchist Bakunin was a rabid anti-Semite. Yet For Britain stands firmly against anti-Semitism as Anne Marie Waters video on the subject shows.
There is a strand of "fascist" ideology referred to as "Strasserism" that covers much of what the new left activists on the block demonstrate in practice if not in theory. Unlike either the "libertarians" of Spiked! or the anti-Islamists of For Britain they do not uphold the concept of free speech. The various strands of the "new left" are "no-platforming" anyone with whom they take a dislike.
Photo: By Ben Schumin
Most obvious is the actions of trans-activists and their allies in student unions in ensuring that women such as Germaine Greer do not get an opportunity to speak on their university campuses or complain about the dictionary definition of a woman being "hate speech".
Another target has been the "Zionists" and quite often Jews regardless of their political affiliation have been referred to as "Zio's" by rabid anti-Zionists. Discrimination against Jews and Jewish organisations is more likely to come from the so-called left than from the almost dead far-right.
The Jewish community has become almost totally alienated from the left which used to be welded to the Labour Party. Instead the left has sought alliances with the very conservative Muslim community. This was seen in the Stop the War Campaign where the left aligned with the self appointed Muslim Council of Britain (which has never represented all Muslims in the UK) and via George Galloway in the ill-fated Respect Party project that united the far-left Socialist Workers Party with Bangladeshi businessmen and politicians particularly in areas like Tower Hamlets.
The left remains in alliance with the Islamic agenda through it's continual adoption of the "Arab agenda" which revolves around anti-imperialism and the desire to destroy Israel seen by the left as a "bastion of capitalism" in the Middle east. Should it fall then there own ruling classes will fall like dominoes. The Zionist state therefore must be destroyed. The Palestinian cause is central to every left-wing outfit.
Theories about an "international Zionist conspiracy used to arise from the far-right. The Protocols of Zion a hoax perpetrated by the Tsars secret police still gains attraction decades after it's publication was denounced as a fraud. One left group has even developed a theory of the "International Jewish Bourgeoisie" and fail to see that this is absolutely an anti-Semitic theory.
What was once the domain of the far-right has become central to the far-left. Politics have wheeled full circle as the two extremes find common ground yet still send foot soldiers to fight each other on the streets.
With so many people finding themselves politically homeless as a result of these developments along with a very strong antipathy towards politicians in general. "All the same they are", "only out for themselves" kind of reaction often heard from ordinary punters in their homes and workplaces shows that the future needs a different kind of politics to challenge the way we think and react to issue.
Political discourse is changing and the way we analyse events and reactions will need to change with it. Simply viewing politics through the kaleidoscope of of tradition will no longer be satisfactory.
For the time being the left will still see itself as the left but more and more people will see something different. A form of "red fascism" is on the horizon. Failure to recognise this will be dangerous to the survival of democracy.
The attacks on free speech is already happening. The future is upon us.
No comments:
Post a Comment