Naturally, there are degrees of opposition and antipathy. Given a choice between Bannonism with British characteristics and left Labourism, we know from recent experience how they always prefer the former to the latter. The politics of Johnson and Cummings, as empty as they are, is a familiar politics. A politics of the establishment and the elites, regardless of the populist spin it's given. Corbynism, for all its limitations, could have opened the door to a more popular politics by destabilising the received balance of class relationships. Yet despite this, they're still far from keen on Bannon. Why?
He's a crude racist and an unapologetic white supremacist. And, shudder, he's Catholic. The very antithesis of a particular brand of ruling class identity politics with its bourgeois internationalism, transatlanticism, EU cretinism, and affectations of progressive social values (ust don't expect them to act on them). Bannon with his straight forward racism holds a mirror up to their collective conscious and reminds them how their posture is built on hypocrisies. Their anti-racism was absent in the 00s when US and UK governments demonised and victimised Muslims, their solidarity was absent from anti-deportation and refugee support campaigns, and they cared for nothing as Theresa May sent her racist vans prowling around inner city London. They wrung their hands over the Windrush scandal and the Black Lives Matter protests, but can't bring themselves to offer a word of support for black MPs on the receiving end of racist abuse. On a basic level they know nothing essentially separates them from Bannon, who really believes his racism, and their own anti-racism which is deployed selectively.
And Bannon is also open about what politics is. It's a clash of interests, of power and privilege working on retaining their power and privilege against those who don't have it. Bannon identifies himself with the strong and favours so-called strong men and authoritarian governments as the natural and correct projection of strength, and is a-okay with scurrilous means if manipulation gets or is seen to get the desired result. He is the ultimate cynic in the most cynical game of all, and is unabashed about it. In their heart of hearts, liberal elites know this is true too. They are quite happy to crank up the smear machine and lie if they think their position is directly threatened, but the rest of the time they pretend fealty to honest debate, freedom of expression, polite discourse and reify them as values under threat from the unwashed to their left and right. Bannon is a reminder of their cant, an unwelcome interrupter to their great game who cares nothing for their liberal reticence and, again, shows them up for hypocrites. They hate him because he's rude and won't play up to their confected decency. This is why Bannon boils their piss.
Image Credit
«they're still far from keen on Bannon. Why? He's a crude racist and an unapologetic white supremacist. And, shudder, he's Catholic. The very antithesis of a particular brand of ruling class identity politics with its bourgeois internationalism, transatlanticism, EU cretinism, and affectations of progressive social values (just don't expect them to act on them). Bannon with his straight forward racism»
ReplyDeleteOh please, let's not make everything about "racism", it devalues an important problem, and issues of mere style like "They hate him because he's rude and won't play up to their confected decency" seem to me to have some relevance but not a lot.
Consider in the 1930s the sad case of nationalist/isolationist american "tories" as in the AFC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee and Senator Borah in the USA, accused like D Trump (and J Corbyn) have been of being a russian puppet etc. etc.
The issue is simple: Bannon is a nationalist tory (whatever his race opinions), all up for tory interests, and the "liberal democracy" "centrists" are globalist whigs (whatever their race opinions), enthusiastic for whig interests. It is an old story that is not really about race.
To paraphrase Bannon, 'the more the liberals talk about identity the more elections we win talking about economic nationalism.' Bannon's agenda is to allow the liberal left to fetishise identity politics, to bait them into focusing their attention on anything/everything other than the mechanics of capitalism. He's done his job well.
ReplyDeleteWhat an extraordinary exercise in third period Stalinism! Do you really think "liberals" are the main enemy and the populist (fascistsic) right is doing us a favour by exposing them?
ReplyDeleteNext it will be "After Bannon and Trump ...us!" (Actually, the CPB/Morning Star came close to that light over Johnson and Brexit).
There seems to be a distinct tendency on the contemporary left, to identify hostility to “liberalism” (sometimes also called “identity politics”, “bohemianism”, etc) as the mark of genuine, working class - even Marxist - socialism.
But Marx and Engels took a very different stance towards liberalism.
In September 1847, before they had even written the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels declared: “If a certain section of German socialists has continually blustered against the liberal bourgeoisie, and has done so, in a manner which has benefited nobody but the German governments… then the Communists have nothing in common with [them]”.
Marx and Engels rarely quoted their own earlier writings. They considered that article so important that they cited it again in 1865.
Breaking off collaboration with a socialist newspaper in Germany (launched in the tradition of Ferdinand Lassalle) because it hinted at an “alliance of the ‘proletariat’ with the ‘government’ against the ‘liberal bourgeoisie’…”, they referred to the 1847 article to explain why.
In the Communist Manifesto itself, Marx explained how his revolutionary socialism sought to go beyond and push through liberalism, rather than regressing back from it in deference to “common sense” and the alleged advantages of demagogically “social” authoritarians.
Socialists in the genuine Marxist tradition seek to build on the gains of liberalism to build an authentic and politically independent working-class party, which uses the footholds and leverage points provided by liberalism – not dismiss the gains of liberalism in favour of regressive pseudo-workerist posturing - or semi-defending Steve Bannon on the grounds that he's a "reminder of [liberals'] cant, an unwelcome interrupter to their great game who cares nothing for their liberal reticence and, again, shows them up for hypocrites. They hate him because he's rude and won't play up to their confected decency." That, frankly is third period bollocks.
"Bannon's agenda is to allow the liberal left to fetishise identity politics, to bait them into focusing their attention on anything/everything other than the mechanics of capitalism."
ReplyDeleteThis ploy can only work if we assume the masses are somehow knuckle dragging racists who have been infected with tabloid propaganda (god forbid).
Otherwise the masses would simply say:
"those liberal leftists have a good point, though have they thought about this, and this and oh this! Oh and by the way that Bannon is a fucking idiot, did you hear what he said!"
«to bait them into focusing their attention on anything/everything other than the mechanics of capitalism.»
ReplyDeleteOne of the bitter ironies is that not only racism is also part of the mechanics of capitalism, and perhaps elitism in general, but also that the identity politics form of anti-racism has been weaponized too to distract from those mechanics. Our opponents are clever, whether tory or whig.
«only work if we assume the masses are somehow knuckle dragging racists who have been infected with tabloid propaganda (god forbid).»
Some of them, but ultimately it is all back to deprivation and desperation inducing nasty behaviour. In a recent article by Tribune there is the story of how trade unions were complicit in discrimination as rec:
«On August 15 1966 the colour bar at Euston station and St Pancras goods station was defeated when Asquith Xavier, the West Indian guard initially refused a job, was finally allowed to start work. British Rail announced that after negotiations with local leaders of the National Union of Railwaymen (NUR) no grade would in future be closed on racial grounds anywhere in the London division. Before this, black workers had been barred from taking jobs as guards and porters at Euston Station and St. Pancras while Irish workers at Paddington were restricted to labouring roles in the goods yard. Similar restrictions applied at other stations.»
As to that note that “Irish workers at Paddington were restricted to labouring roles in the goods yard”, or N Kinnock's later speech “Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university?”.
Was that because the irish and welsh were black? Of course not. It was I reckon because if routes of escape from poverty and deprivation are all that is available, some of the victims of poverty and deprivation will use whatever excuse (and maybe even make the effort to believe it is not pure opportunism) to advance their own category at the expense of other victims of poverty and deprivation.
It never fails to make me laugh when that arch ultra ultra rightist Denham quotes Marx, as if he as anything to do with Marxist tradition!
ReplyDeleteSo here is the original famous last paragraph from the Communist Manifesto:
"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win."
And here is Denham’s version:
"Liberals say much on twitter. They openly declare their ends can be attained by tweaks to an already pretty fab system, thanks to the wonderful liberal bourgeoisie, without whom our freedom would not be possible. Let the conservatives tremble as we hand the liberal bourgeois power. The workers have gained much thanks to the liberal bourgeois but we can always strive to do better.
As liberals keep telling us, believe in yourself and anything is possible, the world is your oyster."
«Was that because the irish and welsh were black?»
ReplyDeleteAs to the varied history of "identity politics" some historical details:
* Colour discrimination was essentially unknown before the 16th century.
* The first slaves transported to American were irish.
* In classical antiquity most slaves were "white", for example here is
a complaint by Cicero about Caesar's adventure in Great Britain being
unlikely to yield profits as in silver or valuableslaves:
https://texts.alpheios.net/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi0474.phi057.perseus-lat1/passage/4.17.6-4.17.7
“a very copious letter from Caesar himself. The result of the war against Britain is eagerly awaited, for the approaches to the island are known to be 'warded with wondrous massy walls.' It is also now known that there isn't a shaving of silver on the island nor any prospect of loot apart from slaves, and I guess that you won't expect any of them to be trained in literature or music!“
BCFG: your quote from the Communist Manifesto (with which I heartily agree, btw) has nothing to do with what I wrote about Marx and Engels' real attitude to liberalism. I presume you simply cannot answer my point, because (self-evidently) you don't understand even the basics of Marxism.
ReplyDeleteYour point is what exactly Denham? I have read the article by Phil and it very concretely explains a problem as of August 2021 and how do you respond? By quoting Marx from 1847, as if that has anything to do with concrete issues right here right now.
ReplyDeleteIf you think saying Marx said something in 1847 and then said something similar 20 years later is an effective response to this article then you are an anti Marxist, anti scientific method idiot and simply resemble the religious fanatics you always moan about. If you think that level of argument passes for Marxism then you are a joke, it is even a bigger joke that you claim I know nothing about Marxism given your staggeringly idiotic arguments.
One problem with looking back to 1847 is that Bannon would have been considered part of the Liberal bourgeois back then! But time has moved on and this article hits the nail on the head.
Maybe Denham should reread the article and provide a better apology for his pro imperialism. I am tempted to say that Denham wants the labour movement to embrace the liberal bourgeois, neo liberalism and all, because he his himself a propagandist for them!
Anyway to quote you back, here is Engels:
“I have never seen a class so deeply demoralised, so incurably debased by selfishness, so corroded within, so incapable of progress, as the English bourgeoisie; and I mean by this, especially the bourgeoisie proper, particularly the Liberal, Corn Law repealing bourgeoisie. For it nothing exists in this world, except for the sake of money, itself not excluded. It knows no bliss save that of rapid gain, no pain save that of losing gold. In the presence of this avarice and lust of gain, it is not possible for a single human sentiment or opinion to remain untainted.”
BCFG: "In this way arose feudal Socialism: half lamentation, half lampoon; half an echo of the past, half menace of the future; at times, by its bitter, witty and incisive criticism, striking the bourgeoisie to the very heart’s core; but always ludicrous in its effect, through total incapacity to comprehend the march of modern history".
ReplyDeleteI thought that sums up people like you, BCFG, until I thought about it a bit more: after all your ignorant ahistorical comments can hardly be described as "witty and incisive", can they?
Denhams bullshit about economic nationalism is not in the Marxist tradition either.
ReplyDeleteReal Marxists, think of Anwar Shaikh as a good example, have pointed out that the big imperialist powers have always revolved around ‘protectionism’ and ‘free trade’ based on the needs of the ruling bourgeois at that point in time. So Britain was economically liberal when it could dominate competition and world markets but became protectionist when it couldn’t etc etc.
Denham, in that very bourgeois and anti Marxist way, simply thinks there are good bourgeois flying the flag of internationalism and bad bourgeois flying the national flag and that these ideologies are merely preference choices.
I don’t think Denham has ever read any serious writer in the Marxist tradition.
But he is very good at throwing around words like ahistorical, with no explanation of course! Feudal socialism, wtf? Seriously WTF?
It isn't 1847 and we are not confronted with the Landed bourgeois but a rapacious planet destroying and in the main liberal bourgeois.
They are the enemy, and the representatives of the liberal bourgeois such as Starmer, Blair, Clinton etc have shown themselves to be the enemy of the left. I mean how many witchhunts does it take to make that clear.
But Denham knows all this, because he is no leftist he is part of the ultra ultra right.
BCFC: " Feudal socialism, wtf? Seriously WTF?"
ReplyDeleteComrade: try actually reading the Communist Manifesto: you'll find all is explained.
Alternatively, I could send you a reading list for a basic Marxist educational programme - free of charge! You clearly need it, and I'd be happy to educate you.
"I could send you a reading list for a basic Marxist educational programme - free of charge! You clearly need it, and I'd be happy to educate you."
ReplyDeleteYou need help, no seriously, get help!
Maybe: but not from you, BCFG.
ReplyDeleteOf course, but knowing you need help is at least a start.
ReplyDeleteGo to a trained professional.