Having watched, pondered and re-watched Paxman’s interview with comedian Russell Brand on last night’s Newsnight, I’m still not sure what to make of it. My initial response was that Brand is a pretentious, incoherent idiot, spouting a lot of pseudo-revolutionary hot air and half-digested anarchistic platitudes. But several people I’ve spoken to today told me they were impressed by him. So I’ve watched it again and have to admit that, after a facetious start, he becomes more sympathetic as he gets angrier. But I still think he’s a prat – and a banal prat at that – and wonder what the hell the New Statesman is playing at, hiring him as a guest editor this week.
Judge for yourself…
…and feel free to let us know what you think.
The fifth and final part of Simon Schama’s The Story Of The Jews airs tonight [Sunday 29 Sept] at 9.00pm on BBC 2.
In my opinion this has been a superb series and one of the finest examples of so-called ‘popular history’ ever to have appeared on TV: accessible but not simplistic, personal but scholarly, and passionate whilst remaining objective.
Schama makes no secret of his Zionism – albeit a liberal, two-states Zionism that acknowledges the suffering experienced by the Palestinians. On screen he wears a yarmulke much of the time, and lets viewers know what his personal views are, up to and including a statement concluding with the rarely-heard (at least on the BBC) words ” … that’s why I’m a Zionist.”
This has enraged the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) who wrote a most revealing letter of complaint to the BBC, including the following:
“We also note the new BBC Two series The Story of the Jews, presented by Simon Schama. In an interview in the Radio Times (31 August-6 September), Schama describes himself as an ‘historian-Zionist’ and says he will be making ‘the moral case for Israel’ in the final episode of this five part series.
“We find it alarming that the BBC is giving a platform to an openly pro-Israeli commentator to make the ‘moral case’ for Israel. Schama’s views will go unopposed, unchallenged and unanalysed. This is a far cry from the balanced and impartial broadcasting that the BBC claims to champion.”
In other words, these people (who sometimes – especially when seeking trade union backing – claim to support two states) actually object to the idea of someone presenting the case for the very existence of Israel.
The final part of Schama’s series, tonight, deals with the creation of Israel and Jewish relations with the Palestinians and the Arab world, bringing the story up to the present. Watch it, judge for yourself how fair it is, and feel free to send us your thoughts.
NB: the BBC2 series is based upon Schama’s book of the same name, which we will be reviewing shortly.
Interestingly, this statement has been published in the UK by the Socialist Workers Party. We don’t agree with all of it, but (unlike much of the UK left) it is uncompromisingly anti-Assad, and includes the following slogans:
* No to all forms of imperialist intervention, whether by the US or Russia.
* No to the intervention of Hizbollah, which warrants the maximum of condemnation.
We Stand Behind the Syrian People’s Revolution – No to Foreign Intervention
Statement by Revolutionary Socialists (Egypt), Revolutionary Left Current (Syria), Union of Communists (Iraq), Al-Mounadil-a (Morocco), Socialist Forum (Lebanon)
More than 150,000 people have been killed, hundreds of thousands injured and disabled, millions displaced inside and outside Syria. Cities, villages, and neighbourhoods have been fully or partially destroyed using all sorts of weapons, including warplanes, scud missiles, bombs, and tanks—all paid for by the sweat and blood of the Syrian people. All this was done under the pretext of defending the homeland and achieving military balance with Israel—whose occupation of Syrian land is, in fact, being protected by the Syrian regime, which has failed to reply to its continuing aggression.
Yet, despite the enormous losses mentioned above, befalling all Syrians, and the calamity inflicted on them, no international organisation or major country—or even a lesser one—felt the need to provide practical solidarity or support the Syrians in their struggle for their most basic rights, human dignity, and social justice.
The only exceptions were some Gulf countries, more specifically Qatar and Saudi Arabia. However, their aim was to control the nature of the conflict and steer it in a sectarian direction, distorting the Syrian revolution and aiming to abort it, as a reflection of their deepest fear that the revolutionary flame will reach their shores. So they backed obscurantist takfiri groups, coming, for the most part, from the four corners of the world, to impose a grotesque vision for rule based on Islamic sharia. These groups have engaged, time and time again, in terrifying massacres of Syrian citizens who opposed their repressive measures and aggression inside areas under their control or under attack. Look at the recent example of villages in the countryside of Latakia province.
A large block of hostile forces, from around the world, is conspiring against the Syrian people’s revolution, which erupted in tandem with the uprisings spreading through a large section of the Arab region and the Maghreb for the past three years. The people’s uprisings aimed to put an end to a history of brutality, injustice, and exploitation and attain the rights to freedom, dignity, and social justice.
However, this did not only provoke local brutal dictatorships, but also most of the imperialist forces seeking to perpetuate the theft of the wealth of our people, in addition to the various reactionary classes and forces throughout those areas and in surrounding countries.
As for Syria, the alliance fighting against the people’s revolution comprises a host of reactionary sectarian forces, spearheaded by Iran and confessional militias in Iraq, and, regrettably, Hizbollah’s strike force, which is drowning in the quagmire of defending a profoundly corrupt and criminal dictatorial regime.
This unfortunate situation has also struck a major section of the traditional Arab left with Stalinist roots, whether in Syria itself or in Lebanon, Egypt, and the rest of the Arab region—and worldwide—which is clearly biased towards the wretched alliance surrounding the Assad regime. The justification is that some see it as a “resilient” or even a “resistance” regime. They say this despite its long history—throughout its existence in power—of protecting the Zionist occupation of the Golan Heights, its constant bloody repression of various groups resisting Israel, be it Palestinian or Lebanese (or Syrian), and remaining idle and subservient, since the October 1973 war, concerning Israel’s aggressions on Syrian territories. This bias will have serious ramifications on ordinary Syrians’ position regarding the left in general.
The United Nations and the Security Council, in particular, was unable to condemn the crimes of a regime, which the Syrian people rejected continuously and peacefully for more than seven months, while the bullets of the snipers and shabbiha [armed militia’s supporting the ruling Ba’ath party] took demonstrators one by one and day after day and while the most influential activists were being detained and subjected to the worst kinds of torture and elimination in the prisons and detention centres. All the while, the world remained completely silent and in a state of total negativity.
The situation persisted with little difference after the people in revolution decided to take up arms and the emergence of what became known as the Free Syrian Army (FSA)—whose command and soldiers came, to a large extent, from the regular army. This led to the horrific escalation of crimes by the regime.
Russian imperialism, the most important ally of the Ba’athist regime in Damascus, which provides it with all sorts of support, remains on the lookout to block any attempt to condemn those crimes in the Security Council. The United States, on the other hand, does not find a real problem in the continuation of the status quo, with all the apparent repercussions and destruction of the country. This is despite the threats and intimidation utilised by the US president, every time someone in the opposition raises the question of the use of chemical weapons by the regime, up until the latest escalation, when it was considered crossing a “red line”.
It is clear that Obama, who gives the impression that he will go ahead with his threats, would have felt great embarrassment if he did not do so, since it will not only impact negatively on the president, but also on the image of the mighty and arrogant state that he leads in the eyes of subservient Arab countries and the entire world.
The imminent strike against the Syrian armed forces is led by the US in essence. However, it occurs with the understanding and cooperation of allied imperialist countries, even without rationalising it through the usual farce, known as international legitimacy (namely the decisions of the UN, which was and remains representative of the interests of major powers, whether in conflict or in alliance, depending on the circumstances, differences, and balances among them). In other words, the strike will not wait for the Security Council due to the anticipated Russian-Chinese veto.
Unfortunately, many in the Syrian opposition are gambling on this strike and the US position in general. They believe this would create an opportunity for them to seize power, skipping over the movement and of the masses and their independent decision. It should not be a surprise, then, that the representatives of this opposition and the FSA had no reservations on providing information to the US about proposed targets for the strike.
In all cases, we agree on the following:
- The western imperialist alliance will strike several positions and vital parts of the military and civilian infrastructure in Syria (with several casualties, as usual). However, as it was keen to announce, the strikes will not be meant to topple the regime. They are merely intended to punish, in Obama’s words, the current Syrian leadership and save face for the US administration, after all the threats concerning the use of chemical weapons.
- The US president’s intentions to punish the Syrian leadership does not stem, in any way or form, from Washington’s solidarity with the suffering of children who fell in the Ghouta massacres, but from its commitment to what Obama calls the vital interests of the US and its homeland security, in addition to Israel’s interests and security.
- The Syrian army and its regional allies, led by the Iranian regime, will not have enough courage, most probably, to fulfil what seemed to be threats by their senior officials that any western attack on Syria will ignite the entire region. But this option remains on the table, as a final option with catastrophic results.
- The imminent western imperialist assault does not intend to support the Syrian revolution in any way. It will aim to push Damascus into the bargaining table and allow Bashar al-Assad to retreat from the foreground, but keeping the regime in place, while greatly improving conditions to strengthen the position of US imperialism in the future Syria against Russian imperialism.
- The more those participating in the continuing popular mobilisation—who are more aware, principled, and dedicated to the future of Syria and its people—realise these facts, their consequences, results, and act accordingly, the more this will contribute to aiding the Syrian people to successfully pick a true revolutionary leadership. In the process of a committed struggle based on the current and future interests of their people, this would produce a radical program consistent with those interests, which could be promoted and put into practice on the road to victory.
No to all forms of imperialist intervention, whether by the US or Russia.
No to all forms of reactionary sectarian interventions, whether by Iran or the Gulf countries.
No to the intervention of Hizbollah, which warrants the maximum of condemnation.
Down with all illusions about the imminent US military strike.
Break open the arms depots for the Syrian people to struggle for freedom, dignity, and social justice.
Victory to a free democratic Syria and down with the Assad dictatorship and all dictatorships forever.
Long live the Syrian people’s revolution.
Revolutionary Socialists (Egypt), Revolutionary Left Current (Syria), Union of Communists (Iraq), Al-Mounadil-a (Morocco), Socialist Forum (Lebanon) Published on Saturday 31 August 2013
The following article (from the Workers Liberty website) was written on 4 July, before yesterday’s killings. Also, since the article was written, the appointment of al Baradei has been blocked by fundamentalists. Nevertheless, this is the best analysis of the present situation in Egypt I’ve seen to date:
Above: Muslim Brotherhood members sit in front of soldiers blocking the road to the Republican Guard headquarters in Cairo yesterday
There has been in effect a military coup, which apparently is going to install an interim government – consisting of a Muslim religious leader (from al Azhar, which is a kind of ‘state’ mosque/university), the Coptic Christian Pope, and secular leader al Baradei. Of course the army will hold real power. Supposedly there will be new parliamentary and presidential elections.
I think it’s likely that the military authorities will organise elections for several reasons, although of course they are very unlikely to do so immediately. The key impetus behind the coup is presumably the army’s desire for order, stability. A huge factor here is that the army receives vast amounts of money from the US. That isn’t dependent on their ability to control things in Egypt – but obviously their general strategic usefulness is somewhat undermined if they can’t control things in Egypt. Mursi and the Brotherhood’s chief sin, from the military’s point of view, is that he has fomented chaos and unrest. His second sin is that – to some degree (it would be wrong to overstate it) – he refused to play ball with the army, and mounted his own ‘coup’ last year.
But the army will be under considerable pressure from Obama to organise elections. Obama is sure to – indirectly, at least – sanction the new arrangement; but it will be very embarrassing if this ends up being indefinite military rule.
In any case, despite the apparent support among wide layers of anti-Mursi protestors for the coup, only very recently the army was unpopular, and there were demonstrations against it. The army ruled between the fall of Mubarak and Mursi being elected. They were hated. Unless they go for massive repression, elections will have to be held at some point in the relatively near future. Read the rest of this entry »
This statement appears as an editorial in the present issue of the AWL’s paper Solidarity and on their website. It was written before the fall of Morsi, but the political assessment remains sound, imho:
Above: anti-Morsi demonstrators with giant Egyptian flag in Tahrir Square
Against the Egyptian military! Against the Muslim Brotherhood!
The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is not just a neo-liberal capitalist party, but clerical-fascist.
Former SWP leader Tony Cliff used that term for it in 1946. Despite the SWP’s subsequent shifts, which went as far as recommending votes for the Brotherhood in last year’s elections in Egypt, he was right.
The Brotherhood is an approximate Islamic analogue of the Catholic fascist parties of Europe between World Wars One and Two. It is a canny, cautious variant of the type, but like those parties it has a mass plebeian activist base and a political trajectory which would shut down living space for the labour movement in the name of populist demagogy (“Islam is the answer!”)
The Brotherhood was the only political force able to build up a big semi-tolerated organisation, and large funds, under the Mubarak dictatorship; and so it won the elections last year despite its equivocal role in the battles against Mubarak.
After a year, though — after November 2012, when Morsi claimed powers to rule by decree; after the killing and wounding of many activists by Brotherhood thugs on the streets; after Morsi has offered only Islamist rhetoric for the economic plight of Egypt’s people — millions have turned against the Brotherhood.
Egyptian socialists have been right to join the street protests against Morsi. They understand, also, that ugly forces are jumping on the anti-Morsi surge.
In most circumstances, we would side with any elected government facing a threat of military coup (or semi-coup, or quarter-coup). We would do that even if we hated the elected government and continued to oppose it.
There are cases in working-class history of socialists being swayed into support of populist military coups against unpopular elected governments (Pilsudski in Poland, 1926). We learn from those errors.
This is not the same. We are against a military coup. We are not for defence of the Morsi government. Why not? Because that government threatens, if consolidated, to squeeze out the light and air for the Egyptian labour movement even more fully than Mubarak could — or even more fully than the army could in foreseeable conditions.
The Egyptian working class is not yet politically strong enough to take power against both the Brotherhood and the army. Its priority must be to develop its political independence and to be the first fighter for democracy and secularism against Morsi, against any “transitional” government if he falls, and against the army.
Juan Cole has just posted this video on his excellent Informed Comment blog:
Unlike some “left” commentators, Cole is in no doubt where he stands on the Egyptian uprising. Even before Morsi fell tonight, Cole had written:
After [Morsi's hardline] speech, Tahrir Square was if anything even more energized, with the Opposition “Rebellion “volunteers calling with renewed vigor for the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood regime. Rebellion maintains that in placing himself above the law last November, in ramming through a fundamentalist constitution, in packing the upper house of parliament with the Brotherhood and its sympathizers, and by neglecting to improve services or the economy, Morsi has forfeited the right to finish out his four-year term (he was elected in June, 2012).
Read the full article here
Above: Russia Today’s coverage yesterday (nothing to do with Juan Cole but worth watching)
Juan Cole at Informed Comment is always a good source of information on the Middle East, even if we don’t always agree 100% with his politics.
Fundamentalist Morsi Defies both Protesters & Military Ultimatum, says Obama Backs Him
Posted on 07/02/2013 by Juan Cole
Egyptian President Muhammad Morsi’s support in his own government began crumbling on Monday. Ten independent members of the Egyptian upper house or senate (Majlis al-Shura) resigned, ahead of 6 cabinet members in the Morsi government (including the minister of foreign affairs, who announced his resignation on Monday).
The resignations come in the wake of Sunday’s demonstrations by millions, the biggest rallies in Egyptian history, demanding that Morsi step down.
The millions of protesting youth had given Morsi until Tuesday to resign or announce early elections, as a kind of referendum on how he is running the country. The opposition cites his high-handedness, favoritism toward the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, crackdown on freedom of speech, and poor economy as reasons for which Morsi should resign only a year into his four-year term.
Then on Monday Morsi received another and different ultimatum, from Secretary of Defense, Brig. General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. The memorandum gave Morsi 48 hours to make up with the opposition.
At the same time, Gen. Sami Anan, former Army Chief of Staff, resigned as presidential adviser. He had been made a special counselor to President Morsi when Morsi subordinated the army to civilian government in August 2012.
The extraordinary military announcement raised the specter of a military coup. But the armed forces were careful to say that it was no such thing, simply a response to “the pulse of the Egyptian street, i.e. the army was insisting that the president not plunge the country into civil war, given the obvious strength of the opposition.
The crowds at Tahrir Square reportedly went wild with joy on hearing that the military was taking their side against Morsi.
But the revolutionary youth groups, such as April 6, the Revolutionary Socialists, the Popular Current, and Strong Egypt, warned the military to stay out of civil politics. The youth groups spent the months from February 2011 through August of 2012 demonstrating and demanding that the military go back to the barracks. Their insistence that Morsi call early presidential elections was not intended as an invitation to the army to come back into politics.
Then at 2 am Tuesday, President Morsi came on t.v. and rejected the military communique, saying that the president had not been consulted before it was issued and implying that it was an officers’ rebellion against the authority of the elected president.
Morsi also quoted a conversation he had Monday with President Obama, saying the president assured him that he was committed to the elected, legitimate government (i.e. Morsi). But Obama appears instead to have said that he is committed to the democratic process in Egypt but not siding with any particular party or group. That is, Morsi misrepresented Obama’s call as support for himself. In defying the military ultimatum, the Muslim Brotherhood appears convinced that the US would not permit the officers to make a coup, and that the officers would not dare do so without a US green light. US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey called Brig. Gen. al-Sisi on Monday, but we do not know the substance of the call.
Morsi’s misrepresentation of Obama will inflame anti-American opinion further in Egypt, where the opposition generally believes that the US is imposing the Muslim Brotherhood on Egypt for its own nefarious reasons. This impression has been fanned by statements of US ambassador Anne Patterson discouraging the youth from holding the June 30 protest and supporting the elected president. In fact, the US as a status quo power typically deals with the elected government in power. It is true that the Bush administration had treated the Muslim Brotherhood as taboo, but it is not clear that that kind of ostrich policy was a good thing.
Morsi said he would stick to his own plan for reconciliation. Since so far everything he has done has alienated the youth movements further, this stubbornness is not a good sign for Egypt.
Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood in Alexandria and elsewhere announced a determination to go to the streets en masse to support Morsi and defeat the opposition’s attempt to delegitimate him by street action.
Over the whole scene looms the specter of Algeria 1992, when the military overturned the victory at the polls of the fundamentalist Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) and plunged the country into over a decade of civil war in which the Muslim religious forces were radicalized and 150,000 or more died.
You’d think a call for the overthrow of clerical fascists would be uncontentious for socialists, wouldn’t you?
We have yet to see how the SWP, who called for the election of the Muslim Brotherhood, will react to the latest developments in Egypt. They are on record defending clerical fascism. And, of course, ex-SWP’er John Rees of the degenerate ‘Counterfire’ outfit, is an apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood, having repeatedly attended and promoted their Cairo conferences when a leader of the SWP.
Above: Rees, the Brotherhood’s man within the UK left (including the SWP until they kicked him out)
Here’s the AWL’s Mark Osborne’s description of an attempt to educate SWP members about the Muslim Brotherhood a year ago, during the Egyptian presidential election :
Last week AWL activists leafleted SWP meetings to try to engage SWP members over their organisations support for a vote for the Muslim Brotherhood in the Egyptian presidential elections.
Generally we found SWP members unwilling even to take our leaflet, never mind read it and discuss. If a debate had actually taken place it might have looked like this.
SWP: Fundamentally you are sectarians. You intend to turn your backs on the mass of workers who are following the Muslim Brothers. The Brothers got 10 million votes in the parliamentary elections in December 2011. Yes, the leaders are well-off, but the rank and file are workers. In the Suez industrial area, for example, the big majority of workers voted for the Brothers or the salafist party Nour. We need to win the workers and to do that we need to get close to them, link up with them and talk to them.
AWL: Get close to them and link up? – you’re addressing this as an organisational matter, as if we just need a bus ticket to Alexandria. ‘Talk to them’? Of course, but we differ on what to say You approach the question like a sociologist – we don’t just ‘follow the workers’ irrespective of what the workers are actually doing. We’re not ‘ignoring’ the workers who follow the Brothers, but sometimes it is necessary to say to workers: this party will lead you to a disaster; workers have their own interests, distinct from the right-wing religious sectarians, pro-market millionaires and professionals who run the Brotherhood. By endorsing the Brothers you certainly are turning your backs on women, Christian workers, young liberals, trade unionists and leftists who are for democracy and are rightly alarmed by the Brothers. The MB’s support peaked in December, millions have turned away from them – our job is to encourage that flow towards us.
SWP: If you fail to vote for the Brothers you will never get a hearing from the many millions that still follow them. We have not dropped a single criticism of them. That is not necessary. We have made no political concession.
AWL: Voting for them is a political concession! Advocating a vote for them means taking some responsibility for them – you are recommending them, at some level, to the workers.
SWP: Yes, of course we are. They are preferable to the tired, corrupt old regime. Is that not true? Our slogan is the old communist one: ‘march separately, and strike together’.
AWL: In your case that useful idea is rewritten: ‘march behind, help them strike for what they want’. ‘March separately; strike together’ is the idea behind the workers’ united front. It is a joke to use it here, now, with the clerical right-wing MB! During the election campaign they presented themselves as pro-market, overtly Islamic, devout.
SWP: Well, what do you expect? Most Egyptians are devout. Simply denouncing religious parties and Islam will get you nowhere. We need to be sensitive to religious sensibilities. The MB is continuing the revolution against the old regime. Many voted for them to express opposition to the old regime. We have to relate to such people. Moreover the attempted on-going ‘slow’ coup by the army is undermining your position. Right now, on the streets it is: for the military? or for democracy and the people’s choice, the Brothers?
AWL: The Brothers sat on the sidelines while the youth fought in the streets against Mubarak. The political benefits have, unfortunately fallen into their laps. The aim of socialist activity is to make a third choice possible – workers’ liberty – and a political collapse in front of the Brothers will not do that. No-one advocates headlines on all socialist propaganda: ‘Down with Islam!’ Equally we are secular Marxists, and it would be better if you remembered that. Let’s accept that the Brothers are ‘making a revolution’. But it is their revolution, which is both against the army, and simultaneously against us – the left, the workers, the feminists.
SWP: Reformists always compromise and often let others do their fighting. We must be there to point out to the poor and the youth that follow the MB that they should be pursuing a resolute struggle against the army and old regime. The MB took a turn after the book Signposts, by Sayyid Qutb, was published in the mid-60s. They stopped seeing the only enemy as imperialism, and attacked the local state directly. They were very embarrassing for the moderates. Thousands of young radicals were inspired.
AWL: Yes, but inspired to do what, exactly? You are relating to them like the LP, which is absurd. They are no sort of working class party. Are they?
SWP: Your argument has become even weaker as the military have begun to move against the Brothers and against democracy. Socialists defend the MB against the military and defend the right of the MB to take power – they have a majority, let’s put them to the test. When the MB take people out onto the streets in self-defence we must be with them, against the military. Or would you stand on the sidelines while the military take full control again?
AWL: If big, popular mobilisations against the military threat take place, led by the MB, clearly socialists would take part. We’d intervene, organise our own contingents; organise our own initiatives. Attempt to rally the workers and poor not just against the military but for democracy, women’s and workers’ rights. We would aim to rally people not just against the military, but for our positive demands.
SWP: And you fail to understand the potentially anti-imperialist role of Islamism. The Iranian Islamists did take control of the US embassy. The Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine have played a key role in the armed struggle against Israel. The Algerian FIS did organise huge demonstrations against the first US war against Iraq.
AWL: Before coming to power Khomeini said he was for democracy, women’s rights and against imperialism. Anti-imperialism is not enough: what is important is what a political group is for. You fail to understand the counter-revolutionary role of Islamism. These forces will smash us and kill us if they can.
SWP: The job is to relate to the radicals amongst the Islamists. In the Prophet and the Proletariat  the SWP’s Chris Harman wrote, “As with any ‘petty bourgeois utopia’ its supporters are faced with a choice between heroic but futile attempts to impose it in opposition to those who run existing society, or compromising with them, providing an ideological veneer to continuing oppression and exploitation. It is this which leads inevitably to splits between a radical, terrorist wing of Islamism on the one hand, and a reformist wing on the others. It is also this which leads some of the radicals to switch from using arms to try to bring about a society without ‘oppressors’ to using them to impose ‘Islamic’ forms of behaviour on individuals.”
AWL: So Harman thought that the radicals, involved in armed ‘resistance’ would come over to our side? Hasn’t this nonsense been ended by 9/11? This is simply another example of the SWP becoming mesmerised by ‘militancy’ rather than actually asking what a particular political force positively stands for. For example, look at Hamas – the Brothers sister party – in Gaza. Sure, they oppose the Israelis – but in their own way, for their own reactionary reasons. In Gaza they have smashed unions, uprooted secularism, enforced backward dress codes on women, created a one-party religious state. The Islamists’ revolution against the state and imperialism is both partial and – more to the point – against us (the left, the unions, women, religious minorities, LGBT people) too.
SWP: Yes but, as Harman also said, “On some issues we will find ourselves on the same side as the Islamists against imperialism and the state. This was true, for instance, in many countries during the second Gulf War. It should be true in countries like France or Britain when it comes to combating racism. Where the Islamists are in opposition, our rule should be, ‘with the Islamists sometimes, with the state never’”.
AWL: This is sloppy. If the fascists attack a mosque, for example, the socialist left will be with the Muslim self-defence. It might even be necessary to conclude a practical agreement with the Mosque leaders – even Islamists – to that end. However, we are never ‘with the Islamists’ in politics or ideas. And by the way Harman also wrote this: “But socialists cannot give support to the Islamists either. That would be to call for the swapping of one form of oppression for another, to react to the violence of the state by abandoning the defence of ethnic and religious minorities, women and gays, to collude in scapegoating that makes it possible for capitalist exploitation to continue unchecked providing it takes “Islamic” forms. It would be to abandon the goal of independent socialist politics, based on workers in struggle organising all the oppressed and exploited behind them, for a tail-ending of a petty bourgeois utopianism which cannot even succeed in its own terms.” Even Harman was against what the SWP is saying now.
Stravinsky’s The Rite of Spring (‘Le Sacre du Printemps’) opened 100 years ago in Paris, to derisive laughter that quickly developed into a riot. The orchestra was bombarded with vegetables and other missiles, but kept playing. Nijinsky’s choreography, featuring dancers dressed as pagans, caused as much outrage as Stravinsky’s polyrhythmic and dissonant score.
The critics (and some fellow-composers) were savage:
“The work of madman …sheer cacophony” - Giacomo Puccini
“A laborious and puerile barbarity” Henri Quittard, Le Figaro
“If that’s a bassoon, then I’m a baboon!” – Camille Saint-Saëns
It was “a revolutionary work for a revolutionary time” as George Benjamin writes in today’s Graun.
‘Riot of Spring’: Norman Lebrecht in Standpoint, here.
Above: Stephen Malinowski’s animation of Part 1 ‘The Adoration of the Earth’ (from NPR)