Predictably, there have been a flurry of opinion pieces from the print and broadcast media on the riots and the causes of them. The inevitable hand wringing and searching for explanations is almost amusing, or at least it would be to a newly arrived alien being with no physical or emotional attachment to Planet Earth or its inhabitants. For anyone else, some of the commentary ranges from rage inducing to totally unfathomable, from assinine to offensive, and in some cases from mildly un-pc to heinously fucking racist.
What needs to be understood is that young underprivileged people are not “wild beasts… (driven by) animal impulses”, as Max Hastings of the Daily Mail would have you believe, but intelligent human beings who understand their circumstances. Young people haven’t been driven to these angry mass attacks on property by absentee fathers (Allison Pearson, Daily Telegraph) or because they are all in fact members of vicious street gangs (Christina Odone, Daily Telegraph). It’s a safe bet they haven’t decided to ignore the law and take part in mass lootings because of “identity obscuring head and facewear” either (David Aaronovitch, The Times). And you DEFINITELY won’t stop rioters from rioting by “shooting them…with plastic bullets” (Kelvin MacKenzie, Newsnight).
Let’s not even get into David Starkey’s appalling suggestion on Newsnight recently that these riots are occurring because “white youth have become like black youth”. No-one wants to see society breaking down around us, black or white. It is not part of “black culture” to riot and smash up shops, and if Starkey really believes that whites are rioting because of the influence of corrupting black culture, well, then he should brush up on British history and check out our proud heritage of bloody and violent civil disobedience. Clearly the ravings of an incredibly racist old crank aren’t going to help understand the situation, but it is worth stopping to consider how supposedly acceptable far-right academics will attempt to use the rioting to nurture and encourage racial divisions within society.
Riots occur when people have collectively become too angry to keep from lashing out en masse, in a nihilistic, destructive manner. They might not be constructive. They may not really address the roots of dissatisfaction and alienation in society, but they express pretty clearly their existence. The bourgeois press will wish to paint looters and rioters as sub-human, beyond reason, as animals, as people who understand only repression and force. But they’re wrong. They say there is no reason to behave in this way. In fact for many there is no reason not too.
This started after police shot dead 29-year old Mark Duggan, against the backdrop of the recent News International scandal, which has shone a powerful light on the corruption and illegality endemic amongst the top ranks of both the Metropolitan police and the political and media establishment. The fact is that confronted with the cosy relationship between the police, media moguls and politicians as compared to police treatment of ordinary people, it’s not exactly surprising that people feel the police and the law are not on their side. And if the law isn’t there to protect us, then why should we observe the law at all?
A combination of events and situations have led ordinary people to question the political and economic systems we live in, and how exactly they serve our interests, if at all. If we live in a fair society, why are the working class paying for a global financial crisis caused by the international banking class with our jobs, public services, education and welfare state? If the British government has become embroiled in a civil war in Libya purely in order to protect human life, why is it doing nothing about the increasingly murderous regime in Syria? If politicians exist to represent us, why do they seem more concerned about padding their expense accounts and pandering to media moguls? And why should young people accept the “authority” of a system which offers them crippling debts if they wish to gain an education and little hope of secure, well paid employment? In fact, if kids grow up in a system which offers them so little but bombards them with constant advertising messages about the latest mobile phones, computer games and clothes, why the hell shouldn’t they go looting, since they have precious little chance of being able to afford all these apparently neccessary things legitimately anyway?
Despite the obvious hypocrisy of capitalism in 21st century Britain, however, the answer to this last question must be an emphatic NO. This isn’t the way that we confront the problems of our society and it is not the way we change it for the better. The riots must be understood as an expression of inchoate dissatisfaction with the status quo and not as a positive or progressive answer to the problems of the current economic and political system. People are lashing out blindly and angrily, often hurting their own communities in the process. It would be far more productive to channel this anger into constructive attempts to organise ourselves together to confront the malaise of this decaying capitalism, through community groups and the trade union movement, and fight for something better. But that does not give anyone the right to patronise and slander young people in the way that is now taking place. There are many reasons for the youth of Britain to reject the society which offers them nothing – and now one more reason can be added to that list: the shoddy, poisonous and inhumane analysis of young people and our situation put forward by the mainstream political and social commentariat.
The tragic events in Norway, and the sadistic and cold-blooded actions of Anders Breivik, have generated an increase in scrutiny of the far right in Europe. In Britain in particular, news of Breiviks links to the English Defence League, our own home-grown street army of racist thugs, lends a particularly ominous undertone to the debate on the resurgence of far right extremism. Elsewhere in Europe, we can also see an increased presence of far-right political parties, who in some countries have gained real influence electorally as well as through propagating racist, anti-immigrant and anti-islamic ideas. We should perhaps expect this resurgence, given the current economic and political context; after all, we are currently experiencing the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930’s, when Fascism and Nazism spread throughout Europe, and Fascist leaders such as Hitler, Franco and Mussolini came to power. Yet the Left has been taken completely by surprise by Breivik’s horrific, execution style killing spree, and the meticulous planning that went into it. Will this prove to be an isolated event, or has the far right in Europe become dangerous enough for another such attack to occur?
It’s incredibly important that we understand how and why sympathy and support for far right ideas has grown in recent years. The common theme is clear; across Europe racist and fascist organisations are targeting Muslims, arguing that Islamic culture is incompatible with liberal democracy. This is something Breivik himself argued, citing cultural issues rather than arguing that Muslims are racially inferior, as John Cooper notes over at The Platform:
“While multiculturalism remains his target, he argues – crucially – that it is important for the far right not to resort to old, perhaps too openly Nazi claims of a ‘biological’ or ‘ethnic’ supremacism. Rather, Islam should be opposed on the grounds that it is ‘culturally’ incompatible with Europe.”
This is a very familiar argument here in Britain; one which the BNP has stuck to rigidly, as well as the EDL to a lesser extent. ‘Cultural’ tension has been an integral part of Islamophobia since Samuel Huntington, who believed that cultural conflict was “particularly prevalent between Muslims and Non-Muslims”, published The Clash of Civilisations in 1993. Huntington borrowed the phrase “clash of civilisations’ from Bernard Lewis’s article The Roots of Muslim Rage and in fact Breivik quotes Lewis at length, as Seamus Milne points out. It was Huntington, however, who shaped Lewis’s ideas into theory and lent them credibility.
Huntington may well have been responsible for reformulating the politics of racism by redefining racial or religious conflict as cultural conflict. Edward Said certainly thought so, describing his work as “a sort of parody of Hitlerian science directed today against Arabs and Muslims”. But he is not solely responsible for spreading those ideas throughout Europe, to the foot soldiers of the EDL and their European equivalents (though as a special advisor to successive US governments he was certainly not without influence). So-called ‘populist’ politicians such as Geert Wilders have undoubtedly played a role as well, through their attempts to legitimise Islamophobia under the guise of ‘opposing Islamic extremism’, despite the inherent contradictions of calling for such repressive measures as banning the Koran in defense of free speech, and their influence is plain to see within the ranks of more open racist and fascist groups. The predictable opportunism of far-right anti-immigration political parties aside however, in order to understand fully how such hypocrisy has been able to gain support, however, we must look critically upon the mainstream media.
The rabid xenophobia and casual racism of the tabloid press is obvious to many. In a way we’ve become desensitised to the often ludicrous headlines of The Daily Mail, The Daily Express and others, but their influence is plain to see. The tabloid media is not alone in their legitimisation of Islamophobia and the ideas of the European Far Right, however; supposedly “respectable” media outlets are equally guilty of condoning and even agreeing with the villification of Muslims. Just take a look at Toby Young defending Geert Wilders’ and his calls for the banning of the Koran in a 2009 piece entitled ‘Geert Wilders’ victory in Holland’s regional elections is a victory for free speech’ , where he describes Wilders as “the most courageous politician in Europe”. Or what about this Ed West article, “Muslim immigration: the most radical change in European History”, in which West claims Islamic immigration “threatens the very freedom of Europe”? Owned as it is by the dominant economic class in our society, the mainstream press has sought to promote the interests of the dominant economic class, by presenting immigrants, and Muslim immigrants in particular, as the problem in order to divide the working class . No surprises here of course; this is standard behaviour, which the Left must expect. Responding with false shock and feigned indignation, when we know all too well what to expect, only serves to make us look naive.
So determined are the bourgeois commentariat to continue this line of argument that even in the wake of the worst European atrocity in years, we can still see attempts to present Islam as the biggest threat to society, and not the Far Right. A recent article by Andrew Gilligan of The Daily Telegraph, entitled “The British far-Right is Nothing but a Rabble“, claimed that unlike white nationalists, Muslim fundamentalists operate openly within the liberal capitalist establishment, and that the threat of Islamic terrorism is still far greater than that of white nationalist groups.
Where Gilligan’s article is actually semi-instructive, however, is that it raises the question of how significant the Far Right actually is in Britain. He makes the point that the BNP is in terminal decline, and he may well be right. Not many have really noticed, but the BNP are pretty split right now, having just had a leadership election in which their two MEP’s stood against each other in a very close race. Splinter groups are already emerging from the BNP however, who may yet prove stronger in the long run, and it would be extremely unwise to discount the potency of the BNP as an electoral vehicle for the Far Right. As for his claim that the EDL are a “rabble”, they certainly are – for the most part. But Gilligan does not dig deep enough to see the potential threat that they represent.
Anyone who has seen an EDL “demonstration” up close will know it consists mainly of unimaginative chanting and minor vandalism/street fighting. And it certainly seems as if EDL demonstrations are in one sense in decline, because in terms of numbers, they have had some rather insignificant turn outs this year. Numbers alone cannot accurately the represent the threat the EDL pose however; while numerically the EDL maybe dwindling, the rank and file is radicalising and becoming more extreme. This can be seen in their increasing refusal to cooperate with police, as well as the emergence of more openly fascist splinter groups from the EDL such as the North West Infidels and the UAF Hunting Club.
Another important point raised in Andrew Gilligan’s article was that Breivik did not in fact attack Muslims, but the ‘Cultural Marxists’ he sees as responsible for encouraging Multiculturalism. To Gilligan this is evidence that the attacks were motivated more by political goals than simply “hatred of Muslims”, and he is perhaps right. Breivik went beyond the supposed ‘soft target’ of an ethnic and religious minority against whom offensive rhetoric has become acceptable and attacked the broader Left, something more compatible with full blown Fascism than simply a hatred of one minority group in particular. This mirrors a trend within the EDL, who have in recent months begun to attack Labour councillors, trade unionists and anti-fascist activists as well as attacking Socialist campaign stalls and threatening to “smash Socialists”.
The most significant dangers of the EDL, and similiar far right groupings throughout Europe, can be seen in two ways:
1. The capacity of the EDL to bring together those who hold or are symapthetic to racist, nationalist and Fascist ideas and prejudices and further radicalise them, which is demonstrated in the increasingly extremist stance of the EDL and of the even more openly extremist splinter groups it has produced.
2. The potential of the EDL to be used as a street army against communities and the organised working class, including ethnic groups trade unionists, left wing and antifascist activists, and working class representatives. This should be of particular concern at a time when workers and students are involved in mass action against cuts and austerity.
At this stage it appears that Breivik was working alone, and that others were not aware of his plans. We hope that this is the case, but it cannot be assumed. Breiviks’ links with the EDL, whether significant or not, demonstrate that the European Far Right is in touch with one another, communicating across borders. We can see it growing and spreading as a direct result of the attempts of opportunist politicians and sensationalist media, who have used fear of Muslim extremism to justify illegal imperialist wars and repressive anti-terror legislation. The space for the Far Right to grow has been created by the propaganda of the dominant economic class. If the Far Right is to be defeated, it will require the vast majority of the working class to reject the ridiculous propaganda of the mainstream media, to reject racism and religious division, and propogate a working class alternative to the austerity, scapegoating and imperialism of capitalism, to which the Far Right can never put forward an alternative. It is too early to say yet whether we are genuinely seeing a revival of mass Fascist organisations; certainly none in Europe could yet be classified as such. But if the shadow of Fascism truly is now falling over Europe again, it is the task of the working class to defeat it, and not of the ruling class, which has opened the door to ethnic and religious division once again through its’ inherently crisis ridden system and its’ inevitable attempts to divide us.
via Shropshire NSSN
There is hardly a dearth of commentary surrounding the corruption and criminality of the News of the World. Endless articles, documentaries, televised select committees and rolling news coverage have branded each detail of the scandal, and each connection to the highest levels of the police and the government, into our collective consciousness. News International, Murdoch’s vast media empire, has never before been subject to such rigorous and relentless scrutiny. Let’s be honest; never have critics felt brave enough to speak out so loudly before.
The events of the last few days may well prove to be game-changing however. Up until now, the dominant narrative of the scandal has been lifted straight out of Star Wars. The many-tentacled beast of News International has been pretty convincing as The Empire, with Rupert Murdoch playing a starring role as a sort of wrinkled, decrepit Darth Vader trying desperately to maintain an impenetrable defense of ignorance (“This is the most humble day of my life, I had no idea I was choking you with my mind.”). Opposite numbers Tom Watson, Chris Bryant and The Guardian have been incredibly entertaining as a sort of piously liberal-left Rebel Alliance. The beauty of this narrative is that it allows us to view the shocking revelations in a nice, cosy Good vs Evil context, in which the champions of justice, ethical journalism and morality have triumphed over the “bad apples” of British journalism; Mulcaire, Coulson and Brooks et al. This is not a new phenomenon. We all love a juicy story with a Goody and a Baddy and a fairly simple plot, and the press love to deliver. Besides, Murdoch is a perfect Baddy; the power-crazed octogenarian is better than a Bond villain, and far more sinister. This might seem a tad facetious, but as I write Channel 4 are airing a documentary called Murdoch: The Mogul Who Screwed The News. Make no mistake: right now, the story is that one bad man and his naughty papers have brought shame on the vast majority of honest, upstanding journalists who work hard to bring you the Great British Press.
But accusations from anonymous sources that phone hacking was “routine” at The Sunday Mirror, and the subsequent investigation it has sparked, could alter that narrative. Many have suspected that News of the World was not alone in its’ use of illegal techniques, and indeed Paul McMullan, the former NotW journo who was caught on tape by Hugh Grant, alleged that The Daily Mail was “as dirty as anyone”. Even at the Guardian, David Leigh openly admitted listening to voicemails and ‘blagging’ back in 2006. just check out the phone hacking and Not for nothing have some in the main stream press (such as Paul Dacre of The Daily Mail, Andrew Gilligan and Mary Riddell of The Telegraph and even Bill Keller of the New York Times) been issuing dark warnings about the importance of a Free Press. By Free Press they mean a press free of any significant regulation or accountability, a press which operates in a genuinely free market.
We live in the post-Thatcher era, where the free market system is assumed to have become an entrenched reality. This isn’t at all true of course, at least in the sense that economists would use the term ‘free market’, but this shouldn’t really affect the orthodox approach to political rhetoric, because economists are almost all deficit deniers and not to be trusted. All the same, the kind of free markets which Adam Smith and David Ricardo talked about were exactly that; markets in which the exchange of goods and services took place between private individuals without the state being even slightly involved. Most people agree that free markets are actually not a great idea, and this is why the strict regulation of goods and services such as food, alcohol, mortgages and pharmaceuticals is not a particularly controversial subject. Neither is VAT for that matter, or the EU trade tariffs that decimate African farmers’ profits. In the West, free markets are really something that happen to other people. Poor people. Who need aid and development loans from the IMF.
Somehow though, the print media remains the exception to the rule. Newspapers and magazines in Britain are regulated by the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), an organisation with no legal power over any newspaper or magazine whatsoever. The PCC is dependent on funding levied from the press, and editors of major newspapers sit on its executive board. Evidence of just how toothless this so-called ‘self-regulation’ is is provided by a very recent case indeed. In May of this year, the PCC censured The Daily Telegraph for covertly recording Vince Cable. That is, it criticised the paper, but no action was taken against it.
The justification for this lack of regulation is that to do otherwise would be to proscribe the press, curtailing free speech and preventing newspapers from investigating matters of public interest. This argument is not entirely without merit; nobody wants a 1984-style propaganda press which is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the state, and free speech is certainly an important aspect of any democratic society. But it’s worth noting that other media formats are much more heavily regulated than newspapers. The BBC for example is a publicly owned body subject to very heavy regulation indeed, and this doesn’t seem to prevent a decent standard of journalism.
Strip away the rhetoric for a moment and it’s clear that the British print media is running wild and unchecked. We might fear the possibility of a neutered, state-controlled press. But we should also fear the unchecked influence of a free market press. Put aside all the idyllic notions of protecting the public interest; newspaper owners want three things: influence, circulation and profit. Given enough influence and circulation, they may not even worry to much about the profit. This isn’t a new thing; Lord Beaverbrook, who owned The Daily Express in the 1930’s, famously once said “I run the paper for the purpose of making propaganda and with no other motive”. It’s worth remembering also that whilst there is nothing to stop anybody producing a newspaper, it helps rather a lot if you happen to be wealthy enough to buy or set up a newspaper, and the dominant economic class may not necessarily always be inclined to hold the dominant economic class to account. Many might well argue that this inconvenient truth renders the whole argument of an impartial press operating in the public interest entirely moot. What is more newspapers are power; restrict the ability to destroy someone professionally by detecting every detail of their private life and you restrict the power of newspaper owners, and the influence they can gain with that power.
It is becoming clear that the British Press has become (and may always have been) a modern day Mafia operating in plain sight. Sure, maybe NotW has proved to be the most stark example of that, and maybe the ever-deeper depths which they have sunk too have shocked even the most hardened Fleet Street hack. But we should understand News International in the context in which they have prospered and flourished for decades. News International is not The Empire, it is the Corleone Family, and Murdoch is a particularly ruthless Godfather. There are other prominent families, of course, but News International has run the gauntlet of competition and won precisely because it has been the most ruthless, it has secured the highest circulation, and it has won the most influence. Should the Corleone Family fall, the Tattaglia Family will be waiting in the wings. Or somebody else.
We cannot avoid the fact that the system itself is to blame, not Murdoch and News International, nor even the fawning politicians who have tacitly courted his invaluable support. After all, just like the Mafia, the papers deliver the voters, guaranteed, and just like the Mafia, they will destroy those that stand in their way.