The Movement
I don’t care what your pet ideology is, dear reader – if
indeed you care to have one. If you are
intellectually honest, you have to recognise the great services that the Labour
Movement rendered to society as a whole – to us all. If we work 40 hours a week or less; if we are
less in danger to die or be maimed for life as a result of unsafe work
conditions; if we expect to be treated with dignity at work and take home a
decent wage – we owe all this to the men and women who, starting sometime in
the 19th century, fought – often at great peril and disadvantage to
themselves – to achieve these things and others, for all of us. The first trade unionists. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude.
But at some point (also in the 19th century), the
Movement split. It might not have been
so obvious at the time, but part of the movement retained its initial purpose –
to win a better life for workers; another part concluded that that task could
not be achieved without ‘taking power’, without ‘defeating the Bosses’. One part of the Movement chose evolution; the
other revolution. While both may have
talked about class struggle, one interpreted the term as ‘quest for justice’;
the other – as ‘war’.
The former served as inspiration for the social-democratic
parties that have contributed to building the liberal democracy we currently
enjoy in the UK and the free world in general; the latter brought us Communism,
Stalinism and the gulag. One raised the
oppressed – the other raised new oppressors.
As one Jewish smart-ass said, 2,000 years ago: “by their
fruits ye shall know them”.
This article is not a pro-Labour spiel – not even from a
‘Blairite’ perspective. Nor is it a rant against Labour. The Labour Movement has done great things in the past; but it does not mean that we
should forever support it, or support anything that calls itself ‘Labour’,
‘social-democrat’ or ‘socialist’. It
also does not mean we shouldn’t. Political movements change. In the US, the
Republican Party was once a driving force for the Abolitionist Movement. These days, most people identify it with
social conservatism.
If we wish to continue to enjoy liberal democracy (and we do; we’d
be fools not to), it behoves us to weigh every political strain not for what it
did yesteryear, but for what it has to offer today, tomorrow and the day after. For this reason, while taking stock of the
past, this article wants to look into the future.
The Report
On Thursday, 29 October 2020, UK’s Equality and Human Rights
Commission (EHRC) published its report
entitled “Investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party”. It’s a long (130 pages) document, written in
a cool, detached, formal language. If
you cannot be bothered to read it all, here’s the concise but accurate summary
produced by my brilliant friend Ged Ornstein:
The
EHRC found that the Labour Party had:
1.
Acted unlawfully in that
agents of the LP had used antisemitic tropes and had suggested that complaints
of antisemitism were fake or smears.
2.
Breached the Equality Act
2010 by acts of indirect discrimination relating to political interference
(i.e. the leadership interfered in the disciplinary processes) and a lack of
adequate training.
3.
An opaque and inefficient
complaints mechanism;
4.
An inadequate training
programme with regards to antisemitism;
5.
Disregarded abusive social
media content.
The EHRC is a statutory body endowed with legal powers and
concerned primarily with breaches of the Equality Act. But it also recognises that racism is more
than a law infringement; it is a violation of the moral values that form the
foundation of a liberal, democratic society.
In the words of the report:
"…tackling antisemitism
isn’t just about procedures. It is also about making sure that the Labour Party
has a culture that clearly reflects its zero tolerance of antisemitism and
indeed of all forms of discrimination."
And, in that respect, the Commission found
"a culture within the Party
which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could
be seen to accept it."
While Ged’s five points are damning from a legal point of
view, I would argue that the ‘culture’ problem is even more troubling. Clearly, I’m not the only one who thinks this
is the case: the term ‘culture’ appears no less than 11 times in the EHRC
report, usually accompanied by a strong recommendation for the current culture
to be changed.
Strangely, the ‘culture’ problem has gone almost entirely
unnoticed by the army of journalists, pundits and political activists that
presumed to ‘interpret’ the report. Yet
I would argue that it is its most important (and most troubling) finding.
Firstly, it takes a large number of individuals to create ‘a
culture’. Which means that – if not
antisemitism itself – the propensity to ignore or accept anti-Jewish racism
resides in the hearts and minds of many a Labour Party member and
supporter. A failure of leadership may
be the reason why this ‘culture’ was allowed to strike roots and fester; but
that does not mean that merely changing the leadership gets rid of the
‘culture’. The old saying ‘a fish rots
from the head down’ does not imply that cutting off the head eliminates the
rot, once it’s been allowed to affect the body.
Secondly, correcting procedures and designing suitable
complaints mechanisms is eminently feasible; but (as we all know) changing the
hearts and minds of many individuals is not easily achieved, even with good,
determined leadership.
If we needed (more) proof of this ‘cultural’ problem – and of
the fact that it persists unhindered – it was supplied in spades in the immediate
aftermath of the report publication.
And I am not just talking about Jeremy Corbyn’s reaction, or
the ‘solidarity’ he received – not only from prominent members of the Labour
Party and of the Unions, but also from numerous ‘ordinary’ members and
supporters.
Speaking as a panellist on BBC’s programme ‘Questions time’,
American-British playwright Bonnie Greer first waxed lyrical about ‘trauma’ and
declared that antisemitism in the Labour Party ‘makes her sick’. Touching indeed – except that she went on to
say:
"I’m a Labour voter, I will
always vote Labour, I became a citizen so I could vote Labour, I will always
vote for the Labour Party as I think it is the best coalition of the left for
this country."
Well, if the Labour Party is guilty of illegal acts of
racial harassment and discrimination; if, through its ‘sickening’ behaviour it
caused ‘trauma’ to an entire community – how can anyone promise to ‘always’,
unconditionally vote for it? How can one
see it as “the best […] for this country”? Isn’t this a most revealing display of the
‘culture’ referred to by the EHRC? A
‘culture’ which, to put it very mildly, accepts antisemitism (but certainly not
other forms of bigotry) as a rather minor issue, something that – at a pinch –
one can put up with, in view of the grander aspirations, of ‘what’s best for
the country’?
 |
| Bonnie Greer: "I'll always vote Labour" |
As if to demonstrate the callousness and immense hypocrisy
of that position, Ms. Greer later proceeded to accuse Donald Trump of racism
and to ask rhetorically:
"How can anyone vote for a
man with that kind of thing?"
Herein lies the ‘culture’ problem: not just, as some may
think, in the antisemitic acts or words of a Jeremy
Corbyn, Ken
Livingston or Chris
Williamson; but, I strongly suggest, in the failure of people like
Bonnie Greer – usually so very sensitive to even ‘subtle’ manifestations
of racism – to recognise anti-Jewish racism for what it is: the oldest, most
obstinate and arguably most harmful form of racial intolerance.
In and of itself, changing the Labour leadership and the
party procedure books won’t get rid of antisemitism – any more than
promulgating the Equality Act (in and of itself) got rid of anti-black
prejudice.
The Problem
To even attempt to find a solution to this painful issue,
one has to try and understand the roots of the problem: why is it that people
who define themselves as ‘anti-racists’ have a weird blind spot (if not a
tendency to harbour it themselves) when it comes to antisemitism? Why is it that people whose entire world view
is built around social justice fail to recognise injustice? And why is it that those whose fundamental
yearning is to eliminate oppression end up tolerating or even practicing it
against Jews?
Here’s a thing: this isn’t just a problem of psychology –
but of ideology. The Cambridge
Dictionary defines ‘ideology’ as
"a set of beliefs or
principles, especially one on which a political system, party, or organization
is based."
The same dictionary defines the term ‘religion’ as
"the belief in and worship
of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship."
Both ‘ideology’ and ‘religion’ are sets (or systems) of
beliefs. In effect, an ideology is
nothing but a God-less religion – a religion in which God is replaced by some
other ‘absolute principle’, by some sort of Kantian ‘categorical
imperative’. Depending on the
ideology, such imperative may range from ‘social justice’ to ‘purity of race’;
the point is that we are talking about convictions based on faith – however
much the believers tend to see them as absolute and self-evident.
Just as there are degrees of religiosity, there are also
degrees of ideological zeal. There is,
in that sense, a form of ‘ideological fundamentalism’, the secular equivalent
of religious fundamentalism.
Religious fundamentalism consists of a rigid, binary social taxonomy
(‘believers’ vs. ‘non-believers’ or ‘pagans’) that forms the basis for a type
of supremacism (the former are inherently and unquestionably superior to the
latter). Ideological fundamentalism is
very similar – think Marx’s lionisation of ‘the working class’ and demonisation
of ‘the bourgeoisie’, or the Corbynite ‘socialists’ raging against ‘Tory scum’ and
‘Blairites’.
Of course, social taxonomy is not the exclusive realm of
fundamentalists. We are all in the habit
of classifying people, of neatly arranging them in categories. This is how the human brain works. But, while we happily resort to
simplification and generalisation to try and extract some order out of chaos,
most of us realise that human beings are complex: one can be a dog lover and a thief; a loving father and a ruthless terrorist; a charity worker and a rapist. But, for the fundamentalist, such complexity cannot
be allowed to exist; reality must be reduced to black and white: one must be
either good or bad; ‘with us’ or ‘against us’; ‘oppressed’ or ‘oppressor’;
pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian. ‘To be
supported’ or ‘to be opposed’. In the
fundamentalist world view, these categories are existentially opposed,
absolute, immovable, one-dimensional and definitional.
Here's an example from John Rees – a former leading member
of the Socialist Workers Party and co-founder of the Stop the War Coalition:
"Socialists should
unconditionally stand with the oppressed against the oppressor, even if the
people who run the oppressed country are undemocratic and persecute minorities,
like Saddam Hussein."
Saddam Hussein may have murdered (en-masse, using chemical
weapons) tens of thousands of innocent people. But in the eyes of Rees, his faith,
nationality, skin colour and political adversaries place him firmly in the
ranks of ‘the Good’, the ‘anti-imperialists’ deserving of ‘unconditional’
support. If Rees’s “unconditionally
support” does not bring to your mind Bonnie Greer’s “I will always vote
Labour”, then you’re missing the point here.
The Jews
Historically, fundamentalists (whether religious or secular)
tended to ‘have a problem’ with Jews.
And not surprisingly: in a world divided between ‘us’ and ‘them,’ the
Jew – the quintessential ‘Other’ – typically ends up on the wrong side of that
divide.
The antisemitism in the Labour Party isn’t a ‘stand-alone’
phenomenon; it did not appear out of nothing, just because Jeremy Corbyn waved
a magic wand. It is part of something much
bigger: a fundamentalist world view.
That is the root cause of the ‘culture’ that the EHRC was referring
to. One cannot ‘cure’ fundamentalism of
antisemitism. Contrary to popular
belief, antisemitism is not an externality, a virus infecting an otherwise
healthy organism; it is part of the very DNA of fundamentalism. It is integral to that world view. 'Tackling’ antisemitism without dealing with
the fundamentalism is like trying to cure cancer by prescribing pain killers.
‘Dealing with antisemitism’ should not be reduced to
‘dealing with complaints of antisemitism’.
That would do very little to eliminate the “culture” EHRC
referred to. And ‘dealing with the
problem’ should not be reduced to ‘dealing with antisemitism’.
The problem is what I called ‘ideological fundamentalism’ –
a form of political extremism.
Antisemitism is just one of the manifestations of that
fundamentalism. In fact, you’ll find
that it’s been a manifestation of every type of European political extremism –
for centuries.
Assuming he really wants to ‘tackle’ antisemitism, Keir
Starmer will not be able to do it by tinkering with disciplinary procedures or
by suspending a few individuals. Or even
by suspending “thousands and thousands”, as his Deputy threatened.
The Current Leader
Which brings me to Starmer himself. Since he became leader (Leader?) his attitude
and speeches in relation to antisemitism seem flawless. He says the right things; he sacked Rebecca
Long-Bailey for a sin that would, if anything, have gained her praise from the
previous leadership; why, he even took the whip from Corbyn himself!
And yet, one wonders how come this decisive,
‘zero-tolerance’ Starmer sat next to Corbyn – in his Shadow Cabinet, no less –
for nigh on five years, with only occasional, very mild and vague
criticism? How come he cheered him
on? How come he campaigned for people to
vote for a party with a culture of antisemitism? For Corbyn as Prime Minister? Starmer claims that he voiced his criticism
more firmly ‘inside’. Perhaps he did –
but is that enough? How was Sir Keir’s attitude
different than that of a John Rees or Bonnie Greer?
What is it that Sir Keir Starmer really believes in? In the race to become Leader of the Party, he
declared himself a hard leftist through-and-through; a man that would ‘unite’
the Party. Now he says he wants to clean
and cure it. He even revealed – but only
once Corbyn resigned – that his wife was Jewish.
Many a member of the Labour Party left in disgust – some at
the cost of their career; others stayed and fought valiantly – suffering stress
and abuse as a consequence. Starmer
stayed, kept his mouth shut – and benefited.
I respect and trust them; I don’t – him.
The Former Leader
But Starmer suspended Corbyn, you’ll say. In the eyes of many a battered, worried Jew,
suspending Corbyn turned Starmer into a modern-day King Ahasuerus. But let’s get our wits about us and reason:
is this what we want? Sure,
Corbyn was toxic; he was definitely part of the problem; but is he the
problem? Would a Labour Party led by –
for instance – John McDonnell be better for Jews? Will the ‘culture’ problem magically
disappear if Corbyn does?
In reality, Corbyn’s suspension was counter-productive. In a sense, it vindicated his claim, his
narrative: that in the Labour Party antisemitism should be seen as a problem of
a few individuals; to be solved by disciplining them and moving on.
I’m not suggesting Jews should rejoice that Corbyn has been
reinstated: this once again acted as a distraction, taking the focus away from
the real issue. But, at least, his
reinstatement has spared us a more dire scenario: that of his ‘due process’
under an improved, future complaints procedure.
That was a prospect that, I’m sure, the ever-contrarian Corbyn really
relished. Imagine a group of
‘independent’ non-Jewish officials looking for ‘hard evidence’ to ‘determine’
whether what Corbyn did was or was not antisemitism. If it was up to white people to determine
what is or is not anti-Black racism, we would still be using the n-word!
The Leadership in general
In a democracy, leaders are elected. But how are they selected? After all, We The People can only vote for
the candidates that the parties put in front of us.
Now, if you own a business or you work in one, you know how
people are recruited and how they are promoted.
You would never take someone who just finished school and appoint him or
her as – say – Director of Sales. No,
not even if s/he spent a couple of years working as a barista at Costa Coffee. You would not appoint as CEO someone
that has not (at the very least!) successfully managed a department.
Why, then, would you want to have as Prime Minister someone
(like Corbyn or Starmer) who never-ever served as Minister? Sure, in his time Corbyn ‘managed’ many a
political demonstration. Starmer was a human
rights barrister and Director of Public Prosecutions. But how relevant are these skills to the role
of Prime Minister?
Deputy Labour Leader Angela Rayner left school at 16 and
trained as a social worker. She became
involved in the Unison trade union and gradually rose in the Party
hierarchy. Don’t get me wrong: I tip my hat to her
willingness to help others; I respect her determination to make a honest living
for her and her children; I value her interest in politics. She seems like a decent person; but will that
make her a decent minister?
I have nothing against political activism; but if that’s
what you did in University; if that was your main occupation throughout your
life, we have to ask: what do you really know about what the rest of us are
doing? If you never managed a corner
shop, what makes you able to run a country?
The Future
Some take it as given that the Labour Party (as the
political arm of the Labour Movement) will always exist. That’s an illusion. Voters trust pragmatic leaders, not
ideological ones; people who seek solutions in the reality around them, not in
the Little Red Book. In Israel, the
Labour Party has practically disappeared – mainly because it stuck to slogans, ideas and ‘ideals’ that voters saw as disconnected from reality.
If you think that this could never happen in the UK – think
again. It is not just the colossal 2019 Labour
defeat. Although seemingly not as
decisive, the 2017 one was ominous: Labour fought those elections against a Conservative Party in disarray; against a fumbling government led by a
well-meaning but pathologically charmless Prime Minister, who voted Remain but
was put in charge of implementing Brexit…
So what should Labour do?
Well, this is ‘Politically-incorrect Politics’ – but I’m afraid I do not
have any original solution. Just some
good ol' advice.
If you want to govern the country, put in place capable
leaders with a good track record. It’s
about skills and experience, not just good intentions.
If you want to wave Palestinian flags – go be Prime Minister
of Palestine. We want someone who at least cares about the UK.
And then, understand that, if one wishes to govern a
democracy, one has to appeal to a majority of the people. Which – look at any statistics of political
inclinations – means appealing to the moderate centre.
If you talk about ‘radical policies’, we understand that you
want to experiment; to gamble with our lives and our livelihoods; and those of
our children. We’ll have none of that,
thank you! Go try your ‘radical ideas’
elsewhere. Maybe in Palestine? If they work there, we’ll consider them here. See ya!
Sure, we want a better life. A juster, more caring society. Only we don't want no revolution. Every revolution that's ever been ended up butchering us -- or sending us to war, to butcher each other. Far-left 'revolutionaries' do not belong in the Labour Party
any more than neo-Nazis belong in the Conservative Party. You were stupid enough to let them in? Now find a way to get rid of them. If what you’re selling is Communist Party dressed up as ‘Labour’
– we’re not buying.
Yes, we heard that Marx and Trotsky were very smart people. But look around and smell the coffee: if we wanted someone who sings from the hymn sheet, we’d elect the village priest. No, thank you: we need pragmatic leaders, not consumers of theoretical scripture.
You know, you have a problem: while your fundamentalists
keep ranting about ‘Tory scum’, the Conservative Party has moved increasingly
to the centre, ‘crowding’ Labour out of its traditional positions. We The People understand this, do you? Just look at the current government, with its
record number of ethnic minority ministers – including the senior posts of
Chancellor and Home Secretary. Just look
at its reaction to the pandemic – no, not the fumbling about rules, lockdowns
and tiers, but the financial benefits it dished out to employees and small business owners. Just look at its environment-related pledges,
or the worship-like praise of the NHS…
You, Labour guys, have your work cut out for you. On one hand, you have to be (or at least
appear to be) moderate; we ain’t voting for no nutters. On the other hand, you’ve gotta find a way to
differentiate yourselves from an increasingly centrist (in practice, if not in
ideology) Tory Party. ‘The Government
should have done more’ is a rather feeble criticism, because it implies that what was
done was good.
You wanna govern again? Start by proving you can mount a sensible
Opposition. Because – in the UK, just
like in Israel – democracy needs one. Best of luck to you!
- Follow Us on Twitter!
- "Join Us on Facebook!
- RSS
Contact