THE SYRIAN REVOLUTION

The events in Syria are turning out to be some of the most important of our time. They are truly the last gasps of the Arab Spring, and their outcome will determine how far the revolutions will go in affecting permanent change in the region. If The Assad regime falls who is to say Iran could not be next on the cards? If the revolution in Syria fails it can be safely assumed that political upheaval in the middle east will at least see a decrease in frequency.

            I for one am not a fan of the myriad of conspiracy theories that seem to be emanating around this conflict. The idea that foreign mercenaries are responsible for the slaughter in a bid to destabilize the country and make it ripe for foreign intervention- as some more deluded commentators on RT seem to believe- simply doesn’t correspond with reality. Wouldn’t a bid to create havoc simply garner more support for the regime in Damascus? Of course it would. I don’t doubt that some foreigners and Jihadis are fighting in Syria, as they were in Libya, but in no way does this detract from a popular peoples revolution being suppressed through bloodshed and fear.

Though there may be some confused reports on the whole mess that is emerging in Syria, there is no reliable reason to doubt the UN’s verdict on recent events in Houla. It is the Shabiha militia who are responsible for this massacre and who are precipitating a civil war by their sheer brutality and loyalty to the crooked Fascists of the Baath party.

            What happens next is anyone’s guess. One can only hope that weapons are channelled to the rebels and that the revolution is victorious. There is no going back from the precipice after what happened in Houla, it is a line in the sand that no-one could forgive. And it is indeed desirable that no-one does.

The momentous events in the Arab World have taken their most bloody turn yet, and in this particular debate their can be no room for failing to choose sides. Either one is on the side of free thought or tyranny; a defender of Liberty or Oppression. I know where my loyalty’s lie. 

THE WOES OF THE EMERALD ISLE

If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs.

            James Connolly, 1897

            Connolly must be turning in his grave. Irelands decision to allow its budget to be dictated to by Brussels is yet another shocking abdication of national sovereignty. The fact that Irish people themselves decided to put the noose around their own necks is beyond comprehension.

            Irelands woes put the fickle nature of Capital squarely on show. Remember when the Emerald Isle was “the Celtic Tiger,” the success story that all others should emulate to drag themselves out of the doledrums? Fast forward a few years and it is a danger zone built on toxic debt, a pariah and pest who must completely subjugate itself to its Eurozone backers…Or else.

            Perhaps most depressing about this set of events is that they come at time when the tide seems to be turning against Austerity. Greece is becoming ungovernable, civil strife continues to rack Spain, and France’s government appear to have seen the writing on the wall. A chasm exists in Europe between those who agree with the logic of attacking working people and those who refuse to pay for the crisis. Politicians are caught in the middle and are swinging whatever way their electorate wants, hence the recent developments in Greece.

            Perhaps I shouldn’t browbeat the people of another nation, but the Irish reaction to the vicious Austerity measures has been tepid to say the least. A march through Dublin seems to have been the sum of it. Compare this to the usually placid English peoples campaign- which has seen strikes, violence and Direct Action- and a rather depressing picture begins to emerge. Now we have the pathetic sight of this once proud nation handing away its own independence. One can only despair. 

            Ireland has a long tradition of fighting oppression, from the men of 1798 to the barricades of 1916 and beyond. Let us hope that this courageous people find their fighting spirit again and, like the Indignados of Spain and Greece, give the money men in Brussels some food for thought.

SEXISM IN THE MEDIA

I am not a man who often reads The Daily Mail. I find it an odious paper, given over almost entirely to right wing myths concerning asylum seekers and benefit claimants. However, when one is stranded in a café on a Saturday morning one is often drawn to a bout of boredom reading. This was the case last weekend, when I found myself shaking my head at the following headline: “The Teenagers Who Have Had EIGHT Abortions: Shocking figures show girls use 'traumatic' procedure as a form of contraception.”

            The report then goes on to state the facts and figures involved and also informs us that the Pro-Life lobby claims these youths are being “let down.” Let down by who exactly? Surely if a girl doesn’t want to be burdened with a child at a young age then to refuse her termination would be letting her down. The article uses the argument that many young women are not psychologically ready to undergo this serious procedure. But if this is true then if this is the case then one could argue that they’re not ready to have a child either, so an abortion is the best and safest option.

            This shock tactic story about young women and abortion only serves to denigrate females, sending out a message that they are not fit to be able to decide for themselves concerning pregnancy termination. I presume then that the Daily Mail would prefer a new generation of young mothers, who-lest we forget-have also been the victims of its ire over the past decades.

The Daily Mail has been at the forefront of scare mongering concerning women who ostensibly have children to claim a flat and benefits. The logic of this viewpoint puts young girls in an unworkable predicament: if they have a child it is only so they can more easily scrounge off the state; if they terminate the pregnancy they are using abortion as if it were a contraceptive. This “damned if you do/damned if you don’t” logic is an extremely confusing message to send out to young women, especially girls who are wrestling about whether or not to abort their pregnancy. But something tells me that the Daily Mail does not really care about young vulnerable females, despite their defences to the contrary.  

THE EUSTON MANIFESTO

Does anyone remember the Euston Manifesto? Compiled in 2006 by a collection of progressive Journalists and academics, the document was an attempt to realign the left away from a position of making excuses for totalitarian movements and the extreme religious right. This was an era when the Iraq war was at its height and many of us were engaged in defending the horrifically sexist and anti-progressive “resistance.” Looking at it from this angle it’s easy to see that the Manifesto was justified. However, there is another side to this whole thing that I find particularly nefarious, and which I believe led this particular current to die a death.

            The Manifesto decides to wear its heart on its sleeve during it’s 6^th point when it boldly states: “We reject without qualification the anti-Americanism now infecting so much left-liberal (and some conservative) thinking. This is not a case of seeing the US as a model society. We are aware of its problems and failings. But these are shared in some degree with all of the developed world. “ I have repeatedly stated how I feel that anti-Americanism poisoned much of left wing thought in this era, but I must also state that this particular manifesto does not once allude to having a progressive policy against US Imperialism. The closest it gets is “That US foreign policy has often opposed progressive movements and governments and supported regressive and authoritarian ones does not justify generalized prejudice against either the country or its people.” No-one can deny that much of this is true, but I do not believe that the Manifesto is really serious about tackling anti-US Prejudice. This section is merely paving the way for the next titbit entitled “A New Internationalism.”

            Now we get to the heart of what the Euston Manifesto was written to defend. In this section of blatant doublespeak the writers of this document state that “Humanitarian Intervention” is necessary when a state tortures and murders its own people because its “forfeits its right to sovereignty.”  It is thus the duty of the international community to “rescue” the country. I do not think that there has been a “humanitarian intervention” for a long time-most of the invasions which the US has mounted since World War 2 have overthrown elected presidents and installed dictatorships- and if these people really believe that invading other countries is desirable they better be careful what they wish for. Just because they class a country as being fascist doesn’t mean that those who run our government do, nation states operate on personal interest and any intervention in any country is always governed accordingly. Why not invade Saudia Arabia or Israel? And based on the Manifesto’s logic haven’t the US and Britain forfeited our right to sovereignty on more than one occasion? Or is torture and murder only terrible when you do it in your own country instead of storming into someone else’s and doing it to them?

Missing from our liberal friends worldview is the simple fact that any regime can act how it wants just as long as it stays friendly to western interests. That’s the awful truth that the signatories of this paper omit. The whole Euston Manifesto is nothing more than a crawling apology for an aggressive foreign policy.

            In it’s Elaborations section the manifesto states that members had different view on the invasion of Iraq but: “We are, however, united in our view about the reactionary, semi-fascist and murderous character of the Baathist regime in Iraq, and we recognize its overthrow as a liberation of the Iraqi people.” Liberation? Excuse me for my cynicism, but it is quite clear from the raft of the documentation which has come to light in the past few years that the Iraq war was nothing of the kind and nor was it designed to be. It was a privatised war, which resulted in mass murder and torture, a good proportion of which was carried out by coalition forces and those in their pay. If you think mass incarceration and blatant thwarting of the Geneva Convention is progressive then perhaps you need to check your own left wing credentials instead of criticising those of others. Yes, the left did make a huge fault in not supporting the radical workers movement who were attempting to rebuild, and yes we were extremely at fault to try and justify the actions of sectarian thugs who ravaged the country, but to do anything less than deplore the US and UK actions in Iraq would be to lose ones humanity.

            I am all for a re-alignment of the left to a policy which opposes both US Imperialism and the Islamic right. I appreciate the Euston Manifesto’s worth as being the start of something new, but it was ill judged. Perhaps if it was pitched more as some kind of evolving dialogue centred around how to oppose tyranny in the 21^st century then it may have had a point. Instead it comes across as a vile document whose natural logic leads it to a defence of violent western regimes. Most of the left saw through it, and the Manifesto ended up where it rightly belonged: maligned and forgotten.

ASIAN GROOMING GANGS: RIGHT-WING MYTH OR BRUTAL REALITY?

The recent trials of eleven Asian men in Liverpool have been harrowing to say the least. These men operated a brutal and efficient paedophile ring where they plied young girls with drugs and alcohol, raped them and threatened them with violence if they did not comply. The fact that the victims were overwhelmingly white and abusers of Pakistani origin has added fuel to the fire and the far right have been quick to leap on board, holding demonstrations outside Liverpool crown court and now using the infamous “Paedo” insult to brand anti-Fascists with. There have also been gangs of mostly Asian men grooming young white girls in Bolton and further afield in Rotherham.

            Yesterday the cat was well and truly let out of the bag when Baroness Warsi, a Pakistani woman herself, talked of a minority of Asian men believing white women were “fair game.” I do not know the ins and outs of the minds of sexual deviants and nor do I desire to, but I do know that there are men of every race who regard certain women as “fair game.” Some men may regard women who dress scantily as being deserving of rough sexual treatment, some may think blondes or loudmouth women are “asking for it,” or black and latino women are naturally more promiscuous; you get my point here: misogyny is something that poisons all cultures, so the revelation that some Asian men hold this view is not surprising or racist. Add into this heady mix the fact that Asian parents often have pre-conceived religious notions about a woman’s place in the home, leading them to keep a tighter leash on their daughters than your average, more liberal white parent, and you can quite clearly see how things get out of control. White women become a prize that a small, nefarious minority eye up, because if the “gore” can’t be bothered looking after them then they’re not worthy of any respect. It’s a sick and twisted ideology, but it is one which needs to be tackled head on.

            The mainstream liberal left must bear part of the responsibility for the tragedy we have seen unfold. By promoting cultural relativism -turning a blind eye to sexism if practised by another culture- and making any specific talk of a problem with Asians appear racist they have effectively left the ground open to the BNP and other right wing groups, who are free to make themselves appear as the white girls only defenders against Islamic rapists. These daft liberal policies have also meant that police have turned a blind eye to these gangs for fear of being branded as racist. As we know, I am not  a fan of the police and I do happen to think that many of them (most?) are racist, but to expect anyone to treat paedophiles with kid gloves just because they are of a different race is, quite frankly, insane. How are we meant to tackle a problem within a certain community if every time you mention the words “Asian” and “Rapist” in the same sentence, some idiot leaps down your throat declaring that you’re a bigot who thinks all Asians are rapists?

One answer to this problem is to confront misogyny in all cultures and make sure that young women are supported lest any difficulties arise. The importance of women run drop in centres and social spaces cannot be overestimated in these situations. It’s all very well for me as a man to go bleating on about my pro-feminist tendencies, but it is no substitute for a woman having another female to talk to when she has been sexually abused. A rainbow coalition of sorts, ran and organised by women who aren’t afraid to deal with specific communities lest they be called racist and who can confront grooming in all cultures would be worth more than ten speeches by a politician or boring baroness. 

MARKET ANARCHY/ ECONOMIC LIBERTY

Latin American Death Squad: Because free markets guarantee freedom, yeah?

I’ve been reading up a lot recently on the American Libertarians and their ilk. I have come to have a begrudging respect for many of their views regarding personal liberties, individual responsibilities and their unwavering support for a more sane drug policy.  However, I find their economic policies to be deeply troubling. I can’t help but thinking that one minute these people appear as the most forward thinking in the world and then when they start moaning about those on welfare or in need of public health they sound like an Alf Garnett monologue.

            The new Libertarians reliance on free markets is a naïve joke. I don’t know where there have ever been completely free markets in the world, but I know that any power that has ever climbed to the top of the capitalist tree has never had any use of them. Massive government intervention, high tariffs and protectionism have been the order of the day from the USA to China and to expect any government to completely let go of its economic reigns is simply not feasible or desirable on the part of the powerful. The Market is not just a force that operates like the blowing of the wind, it is ran by men, motivated by greed and has proven equally as nefarious and uncaring as any government has. To replace the state with the market is simply pushing aside one devil in order to embrace another.

            A classic libertarian argument is that the state is the only organ that can use force and thus the private sector, being deprived of this right, has the moral high ground. But let’s look at this argument. If you take peoples security network away and make it quite clear that they have no recourse but to work for whatever wages are on offer, isn’t that coercion at its worst? Is not that in itself a use of force? Libertarians do not believe in Unions, so there would be no chance of redressing any grievances or getting any semblance of justice for those stuck in “low level” or “entry” jobs. But hey, at least there’d be no rules on pornography and people would be able to take drugs legally.

Businesses can and do force people into poverty, they run sweat shops and pollute land, and they kill. Oh yes, the idea that the private sector is just some hard done by child who’d by alright if that pesky government just left him alone is not accurate. From the days of Henry Clay Frick hiring squads of Private goons to shoot strikers, to Henry Ford having his own bully boy squad to intimidate uppity workers, right up to the massacres committed by Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq; the private companies have the guns and the willingness to use them and any bleating about the supposed beauty of the market will not hide that fact. For further proof of the psychopathic violence of capital one can look at the fate of many Latin American Trade Unionists, Socialists and democrats, who were the first victims of the Laissez Faire capitalism which our American Libertarians friends put so much faith in. Many of these men and women were killed by death squads hired by private companies. Perhaps if you believe that killing Union workers is justified as they are infringing on individual liberty you should first of all remember that workers living in poverty are individuals as well, and that being forced to sell your labour is in no way a conversation between equals.

I have repeatedly stated that I do not think that we are stuck in a time of public or private sector warfare, and I don’t believe that either of them have the answer to the questions which the world is now faced with. I am all for distrust of government and advocating a way of life which puts the individual and his or her growth at the centre of things, but to rely on the power of the market and not on the power of people to create something better from the bottom upwards is a huge mistake. If we want a better world then we need to throw the baby out of with the bathwater, because a man on Wall Street is no better than a man on Downing Street; both are power hungry and both believe that their own individual liberty should be made on the back of yours.

VIDAL SASSOON AND THE LEFT WING ROOTS OF ZIONISM

That's right, because there really was no-one there before him

The death of Vidal Sassoon has catapulted some of his youth back into the spotlight. Sassoon was a member of The 43 Group, the first militant Anti-Fascist outfit in post war Britain, who literally beat Moseleys resurgent Fascist movement off the streets of London. Sassoon was the group’s youngest member and in his first brawl was seen brandishing a pair of scissors. After his stint in The 43 Group he and a few other active anti-Fascists went off to Israel to fight in the war of independence. It is this contradiction I would like to focus on. Nowadays anti-Fascism and anti-Israel activism are often paired together. It is not uncommon to hear Israel being compared to the Nazis and even in an obituary to Sassoon a blog on Libcom states “Later Sassoon and others in the 43 Group fought for the creation of Israel, which of course I and many other anarchists/communists would have serious issues with, but nobody’s perfect” So why would members of the most militant anti-racist organisation seen in Britain go and fight on behalf of a colonial, racist oppressor? The answer is simple: though Zionism may have morphed through time into the defence of a racially chauvinist state which has inflicted misery on a whole people, it did not start out that way. Indeed it began with great intentions, which embraced the twin struggles of Socialism and Nationalism.

            Zionism has its roots in the Enlightenment and the fallout from the revolutions of 1848. This was a time of intense revolutionary activity when humankind broke the yoke of religious orthodoxy and began asking question about rights, social contacts and the freedom of nations. Poles were fighting for their independence, Germany spoke of joining as one, and Garibaldi was uniting Italy. Into this fray stepped Moses Hess, whose 1862 book Rome & Jerusalem: The Last National Question laid the foundation for pioneering Labor Zionism. Hess was a German Jew and fervent Communist who supposedly converted Friedrich Engels to the cause. Hess rejected assimilation and saw a Jewish, Socialist settlement in Palestine as the only key to solving the Jewish question. Jewish Labour would revitalise the land and would create a proto-communist utopia. The ideas which Hess expounded went on to become the founding pillars of the Kibbutz movement, the longest and most sustained experiment in communal living and Libertarian Socialism ever created.

            It was the Jews of the second Aaliyah in the early twentieth century who put the ideas of redemptive labour and creating a socialist society in to practice. The men and women who became kibbutzniks were educated immigrants from Eastern Europe who were determined to build a homeland. They taught themselves the Hebrew Language, debated the Anarchist ideas of  Guastav Landauer, conducted Libertarian methods of child rearing and worked hard to develop a communal method for owning the means of production. Socialism in the kibbutz was not just an intellectual debate; it was an actual living, breathing reality. Is it any wonder then that Zionism was seen as a progressive force by many on the left? Is it surprising that men like Simcha Rotem could fight in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, bravely participating in the Jewish resistance and then go on to fight in Israel’s War Of Independence? Zionism-no matter how much pain it caused the Palestinians- started out with the guise of a progressive movement and many of its chief proponents- Israeli national Hero Yosef Trumpeldour to name one- were Anarchists and Communists who sought to establish socialism on another persons land. Therein lies the rub: when the crunch came Nationalism won out over workers emancipation, as it became quite clear the Palestinians were not going to accept a Jewish homeland in a country where they had dwelled for centuries. Zionism thus became a two headed beast, one that advocated Socialism for Jews and death and displacement for Arabs. The noble dream came up against a hard reality and acted as any Nationalist movement does: with violence against “the other.” This does not make Zionism any worse than other ethnic based Nationalisms, the only difference is that Israel has the army and manpower to inflict greater suffering.

            Long gone are the days when Black Nationalists such as Marcus Garvey would yell “Africa for the Africans, Palestine for the Jews!!” Now Israel is seen across the political spectrum as the colonial oppressor, whose strives towards creating a humane Socialism are buried in the blood of Palestinians. Despite this we should not forget those who fought for Israel and against Fascism- and nor should we forget that many of Israel’s enemy’s have had a good smattering of Fascism themselves. By seeing Zionist history in its true light we are able to decipher that men like Sassoon were not indulging in childish mistakes-as our Libcom friend seems to believe-but saw themselves as upholding a noble tradition of fighting against oppression. As wrong headed as this view may be, a cursory look at the ideological roots of  Zionism can certainly give us an understanding of where they were coming from.