Showing posts with label Class. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Class. Show all posts

Thursday, March 19, 2015

Psychology and Class in War and National Hatred

Social psychology has revealed that even tiny infants distinguish between people close to them with whom they feel comfortable and others, strangers whom they dislike. For two million years of human social evolution, we lived in small groups of about 150 people, and distrusted strange, even though neighbouring groups. So it is that people learn to separate those they like from those who make them feel ill at ease, to separate good people from bad. It is out of such primitive thinking that the structures of enmity grow and can be exploited by unscrupulous leaders whether political or religious. Hesse showed that, by age five, children have the idea of the enemy, someone whom they see as whatever in the culture seems most fearful and threatening—a wild beast, a demon or someone with evil intent. Interestingly, these Hesse’s subjects did not generally see their own nationality as having evil intent.

Now we live in a global village but still have our loyalty to clans and tribes, albeit much bigger and more dangerous ones. Disputes between them can still lead to violence and war but now they can end up as genocide. The nuclear threat has fed off Christian apocalyptic thinking to split the peoples of the world globally into good and evil. Worse, the singular delusion of US exceptionalism as America being God’s own country and Americans as God’s latter day Chosen People, forced their conviction that, they, being good, would be saved in the event of a nuclear holocaust and the evil enemy would perish. The danger of reinforcing infantile thought patterns is clear.

War begins in the mind, with the idea of the enemy.
Broyles W Jr, Why me?-why them? The New York Times, 1986

Yet analysis of the images of the enemy as perceived by opposing parties reveals that they often see each other in a similar light. Uri Bronfenbrenner has coined the term “mirror image” and documents how American and Russian views of each other during the cold war were essentially interchangeable:

Our enemy is a coarse, crooked megalomaniac who aims to kill us.
Tommy White, retired US Air Force Chief of Staff

Both sides felt that:

  1. the other was the aggressor
  2. the other’s government exploited and deluded its people
  3. the majority of the people were essentially good and were not sympathetic to the government’s deceitful leadership
  4. the other government should never be trusted—they have hidden, sneaky and secretive ways to go about their plots
  5. their policy verges on madness, while ours is, of course, rational and humane.

Examples of the mirror image dynamic are numerous. In a testimony to Bronfenbrenner’s thorough research it is as relevant to the 2002 Iraq-United States war as it was during the cold war. Americans and Iraqis have accused each other’s governments of misleading their people for their own self-interests. The Americans and Arabs have repeatedly exchanged accusations of the other’s attempt to dominate the world, control its oil supply and insatiate greed. The mirror image has manifested clearly in the way both sides of the Iraq war of 2002 depicted themselves and the other: The United State’s narrative of the war has been: “Altruistic Americans risk their lives to topple an evil dictator and establish democracy and human rights.” On the other side the Arab narrative was: “The same Yankees who pay for Israelis to blow up Palestinians are now seizing Iraqi oil fields and maiming Iraqi women and children.” Both, Iraqis and Americans accused each other of violation of human rights, ruthlessness and greed.

During the cold war the United States blamed the Soviet Union for expansionism when they invaded Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. The Soviet Union blamed the United States for expansionism when it sent troops to Vietnam, Grenada and to countries in South America. Americans blamed the Soviets for human rights violations of minorities and Jewish dissidents, and the Soviets reminded Americans of their systematic violation of the basic human rights of the poor and African Americans in the United States. Both sides blamed the other for violations of international treaties, for the support of terrorism and for the escalation of the nuclear arms race. The United States blames Iraq for being part of the Axis of Evil, along side Iran and North Korea, and Iraq, and many other countries, consider the United States, Britain and Israel as their own Axis of Evil.

This principle explains how people are more likely to assess the informer and information that represent their view as more credible than the informer who presents an opposing view. This bias in the judgment of sources of information explains the resistance of enemy images to change. Statements by the Iraqis and the United States, or statements by the Soviet Union and the United States against each other, have often been perceived as credible by their respective audiences only because they describe “the enemy”. This principle was also evident within American political culture between political parties, when in conflict over a course of action or the selection of a candidate for office. Research on the credibility of newscasters also confirms that the more consistent the newscaster’s report was with the research subject’s predispositions, the more credible the newscaster was perceived to be.

Americans with negative attitudes towards nations whom they saw as hostile to the United States (eg, North Korea and Iran or, a couple of decades ago, the Soviet Union and Iran) are likely to assume that the relationship between these countries was positive. In other words people are likely to assume that their enemies are friends with each other. During the cold war research has shown that the United States’ enemy, at that time the Soviet Union, was closely associated in people’s minds with terrorism and drug trafficking. Similarly, Saddam Hussein had been associated with Bin Ladin right after 9/11, even though there was no evidence of such relationship.

When the enemy is presenting a conciliatory or peaceful offer, it is met with paranoid suspicion and is suspect for its hidden “real goals”. When Saddam Hussein, for example, finally allowed the UN inspectors to survey the presidential palaces and other locations, it was demanded that he be met with as much suspicion as when he did not allow them to inspect any of the sites. The fact that the inspectors did not find any evidence of weapons of mass destruction did not change the United States’ or the British government’s opinion in regard to Hussein’s dangerousness. Partly as a result of this double standard in attribution, both governments were unfazed by the lack of evidence and went on with their war plans.

One of the most critical elements in fighting our own kind is the ability to dehumanize the enemy, that is, to perceive other human beings as less than human:

The image of the enemy is not only the soldier’s most powerful weapon, it is society’s most powerful weapon. It enables people en masse to participate in acts of violence they would never consider doing as individuals.
Sam Keen, Faces of the Enemy

“Moral” or “civilized” human beings do not intentionally and rationally kill other human beings, but they do kill Gooks, Huns, Japs or Niggers. The substitution of labels from Soviet citizens to Reds, Jewish people to Hibbs or rats, American men to Yankees or Arab people to fanatic Muslims serves a simple but profound function: it allows people to kill with a minimal or no sense of guilt. Accordingly, one of the primary goals of war propaganda is its creation of enemy images that strip the enemy of their human, domestic and individual characteristics. In the words of Butler Shaffer:

War, by its very nature, is sociopathic… it dehumanizes people.

John E Mack tells that a school pupil after the war being taught by his teacher about Russians complained angrily, “You’re trying to get us to see them as people”. At this level of dehumanization the enemy is represented not only as inhuman, but also as a lifeless object. In the Iraq war of 1991 the United States depicted the enemy as a small dot-type target on the computer or videogame screen. Dehumanized enemies are often referred to by technical names or the code-numbers of their weaponry rather than by nationality or even real personal names. During the cold war this allowed the United States to fight not the Soviet army but the SS11 (Soviet long range nuclear missile) or the Frog (Soviet short range nuclear missile). An explosion on the TV or computer screen or the elimination of an SS11 by a Minuteman I (United States long range nuclear missile) are not likely to lead to feeling of regret regarding the loss of human lives. The technical names of weaponry as a representation of the enemy shield us from these feelings. George Orwell reflected well when he stated:

Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

Doublespeak is the most advanced level of dehumanization. Through Doublespeak, a term coined by George Orwell in his novel 1984, human lives are presented as abstractions. “Collateral damage” is doublespeak for civilian casualties, “servicing the target” is a euphemism for killing. Numerical terms, such as “megadeath”, stand for one million dead people. There is nothing in these terms that evoke any thoughts or feelings in regard to the human lives being destroyed; they elicit neither guilt nor shame. Therefore, killing and the destruction of life can go on. Additional examples of Doublespeak are: “coercive diplomacy” for bombing, “permanent pre-hostility” for peace and “engage the enemy on all sides” for ambushes. Consistent with the effort to mask the destructive power of weaponry, nuclear weapons have often been given pet names, such as “Poseidon” for the United States nuclear submarine, “Peacekeeper” or “Minuteman” for long-range nuclear missiles, and “Honest John” for the surface-to-surface missile. Acronyms are also abstractions. GLCM (pronounced as “glick-em”) stands for “ground launched cruise missile” and SLCM (pronounced “slick-em”) stands for “submarine launched cruise missile”. Possibilities for names of recent wars in Iraq have included euphemisms such as: “Desert Storm”, “Infinite Justice” and “Enduring Freedom”.

There is a substantial, politically influential, and aggressive body of American opinion for which the specter of a great and fearful external enemy, to be exorcised only by vast military preparations and much belligerent posturing, has become a political and psychological necessity.
George F Kennan, former US Ambassador to the USSR

One of the central shifts in the post 9/11 era is the emergent focus on militant Islam and the war on terrorism. The enemy appears to be rigidly defined and split tidily in two. On one side is the American technically superior empire and her supporters, on the other, terrorism, fueled by the energy of low tech, grass roots, religious, militant martyrs. Most terrifying to many is the sickening infectious enmity that is spreading across the planet, dividing nations—especially the United States, creating religious factions, pitting ethnic groups against one another as it demands a decision to line up behind one warring faction or the other. These two groups have become the modern “superpowers” with new war tactics that are truly terrifying. The old tools of war, and the antiquated posturing of the military, could appear almost comical if they were not so sad, if they did not bear such horrifying consequences. The war being waged is killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and there is no end in sight.

When the world was faced with two real superpowers, both seemingly equally powerful, Bronfenbrenner perhaps had no valid means to objectively testing whether one side or the other was making legitimate claims. Now there is only one superpower, the US, faced only by lesser powers, so the rationale for lying by its rulers who know their own absolute strength cannot be justified at all by psychological reasoning except perhaps by their utter insanity! Looking at the world since 1945, the US has had a hand in innumerable instances of wars and interventions, often against minnows. Each time the same fears were propagated, and now the fear of gangs of bandits in countries far off is again being wound up into a threat to the existence of the mightiest power in the world. Well, now it no longer washes. These gangs are not existential threats to anyone except perhaps their immediate neighbours, but certainly not the USA, so we can clearly see that the fears being generated are deliberately induced. Yes, based no doubt on deep psychological fears from the time when life was rather precarious, but not based on anything real today. And if the US is perpetuating these threats and fears unilaterally now, maybe we should ask who was driving the propaganda even in the cold war years. Maybe it was not quite as even as Bronfenbrenner thought.

Individuals may have little to do with the choice of national enemies. Most Americans, for example, know only what has been reported in the mass media about the Soviet Union. We are largely unaware of the forces that operate within our institutions, affecting the thinking of our leaders and ourselves, and which determine how the Soviet Union will be represented to us. Ill-will and a desire for revenge are transmitted from one generation to another, and we are not taught to think critically about how our assigned enemies are selected for us…But the attitude of one people towards another is usually determined by leaders who manipulate the minds of citizens for domestic political reasons which are generally unknown to the public.
1988 John E Mack, MD
The Lancet, 1988

National leaders have become adept at keeping their people focused on the supposed threat of an outside enemy. Yet the “cold war” taught that today we no longer could destroy the enemy on the other side of the wall, the river or the ocean without destroying ourselves. Destroying “the enemy” in the nuclear era inevitably means self-destruction. Even then people kid themselves that their protective myth will guarantee them safety, whether some sort of Star-Wars defensive system or the protection of God whisking away people still alive to heaven for a grandstand seat to watch the fireworks. As for terrorism, it is no different. We cannot eliminate terrorism, we cannot bomb it or any other belief or ideology out of existence. What we are left with is to attempt to increase our effectiveness in persuasion and proving what works in practice. For that we must stop dehumanizing the terrorist enemy and view them as full human beings with some legitimate grievances.

There is no self-awareness or self-responsibility at the highest political level which corresponds to the awareness of personal responsibility with which we are familiar as moral beings in society. So we have to create a new expectation of political self-responsibility—a political morality. Instead of constant blaming of the other side, we need to give new attention to adversaries’ culture and history, to their dreams and their values. We can no longer afford enemies, and nor is the notion of national security any longer useful. The security of each depends on everyone else. Regrettably the most powerful people in the world are the unbelievable rich who control it and therefore us all.

Conflict can become genocidal when powerful groups think that the most efficient means to get what they want is to eliminate those in the way.
Chirot, D and McCauley, C, Why Not Kill Them All?

Until they cease to want more by any means at all, as they have done so far, or they are forcibly removed from the equation, we can never have a world free of war. Greed at the top is the ultimate perpetuator of international enmity.

References:

  • Mack, J E, The Enemy System (short version)
  • Chirot, D and McCauley, C, Why Not Kill Them All? The Logic and Prevention of Mass Political Murder
  • Zur, O (1991), The love of hating: The psychology of enmity. History of European Ideas

Friday, January 30, 2015

Nationalism, War, Fascism, Class, the State

Class disguised as nationalism is the basic cause of wars in the modern period. There is no fully developed social psychology of nationalism, but there is of class… Marxism.

The essence of government is the use of force in accordance with law to secure certain ends which the holders of power consider desirable. The coercion of an individual or a group by force is always in itself more or less harmful. Those who are being coerced by the force of the state may not feel they are benefitting in any way, but those wielding the power always know that they are. They argue that if there were no government, it would not mean that force would stop being used between men. It would merely be the exercise of force by those who had strong predatory instincts, necessitating either slavery or an uncharacteristic willingness to repel force with force on the part of those whose instincts were less violent.

This is, of course, the state of affairs at present, the ruling class being the predator in the position of being able to use force against the subjugated class. And in international relations, the current super power or powers are in the position of being able to use their force against any other state they choose to.

So the ruling elite of the world’s super power(s) are the ones who hold the power of force over everyone else, and those elite people tell us they are using force to keep at bay the horrors of communism or anarchism or Islamists or whatever they find most appropriate to single out as the ones who are currently terrorising the world.

In fact, it is they, the world’s elite who are terrorising everyone else because they are the ones with the power to do it, but their propaganda is that they use their force to save everyone else from anarchy, and we are meant to be immediately persuaded by them, their media moguls and their academic gurus that they are entirely correct. Yet the behaviour of the USA in the 70 years since the second world war, is so manifestly clear—the USA is the propagator of terror everywhere—that it is amazing anyone falls for the ruling propaganda claptrap.

If communism or anarchism or Islam have no solution to offer for the evils of the world, why does the world under the guiding force of the US industrialised military class keep taking us all into hideous unavoidable wars? The student of the modern world has to see war and its excuses as political and economic myths produced to scare everyone into submission. Americans cannot abide Islam and a religion of submission, but the US religion of submission is enjoined by all of those wonderful US Zionist Christians, supposedly free to exercise their free will, but so completely mesmerised by ruling class smoke and mirrors that they require no supreme being to fall before. They do it anyway to any authoritative enough figure they meet.

These people, like Oliver Wendell Holmes, spoke of the experience of combat as an epiphany, as offering an opportunity for heroism, “brotherhood, community, dedication, selflessness, order, command, ritual, and aristocracy in an era when all these were being eroded by bourgeois liberal society” (L Bramson & G W Goethals, “War”). And, if this is at all true, it is because the people who had taken over the running of society were the capitalists whose raison d’etre was the new liberal economics which according to Adam Smith would exercise the invisible hand of the beneficial liberal society to make everything better for everyone.

It was true, though only if you were one of the controlling elite, and that is who they meant by “everyone”. The propagandists of the rulers presented war as glorious and so on, because it was helping to save the good society offered by capitalism from all and every conceivable alternative, and tempted by all that glory, heroism and national adulation, what young person with no discernable future other than poverty and drudgery could resist?

Nationalism and the nation-state emerge as the only focus for identity for millions of alienated workers and peasant/small holders whose conditions of life have been transformed by the speed of change brought on by the insane rush by the already rich to accumulate more capital. Poor soldiers, though getting only a small share of the national wealth, could claim a large share of the national glory, which was again just what the ruling elite want, but few infantrymen ever get to realise.

Led by a militarising civil society keen to identify the personal ambition of those with no ambition but that presented to them by the prevailing glorifying of nationalism and its associated last refuge of scoundrels many people find seemingly noble cause destiny and mutual social bonding in the founding of a community they can identify with in the nation and its citizens’ army to guard endangered freedoms. They founded fascism, and liked it! The liberal rhetoric of the defence of freedom, actually served to tighten the ruling class grip on it.

The power of capitalism was to commodify everything, and with the militarisation of society, weapons were also commodified and their manufacture and use became essential to the ruling elite. Capitalism developed a superstructure consisting of a military-industrial and financial complex, as President Eisenhower noticed even from the golf tee. Meanwhile, the prospect of modern aerial warfare could suitably terrorise the nervous population for whom militarism had become the norm. Shared danger albeit in a country safe enough from most conventional warfare kept the community of citizen soldiers anxious and a mystique of war and hero worship popular among people previously glad to take a girl to a drive-in or to see a baseball match. The experience of combat was created a new aristocracy—those who had seen action, killed the “terrorists” and returned home, but their own wounds and scars, notably those that were mental and not simply physical, and those whose physical scars were too horrific to show found themselves fighting new battles and, they now found, with little help or sympathy. The real heroes were not weak, and did not need counselling and psychiatry.

Then in militaristic society, the distinction between the violent criminal and the war hero is pretty narrow, and damaged heroes often metamorphosed into horrible criminals, but the state wants to employ the thug as the agent of its force to keep society from communism and anarchy or Islam, it wants the soldier citizen to be ready and willing to kill, at the command of some state authority… but not otherwise! Where does it leave morality? Where is Christian morality when the liberal state wants the elite to exploit those simple or naïve enough not to realise they are being robbed. The capitalist congratulates himself that he is helping the poor man get to heaven, no doubt. He is willing to sacrifice his own place there for the simple reason that he only pretends to believe it for the sake of the subjects. Neoliberalism does not punish the powerful and the wealthy. They get wealthy and powerful by their using force, and they have the force of the state to maintain their privileged position.

In a just society, the private use of force should be prohibited except in rare cases, but the state actually is the class of people that administer it and benefit from it. Those people are not going to administer a just state because it would mean removing their own power to do it!

As the ruling class cannot be expected to remove their own privilege, it remains to the subject and normally submissive class to do it, as Marx explained, but it requires the poor and oppressed to become conscious of their own role and power. The first step to doing it is to appreciate that the state is not neutral but serves a ruling class of rich and powerful people called capitalists, people who are not pleasant and are not democrats. Ordinary people can rally together and give the ruling elite a surprise, and get immense strength out of their feeling of brotherhood. Hemingway wrote, concerning the Spanish Civil War when people from all over the world went to help defend the Spanish Republic against the African soldiers under the command of the fascist general Franco:

It gave you a part in something that you could believe in wholly and completely and in which you felt an absolute brotherhood with the others who were engaged in it.

Once the people, and particularly the fighting men realise what they ought to be fighting for, the revolution becomes possible.

Friday, December 7, 2012

Explaining Zionism: Jewish Nationalism

Many Jews reject Ziobism for religious reasons

Palestinian Oppression

Palestinian refugees were driven off their land by Zionist invaders, who made it their own. Devoid of their homes, hundreds of thousands of Arabs barely managed to keep alive with the help of charitable organizations. Their children, wholly absorbed in getting hold of a crust of bread, did not attend school and knew none of the joys of youth. A whole generation of Arabs have been born and brought up in exile never having known their original homeland.

Four major wars and many lesser ones and uprisings flared up in the Middle East since 1948. Overrunning Arab settlements, Israeli troops left ruin and ashes in their wake. Anguish and suffering followed them everywhere they went. Mercy is unknown to Zionism.

Zionist Origins

Zionism became a political movement among wealthy Jews at the end of the nineteenth century, when European imperialism encouraged a nationalist ferment to aggravate class antagonism across the continent. It grew among Yiddish speaking Jews from central to Eastern Europe in the shadow of German nationalism, mimicking the German need for an ideology of identity as part of the last phase of European nationalist enthusiasm. Its proponents were German Jews, Theodor Herze, Moses Hess, and Max Nordau, and it was peculiar among German Yiddish speakers in comparison with Jews elsewhere that there was a growing modern secular culture ready to enter the European ferment of nationalist movements.

The term “Zionism” was first introduced in 1893 by Nathan Birmbaum, an Austrian Jew, but the spiritual father of the movement was Theodor Herze, another Austrian Jew, then on the editorial staff of the Neue Freie Presse, a Vienna newspaper. Born in the family of a rich emancipated Budapest merchant, he became completely assimilated, changing his Jewish name to an Austrian one—Theodor Herzl. Although he knew no Hebrew, nor Jewish history, Herzl became the ideologue of Jewish nationalism.

Capitalizing on a favourable situation which had developed after the case of Alfred Dreyfus, a captain in the French General Staff who was unjustly accused by antisemites of spying for Germany and who in 1894 was sentenced to penal servitude for life, Herzl was recognized as the founder of the Zionist ideology when he published his book, The Jewish State (1895), where he declared that the cure for antisemitism was the establishment of a Jewish state. As he saw it, the best place to establish this state was in Palestine. He called on the Jews not to sit and wait for the Messiah to come, but to quickly resettle “the land promised to them by God”, and establish a Jewish national state there. Despite his efforts, however, by 1914, ten years after his death, only 2 percent of German Jews were Zionists.

Herzl’s view was eagerly grabbed and upheld by his followers. Chaim Weizmann, then a chemistry professor at Manchester university in the UK, maintained that antisemitism is a bacillus which every man carries with him everywhere, regardless of his assurances to the contrary. Following mainstream Zionist rejection of that proposal, Weizmann was credited later with persuading Balfour, then the GB Foreign Minister, for British support to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the original Zionist demand. Weizmann famously said:

There is a country which happens to be called Palestine, a country without people, and, on the other hand, there exists the Jewish people, and it has no country.

Palestine certainly did have a people—the Palestinians—but they were ruled for hundreds of years by the Ottomons. Apparently, because they did not rule themselves, Weizmann and his fellow Zionists could not see them. Yet the Jews had not ruled themselves since the time of Pompey, the Roman general in the first century BC! Neverthless, this slogan, “a country without a people for a people without a country” was used to recruit Jewish immigrants to Palestine. Weizmann also described the Palestinian people, “the rocks of Judea, as obstacles that had to be cleared on a difficult path”. In the 1920s, with Zionism still unpopular among Jews, Weizmann wrote:

I trembled lest the British Government would call me and ask: “Tell us, what is this Zionist Organization? Where are they, your Zionists?”… The Jews, they knew, were against us [the Zionists].

Weizmann eventually became president of the Zionist Organization (ZO). Founded in 1897, Herzl’s followers and supporters met at their first international congress in Basel, Switzerland, giving birth to the Zionist Organization. Mount Zion is a hill at the edge of Jerusalem, on which, according to the bible, king David, the mythical ruler of Judah, once lived. The Temple of Jerusalem, which became the centre of Judaism, was built there during the reign of David’s equally mythical son, King Solomon… allegedly!

The ZO became the WZO, the World Zionist Organization, which accepted no individuals as members, but united various political groups and parties—from the fascist-type Berut to self-styled labour and socialist ones like MAPAI and MAPAM. The WZO’s supreme body was the periodically convened Zionist Congress, delegates to which were appointed by the leaders of Zionist organizations in different countries. Originally, congresses were held every year, but later the intervals between them grew longer, until it became once every four years. The Congress elects the World Zionist Council which forms the executive committee with representatives in New York and Jerusalem. The WZO has branches in many countries consisting of the World Zionist Unions, international Zionist Federations, and international organizations calling themselves Zionist, such as WIZO, Hadassah, Bnai-Brith, Maccabi, the International Sephardic Federation, and the three streams of world Judaism—Orthodox, Conservative, Reform.

Judaism as Ideology

From the outset the WZO adopted Judaism, not as its religion—many of the Zionists were secular or actively atheistic—but as its ideology. The myths invented by Judaic priests about the Jews being God’s chosen people, about the Promised Land, the rising from ruins on Mount Sinai of a temple built by people freed from captivity by Cyrus the Persian and destroyed by Romans in 73 AD, and also the determination of the rabbis to preserve the separation of Jewish communities, accorded with the political aims of unscrupulous Zionist leaders. By applying religious dogmata to politics, Zionists seek to sow national discord among people, and extend the Judaic thesis about the Jews being God’s chosen people to claim that the Jews are a “noble race”, and “the purest race among the civilized nations of the world”. Having reconstructed a fourteenth century treatise written by Talmudic sages, they used it for a book of instruction in Israeli schools. It says Jews are “mankind’s elite” and that “people of other nationalities should be slaves to the Jews”.

Zionist propaganda claims that besides the “historical exclusiveness” of the Jewish race, the Jews possess greater ability and enterprise than European, Asian and African peoples. For this reason, goes the Zionist hypothesis, people of other races or nationalities envy the Jews, and fear them because they cannot compete with them, in equal situations. This, Zionists claim, causes the bitter hatred they arouse. Naturally, these ideas are scientifically unverified because they are purely invented. No race can remain pure in the course of many centuries of contact with other peoples. Attempts to prove “racial purity” are absurd, and do not differ from Nazi ideology. Far from being universally hated, Judaism is a culture that most people admire, but that Zionism is successfully undermining.

In their biblical myths, the Jews’ forebears, the Israelites, came to Palestine from the Sinai Desert around 1300 BC, and partly conquered then mixed freely with the indigenous population of Palestine, the Canaanites. In actual history, they were Canaanites who were introduced to a form of diluted Zoroastrianism by their Persian overlords in the fifth century BC. It is from Zoroastrianism that Jews derive their cleanliness taboos, Judaism having no theological explanation for them, whereas Zoroastrianism has.

The Persian colonists, the Judaic priesthood, forbade mixed marriages at that time. Despite that, with the demise of the Persian empire to Alexander’s Macedonians, the priests did marry with the native people, the Am ha Eretz, so “God’s chosen people” from then on were interbred, and they have interbred a good deal more since, for intermixing never stopped despite the ban. Besides that, the Persians allowed and perhaps required, non-Persian subjects to convert to Judaism, which they seem to have been setting up as a new religion for non-Zoroastrians as a stepping stone to conversion. Thus Jews have always been settled in other places in the world besides Palestine.

The Romans did not expel the Jews from Palestine after the Jewish War of 66-73 AD as most people seem to think. Proof enough is the Jewish rising under the messianic claimant, Bar Kochba, in 132-135 AD. If Jews were strong enough to rise against the Romans 70 years after the Jewish War and require several legions to be beaten, they obviously had not been expelled beforehand. Jews were expelled from Jerusalem, but not from Palestine, after this uprising. Hadrian made Jerusalem a city of Goyim, and called it Ælia Capitolina.

Some wealthier Jews—priests were largely the local ruling class, the princes and nobles—will have left Palestine to join the diaspora in the Roman and Persian empires, but most could only retreat to the countryside to live with relatives on smallholdings, like the Arab fellahin, or sell themselves as slaves. These Palestinian Jews differed from most in the diaspora in that the Persians had sent them as the priests of the new Jerusalem temple, and they felt more strongly, as priests, that they had to keep pure. The later diaspora rabbis—in an effort to preserve their influence and income—persistently opposed mixed marriages, and damned the apostates with terrible punishment in the next world, and organized Jewish separation in ghettos, if they failed to completely keep their congregations pure.

Jewish Nationhood

In their effort to prove a lack of distinctions among Jews, and the existence of a world Jewish nation, the Zionists adopted an absurd definition of “nation”. According to them, a nation is a community of people united by struggle against a common enemy. This definition would make all the peoples involved in war against Napoleon’s France or against Nazi Germany a single nation, and it certainly contradicts their own propaganda that there is no Palestinian nation. If there was not, the Zionists have created it.

Equally absurd was the Zionists’ attempt to declare Jews all over the world a single nation on the basis of Judaism, allegedly the common religion of them all. While it is true that the original designation of Jew was a worshipper of Yehouah, the god of the Jews, yet obviously now:

  1. not all Jews believe in Yehouah and profess Judaism,
  2. beliefs and convictions do not determine nationality, otherwise, all Catholics, Lutherans, Orthodox believers, and Buddhists, would have to be considered one nation.

So, there is no world Jewish nation which the Zionists claim to represent, nor was there ever such a nation. In those far-off days when the majority of the Jews lived as more or less compact communities, they, like other ethnic groups, could not become a “world nation”, or even an ordinary one, because there were no stable economic ties between them, which is an important condition for the emergence of a nation. Dispersed all over the world and having no such national characteristics as a common economy, land, language, dress, and common psychological traits, the Jews lacked the necessary requisites for nationhood:

What were the common elements in the ethnographic cultures of a Jew in Kiev and a Jew in Marrakech other than religious belief…?
Shlomo Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People, 2009

The only Jewish nation arose originally when the Hasmonaean family of priests in Yehud led a rebellion against their Seleucid Greek rulers, and succeeded in liberating the temple state, and even its subjects were diverse and certainly did not all speak one language. Moreover, most were illiterate. It was notionally a theocracy, although practically it was ruled by the victorious noble family of the Hasmonaean princes. They declared the temple state an independent Jewish state, even though most Jews did not live there and never had done. Soon the Roman general Pompey took over Judah and renamed it Palestine after the earlier tribe whose name, the Philistines, had been given to the coastal land. The Jewish kingdom had lasted about a century.

Antisemitism

Then: Jews victims of German Nationalism. Now: Palestinians victims of Jewish Nationalism

Readers may be shocked to learn that Herzl believed Zionism offered the world a welcome “final solution of the Jewish question”. Thus he, not the Nazis, coined that awful phrase. While claiming the establishment of a “Jewish” state would cure antisemitism, he also thought antisemitism should be used to further his Zionist cause. So the main argument for a mass emigration of Jews to Palestine for Herzl was what he called universal and uncontrollable antisemitism, since he believed that the people among whom the Jews lived were all either openly or secretly antisemitic.

Benny Morris, an Israeli Historian, described how Herzl foresaw that antisemitism could be “harnessed” for the realization of Zionism. He said:

Herzl regarded Zionism’s triumph as inevitable, not only because life in Europe was ever more untenable for Jews, but also because it was in Europe’s interests to rid the Jews and be relieved of antisemitism. The European political establishment would eventually be persuaded to promote Zionism. Herzl recognized that antisemitism would be “harnessed” to his own—Zionist-purposes.
Righteous Victims, 21

Theodor Herzl was one of the first to view antisemitism in a positive light. He said:

It is essential that the sufferings of Jews… become worse… this will assist in realization of our plans… I have an excellent idea… I shall induce antisemites to liquidate Jewish wealth… The antisemites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The antisemites shall be our best friends.
Diaries, 1:16

and:

Anti-Semites will become our surest friends, antisemitic countries our allies.
Diaries, 19

Herzl wrote in his diary:

I’ve come to regard antisemitism more broadly. Historically, I’m beginning to understand and even forgive it. Moreover, I recognize the futility and uselessness of fighting antisemitism. A powerful and rather subconscious force, it is not harmful to the Jews. I consider it a useful factor in the development of Jewish individuality.

Another ideologist of Zionism, Vladimir Jabotinsky, who founded the ultra-Right Herut party and whom the Zionists idolized after his death, wrote in 1905:

In Zionist propaganda, antisemitism is of course very convenient and useful, especially as a principle.

In keeping with these theories, the followers of Herzl and Jabotinsky have invariably relied on antisemitism as scaremongering propaganda among Jews. They have provoked instances of antisemitism. David Ben-Gurion, a Zionist leader and Israel’s first Prime Minister, organized, through Zionist agents, the blowing up of a synagogue in Baghdad to provide proof of the persecution of Jews in Iraq and to justify the persecution of Arabs in Israel. He stated cynically that he would like to send specially picked young men to countries of Jewish mass settlement to promote antisemitic campaigns which would be more effective in getting Jews to emigrate to Israel than the call of the “ancient homeland”. Zionists see every Jew as a supporter, eager to return to the “land of his forefathers”. According to the logic of Zionists, and that of the rabid antisemitic pogromists, all Jews are either pro-Zionist or pro-communist.

Despite all lures and persuasion, and the support of capitalist countries, people prepared to seek happiness in a strange land with an unfamiliar climate and hard physical conditions were few. So Jewish emigration to Palestine remained slight and the Jewish population in Palestine grew only slowly. Zionist propagandists did not attain much success with their vivid descriptions of “an earthly paradise” in the “ancient homeland” or appeals to nationalist sentiments and the “call of the blood”.

Reflecting their origins and purpose, the methods used by the Zionists in winning over a considerable part of the Jewish poor are reminiscent of those used by the Nazis who, while upholding the interests of the financial oligarchy, managed, by means of demagogy, deception, and inflated nationalist sentiments, to enlist the mass support of the lower middle class and large sections of the German working people. In both cases antisemitism was used to advantage. The Nazis incited it, and the Zionists exploited the results. In making false promises of an earthly paradise in the Holy Land, they used the bogeyman of antisemitism to intimidate innocent people. They rightly regarded it as one of their chief propaganda cards, and happily capitalized on the slightest manifestations of it. They knew that antisemites strengthened Zionism.

Zionist reliance on antisemitism to further its aims continues still. Without a continued inflow of Jewish immigrants to Israel, within a decade its Jewish population will be the minority. So to maintain a Jewish majority, its leaders “encourage” Jews to leave their homelands and seek “refuge” by promoting antisemitism throughout the world. In some periods, it has worked. Studies of immigration records reflect increased immigration to the Zionist state when antisemitism is rife.

Nazi Collaboration

What the Zionist recruiting agents failed to achieve was done by Nazi terror. Rabid Nazi antisemitism and the wave of pogroms which swept Germany late on 9 November, 1938—ironically, that night was called Crystal Night, because the streets were covered with glass from the windows of Jewish shops and flats—to the Zionists were a blessing. In the first three years Hitler was in power, from 1933 to 1936, the Jews in Palestine increased by 50 percent. When the Second World War began, the influx of Jewish immigrants became particularly large. As the Nazis conquered more and more countries, the number of Jewish refugees grew.

Various Zionist organizations, working in contact with the Nazis, sent the refugees only to Palestine, refusing to cooperate with, and even hindering, those who wished to go to another country. Levi Eshkol—Lev Shkolnik when he was still a Slav—the future Israeli head of government, took an active part in setting up the Palestine Office in Berlin. This office sorted out Jewish refugees to be sent to their “ancient homeland”, selecting first of all Zionist activists, well to do men, and young people.

The departure of old men and women and poor people to Palestine was hindered with a host of pretexts. The extent to which the cynicism of the selectors went can be judged from the reply of the then head of the World Zionist Organization, Chaim Weizmann, to some British MPs who asked him whether it would be possible to move all the West European Jews to Palestine:

No, old people are out… They are dust, the economic and moral dust of the greater world…

In the face of the threat of physical extermination of the entire Jewish population of Germany, the Zionist “guardians” of the Jews were not concerned about saving the lives of elderly German Jews—they were only interested in expanding the Jewish colony in Palestine. It implies a Nazi holocaust of solely elderly Jews would have been acceptable to Zionist leaders like Weizmann.

They vigorously protested when the US President, Franklin D Roosevelt, expressed readiness to give asylum to half a million Jewish refugees from Europe. They insisted that the US Department of the Interior refuse permission to Jewish refugees from Europe to settle in Alaska, that only one door be open for Jewish emigrants—to Palestine. Thus they zealously saw to it that the victims of Nazi terror would get no other possibility of escape except to the Promised Land. Zionist agents continued just as zealously after WWII to obstruct Jews from going anywhere but Palestine. They persuaded the British authorities to forbid Jewish emigration to Western Australia. They reached agreement with the American and British authorities that Jews in “displaced persons” camps would have only one road to take—to Palestine.

That is how Zionist leaders treat in deeds, and not in words, such conceptions as the unity, brotherhood, and community of interests of the Jews which they spout in their propaganda. As a result of these coercive measures, by 1948 the Jewish community in Palestine numbered over 600,000 or one third of the population. This was also a result of the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis, who acted in partnership with Zionists, as well as the use of deception and brute force rather than the appeal of Zionist propaganda.

The Zionists maintained close ties with fascist regimes of Pilsudski in Poland, of Mussolini in Italy, and of Antonescu in Romania. They even reached agreement with the Nazis. According to Julius Mader, a German journalist, the list of Zionists who collaborated with the Nazis consisting of 16 close typed pages. Years later Zionist dealings with the Nazis were revealed by such senior Zionist leaders as:

  • Chaim Weizmann, the first President of Israel
  • Moshe Sharett, his successor
  • David Ben-Gurion, later Prime Minister of Israel
  • Rudolf Kastner, the Hungarian Zionist leader...

Zionists even cooperated with SS Obersturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann and SS Standartenführer Kurt Becher, two of Hitler’s henchmen who organized mass killings of Jews. Early in 1939, long before Hitler planncd his “final solution” of the Jewish question, Zionist leaders made a deal with Eichmann according to which the Nazis were to let a train of Jews leave for Palestine. The passengers on that train had been carefully selected, and included Zionist activists and Jewish capitalists. In return for that favour, Zionist leaders helped Eichmann to select 40,000 people from among the Jewish poor and workers and to send to extermination camps. Eichmann looked favourably on his Zionists friends for making his job easier.

According to the West German magazine, Der Spiegel, the chief of the Jewish Affairs Department of the Nazi intelligence service, von Mindelstein, cooperated with the Zionists in setting up special camps where young Jewish people were trained in farm work before they were sent to Palestine. Von Mindelstein closely followed Zionist propaganda. He even had a map in his department showing the spread of Zionism among the German Jews.

A vivid example of cooperation between the Zionists and the Nazis is Rudolf Kastner, the head of the Hungarian branch of the Jewish Agency and permanent delegate to the International Zionist Congress, and his assistants, including Grosz-Bandy Gyórgy, Moshe Schweiger, Moshe Kraus, Joel Brandt and his wife. They arranged with Eichmann and Becher to ransom Zionist activists and rich Jews held captive by the Nazis at 1,000 dollars each. The deal was to be kept secret. Zionist talk of “a lack of class distinctions” among Jews, “racial unity” and “unbreakable brotherhood” was forgotten at oncc. Later Kastner admitted that train accommodation was offered first of all to those who could pay the most in money or valuables!

The deal netted the Nazis $200,000, 200kg of gold, and 750g of platinum, to say nothing of other valuables and currencies. However, Kastner and company paid more than just “filthy lucre” to save the lives of their associates. In those days, hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were concentrated in camps from which they were sent to Auschwitz to be exterminated. The camps were only a few miles away from the Romanian border, and Romania had already capitulated under the pressure of advancing Soviet armed forces. Had the inmates known that they were condemned to die they would have tried to escape, and it is not likely that the small force posted to guard them could have successfully stopped them. Enö Lévai, a Hungarian historian, writes:

Undoubtedly, if the hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews had known what fate awaited them, if they had been told about this, the Nazis could not have been able to herd them, like cattle, into the ghettos, and from there, just as easily, into death trains. They had not been informed by anyone. On the contrary, Jewish organizations, including the Jewish Agency, reassured them and urged them to comply with all the requests in order to avoid a greater evil.

This was the price that the Hungarian Zionist leaders willingly paid to rescue the businessmen who financed them and their disciples.

When the state of Israel came into being, Kastner was given a responsible post in the Ministry of Industry and Trade. He was also put in charge of the department of Kol-Israel—the Voice of Israel—broadcasting to Hungary and Romania.

In 1953, Kastner sued a journalist, M Greenwald, “for libel”. In his articles Greenwald had lifted the shroud of secrecy from Kastner’s treacherous activity in Hungary. Examined at a Jerusalem court the case finally backfired against Kastner. The testimony of witnesses and the authentic documents showed him to have been in collusion with the Nazis. At another trial held in Budapest, in May 1955, Kastner was conclusively exposed as a Nazi collaborator. When cornered, he admitted having collaborated with Eichmann, Becher and other killers of Jews. His frankness, however, cost him his life. On May 3, 1957, he was shot at in the street, and died in an Israeli hospital under somewhat obscure circumstances. During investigation of the shooting it was found that two of the three assailants were agents of the Israeli secret police. One of them told the court that he had acted under orders of the Israeli secret service. The Zionist leaders had succeeded in silencing their over-talkative associate.

Kastner was no exception among Zionists. S Mayer, the head of the Zionist branch in Switzerland, also ransomed his associates from the Nazis. He did this through SS Sturmbannführer Hans Eggen. The SS used the large sums turned over to Eggen to buy strategic materials, transport means and military equipment.

Judenrats

A horrible phenomenon was the cooperation of the Zionist Judenrats with the Nazis, helpng them to enforce their orders for lists of people to be taken in the ghettos to be murdered. They made up lists of inmates condemned to death, and they built up “an exchange fund” of persons to be exchanged for Zionist activists whenever the latter were included by the SS in the lists of persons marked for extermination. Hannah Arendt, a celebrated Jewish political thinkers, accused the Judenrats in her 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem. Without the Judenräte’s assistance in the registration of the Jews in ghettos, and, later, in the Jews’ deportation to extermination camps, many fewer Jews would have perished. The Germans could not have easily drawn up the lists of Jews they needed. The Nazis entrusted Jewish officials to make these lists, and information about the property they owned. The Judenräte also told the Jewish police to help Germans catch Jews and load them onto trains for concentration camps. Arendt wrote:

To a Jew this role of the Jewish leaders in the destruction of their own people is undoubtedly the darkest chapter of the whole dark story.

The Lwow Judenrat in the Ukraine included such Jewish capitalists as Heinrich Landsberg, Joseph Parnas, Eineugler, and Adolf Ratfeld. It had an administrative apparatus of about 3,000, and a police force of 750 men armed with rubber clubs. The latter helped the SS to keep discipline in the ghetto and to herd condemned persons into vehicles to be taken out and shot. The Nazis eventually assuming that those who betrayed their own kith and kin could also betray them, abolished the Judenräte and their Jewish police. But that disgraceful collaboration with the Nazi murderers remains one of the more hideous chapters in the history of Zionism.

The story of Dr Alfred Nossig, a veteran of the Zionist movement, was somewhat different from that of the Judenrat leaders. For many years he was a Gestapo informer and together with the Nazis worked out plans for exterminating poor and old Jews. He was 80 years old when he was captured, charged with treason, and executed by Warsaw ghetto militants.

Towards the end of the war, when it became clear that the Nazis would have to soon answer for their crimes, important Zionists readily entered into talks with them concerning their future relations. Gestapo and Nazi security service chiefs began meeting with N Masur, G Storch, the Sternbuch brothers and other Zionist leaders. Himmler received Masur in his office and he tried to ingratiate himself with H Storch, the Stockholm representative of the World Jewish Congress, in the hope of securing his protection in the future. Himmler promised Dr Musy, a former President of Switzerland who mediated between Himmler and the Zionists, to let small groups of Jews go to Switzerland according to lists made up by the Zionists. The transaction was to be paid for in foreign currency. In an effort to minimize the retribution coming to his chief, SS Brigadenführer Walter Schellenberg, one of Himmler’s right-hand men, wrote several articles printed in US newspapers, with the help of the organization of American rabbis, praising the respectability of Heinrich Himmler.

The Zionists did not fail Nazis. Thanks to their Zionist protectors quite a few Nazis escaped the hangman’s noose. For instance, when after the war SS Obergruppenfüher Hans Juttner, SS Standartenführer Kurt Becher, SS Obersturmbannführer Hermann Krumey and several other SS führers were tried by the US Nuremberg tribunal, the testimony of witnesses for the defence sent by Zionist organizations saved the lives of these criminals.

Obviously, a key factor here was that, prior to his arrest, Becher turned two trunks with gold and precious stones over to Moshe Schweitzer, who sent them, through the Palestinian representative of the Jewish Agency, Arman, to the Agency’s treasurer, Kaplan. These dealers were not abashed by the fact that the gold and stones had come from the SS account in the Reichsbank and had been supplied by death camps. Auschwitz alone yielded the SS nine tons of gold teeth every year.

It is perhaps a bitter paradox that it was with these funds that the Jad Washem Memorial, whose floor is laid with slabs bearing the names of Auschwitz, Majdanek, Tremblinka, Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, Babii Yar, and other places where mass extermination of Jews took place, was built on a hill near the western edge of Jerusalem, or that the Forest of Martyrs, consisting of six million trees—the number of Nazi victims—was planted. The men of Zion had too easily and too soon swept clean the record of their collaboration with the Nazis. Guided by the cynical principle that the end justifies the means, to achieve their goal, Zionists were ready to collaborate with absolutely anyone, to bargain with millions of Jewish lives and to betray their own people without compunction.

Racial Purity and Class Division

Jewish history has been developing in accordance with the general laws of historical progression, by class struggle between an exploiting class and those who were exploited. No arguments of a religious, racial or nationalist nature can substantiate the groundless Zionist assertions that the Jews are an exception to the rule, that to them neither property status, class distinctions, nor class struggle are of any consequence:

Among the Jews there are working people, and they form the majority. They are our brothers, who, like us, are oppressed by capital. They are our comrades in the struggle for socialism. Among the Jews there are kulaks, exploiters, and capitalists, just as there are among the Russians, and among people of all nations. The capitalists strive to sow and foment hatred between workers of different faiths, different nations and different races. Those who do not work are kept in power by the power and strength of capital. Rich Jews, like rich Russians, and the rich in all countries, are in alliance to oppress, crush, rob and disunite workers.
V I Lenin

In its entire history of over a century, Zionism has never, in any circumstances, put forward or supported slogans calling on the Jewish workers to struggle against the exploitation of the Jewish capitalists. The Zionists have never anywhere raised their voice in defence of Jewish workers against Jewish bankers, merchants and manufacturers. So the class character of Zionism is plain and shows whom it actually serves. Just like the German Nazis, they substituted nationalism for class struggle undermining not only the cause of the liberation of Jewish workers from capitalist oppression, but the workers of the world.

Zionists needed the myth of racial purity to justify their claim that class distinctions were alien to the Jewish nation. According to them, property status makes no difference to Jews. They are all one family within the bounds of one nation. They are all brothers and friends united by common interests. Together they oppose the hostile peoples surrounding them, and together they uphold their common interests.

In the tsarist Russian Empire, according to Zionist logic, it was not the workers of Russian, Ukrainian, Polish and other nationalities who were the friends and brothers of the Jewish workers, but the sugar manufacturer Brodsky, the bankers Ginsburg, Kaminka, and Brothers Polyakov, the tea king Vysotsky, the Franco-British millionaire family of Rothschild, the German capitalist Oskar Wassermann, the US financial magnates Jakob H Schiff, Henry Morgenthau, Bernard Deutsch, Otto Warburg, and others who invested capital in Russia’s industry and received tremendous dividends from their profiteering. The idea of a class peace so advantageous to the Jewish middle class was also favourably viewed by the non-Jewish middle class who were no less interested in substituting national antagonisms for class ones.

Leading up to the revolution in Russia, Zionist leaders stood aside, cynically stating in a policy paper that the Russian revolution would not solve the “Jewish problem”. Naturally, the tsar’s police approved. One of its chiefs, Zubatov, urged the police department to support the Zionists in every way. The Zionists actively cooperated with counter revolutionaries. The tsarist Minister of Internal Affairs and organizer of the Jewish pogrom in Kishinev received Herzl in 1903 and had a long and friendly talk with him. He completely approved the Zionists’ desire to set up a legal organization in Russia and promised to secure the “royal approval of the monarch”.

A Zionist activist, a lawyer named Hessen, kept closely in touch with the Monarchists. A political party advocating unlimited autocracy, it included important landowners, government officials, and clergymen. After the October 1917 socialist revolution, he associated with White Guards, the various armed detachments raised by former tsarist army officers to bring about a civil war—a tactic western governments still use, as in Syria today—and fight against the socialist republic, and did his best to justify the Jewish pogroms they organized. During the Civil War, another Zionist leader, Pasmanik, urged Jews to cooperate with the anti-socialist armies. When Soviet power was consolidated, he fled to Paris where he took part in planning external anti-Soviet military plots.

Zionism is an ideological tool of capitalism in the era of imperialism. It is the way Jewish capital cooperates with world capital and the forces of imperialist reaction to achieve their global ends. The Zionist state, Israel, is central to that role.


  • I Abuelaish, I Shall Not Hate, 2011
  • R Brodsky, The Truth about Zionism, 1974
  • S Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People, 2009

Saturday, September 15, 2012

How It Will Be Done! The Struggle for Socialism


A United Response

The ferocious and intensifying attack by the rich men’s party on the people who actually do the work needs an united response—by us! Yet we remain in a deplorable state of hesitation, disunity and confusion. Plenty of organizations and people online on various lists, forums and Facebook grumble away together discontentedly, but with no sound, agreed analysis of what is going on, though that is what is needed. The difficulty is that it is hard to get unity when the government is supported by the millions of issues of propaganda printed daily by the capitalist media, and the almost identical, selective “news” presented by the TV channels.

Yet we have one daily newspaper in the UK that is consistently in favor of the interests of ordinary people, the Morning Star. This paper is not run by capitalists, but millions who are discontent with the mass media still choose capitalist newspapers with their anti-worker agenda instead of a newspaper that suits us in our struggle against bank induced austerity, and for decent jobs, pay, conditions and benefits when we are ill or have fallen into unemployment, situations that are far from unusual but can be disastrous for families in starkly capitalist countries like the USA, the model for Cameron’s party here in the UK.

The satisfaction of these demands is impossible in the present dire capitalist crisis, which will only be settled within the system when wages are forced down by mass unemployment and enforced suffering. That is the nature of the capitalist system.

We can be sure that as soon as people start reading the progressive daily paper, and thereby begin to co-ordinate their opinions and efforts that the police will find excuses for arresting those leading and co-ordinated the protests. Protesters will be described in the capitalist media as “rentacrowd”, “anarchists”, “conspirators”, “rioters” and “hooligans”, with the aim of painting the leading protestors as extremists or louts, and magistrates will issue them with punitive fines or terms of penal servitude, the basis for all this having been set by the heavy punishments imposed on youths even for trivial misdemeanors following the riots of August 2011. That when a government minister, Stephen Laws, who stole £40,000 in false expenses was let off then taken back into government!

Such happenings must anger us all the more, and stir us to greater protest until it becomes a mass protest that simply cannot be handled by the authorities in that unjust and bullying manner, and the ones incarcerated have to be released. Not being willing to act will yield the ground to the capitalist agents posing as a democratically elected government—the ConDems, the Conservative and Liberal Democratic coalition.

Who Overspent?

Protesting Against the Crisis

But although being that determined can beat back ConDem assaults against our persons, we need an alternative programme, and so far the Parliamentary opposition has not been adequately opposing the ConDems because New Labour has essentially the same outlook and motivation as the Tories and the Liberals. New Labour under its leader Ed Miliband remains the New Labour of Tony Blair, an alternative capitalist party. There is nothing socialist in the principle that only the private sector can run the economy, and that is the core of New Labour.

It was the Labour party when in power, that gave away to the bankers and their rich owners the contents of the British Treasury—money that the government took from us ostensibly to provide us with common services. Now the Treasury is empty because we have overspent. The TV stations are good at finding worthy but ignorant people, often pensioners and the unemployed with no means of overspending anything, to say on camera, no doubt for a modest incentive, "we have overspent, so we have to tighten our belts". We did not overspend, as the media propaganda has it, but it illustrates the power the capitalist media have over us, the confusion it generates, and the reason we need to read our own newspaper. That alone would help to get rid of the learned helplessness, apathy and inertia workers currently feel.

The government we elected to manage the country on our behalf gave to the rich the money we had put into the exchequer to give us health benefits, work and a pleasant environment to live in. The rich had gambled on junk stocks consisting of mortgage debt packaged for resale to permit the spreading among many buyers of the risk of lending money on inadequate security. So long as the housing boom continued, the value of a house would increase and eventually would equal and exceed the mortgage, leaving the debt secured and the bonds safe and yielding riches from mortgage repayments for decades into the future. The housing boom did not continue!

The banks that had devised the bonds and the greedy rich who had bought them were left broke, holding a load of nigh on worthless junk, and many banks were technically bankrupt. A run on any of them in that condition would have ended them. That is why national governments had to fill the void in the banks’ vaults by emptying the national treasuries. The greedy gamble of the rich was so bad and the banks so involved by their laying off individual risks with each other, just like bookies, that £trillions had to be given to banks in every western country to secure the ruling rich class from going bust! It was none of our business to bail them out. Governments elected to look after the interests of all of the people essentially protected the sole interest of the super rich one per cent, at the cost of the middle class and the poor worker.

With treasuries virtually empty, the national governments had to cut the services they were meant to supply via taxation, so civil servants and other public servants had to be cut. Ordinary people therefore were sold the lie that we had been overspending and a period of austerity—job losses especially from public services, and wage and benefit reductions—was needed to get us back on track. Meanwhile the rich are not even asked to pay back in taxes any of the £trillions they have ungratefully received from the taxpayer as a gift.

Determination Will Succeed

Leading the People

The economic leadership of working people in capitalism has always been the ones willing to step forward and lead the trades unions—activists and shop stewards. But these trades unionists realized they needed a political branch and set up the Labour Party, which remains to this day the party for most working people. Regrettably, though, the trades unions did not use the financial power they had over the Labour Party as the source of its funds to make it stick to its principles, particularly the important one of the socialization of the means of production, distribution and exchange, or Clause 4 as it was called.

The Labour Party has been controlled hitherto by trades unionists closest in ideology to the ruling class, those who were careeristic and opportunistic in outlook and willing to compromise with capital to maintain what they perceived as an advantageous position in the social hierarchy. Ultimately, the Labour party abandoned any pretense of socialism, but despite that, being able still to rely on the support of leading trades unionists who had grown indifferent to the question of socialism. Yet a concerted movement and campaign within the trades unions for a firm line on the Labour Party would be immensely beneficial to the effectiveness of working people in countering the pressing powers of wealth and the undemocratic European Community.

Now New Labour is all things to all men, including many working people who mistakenly believe it is still what it was. So long as that is the case, activists ought to do their utmost to bring it back into the fold, via trades union pressure and demands from the membership.

Here we have to convince substantial numbers of workers who believe themselves to be middle class and natural Tory voters—white collar workers like office workers, technicians, scientists, foremen and charge hands, or lower management generally, and small business people like small sole proprietorships! They wrongly identify themselves with the capitalist class even though they do not have enough capital to live off without working—they must work to live, yet deny that they are working class. Their interests are those of workers, not those of monopolists and financiers, yet they wilfully support the parties and policies of their class enemy, thereby giving their enemies the rope to hang them.

Of course, the capitalist media try to encourage readers and viewers to support the free-and-easy Labour Party of unprincipled political opportunists. With a capitalist Labour Party as well as a capitalist party, the UK has got closer to the American system of two alternating rich man’s parties, and no alternative policies. It is a system that holds no fears for the ruling rich class. What the rich do not want is the Labour Party to respond to trades union pressure and adopt anew the socialist principles it once has, at least in name.

So the media keep up their pressure for the Labour Party to stay in the “political center” of a scale that is constantly redefined as excluding the “extreme left”, meaning anyone on the left, socialist, communists, anarchist, or any other leftist view, eventually even liberal! So the political center creeps continuously to the right. The assumption of the media seems to be that voters have fixed political views, and parties have to change their policies to attract a greater spread of voters. So they all go for a broad enough spread to encompass the center, and end up overlapping substantially leaving little choice in practice.

Building Socialist Unity

  1. Political Struggle. The working class must not be diverted from the political struggle and instead be persuaded to settle for an endless economic war against the employers and their governments which leaves the employers wealth and power intact. To do so simply leaves working people at the capitalist’s mercy. The capitalist class simply regroup for another bash at the people—to restrict their conditions and freedom at a later date. That is not to say that an economic battle does not accomplish the political war. It does! After all, peoples’ immediate concerns are their economic welfare, but the political angle comes with the realization and acceptance that the capitalists and capitalism must be replaced by socialism if the class war is to end with the victory of the general good. For exploitation to be ended, capitalism must be ended. That is the object of the political struggle.

  2. Eschewing Capitalist Media. Given that the capitalists control the mass media, the mass of the working class is too confused to be relied upon to spontaneously find the correct reply to the attacks made upon it by the government of the rich. It is too easy for the mass media to pick on easy scapegoats in society and direct reactionary elements among the workers who are seeking easy targets, to put the blame onto them rather than the class enemy. Easy scapegoats must be easily recognized, so racialism is the first preferred distraction used by the media, currently black and Moslem immigrants. Events will not spontaneously take the right course. It is too easy to blame an accessible scapegoat when the real enemy is well hidden and protected by the state.

    People need principled leadership, and a principled party to do it, and the practical leadership of that party will be publicized and explained through the socialist newspaper. Wealth can always be converted into weapons for use against the workers whether by hand or by brain—the rich have the advantage in the age of capital. But the working people have the power through their co-ordinated ability to stop working and bring the economy to a halt, hitting the rich where they feel it most—in their wallets. Whatever the rich try to do, with the working people sufficiently determined and united, synchronized rolling strikes or a steadfast general strike can stop it. Building that degree of unity in the face of the capitalist media is essential, and is the reason why every socialist should eschew financing capitalist propaganda while the socialist news organ is undersubscribed and underfunded… and therefore of limited effect.

  3. Socialist consciousness. Equally, spontaneity implies and requires a widespread socialist consciousness and politico-economic understanding that takes a lot of practical experience and considerable devotion to Marxist study to gain. As most people will not have that sort of understanding without a proper journal to provide it, to imagine ordinary people will spontaneously do the right thing is likely to be a serious error, denigrating also the efforts of those who have tried to decipher the political signs. Moreover, it yields to those elements who will use any local crisis as an opportunity to get the reputation as a leader without adequate preparation, or to police agents provocateurs who use such situations to lead people astray and into traps.

    Marxism offers the proper framework for interpreting the crises and opportunities that arise in the struggle against capitalist exploitation. No two situations are alike, so Marxism is no crystal ball, at least in the sense of giving high definition answers, but it suggests the conditions and limits for successful action, and so is an essential guide to it. The active working class leader needs both theory and practice—often called praxis—understanding of both Marxist theory and practical experience in class struggle.

  4. Marxism. Those who press for a purely spontaneous rising against the oppression of the ruling class base their stance on the importance within capitalism of the economic struggle for fair wages and, decent conditions, and jobs. One might call these people “economicists” because they restrict the class struggle to one bounded by capitalist economics and social conditions. The “economicists” assume the capitalist system and cannot transcend it.

    Many active workers in trades unions, including too many of their leaders, are “economicists”, but more than economics is needed if the class struggle is to go further and have some prospects of ending in an ultimate victory for the class of working people. Indeed, some do go further, seek to inform themselves of Marxism despite the widespread disdain for it propagated by capitalist politicians, academics and media, and especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union. So they prepared themselves better for the full scale assault we are now experiencing.

    Marxism preceded the Soviet Union and cannot rationally be rubbished by reference to the failings of its leaders. Marx’s analysis of capitalism remains sound, as the events of the financial collapse since 2007 prove, and capitalism’s reason for demeaning Marxism is not that the capitalists want to relieve simple people of a mistaken attitude, but because they know it remains sound and so is dangerous for them. By wrecking the belief workers’ leaders had in Marxism, capitalist agents are seeking to assist capitalism, not to educate the people.

    A worker conscious of economic unfairness and injustice under capitalism has two choices, a capitalist or a socialist ideology. To belittle socialist ideology—Marxism—is to strengthen capitalism. It explains why our society spends so much money and effort on mocking trades unions, working people’s practical workplace organizations, and socialism and communism, and their theoretical outlook, Marxism.

  5. New Labour. For the same reason the Labour party, which began as an umbrella organization for left wing groups some of which were Marxist, by degrees expelled the Marxists until, under the leadership of Tony Blair, it got rid of all pretense of socialism and established itself as another capitalist party—New Labour, though “Not Labour” would have been more appropriate. This party, however, still has the loyalty of many workers, despite its record, and still has the loyalty and uncritical financial support of significant leaders of large trades unions. It is, though, the party of the “economicists”, having ditched “Clause 4” as an objective, as we saw, this being the clause which required the socialization of the means of production, distribution and exchange. So now New Labour, at best, stands for modest social reforms within an eternally present capitalism, thereby necessarily helping capitalism to remain stable and profitable. Reform, needless to say, leaves the economic system itself unaltered, so New Labour is never going to change society for the better.

    It is not socialist, but it remains the focus of working class aspirations because working class understanding is moulded by the capitalist media. Moreover, it still has good socialists in its ranks, and conceivably, if the trades unions that fund New Labour used their financial power to change the rules and the selection of parliamentary candidates, the Labour party could be reborn as a class party capable of fighting back against the ConDem assault on us. Class conscious workers therefore must use their influence in the trades unions to move Labour towards the left.

    Morning Star

    Fortunately, besides the Labour Party, a variety of smaller left wing parties and campaign groups exist, but unfortunately they tend to be sectarian and particular, and so resistant to campaigning in unison. The natural principled party of the left is the Communist Party, but over a long period of time in the 1970s and 1980s, the party was infiltrated and destroyed from within, disbanding itself in 1991. Its successor, the CPB, remains small but with the important role of supporting and expanding the newspaper of the working people, the Morning Star, and promoting a socialist stand in the trades unions. It recognizes the centrality in the history of British socialism and working class thinking of the Labour Party, which it wishes also to return to its foundational principles and away from class collaboration and delusions of managing capitalism for the capitalists.

    The main point about the CPB is that it is guided by Marxism—it has principles and a method of applying them. The New Labour Party now has none, having abandoned them to fulfil the ambitions of careerists like Kinnock, Blair and Brown whose only principle was winning elections at any price, even abandoning socialism and selling the UK to Rupert Murdoch.

  6. The Working Class. Emphatically “economicism” is a result of capitalist media spreading confusion and negative propaganda about socialism among the working people. It is a tactic that has succeeded remarkably well. It has turned the working class against its own interests at a time when exploitation by an egregiously greedy capitalist class was hurting more than for eighty years. As noted, working people even blame themselves for overspending when it was the bankers and their rich clients who had done it. The perpetual money making machine they thought they had inevitably failed, proving their greed and stupidity, but still nothing has been done to curtail it.

    Offered inadequately secured loans by the banks, people accepted them in all innocence, believing the propaganda from co-conspirator with Tony Blair to destroy the Labour party, Gordon Brown, that “boom and bust” had ended, and that bankers knew what they were doing. They did not, and Gordon Brown gave away the contents of the national exchequer to save the greedy rich and their bankers from suffering catastrophic losses. The governments of most major capitalists countries followed Brown’s lead.

    We suffer today because the national treasuries are empty, and services we need, provided traditionally by public and civil servants cannot be provided, unless the government cuts staff to cut costs, and borrows money to pay the wages of those who remain in post, and the benefits of those cast out of work. Who does the government borrow from? Who else but the banks! They have been given all our taxation money, and they are now lending it back at interest! We are having to pay interest to borrow our own money. Meanwhile, the beneficiaries are not even taxed, but the workers and middle class have to economize, “tighten their belts” and suffer unemployment not seen in a lifetime. We are most definitely not “all in it together”.

Democratic Choice

Democracy is meant to be a system where candidates have principles to let voters choose a representative whom they consider represents them. They have clear choices. The same should apply even in a party system. Parties should be formed to offer a set of policies implementing principles that the voters can choose from. When party leaders change their policies to make their candidates more electable, they are abandoning some of their principles, so that others who voted for those very principles are now being tricked or have no party to represent them.

An example is what happened at the end of the 18 years of Tory rule under Thatcher and Major. People were sick of Thatcherite Toryism, and wanted the distinct change they thought Labour would offer. But under Blair Labour had become New Labour, the face of which was the cloying charm of the sociopathic Blair himself, and his compact with the media devil, Murdoch. The ultra right wing media baron, Murdoch would never have entered into any compact with a socialist, and many of the leading Labour party activists knew Blair had changed his spots. He was the first Labour Prime Minister to “sell out” even before he took power. Blair was voted in only to apply with his co-conspirators, Brown and Mandelson, another thirteen years of Thatcherism, made possible by his pact with the devil, and the demoralization of the Tories and their own disunity.

It demonstrates how important it is to have an alternative socialist newspaper, and how it ought to be used to clear the confusion spread among voters by the capitalist media. Working people need not be helpless in the face of the austerity assault of the government. Otherwise we have little alternative to the incessant beat of capitalist propaganda, and no prospect of rebutting by socialist principles what is presented as unarguable norms of capitalist economics.

Nor will there be much prospect of moving people from their apathy into the consistent activity needed to bring down the system we live under of lies, injustice and unfairness. Only when a significant portion of the employed public and those left unemployed to keep wages down get their information from a daily newspaper committed to the interests of ordinary people and the poor will there be any chance of them acting sufficiently coherently to make a difference. Then people will be able to organize their efforts in unison, to unite their thinking ideologically, rather than being distracted one way and another by divisive issues like the intolerance and racism spread by the capitalist media. And whereas the capitalist media deliberately ignore or misrepresent working class protests, the socialist newspaper reports them and publicizes them to maximize awareness and response.

In the UK, the Morning Star is that newspaper—in the USA, the People’s World. There are many single issue organizations with news sheets, albeit not daily, and perhaps websites, and they help in raising awareness, but it is piecemeal. A political theory to unite the single issues and offer a consistent explanation is vital. That is Marxism, and the vehicle for presenting that view is the revolutionary newspaper, allowing people to see how single issues have a common explanation in the class struggle.