Red Action UK

[Dr Mindbender]

This came to my attention on another forum, (ive never had any dealings with them) However I was shocked to learn that many of them were founding members of the Anti Nazi League. Their views on immigration seem consistent with the reactionary lobby. Is this an example of national bolshevism?
This page contains their views on multiculturalism
http://www.redaction.org/race_and_class/time_to.html

[Keyser]

I am not a Red Action member, but know a bit about them.

Red Action was formed in the early 1980s by ex-SWP (the British Socialist Worker's Party) members. They disagreed with the SWP over two main points:

1.) Those who went on to form Red Action supported the armed struggle of Irish Republican groups (the IRA, INLA etc...) whereas the SWP took a position of not supporting either side in that conflict.

2.) Red Action members also rejected the SWP's anti-fascism as reformist, namely the cross party and cross class nature of the SWP's anti fascist group, the Anti-Nazi League (ANL). Red Action favoured violent and defensive anti-fascism and they did a lot of work with Anti-Fascist Action (AntiFa).

Below is the Wiki page on Red Action:


Red Action is a small London-based leftist group.

The organization was formed following the expulsion of several activists from the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) in 1981 for their involvement in what was called squadism, a term that refers to violent actions against far right racist groups. The expelled activists regrouped around a paper named Red Action. They earned notoriety for their tactics of violently confronting racist and fascist opponents on the streets, and for their support of Anti-Fascist Action. Red Action had close links with the Irish Republican movement (this being one of the sources of their original discontent with the SWP).

Red Action has become more interested in the electoral process, and the group joined the Red Front in 1987 and the Socialist Alliance in England and Wales in 1999. Red Action members left this organisation, along with the Socialist Party of England and Wales, citing the domination of the SWP over the organisation. Some Red Action members went on to found the Independent Working Class Association.

[BOZG]

Originally posted by Anarchism [email protected] 08, 2007 10:30 pm
I am not a Red Action member, but know a bit about them.

Red Action was formed in the early 1980s by ex-SWP (the British Socialist Worker's Party) members. They disagreed with the SWP over two main points:

1.) Those who went on to form Red Action supported the armed struggle of Irish Republican groups (the IRA, INLA etc...) whereas the SWP took a position of not supporting either side in that conflict.

2.) Red Action members also rejected the SWP's anti-fascism as reformist, namely the cross party and cross class nature of the SWP's anti fascist group, the Anti-Nazi League (ANL). Red Action favoured violent and defensive anti-fascism and they did a lot of work with Anti-Fascist Action (AntiFa).

Below is the Wiki page on Red Action:


Red Action is a small London-based leftist group.

The organization was formed following the expulsion of several activists from the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) in 1981 for their involvement in what was called squadism, a term that refers to violent actions against far right racist groups. The expelled activists regrouped around a paper named Red Action. They earned notoriety for their tactics of violently confronting racist and fascist opponents on the streets, and for their support of Anti-Fascist Action. Red Action had close links with the Irish Republican movement (this being one of the sources of their original discontent with the SWP).

Red Action has become more interested in the electoral process, and the group joined the Red Front in 1987 and the Socialist Alliance in England and Wales in 1999. Red Action members left this organisation, along with the Socialist Party of England and Wales, citing the domination of the SWP over the organisation. Some Red Action members went on to found the Independent Working Class Association.
The SWP have given support to the Republican paramilitaries.

[Dr Mindbender]

Its not so much their stance on Ireland I was hoping to trigger a debate on, but their attitude towards immigration and how it differs so wildly with other leftists. Is this an example of national bolshevism?

[Dimentio]

With all respect, but they did not attack immigration but multiculturalism, which is not necessarily the same thing as a pro-immigration line. They criticise multiculturalism on the principle that it divides people according to their ethnic belonging, thus enstrengthining stereotypes (of ethnic groups in media).

Actually, what is multiculturalism? I mean words like "diversity", "tolerance" and "multiculturalism" is constantly discussed in the media, but could anyone give a clear definition on them, except that they are words representing everything that is "good" according to the simplified discourse of the language which the state is trying to educate it's subjects with?

[Hit The North]

ts not so much their stance on Ireland I was hoping to trigger a debate on, but their attitude towards immigration and how it differs so wildly with other leftists.

I can't deduce what their position on immigration is from that article. The rest reads like a decent Marxist analysis of liberal multiculturalism to me.

What problem do you have with the article?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 12:22 am
With all respect, but they did not attack immigration but multiculturalism, which is not necessarily the same thing as a pro-immigration line. They criticise multiculturalism on the principle that it divides people according to their ethnic belonging, thus enstrengthining stereotypes (of ethnic groups in media).

Actually, what is multiculturalism? I mean words like "diversity", "tolerance" and "multiculturalism" is constantly discussed in the media, but could anyone give a clear definition on them, except that they are words representing everything that is "good" according to the simplified discourse of the language which the state is trying to educate it's subjects with?
if you read their essay closely, they are more or less insinuating the same thing. It seems they are acting as apologists for the BNP and NF's scapegoating. They should be ashamed to call themselves 'leftists' :angry:

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+July 09, 2007 12:28 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ July 09, 2007 12:28 am)
[email protected] 09, 2007 12:22 am
With all respect, but they did not attack immigration but multiculturalism, which is not necessarily the same thing as a pro-immigration line. They criticise multiculturalism on the principle that it divides people according to their ethnic belonging, thus enstrengthining stereotypes (of ethnic groups in media).

Actually, what is multiculturalism? I mean words like "diversity", "tolerance" and "multiculturalism" is constantly discussed in the media, but could anyone give a clear definition on them, except that they are words representing everything that is "good" according to the simplified discourse of the language which the state is trying to educate it's subjects with?
if you read their essay closely, they are more or less insinuating the same thing. It seems they are acting as apologists for the BNP and NF's scapegoating. They should be ashamed to call themselves 'leftists' :angry: [/b]
They are claiming that multiculturalism is legitimising the fascist analysis of a multi-ethnic society. Logical deduction could have unintended consequences though. I do not see anything really fascist there. I am sorry, I am not doing it.

[Genosse Kotze]

I'm actually coming to view multiculturalism in a diffrent light as well. Several years ago, I was assigned and essay by Slavoj Zizek entitled Multiculturalism, or, the Cultural Logic of Multinational Capitalism which was really cool. Unfortunatly, I've only found a small segment of it available online for all of you, but it's a very good one nonetheless.


Multiculturalism, or, the Cultural Logic of Multinational Capitalism
Slavoj Zizek.

It is as if we are witnessing today the ultimate confirmation of Freud's thesis, from Civilization and its Discontents, on how, after every assertion of Eros, Thanatos reasserts itself with a vengeance. At the very moment when, according to the predominant liberal ideology, we are finally leaving behind the "immature" political passions (the regime of the "political": class struggle and other "out-dated" divisive antagonisms) for the post-ideological "mature" pragmatic universe of rational administration and negotiated consensus, for the universe, free of utopian impulses, in which the dispassionate administration of social affairs goes hand in hand with the aestheticized hedonism (the pluralism of "ways of life"), — at this very moment, the foreclosed political is celebrating a triumphant comeback in its most archaic form of pure, undistilled racist hatred of the Other which renders the rational tolerant attitude utterly impotent. In this precise sense, the contemporary "postmodern" racism is the symptom of the multiculturalist late capitalism, bringing to the light the inherent contradiction of the liberal-democratic ideological project. Liberal "tolerance" condones the folklorist Other deprived of its substance (like the multitude of "ethnic cuisines" in a contemporary megalopolis) — any "real" Other is instantly denounced for its "fundamentalism", since the kernel of Otherness resides in the regulation of its jouissance, i.e. the "real Other" is by definition "patriarchal", "violent", never the Other of ethereal wisdom and charming customs. One is tempted to reactualize here the old Marcusean notion of "repressive tolerance", reconceiving it as the tolerance of the Other in its aseptized, benign form, which forecloses the dimension of the Real of the Other's jouissance.

EDIT: To read an interview with Zizek, which goes into this idea amonst many others check This (http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D2C4.htm) out. But if you're feeling too lazy to follow the link, as I often do too, so don't feel bad, I just have to post this cuz it struck me like a boot in the nuts.


There is nothing to be said against tolerance. But when you buy this multiculturalist tolerance, you buy many other things with it. Isn't it symptomatic that multiculturalism exploded at the very historic moment when the last traces of working-class politics disappeared from political space? For many former leftists, this multiculturalism is a kind of ersatz working-class politics. We don't even know whether the working class still exists, so let's talk about exploitation of others.
There may be nothing wrong with that as such. But there is a danger that issues of economic exploitation are converted into problems of cultural tolerance. And then you have only to make one step further, that of Julia Kristeva in her essay 'Etrangers à nous mêmes', and say we cannot tolerate others because we cannot tolerate otherness in ourselves. Here we have a pure pseudo-psychoanalytic cultural reductionism.


Isn't it sad and tragic that the only relatively strong - not fringe - political movement that still directly addresses the working class is made up of right-wing populists? They are the only ones. Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, for example. I was shocked when I saw him three years ago at a congress of the Front National. He brought a black Frenchman, an Algerian and a Jew on the podium, embraced them and said: 'They are no less French than I am. Only the international cosmopolitan companies who neglect French patriotic interests are my enemy.' So the price is that only right-wingers still talk about economic exploitation.


I know over quoting is a sure way to get people turned off to whatever idea it is you're putting out there, but...meh.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 05:22 pm
Actually, what is multiculturalism? I mean words like "diversity", "tolerance" and "multiculturalism" is constantly discussed in the media, but could anyone give a clear definition on them, except that they are words representing everything that is "good" according to the simplified discourse of the language which the state is trying to educate it's subjects with?
I'd call it forced integration, ala Affirmative Action and such. Those programmes just don't seem to have any lasting positive outcome.

As for RAUK they don't sound like Nazbols to me.

[PRC-UTE]

nah, they're not fascists at all. I don't quite agree 100% with their position on that, but it's a rational argument based in Marxist analysis.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 08, 2007 10:00 pm
Is this an example of national bolshevism?

No. And the reactions of people on the left, like yourself, to their position on multiculturalism, just further confirms what they have said. That the left has completely fallen for the Governments policy on this issue.

A policy which, by the way, was introduced after a series of riots against the Police's racial discrimination. Riots where the "Asian" and "white" sections of the working class in Britain, came out in solidarity with the "black" section of the working class in Britain -- who were the main target of the Police's racial discrimination.

Something needed to be done about this, so we got multiculturalism.

A policy which aims to undermine class solidarity by segregating the working class, and making each ethnic section reliant on local community leaders -- the local bourgeoisie, in other words. Which means that, for example, Muslim workers will look to the Muslim Council of Britain to solve their problems; and not their class brothers and sisters.

(The prominence and power of the Muslim Council of Britain, represents the biggest success of multicultural policy. Because, as of yet, the other layers of the working class have not been bonded as strongly with their local community leaders.)

And this means that opposing this policy, does not make someone a National Bolshevik.

[Dr Mindbender]

How can you be a progressive thinker and at the same time oppose multiculturalism (which one would think can only contribute to internationalist proletarianism?)
By taking this line arent they simply playing into BNP/NF's hands?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+--> (Ulster Socialist)How can you be a progressive thinker and at the same time oppose multiculturalism (which one would think can only contribute to internationalist proletarianism?)[/b]

Just because you "think" that is what multiculturalist policy does, doesn't mean that is what it actually does. As I've already pointed out, multiculturalism was adopted in response to great displays of working class unity -- and was part of the larger attack on working class communities carried out by the Thatcher Government.

The aim, again as I've already pointed out, was to try and reinforce ethnic divisions within the working class. And further entwine the various ethnic groups with their local bourgeoisie -- who would, in effect, Police their struggles, channelling them away from class based issues and towards race based issues.

Making poverty in "white" areas the fault of immigrants. And likewise, poverty in "black" areas is the fault of "Asians". And poverty in... you get the picture. Basically, so long as people aren't thinking of these as class issues, and trying to forge links across the working class to combat these issues, the ruling class is able to feel safe.

Though even that may have backfired on them, given how the various "community leaders" -- those political groups that have gained prominence in their local communities -- now have grander aspirations. They want to a bigger slice of pie, in other words.

But that, for us anyway, is of little consequence. What is important is understanding what multiculturalism actually is, regardless of its leftist jargon, how it is harmful, and why it stands in the way of "internationalist proletarianism". Which is something that it does do, because it further reinforces the divisions within the working class.


Ulster Socialist
By taking this line arent they simply playing into BNP/NF's hands?

Are we "playing into BNP/NF's hands" by opposing the Iraq war? Because they oppose that to; so if you logic means anything, then...

Aside from this, the BNP have been one of the greatest beneficiaries from multiculturalist policy. Because, as I've already said, it makes race the centre of discussion -- which is what groups like the BNP want, and partly why they have gained more support.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 09:06 pm
How can you be a progressive thinker and at the same time oppose multiculturalism (which one would think can only contribute to internationalist proletarianism?)
By taking this line arent they simply playing into BNP/NF's hands?
Multiculturalism, as earlier said, does not contribute to internationalism, but to the domestication of ethnic groups according to their own "chosen" leadership.

[Janus]

As far as I can tell based on their articles, they oppose the institutionalization of multiculturalism; a system begun by modern states in order to stay on top of increasingly "mixed" societies. Simply opposing multiculturalism doesn't mean much, more emphasis should be placed on why a group opposes it and what their alternative is.

[Gold Against The Soul]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 09:06 pm
How can you be a progressive thinker and at the same time oppose multiculturalism (which one would think can only contribute to internationalist proletarianism?)
By taking this line arent they simply playing into BNP/NF's hands?
Not all at. At the heart of multiculturalism is difference and that plays right into the hands of the BNP/NF. They think we're all different too. In fact, I think all race-based policies and programmes, racially organised public bodies and pressure groups, all perpetuate the problems they claim to solve. I think the term is 'official anti-racism' or 'establishment anti-racism'. They're quite happy with workers identifying with their own particular sect as opposed to their class. The article is absolutely right on that condemnation of multiculturalism. It stands opposed to our working class internationalism.

[YKTMX]

It's nonsense to suggest that "multiculturalism" is merely an invention of the government or sociologists.

What critics on the right as well as the left don't realise is that "multiculturalism" came to the fore because it was a material fact in many parts of working class Britain.

In areas like Finsbury, Newham, Brixton, areas of Birmingham and Manchester and even places in my town Glasgow, multiculturalism (the existence of seperate, distinct ethnic and religious groups simultaneously in the same area) arose organically after mass immigration to Britain in the 60's and 70's.

It exists not in handouts to "cultural groups" from councils or in "intergrationist" housing policies (both of which socialists should support), but in the day-to-day experience of ordinary people in these areas. That is, in the colour of the people they work with, in the people they socialize with, in the kind of foot they eat etc. Different sections of the class have always had distinct "cultures", usually with one aligned to the dominant, bourgeois culture and another marginalized culture (whites and blacks in America, for example). Or, for instance, Irish catholics in Scotland had a different "culture" to white protestants, but in moments of class struggle, cultural barriers break down.

Therefore, it's not "multiculturalism" that's the problem, but the low-level of class struggle, something I hope is beginning to break down in Britain, that is the barrier to class unity. Attacks on multiculturalism are bogus and reactionary.

[Andy Bowden]

I think you've got to draw a distinction between multiculturalism, in its literal sense - 'many cultures' - of different races and nationalities, and in fact the differences within those nationalities/religion in culture and the multiculturalism as a political project advanced by New Labour, Lib Dems, Guardian ie the Liberal wing of British Capitalism.

The kind of belief that at its most extreme calls Christmas "Winterval" in the belief that somehow Muslim people give a fuck about Christmas, and that this (calling it Winterval will help them against racism etc, instead of dealing with real issues such as unemployment, housing etc.

It also talks about working with "community leaders" - who by and large aren't elected, and often work hand in glove with Labour to get votes out for them at election time etc.

Thats different from supporting everyones right to wear, listen to, and celebrate whatever culture they want.

I'd agree with YKTMX though that most attacks on multiculturalism right now come from the right wing and are basically reactionary.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 09:06 pm
How can you be a progressive thinker and at the same time oppose multiculturalism (which one would think can only contribute to internationalist proletarianism?)
By taking this line arent they simply playing into BNP/NF's hands?
No, multiculturalism has nothing to do with proletarian internationalism - it is rather the cultural equivalent of bantustans and ghettos.

Luís Henrique

[Gold Against The Soul]

I think you've got to draw a distinction between multiculturalism, in its literal sense - 'many cultures' - of different races and nationalities, and in fact the differences within those nationalities/religion in culture and the multiculturalism as a political project advanced by New Labour, Lib Dems, Guardian ie the Liberal wing of British Capitalism

Yes, exactly. There is a difference between a multicultural society, as described by YKTMX, and multicultural-ISM. A multicultural society is a not a problem but when you add the -ism, we're talking about a theory and an ideology. And this theory stands directly opposed to our working class internationalism. It has come from above, is essentially authoritarian in nature and we shouldn't have anything to do with propping it up.


I'd agree with YKTMX though that most attacks on multiculturalism right now come from the right wing and are basically reactionary

Then here are some good contributions to the debate from a different prepective:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/524/12assimilation.html

http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/against_mc.html

http://www.iwca.info/news/news0070.htm

The last three paragraphs of this last article being particular pertinent for us:


"It is a multiculturalism that does not seek to bring about an end to class-based inequality; it accepts class-based inequality as a starting point and then seeks to put racial quotas on it. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown’s cry of ‘cheering news to celebrate’ is shown up for what it is when compared to the analysis of Bobby Seale, founder of the ‘nationalist’ Black Panthers, in 1970:

Those who want to obscure the struggle with ethnic differences are the ones who are aiding and maintaining the exploitation of the masses of the people: poor whites, poor blacks, browns, red Indians, poor Chinese and Japanese, and the workers at large… So in essence it is not at all a race struggle. We're rapidly educating people to this…So let me emphasize again - we believe our fight is a class struggle and not a race struggle.

A multiculturalism that has no interest in questions of class - indeed the ideological objective it sets itself is to first mask and thus dispute the pivotal role class plays in contemporary society - cannot possibly be termed progressive or radical. It is, in the truest sense of the word, conservative

[praxicoide]

This "multiculturalism" is identity politics, one of the most harmful creations against the leftist movement.

Not buying into it does not mean that one is for discrimination, or that no respect will be given to other cultures. Nothing of the sort; it's a matter of priorities, and our biggest priority is the exploitation of the entire working class, not just women, blacks, Hindus, etc (although these are still to be denounced, class consciousness is difficult to form amid racism and prejudice).

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 02:00 am
This "multiculturalism" is identity politics, one of the most harmful creations against the leftist movement.

Not buying into it does not mean that one is for discrimination, or that no respect will be given to other cultures. Nothing of the sort; it's a matter of priorities, and our biggest priority is the exploitation of the entire working class, not just women, blacks, Hindus, etc (although these are still to be denounced, class consciousness is difficult to form amid racism and prejudice).
Class consciousness is low because of the low-level of struggle and experience of defeat, not because of identity politics. Identity politics arise when class politics lose their legitimacy i.e when the workers' movement is in retreat.

But, as I said, we need to defend multiculturalism as it exists, rather than in its other form - as a part of liberal ideology.

And, I might add, it would be interesting to see what some of the anti-multiculturalism comrades have to say on the fact that so much of the liberal establishment has joined in on the attacks on multiculturalism.

Trevor Phillips, head of the Commission for Racial Equality, has called for all citizens to "assert a core of Britishness".
In an interview for the Times newspaper he said the term "multiculturalism" was of another era and should be scrapped.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3596047.stm

[Gold Against The Soul]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:46 pm


But, as I said, we need to defend multiculturalism as it exists, rather than in its other form - as a part of liberal ideology

But that is all it exists as. Therefore it can't be defended as it's utterly destructive and divisive.

Again, this is different from defending a multicultural society.

I think what would help is not using this misleading multiculturalism term anymore. The more accurate way of describing it would be as a sort of micro-nationalism. Instead of the traditional establishment attempts to get everyone flag waving and uniting around the common values (read: establishment values) of the one nation, using micro-nationalism they instead encourage identification with a subgroup or seperate groups altogether, within the one nation. This is much more effective and easier to handle as you can play off each subgroup against each other by letting them compete for resources and favours, handed down from above, of course. This is combined with the 'community leaders' who partly take over as the political representation for their particular sect and mediate with the government. Ultimately this just leads to nations within nations.


Trevor Phillips, head of the Commission for Racial Equality, has called for all citizens to "assert a core of Britishness".
In an interview for the Times newspaper he said the term "multiculturalism" was of another era and should be scrapped.


Of course, we should oppose 'asserting a core of Britishness'. As it stands, this is just code for the flag waving mentioned above. That said, I don't see any likelihood of an establishment move away from multiculturalism, for the reasons stated above. It is a very effective divide and rule tactic. Yes they've put in place these citizenship tests and initiating ceremonies where you swear an oath to the queen etc etc but underneath it all, multiculturalism still remains.