Racism in the neoliberal age

by Martin Relph

    I have been concerned for some time now about how difficult it has become to understand the nature of racism in this age of neoliberalism. We are hardly living in a post-racial society but neoliberals would have us believe that we are now living in a far more racially tolerant society, despite the reality of growing inequalities and greater divisions. Politically, I think it is vital that we dispel the myth that neoliberalism has created a less racist society and return to an understanding of racism as inextricably linked to colonialism, capitalism and imperialism.

    On a personal level, three separate instances have prompted me to challenge the prevailing neoliberal notion of racism and to write this article. I am a white male who has been in a relationship with a black female since the end of the 1970s. Not so long ago, someone suggested to me that it must have been awful for us when we first started going out together compared to how things are today. The second thing that got me thinking was an interview last year of the so-called comedian Jim Davidson on BBC’s Newsnight programme by Jeremy Paxman. Unchallenged by Paxman, Jim Davidson stated that Britain is nowhere near as racist as it was in the 1970s and that it is now a much better place to live in. Finally, in my previous job at a college of further education I was co-opted to work on “equality and diversity impact measures” and was quite surprised to discover that ethnic monitoring did little other than reinforce the racial stereotypes held by managers and members of staff within the institution.

    Whilst I accept that black and brown people are more established in Britain than they were in the 1970s, inequalities are certainly much greater and I would argue that the attacks on working class communities that we have witnessed over the past forty years have impacted especially adversely on black communities. What the neoliberals have done is to individualise racism so that racism is treated as a facet of human behaviour. Moreover, neoliberals have chosen to ignore the historical context of race so that it has become much more difficult to challenge the racist bias that prevails within many of our institutions here in Britain. Within institutions, “equality and diversity” has become the neoliberal tool to promote the view that racism is down to the prejudice of individuals and that institutional racism does not exist. The result has been that in many institutions workers are actually afraid of being accused of being racist while at the same time, for historical reasons, there is a deep racial bias within those same institutions. At the aforementioned F.E. college where I worked on equality and diversity, one manager suggested to me that the organisation had now gone beyond the stage where anyone could “play the race card”. Yet within the same institution, when presented with data that showed that black, mixed-race, Pakistani-origin and white students from deprived post codes performed below average educationally, the majority of managers only seemed to be interested in confirming their own stereotypes. This, of course, fits perfectly with the neoliberal agenda of blaming poor people for their own misfortunes because of their family backgrounds.

    I would also challenge the view that Britain is a less racist society than it was in the 1970s. At secondary school, I found Enoch Powell’s rants upsetting but at the same time I was inspired by the Civil Rights Movement in the United States led by Dr Martin Luther King. In 1970’s Britain, in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement and the move towards liberation on the African continent, there was a definitely a drive towards creating a more racially just society here at home. At the time, I was into funk music and I remember how racially integrated the fans of that particular music were. There were also several British multiracial popular music bands including the Foundations and Hot Chocolate. By the end of the 1970s, the 2 Tone sound dominated the music charts with bands like The Specials, The Selecter and The Beat that appealed to black people and white people alike. When Channel 4 started to broadcast in 1982, it was a wonderful, multicultural TV channel. I still have my collection of videos of Latin American and African films that were shown on Channel 4 in its early days. I wonder if Channel 4 had broadcast Benefits Street at that time whether they would have, instead of depicting poor people in a bad light, focussed on the benefits of living in a multiracial community.

    Trevor Phillips famously quoted that Britain was “sleepwalking to segregation”. I do feel that this is what has been happening as traditional working class communities have been destroyed. However, unlike Trevor Phillips, I consider this to be down to neoliberalism rather than multiculturalism. Britain was not a slave society nor have we witnessed the genocide of our indigenous peoples on our own soil. The peculiar brand of racism that we have here was therefore developed in line with British imperialism. As racism is an anachronism to neoliberals, problems that arise within our society that are related to our imperial past are explained as problems of human behaviour. Islamophobia is a case in point, where attacks on Muslims are seen as individual acts of religious intolerance instead of being connected to Britain’s long and continuing involvement as an imperial power in the Muslim world. The real problem here is, in fact, not religious intolerance but the racist bias of the political establishment and the mainstream media that considers white blood to be superior to the blood of non-white people, including Arabs and Afghans.

    I started off by saying that it is important that we dispel the myth that neoliberalism has created a more racially tolerant and just society. By its very nature, neoliberalism is far from being egalitarian. Neoliberals believe in privatisation and in relation to racism they have privatised racist attitudes while they have ignored structural racism and the racist practices of institutions. At the same time, the poor and marginalised within our society have been pressurised to find solutions to their problems and then blamed if they do not succeed.

Martin Relph

Respect Party member

November 2014

The Case for Solidarity

by Stella Baker

“Solidarity is necessary to prevent social fragmentation and to ensure that nobody in society goes hungry, becomes needy, is without a home, without medical care or without hope of a better future...”

Pope John Paul II 'Solicitudo Rei Solidaris'

I'm of the sincere belief that many of the things you learn in life and remember come from your disappointments, failures, mistakes and your adversaries. For years the political right, particularly in the West have been more than willing to present us with Lech Walesa the hero, the man who helped bring down communism, and he himself believes he was the central figure. Closer to the truth was that he was a leader in the right place at the right time and part of a collective of people who worked together to inspire millions to struggle for and achieve political change.

But there were two figures with ideas which formed the basis of Polish Solidarity and gave it the foundation necessary for it to succeed. The first was the Solicitudo Rei Solidaris Catholic social teachings of Pope John Paul II, who in the final years of his life also strongly opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The second was a suggestion made by Polish philosopher and historian of ideas Leszek Kolakowski. The suggestion was made in an essay he wrote in the 1970's 'Theses on Hope and Hopelessness' (banned by the former communist regime) in which he wrote 'the totalitarian regime can be overthrown by many different self-organized groups working collectively towards a common objective.'

The major political parties in this country have made much of the belief that it is good to be 'aspiring' and 'hard working' and in the words of David Cameron 'to do the right thing'. But there are many people in this country who know from their own personal experience that quite often aspiration, hard work, and doing the right thing can amount to very little and can often be seen as lesser than more important social factors which determines people's social position and quality of life. Here I am referring specifically to the immutable social markers such as ethnicity, skin colour, background, social class, disability, gender, gender identity, and for those who have come to live in this country even your birthplace, citizenship and the passport you hold.

This is partly because we're living in a two tier society which has evolved out of our class system and the upper tier are people who enjoy a lifestyle of relative freedom and social privilege, who can aspire and work hard to get on if they choose to do so. Many don't, not necessarily because they are lazy, but because as a society with rapidly developing technology and a market based on free market principles they are constantly being sold comfort, pleasure, convenience, instant gratification, either to promote consumer spending for profit or to promote debt and living beyond one's means, which is the only way those at the top have of controlling society – through money and debt.

Unlike those held back by a lack of social privilege or through marginalization, social stigma or 'othering' these people can only be controlled if they are seduced into a cycle of personal debt and wage enslavement. They are usually unaware of the sheer level of inequality in our society, they are quite often blind to matters such as discrimination. Inequality is maintained through a constant campaign of social stigmatization carried out by the media aimed at subduing the minorities and keeping them in their place.

We are living in times of uncertainty and what seems to be inevitable change. Just like in the former Eastern Europe we are living under a totalitarian system, not political totalitarianism (though this can be debated), but an economic totalitarian system which maintains control through shortages, fractional reserve banking, quantative easing, monetarism, and social inequality. Furthermore the political right is organizing through UKIP adopting a distinctly divisive approach.

It seems that the major parties are happy to gamble the future of our society and economy in the banking and corporate casinos of Europe and America.

If there is anything we need less of, it is division, whether it be social division, community division, economic division, or for that matter a division between our politicians and the people. We are a country rich in culture and full of ideas, a country which if given the opportunity everybody can have a place, have a future, and be a part of society.

But can something like the success of Polish Solidarity happen again in this country? I believe it can. We have a bigger population than Poland, a greater ethnic diversity, a stronger feel for equality and fairness. We simply need the courage to stand up, the commitment to our communities and our society, a solid belief in a peaceful, non-violent, inclusive approach, and to work independently within our own communities and social groups but towards one common objective – political change. The Respect Party which stands for peace, justice and equality is the ideal platform.

It will not be easy. It will be hard work. We need to meet the challenge of addressing people who are expecting change through the existing sham of a democracy and unwilling to do anything more than vote for what is available. We need to meet the challenge of addressing people who support one party and believe that party is right and the other parties are wrong.

But to meet these challenges we need to address our biggest challenge of all – we need to become the party of solution, not the party of struggle, not the party of conflict, but the party with the solution.

We also need to become the party of solidarity, a party which stands shoulder to shoulder with the disabled, the marginalized, the poor, the exploited, the destitute, the homeless. We need to stand up and become the first class party for the second class citizens in this country. If we are prepared to stand in solidarity and shoulder to shoulder with such people, surely they will with us, and surely others will join us in that solidarity.

But if we don't try we will never find out, we will never learn, and we will never succeed. 

Education; class warfare at its most potent!

By Brent Johnston

It was recently announced that Germany has abolished tuition fees which was met with great applause from the German youth, but in Britain this has caused a lot of speculation over why we are the standout country for all the wrong reasons when it comes to education!

Countless times we have heard politicians say that education is the key to the development of our lives that when we come out the other end we are equipped for life and have something to give society, fantastic but why then are the government punishing prospective students from going to university? 

The United Kingdom broke records when we increased tuition fees to a nauseating £9,000 a year! Demonstrations erupted all over the country and hundreds of thousands of students from all parts of Britain walked out of class and onto the streets to fight for their future. Many of this current government who went to university paid not one single penny towards their education yet here we are in the 21^st century and they are denying that opportunity for this generation of prospective students.

This government just like every government before it was given a budget and with the deficit now on their hands they had a drastically reduced budget and had to make certain cuts, but why the students, why the youth, why the workers of tomorrow? I believe that this is class warfare at its strongest!

I’ll break down the finances from someone who had to juggle £10 a week for food and transport for my first year; the lower working class students are given grants which entitle them to more money than the average maintenance loan of roughly £4,000 - £5,000, the grant is not repayable but is crucial. Upper middle class families are the only ones who can afford it out right without a second thought, many of these students have attended private school (paid for!). Which then leaves the upper working class and lower middle class who don’t qualify for help (including myself) we take the loans and the debt that comes with it, which for many of my friends and students around the UK was just too big a reason not to go, a great shame! Once again therefore the Conservatives revert back to type and punish the working class for the mistakes of previous politicians.

With the Germans announcing their decision, the Scottish who already have free education across the board and the Welsh who have massively subsidised fees it is about time that the government started giving us a chance to show what we have to offer. Apprenticeships are great if you want a vocational/manual job but what about those who want to become teachers, are they going to loosen the restrictions so university isn’t the preferred route? There will always be a niche section of teenagers and adults (mature students) who want to go to university but many will always be deterred by the frustratingly high fees!

Studying in the UK is no longer about what university offers the best course but which university offers the best deal, money, money, money! I guess the Conservatives got the money conscious youth they wanted! Writing this I had the song ‘Another brick in the wall’ by Pink Floyd in my head that song sums up the attitude of this country’s view on education perfectly!

Unless something changes radically in the next few years, less and less working class students are going to attend university and with the experiences they have as well as countless talent, it will be the United Kingdom who suffers!

That is one of the reasons why I have joined the Respect Party who will destroy tuition fees forever, they have the foresight to punish those who did wrong and pave the way for all of our generation to achieve to the highest standard.  Maybe you’ll join too?

‘The goal of education is the advancement of knowledge and the dissemination of truth’ – John F. Kennedy

Twitter: @Che_Brent 

Equality starts with a capital 'C'

by Stella Baker

  Starting the word equality with a letter it doesn't contain might seem strange. But the letter 'C' I have in mind is no ordinary letter C. This letter C is one which determines the nature and quality of our life. It shapes our identity, our thinking, our behaviour, influences the way we communicate and interact with others, and colours our aspirations, hopes and dreams. It also gives us a sense of the world around us, makes it clear what is permissible and acceptable, and what isn't, and exists on many different levels in society.

  The C in question is culture. Culture is something which exists on many different levels in society. We often talk about national culture, international culture, but culture is the shared awareness, understanding and knowledge common to all members of any social group. Entire continents and countries have their own culture, so too do cities and towns, and so too do individual families, workplaces and friendships. Sometimes different cultures are similar – for example rural culture doesn't vary much throughout the world, but sometimes they are different.

  The development of culture in a community or society is no less important than the striving for equality. Like equality and technology, investment and development in culture brings numerous tangible benefits to people and their lives. If you care to stop and think about the things which benefit you in your life, chances are that it will come from some development of either culture or technology – your computer, your smartphone, your DVD player, your mp3 playlist, your books.

  Culture is also the necessary interface for equality. The Equality Act 2010 would make Britain a world leader when it comes to diversity and equality, but passing legislation alone is not enough to promote equality in society. It also has to become part of culture and through this part of everybody's mindset, influencing their thinking when it comes to others. Through culture people can become more aware, less ignorant, and develop a greater understanding of what makes people different and why.

  Development of culture is also very important to maintain cohesion in the community and society. Britain is a part of English language culture, a culture which is dominant throughout the world which the whole world wants to share and be a part of. Much of what becomes English language culture comes out of poverty and struggle. Much of what forms the basis of modern music came out of the struggles of slavery and racial segregation in the Deep South in the US, Hollywood was born out of the Great Depression, and when culture is sufficiently developed it can promote not just social cohesion but also inspire opportunities which create jobs, livelihoods and economic prosperity.

  However culture can also go into decline, particularly when it is neglected or left to private enterprise to develop. Periods of cultural decline bring about moral decline and social fragmentation, promoting social division, inequality, crime, and many of the social issues we know of today, such as unemployment, poverty, homelessness, political extremism and bigotry. This can be seen particularly on both sides of the Atlantic when cultural development was abandoned in favour of a war on terrorism and military intervention in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

  Investment in culture and the promotion of cultural development is something which is not only very important and necessary for society, but is also completely sustainable. Every single human being alive on this planet today is capable of some form of creative activity, each and every one of us has a need to interact with others, we have our own ideas, interests and abilities, and we all need the acknowledgment, recognition and to be valued by others.

  I personally feel that investment in culture and cultural development should be one of the responsibilities of the government and public sector. Culture can play an essential role in education, local communities and even welfare and social security to create the basis for a fairer and much more equal society, one which can promote social cohesion and provide opportunities, and benefits to everyone in society.

  I also feel that by exporting culture to other countries and helping them to promote and develop their own culture is a key step towards resolving Third World poverty and would make for a safer, more peaceful world. 

The Assault of George Galloway and the Silence of Westminster

Thomas Kiernan, Respect Party Member (North West)

If you wish, follow me on Twitter @TRKiernan

   When I read that George Galloway had been assaulted in broad daylight, by an opponent of his staunch defence of the Palestinian people, I wondered whether this was a sign of democracy unravelling when certain people are faced with controversial views. First, we saw Jim Murphy pelted with eggs when defending his views on Scottish Independence against loud opposition from ‘Yes’ supporters. This was followed shortly by a vicious, pre-meditated attack on a 60-year old politician who now, due to injuries which include cracked ribs, cannot currently hold his newborn child. What exactly did either of these acts prove? Since when has physical violence demonstrated anything other than an inability to debate and employ reason?

   Regardless of your opinion on George’s politics, everybody should condemn this form of crime. Louise Mensch, the former MP for Corby and a strong supporter of Israel, was one of the few people who condemned the attack, albeit attacking Galloway’s character in the process. Other pro-Israel supporters, instead of physically assaulting their opponents, should engage in debate and prove to other people why Israel should be supported. I am inclined to believe; however, that violence often only occurs when people are unable to support their views through rational thought. Violence occurs when people simply do not wish for alternative views to be made public because, as David Bradley stated in an episode of Ashes to Ashes, it is “fear which closes down [opposition], not arguments.”

   It is apparent that some opponents of George applaud, and will continue to applaud, what this man has done. It was brought to my attention that some of these had, among other things, “hoped he’d finished the job”. Little more needs to be said. What is more apparent, and more concerning, is the complete lack of public condemnation from any other Member of Parliament. Unsurprisingly, John Wight hit the nail on the head when he stated the following in an article published for the Huffington Post:

"If such an attack took place against a pro-Israel MP by a Muslim supporter of Hamas you can bet the condemnation would have been near total and carried on the first page of every mainstream newspaper, not to mention the lead item on every TV and radio news bulletin."

   It is a basic tenet of British politics, and our culture, that any politician should be capable of making political speech without looking over their shoulders out of fear for their physical and mental well-being. Desmond Tutu once said that if you are neutral in times of injustice you are in support of the oppressor. This is undoubtedly more poignant when the speech involves controversial and divisive issues, and the Palestinian crisis is clearly one of those issues. You may disagree with an opposing politician and you may even condemn the words they speak, but you certainly do not support their assailants by remaining silent on the issue. Whether through egg-throwing, making death threats or actually harassing them in the street, an assault on an elected official is an affront to democracy and should be widely condemned whenever it occurs. This basic tenant has been failed in relation to George’s attack.

   When Galloway was sworn in to Parliament in 2012, the Prime Minister half-complimented him in commending that he always spoke with great force. Unfortunately, that did not extend to publicly condemning the suppression of that voice when the six-time elected official was beaten in the street. In a sad case of irony, as well as an apt pun, it is Westminster and the political class which has truly proven to lack respect for democracy.

‘Austerity, Abandonment and Silence on Israel/Palestine: The Day I left Labour ’

by Thomas Kiernan - Respect Party Member (North West)

    Before I begin this, let me set the background. I come from a traditional, working-class background in the North of England. My mother is English, but the child of Irish immigrants to Britain in the 50’s. My family has, more or less, voted Labour their entire lives and would not dream of voting for anybody else. Whilst I have followed George Galloway and the Respect Party for years, I did not commit to being a member until several months ago.

   I was in Gdansk a few weeks ago, having treated my grandmother to a holiday for all her support during the three years I have been at University, when I stumbled across the news that veteran Labour MP, Dennis Skinner, had been voted off the Labour National Executive Committee. I was immediately infuriated; Skinner is one of the few true Labour politicians left in the Party. Much like George, he stands for many of the things which the Respect Party is championing alone: an end to austerity, the support of trade-unions and, above all, equality and peace. However, his Party have abandoned all of those concepts and adopted the Conservative policy of refusing to end austerity measures and promising to be ‘tougher than the Tories on welfare’. With Skinners removal, it is clear that the Party is going for a younger, more centred approach to try and emulate Tony Blair’s success in 1997. They may have some nice sound-bites (regulate energy companies, free childcare and decentralisation), but nothing of substance and certainly nothing which has enticed me to support them come 2015.

   Already apathetic and disillusioned with Labour and any major party, I had considered cancelling my membership with the Party there and then. Then the real kicker: Miliband has been silent over the recent events in Gaza which have seen roughly 600 Palestinians die and several thousand injured in the indiscriminate (or ‘precision’) bombing of innocent lives. Miliband, on his trip in April to Israel, had publicly denounced the increasing illegal settlements but has never gone as far as to publicly condemn Israel for its horrendously poor treatment of the Palestinian people whom they subject to a life of internment and poverty on a daily basis. What has happened to the man who looked likely to bring Labour back to the left, to return to its stance as the Party of peace and opportunity? His silence is, to me, as bad as Michael Gove’s admittance that he is a ‘committed Zionist’ and the USA’s constant defence of the Israeli government. It seems tragic that the UK, who was complicit in the USA’s killing of over one million civilians in Iraq, is still comprised of leaders not willing to learn from its mistakes and immediately order sanctions on Israel until it ceases raining death over Gaza, sit down at the table with Abbas and finally broker a deal which will see the Palestinians receive fair and just compensation for the misery to which they have been subjected.

   That, for me, was the final straw on a very strong back, and so my membership is now in the post. I refuse to support a Party which has adopted a name for which its policies do not represent, and I refuse to vote for any Party which does not have a firm commitment to equality both nationally and overseas. The Labour Party is dead; what remains is a walking frame of opportunity which regularly gets overlooked and increasingly sucked in to the political centre. What remains is something which will soon be considered like it will help no-one, speak for no-one and can be trusted by few. If first-past-the-post was abandoned, the Labour Party would be forced to kick itself into gear, to become a party which people would want to be a part of. As it stands, it remains little more than a bleak alternative to the Tories. I am convinced that, if Labour does indeed succeed come May, it won’t be because they’re a party of change. It’ll be because they’re the better of two very, very poor choices. 

Why the world needs to get tough on Israel’s ‘never-never land’ mentality.

Unmasking Israeli myths is the first step on the long road to peace.

Respect Op-Ed

   Gaza is under attack again; the third sustained aerial bombardment since 2008. In the world’s largest prison camp (the words of well-known Hamas operative David Cameron), the number of dead has now risen to over 160, with women and children making up a depressingly high percentage. The Israeli armed forces rain down indiscriminate death and destruction, giving nothing more than an occasional perfunctory warning, onto the defenceless people below.

   This routine has become something of a political blood-sport in Israel. This recent wave of the crisis began with the abduction and murder of three Israeli teenagers near Hebron in the occupied West Bank. I was in Israel when the kidnapping happened and visited the site where the teenagers had been taken. As soon as the story broke the Israeli government were blaming Hamas, without any real clarification as to whether it had even been sanctioned by its central command as opposed to being committed by underground militants. The speed at which this narrative became accepted reality says much about the loyalties of mainstream media.

   The emotional outcry in Israel was remarkable, given that such events have become so commonplace in the Israeli conscience. Within days, everyone was on first-name terms with the teenagers. You couldn’t drive along any road without coming across a reference to the #BringBackOurBoys campaign. Once their bodies had been discovered, the atmosphere turned from grief, to anger, to vengeance. Within hours, #BringBackOurBoys had been replaced with #AvengeOurBoys. The inevitable result was the copy-cat kidnapping and murder of a 16-year old in East Jerusalem, one of at least six deaths in the days that followed. And that was before the bombing began…

   The grossly disproportionate response and collective punishment demonstrated by Israel in the wake of such periods of turmoil has become normalised. Not many people in Israel – or in the Western mainstream media, it appears – regard the life or blood of Palestinians as being as valuable as their own.

   This is the institutionalisation of an occupation at work. In the beachfront cafés and smart shopping centres of Tel Aviv to the sleek suburbs of West Jerusalem, nobody much cares for the occupation on the West Bank or for the disastrous humanitarian effect of the siege on Gaza. That is until their peace is shattered by the wail of the air-raid siren and they have to retreat temporarily into a reinforced bomb shelter (a luxury not afforded to many Palestinians, who just have to take their chances).

   This is why I don’t buy the “you don’t know what it’s like” argument that I hear from many Israelis. Rocket fire from the Gaza Strip has as yet mercifully failed to take a single Israeli life. Israeli bombing raids in Gaza, one of the most densely-populated areas on earth, are causing casualties which now run into the hundreds. The mismatch is glaring – not that you’d know it if you were watching the BBC. On Wednesday they led with the laughable headline ‘Israel under renewed Hamas attack’. The seething anger felt by Palestinians and Muslims generally is fed by this blatant double-standard which tells them that their lives are somehow not worth as much.

   This exceptionalism is now engendered in an Israeli society which is becoming forever more rabidly right-wing and forever less interested in a peace process, choosing instead to ‘manage’ the conflict. The settlement drive continues unabated, to the point where its continuation is on the verge of killing off the two-state solution forever. This is the ‘never-never’ land that supporters of Israel are living in: they think they can carry on with the reality of occupation because of their ‘exceptional’ circumstances; their opponents around the world just don’t ‘get’ the realities of their situation. But millions around the world are now calling their bluff.

    The onus is on Israel, and Israeli society, to change this. Israel holds the keys to occupation and they are to only ones who can unlock Palestinian statehood and freedom for its people. Failing this very unlikely prospect (the radical right is historically strong enough to resist it), it will be up to the international community to force a solution. There are signs that some countries are beginning to tire of Israel’s behaviour of exceptionalism.

   This conflict did not begin with the kidnapping of three Israelis, and will not end with any fragile ceasefire. It is tied up in the continuing Israeli occupation and supremacy, institutionalised through a complex societal framework over decades. A comprehensive process involving all parties from both sides is the only way to achieve a lasting settlement and help stability for the whole region. The only way that is going to happen is if Israel commits to it, or is given no other choice. That prospect looks as distant as ever.