17.07.1997
Humanising our environment
Do communists support a ban on fox-hunting or do we defend the ‘democratic rights’ of fox-hunters? Is a campaign to ban fox-hunting a ‘diversion’ from serious politics? Danny Hammill gives his view on some of these issues, debated at a recent CPGB London seminar
Mass demonstrations are not a thing of the past after all. Over 100,000 people took part in a march and rally at Hyde Park last Thursday, and the mood was undeniably militant. One of the demonstrators interviewed on television threatened insurrection if their demands were not met and even drew comparisons with the IRA - ‘Nothing compared to us’. Perhaps the Socialist Workers Party and the Socialist Party were right all along and the crisis of expectations amongst the masses has reached fever pitch - already.
But even the most optimistic member of the SWP or SP would have been a bit disturbed by the slogans printed on the placards of the marchers - ‘Killing Foxes is cool by me’, ‘Country sport means country business’, ‘This is real life - not the Archers’ and so on. Even more alarming for our SWP or SP comrade would have been the social composition of the demonstration, composed as it was of the most reactionary and backward elements of society. Aristocrats to actors, landed gentry to rural workers were all united in opposition to Tony Blair and his “urban values”. All ‘respecters of the countryside’. All demanding that their “minority rights” be upheld. As Melanie Phillips, self-appointed expert on morality for The Observer, put it: “The ban is thus an act of intolerance against a minority group” (July 14).
Yes, the fox-hunting rabble had come to town.
The scenes at Hyde Park reminded me of a counterrevolutionary rally from the 1920s and 1930s, even if they did take on the appearance of a polite protest by decent, law-abiding folk. This impression is certainly reinforced by the knowledge that most of them are armed to the teeth - even if they, thankfully, had left their weapons at home on this occasion. In a sense, you could argue that this is what a real far right, counterrevolutionary movement would look like - and not a BNP type in sight either. As for the speeches by the likes of David Bellamy, Jeremy Irons, Willie Carson or William Hague, one cannot but help recall Leon Trotsky’s classical’ definition of fascism as the “enraged” petty bourgeoisie, “driven mad by despair”.
In fact, the central core of the demonstration consisted of the middle class, or what could be termed the Range Rover-driving countryside class. Pathetically, this militant defence of their right’ to kill foxes and wear silly jackets is in reality more of a defence of their right to ape the aristocracy. Pent up class frustration was on display at Hyde Park, not concern for the countryside or a plea for so-called countryside values facing extinction from ‘de-natured’ townies. Michael Heseltine, almost with tears in his eyes, said: “The bill would destroy communities, damage fragile environments and destroy jobs.” I wonder what the miners would think of Heseltine’s new found senstivity.
It is interesting to note that this rally was vigorously promoted, and supported, by wide sections of society. The reactionary BBC radio programme, The Archers, acted as a de facto mobiliser for the demo - and certainly became its focus, with members of The Archers cast appearing at the demonstration. The Farming Today programme also did its bit for the cause.
Backing for the fox-hunters’ crusade came from some unexpected quarters. Hugo Young of The Guardian - a newspaper which must be the bête noire of any respectable fox-hunter - waxed movingly about the plight of “rural outsiders” and how Thursday’s rally was a massive cry against the “hideous plight of centralised uniformity”. A ban on fox-hunting, Young argued, “destroys the freedom of a minority to do what it has done for centuries ... Does the centre have no duty of respect for the jobs, the economies, the pleasures and the preferences of the periphery?” (July 10). Similar sentiments have appeared from commentators such as Polly Toynbee of The Independent - people who we normally associated with urbanite, liberal values. But these commentators have been seduced by rustic romance and are all eager to defend a rural idyll of their own imagination, somewhere untouched by the hideous onward march of the “homogenising juggernaut” (Hugo Young), a misty, mysterious world of hay wains and thatched cottages. Alienated liberals like Young and Toynbee want to keep the city out of the country, a bolthole to retreat to when class inequality and poverty in the cities reaches such a level that it offends their liberal sensibilities and the aristocrats’ paternal embrace becomes more inviting.
We can see then that Thursday’s rally was an attempt - to one extent or another, and with some degree of success - to forge a cross-class alliance in defence of fox-hunting and “country values”. That is, to keep the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gate. As the Duke of Roxburghe explained, about fox-hunting: “It’s a good way of linking social classes”; and his wife, Duchess Virginia, added: “But this is also about what goes with the hunt. In a big way we’re bringing the countryside together with lots of related social activities - cricket, tennis, and things for the children like pony clubs” (quoted in The Guardian July 11). Henry Porter of The Guardian was also keen to stress that “farmers, plumbers, dairymen, builders, land agents, journalists and lawyers” also take part in the hunt (July 10).
This points us to the central significance of the fox-hunters’ demo - the constitutional question. The ‘tally-ho’ brigade were mounting a defence of the House of Lords and everything it stands for - ‘Damn these elected city blighters in London’. Lord Cranbourn, the Tory chief whip in the House of Lords, did the rounds on the media, gleefully reasserting the power of the lords and the peers. In fact, he made clear that the House of Lords should have more powers, not less. Even with the ‘meagre’ powers at their disposal at the moment, Lord Cranbourn and his aristocratic allies will easily sabotage the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, which is being introduced as a private member’s bill by Mike Foster, Labour MP for Worcester. The bill is likely to pass its second reading in the House of Commons on November 28 but after that it is curtains for Foster’s Bill as it passes into the tender hands of Lord Cranbourn’s fox-hunting chums.
Miserably, Tony Blair is backing down already. Thursday’s rally put the fear of god into the government and for all its dishonest protestations about how there is “no change in its position”, it has indicated its willingness to pull the plug on the bill. Blair will not force a vote on the Wild Mammals Bill through parliament and will let the aristocrats and lords have their own way. If only the workers’ movement had such power and influence.
We must also treat as contemptible the claims of the countryside lobby that they are eco-warriors in disguise and that their undying love for animals exceeds that of the Animal Liberation Front. The fox-hunters and their sycophants are most definitely not friends of man’s best friend. Every year, for instance, sees a beagle holocaust, with the in-touch-with-nature houndmaster putting a bullet through the head of any unfortunate dog which is unable to keep up with the chase.
The fox-hunters’ beloved ‘natural’ countryside is a total fraud - indeed, it is totally people-made. Historically, the countryside was created by forcefully driving the rural workers off the land and enslaving them in the newly-forming factories and cities. Denuded of people, the landowners and aristocrats, in effect, turned the countryside into their own plaything. What is more, the land-owning gentry were ferocious when it came to defending their acquisition - even if it means pointing a shotgun at any impudent person who ‘trespasses’ on their land. The real joke is that the ‘conservationist’ farmers and landowners have been the biggest despoilers of the land, pouring chemicals into the land in a quest for greater and greater profits. For them to lecture ‘townies’ on the virtues of ecology and ‘harmony with nature’ is surely beyond a joke - more like depraved hypocrisy.
This hypocrisy and cant is not restricted, of course, to the fox-hunting lobby. The annual grouse-shooting massacre in Scotland is also a monstrous example of obscene aristocratic privilege. The Scottish highlands have been cleared of people, and zealously parcelled up into separate reservations, precisely in order that these idle parasites can enjoy their leisure pursuits and pretend they are on safari. You can guarantee that if some parliamentary bill was introduced which threatened their historic ‘right’ to kill defenceless birds, then they would be clogging up Hyde Park or Edinburgh high street in protest - and, if they were really lucky, Jeremy Irons would speak at their rally as well.
It should be clear to communists and progressives that the fox-hunting lobby, and the social classes and relations which lie behind them, represent a major enemy of the workers’ movement and a serious obstacle to the building of socialism, and therefore we cannot afford to treat this question lightly - unless we concur with The Independent when it calls them a “relatively harmless minority group” (editorial, July 11).
No doubt some on the revolutionary left will dismiss the fox-hunting controversy as a ‘secondary issue’, if not dismiss it entirely. Or they might argue that we should concentrate our revolutionary attentions on ‘real issues’. Some might even agree with Melanie Phillips that calling for a ban is an example of “metropolitan political correctness”. That would be foolish, philistine and unLeninist. We need to have answers for all the questions facing society, not brush aside the ‘inconvenient’ ones and thus hand them over on a plate to reactionary sections of bourgeois society - who can use the issues involved to gain some degree of ideological hegemony over the working class.
Therefore, we need to take a stand on fox-hunting. This means we must avoid at all costs adopting, albeit unconsciously, a Revolutionary Communist Party/Living Marxism-type mentality - best summed up by their best-selling T-shirt which says, “Ban nothing”. This is nonsense, and certainly has nothing in common with serious communist politics - it is more akin to apolitical left communism, which believes that all that matters is the struggle for ‘revolution’ and ‘socialism’ - ie, everything you care to think of becomes automatically a ‘secondary issue’.
Communists do not object to state bans as a point of principle, even under the current society we live under. It is not inherently unprincipled for communists to call upon the (bourgeois) state to outlaw things. Do we not agree that it was a progressive measure - a sign of our strength - when the British parliament in the last century banned child labour, or when it outlawed slavery? Do we not call upon the bourgeois state now to introduce a minimum wage and introduce greater health and safety regulations at work? Of course we do.
If we cast our eye around the world, the reactionary implications of a ‘no state bans’-line becomes clear. The Egyptian government - under reactionary pressure - has just unbanned female circumcision - ie, barbaric bodily mutilation. Communists are obliged to be in the vanguard of those calling for female circumcision to be re-banned, and for that ban to remain in place forever.
This is not to sow illusions in the bourgeois state or any such leftist nonsense. We do not believe that the Blair government - even it did get Foster’s Bill through parliament - is going to expropriate the aristocracy and the landed gentry, and give the land back to the masses. More to the point though, any reforms introduced under capitalism can only ever be partial, inconsistent and subject to reversal. We fight for socialism pecisely in order for these reforms to become permanent and ingrained in our socialist culture - the only basis on which we can construct our communist civilisation.
Given that it is a live issue and a bill is actually going before parliament - it is not something we have actively campaigned for and agitated around - there is no reason why communists should not support the ban on fox-hunting.
It is not primarily the animals’ suffering that concerns us, though that is not totally irrelevant of course. It is the dehumanising effect that the infliction of suffering has on their tormentors. All the rituals and ceremonies which attend fox-hunting - such as ‘blooding’ - represent a living negation of the communist culture we want to see. Such events dehumanise and pervert the humanity of all those involved in them, and only perpetuate oppressive social relations. The same could be said for bull-fighting in Spain, another barbaric ritual. Communists and revolutionaries in that country should also take a stand, not shrug off bull-fighting as a relatively ‘harmless’ cultural hangover.
Some comrades, possibly, might object to a ban on the grounds that it will throw some of those involved in the fox-hunting industry onto the dole. Perhaps it will. But it is not the role of communists to concoct an alternative economic strategy for capitalism. No doubt the abolition of slavery was ‘bad’ for the economy and added some more to the ranks of the unemployed - do we then decry the abolition of slavery? We also call for ‘not a single penny, not a single person’ for so-called defence spending. If Blair woke up tomorrow and implemented such a programme, it would lead to massive job losses - do we therefore abandon our slogan?
Naturally, everything has to be decided in the concrete. We do not support the Dunblane/Snowdrop campaign to ban guns. To back such a reactionary campaign, as the Socialist Party has done, is to sow social pacifism and hence illusions in the bourgeois state. Such bans are a symbol of our weakness, not our strength. Unless the workers are armed we are unable to carry out our programme, making revolution an impossibility. Hence socialism becomes impossible. Paradoxically, we need arms to realise our humanity.
As part of our communist vision, we aim to humanise our environment - whether that be the urban jungles of New York or Calcutta, the Scottish Highlands, Antarctica or, for that matter, the planet Mars (ie, by employing ‘terraforming’ technology). Only the most misanthropic ‘eco-warrior’ could object to such a goal. Nobody can seriously argue that this noble - and necessary - aim was the objective of those demonstrating in Hyde Park on Thursday. Quite the opposite..
‘Bring the countryside into the cities and the cities into the countryside’ - that should be our war cry. To fail to realise this is to abandon the struggle for communism, and to fight over disembodied abstractions instead.