02.05.2001

Racism or chauvinism?

In addition to the business of organising the election campaign for Brent South, the weekly constituency meeting of Brent Socialist Alliance heard comrade Hassan Mahamdallie of the Socialist Workers Party on the topical subject of racism.

It was pleasing to see that, despite the imminence of the election, political discussion has now been given room - all the more important as both Tories and New Labour have, in their differing ways, already played the ?race card?.

Comrade Mahamdallie, who wrote the recent SWP pamphlet Refugees are not to blame, outlined the rise of the British empire and traced the origins of racism and capitalism running in parallel. The material basis for racism was quite rightly identified as arising from the slave trade.

Though the comrade did point out that racism has changed its form over the centuries, he did not attempt to assess the results of those changes today. The implication seemed to be that the end of direct colonisation and of course the outlawing of trading in humans as slaves in the western world has had next to no effect on the dominant ideology.

Yet the material basis that the comrade outlined for notions of the ?superiority? of the British ?race? - the need to provide justification for both empire and slavery - no longer exists. Modern British chauvinism is not based on any notion of biological superiority, but on the general cultural-economic-political hostility to ?outsiders?. The given targets may be asylum-seekers (of whatever ?race?) or, in the case of the Tories, the European Union.

Comrade Mahamdallie outlined the standard position that racism is the ?bosses? attempt at divide and rule?, but failed to explain why such an outcome can only be achieved through racism. For example, today the British state attempts to divide workers through ?racialisation?, ?race awareness? and ethnic quotas, using the language of racial harmony.

The comrade stressed the need for the Socialist Alliance to base itself on the traditions of proletarian internationalism - but failed to mention the SA?s open borders policy, preferring to call for unity on a purely economic basis.

The internationalism that the comrade seeks cannot, however, be built on a purely economic base, not least because it leaves the issue of national boundaries untouched: they cannot simply be wished away, but must be confronted by the democratic struggle of the working class to rid ourselves of them.

A lively discussion ensued. Comrade John Kreeger pointed out that along with racism socialists must also fight chauvinism, but he questioned the Weekly Worker?s position on official anti-racism. One SWP comrade described this position as being ?naive? and said that there was ?plenty of evidence? to support the view that the state was racist. On the contrary there is an overwhelming stack of evidence to prove the opposite. Eg, the speech made by Robin Cook in defence of ?multicultural Britain? is a further example which demonstrates that the bourgeoisie has woven the method of political correctness and inclusiveness firmly into its ?divide and rule? strategy.

The soft underbelly of the SWP is without question a reflection of the British chauvinism espoused by Robin Cook and all those like him on the liberal wing of the bourgeoisie. Darrell Goodliffe of the CPGB insisted that Robin Cook should be ?fought? by socialists as a ?demagogue? - a view about which comrade Brian Butterworth of the SWP expressed ?worry?. There is no doubt that Robin Cook displayed a better grasp of actual history than his opponents in the rightwing press. However, he is seeking to paint as racist not just potential Tory opponents, but also those on the left who rightly attack his British chauvinism. Comrade Butterworth unconsciously exposed the logic of this process, as soon as he heard an attack on Cook?s speech; the comrade automatically perceived the attack as coming from the right.

Constantly echoed was the notion that Cook was articulating a ?progressive? viewpoint (however flawed) and this was counterposed to the Tory reactionaries. Opting for the lesser evil, one comrade said that ?sometimes it was right to back the liberal bourgeoisie?, excluding by definition the fight for independent working class politics on all questions.

Indeed in defending Robin Cook, this week?s Socialist Worker stated: ?The truth is that Britain has been enriched by its history of immigration ?? (April 28). This sentiment was heartily endorsed by The Economist, which stated that, ?History has shown that immigrants bring ideas, vigour and ambition, as well as their mere labour? (April 29). Both operate within the parameters set by Cook: legal immigration is welcomed as being good for Britain.

Despite the sharp disagreements, we are absolutely united on one thing: the need to challenge New Labour at the ballot box. Next week?s meeting will discuss the selection of an additional candidate for Brent East to stand alongside Mick McDonnell, the prospective parliamentary candidate for Brent South.

Robert Grace