27.07.2011
Norway massacre and state bans
We have no problem with self-defence, writes Michael Copestake
One can almost hear the sound of knees jerking, as calls are heard from sections of the left for the state to take action against the far right following the massacre in Norway. Of course, we on the left feel particular sympathy for the victims of the conspiracy-obsessed far-right nationalist, Anders Brevik. There are 68 of them at the time of writing - mostly youth members of the ruling Labour Party enjoying their annual summer camp on the tiny island of Utøya.
In the past many on the left have called openly for the police to ban English Defence League marches and for the BBC to no-platform the British National Party and, true to form, some have taken the opportunity of the Norway outrage to demand that the UK government reacts in the ‘appropriate way’. For example, the multiculturalist One Society, Many Cultures group, set up in November 2009 and supported by the likes of Ken Livingstone, Billy Hayes and some small left groups, demanded: “We call on the government to integrate far-right and fascist terror into Britain’s counter-terrorism strategy.”[1]
Noting Brevik’s affinity with the EDL, it states: “The anti-racist movement in Britain has consistently warned of the links of far right groups such as the EDL and the British National Party’s acts of terrorism and violence, and the climate of Islamophobia which has emboldened them. However, the EDL have been allowed regular protests around the country, many of which have ended in violence, mostly directed at Muslim communities and mosques.”
In similar vein, Nick Lowles of Hope Not Hate, writes on the Socialist Unity blog: “Prime minister David Cameron has promised to learn any lessons of the appalling events in Norway to ensure that this country is ‘more secure against horrific outrages like this’. He could make a start by ordering the home office to reclassify the English Defence League. Despite the violence and racial hatred whipped up by this street gang, the authorities refuse to label the group as ‘far-right extremists’. As a result the police do not monitor the group like they do dozens of Muslim organisations and take little interest in its activities .... With evidence pointing to Anders Brevik’s admiration for the EDL and an increasingly militant tone being taken by EDL units across Britain, surely it is time for the authorities finally to take this threat seriously.”[2]
Such calls are completely misguided. The state and its police are not neutral bodies committed to the wellbeing of the population. They exist to defend the interests of the ruling class and do not need any encouragement to move against those they consider “extremists”. It is suicidal for the left to demand that they take on yet more powers - powers that will certainly be used against our class and its organisations. Laws already exist against terror attacks and mass murder, and we should certainly not be calling on the police to “monitor” organisations simply for expressing their opinions, no matter how repulsive.
But the left has been quick to draw an equals sign between Brevik and the EDL, given that for a time Brevik floated in the EDL milieu. The Socialist Workers Party has used this link to exhort everyone to join the September 3 counterdemonstration against the EDL in Tower Hamlets. It has also taken the opportunity to emphasise the necessity of the ‘no-platform’ tactic in relation to the far right and of chasing the EDL from town to town via the SWP-controlled Unite Against Fascism (curiously enough, the UAF website does not list the SWP as a supporting organisation). Using the language of New Labour, the SWP says that fascists “target everyone that stands up for tolerance”, and so we must “confront the racists wherever they raise their heads”.[3] Physical confrontation is substituted for a Marxist programme for society, and the need to win the battle of ideas.
We have no problem with self-defence. In fact, we militantly advocate it. But reactionary ideas are best defeated when they are out in the open. We are certainly confident in the truth of Marxism and its power to see off the pathetic nationalism, Islamophobia and racism of the far right.
Also misguided are calls for increased state controls on firearms. In fact this incident should lead us to the opposite conclusion. Hundreds of people were left defenceless to prevent Brevik’s 90-minute rampage, when it is clear that if firearms had been available he could have been taken out within minutes. It would be an excellent thing if groups like the Norwegian Workers’ Youth League conducted arms training and had the means to defend themselves instead of waiting in vain for the arrival of the police.
Why is the call for the right to bear arms considered so eccentric by the left - a call supported even by that arch-revisionist, Eduard Bernstein? In Switzerland, for example, service in the national militia is mandatory and, once trained, individuals are obliged to retain their firearms in civilian life. Serving militia members may carry their arms openly in public. The total number of guns in private homes is estimated at between 1.2 and 3 million.
At best much of the left, if it is does not actively support the disarming of the population, is silent on the right to be trained in, and be prepared for, armed self-defence. On one level the alienation caused by capitalist social relations, combined with the ability of reactionary and extreme ideologies to influence the unstable, is always likely to lead isolated individuals to arm themselves to the teeth in order to take their revenge on society or a section of it (as we have so tragically seen, the target could be a section of the workers’ movement, irrespective of the extent to which it is incorporated into the mainstream).
In most countries someone who really wants to get hold of and use a gun cannot be stopped - the scale of the global black market in arms on its own virtually guarantees this. Indeed, in Norway the vast majority of illegal guns are obtained as a result of theft, often from military facilities. The question, however, of arms and training in their use cannot be posed in a liberal, individualist fashion based on the behaviour of lone psychopaths or criminals - a response that only handicaps any attempt by the working class to form itself into a powerful, independent force in society. Instead there must be a culture of self-defence and arms training that is universal, and adopted by the working class as a whole. The monopoly on the right to bear arms by the state must be broken.
The more power held by the state, the less is held by the working class - that is the essence of the class struggle. A key part of overcoming this imbalance is for the working class to have the right to self-defence; to bear arms and to be trained in their use.
Notes