Monday, 1 March 2010
Fenris, Marxism and Jung
The article below is from the Workers Liberty website.
Note how the Far Left still refer to the BNP as the agents of the Capitalists and a tool of the bosses.
Its like they ware walking around in a blindfold.
The ONLY political party that is attacked by the entire corporate media, from The Independent, The Guardian to The Sun and The Times is the BNP.
Every other political party has a direct political sponsor.
For instance it was the decision of Rupert Murdoch to support Tony Blair and New Labour before the 1997 election that led to the Labour Party gaining power ;
and as Murdoch needs a war with Iran, he needs the Zionist Tories in power to get it, hence The Sun now supports the Tories ;
In fact Blair spoke to Rupert Murdoch three times in the 9 days leading up to the Iraq War. In the entire time he had been in office prior to this point he had, in total, spoken to Murdoch three other times.
This suggests that not only did the Murdoch media issue false propoganda to bolster the case for war, Rupert Murdoch was informed the war was going to happen before Parliament was told.
This is a Corporate Fascist State.
Not a NATIONALIST Corporate Fascist State, but a Globalist Corporate Fascist State where supra-national corporations work with governments and the institutions of global governance to use the military assets of member nation states in order to advance international corporate economic interests as well as the interest of the media political puppets in their respective nations.
The Corporate Media all attack the BNP.
The BBC the state broadcaster attacks the BNP.
The trades unions attack the BNP.
The idea that the BNP is an 'asset' of the Corporations that control our media, economic and political systems is simply laughable.
Yet the Labour Party are DIRECTLY supported by the Corporate Media.
So please could some Marxist try and explain why the very oppressive and corrupt media corporations that are supposed to support 'the fascist BNP' against the working class and the workers are in fact the PRIMARY attackers of 'the fascist BNP' and therefore this equates to the 'fascist BNP' being a tool of the capitalist media corporations ?
Anyone else but me see the 'disconnect' in the logic here.
Also note the Left's infantile misunderstanding of the nature of the real Fascist threat to the White Working Class of Britain - Globalism and the free movement of workers and capital leading to a Globalised world where any chance of the atomised social mass comprised of people of all races, religions, nations and creeds having any sense of being part of a Class of any kind, let alone a White Working Class with a sense of class consciousness capable of defending its innate interests, will be destroyed.
Globalism leads to the death of nations and with the death of nation so the death of the working class begins.
Only in nations do communities form a sense of class consciousness.
In the Globalised world of no nations, then no people will ever again achieve any sense of class consciousness again, and hence all peoples around the world will then fall instantly victim of the savage power of global capitalism, shed of its chains of laws and morals.
As I was writing this I had an idea concerned the symbolism of Fenris.
The victory of Globalism will be that no nations exist any more and that all humanity will then be the prey of the global gray wolf, a Fenris of unbridled money power that will then be set free to pillage, plunder and exploit the planet for corporate profits.
I then realised that the Iraq War is an aspect of Fenris.
In the context of Ragnarok as relating to present events, then we can apply a definition to Fenris.
Fenris is Entropy. Fenris is the destroyer of order, complexity and evolution.
Fenris is unleashed when humanity, using the out of control intellect symbolised by Loki, abuses its knowledge in order to over exploit the natural resources of the planet and hence create natural disasters on the planet caused by global climate change.
The fact is that human over population is killing the planet and this has released Fenris.
Ragnarok begins when the people of the world consume more natural resources than can be replaced by nature.
Fenris is released when humanity used up more than half of all the available energy and resources available to him and his descendants, and at this point to the path to our extinction began.
Odin is therefore Entelechy, or higher evolution who battles Entropy.
Therefore the Ragnarok motif refers to the point when human over population and demands on energy, resources and the planet exceeded the point of no return and at the point Fenris, entropy representing decacy, destruction and chaos, was released.
Fenris is represented within the human mind and humanity itself as the pursuit of money and power using war as an extension of economics.
Oil Imperialism, Resource Wars and Eco-Conflicts are the manifestations of Fenris within human society.
The story of Fenris also directly relates to oil.
On their journey to bind Fenris, the Æsir went out on to the lake Amsvartnir (Old Norse "pitch black"), sent for Fenris to accompany them, and continued to the island Lyngvi.
The lake of 'pitch black' is clearly oil.
Therefore Fenris relates to a 'wolfish demand for oil'.
The wolf is then bound in the earth with his mouth held open and from his saliva run the river Ván (Old Norse "hope") which represents the flow of oil from the earth.
At Ragnarok Fenris himself is released from his prison within the earth, and in a fury of fire and ashes, signifying some sort of volcanic eruption, this appearance of Fenris then ushers in the Wolf Age and the mini-Ice Age that follows that leads to global famine and war.
About 500 people attended the Unite Against Fascism conference at the TUC's Congress House on 13 February - including trade unionists, student activists and young people from across the country. With even roughly adequate political perspectives, these activists would be well-placed as tribunes and organisers for an effective anti-fascist movement. Unfortunately the conference confirmed what we knew already: the SWP leadership has involved them in a morass of political unprincipledness and confusion.
I attended the opening plenary and the workshop on 'Bringing anti-fascism into the workplace', where we actually got to have some debate. Both were highly instructive.
In the plenary we had fluff from Kay Carberry, assistant TUC general secretary, who said that some working-class voters and even trade unionists are attracted to the BNP because they're “influenced by media stories”. Christine Blower from the NUT was slightly better, rightly pointing out that the growth of the far right is a social question. “Fascism is not the answer to poverty, or to youth unemployment, or to poor housing.” OK, but what is?
Finally Martin Smith from the SWP spoke. He did ask why the BNP are growing, but his answers were confused to say the least.
The first reason he cited is what he called Nick Griffin's 'eurostrategy' - his attempt to repackage the BNP as a respectable, suit-wearing nationalist party. The solution? Make sure you call them fascists and Nazis! Make sure people know what they are! That's what Martin Smith does all the time - even when the BNP's lawyers ring him up! I'm in favour of calling the BNP fascists, but this hardly gets to grips with why they are growing. Nor is it something that anyone, even mainstream Tories, could disagree with.
After complaining that the BNP's “job is being made easier by people who supposed to be on our side” - the BBC! - and criticising New Labour politicians like Margaret Hodge on their anti-migrant racism - but not much else - Smith resorted to a favourite SWP metaphor for anti-fascism: the sword and shield. UAF is the shield, defending us against the immediate fascist attack. But in the longer term we need the sword of socialist politics to go on the offensive against the bosses' and politicians responsible for the conditions in which fascism grows.
But what UAF in fact does is super-glue the labour movement's sword to its shield - and then accuse anyone who wants to unglue them so we can fight effectively of disrupting anti-fascist 'unity'.
On a side note. The liberal journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a supporter of the British Muslims for Secular Democracy group, was called an Islamophobe by a heckler in the audience. This is really pretty laughable and tells you a lot about the political milieu the SWP has helped to foster.
In the workshop there were a lot of interesting and inspiring contributions about anti-racist initiatives people have taken in their workplaces, particularly in schools (teachers were over-represented in the workshop - good for them). Without wanting to undermine any of that, the political level was incredibly low.
A number of speakers used phrases like tackling the roots of fascism. When I contributed, I asked how this was possible in a campaign that deliberately refuses to raise social demands, for fear of alienating bourgeois allies. This includes even right-wing politicians - both David Cameron and two former Monday Club official are on UAF's sponsors list - and strike-breaking bosses, most recently at UAF's anti-EDL demo in Leeds during the bin workers' strike. How can we say what is necessary if we are in bed with these people?
An SWP comrade was first to reply. She admonished me for making the same mistake as the German Communist Party when, on Stalin's orders, it refused to unite with the Social Democratic party to fight Hitler. UAF is supposedly what Trotsky called a “united front”
Kevin Courtney from the NUT and Steve Hart from Unite asked if I was against having Tory-voting strikers on picket lines. Hart argued that the only question that matter is: do you support the strike? Similarly, the only question that matters here is: are you against fascism?
Let me explain very carefully what is wrong all this.
Trotsky talked about a “workers' united front” - in the first instance an alliance of the Communists and Social Democrats to fight against the Nazis. Workers' unity against the fascists - absolutely right. But in UAF the SWP 'unites' not just with social democrats, not just with Labour Party people, not just with non-revolutionary trade unionists, but with outright bourgeois politicians and bosses. The SWPer who spoke conveniently avoided this reality.
Trotsky advocated cooperation between working-class activists for physical self-defence, but as part of the class struggle - fighting against the social conditions which gave rise to Nazism. He advocated complete freedom of criticism, so that communists could continue to highlight the limitations of their allies. UAF's relationship even with top Labour Party people - never mind Tories - is that of a 'single issue' anti-fascist 'popular front', not a working-class united front in a modern setting.
Fascism is not a 'single issue', an isolated evil you can just declare yourself against. Marxists have a far more complex and subtle understanding of it as a product of social conditions, class relations and the class struggle. The ruling class and its political representatives cannot and will not fight it effectively.
When Tory workers join a union and go on strike, it is not their political affiliation that is at issue, but their class. In fact, if anything, they are striking against their own politics, even though they are not conscious of it. Inviting a Tory MP - a ruling-class Tory leader - to sponsor a campaign or appear on a platform is, self-evidently, completely different. That socialist trade unionists fail to understand these ABCs is astonishing.
What we need
Such is the urgency of the threat from the far right that most of the left critics at the conference seemed quite nervous about criticising UAF. A Socialist Party speaker in the workshop session made some very vague, hinted-at criticisms of the campaign, mainly focusing on its lack of democracy. A Socialist Resistance speaker in the opening plenary denounced the idea of a popular front with Liberals and Tories, but then argued for “continuing to build the united front”. Continue? What united front?! A similarly vague critical resolution promoted by SR and supported by the Jewish Socialist Group, Cambridge NUT and Brent Trades Council was not pushed; instead the speaker expressed a pious hope that the steering committee - which is not even elected at the conference! - would discuss it.
We need criticism from activists in the fight, not criticism from the sidelines. Nonetheless, clear, sharp criticism of the SWP and the destructive course on which it is leading the anti-fascist movement is what is needed.