The Rise of Lumpenproletariat-Driven Fascism in the UK
[A MUST READ] A Concern We Should All Be Tackling
Introduction
The situation has grown increasingly alarming since the July General Elections of 2024. The surge of far-right movements sweeping across the nation and Europe is particularly troubling. However, there was a glimmer of hope when France managed to electorally defeat their fascist opposition in their elections held on June 30 and July 7, 2024, subsequently forming a Popular Front government. Unfortunately, the United Kingdom has not been as fortunate. The General Election here was disastrous; Labour secured a majority, yet their voter shares dramatically declined compared to the 2019 General Election under Corbyn. In 2019, there was a 67.3% turnout with Labour securing a 32.1% share. By 2024, turnout plummeted to 59.9%, and Labour's share slightly increased to 33.7%. This shift highlights a disturbing apathy among British voters when choosing their representatives. Labour's victory was more a default outcome as the major opposition to the Conservative Party, whose vote was fragmented by the far-right Reform UK Party. Despite the split, Labour would have likely triumphed due to the catastrophic leadership under Rishi Sunak and his Tory predecessors over the past fifteen years.
What is deeply concerning about this election is the mainstream media’s role in amplifying the far-right’s voice. The media not only provided a platform but seemingly endorsed them. Although Reform UK supporters might argue that the media has consistently criticized Farage and his party, the underlying motive was transparent: criticism drives viewership and, consequently, popularity. Farage and his party received unprecedented media exposure, more than any other party, signalling an implicit endorsement of Farage as a political figure and what his party represents in the socio-economic structure of the country. Garnering over 5 million votes, the far-right's presence in the election was troubling a month ago, and now these fears are materializing as violence erupts in our streets and communities.
From a dialectical materialist perspective, this phenomenon can be understood as a reflection of the underlying socio-economic tensions and contradictions within British society. The rise of the far-right is not merely a political anomaly but a symptom of deeper structural issues. The base, comprising the economic realities of austerity, inequality, and disillusionment with the neoliberal status quo, has led to changes in the superstructure, including cultural and ideological shifts towards right-wing populism. The media’s role in this context is significant; it not only reflects these tensions but actively shapes them by providing platforms to far-right ideologies, thus influencing the ideological landscape and contributing to the current unrest. The increase in violence can be seen as the manifestation of these unresolved contradictions, highlighting the urgent need for a revolutionary change that addresses the root causes of economic and social inequality.
Right Wing Populism And Its Goals
Ideology
The Right-Wing in this country is adamantly dedicated to promoting anti-immigration narratives, a strategy that has inevitably resulted in the proliferation of racist dog whistles and the persecution of religious minorities. By propagating a narrow and infantilized definition of so-called “British Values” that stands in stark contradiction to its own ideology, the Right-Wing is orchestrating a crusade of radicalization against Muslim minorities or even people that “look” Muslim just based on their skin colour. This campaign is fuelled by deeply ingrained biases, stereotypes, and bigotry. Despite their vehement denials of such overt acts of barbarism, rooted in their White Nationalist Chauvinism, their actions and propaganda are starkly reminiscent of the antisemitic fervour seen in 1920s Germany.
It is evident that these right-wing efforts are not mere ideological aberrations but are deeply entwined with the underlying material conditions and class structures of society. The ruling capitalist class, in its quest to maintain and expand its economic dominance, manipulates cultural and racial divisions to fragment the working class and divert attention from the systemic inequalities inherent in the capitalist system, this what makes the Far-Right movement Lumpenproletariat, the Far-right groups actively recruit from the lumpenproletariat strata (often includes the unemployed, the homeless, criminals, and other marginalized individuals), utilizing their grievances and sense of alienation. This demographic can be drawn to far-right rallies, militant activities, and other forms of direct action promoted by far-right leaders.
The lumpenproletariat, due to their socio-economic instability and exclusion from mainstream society, may be more susceptible to the far-right’s promises of stability, order, and belonging. The far-right often exploits their economic and social grievances, offering simplistic and radical solutions to complex problems. Far-right movements frequently scapegoat minorities, immigrants, and other marginalized groups, which can resonate with the lumpenproletariat's frustrations and perceived lack of economic opportunities. This redirection of anger away from systemic issues towards specific groups can galvanize lumpenproletarian support. By fomenting xenophobia and religious intolerance, the Right-Wing serves the interests of the bourgeoisie by preventing the formation of a unified, class-conscious proletariat that could challenge the existing power structures.
Moreover, the invocation of “British Values” serves as an ideological tool to justify exclusionary practices and reinforce the hegemonic cultural norms that uphold the status quo. This tactic mirrors historical patterns where dominant classes have exploited nationalism and racial superiority to legitimize oppression and suppress dissent. The parallels with 1920s Germany are not coincidental; both periods reflect the use of scapegoating and divisive rhetoric to fortify capitalist interests against perceived internal and external threats.
In essence, the Right-Wing’s anti-immigration stance and its broader campaign against religious minorities are manifestations of a broader dialectical struggle. This struggle pits the reactionary forces of capitalism, seeking to perpetuate their dominance through division and repression, against the progressive potential of a united working class striving for liberation and equality. The task at hand for those committed to social justice is to expose these reactionary tactics, build solidarity across cultural and religious lines, and advance the revolutionary movement towards a truly egalitarian society.
Criticising The Vulgar Use Of “British Values”
In the discourse propagated by the Right Wing, the phrase “British Values” is frequently wielded as a rhetorical weapon against minority groups, ostensibly in defence of a purported cultural and moral superiority. This narrative, however, is deeply hypocritical and fundamentally flawed when examined through the lens of dialectical materialism. The Right Wing’s invocation of “British Values” occurs alongside actions that starkly contradict the very principles they claim to uphold. These actions include instigating riots, dismantling community cohesion, and undermining social solidarity—behaviours that starkly betray the supposed values they purport to defend.
The concept of “British Values” as employed by the Right Wing is not a genuine reflection of historical or cultural truths, but rather an ideological construct. This construct is used instrumentally to perpetuate existing power structures and to justify the systemic oppression and marginalization of vulnerable minorities. The Right Wing's narrative fails to acknowledge the material conditions and historical context that shape the lived experiences of these minorities. Instead, it reduces complex sociopolitical and socioeconomic issues to a simplistic, binary opposition between an idealized “British” identity and the supposed “otherness” of minority groups.
Furthermore, the Right Wing’s discourse ignores the inherent contradictions within capitalist society that give rise to social tensions. By focusing on a superficial notion of “British Values,” they obscure the underlying economic and class struggles that affect all members of society, including those they seek to scapegoat. This diversion serves to maintain the status quo, deflecting attention from the broader structural inequalities and power dynamics at play.
In reality, the invocation of “British Values” by the Right Wing is a reactionary response to the evolving multicultural and multiethnic landscape of contemporary Britain. It reflects a desire to cling to an imagined past and a homogenous national identity that has never truly existed. This nostalgic vision is leveraged to resist progressive change and to fortify the position of the dominant class. The Right Wing’s use of “British Values” is thus a tool of ideological manipulation, intended to sow division and maintain hegemony by pitting different segments of the working class against each other.
In conclusion, the Right Wing’s appropriation of “British Values” is a superficial and cynical tactic designed to obscure the deeper, systemic issues facing the UK. By critically examining this narrative through the framework of dialectical materialism, it becomes clear that their rhetoric serves not to promote genuine values or social cohesion, but to perpetuate existing power imbalances and to justify their oppressive actions against marginalized communities. The true path to addressing the UK’s sociopolitical and socioeconomic challenges lies in unmasking these ideological constructs and confronting the material conditions that underlie societal divisions.
What are “British Values”?
British Values generally refer to a set of principles that reflect the cultural norms, traditions, and attitudes deemed important in British society. These values, often promoted across education, public services, and community life, are deeply rooted in the historical development of Britain’s socio-economic and political structures. Key components of British Values include:
1. Democracy
The development of democracy in Britain emerged from the clashes between different social classes and economic changes. As Britain transitioned from feudalism to capitalism, the rising bourgeoisie demanded political structures that served their economic interests. Key historical events mark this progress:
- The Magna Carta of 1215 stands as a monumental milestone in British history, a dazzling precursor to our democratic evolution. This legendary document boldly curtailed the monarchy's absolute power and championed the rights of the burgeoning middle class.
- The English Civil War (1642-1651), where parliamentary forces defeated the monarchy, bolstering parliamentary democracy.
- The Glorious Revolution of 1688, establishing a constitutional monarchy.
The Industrial Revolution brought about a vast working class who sought political representation. Their struggles led to Reform Acts in the 19th century that gradually expanded voting rights. The rise of the labour movement and the formation of the Labour Party further pushed for democratic rights and social welfare.
The suffragette movement, driven by social changes and women's economic roles, culminated in women gaining the right to vote in 1918, with full suffrage by 1928.
British democracy evolved through a continuous process of conflict and compromise between different social forces, reflecting shifts in power and material conditions. This dynamic interplay has cemented democracy as a core British value.
2. The Rule of Law
The Rule of Law stands as the bedrock of our society, championing the principle that everyone, regardless of status or wealth, is held accountable under the law. It is the unwavering promise of fairness and justice, where every action and decision are governed by transparent, impartial rules. This noble ideal ensures that no one is above the law, and that justice is not a privilege reserved for the few, but a right enjoyed by all. With the Rule of Law, we forge a society where fairness prevails, and each individual is both protected and held to the same high standards. It is our collective commitment to this principle that fosters a sense of trust, stability, and respect within our communities, a core value which makes Britain, British.
3. Individual Liberty
In the UK, individual liberty means having the freedom to express oneself, make personal choices, and live one’s own life without undue interference. This freedom is deeply entwined with historical and social contexts, reflecting a legacy of class struggles and movements for equality. For instance, the expansion of rights has often followed intense battles for freedom, such as the suffragette and labour movements. In capitalist societies, individual liberties can be constrained by economic inequalities. While laws might guarantee freedoms, true liberty is influenced by one's economic position—access to resources, education, and opportunities plays a crucial role. Capitalism promotes private property and freedoms but also creates disparities that can limit actual freedom for some individuals.
The legal and political frameworks in the UK aim to protect freedoms but also uphold the existing economic system. For example, freedom of speech is celebrated, but those with more resources often wield greater influence, highlighting how economic power can shape liberty. As society evolves, so does the understanding of individual liberty. Movements for social justice challenge current structures and advocate for a broader interpretation of freedom, encompassing both formal rights and deeper social equity. In essence, individual liberty in Britain is shaped by ongoing social and economic dynamics, reflecting both the formal rights and the practical realities of freedom, a core value in Britishness.
4. Mutual Respect
To truly embrace the spirit of Mutual Respect is to immerse ourselves in the celebration of each individual’s unique attributes and inherent rights, creating a tapestry of social harmony. In the context of British Values, this concept reveals itself as a dynamic interplay of material conditions, power structures, and historical legacies. Take, for example, the transformative era of the Industrial Revolution. It sparked a wave of philanthropy that reached out to the poor and destitute, fostering a culture of giving and tolerance. This period gave birth to many of the charities that now form the backbone of our societal British values. By delving into how these historical and social factors shape our interactions, we gain a deeper appreciation of respect as more than just an abstract ideal. It becomes a vibrant, living practice that not only enhances our community but also fortifies the bonds that unite us all.
5. Tolerance of Different Faiths and Beliefs
In Britain, our celebration of diverse faiths and beliefs is far more than just a gesture of goodwill; it’s a dynamic response to our ever-evolving economic and social landscape. From the seismic shifts of the Reformation to the Enlightenment’s quest for reason, each era of upheaval has broadened our horizons and deepened our commitment to religious tolerance. The explosion of capitalism and global trade has amplified this diversity, as people from various backgrounds converge and enrich our society. The drive for stability and productivity under capitalism has inspired policies that champion social harmony and inclusivity.
Our legal reforms and anti-discrimination laws are reflections of this multicultural tapestry, designed to foster unity and ensure equal treatment for all. Education and media are instrumental in nurturing a culture of tolerance, embodying our collective dedication to integration and stability. While conflicts may emerge, they are merely part of the ongoing evolution of our social fabric, influenced by economic and ideological shifts. At its heart, Britain’s embrace of religious tolerance is a testament to our historical evolution, economic transformations, and an unceasing journey towards social harmony—an enduring pillar of British Values.
What Is British Culture?
British culture is a dazzling tapestry of traditions, practices, and norms, all shaped by a rich history and a mix of global influences. Known for its literary giants like Shakespeare and Rowling, and musical legends such as The Beatles, the UK’s cultural scene reflects its society's ever-evolving conditions and class dynamics. British literature offers a vivid lens on societal struggles. Dickens's Oliver Twist critiques industrial capitalism, while Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm tackle totalitarianism and capitalist exploitation. Victorian writers celebrated Empire values, whereas modern voices like Rushdie and Smith challenge colonial legacies and embrace multiculturalism, evolving the narrative. Historically, aristocratic patronage shaped artistic content, evident in Renaissance and Romantic art. The rise of industrial capitalism sparked movements like the Pre-Raphaelites, rebelling against mechanization. Modernist experimentation by Joyce and Eliot responded to rapid changes, while Postmodernists critiqued grand narratives and celebrated complexity. Today, artists like Banksy use street art to challenge politics and consumerism, highlighting art's role in societal critique.
British popular culture, from punk to Britpop, often rebels against mainstream norms and economic hardships. As the UK diversifies, its artistic expressions expand, challenging traditional narratives and elevating marginalized voices. Analyzing British culture through a materialist lens reveals its deep connections with economic and social structures. English Language, the heart of British identity, reflects regional and class distinctions through dialects and accents. Received Pronunciation (RP) signifies upper-class status, while regional accents often link to working-class communities. The evolution of British English, shaped by colonial history and global trade, illustrates how economic conditions influence language. Language also plays a role in political and social movements. Slogans from labour strikes and civil rights campaigns show how language can spark change. Public discourse often mirrors or challenges prevailing ideologies, with regional dialects reflecting local identities and socioeconomic conditions. Access to education and language skills varies, revealing broader class inequalities.
British traditions, like Bonfire Night and Afternoon Tea, evolve with economic shifts. Afternoon tea, a Victorian symbol, emerged with industrialization. Sports like football and cricket reflect changing social landscapes, while festivals like Christmas and Bonfire Night have historical and commercial roots, shaped by capitalist influences. As Britain globalizes, traditional practices adapt and commercialize, reflecting capitalist dynamics. Customs evolve in response to social movements and economic conditions, with changing gender roles and LGBTQ+ visibility challenging traditional norms and reflecting broader struggles over class and identity. British multiculturalism, shaped by colonial history and post-war labour needs, showcases the impact of economic conditions on cultural practices. Immigrant communities, often in lower-wage jobs, highlight labor segmentation. The commercialization of diverse cultures reflects capitalism’s impact on cultural exchanges, with government policies influenced by economic and social factors.
In essence, British culture—spanning literature, art, language, and traditions—is intricately linked to economic and social structures. A dialectical materialist perspective reveals how these cultural forms both reflect and shape the UK’s material values and traditions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the invocation of "British Values" by the Right Wing reveals a profound ideological dissonance when scrutinized through the lens of dialectical materialism. Far from embodying a genuine reflection of cultural or historical principles, the term operates as a strategic construct designed to fortify existing power dynamics and to obscure deeper material conditions. The Right Wing’s rhetoric, while ostensibly advocating for a set of values, paradoxically undermines the principles it purports to uphold through actions that sow division and perpetuate social inequality.
Dialectical materialism elucidates how this discourse serves as a tool of ideological manipulation, aimed at preserving the status quo and diverting attention from systemic economic and class struggles. By framing multiculturalism and social diversity as threats to an idealized notion of "British Values," the Right Wing effectively disguises the real contradictions within capitalist society—namely, the ongoing class conflicts and economic disparities that shape and are shaped by the cultural and political superstructures.
British values, from democracy to mutual respect and tolerance, are not static absolutes but are deeply intertwined with the material conditions and class struggles that have historically shaped them. The evolution of these values reflects a dialectical process, where the resolution of societal contradictions drives the development and redefinition of cultural norms and legal principles. The superficiality of the Right Wing’s invocation of "British Values" fails to address these underlying material and ideological dynamics.
A dialectical materialist perspective exposes the superficiality of this ideological construct and emphasizes the importance of addressing the material conditions that underpin social divisions. By acknowledging the broader socio-economic forces at play, we can better understand how concepts like individual liberty, mutual respect, and multiculturalism are shaped by and contribute to the ongoing struggle between different social forces. Ultimately, genuine progress requires unmasking these ideological facades and engaging with the material realities that underpin societal conflicts.
The Ideological Fabrications Of The Recent Right-Wing Outrage
Immigration
Immigration has been a contentious issue championed by the Right Wing for over a decade, evolving from mere rhetoric into organized hostility. The fundamental reality is that immigrants and immigration are not the root causes of socioeconomic and sociopolitical decline within this country. On the contrary, various metrics consistently demonstrate that immigration has been a positive force, both economically and socially. The Right Wing's incessant complaints about “mass immigration” amount to nothing more than an “old man shouting at the clouds,” reflecting a profound misunderstanding of their own immigration system. If they fully grasped the complexities of immigration laws and procedures, they would recognize that entering this country is extraordinarily difficult unless one is affluent or highly educated.
Refugees and asylum seekers are often highlighted as a point of contention. However, statistical evidence reveals that refugees and asylum seekers are, on average, more productive and diligent than the native working class.
They face significant barriers that national citizens do not encounter. The prevailing notion of conspiracy theories surrounding refugees and asylum seekers is baseless when one considers the stark reality of their conditions. Refugees receive around £39.63 per week while awaiting their application decisions—substantially less than what native citizens receive on Universal Credit. Moreover, they are generally barred from working and have no input regarding their housing arrangements, which can range from flats and houses to hostels or, in some cases, decrepit detention camps.
A policy favouring deportation over integration disregards the substantial costs associated with such measures. Compounding this issue is the outsourcing of refugee and asylum seeker management to private corporations such as Serco, Mears, and Clearsprings Ready Homes, which has led to significant mismanagement and waste of public funds. State planning and management would undoubtedly be more cost-effective and efficient.
Contrary to popular misconceptions, international law does not mandate that refugees and asylum seekers must claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. The UN Refugee Convention, to which the UK has been a signatory since the 1950s and which played a crucial role in shaping human rights legislation (and is a bigger part of our British Values which the Right-Wing claim to defend), does not impose such a requirement. Refugees often have material reasons for choosing specific countries, including language and cultural connections. The UK’s historical imperial presence across the globe, which included imposing British institutions on colonized peoples, contributes to the current patterns of refugee migration. Additionally, English’s status as the world’s most widely spoken language further influences this trend, known as Lingua Franca. Despite perceptions that refugees come to the UK primarily for its welfare system, the reality is that the UK’s welfare provisions are among the weakest in Europe. According to the UNHCR, the benefits offered to refugees are minimal and inadequate compared to those provided in other European countries. The UK's welfare system is noted for its lack of statutory limits on immigration detention and restrictions on asylum seekers’ ability to work, which exacerbates their plight.
A thorough examination of empirical data reveals that refugees and immigrants are net contributors to the economy, a perspective supported by multiple studies. From a dialectical materialist viewpoint, these findings highlight the critical role of immigrant labor in the dynamics of capitalist economies. Research conducted by University College London (UCL) demonstrates that immigrants significantly bolster the treasury, far exceeding the fiscal contributions of native-born citizens. Specifically, the UCL study indicated that immigrants who arrived in the UK between 2000 and 2011 were 45% less likely to depend on benefits or tax credits compared to native UK citizens and were 3% less likely to reside in social housing. This data underscores the immigrant population's role in alleviating the fiscal burden on the state.
Further dissecting these contributions, immigrants from the European Economic Area (EEA) paid 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits, in stark contrast to UK natives, whose tax payments were 11% less than the state aid they received. This disparity illustrates the proletarian contribution of immigrants, whose labor not only sustains but also enhances the capitalist state apparatus. CReAM's subsequent research quantified the net fiscal impact of immigrants from the post-2004 EU accession countries, such as Poland, who arrived between 2000 and 2011, at £5 billion. Immigrants from the rest of the EU during the same period contributed a substantial £15 billion. Non-EU immigrants also had a positive fiscal impact, adding £5 billion to the public purse.
In stark contrast, UK natives' net fiscal contribution was overwhelmingly negative, resulting in a deficit of nearly £617 billion. This significant disparity reveals the economic dependency of the native-born population on state welfare, juxtaposed against the surplus generated by immigrant labor. From a dialectical materialist perspective, this data underscores the inherent contradictions within the capitalist economy, where the immigrant proletariat, often marginalized and subjected to precarious conditions, emerges as a fundamental pillar sustaining the fiscal stability of the state. The economic contributions of immigrants thus reflect the broader dynamics of exploitation and class struggle, central to the functioning and perpetuation of the capitalist system.
More recent data from Oxford Economics indicates that European migrants alone contributed an average of £2,300 more to UK public finances in 2016/17 than native-born Brits, with the overall net contribution of migrants from that year amounting to £26.9 billion.
Despite these contributions, refugees often face barriers to fully utilizing their skills and training due to bureaucratic obstacles and lack of recognition of their qualifications. This is a symptom of broader issues within public services, where government mismanagement and austerity measures have been scapegoated, and the real causes of inefficiencies are not addressed. The persistent undervaluing of refugees and migrants, coupled with a failure to address systemic issues like the privatisation of council housing and the broader impacts of austerity, underscores a need for a more nuanced and compassionate approach to immigration and refugee policy. The government's dismissal of UN criticisms and its reluctance to address these fundamental issues in the last decades reflect a broader failure to recognize the positive contributions of immigrants and to tackle the real sources of social and economic strain.
Scapegoating and lynching asylum seekers as a supposed solution to the homelessness crisis, wage stagnation, or employment instability reveals a profound misunderstanding of the structural causes of these issues. The use of thought-terminating fallacies, such as the demand to "house them yourselves," does not address the root causes of these crises; instead, it deflects attention from the true perpetrators and the systemic failings that underpin them. By echoing such rhetoric, individuals inadvertently become mouthpieces for governmental and figure propaganda, perpetuating myths that obscure the real culprits: the state apparatus and its entrenched corporate allies. The government is fundamentally responsible for the dire state of the nation, not only for failing to heed expert and academic advice but also for prioritizing profit over the welfare of its citizens. The entrenched corporate interests, which benefit from tax reliefs and other fiscal advantages, exacerbate the problem.
According to the Migrant Observatory at the University of Oxford, the increase in non-EU immigration from 2019 to 2023 nearly half of this increase stemmed from those arriving for work purposes (21%) and their dependants (27%), a trend driven by the health and care sector's material demands. The growth in this sector, especially after care workers were granted access to the immigration system in February 2022, reveals the critical role of labour in sustaining and expanding capital in this industry. Furthermore, there was a heightened demand for professionals such as doctors and nurses, who were already eligible under the previous visa system, illustrating the essential nature of skilled labour in the reproduction of the healthcare infrastructure.
The early data for 2024 indicates a substantial decline in health and care work visas, suggesting a possible shift in the economic requirements or immigration policies affecting labour supply. Additionally, international students and their dependants accounted for 39% of the increase in non-EU immigration, a phenomenon shaped by the UK's strategic efforts to boost and diversify foreign student recruitment. This strategy is intertwined with the broader neoliberal agenda of commodifying education and attracting global capital. The reintroduction of post-study work rights post-Brexit further underscores the capitalist drive to create a labour reserve army, enhancing the UK's attractiveness as an educational destination.
The 2023 immigration figures do not yet reflect the impact of the restrictions on students' family members, introduced in January 2024, which will likely further influence the dynamics of migration and labour. Asylum seekers, numbering about 81,000, represent another dimension of migration, driven by global inequalities and conflicts. Their presence and treatment within the UK reveal the contradictions inherent in the capitalist system, where the same global processes that generate wealth also produce displacement and precarity. Through this materialist analysis, it becomes clear that immigration trends are not merely statistical but are deeply embedded in the socio-economic fabric and the ongoing struggle between capital and labour.
The narrative that asylum seekers are "swarming" or overwhelming the system is thus a gross oversimplification. This notion fails to account for the fact that the UK's birth rate consistently exceeds the number of asylum seekers. For example, data from the UK Government indicates a decrease in the number of people offered protection—from 20,692 in 2019 to 15,684 in mid-2022. This decrease is partly due to lower resettlement figures, yet the total number of asylum seekers remains dwarfed by the number of births, which stood at 624,828 in England and Wales in 2021, as reported by the Office for National Statistics.
If concerns about the country becoming "full" were genuinely pressing, then a more logical approach would be to address birth rates through appropriate policies, rather than scapegoating asylum seekers. The term "economic migrant" itself is fraught with pejorative connotations, largely propagated by tabloid media to imply that migrants are exploiting the system. Historically, migration has been driven by economic necessity and restricted by socio-economic disparities and political restrictions, often benefiting the wealthy while penalizing the less fortunate.
In the contemporary globalized economy, while capital and goods flow relatively freely, the movement of people is heavily restricted, particularly for refugees. This has led to a patchwork of migration policies, with some countries being more welcoming than others. Efforts by international organizations and advocacy groups seek to create a more equitable and humane migration system, but these efforts are frequently undermined by neoliberal policies that prioritize profit over humanitarian needs.
The real scandal is not the presence of asylum seekers but the neoliberal agenda that exacerbates social inequities. The conditions of deprivation in Britain are not caused by oppressed groups but by the political and corporate elite that prioritizes wealth accumulation over social welfare. It is telling that many reactionaries, despite their awareness of these issues, choose to attack the most vulnerable rather than confront the real sources of inequality and deprivation. This not only highlights their cowardice but also their intellectual inadequacy.
Migration has historically enriched societies economically and culturally. Thus, the focus should be on understanding why individuals are compelled to leave their countries of origin rather than questioning their choice of destination or criticizing their reasons for migration. The treatment of refugees and immigrants should be grounded in recognition of their humanity and contributions rather than outdated prejudices. Recognizing and addressing the systemic issues at play, rather than succumbing to scapegoating and xenophobia, is essential for achieving a just and equitable society.
Muslims Are The Enemy?
The assertion by Right-Wing factions that Muslims are singularly responsible for justifying their acts of violence exemplifies a profound ignorance and a failure to address the underlying socio-political realities. The actual catalyst for the Right-Wing violence in question was a tragic incident in which Axel Rudakubana, armed with a curved-blade kitchen knife, committed heinous acts resulting in the deaths of three young children: Bebe King, aged 6; Elsie Dot Stancombe, aged 7; and Alice Dasilva Aguiar, aged 9.
Furthermore, Rudakubana faces additional charges related to the attempted murder of eight other children at a summer event in Southport, Merseyside. The Right-Wing narrative, however, simplistically attributes these violent acts to the suspect’s presumed Muslim identity (which he wasn’t), a belief rooted not in factual evidence but rather in racial and ethnic stereotyping. This unfounded attribution is driven by Rudakubana's Black skin colour, reflecting a broader pattern of racial profiling and the scapegoating of entire religious communities who are, in reality, unrelated to the perpetrator’s actions.
In the aftermath of these tragic events, violent riots erupted across several locations, including Westminster, Hartlepool, and Aldershot, spurred by far-right extremists inciting riots in Southport. The rioting has incited a climate of fear in the nearby village where Rudakubana resided. Despite the fact that the village is a mere 15-minute drive from the crime scene, residents are now grappling with the threat of being targeted by rioters who are influenced by misinformation. Social media has amplified this turmoil, with calls for protests outside Rudakubana’s residence, despite the fact that his family has reportedly vacated the property.
Local residents have expressed their distress over the pervasive misinformation circulating online, which has exacerbated the chaos and put innocent individuals at risk. One resident shared his experience of how misinformation led to his own address being wrongly identified as that of the attacker, contributing to a heightened state of fear among the community. He emphasized that the focus should remain on supporting the affected families and children rather than fuelling further discord and violence. The plea from residents is clear: they seek to be left in peace and protected from the repercussions of a situation they neither caused nor deserve.
Ladies and gentlemen, let us pause and reflect on the essence of the matter at hand. The tragic loss of these three innocent girls is a wound that cuts deep into the heart of our community. Yet, it is painfully evident that their lives hold no true significance to the Far Right. If they genuinely cared about the grieving families and the community in mourning, how could they justify storming in like a band of Hitlerite Blackshirts, conducting pogroms that only exacerbate the suffering?
What possible good can come from trashing communities across the nation? How does burning hotels and mosques, or looting stores, serve the memory of these three little girls? It does not. It achieves nothing but further division and destruction. The audacity of those who claim that this riot is not about race, but about anti-immigration is both a lie and an insult to our intelligence. This is about race, plain and simple. If it were not, we would see equal accountabilities for all criminals, regardless of their ethnicity. Yet, statistics show that many serious offenses—murder, manslaughter, sexual offenses—are committed by individuals who are predominantly White British. Where is the outcry against them?
But no, that is not the focus. Instead, the tragedy of these three little girls has been exploited, twisted into false claims that Muslims are to blame, and used as a pretext to ignite a nationwide crusade of hatred and violence. This is not justice; this is a travesty. It is time to call out this hypocrisy for what it is and to stand together against those who would sow discord and despair in our community.
Muslims Aren’t the Enemy!
It must be decisively established that Muslims and Islam are not the sources of moral delinquency and societal degradation. This assertion, often promulgated by far-right elements, is a simplistic and reductionist view that fails to consider the complexities of both historical context and contemporary realities. In fact, Muslims in Britain have been a progressive force, significantly contributing to social cohesion and community support across the nation.
Far-right rhetoric frequently vilifies Muslims by labelling them with derogatory terms, such as "Nonces," based on historical actions like the marriage of Prophet Muhammad to Aisha. This is an egregious oversimplification of Islamic faith and history. Applying such logic universally, one might similarly criticize Christians, noting the young age of Mary at the time of Jesus' conception. Moreover, historical norms must be understood within their context; practices from centuries ago cannot be judged by modern standards without falling into the trap of presentism. Notably, there is more documented evidence of misconduct among Christian clergy compared to Muslim imams, further undermining the far-right's baseless claims.
Economically, British Muslims have made substantial contributions to the UK's prosperity. With an estimated spending power of £20.5 billion, British Muslims contribute over £31 billion to Britain's GDP. The workforce sees around 40,000 Muslims employed within the National Health Service (NHS), and they are well-represented across various sectors, including small businesses, restaurants, law, accountancy, IT, teaching, transport, and public services. This economic integration highlights the essential role of Muslims in sustaining and advancing the British economy.
The charitable contributions of British Muslims are also noteworthy. The British Muslim charitable sector generates an estimated £500 million annually. Approximately 75% of British Muslims reported giving to charity in the past year, compared to 68% of the general population. During the COVID-19 crisis, Muslims were at the forefront of relief efforts, providing food banks, supporting vulnerable populations, and using mosques as mortuaries. Such actions reflect a deep-seated commitment to social welfare and community solidarity.
Research further illustrates that British Muslims feel a strong sense of belonging in the UK. A significant 83% of British Muslims believe that Britain offers a conducive environment for practicing their faith while engaging in mainstream life, a sentiment that is more positive compared to other European countries. Additionally, 86% of British Muslims view Britain as a good place to live, with ample opportunities for progress and thriving in life, surpassing the 70% of the general population who share this view. A sense of local community belonging is also higher among Muslims (51%) than the general population (35%), underscoring their integration and commitment to British society.
The younger generation of British Muslims exhibits signs of increasing liberalization while maintaining their religious identity. This trend towards liberalism does not correlate with a decline in religious devotion. Second-generation Muslims are effectively harmonizing British values with their religious beliefs, as evidenced by institutions like the Cambridge Muslim College, which blends Islamic and Western education to address contemporary challenges faced by Muslims in Britain.
Politically and civically, British Muslims have become more engaged, shifting from reactionary activism to focused campaigns for equality and participation in broader civic and political coalitions. Organizations like the Muslim Council of Britain advocate for inclusion, fairness, and addressing critical issues affecting Muslim communities.
Despite these positive developments, challenges persist. Rising hate crimes and Islamophobia are significant concerns that require continued attention. There is also a need to address systemic and structural causes of Muslim poverty and to increase the inclusion of Muslim women in civil society organizations. Political inclusion and combating far-right extremism are ongoing efforts that necessitate sustained commitment.
In conclusion, the role of British Muslims within the broader socio-economic fabric of the United Kingdom underscores a dynamic interplay of integration, economic contribution, and social progress. This community has showcased a profound commitment to these dimensions through various concrete actions and systemic engagements. The increasing civic participation among British Muslims, particularly marked by the liberalization of younger generations who actively engage in public and political spheres, demonstrates a clear trajectory towards embedding progressive values within the societal mainstream. Additionally, the substantial charitable contributions made by the Muslim community reflect a deep-seated ethos of altruism and social responsibility, further consolidating their position as a vital component of British society.
The evolution of the British Muslim community must be understood in the context of the material conditions and class relations that shape their experiences and actions. The community’s efforts towards integration and social progress are not merely abstract ideals but are rooted in the concrete realities of their lived experiences and struggles within a capitalist society. These efforts are a response to the contradictions and pressures exerted by both economic structures and socio-political dynamics.
Ironically, the far-right’s rhetoric, which often positions itself as the defender of traditional “British values”, is itself a force of social disorder and undermines the British values of rule of law. Their antagonism towards British Muslims reveals a fundamental contradiction in their claims; while they purport to uphold societal values, their actions contribute to social fragmentation and the erosion of democratic principles. This dialectical tension between the far-right’s narrative and the reality of British Muslims’ contributions highlights the transformative potential of the latter’s role in society.
However, the journey towards full inclusion and equality is ongoing and necessitates sustained efforts from both the Muslim community and the wider British society. For genuine progress to be realized, there must be a collective commitment to addressing systemic inequalities and fostering an environment of mutual respect and understanding. This requires not only recognizing the contributions of British Muslims but also actively dismantling the socio-economic barriers that hinder their full participation and integration. Only through such a dialectical process of change, grounded in material conditions and collective action, can a truly inclusive and egalitarian society be achieved.
The Truth… One Which They Don’t Want To Accept
The Right-Wing narrative often postulates that ethnic minorities are the principal perpetrators of serious crimes such as murder, homicide, paedophilia, and sexual offences. However, this assertion is seldom supported by rigorous statistical evidence. Instead, it relies heavily on anecdotal mugshots and selective reporting that I’ve witnessed, which reflect ideological bias rather than empirical reality.
Homicide
Analysing data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) for the period from the year ending March 2021 to the year ending March 2023 reveals a more nuanced reality. Among those convicted of homicide, approximately two-thirds (68%) were identified as White, while around one in five (18%) were identified as Black. These figures challenge the oversimplified racialization of crime. Moreover, the rate of death for Black victims stands at 39.8 per million population, significantly higher than for White victims at 8.7 per million population, and for other ethnicities at 8.4 per million population. This disparity underscores a complex socio-economic matrix that cannot be reduced to mere racial essentialism.
Paedophilia, Child Sexual Offences (CSE)
According to Home Office Statistics, research indicates that offenders involved in group-based child sexual exploitation (CSE) are predominantly White. Some studies suggest an over-representation of Black and Asian offenders relative to their demographic proportions in the national population. However, the accuracy of police-collected data on ethnicity is often compromised by the broad categories used and the fact that police officers, rather than the offenders themselves, assign these ethnic categories. This has led to misclassifications, as noted by Berelowitz et al. (2012), where individuals initially labelled as ‘Asian’ were later identified as White British or Afghan. A comprehensive study by the Children's Commissioner for England in 2014 analysed police data from 19 out of 43 forces, involving nearly 4,000 offenders. It revealed that 42% were White or White British, 17% were Black or Black British, 14% were Asian or Asian British, and 4% belonged to other ethnic groups. This diversity in offender profiles further complicates the simplistic Right-Wing narrative.
Rape Offences
Data on rape offences, though often incomplete or restricted by legal disclosure limitations, further debunks the Right-Wing's claims. In 2017, White British individuals constituted the majority of offenders, with 23,739 recorded cases, compared to 7,704 cases involving ethnic minorities. In 2018, the trend continued with 22,637 White British offenders and 7,235 offenders from ethnic minorities. These figures demonstrate that White British individuals are the predominant perpetrators in this category of crime, contradicting the Right-Wing's claims of minority overrepresentation.
Far Right Violence Is The Epidemic, Not Muslim Violence
The assertion propagated by the Far Right that Muslims are the primary perpetrators of violence is not only unfounded but also a diversion from the material conditions shaping terrorism in the UK. A thorough analysis of empirical data reveals a transformation in the nature of terrorist threats over recent years. Notably, there has been a marked decline in Islamist-related referrals to the Prevent program, both in absolute terms and relative to the overall number of referrals. This decline is juxtaposed with a significant rise in referrals related to extreme right-wing ideologies, to the extent that they now surpass Islamist referrals. Specifically, in the year ending March 2021, extreme right-wing ideologies accounted for 25% of Prevent referrals, whereas Islamist-related radicalization accounted for 22%.
This shift highlights the changing dynamics of domestic terrorism, rooted in the socio-economic and political landscape of the UK. The alarming trend of far-right attacks in recent years can be seen as a manifestation of underlying material contradictions within society. Since June 2016, there have been five attacks perpetrated by extreme far-right individuals over the age of 47. These attacks, characterized by limited but rapid planning, had a relatively lower impact in terms of casualties. It is notable that most of these attackers had minimal direct ties to organized far-right groups, indicating a broader ideological dissemination rather than isolated group actions.
The state's response to this rising threat has involved the proscription of five extreme right-wing terrorist (ERWT) groups since 2016, all of which espouse white supremacist ideologies. These groups include National Action, Sonnenkrieg Division, Feuerkrieg Division, Atomwaffen Division, and The Base. The primary danger posed by these groups lies in their capacity to radicalize individuals and inspire self-initiated terrorists (S-ITs), who act independently but are ideologically aligned with these groups.
A dialectical materialist approach to analyzing terrorism in the UK necessitates examining the interplay between these ideologies and the material conditions that give rise to them. Between 2010 and 2019, there were 1,071 instances of Right-Wing Terrorism (including completed, failed, and foiled attacks) compared to 130 instances of Islamic Terrorism. This disparity underscores the material realities that are often obscured by the Far Right’s narrative. The rise in right-wing terrorism can be linked to broader socio-economic discontent, exacerbated by austerity measures, economic instability, and the erosion of traditional social structures, which create fertile ground for radicalization.
In conclusion, the shift in the nature of terrorist threats in the UK reflects deeper material conditions and contradictions within society. The Far Right’s focus on Muslim perpetrators serves to distract from the rising tide of right-wing extremism, which poses a significant and growing threat. Understanding this dynamic requires a critical examination of the socio-economic and political factors that fuel these ideologies, and a commitment to addressing the root causes of radicalization.
Conclusion
A dialectical materialist analysis of crime statistics in the UK reveals the fallacies in the Right-Wing's narrative that vilifies ethnic minorities. The data indicates that White British individuals are often the majority in serious criminal offences as well Far Right Violence. This evidence exposes the ideological underpinnings of Right-Wing claims, revealing them to be more about perpetuating social divisions and maintaining power structures than about addressing the realities of crime. By challenging these distortions with robust statistical analysis, we can work towards a more equitable understanding and addressing of crime in society.
Conclusion To The Article
The ideological fabrications propagated by recent right-wing outrage concerning immigration and crime serve to obscure the material realities and structural contradictions inherent in contemporary capitalist society. Through a dialectical materialist lens, we uncover the underlying socio-economic dynamics that right-wing rhetoric seeks to conceal.
Immigration and Economic Contribution
Contrary to right-wing claims, immigration has consistently proven to be a beneficial force for the UK’s economy and society. Immigrants, including refugees and asylum seekers, contribute significantly more to the economy than they receive in benefits. This contribution is evidenced by numerous studies and reports from credible sources such as the Home Office and Oxford Economics. The scapegoating of immigrants is not only factually incorrect but also diverts attention from the systemic issues within the economic system that perpetuate inequality and austerity. The right-wing's fixation on immigration as a scapegoat for socio-economic woes fails to recognize the real culprits: neoliberal policies and corporate interests that prioritize profit over public welfare.
Right-Wing Myths on Crime
The right-wing narrative around crime, particularly violent and sexual offences, is similarly distorted. Statistical data from the Office for National Statistics and the Home Office reveal that white individuals are often the majority among offenders in serious crimes, including homicide, paedophilia, and sexual offences. The selective reporting and racial profiling by right-wing media perpetuate myths that serve to racialize crime and stigmatize ethnic minorities that justifies more far right violence in the coming years. This misrepresentation diverts attention from the socio-economic factors that contribute to criminal behaviour and from the systemic failings that perpetuate social inequalities.
Immigration Policy and Management
The management of immigration and asylum seekers by private corporations, as opposed to state planning, exemplifies the inefficiencies and mismanagement inherent in neoliberal policies. Companies like Serco and Mears have been implicated in significant mismanagement and wastage of public funds. A state-managed approach would be more cost-effective and humane, aligning with the historical principles enshrined in international law, such as the UN Refugee Convention. The right-wing’s disregard for these principles and its preference for deportation over integration reflects a broader agenda that prioritizes exclusion and division over solidarity and inclusion.
Integration and Social Cohesion
British Muslims, often vilified by right-wing rhetoric, have demonstrated substantial economic contributions and social integration with British Values and Culture. The community’s involvement in the NHS, small businesses, and charitable activities underscores their integral role in British society. Far-right attempts to frame Muslims as enemies are based on historical distortions and contemporary prejudices that fail to acknowledge the positive contributions and the strong sense of belonging that British Muslims feel towards the UK.
Dialectical Understanding of Socio-Economic Strain
The dialectical materialist perspective reveals that the socio-economic strain attributed to immigration and ethnic minorities is, in fact, a product of broader structural contradictions within capitalism. The displacement and economic precarity faced by refugees and immigrants are consequences of global inequalities and conflicts driven by capitalist expansion. The same system that necessitates migrant labour for economic growth also creates the conditions of instability and displacement that drive migration.
British Values That's Antithetical To Right Wing Rhetoric
British Values, which encompass the principles of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect, and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs, fundamentally contradict the right-wing’s demagogic jargon and rhetoric. These values are not merely abstract ideals but are rooted in the material conditions and historical struggles of the British working class and broader society. Democracy, in this context, signifies not only the electoral process but the ongoing struggle for genuine representation and participation of all societal segments, particularly the working class, in political decision-making. The rule of law is not just a formal legal framework but represents the historical gains made by the people against arbitrary rule and exploitation, ensuring that justice serves the majority rather than the interests of a privileged few.
Individual liberty, as understood through a dialectical materialist lens, transcends mere freedom from interference. It encompasses the socio-economic conditions necessary for individuals to truly exercise their autonomy, free from the constraints imposed by capitalist exploitation and systemic inequality. Mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs are not passive values, but active engagements rooted in the material reality of a diverse, multicultural society, arising from the collective struggle against discrimination, bigotry, and xenophobia that run counter to Far-Right rhetoric.
In stark contrast, the right-wing’s demagoguery and rhetoric, often veiled under the guise of protecting 'traditional values,' serve to obfuscate and undermine these fundamental British Values. Their ideological underpinnings frequently aim to dismantle the rule of law by eroding civil liberties, promoting white superiority, and fostering ideological dissonance. This reactionary stance is not just a benign difference of opinion but a calculated effort to reverse the progressive achievements of the working class and marginalized groups, thereby perpetuating existing power structures and inequalities. Thus, British Values, rooted in the collective historical and material struggles for justice, equality, and solidarity, stand in direct opposition to the right-wing agenda that seeks to dismantle these very foundations.
British Culture Isn’t Right Wing
British culture, encompassing literature, arts, language, traditions, and multiculturalism, represents a dynamic reflection of historical and socio-economic forces rather than a static set of practices. These forces stand in stark opposition to the Right-Wing Ideological Dissonance, which has had no influence on the establishment or participation in the contributions to British culture. From a dialectical materialist perspective, British literature and arts have consistently mirrored the prevailing economic conditions and class struggles throughout history. For instance, Charles Dickens' works critically examine industrial capitalism, while modernist and postmodernist literary experiments reflect the societal fragmentation of their respective eras. These cultural forms are deeply rooted in the material realities of their times, revealing the intricate relationship between cultural expression and material conditions.
The diverse dialects and accents of British English further exemplify the underlying class distinctions and regional identities. Language, as a marker of social status and a tool of class struggle, significantly influences social mobility and access to economic opportunities. The evolution of language, shaped by Britain's colonial past and global interactions, underscores the impact of material conditions on linguistic practices. British traditions and customs, from afternoon tea to various sports, have evolved in response to changing economic bases and class structures. These practices often reinforce social hierarchies and ideological norms, yet they can also serve as sites of resistance and transformation. The commodification and adaptation of traditions highlight the influence of capitalism and the ongoing negotiation between cultural preservation and economic interests.
The multicultural fabric of British society is fundamentally a product of historical material conditions, including colonialism and economic migration. Multiculturalism reflects the dialectical tension between economic necessity and social stratification, as immigrant communities navigate systemic inequalities while contributing to the cultural and economic landscape. The commodification of cultural diversity and the political manipulation of multicultural narratives underscore the capitalist dynamics shaping these interactions. Right-wing invocations of "British Values" serve as ideological constructs designed to obscure the material conditions and class struggles that underpin British society. This rhetoric, while promoting ideals such as democracy, individual liberty, and mutual respect, often contradicts these principles through actions that perpetuate social inequalities and divisions. The superficial promotion of "British Values" masks deeper economic disparities and class conflicts inherent in capitalist society.
Dialectical materialism reveals that these values are not static but are instead shaped by ongoing material and social struggles. The evolution of British values reflects a dialectical process where societal contradictions drive the redefinition of cultural norms. Genuine progress necessitates unmasking ideological facades and addressing the material realities underpinning social conflicts. British culture, when viewed through a dialectical materialist framework, emerges as a dynamic and contested arena where material conditions, class relations, and ideological struggles intersect. Understanding these complex interactions allows for critical engagement with cultural practices and the recognition of the ongoing struggle for a more equitable society. The discourse on "British Values," when critically examined, underscores the need to address the root causes of social divisions and strive for genuine societal transformation. By engaging with these underlying material conditions, society can work towards resolving the contradictions that drive cultural evolution, thereby paving the way for meaningful progress and equity.
Conclusion
Through a dialectical materialist lens, this dissertation has deconstructed the ideological fabrications perpetuated by recent right-wing rhetoric surrounding immigration and crime, revealing the material realities and structural contradictions inherent in contemporary capitalist society. The empirical evidence dismantles right-wing scapegoating of immigrants as economic burdens. Immigrants, including refugees and asylum seekers, significantly contribute to the UK’s economy, a fact substantiated by credible sources such as the Home Office and Oxford Economics. This scapegoating serves to divert attention from the systemic issues within the capitalist economic system that perpetuate inequality and austerity. The real culprits of socio-economic woes are neoliberal policies and corporate interests that prioritize profit over public welfare.
Similarly, the right-wing narrative around crime is exposed as distorted. Statistical data shows that white individuals are often the majority among offenders in serious crimes. The selective reporting and racial profiling by right-wing media perpetuate myths that racialize crime and stigmatize ethnic minorities, diverting attention from the socio-economic factors contributing to criminal behaviour and the systemic failings perpetuating social inequalities. The inefficiencies and mismanagement in the current approach to immigration, outsourced to private corporations like Serco and Mears, exemplify the failures of neoliberal policies. A state-managed approach would be more cost-effective and humane, aligning with the principles enshrined in international law, such as the UN Refugee Convention. The right-wing’s preference for exclusion over integration reflects a broader agenda that prioritizes division over solidarity.
British Muslims, despite vilification by right-wing rhetoric, have demonstrated substantial economic contributions and social integration. Their involvement in the NHS, small businesses, and charitable activities underscores their integral role in British society. The far-right’s attempts to frame Muslims as enemies are based on historical distortions and contemporary prejudices, ignoring their positive contributions and strong sense of belonging in the UK. The socio-economic strain attributed to immigration and ethnic minorities is, from a dialectical materialist perspective, a product of broader structural contradictions within capitalism. The displacement and economic precarity faced by refugees and immigrants result from global inequalities and conflicts driven by capitalist expansion. The same system that necessitates migrant labour for economic growth also creates the conditions of instability and displacement that drive migration.
The fundamental principles of British Values—democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect, and tolerance—are inherently at odds with right-wing demagoguery. These values are rooted in the material conditions and historical struggles of the British working class and broader society, representing a collective effort for justice, equality, and solidarity. The right-wing agenda seeks to undermine these foundations, promoting exclusion and division. British culture, reflecting historical and socio-economic forces, stands in opposition to right-wing ideological dissonance. Literature, arts, language, traditions, and multiculturalism all demonstrate the dynamic interplay of material conditions and class struggles. The multicultural fabric of British society, born from historical material conditions, embodies the dialectical tension between economic necessity and social stratification. The right-wing invocation of "British Values" serves as an ideological construct to obscure the material conditions and class struggles underpinning British society.
Dialectical materialism reveals that values and culture are not static but shaped by ongoing material and social struggles. Genuine progress requires unmasking ideological facades and addressing the material realities underpinning social conflicts. By critically engaging with these underlying material conditions, society can strive for meaningful progress and equity, moving towards resolving the contradictions that drive cultural evolution. This critical examination underscores the necessity of addressing the root causes of social divisions and working towards genuine societal transformation.
One Final Note
In the context of intensifying Far-Right pogrom violence against Muslims and ethnic minorities, there are emerging calls for jihad from Muslim communities as a means of self-protection. The strain on British police forces, increasingly outnumbered and overwhelmed by Far-Right riots, exacerbates the situation. In response to these threats, an organization called the 'Muslim Defence League' (MDL) has reportedly been formed to counteract the English Defence League (EDL) (formed by Tommy Robinson) and its adherents. While the existence of the MDL is primarily discussed online and remains unconfirmed, its potential formation can be seen as a material response to the failures of the state apparatus in ensuring the safety and rights of oppressed communities. This reaction underscores the dialectical relationship between the oppressed and the oppressors, where the conditions of violence and insecurity imposed by the latter inevitably give rise to self-defence mechanisms by the former.
To understand this call for jihad, it is crucial to dispel common misconceptions often propagated by Far-Right ideologues. Jihad is not synonymous with acts of terrorism. The term "jihad" in Arabic translates to "struggle" or "effort," encompassing a range of meanings and actions. The most significant form of jihad is the internal, spiritual struggle against one's own base instincts and desires, known as the "greater jihad" (al-jihād al-akbar) or "jihad of the soul" (jihād al-nafs).
Jihad also involves external efforts to promote what is right and prevent what is wrong within society. This can include verbal or written struggles (jihad of the tongue/pen) aimed at spreading Islamic teachings or defending the faith through discourse and persuasion. Additionally, it encompasses physical actions short of armed combat, such as working towards the betterment of the Muslim community.
In certain contexts, jihad may refer to armed conflict; however, this is generally considered the "lesser jihad" (al-jihād al-aṣghar) and is primarily understood as self-defence against aggression or the fight against oppression. Islamic law outlines strict ethical guidelines governing when and how armed jihad can be conducted. Extremist groups have often misused this interpretation to justify violence, a distortion vehemently opposed by many Muslim scholars. Thus, jihad can involve various aims, such as personal improvement, defending the Muslim community, correcting moral behaviour, or addressing perceived injustices.
In the current British socio-political landscape, the mobilization of a Jihad for self-defence against the aggression perpetrated by the Far-Right pogroms are a manifestation of the dialectical struggle between opposing forces within this country. This nation stands precariously on the brink of civil war, a conflict characterized by the collision of extremist ideologies. The populace must not remain ensnared by abstract and myopic viewpoints that obscure the broader material realities at play. The initiation of hostilities by white supremacist factions against the Muslim community has catalysed a defensive response that is both inevitable and justifiable. These communities, under relentless attack, possess an intrinsic right to self-defence against acts tantamount to genocide. The actions of the Far Right reactionaries in this nation bear a chilling resemblance to the persecution faced by Jews in Nazi Germany, underscoring a stark historical parallel that cannot be ignored. To fail in recognizing these parallels is to neglect the material conditions and historical context that have given rise to this conflict. In this month, marked by moral and ethical degeneration, the struggle of the oppressed against their oppressors is not only a right but a necessary act of survival!
As I pen these words, the reactionary forces of the Far-Right have overpowered the local police apparatus in the town of Rotherham. Their immediate goal, the incineration of a hotel that provides sanctuary to asylum seekers, has been gruesomely achieved. However, this hotel stands as more than just a refuge for those fleeing persecution and war; it is also a haven for women who have escaped the clutches of domestic abuse, as well house British Families on Holiday. The actions of these Far-Right agitators starkly expose their deep-seated contempt for the well-being and safety of women and girls, thereby revealing the underlying contradictions within their proclaimed moral high ground.
The Far-Right’s mobilization against marginalized groups, such as asylum seekers and abused women, serves the interests of the ruling class by diverting the frustrations of the working class away from the systemic issues inherent in capitalism. Instead of uniting in a common struggle against the conditions of exploitation and oppression, these reactionary elements channel their discontent into xenophobic and misogynistic violence, effectively acting as the foot soldiers of a bourgeois agenda that perpetuates division and distracts from the true sources of societal inequity.
The burning of the hotel symbolizes more than an attack on the vulnerable; it represents an assault on the very idea of solidarity among the oppressed a betrayal of British Values they virtuously contradict and bastardise in its name. This act of arson, therefore, must be understood not just as a crime of hatred but as a tactical move within a broader strategy to reinforce hegemonic structures. The Far-Right’s actions are a stark reminder of how reactionary movements manipulate legitimate grievances to undermine collective resistance and maintain the status quo, ultimately serving the interests of the capitalist class. Thus, the struggle against Far-Right extremism is intrinsically linked to the broader fight against capitalist exploitation and for a society rooted in genuine equality and justice.
— — — — — — — ^^^ Click the Images to see the Tweets ^^^ — — — — — —
Finally, Last night, far-right extremists set ablaze Liverpool's Spellow Lane Library, an act that starkly exposes the inherent contradiction between their professed "patriotism" and the destruction of a vital community resource. From a dialectical materialist perspective, this event reveals the underlying class antagonisms and reactionary tendencies within capitalist society. The Spellow Lane Library was not merely a repository of books; it was a critical communal hub, providing a warm, safe environment for the local populace, particularly the proletariat and vulnerable individuals who relied on its essential services, including food bank vouchers.
The torching of the library signifies a reactionary backlash against community solidarity and the working-class struggle for collective well-being. It underscores the necessity of defending and rebuilding public spaces that serve the needs of the proletariat against the forces of reaction and fascism. This act of arson mirrors the Nazi book burnings, an attempt to censor truth, suppress knowledge, and stifle the intellectual and cultural development of the masses. Such actions threaten to plunge society into barbarism by undermining moral decency, the rule of law, and democratic principles.
Moreover, the crime that supposedly motivated this act was neither committed by a Muslim nor related to communities across the country and had already been resolved. The violence, including burning hotels with people in them, attacking police stations already under strain, and looting commercial shops, is not the work of "British Patriots" embodying "British Values." Instead, it represents the actions of neo-fascist elements, akin to Hitlerites, instigating their own modern-day pogroms. This heinous act highlights the urgent need for a united working-class resistance to defend and reclaim public spaces, ensuring they remain bastions of community support and solidarity!
