Islamofascism, communalism, liberalism and Respect. posted by Richard Seymour

Respect's critics terrified of dusky folks:

Disturbingly, however, some elements on the left have been tempted down the same path — one that runs directly to New Labour. Blair demands that Muslims support the "British way of life", his media supporters embellish as appropriate, and, finally, we find the Socialist Party claiming that Respect "unconsciously further[s] the beginnings of polarisation based on racial division".

They even go so far as to dismiss Respect councillor Oliur Rahman's record as chair of his PCS union branch as irrelevant to "the political character of Respect." Oliur joined Respect via the anti-war movement in 2004 and has been a PCS member for the last six years. He says, "I joined Respect because it was attracting support from all over and it looked like it could make a real contribution. I'm a left wing socialist and a trade unionist who wants to fight for the working class, and Respect is the organisation that can do that. We don't just fight for one community."

It is as if, by being a Muslim, he cannot be on the left; or as if, by winning support from Muslims, Respect itself cannot be of the left.

...

Those who have joined Respect and stood for election come from a range of different backgrounds — among them are trade unionists, with members of Unison, the RMT and Amicus standing as candidates. Many are longstanding former Labour Party members like Shahed Ali, who was elected in Whitechapel.

Shahed left the Labour Party after 18 years membership, with the last straw being the decision to prevent local Labour members selecting their own council candidates. "I'm Old Labour," he says. "Obviously I'm upset with Blair's foreign policy but we thought we could fight in the Labour Party for better housing and against what New Labour was doing locally. But the space to do that has been made smaller and smaller. There's no scrutiny or ways of changing policy, so when they denied local members a voice in selecting council candidates, I left."

...

It is clear that east London is one of Respect's heartlands. However, the political break that it represents exists to some extent in every area of historic Labour support. Where Respect has stood well-rooted local candidates, and run convincing campaigns, it has been able to produce dramatic results. In the Bristol Lockleaze ward, Jerry Hicks, a prominent local trade unionist, came second for Respect, pushing Labour into third place. Some 86 percent of Lockleaze residents are white, and just 4 percent Muslim. Jerry is clear about where his support came from. "This is a predominantly white, working class area that until a few years ago was rock solid Labour — the sort of place you'd think the BNP might target. But we won support across the board, from traditional Labour voters and first time voters, young and old.

"In sharp contrast to the other parties, we offered the politics of hope and optimism. The rest were all Asbos and CCTVs. We said, Asbos are very expensive, and wouldn't the money be better spent on amenities? Once the argument was presented, it was easy to win people over."

...

Far from being the "Muslim dominated" areas of media myth, both Tower Hamlets and Newham have mixed populations. Around 36 percent of Tower Hamlet's population identified themselves as Muslim in the last census, and 40 percent as Christian. About 35 percent of the borough's residents are Bengali, not all of whom are Muslims. Over half the population described themselves as white, with the remainder being a mixture of Africans, African-Caribbeans, eastern Europeans, Chinese and others. In Newham, the diversity is even greater — 24 percent of residents described themselves as Muslim, while 48 percent professed to be Christians. About a third are "white British", while around a sixth are black African, Bangladeshi, and Indian respectively. It would be more accurate, if anything, to describe both boroughs as "white" or "Christian dominated", but of course this would not fit the stereotype.

Communalism, of course, is a word that is applied to dark-skinned people, particularly Muslims. Jerry Hicks isn't being accused of communalism for having stood in a largely white working class area and gleaning lots of white working class votes. There was a time when socialists were accused of being too nice to Jews, looking to them for a constituency, supporting them against anti-Jewish racism, and so on. But these complaints generally came from the right, not those who identified themselves as anti-racist liberals. There's a curious ideological inversion involved in the liberal witch-hunt against Respect, which involves the claim that to stand up for Muslims against a torrent of Islamophobia as part of an entirely orthodox socialist stance is the exact equivalent of making a racist pitch to white voters against black people and Muslims as part of a surreptitious fascist movement. This nauseating, morally bankrupt formula has been repeated in a few places. In reality it mimics the BNP's line that anyone who stands up against their disgusting racism is guilty of 'anti-white' or 'anti-British' racism. This is the line being retailed by today's pro-war liberals. The note of horror about riling up the 'brown masses' is unmistakeable. It is starkly evident in some of the media commentariat's fulminations about Respect in the East End, particularly after the shooting in Forest Gate. It is exudes pungently from the rhetorical energy of those for whom the juxtaposition of 'Islam' and 'fascist' comes naturally, automatically, yet who have considerable difficulty in conjugating the words 'Islam' and 'socialism'. The coercive, inoculative function of this discourse is also clear in the way that charges of Islamofascism, communalism etc are specifically directed at those Muslims who fail to live up to the ego-ideal of the secular liberal, whose support for capitalism and imperialism is implicit and taken as read.