Basically, the EDL is a creature of 'socio-economic conditions' (unlike the Marxist or the writer of this article!). This journalist basically says that every EDL member turns to the EDL because he is poor or unemployed, etc.
The other condition for the EDL’s existence is the large amount of immigrants in the UK. These immigrants are blamed for unemployment, etc. in the indigenous population. Thus the EDL is really against immigrants, or brown people, not Muslims. This is a cute Marxist analysis, in fact.
The EDL, or every one of its members, is but an epiphenomenon of ‘socioeconomic conditions’. Such conditions, such as unemployment, low wages, etc. are the real causes of what the EDL believes. It has nothing to do with any thought or cognition which flows free from its socioeconomic base.
The problem is that many EDL are employed, not unemployed. Many others could be classed as middle class or professional. In addition, not all EDL members live near large immigrant ghettoes (which foster the racism of such EDL members). Some even live in the country or in places in the North East where there aren’t many immigrants – certainly not many Muslims.
But that doesn’t matter to Marxists because they can always qualify their arguments. They keep the basic materialist basis, but they make any inconvenient data fit the theory. And then there is more qualification… and more. Until there’s nothing much left of Marxist theory and all, say, the SWP can do is be anti-this and anti-that. The Marxist ‘substructure’, as it were, becomes increasingly empty the more the theories are qualified.
That’s why Marxism died. All we have left is the SWP’s contrarianism.
Muslims don’t escape from this Marxist analysis either (though they do in this particular crypto-Marxist article). Islam, Islamism and jihadism simply reflect the socioeconomic base of the countries and states Muslims live in. Thus, Hamas is a jihadist death-cult not because of Islam, but because of ‘Israeli oppression’, etc. Home-grown jihadists are thus because they are unemployed or ‘marginalised’ (or ‘demonised’). Even Osama bin Laden’s huge jihadist enterprise must be due to socioeconomic conditions – this time, I suppose, the plight of poor and/or oppressed Muslims in various countries, etc. (Osama bin Laden is, or was, a multimillionaire when jihadism called him.)
The point about all this is that Islam, the Koran, etc. have no independence from ‘material conditions’. They are mere epiphenomena or ‘superstructure’. It can never be the case, then, that a Muslim kills an infidel because of stuff he has read in the Koran or wherever. There must be more to the story than that. And that something extra is always the socioeconomic conditions in which particular Muslims live.
And the same is true of the EDL.
According to this article, the EDL is not fighting against Islamism, militant Islam and the Sharia-isation of the UK- it is fighting against the brown immigrants who have ‘stolen our jobs’. That explains something about this article. The journalist never once considers, not even for a moment, the EDL’s positions on Islam. Why not? Because they are mere superstructure. Islam qua Islam is not covered either; because it too is mere superstructure.
Thus this article fails badly; just as all leftist articles fail to uncover the truth about the EDL. Marxism is theoretically incapable of accepting ideas - and even thoughts - which run free of socioeconomic conditions – unlike their own thought and ideas; which are not only true, they are also free of any socioeconomic determination. Thus, according to Marxists, and those whom take their Marxism watered down somewhat (as this journalist does), only Marxists can uncover substructure/reality, as well as the superstructure/political thought.