They think they’re so fucking clever, these Trots, with their tiresome and false theories. But, when it comes down to it, they are nothing but contrarians. They think they see reality and the rest of us suffer from ‘false consciousness’ simply because we aren’t in Basketter's tiny sect (the SWP). That is, because the average guy on the Clapham omnibus or in the Hare and Hounds doesn’t concur with him on reality, he thinks this makes his Leftism politically sophisticated (a bit like a six-form Goth). But it’s not. It’s just completely against what most people take as the political and social truth. That difference alone cannot equal political sophistication.
He is also philosophically imbecilic when he judges the UK on its past inglorious actions - all in glorious retrospect. This must pass on our complicity in capitalist sin – or at least every member of the platonic State.
Above all, Basketter promises Utopia but never actually mentions the U-word. That’s because, officially, Trots and Commies are against Utopianism – Marx propagated that official line. Utopians promise too much and didn’t believe in violent revolution. But the SWP is Utopian. What else could explain and justify their total contrarianism? They have criticised just every political model under the sun (except Russian Communism, circa 1917 to 1924), and also piously pontificate about every single crime the UK, as a nation, has committed in the last 300 years and sometimes longer!
One question, Simon Basketter: Did our generals and politicians kill as many as Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.? I doubt it. The Leftist Stalin (who the SWP say they’re against, which they are, but not in the ways which matter) is the star killer of the 20th century. This man killed off fifty million in the name of Communism and his god, Marx. (Though the Stalinist Seamus Milne, once of the Guardian, thinks that Stalin only killed about twenty five people.)
16 Nov 2010, by Simon Basketter
Every year it is seemingly compulsory for every politician and even anyone who appears on television to wear a poppy. It is presented as a mark of respect for those who have died in war.
Each year the period for wearing a poppy gets a little longer. This year BBC presenters and Tory MPs managed to wear poppies even before the British Legion had launched their annual appeal.
Then there was the slightly obscene process of ever larger and garish poppies worn by celebrities to prove they are extra mournful of the dead.
The whole process has escalated in recent years for a reason. There has been a concerted effort to use the remembrance weekend to bolster flagging support for war in Afghanistan.
The rather sordid process began under the last Labour government with homecoming parades and repatriation public funerals, the creation of Armed Forces Day and wearing of poppies to pull together a false national consensus.
A minor absurdity was reached when David Cameron, avoiding the student protests in London, went to China to flog them stuff and wore his poppy with pride.
Shame it’s 150 years on from the Opium Wars when Britain forced China to buy opium—made from poppies—with gunboat diplomacy. That’s just the sort of war we are not meant to remember.
But the poppy has been a consistent symbol of the hypocrisy of our leaders who take us to war.
The First World War, the end of which on 11 November 1918 is marked every year on Remembrance Sunday, produced an unprecedented wave of created “remembrance”.
It is named after Sir Douglas Haig, the British commander responsible for the mass slaughter at the battles of the Somme and the Passchendaele.
Why did the British ruling class create this official industry of remembrance?
The armistice of 1918 was itself a product of revolution—Germany’s rulers surrendered for fear their army would mutiny and the state collapse.
Because of this political upsurge, the legacy of the war was bitterly contested. Official remembrance rituals are one of the results.
Official remembrance looks two ways. It mourns the dead and regrets their loss. But at the same time it glorifies their “necessary sacrifice”. The war was terrible, the argument goes, but the price was worth paying.
The poppy is tainted by the hypocrisy of warmongers and imperialists. Many who wear it buy into the idea that it is to mourn those who died. Though even then it is worth remembering that it commemorates only one side in any war—“ours”.
Last week saw poppies painted on the side of a mosque by members of the English Defence League. This was not a symbol of mourning but of Islamophobia and racism.
That a tiny number of publicity-hungry Islamists burnt a poppy is pointless and irrelevant.
What is relevant is that the destruction of whole countries by imperialism that continues to this day is justified and glorified in the disguise of remembering.
Lest we forget, there is a struggle to end war by challenging the rulers and the system that cause it.
That won’t come from burning a poppy but it will come from the same sort of mass movement that ended the First World War.