Book Review: Hate by Matthew Collins

Hate is the captivating and witty autobiography of reformed fascist turned Searchlight mole Matthew Collins. Collins was a full-time activist and administrator for the National Front for several years at the turn of the 1990s and his experience spans the disintegration of the NF and the rise of the British National Party. It is an engrossing chronicle of confrontation between the left and right and examines Collins’ relationship with prominent fascists including Ian Anderson, Richard Edmonds, Eddie Whicker, Tony Lecomber and Combat 18 leader Charlie Sargent.

The book – crude, brutal and savagely funny – charts Collins’ involvement with the National Front in his late teens through to his work as an informant with the anti-fascist magazine Searchlight. Collins was the principle source of Andy Bell’s World In Action documentary and was forced into hiding for 10 years in Australia before returning to the UK to work full-time as an anti-fascist campaigner.

Although Collins was never a fascist leader and his flirtation with the far right was relatively brief, he does provide a fascinating insight into the tactics and psychology of British Nazism. The right’s ability to mobilise coalitions of thugs – including violent fascists, barbaric football hooligans and brutish Loyalists – is truly chilling, but Collins also demonstrates the inherent contradictions and weakness of the movement.

The awkward alliance of various groups and factions is saturated with egotism and paranoia whilst deluded ideological warhorses – such as Anderson and Edmonds – rely on the muscle and numbers provided by football hooligans to further their political ends. Hooligan firms might echo the racist bile of the NF and the BNP, but they’re not interested in building a ‘movement’ or selling papers, they just want a ruck with some Reds. Collins’ terrifying description of a number of violent encounters with the left helps illustrate this implicit conflict.

Another highlight is the fascinating story of Mr X – a former Trotskyite turned Sun journalist who becomes increasingly cosy with leading British Nazis and violent Ulster Loyalists – which illustrates the incestuous relationships between the far right of the Conservative Party and the fascist movement. Until the emergence of some embarrassing photographs, Mr X plays an increasingly pivotal role in the National Front as he offers them access to the political establishment and writes for a number of NF publications.

Unlike similar accounts – such as Ray Hill’s The Other Face of Terror – there is no epiphany or eureka moment which converts Collins to fighting fascism. Rather it is a gradual disillusionment with the increasingly well-organised and escalating violence. This gradualism mirrors Collins’ first interaction with the National Front and his hesitant and wary engagement of Searchlight.

Although the primary focus is on the National Front, as a historical document charting the rise of the BNP – detailing its violent, Nazi and anti-parliamentary origins – the book is truly significant. Much of what Collins says is hardly revelatory, but it is an important resource to demonstrate the true colours of the BNP when many of its supporters – and even members – are ignorant of the reality.

Hate does not provide a blueprint for fighting fascism, but it does show how the far right attracts working-class people damaged by the system and encourages them to express their anger at other members of society. It shows how fascists exploit some of the most vulnerable people in society – young working-class men with limited prospects – and gives them a sense of belonging, worth and comradeship. The most important lesson of Collins’ book is that as long as the mainstream political establishment continues to restrict employment opportunities and housing prospects for the inner-city youth, the far right will continue to be a frightening menace. As a first-hand account of this menace – and for anyone concerned about the rise of the far right and the emergence of the EDL – this is a must read.

Click here to buy Hate from Hope Not Hate with all proceeds going to Searchlight.

Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime

Tony Blair famously promised to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but the current wave of riots and social unrest can be seen as a direct consequence of Labour’s failure to reverse Thatcherite neo-liberalism. Cameron’s draconian cuts may have triggered these events – with Mark Duggan’s shooting the catalyst – but the cuts alone are insufficient explanation for the remarkably swift spread of violence. A more robust rationalisation is Blair’s continuation of Thatcher’s legacy which crystallised social fragmentation through growing wealth inequality.

As Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett argue in the empirical masterpiece The Spirit Level – Why Equality is Better for Everyone all social problems – such as crime, obesity, mental illness, ill health, teenage pregnancy – are more prevalent in unequal societies.

Wilkinson and Pickett cite the American psychiatrist James Gilligan who argues that acts of violence “are attempts to ward off or eliminate the feeling of shame and humiliation – and replace it with its opposite, the feeling of pride”. Although Gilligan is discussing individual criminals, we can extrapolate this to whole communities. It is no surprise that violent riots have occurred in areas of poverty, mass unemployment and decimated youth services. In Tottenham, for instance, 75% of the youth services budget has been cut.

People feel alienated, shamed and humiliated because they cannot find work to provide for themselves or their families. The mob mentality – and the adrenaline-fuelled rush of consumerist ecstasy experienced through the looting of a plasma television – provides the panacea of temporary pride and purpose. The solution, therefore, is not to compound their humiliation through tabloid caterwauling and the removal of benefits.

Although the government refuse to admit it, there is strong correlation between violence and wealth inequality and, as Wilkinson and Pickett assert:

… violent behaviour comes from young men at the bottom of society, deprived of all the markers of status, who must struggle to maintain face and what little status they have, often reacting explosively when it is threatened

Seumas Milne – in a compelling Guardian article – contends that David Cameron must maintain that unrest has no cause except criminality otherwise the political establishment might be held responsible. Milne contrasts the behaviour of the rioters with bankers that:

publicly looted the country’s wealth and got away with it… it’s not hard to see why those who are locked out of the gravy train might think they were entitled to help themselves to a mobile phone.

Our society is predicated on unjust and unfair treatment which has reckless and dangerous consequences. If you dehumanise and alienate people – by cutting their services, demonising them in popular culture and undermining their quality of life – then it is no surprise that people react against it. If you treat someone like an animal then they will start behaving like one – and there’s nothing more dangerous than a wounded animal.

But the same is true of the other end of the spectrum. If you treat people – like bankers and media moguls – as though they are above the law then they start to believe they are above the law. If governments pander to their whim, then they believe they are above government and they become reckless, arrogant and aloof – as demonstrated by hackgate and the financial crisis.

This unfair treatment creates a more unequal and hierarchical society. Those at the bottom lack the social capital to achieve self-respect and status and this creates volatile and violent results. Those at the top lack restraint and ride roughshod over others. The true crime, for any Labour supporter, is that the gap between the richest and poorest increased under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. This is the key long-term factor for the recent explosion of destruction.

Of course violence is deplorable – and it is clear much of the unrest lacks political consciousness and represents nothing more than criminal opportunism – but it would be wrong to ignore the economic and socio-political context which has created this civil disobedience. As economic recovery stagnates and unemployment rises, so too will social alienation and the chance of further violence. Just like the financial crash, it is the selective blindness of the political establishment to the ills of neo-liberalism which endangers us all. The irony is that while Thatcher sought to create a stake-holder capitalism to appease working people, the vast majority of the population now has no interest in a dysfunctional and misfiring economic model.

If we don’t fully engage with the reasons behind the riots – and the government continues its naïve economic program – then we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of our past. It’s time we got tough on the causes of crime and tackled growing wealth inequality.

A manufactured dissident

Part 1 of The Empire's Pawns, an episode from Cuba's Reasons (Part Two below)

It is 10 December 2010 and the damas en blanco (Ladies in White) are holding a small protest outside the Combinado del Este jail in Cuba. Laura Pollán – de facto leader of the damas en blanco – is relaying a live commentary of events to Miami-based Radio República via mobile phone:

We have arrived without any problem at El Combinado. We are right at the entrance. Many guards are running at us.

Pollán is being filmed by Carlos Serpa Maceira (right), spokesperson for various counter-revolutionary groups, reporter for Radio Marti and lynchpin of the dissident movement in Cuba. As Radio República’s listeners fear for her safety, Serpa pans to the prison’s entrance revealing the truth behind Pollán’s frightening report – there are no charging guards.

Despite this, Pollán’s words – without confirmation or verification – are reproduced ad infinitum by anti-Cuban media in Miami and the news spreads like wildfire throughout reputable Western media agencies – such as Reporters Without Borders. Within the click of a button, Pollán’s falsified account becomes uncorroborated fact. That’s how easy it is to organise a propaganda campaign against Cuba.

In Cuba’s Reasons, a fascinating five part series recently broadcast on Cuban television, however, Serpa – along with a number of other high-profile dissidents – is revealed as an undercover state operative collecting information on America’s insidious fabrication and manipulation of counter-revolutionary groups. Serpa’s secret filming at El Combinado is just one exposition of the lengths groups will go to manufacture lies to undermine the Cuban revolution. The series, Cuba’s Reasons, explores the dissident movement – sparsely populated by obsequious mercenaries – and illustrates that the United States’ strategy of subversion has evolved as the agitation for a post-Castro Cuba has been intensified.

Tory Riots

After watching footage of the Tottenham riot I wondered about the inevitability of rioting under a Tory government. Since riots are a result of mass action it seems an obvious task to compare this with the macro level politics of government. It's easier to do this type of comparison in the UK as both parties have had long spans in power meaning that dissatisfaction with one government is less likely to spill over into the term of another. I used this list of riots which is problematic as it fails to mention what it defines as a riot. Due to this, I omitted one result (which occurred in a festival causing no public damage) and all riots occurring in Northern Ireland due to differences in politics. Therefore, please use these results as a rough guide only.

From 1970 there have been around 30 riots in mainland Britain. Labour have been in power for 10 of these during their 18 years of power. The Tories, in their 23 years (including coalitions), have been responsible for 20. If you divide the years by the number of riots you get a rough percentage of how likely a riot is going to occur per year under each party, under Labour you are 55% likely to see a riot a year whereas under the Tories it is 89%.

If you own a shop or small business in a city then it would be a bad idea to vote Tory. If your hobby is fighting the police and fire-bombing city centres however, then the Tories are 34% more likely to make that happen.

Declaration of Co-operation with Cuba requires concrete action

Last month Cuba and the United Kingdom signed a formal declaration to strengthen bilateral co-operation. The agreement champions “closer dialogue and economic, scientific, technical, educational, cultural and sporting links between the two countries” and highlights key areas for collaboration including environmental issues, biotechnology, trade and investment, regional security, child protection and disaster preparedness.

The move should be welcomed as a positive step – not just by those supporting the Cuban people – but also by those looking to expand British trade relations in Latin America. In order to make tangible change, however, the agreement must be substantiated by positive action – something which has been lacking in previous UK policy towards Cuba.

The UK is the 6th largest economy in the world and the 3rd largest economy in the European Union. It is the 7th largest importer and the 11th largest exporter in the world. In spite of this, the level of trade between Britain and Cuba is derisory. Exports to Cuba totalled an abysmal $14.4m (£8.9m) in 2009 whilst imports came to a pathetic $15.8m (£9.8m). Compare this to September 1958 when the UK government exported 25 fighter jets to General Batista’s dictatorship. The equivalent value today – at around £40m a plane – would equate to an annual UK export to Cuba of around one billion pounds.

It is tempting to explain the lack of commercial activity between our two countries as a legacy of the Cold War, however back in 1986, Cuba constituted the UK’s fifth largest market in Latin America. Furthermore, UK trade with Cuba is dwarfed by other EU countries including Spain, Italy, France and the Netherlands. Indeed, in 2008, the UK was only the 11th largest exporter of goods to Cuba from the EU.

It is therefore more appropriate to view the level of trade as a direct consequence of policy adopted by consecutive UK governments. In particular, the Blair government – as a result of closer ties with the Clinton and Bush administrations – took an increasingly aggressive and hard-line stance against the island. Blair was a keen advocate of the EU Common Position – which suppresses trade and exchange with Cuba – whilst, in 2003, the UK was instrumental in blocking Cuba’s entry into the Cotonou Agreement which gives trade preferences to former European colonies.

According to UK Trade & Investment (UKIT), “the greatest hurdle to doing business in Cuba is painfully slow decision-making which result from all investment decisions being referred to the highest levels of government”. However, as indicated in the graphs below, there are a number of other countries which manage to cut through the perceived ‘layers of bureaucracy’. It is ridiculous that UKIT blames restrictions within Cuba for the lack of trade when the main obstacle remains the UK’s unwillingness to challenge the ongoing US blockade.

In theory, the UK Protection of Trade Interests Act makes it illegal for UK companies to comply with extraterritorial US Helms Burton legislation but, in practice, the UK government replicates the pernicious and illegal blockade. Transactions cannot take place in US Dollars and payment cannot be channelled via American Banks. The risk of US sanctions creates uncertainty and banks, businesses and companies can get caught between conflicting legal requirements. For instance, in August 2010, Barclays Bank was fined $298m (£190m) by US authorities for handling transactions with banks in Cuba. The result is that the little trade that does occur often takes place through ‘third parties’ and unfairly increases Cuba’s import costs.

The blockade also restricts access to long-term credit which means Cuba is often limited to dealing in cash transactions or expensive short-term credit. This makes bilateral trade more costly for the island and significantly stifles their economic freedom. The uncertainty caused by the blockade creates a volatile market and increases the risk of liquidity problems. As the UKIT report says:

Even when there is potential demand for many products, the reality is that not all companies are in a position to ensure payment or to finance long-term payments … This is mainly due to Cuba’s lack of access to the long and middle term financial market, so relying mostly on short-term credit, and credit offered by the providers.

It is peculiar that David Cameron has spent much of his tenure attempting to expand British markets abroad – in places such as China, India and the Middle East – but Cuba’s potential remains untapped. Cuba’s geographical location – as both a Caribbean and Central American nation – represents a strategic advantage whilst the Cuban market offers various long-term benefits. Cuba has a highly educated and literate population and there is an abundance of experienced and qualified employees. Brazil has already recognised the business potential in Cuba and has invested heavily to make Mariel Port the leading freight port in the Caribbean.

The UK should be applauded for repeatedly voting against the US blockade at the United Nations, but further action is required to normalise relations with Cuba and develop real, discernible trade and co-operation between our countries.

The Cuba Solidarity Campaign and the British trade union movement have worked tirelessly to promote the normalisation of relations and it is clear that real political will does exist. Early Day Motion 1171 supporting the strengthening of ties between the UK and Cuba was signed by 248 MPs whilst over 92% of candidates in the 2010 General Election supported better relations. The examples of various EU countries – including Spain, Italy, France and the Netherlands – demonstrate that the debilitating effects of the EU Common Position can be circumvented if perceptible political will exists. It is now crucial that we harness political will within the UK to turn this ‘paper’ agreement into something more concrete.

This article originally appeared on Left Foot Forward and the Guardian's Comment is Free.