Difference between revisions of "Living Marxism"

From Powerbase
Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: 'The GM debate is the terrain upon which society's relationship to science and human endeavour is currently being worked out.' So wrote Tony Gilland in an [http://web.archive.org/web/2...)
 
 
(119 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'The GM debate is the terrain upon which society's relationship to science and human endeavour is currently being worked out.' So wrote [[Tony Gilland]] in an [http://web.archive.org/web/20000618115855/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM119/LM119_GMO_Gilland.html article called Seeds of the Future] in the UK magazine LM, formerly Living Marxism - the monthly review of the [[Revolutionary Communist Party]] (RCP).  
+
''Some sections of this page have been suspended pending further research.''
 +
[[Image:LM-logo-200.gif|thumb|right|300px|[[Living Marxism]] logo circa January 1997 from their website www.junius.co.uk]]
 +
[[Living Marxism]] was a magazine published by the [[Revolutionary Communist Party]] via its publication company [[Junius Publications]] (latterly by [[Informinc]] which was incorporated at Companies House on 29 January 1997 immediately before the change of name<ref>Data from companies House: INCORPORATION DOCUMENTS CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION STATEMENT OF DIRECTORS & REGISTERED OFFICE DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION, 29 January 1997</ref>).  It was launched in November 1988, renamed [[LM]] in early 1997 and eventually closed down following a libel case bought by [[ITN]] in the year 2000. It was replaced in the year 2000 by the [[Institute of Ideas]] and a little later by [[Spiked]]. It was a key element of what can be called the [[LM network]].
  
The RCP has spawned a network of political extremists who eulogise technologies like genetic engineering and reproductive cloning and are extremely hostile to their critics, whom they brand as Nazis. What is particularly disturbing is that it is a network which engages in infiltration of media organisations and science-related lobby groups in order to promote its agenda.  
+
'The GM debate is the terrain upon which society's relationship to science and human endeavour is currently being worked out.' So wrote [[Tony Gilland]] in an article called Seeds of the Future in the UK magazine [[LM]], formerly [[Living Marxism]] - the monthly review of the [[Revolutionary Communist Party]] (RCP).<ref>Tony Gilland [http://web.archive.org/web/20000618115855/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM119/LM119_GMO_Gilland.html Seeds of the Future]''LM'', No. 119, April 1999.</ref>
  
It is represented, often in very senior positions, in a series of organisations which lobby on issues related to biotechnology, e.g. the [[Science Media Centre]] (director: [[Fiona Fox]]), [[Sense About Science]] (director: [[Tracey Brown]]; her assistant: [[Ellen Raphael]]), [[Genetic Interest Group]] (former policy director: [[John Gillott]]), [[Progress Educational Trust]] (former director: [[Juliet Tizzard]]), and the [[Scientific Alliance]] (advisor: [[Bill Durodie]]). Both [[Tracey Brown]] and [[Bill Durodie]] were also brought in in an advisory capacity in relation to the strands of the UK government's official GM Public Debate.  
+
The RCP has spawned a network, here called the [[LM network]], of political extremists who eulogise technologies like genetic engineering and reproductive cloning and are extremely hostile to their critics, whom they brand as Nazis. What is particularly disturbing is that it is a network which engages in infiltration of media organisations and science-related lobby groups in order to promote its agenda as well as establishing a string of their own organisations.
 +
{{Powerbase:LM network: Resources}}
 +
It is represented, often in very senior positions, in a series of organisations which lobby on issues related to biotechnology, e.g. the [[Science Media Centre]] (director: [[Fiona Fox]]), [[Sense About Science]] (director: [[Tracey Brown]]; deputy director: [[Ellen Raphael]]), [[Genetic Interest Group]] (former policy director: [[John Gillott]]), [[Progress Educational Trust]] (former director: [[Juliet Tizzard]], later director Sandy Starr), and the [[Scientific Alliance]] (advisor: [[Bill Durodie]]). Both [[Tracey Brown]] and [[Bill Durodie]] were also brought in in an advisory capacity in relation to the strands of the UK government's official GM Public Debate.  
 +
 
 +
[[Image:Living Marxism No 1.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The first edition of [[Living Marxism]], November 1988, edited by [[Mick Hume]].]]
 +
[[File:Living Marxism cover Sept 1996-no93-edit.jpeg|thumb|right|227px|Cover of [[LM]] No. 93 advertising the 1996 post [[RCP]] manifesto minus references to class struggle.]]
 +
 
 +
==Foundation==
 +
[[Living Marxism]] was launched in November 1988 as the 'monthly review' of the [[Revolutionary Communist Party]], published by the party publishing house [[Junius Publications]].  It replaced the previous much more staid 'theoretical journal', ''[[Confrontation]]'', first published in 1986.  The founding editor of the magazine was long time RCP stalwart [[Mick Hume]] and deputy editor was [[Joan Phillips]] (aka [[Joan Hoey]]).  Other prominent RCP activists named as assisting the editor were [[Andy Clarkson]], [[Gemma Forest]], [[Mike Freeman]], [[Tony Kennedy]], [[Kenan Malik]], [[Pat Roberts]] and [[Linda Ryan]] (a pseudonym for [[Frank Furedi]] the party leader).<ref>''[[Living Marxism]]'', No. 1 November 1988</ref>
  
==History==
 
::'''1970s''' - Trotskyist faction ejected from International Socialists, further splinters into the [[Revolutionary Communist Party]] (RCP)
 
::'''late-80s''' - RCP establishes Living Marxism
 
::'''early-90s''' -  RCP begins infiltration of academic and media circles
 
::'''mid-90s''' - Living Marxism title changed to LM
 
::'''2000''' - LM forced to close after it loses libel case
 
::'''2000''' - LM's ex-editor launches [[Spiked]] website
 
::'''2000''' - LM's co-publisher, [[Claire Fox]], launches Institute of Ideas
 
::'''2001''' - Long-time LM contributor, and [[Claire Fox]]'s sister, [[Fiona Fox]] becomes Director of the [[Science Media Centre]]
 
::'''2002''' - LM/Spiked/Institute of Ideas contributor becomes Director of Sense About Science
 
 
==The Background==
 
==The Background==
 +
[[Image:Lm.gif|thumb|left|300px|The logo of [[LM Magazine]] after it changed its name from [[Living Marxism]] at issue 97 in February 1997.<ref>'[http://web.archive.org/web/19980218145236/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM97/index.html Welcome to the new-look LM]', ''[[LM]]'', February 1997, retrieved from the Internet Archive of 18 February 1998, accessed 27 October 2010</ref>]]
 +
[[Image:LM No 18 .jpg|thumb|right|250px| Cover of [[Living Marxism]] No. 18 April 1990.]]
 +
[[Image:LM129 Cover.JPEG|thumb|left|300px|The cover of the last edition of [[LM Magazine]], No. 129, April 2000]]
 
The Revolutionary Communist Party was born out of Trotskyist faction-fighting in Britain in the 1970s. Supporters stood in the 1987 general election campaign as the Red Front, boldly proclaiming that the RCP was about to 'replace' the Labour Party, but the candidates all lost their deposits. Around this time the RCP launched its monthly review Living Marxism.  
 
The Revolutionary Communist Party was born out of Trotskyist faction-fighting in Britain in the 1970s. Supporters stood in the 1987 general election campaign as the Red Front, boldly proclaiming that the RCP was about to 'replace' the Labour Party, but the candidates all lost their deposits. Around this time the RCP launched its monthly review Living Marxism.  
  
In the early 90s the RCP underwent a drastic ideological transformation. Its leaders turned their back on seeking mass working class action. The real contradiction in society now lay, they seemed to argue, between those who believed in the increased human domination of nature and those who did not.  They declared a 'total war of ideas' on the enemies of human progress.
+
In the early 90s the RCP underwent a drastic ideological transformation. Its leaders turned their back on seeking mass working class action. The real contradiction in society now lay, they seemed to argue, between those who believed in the increased human domination of nature and those who did not.  They declared a total war of ideas on the enemies of human progress.
  
One of the group's then supporters explains their thinking, 'In England, it is as if the Tories lost their nerve, lost faith in their own project. They could no longer unabashedly support roadbuilding for example. Where is this 14 lane M25 they at one time promised us? ...The trouble is that nowadays if you say: Build roads, use genetically modified crop strains, dump the oil platforms in the North Sea, experiment into xenotransplantation and human cloning, there is an anti-progress alliance from left to right on all this. In fact if you say these things, people can't really tell if you are right or left or just out of it!' ([http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.socialism.trotsky/msg/87f16e1f922e6e2e?oe=UTF-8&output=gplain LM and Russia])   
+
One of the group's then supporters explains their thinking, 'In England, it is as if the Tories lost their nerve, lost faith in their own project. They could no longer unabashedly support roadbuilding for example. Where is this 14 lane M25 they at one time promised us? ...The trouble is that nowadays if you say: Build roads, use genetically modified crop strains, dump the oil platforms in the North Sea, experiment into xenotransplantation and human cloning, there is an anti-progress alliance from left to right on all this. In fact if you say these things, people can't really tell if you are right or left or just out of it!'<ref>David Webb [http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.socialism.trotsky/msg/87f16e1f922e6e2e?oe=UTF-8&output=gplain Subject: Re: For Hibbert: LM and Russia] Date: 1998/01/21 Newsgroups: alt.politics.socialism.trotsky</ref>
  
 
In reality, the RCP's new vision, which sought to champion 'progress' by opposing all restrictions on science, technology (especially biotechnology) and business, bore startling resemblances to that of the libertarian Right.  
 
In reality, the RCP's new vision, which sought to champion 'progress' by opposing all restrictions on science, technology (especially biotechnology) and business, bore startling resemblances to that of the libertarian Right.  
Line 27: Line 30:
  
 
Post-modernism and the New Left were also viewed as enemies of 'science', 'progress' and 'the Enlightenment', all of which the RCP defended in a curiously uncritical fashion. Other inhibitants to progress were 'victim culture' and the 'culture of safety' which gave rise to 'risk-aversion' and 'moral panics'. One should pay the least regard, the RCP now argued, to the views of victims or their relatives, whether one was dealing with gun crime, road accidents, Bhopal, BSE, AIDS or whatever, as it only encouraged a culture of fear and caution and so inhibited freedom and progress.  
 
Post-modernism and the New Left were also viewed as enemies of 'science', 'progress' and 'the Enlightenment', all of which the RCP defended in a curiously uncritical fashion. Other inhibitants to progress were 'victim culture' and the 'culture of safety' which gave rise to 'risk-aversion' and 'moral panics'. One should pay the least regard, the RCP now argued, to the views of victims or their relatives, whether one was dealing with gun crime, road accidents, Bhopal, BSE, AIDS or whatever, as it only encouraged a culture of fear and caution and so inhibited freedom and progress.  
 +
 +
Thus, for example, LM announced a conference to be held in central London from 26th July to 1st August 1996 and entitled 'The Week' which was "dedicated to tackling the culture of victimhood and 'safety first' and to developing a political agenda for real freedom."
 +
Courses included: Victim culture; Social control in an uncertain age; Policing the family; Rights and the state, and; Gender, culture and relativism.
  
 
===Invasion of the body snatchers===
 
===Invasion of the body snatchers===
 
+
[[Image:LM116 Cover.1.gif|thumb|right|300px|Cover of [[Living Marxism]], No. 116, December/January 1998/9]]
 
While intellectually the RCP was now singing from the same hymn sheet as elements on the far Right, tactically it drew from elements on the far Left. One tactic practiced by some Trotskyists is 'entryism'. Traditionally this has involved infiltrating a trade union or a political party in order to try and exert a disproportionate influence over its direction. To forward its new war of ideas, the RCP initiated a new style of entryism. Suddenly its members were sharp suited and organising seminars.  
 
While intellectually the RCP was now singing from the same hymn sheet as elements on the far Right, tactically it drew from elements on the far Left. One tactic practiced by some Trotskyists is 'entryism'. Traditionally this has involved infiltrating a trade union or a political party in order to try and exert a disproportionate influence over its direction. To forward its new war of ideas, the RCP initiated a new style of entryism. Suddenly its members were sharp suited and organising seminars.  
  
 
'Its call in the early 1990s to "return to the suburbs" saw it embark on a project of infiltrating academic and media circles in a style reminiscent of Invasion of the body snatchers,' commented a rival Marxist publication, [http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/230/rcpdesign.html The Weekly Worker]. 'To give praise where it is due, our upwardly mobile executive "Marxists" have managed to worm their way into the appropriate dinner parties, seminars, and conferences.'   
 
'Its call in the early 1990s to "return to the suburbs" saw it embark on a project of infiltrating academic and media circles in a style reminiscent of Invasion of the body snatchers,' commented a rival Marxist publication, [http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/230/rcpdesign.html The Weekly Worker]. 'To give praise where it is due, our upwardly mobile executive "Marxists" have managed to worm their way into the appropriate dinner parties, seminars, and conferences.'   
  
As part of this process, Living Marxism changed its name in the mid-1990s to LM, while the Party itself was formally liquidated. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,184070,00.html One member complained], 'In recent times, people like myself have had to stand back and watch as the organisation, its discussions and activities, have been closed down and party leaders have switched from calling themselves die-hard communists to espousing the virtues of the free market. While [[Mick Hume]], [[Claire Fox]] and others at the top were building up a coterie of followers in the academic and media world, we were being told: "Our aim is social revolution." Yet within a short time the party was declared finished and anyone who expressed any vaguely leftwing sympathies were ridiculed as being old-fashioned "liberals", "Trotskyists" and sometimes even both.'  
+
As part of this process, Living Marxism changed its name in the mid-1990s to LM, selling the title to associate [[Helene Guldberg]] while the Party itself was formally liquidated. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,184070,00.html One member complained], 'In recent times, people like myself have had to stand back and watch as the organisation, its discussions and activities, have been closed down and party leaders have switched from calling themselves die-hard communists to espousing the virtues of the free market. While [[Mick Hume]], [[Claire Fox]] and others at the top were building up a coterie of followers in the academic and media world, we were being told: "Our aim is social revolution." Yet within a short time the party was declared finished and anyone who expressed any vaguely leftwing sympathies were ridiculed as being old-fashioned "liberals", "Trotskyists" and sometimes even both.'  
  
But the core of the party had not been liquidated. The new glossier looking LM was still the vehicle of those who had been the party's leadership. The editor, as of Living Marxism, was the head of the RCP, [[Mick Hume]]. LM's star columnist was the RCP's chief theoretician, the sociologist Frank Furedi (aka [[Frank Richards]], aka [[Linda Ryan]]). LM's regular contributors continued to be made up by other leading lights of the RCP. And they and their closest supporters continued to meet to discuss tactics and ideology. The difference was that such meetings were now by invitation only.
+
But the core of the party had not been liquidated. The new glossier looking LM was still the vehicle of those who had been the party's leadership. The editor, as of Living Marxism, was the head of the RCP, [[Mick Hume]]. LM's star columnist was the RCP's chief theoretician, the sociologist Frank Furedi (aka [[Frank Richards]]). LM's regular contributors continued to be made up by other leading lights of the RCP. And they and their closest supporters continued to meet to discuss tactics and ideology. The difference was that such meetings were now by invitation only.
  
 
===Against Nature - the war zone===
 
===Against Nature - the war zone===
 +
[[Image:LM119 Cover.jpeg|right|thumb|350px|Cover of [[LM Magazine]] No. 119, April 1999, the special issue attacking the green movement. It featured articles by LM stalwarts [[Frank Furedi]], [[Brendan O'Neill]], [[James Heartfield]], [[Helene Guldberg]], [[Tony Gilland]] as well as right wing think tanker [[Richard D North]] and the pro-whaling [[High North Alliance]]]]
 +
In the late 1990's LM's 'most spectacular coup', according to The Weekly Worker, 'was the three hours of prime-time television, in the form of Channel Four's anti-green [[Against Nature]]. [[Frank Furedi]] was the star of the show.'<ref>Danny Hammill, [http://web.archive.org/web/20070307090254/http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/230/rcpdesign.html RCP's designer liquidationism], Weekly Worker 230, March 5 1998, version placed in web archive 7 Mar 2007, acc in web archive 28 Apr 2010</ref>
  
In the late 1990's LM's 'most spectacular coup', [http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/230/rcpdesign.html according to The Weekly Worker], 'was the three hours of prime-time television, in the form of Channel Four's anti-green Against Nature. Frank Furedi was the star of the show.' Against Nature targeted environmentalists, presenting them as 'the new enemy of science' and comparable to the Nazis. They were responsible, the programmes argued, for the deprivation and death of millions in the Third World. ([http://www.monbiot.com/archives/1997/11/26/crimes-against-nature/ Crimes against Nature], [http://www.monbiot.com/archives/1997/12/18/the-revolution-has-been-televised/ The Revolution Has Been Televised])     
+
Against Nature targeted environmentalists, presenting them as 'the new enemy of science' and comparable to the Nazis. They were responsible, the programmes argued, for the deprivation and death of millions in the Third World. ([http://www.monbiot.com/archives/1997/11/26/crimes-against-nature/ Crimes against Nature], [http://www.monbiot.com/archives/1997/12/18/the-revolution-has-been-televised/ The Revolution Has Been Televised])     
  
 
Channel Four had to broadcast a prime-time apology after Against Nature drew the wrath of the Independent Television Commission which ruled, 'Comparison of the unedited and edited transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with [the environmentalists who contributed] had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them... as to the format, subject matter and purpose of these programs.' (See [http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/19980402000124.html CHANNEL 4 SAVAGED BY TELEVISION WATCHDOG])       
 
Channel Four had to broadcast a prime-time apology after Against Nature drew the wrath of the Independent Television Commission which ruled, 'Comparison of the unedited and edited transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with [the environmentalists who contributed] had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them... as to the format, subject matter and purpose of these programs.' (See [http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/19980402000124.html CHANNEL 4 SAVAGED BY TELEVISION WATCHDOG])       
Line 48: Line 56:
 
According to [[Frank Furedi]], such alliances are all part of LM's regrouping of 'all those who believe human beings should play for high stakes' (LM 100). LM loyalist [[Adam Hibbert]] admits that working with the far Right, 'might appear duplicitous and fraught with the danger of assimilation', but asserts that as long as the activist is alert to these dangers, 'much more progress is possible: and that is our overriding duty, if we're serious.' ([http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.socialism.trotsky/msg/fc25d0b025b959af?oe=UTF-8&output=gplain Re: For Hibbert: LM and Russia])  
 
According to [[Frank Furedi]], such alliances are all part of LM's regrouping of 'all those who believe human beings should play for high stakes' (LM 100). LM loyalist [[Adam Hibbert]] admits that working with the far Right, 'might appear duplicitous and fraught with the danger of assimilation', but asserts that as long as the activist is alert to these dangers, 'much more progress is possible: and that is our overriding duty, if we're serious.' ([http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.socialism.trotsky/msg/fc25d0b025b959af?oe=UTF-8&output=gplain Re: For Hibbert: LM and Russia])  
  
Against Nature's director [[Martin Durkin]] and his production team went on to make an almost equally controversial TV programme about GM for Channel Four, in which GM proponents like [[CS Prakash]] played a starring role. (see [http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,181798,00.html Getting your science from charlatans])
+
Against Nature's director [[Martin Durkin]] and his production team went on to make an almost equally controversial TV programme about GM for Channel Four, in which GM proponents like [[CS Prakash]] played a starring role. (see [http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,181798,00.html Getting your science from charlatans])
 
 
===Rewriting history in favour of the murderers===
 
 
 
Controversy and notoriety had always been a hallmark of the RCP in their ideological jockeying with other factions on the far Left. They defended the right of racists publicly to deny the Holocaust, opposed sanctions against the aparthied regime in South Africa and sought to disrupt an anti-Nazi march in London. They even opposed trade union campaigns for better wages and against public-spending cuts. ([http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FQP/is_4600_131/ai_90793660 The rebels who changed their tune to be pundits]) Their unequivocal espousal of the republican cause in Northern Ireland was such that their continuing support for violence led them to eventually outflank even the IRA itself, whom they bitterly criticised along with the rest of the republican leadeship for engaging in the peace process (see [[Fiona Fox]]).
 
 
 
Their libertarian stance gave the group still more scope for controversialism. They opposed legal restraints on almost anything - from guns to child pornography to late abortion. They appeard to revel in setting their face against almost every public concern or scruple, particularly where it showed signs of giving rise to any kind of social constraint, legal restriction or other form of intervention. ([http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4038176-103690,00.html Life after Living Marxism: Banning the bans]) 
 
 
 
They downplayed concern over AIDS as a heterosexual disease or as a problem in Africa. They also engaged in a lengthy campaign of denial of the Rwandan genocide. This led to LM being accused of rewriting 'history in favour of the murderers'. ([http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,181819,00.html Genocide? What genocide?]; see also [[Fiona Fox]]) 
 
 
 
But what really threw the group into the spotlight and led to the demise of LM, was their downplaying of Serb nationalist atrocities. Throughout the 1990s LM had published a string of articles in this vein, mostly by its columnist [[Joan Phillips]] (aka [[Joan Hoey]]). Then in 1997 LM published 'The picture that fooled the world', an article by Thomas Deichmann who edited [http://www.novo-magazin.de/ Novo magazine]  - LM's sister publication in Germany.
 
 
 
Deichmann's article argued that the journalists working for TV news broadcaster ITN had deliberately misrepresented an image that came to symbolise the horror of the Bosnian war, an image that was supposed to show emaciated moslem prisoners in a Serbian prison camp, Trnopolje. Deichmann's article claimed the moslems in the picture had, in fact, come to a place of refuge and that they were being protected, not mistreated, by the Serbs. (Deichmann's claims are painstakingly revealed as fabrications, distortions, and lies in an article by David Campbell, Professor of International Politics at the University of Newcastle, [http://www.virtual-security.net/attrocity/atroindex.htm Atrocity, Memory and Photography], Journal of Human Rights, March & June 2002) 
 
 
 
LM was forced into closure after losing a libel case brought by the ITN journalists it had accused of fabricating evidence. It emerged during the trial that contrary to the claims in LM, 'Trnopolje was a camp where Muslims were undoubtedly imprisoned, and that many were beaten, tortured, raped and killed by their Serb guards.' ([http://www.guardian.co.uk/itn/article/0,2763,184816,00.html High stakes in battle over Serbian guilt])
 
 
 
But in the run up to the case the LM-ers successfully capitalised on the poor regard in which Britain's libel laws are widely held, by promoting themselves as the victims of ITN's 'deplorable attack on press freedom'. A highly successful three-day conference was held called 'Free Speech Wars'.
 
 
 
The Guardian journalist Ed Vulliamy, who filed the first reports on the Trnopolje camp, was unsparing of those who offered LM their support. 'Those who helped LM cannot fail to recognise that by doing so they also stirred the poison LM had dropped into the well of history, playing their own role in denying a genocide...' Vulliamy claimed there was evidence of collusion on LM's part with Serb military intelligence and worse, concluding,  'Shame, then, on those fools, supporters of the pogrom, cynics and dilettantes who supported them, gave them credence and endorsed their vile enterprise.' ([http://www.guardian.co.uk/itn/article/0,2763,184815,00.html Poison in the well of history])     
 
 
 
Whatever LM's ultimate mix of motives, there was a clear ideological line running through the group's antics over Rwanda and Bosnia. While LM raised no objection to Western economic and corporate domination of other countries, which it seemed to regard as a necessary corollary of 'progress', it was totally opposed to armed intervention. This led in turn to a concern about the way in which conflicts were reported. The portrayal of the Tutsis and the Bosnian moslems as victims of horrific atrocities could fuel demands for greater intervention not only in those conflicts but elsewhere. Those behind LM and the RCP therefore fought to undermine such perceptions. The ways in which they did so are revealing.   
 
 
 
Martin Cohen, the Editor of the journal of the Philosophical Society, The Philosopher, [http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/cite/staff/philosopher/index.html reports] how at a talk he gave at Leeds University in the early months of the Bosnian war, the RCP sought to stifle debate and bury criticism of the Serbs 'in a cynically calculated bombardment of misinformation and propaganda.' For the RCP, he writes, ' "truth" was a bourgeois notion, political power was the higher cause.' ([http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,184070,00.html Living Marxism and the Serbs])     
 
 
 
===Life after Living Marxism===         
 
 
 
The 'battle of ideas' over Bosnia was one that had largely been fought by the time of the LM libel trial in 2000. Undaunted by the legal and financial setback of the verdict, LM's co-publisher [[Claire Fox]] launched the [[Institute of Ideas]] (IoI) on the very day that LM folded in the face of massive damages. Shortly afterwards, [[Mick Hume]], LM's ex-editor and by then a Times-columnist, launched the website of a new online magazine, [[Spiked]]. Spiked's managing editor was [[Helene Guldberg]], LM's ex-publisher.
 
 
 
The [[Institute of Ideas]] regularly organises seminars and conferences, as to a lesser extent does [[Spiked]], drawing in well-known figures to events carefully designed to promote the LM agenda. As a Guardian article notes, 'From the platforms and the floor, the LM line is assiduously promoted by the magazine's supporters and contributors - often without clear attribution of their affiliations.' ([http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,341054,00.html Life after Living Marxism]) 
 
 
 
'''An incestous and self-perpetuating world of undisclosed affiliations'''
 
 
 
[[Thomas Deichmann]], the editor of LM's sister publication [http://www.novo-magazin.de/ Novo], provides a telling example of the group's resilience and ability to not only make clever use of 'platforms' of their own creation but to re-present members of their own network in different guises according to the current need of the war of ideas. 
 
 
 
According to German journalist Paul Stoop of the Berlin Tagesspiegel, nobody had ever heard of the editor of Novo before Deichmann reinvented himself as a fully-fledged Bosnia expert ([http://www.srpska-mreza.com/lm-f97/guardian-m12.html The Guardian, 12 March 1997]). In that guise Deichmann wrote material for Novo and LM, as well as for the RCP front group, the [[London International Research Exchange]]. Quite apart from the libel article, his pieces included a sympathetic interview with Radovan Karadzic, after the Bosnian Serb leader had been charged with genocide and crimes against humanity. Deichmann also put in an appearance as the final defence witness at the trial of the Serbian war criminal Dusko Tadic. ([http://www.guardian.co.uk/itn/article/0,2763,184815,00.html Poison in the well of history])   
 
 
 
But as the battle of ideas over Bosnia receded, Deichmann was reinvented once again. In April 2003 he was one of the speakers at a [http://www.instituteofideas.com/Events/current/docs/genetics.html Genes and Society 'festival'] in London organised by the the [[Institute of Ideas]]. Here he was billed not as an expert on Bosnia but as an expert commentator on GM crops and the Third World.   
 
 
 
Deichmann has also contributed articles to Novo and Spiked on Percy Schmeisser, the Canadian famer who has been in a long-running legal battle with Monsanto over patent issues in relation to GM crops. In his [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DAA7.htm Spiked piece] the man who once chided the Western media over their misreporting of Serbian atrocities, now chides them over their inaccurate reporting of the GM debate.                                                 
 
 
 
Completing his transformation from an expert exposer of 'myths' about Serb atrocities into an expert apologist for biotechnology, Deichmann has co-authored a book Das Populäre Lexikon der Gentechnik: Überraschende Fakten von Allergie über Killerkartoffel bis Zelltherapie (The Popular Lexicon of Genetic Engineering: Surprising Facts from Allergy and Killer Potatoes to Cell Therapy) .
 
 
 
The platforms that have made this reinvention possible - Novo, [[Spiked]] and the [[Institute of Ideas]] - are all part of the same network. However, when [[Spiked]] presented him at their 'festival' as, ''''Thomas Deichmann editor''', Novo magazine and co-author of The Popular Lexicon of Gene Technology', there was nothing to indicate that Novo is a sister publication of LM or that Deichmann's book  was published by Novo's publishing house. 
 
 
 
This incestous and self-perpetuating world of undisclosed affiliations almost exactly replicates what Brad K. Blitz found in [http://www.freeserbia.net/Documents/Lobby.html his study of revisionism and denial in relation to the Bosnian conflict]. Blitz, who considered the role of Deichmann and fellow Living Marxism contributor [[Joan Phillips]] in the reporting of the conflict, noted how 'marginalized ideologies' are advanced through the 'incestuous nature' of what he calls 'the publication drive'. The players are not, Blitz writes, 'advancing knowledge but are rather recycling the founding ideas of certain ideological arguments that mesh with their own political agendas. Phillips' outrageous comments (many of which came straight out of the government-controlled Belgrade media) are re-packaged... [in an article] in Foreign Policy... [which] is then cited by... Diechmann who also makes reference to Phillips' ''20 Things You Know About the Serbs That Aren't True''. Diechmann is Phillips' colleague who then promotes the work of another author... [who] himself cites... Phillips and again repeats the same accusations.'   
 
  
 
===Defending Monsanto in the Wall Street Journal===
 
===Defending Monsanto in the Wall Street Journal===
  
However self-perpetuating and self-promoting the LM world may be, it is one that has been far from unchanging in the three decades since the birth of the RCP. The once fervent Trotskyist, Frank Furedi, who has been called the 'Father of the modern RCP', has in recent years been found defending Monsanto in the columns of the Wall Street Journal and pamphlet writing for the [[Centre for Policy Studies]], a think tank founded by Margaret Thatcher and Keith Joseph. His CPS pamphlet was advertised alongside those of Lord Archer and Lord Saatchi.   
+
However self-perpetuating and self-promoting the LM world may be, it is one that has been far from unchanging in the three decades since the birth of the RCP. The once fervent Trotskyist, Frank Furedi, who has been called the 'Father of the modern RCP', has in recent years been found defending [[Monsanto]] in the columns of the Wall Street Journal and pamphlet writing for the [[Centre for Policy Studies]], a think tank founded by [[Margaret Thatcher]] and [[Keith Joseph]]. His CPS pamphlet was advertised alongside those of Lord Archer and Lord Saatchi.   
  
[[Frank Furedi]] is even said to have [http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.socialism.trotsky/msg/52b771b95543db3c?oe=UTF-8&output=gplain tried to hock his services to the supermarket chains] and the [[Food and Drink Federation]] as someone who could help them put consumers' minds at rest on food safety issues. He also penned a reassuring report on risk for Lloyds of London which [http://www.futureproof.org/forewords.htm Lloyds say] 'has the potential to be invaluable to our business'. A decade earlier Living Marxism had dismissed Lloyds as 'a benevolent fund for the rich' (LM 43).   
+
[[Frank Furedi]] is even said to have tried to hock his services to the supermarket chains and the [[Food and Drink Federation]] as someone who could help them put consumers' minds at rest on food safety issues.<ref>Nick Cohen, [http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.socialism.trotsky/msg/52b771b95543db3c?oe=UTF-8&output=gplain Boardroom revolutionaries], The Observer, October 1998</ref> He also penned a reassuring report on risk for Lloyds of London which [http://www.futureproof.org/forewords.htm Lloyds say] 'has the potential to be invaluable to our business'. A decade earlier Living Marxism had dismissed Lloyds as 'a benevolent fund for the rich' (LM 43).   
  
This corporate-alignment is also to be found at [[Spiked]] and still more at the IoI where events are put on, for example, in 'association with Pfizer', the giant pharmaceutical company that aggressively promotes biotech, and with 'thanks' to [[CropLife International]] (a 'global federation' led by [[Sourcewatch:BASF|BASF]], [[Sourcewatch:Bayer|Bayer]], [[Sourcewatch:Dow|Dow]], [[Sourcewatch:Dupont|DuPont]], [[Sourcewatch:Monsanto|Monsanto]] and [[Sourcewatch:Syngenta|Syngenta]]). In a [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-515993,00.html Times' interviewthe IoI's director is drawn on another sponsor, Novartis. Asked who they are, she responds, 'Pharmaceuticals, I think. I don&#39;t know who they are.'  
+
This corporate-alignment is also to be found at [[Spiked]] and still more at the [[Institute of Ideas]] (IoI) where events are put on, for example, in 'association with Pfizer', the giant pharmaceutical company that aggressively promotes biotech, and with 'thanks' to [[CropLife International]] (a 'global federation' led by [[BASF]], [[Bayer]], [[Dow Chemical|Dow]], [[DuPont]], [[Monsanto]] and [[Syngenta]]). In a Times' interview, the IoI's director, [[Claire Fox]], is drawn on another sponsor, [[Novartis]]. Asked who they are, she responds, 'Pharmaceuticals, I think. I don&#39;t know who they are.'<ref>Andrew Billen, [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article802738.ece A prickly opinion on just about everything], The Times, 17 Dec 2002, accessed 24 Nov 2009</ref>
  
 
Some of Furedi's followers appear to believe that he is just biting back the revolutionary critique in order to realign and mobilise forces who can, despite themselves, further the interests of the revolution. How those who choose to make use of the services provided by Furedi and his followers view the relationship is another matter. Like Lloyds, presumably, they see something of value for their businesses.
 
Some of Furedi's followers appear to believe that he is just biting back the revolutionary critique in order to realign and mobilise forces who can, despite themselves, further the interests of the revolution. How those who choose to make use of the services provided by Furedi and his followers view the relationship is another matter. Like Lloyds, presumably, they see something of value for their businesses.
Line 106: Line 70:
 
===Monopolistic hidden agendas===
 
===Monopolistic hidden agendas===
  
Many of 'Furedi's children' have emerged from his base at the University of Kent Canterbury. Amongst these are [[Tracey Brown]] and [[Ellen Raphael]], both of whom have gone on to work for PR company Regester Larkin . [[Regester Larkin]] help many of the major oil, pharmaceutical and biotech corporations manage their reputations in the face of what they term 'anti-technology activists' and 'risk averse' consumers. Regester Larkin's PR terminology is that honed by Furedi and LM.     
+
Many of 'Furedi's children' have emerged from his base at the University of Kent Canterbury. Amongst these are [[Tracey Brown]] and [[Ellen Raphael]], both of whom have gone on to work for PR company Regester Larkin. [[Regester Larkin]] help many of the major oil, pharmaceutical and biotech corporations manage their reputations in the face of what they term 'anti-technology activists' and 'risk averse' consumers. Regester Larkin's PR terminology is that honed by Furedi and LM.     
  
 
[[Keith Teare]] is another of Furedi's 'offspring'. Teare has written of his time at the University of Kent, 'I got a double first on an essay I wrote for [[Frank Furedi]], who became a kind of mentor. We still keep in touch.' This seriously understates the relationship. Teare, under the name [[Keith Tompson]], became a leading member of the RCP and in the 1980s headed the RCP front organisation [[Workers Against Racism]].     
 
[[Keith Teare]] is another of Furedi's 'offspring'. Teare has written of his time at the University of Kent, 'I got a double first on an essay I wrote for [[Frank Furedi]], who became a kind of mentor. We still keep in touch.' This seriously understates the relationship. Teare, under the name [[Keith Tompson]], became a leading member of the RCP and in the 1980s headed the RCP front organisation [[Workers Against Racism]].     
  
In the mid-90s, with the RCP heading more and more in its new pro-technology, pro-enterprise direction, Teare helped set up a series of internet business ventures, including Cyberia, Easynet, and Cscape. These were mostly headed by and employed other RCP-ers. Teare then went on to become a Silicon Valley tycoon, [http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/teare/05_aftermath.htm enjoying a roller coaster romp] through the boom years of the new economy bubble.
+
In the mid-90s, with the RCP heading more and more in its new pro-technology, pro-enterprise direction, Teare helped set up a series of internet business ventures, including Cyberia, Easynet, and Cscape. These were mostly headed by and employed other RCP-ers. Teare then went on to become a Silicon Valley tycoon, enjoying a roller coaster romp] through the boom years of the new economy bubble.<ref>[http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/teare/05_aftermath.htm Nothing but sour grapes], accessed 24 November 2009</ref>
  
During the Microsoft anti-trust trial Teare made a spirited defence of Microsoft and the American way of life - a line that was also peddled in LM. That, however, was before Microsoft pulled the plug on Teare's company, plunging it into liquidation. Since then some have [http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/teare/05_aftermath.htm accused Teare] of playing the victim. [http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/teare/whopper.htm His views on Microsoft] certainly appear to have changed radically:
+
During the Microsoft anti-trust trial Teare made a spirited defence of Microsoft and the American way of life - a line that was also peddled in LM. That, however, was before Microsoft pulled the plug on Teare's company, plunging it into liquidation. Since then some have accused Teare] of playing the victim.<ref>[http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/teare/whopper.htm "Oops! I did it again"], accessed 24 Nov 2009</ref> His views on Microsoft certainly appear to have changed radically:<ref>[http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/teare/whopper.htm "Oops! I did it again"], accessed 24 Nov 2009</ref>
  
''''We believe that Microsoft's investments should be seen for their positive impact not as a sign of monopolistic hidden agendas.''''  Keith Teare,  June 7 2000
+
:''''We believe that Microsoft's investments should be seen for their positive impact not as a sign of monopolistic hidden agendas.''''  Keith Teare,  June 7 2000
  
''''Microsoft killed a whole market. It is a poor business decision made by souless people who clearly have the arrogance that comes from absolute power.'''' Keith Teare, June 4 2002  
+
:''''Microsoft killed a whole market. It is a poor business decision made by souless people who clearly have the arrogance that comes from absolute power.'''' Keith Teare, June 4 2002  
  
 
In Teare's extraordinary journey there seems to be a kind of metaphor for what happened to the RCP.
 
In Teare's extraordinary journey there seems to be a kind of metaphor for what happened to the RCP.
 +
[[Image:LM127 Cover.GIF|thumb|right|300px|[[LM Magazine]], Issue 127, February 2000]]
 +
[[Image:The point is to change it.jpg|thumb|left|200px|The [[RCP]] suicide note: [[Living Marxism]], ''The point is to change it'', [[Junius Publications]], 1996.]]
 +
==Funding and Connections==
 +
In developing its libertarian politics ''[[Living Marxism]]'' began to publish articles by elements of the [[Conservative movement]], including a variety of corporate funded and neoliberal think tanks.
 +
 +
This pattern developed into financial and other sponsorship relationships.  For example, by 1998 [[LM]] put on a series of 'roundtable debates' at the Edinburgh Festival.  As well as being sponsored by [[LM network]] group such as [[Generation Youth Issues]], sessions were also sponsored by the conservative [[Adam Smith Institute]] and by the tobacco industry funded  front group [[FOREST]].<ref>LM presents: 'Living Dangerously', ''[[LM]]'' July/August 1998, No. 112 p. 14</ref>
 +
 +
==People==
 +
On its launch Living Marxism had the following staff listed: Editor [[Mick Hume]], Deputy Editor [[Joan Phillips]], Assisted by [[Andy Clarkson]], [[Gemma Forest]], [[Mike Freeman]], [[Tony Kennedy]], [[Kenan Malik]], [[Pat Roberts]], [[Linda Ryan]], International Editor [[Daniel Nassim]], Assisted by [[Stefanie Boston]], [[James Malone]], [[Russell Osborne]], Reviews [[Pat Ford]], Production and design Co-ordinator [[Dave Lamb]], Production and Design [[Don Bannister]], [[Tony Costello]], [[Joanna Doyle]], [[Sara Hardy]], [[Sean Thomas]], [[Joe Watson]], Marketing Manager [[Suke Karey]].<ref>''Living Marxism'', November 1988, No. 1, p. 2.</ref>
  
 +
By February 1992 the staff were as follows: Editor [[Mick Hume]], Assistant Editor [[Joan Phillips]], Editorial Assistant [[Kirsten Cale]], International Editor [[Daniel Nassim]], News [[Andrew Calcutt]], Living Section [[John Fitzpatrick]], Design [[Richard Stead]], [[Charles Longford]], Production [[Michael Kramer]], [[Peter Ray]], [[Helen West]], Managing Editor [[Phil Murphy]], Advertising Manager [[Manda Kent]]<ref>''Living Marxism'', February 1992, No. 40, p. 3.</ref>
  
==Further Reading==
+
By August 1998 the staff were as follows Editor: [[Mick Hume]] | Managing Editor: [[Helen Searls]] | Alt.culture [[Andrew Calcutt]] | Books: [[James Heartfield]] | Picture Desk: [[David Cowlard]] | Design: [[Alex Cameron]], [[ICE Design]]<ref>''Living Marxism'', August 1998, No. 112, p. 3.</ref>
  
LobbyWatch [http://www.lobbywatch.org/lm_watch.html LM Watch]
+
==Publications and Resources==
 +
''Living Marxism'' began publication in November 1988.  LM also published a number of pamphlets a continuation of the kind of material regularly put out by the [[RCP]] and published by [[Junius Publications]]. A full list of publications and the full contents of [[Living Marxism]]//[[LM]] is available at the:
 +
*''Main article [[Living Marxism: List of contents and publications]]''
 +
* [[Living Marxism: List of commentaries 1995-2000]]
 +
*Internet Archive of LM Magazine website [http://web.archive.org/web/20000302181546/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/research/index.html Informinc.co.uk]
  
Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Marxism Living Marxism]
+
====Archive and library holdings====
 +
*St Andrews University [http://salser.edina.ac.uk/WebZ/FETCH?sessionid=01-63764-1211936571&recno=3&resultset=1&format=F&next=html/nffull.html&bad=error/badfetch.html&&entitytoprecno=3&entitycurrecno=3 Living Marxism] Holdings: per: No. 12 (Oct. 1989) - no. 27 (1991); no. 40 (1992). Lacks: No. 14-17; 19-20; 22; 24
 +
*National Library of Scotland [http://discover.nls.uk/default.ashx?q=Living+Marxism&search-box-submit=go&searchtype=1&cx=004988112283334510717:lqhse3e39qi&ie=UTF-8 Living Marxism]
 +
*British Library [http://copac.ac.uk/search?rn=7&isn=0955-2448 Living Marxism]
 +
*London School of Economics [https://catalogue.lse.ac.uk/Record/473343 LM (Living Marxism)]
 +
*Trinity College Dublin [http://library.catalogue.tcd.ie/search~S9?/tliving+marxism/tliving+marxism/1,3,3,B/frameset&FF=tliving+marxism&1,1, Title Living Marxism (London, England).]
 +
[[Image:Hume, war.14.gif|thumb|right|200px|[[Mick Hume]], ''Whose war is it anyway? The dangers of the journalism of attachment'', An '[[LM]] Special', 1997.]]
  
 
==Notes==
 
==Notes==
 
<references/>
 
<references/>
 
[[Category:Revolutionary Left Groups]]
 
[[Category:Revolutionary Left Groups]]
[[Category:LM group]][[Category:GM]][[Category:GM Lobby Groups]]
+
[[Category:LM network]][[Category:GM]][[Category:GM Lobby Groups]]

Latest revision as of 06:27, 7 September 2013

Some sections of this page have been suspended pending further research.

Living Marxism logo circa January 1997 from their website www.junius.co.uk

Living Marxism was a magazine published by the Revolutionary Communist Party via its publication company Junius Publications (latterly by Informinc which was incorporated at Companies House on 29 January 1997 immediately before the change of name[1]). It was launched in November 1988, renamed LM in early 1997 and eventually closed down following a libel case bought by ITN in the year 2000. It was replaced in the year 2000 by the Institute of Ideas and a little later by Spiked. It was a key element of what can be called the LM network.

'The GM debate is the terrain upon which society's relationship to science and human endeavour is currently being worked out.' So wrote Tony Gilland in an article called Seeds of the Future in the UK magazine LM, formerly Living Marxism - the monthly review of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP).[2]

The RCP has spawned a network, here called the LM network, of political extremists who eulogise technologies like genetic engineering and reproductive cloning and are extremely hostile to their critics, whom they brand as Nazis. What is particularly disturbing is that it is a network which engages in infiltration of media organisations and science-related lobby groups in order to promote its agenda as well as establishing a string of their own organisations.

LM network resources

It is represented, often in very senior positions, in a series of organisations which lobby on issues related to biotechnology, e.g. the Science Media Centre (director: Fiona Fox), Sense About Science (director: Tracey Brown; deputy director: Ellen Raphael), Genetic Interest Group (former policy director: John Gillott), Progress Educational Trust (former director: Juliet Tizzard, later director Sandy Starr), and the Scientific Alliance (advisor: Bill Durodie). Both Tracey Brown and Bill Durodie were also brought in in an advisory capacity in relation to the strands of the UK government's official GM Public Debate.

The first edition of Living Marxism, November 1988, edited by Mick Hume.
Cover of LM No. 93 advertising the 1996 post RCP manifesto minus references to class struggle.

Foundation

Living Marxism was launched in November 1988 as the 'monthly review' of the Revolutionary Communist Party, published by the party publishing house Junius Publications. It replaced the previous much more staid 'theoretical journal', Confrontation, first published in 1986. The founding editor of the magazine was long time RCP stalwart Mick Hume and deputy editor was Joan Phillips (aka Joan Hoey). Other prominent RCP activists named as assisting the editor were Andy Clarkson, Gemma Forest, Mike Freeman, Tony Kennedy, Kenan Malik, Pat Roberts and Linda Ryan (a pseudonym for Frank Furedi the party leader).[3]

The Background

The logo of LM Magazine after it changed its name from Living Marxism at issue 97 in February 1997.[4]
Cover of Living Marxism No. 18 April 1990.
The cover of the last edition of LM Magazine, No. 129, April 2000

The Revolutionary Communist Party was born out of Trotskyist faction-fighting in Britain in the 1970s. Supporters stood in the 1987 general election campaign as the Red Front, boldly proclaiming that the RCP was about to 'replace' the Labour Party, but the candidates all lost their deposits. Around this time the RCP launched its monthly review Living Marxism.

In the early 90s the RCP underwent a drastic ideological transformation. Its leaders turned their back on seeking mass working class action. The real contradiction in society now lay, they seemed to argue, between those who believed in the increased human domination of nature and those who did not. They declared a total war of ideas on the enemies of human progress.

One of the group's then supporters explains their thinking, 'In England, it is as if the Tories lost their nerve, lost faith in their own project. They could no longer unabashedly support roadbuilding for example. Where is this 14 lane M25 they at one time promised us? ...The trouble is that nowadays if you say: Build roads, use genetically modified crop strains, dump the oil platforms in the North Sea, experiment into xenotransplantation and human cloning, there is an anti-progress alliance from left to right on all this. In fact if you say these things, people can't really tell if you are right or left or just out of it!'[5]

In reality, the RCP's new vision, which sought to champion 'progress' by opposing all restrictions on science, technology (especially biotechnology) and business, bore startling resemblances to that of the libertarian Right.

An obvious similarity lay in the RCP's strong antipathy towards the environmental movement. It was as if environmentalists had now replaced the old 'class enemy' for the RCP. The concerns environmentalists raised about the abuse of science, technology and corporate power were 'scaremongering', the RCP now argued, which undermined 'progress' and the emergence of a 'confident individualism' unafraid of risk and experimentation.

Post-modernism and the New Left were also viewed as enemies of 'science', 'progress' and 'the Enlightenment', all of which the RCP defended in a curiously uncritical fashion. Other inhibitants to progress were 'victim culture' and the 'culture of safety' which gave rise to 'risk-aversion' and 'moral panics'. One should pay the least regard, the RCP now argued, to the views of victims or their relatives, whether one was dealing with gun crime, road accidents, Bhopal, BSE, AIDS or whatever, as it only encouraged a culture of fear and caution and so inhibited freedom and progress.

Thus, for example, LM announced a conference to be held in central London from 26th July to 1st August 1996 and entitled 'The Week' which was "dedicated to tackling the culture of victimhood and 'safety first' and to developing a political agenda for real freedom." Courses included: Victim culture; Social control in an uncertain age; Policing the family; Rights and the state, and; Gender, culture and relativism.

Invasion of the body snatchers

Cover of Living Marxism, No. 116, December/January 1998/9

While intellectually the RCP was now singing from the same hymn sheet as elements on the far Right, tactically it drew from elements on the far Left. One tactic practiced by some Trotskyists is 'entryism'. Traditionally this has involved infiltrating a trade union or a political party in order to try and exert a disproportionate influence over its direction. To forward its new war of ideas, the RCP initiated a new style of entryism. Suddenly its members were sharp suited and organising seminars.

'Its call in the early 1990s to "return to the suburbs" saw it embark on a project of infiltrating academic and media circles in a style reminiscent of Invasion of the body snatchers,' commented a rival Marxist publication, The Weekly Worker. 'To give praise where it is due, our upwardly mobile executive "Marxists" have managed to worm their way into the appropriate dinner parties, seminars, and conferences.'

As part of this process, Living Marxism changed its name in the mid-1990s to LM, selling the title to associate Helene Guldberg while the Party itself was formally liquidated. One member complained, 'In recent times, people like myself have had to stand back and watch as the organisation, its discussions and activities, have been closed down and party leaders have switched from calling themselves die-hard communists to espousing the virtues of the free market. While Mick Hume, Claire Fox and others at the top were building up a coterie of followers in the academic and media world, we were being told: "Our aim is social revolution." Yet within a short time the party was declared finished and anyone who expressed any vaguely leftwing sympathies were ridiculed as being old-fashioned "liberals", "Trotskyists" and sometimes even both.'

But the core of the party had not been liquidated. The new glossier looking LM was still the vehicle of those who had been the party's leadership. The editor, as of Living Marxism, was the head of the RCP, Mick Hume. LM's star columnist was the RCP's chief theoretician, the sociologist Frank Furedi (aka Frank Richards). LM's regular contributors continued to be made up by other leading lights of the RCP. And they and their closest supporters continued to meet to discuss tactics and ideology. The difference was that such meetings were now by invitation only.

Against Nature - the war zone

Cover of LM Magazine No. 119, April 1999, the special issue attacking the green movement. It featured articles by LM stalwarts Frank Furedi, Brendan O'Neill, James Heartfield, Helene Guldberg, Tony Gilland as well as right wing think tanker Richard D North and the pro-whaling High North Alliance

In the late 1990's LM's 'most spectacular coup', according to The Weekly Worker, 'was the three hours of prime-time television, in the form of Channel Four's anti-green Against Nature. Frank Furedi was the star of the show.'[6]

Against Nature targeted environmentalists, presenting them as 'the new enemy of science' and comparable to the Nazis. They were responsible, the programmes argued, for the deprivation and death of millions in the Third World. (Crimes against Nature, The Revolution Has Been Televised)

Channel Four had to broadcast a prime-time apology after Against Nature drew the wrath of the Independent Television Commission which ruled, 'Comparison of the unedited and edited transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with [the environmentalists who contributed] had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them... as to the format, subject matter and purpose of these programs.' (See CHANNEL 4 SAVAGED BY TELEVISION WATCHDOG)

Against Nature provided a platform not only for LM columnists like Frank Furedi, John Gillott (aka John Gibson) and Juliet Tizzard, all of whom were billed by the programme makers as independent experts, but for a whole string of contributors from the far Right. Extreme advocates of free-market capitalism were also increasingly to be found expounding their views in the pages of LM. The magazine published pieces, for instance, by the Executive Vice President of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, Ron Arnold. Arnold's mission was their mission, 'This is a war zone. Our goal is to destroy, to eradicate the environmental movement'. (Far Left or Far Right? Living Marxism's interesting allegiances)

According to Frank Furedi, such alliances are all part of LM's regrouping of 'all those who believe human beings should play for high stakes' (LM 100). LM loyalist Adam Hibbert admits that working with the far Right, 'might appear duplicitous and fraught with the danger of assimilation', but asserts that as long as the activist is alert to these dangers, 'much more progress is possible: and that is our overriding duty, if we're serious.' (Re: For Hibbert: LM and Russia)

Against Nature's director Martin Durkin and his production team went on to make an almost equally controversial TV programme about GM for Channel Four, in which GM proponents like CS Prakash played a starring role. (see Getting your science from charlatans)

Defending Monsanto in the Wall Street Journal

However self-perpetuating and self-promoting the LM world may be, it is one that has been far from unchanging in the three decades since the birth of the RCP. The once fervent Trotskyist, Frank Furedi, who has been called the 'Father of the modern RCP', has in recent years been found defending Monsanto in the columns of the Wall Street Journal and pamphlet writing for the Centre for Policy Studies, a think tank founded by Margaret Thatcher and Keith Joseph. His CPS pamphlet was advertised alongside those of Lord Archer and Lord Saatchi.

Frank Furedi is even said to have tried to hock his services to the supermarket chains and the Food and Drink Federation as someone who could help them put consumers' minds at rest on food safety issues.[7] He also penned a reassuring report on risk for Lloyds of London which Lloyds say 'has the potential to be invaluable to our business'. A decade earlier Living Marxism had dismissed Lloyds as 'a benevolent fund for the rich' (LM 43).

This corporate-alignment is also to be found at Spiked and still more at the Institute of Ideas (IoI) where events are put on, for example, in 'association with Pfizer', the giant pharmaceutical company that aggressively promotes biotech, and with 'thanks' to CropLife International (a 'global federation' led by BASF, Bayer, Dow, DuPont, Monsanto and Syngenta). In a Times' interview, the IoI's director, Claire Fox, is drawn on another sponsor, Novartis. Asked who they are, she responds, 'Pharmaceuticals, I think. I don't know who they are.'[8]

Some of Furedi's followers appear to believe that he is just biting back the revolutionary critique in order to realign and mobilise forces who can, despite themselves, further the interests of the revolution. How those who choose to make use of the services provided by Furedi and his followers view the relationship is another matter. Like Lloyds, presumably, they see something of value for their businesses.

Monopolistic hidden agendas

Many of 'Furedi's children' have emerged from his base at the University of Kent Canterbury. Amongst these are Tracey Brown and Ellen Raphael, both of whom have gone on to work for PR company Regester Larkin. Regester Larkin help many of the major oil, pharmaceutical and biotech corporations manage their reputations in the face of what they term 'anti-technology activists' and 'risk averse' consumers. Regester Larkin's PR terminology is that honed by Furedi and LM.

Keith Teare is another of Furedi's 'offspring'. Teare has written of his time at the University of Kent, 'I got a double first on an essay I wrote for Frank Furedi, who became a kind of mentor. We still keep in touch.' This seriously understates the relationship. Teare, under the name Keith Tompson, became a leading member of the RCP and in the 1980s headed the RCP front organisation Workers Against Racism.

In the mid-90s, with the RCP heading more and more in its new pro-technology, pro-enterprise direction, Teare helped set up a series of internet business ventures, including Cyberia, Easynet, and Cscape. These were mostly headed by and employed other RCP-ers. Teare then went on to become a Silicon Valley tycoon, enjoying a roller coaster romp] through the boom years of the new economy bubble.[9]

During the Microsoft anti-trust trial Teare made a spirited defence of Microsoft and the American way of life - a line that was also peddled in LM. That, however, was before Microsoft pulled the plug on Teare's company, plunging it into liquidation. Since then some have accused Teare] of playing the victim.[10] His views on Microsoft certainly appear to have changed radically:[11]

'We believe that Microsoft's investments should be seen for their positive impact not as a sign of monopolistic hidden agendas.' Keith Teare, June 7 2000
'Microsoft killed a whole market. It is a poor business decision made by souless people who clearly have the arrogance that comes from absolute power.' Keith Teare, June 4 2002

In Teare's extraordinary journey there seems to be a kind of metaphor for what happened to the RCP.

LM Magazine, Issue 127, February 2000
The RCP suicide note: Living Marxism, The point is to change it, Junius Publications, 1996.

Funding and Connections

In developing its libertarian politics Living Marxism began to publish articles by elements of the Conservative movement, including a variety of corporate funded and neoliberal think tanks.

This pattern developed into financial and other sponsorship relationships. For example, by 1998 LM put on a series of 'roundtable debates' at the Edinburgh Festival. As well as being sponsored by LM network group such as Generation Youth Issues, sessions were also sponsored by the conservative Adam Smith Institute and by the tobacco industry funded front group FOREST.[12]

People

On its launch Living Marxism had the following staff listed: Editor Mick Hume, Deputy Editor Joan Phillips, Assisted by Andy Clarkson, Gemma Forest, Mike Freeman, Tony Kennedy, Kenan Malik, Pat Roberts, Linda Ryan, International Editor Daniel Nassim, Assisted by Stefanie Boston, James Malone, Russell Osborne, Reviews Pat Ford, Production and design Co-ordinator Dave Lamb, Production and Design Don Bannister, Tony Costello, Joanna Doyle, Sara Hardy, Sean Thomas, Joe Watson, Marketing Manager Suke Karey.[13]

By February 1992 the staff were as follows: Editor Mick Hume, Assistant Editor Joan Phillips, Editorial Assistant Kirsten Cale, International Editor Daniel Nassim, News Andrew Calcutt, Living Section John Fitzpatrick, Design Richard Stead, Charles Longford, Production Michael Kramer, Peter Ray, Helen West, Managing Editor Phil Murphy, Advertising Manager Manda Kent[14]

By August 1998 the staff were as follows Editor: Mick Hume | Managing Editor: Helen Searls | Alt.culture Andrew Calcutt | Books: James Heartfield | Picture Desk: David Cowlard | Design: Alex Cameron, ICE Design[15]

Publications and Resources

Living Marxism began publication in November 1988. LM also published a number of pamphlets a continuation of the kind of material regularly put out by the RCP and published by Junius Publications. A full list of publications and the full contents of Living Marxism//LM is available at the:

Archive and library holdings

Mick Hume, Whose war is it anyway? The dangers of the journalism of attachment, An 'LM Special', 1997.

Notes

  1. Data from companies House: INCORPORATION DOCUMENTS CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION STATEMENT OF DIRECTORS & REGISTERED OFFICE DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION, 29 January 1997
  2. Tony Gilland Seeds of the FutureLM, No. 119, April 1999.
  3. Living Marxism, No. 1 November 1988
  4. 'Welcome to the new-look LM', LM, February 1997, retrieved from the Internet Archive of 18 February 1998, accessed 27 October 2010
  5. David Webb Subject: Re: For Hibbert: LM and Russia Date: 1998/01/21 Newsgroups: alt.politics.socialism.trotsky
  6. Danny Hammill, RCP's designer liquidationism, Weekly Worker 230, March 5 1998, version placed in web archive 7 Mar 2007, acc in web archive 28 Apr 2010
  7. Nick Cohen, Boardroom revolutionaries, The Observer, October 1998
  8. Andrew Billen, A prickly opinion on just about everything, The Times, 17 Dec 2002, accessed 24 Nov 2009
  9. Nothing but sour grapes, accessed 24 November 2009
  10. "Oops! I did it again", accessed 24 Nov 2009
  11. "Oops! I did it again", accessed 24 Nov 2009
  12. LM presents: 'Living Dangerously', LM July/August 1998, No. 112 p. 14
  13. Living Marxism, November 1988, No. 1, p. 2.
  14. Living Marxism, February 1992, No. 40, p. 3.
  15. Living Marxism, August 1998, No. 112, p. 3.