logo
Minority Rule: Adventures in the Culture War by Ash Sarkar

Minority Rule: Adventures in the Culture War by Ash Sarkar

The Guardian20-02-2025
The British left used to be a force to reckon with. Edward Heath's government was famously felled by the miners in 1974 – the only instance in postwar European history when working-class power resulted in the overthrow of a ruling party. These days, however, the concept of the working class has an almost retro feel. Trade union membership has plummeted. Expressions of collective solidarity have likewise vanished. Disaffection has far from disappeared, only now it manifests in the form of petty crime and race riots.
In Minority Rule, Ash Sarkar blames the rightwing press for this shift. Thanks to tabloid agents provocateurs and their political creatures in Westminster, she says, the lower orders have abandoned class war for the culture wars. Accordingly, more and more of them spend their weekends not on the barricades but behind computer screens, fuming over small boats and gender ideology.
Sarkar's thesis, that fears of minority rule of one kind (by the non-white and non-binary) serve to legitimate minority rule of another sort (by barons and billionaires), isn't an earth-shattering observation, of course. As early as the 1890s, Friedrich Engels argued that the gullible and easily distracted working classes were conspiring in their own oppression; he called it 'false consciousness'. All the same, she prosecutes her case with more panache and punchiness, more hilarity, than is usual from the dour quarters of British political punditry. Her hyper-caffeinated prose and acid observations are unquestionably a joy to read. Here she is on a leafy enclave in Islington: 'Ocado delivery vans glided serenely through the streets … A moment of eye contact with a chic young mum improved my credit rating.'
Sarkar reserves some of her snarkiest comments for left-liberals seduced by identity politics. Instead of uniting minorities and the proletariat into an ecumenical alliance of the oppressed, she says, the present-day left has pitted them against one another in an Olympics of victimhood. She goes to a crankish conference in Liverpool where a speaker declares, to nods of approval, that 'we should dismantle all our movements that aren't majority people of colour'. This in a country that is over 80% white. Sarkar is right: this stuff is just 'bananas'.
People in these circles are, of course, quite justified in being exercised by racial oppression. But they are often less interested in remedying it collectively than claiming it individually. Some rather absurd propositions have flowed from this habit of mind. We meet the online commentators who argue that Anne Frank had 'white privilege'. Then we have the 'decolonising' yoga teacher who declares that 'white-led yoga spaces' are 'traumatising for people of colour'. Or take this tetchy response by a Jewish comedian to a tweet by an Arab-Australian Muslim poet claiming that Jesus resembled his family: 'He's not just claiming Jesus as a brown person: he's claiming him. Which, however you look at it – and however correct it is that Jesus was Middle Eastern – tramples on his Jewishness.'
Mired in fratricidal identitarianism, left-liberals have lost the argument to the hard right, which has repurposed class politics with a racial tinge. So it is that yesterday's 'chavs' have been re-baptised as the 'white working class'. Google's Ngram viewer shows the inversion in their lexical fortunes since 2000. In the early years of this century, Sarkar observes, it was perfectly acceptable to portray the working classes as disgusting chavs, egregiously reckless with money and 'suspiciously interested in black culture'. To the journalist James Delingpole, writing in the Times, they were 'dismal ineducables', and 'pasty-faced, lard-gutted slappers who'll drop their knickers in the blink of an eye'.
That was in 2006. Fast-forward to 2017, and Delingpole had recast himself as a tribune of the left-behind, railing against the 'liberal elite … which thinks it's perfectly acceptable, desirable even, to pour scorn and bile on the white working class'. Where chavs were once lazy and stupid, the white working class is decent, hardworking and yes, bigoted, though its bigotry turns on 'legitimate concerns'. Courted hard by the Tories, the white working class was hoisted by its own petard. Its support proved crucial in electing a succession of governments that first imposed a hostile environment towards migrants and then extended the same treatment to poor British people; some 120,000 excess deaths were directly attributable to austerity.
Sarkar's counsel, that the left ought to quit whingeing and get its act together, is welcome. Yet I'm sceptical about her implicit assumption – that an alliance between minorities and the left is the natural state of things. I'm a Marxist like Sarkar, but I think it is at least worth recognising that British Indians, Pakistanis and Nigerians can be reactionary conservatives; a great many are. To pretend that they never hold to casteism, misogyny or homophobia is foolish.
Sign up to Inside Saturday
The only way to get a look behind the scenes of the Saturday magazine. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend.
after newsletter promotion
Sarkar says that Britain's 'thin-skinned, thick-witted' political class has an unhealthy obsession with the media. The same charge can be levelled at her. This is the work of someone who has evidently spent far too much time on X; indeed, she cultivates the image of a sassy social commentator, a sort of Tariq Ali of looking at your phone a lot. Truth be told, it's not so much the leader writers of the Tory press who are in charge of the country as more impersonal, structural forces. Clinton's political adviser James Carville – no Marxist – recognised this in the late 90s: 'I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope. But now I would like to come back as the bond market.'
Minority Rule: Adventures in the Culture War by Ash Sarkar is published by Bloomsbury (£18.99). To support the Guardian and Observer, order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Geldof's threat to quit Blair's Africa Commission
Geldof's threat to quit Blair's Africa Commission

North Wales Chronicle

time17 minutes ago

  • North Wales Chronicle

Geldof's threat to quit Blair's Africa Commission

The Live Aid campaigner was instrumental in persuading Mr Blair to set up the commission to examine the problems of the continent ahead of a crucial summit of the G8 at Gleneagles in Scotland, which the UK was chairing. But official papers released to the National Archives in Kew, west London, show he was outraged when – after just one meeting – the commissioners were sent a document setting its 'emerging conclusions'. In an angry letter to the commission's director of policy, the economist Sir Nick Stern, dated August 9 2004, he said it was impossible to have come to any conclusions it such a short period of time. The former rock star warned that he was not prepared to serve on a body which was simply there to push 'pre-determined government policy'. 'To be clear, policy must be determined by the commission independently sitting and independently deliberating and concluding of its own volition. This distinction is vital. If I have got this wrong please inform me so I may tender my resignation,' he wrote. 'More broadly, the whole notion of emerging solutions is laughable. If the solution to the misery of Africa can be 'concluded' within a mere six week time span, it is a truly remarkable feat. 'How blind we must all have been these past years. The fact is that there are not and cannot as yet be any emerging conclusions. 'The commission will lose all credibility if it is not clearly seen to be an independent entity. If it seems to advance pre-determined government policy it will be correctly viewed as a laughable grotesque.' Geldof went on to complain that the involvement of some of the commissioners – including some of those from Africa – appeared to have been 'minimal'. 'Is it not the secretariat's function, on behalf of the chair, to ensure that this is not the case? Or is this all some farcical political game played out at the expense of the wretchedly poor? If so, I ain't playing.' Sir Nicholas wrote back hurriedly to assure him the that the document was not an attempt pre-empt the commission's findings, and that the input from British politicians had been 'comparatively minor'. 'Far from being an attempt to rush conclusions the paper is intended to to be a tool to help promote discussion and ensure a real interchange between commissioners at the second meeting in October,' he wrote. 'I would be very keen to sit down and discuss these questions with you; perhaps we could meet for a drink as soon as we are both around?' Geldof's reply is not recorded in the files, but he was sufficiently placated to carry on. After the Gleneagles summit the following year agreed to double aid to Africa and extend debt relief, he hailed it as 'mission accomplished'.

Geldof's threat to quit Blair's Africa Commission
Geldof's threat to quit Blair's Africa Commission

South Wales Argus

time18 minutes ago

  • South Wales Argus

Geldof's threat to quit Blair's Africa Commission

The Live Aid campaigner was instrumental in persuading Mr Blair to set up the commission to examine the problems of the continent ahead of a crucial summit of the G8 at Gleneagles in Scotland, which the UK was chairing. But official papers released to the National Archives in Kew, west London, show he was outraged when – after just one meeting – the commissioners were sent a document setting its 'emerging conclusions'. In an angry letter to the commission's director of policy, the economist Sir Nick Stern, dated August 9 2004, he said it was impossible to have come to any conclusions it such a short period of time. The former rock star warned that he was not prepared to serve on a body which was simply there to push 'pre-determined government policy'. 'To be clear, policy must be determined by the commission independently sitting and independently deliberating and concluding of its own volition. This distinction is vital. If I have got this wrong please inform me so I may tender my resignation,' he wrote. 'More broadly, the whole notion of emerging solutions is laughable. If the solution to the misery of Africa can be 'concluded' within a mere six week time span, it is a truly remarkable feat. 'How blind we must all have been these past years. The fact is that there are not and cannot as yet be any emerging conclusions. 'The commission will lose all credibility if it is not clearly seen to be an independent entity. If it seems to advance pre-determined government policy it will be correctly viewed as a laughable grotesque.' Bob Geldof with Bono and Tony Blair in Downing Street (PA) Geldof went on to complain that the involvement of some of the commissioners – including some of those from Africa – appeared to have been 'minimal'. 'Is it not the secretariat's function, on behalf of the chair, to ensure that this is not the case? Or is this all some farcical political game played out at the expense of the wretchedly poor? If so, I ain't playing.' Sir Nicholas wrote back hurriedly to assure him the that the document was not an attempt pre-empt the commission's findings, and that the input from British politicians had been 'comparatively minor'. 'Far from being an attempt to rush conclusions the paper is intended to to be a tool to help promote discussion and ensure a real interchange between commissioners at the second meeting in October,' he wrote. 'I would be very keen to sit down and discuss these questions with you; perhaps we could meet for a drink as soon as we are both around?' Geldof's reply is not recorded in the files, but he was sufficiently placated to carry on. After the Gleneagles summit the following year agreed to double aid to Africa and extend debt relief, he hailed it as 'mission accomplished'.

George Bush was determined to ‘rid world of evil-doer Saddam Hussein'
George Bush was determined to ‘rid world of evil-doer Saddam Hussein'

South Wales Argus

time18 minutes ago

  • South Wales Argus

George Bush was determined to ‘rid world of evil-doer Saddam Hussein'

In January 2003 – two months before US and UK forces launched their fateful invasion – Tony Blair to flew to Camp David to urge the president to allow more time for diplomacy to work. However, files released to the National Archives at Kew, west London, show that Britain's ambassador to the US, Sir Christopher Meyer, warned it had become 'politically impossible' to draw back from war unless Hussein surrendered. British officials were still hoping that the the United Nations Security Council would agree a new resolution specifically authorising the use of military force against Iraq. Mr Blair's foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, said that when he met the president he should make the point that a new resolution was 'politically essential for the UK, and almost certainly legally essential as well'. However, the Americans were becoming increasingly impatient with the unwillingness of France and Russia – which both had a veto on the council – to agree a resolution so long as UN inspectors were unable to find any evidence of Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, the supposed justification for war. Following Mr Bush's annual State of the Union address to Congress, shortly before Mr Blair's visit, he warned that the options for a peaceful solution had effectively run out. Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's ambassador to the United States (Kirsty Wigglesworth/PA) 'It is politically impossible for Bush to back down from going to war in Iraq this spring, absent Saddam's surrender or disappearance from the scene' he wrote. 'If Bush had any room for manoeuvre beforehand this was closed off by his State of the Union speech. 'In the high-flown prose to which Bush is drawn on these set-piece occasions, he said in effect that destroying Saddam is a crusade against evil to be undertaken by God's chosen people.' In a cable sent the previous month, Sir Christopher said that much of the impulse for deposing Hussein was coming from the president, a born-again Christian, who was scornful of what he saw as the 'self-serving' reservations of the Europeans. 'His view of the world is Manichean. He sees his mission as ridding it of evil-doers. He believes American values should be universal values,' Sir Christopher wrote. 'He is strongly allergic to Europeans collectively. Anyone who has sat round a dinner table with low-church Southerners will find these sentiments instantly recognisable.' In the event, the US and UK abandoned their efforts to get agreement on a new Security Council resolution, claiming French president Jacques Chirac had made it clear he would never agree.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store