In Violent Extremist Tactics and the ideology of the far-left Tories’ Commission for Countering Extremism (CCE) quango concocted a flimsy attempt to create a threat of “far-left extremism.”
The authors of the paper, Siobhan McAndrew, David Hirsh and Daniel Allington, used deceptive nomenclature to malign socialism and communism such as prepending the adjective “sectarian” repeatedly to left-wing political ideology in order to deny its wide popular appeal, they indulged in absurd bounded pigeon-holing of supposed left-wing perspectives and they invented a daft misrepresentation of historical revolutionary socialism.
The three stooges presented their inspection of revolutionary socialism from a detached pseudo-elevated position. They discussed support for the rights of workers and for the battle against exploitation as if such concepts were alien to society. They lied incessantly about the political perspective and intent of revolutionary socialists and combined mocking with libellous insults. An example of the stupidity of their language was calling revolutionary socialism an “anti-civic ideology.”
The predetermined stance of the paper echoed that of an editorial in The Sun or of a typical piece of garbage from one of the many anti-socialist right-wing think-tanks like Institute of Economic Affairs, Adam Smith Institute and Centre for Policy Studies. Throughout, it was dishonest, contradictory and snarky.
Armed with fraudulent assertions about the nature and make-up of revolutionary socialism, the authors stated hypotheses on the probability of people with far-left politics becoming violent followed by a torturous technical analysis of “data” including cod mathematics in a journey toward proof or otherwise of the hypotheses.
A “conclusion” of their investigation of their hypotheses was interesting.
“Our findings suggest that although very few British adults identify as ‘very left-wing’ or have a ‘very positive’ view of ‘revolutionary socialist groups’, there are much larger numbers who are in a position of agreement with regard to salient components of the revolutionary workerist ideology expressed in the publications of the sectarian far left. Moreover, our findings suggest that there is a positive relationship between sympathy for violent extremism and both revolutionary workerism and an ‘anti-imperialist’ geopolitical outlook.” (Section 8 [conclusion], page 39, second paragraph)
That is, the Tories’ own quango concluded that there are “much larger numbers” of potential revolutionaries.
In the fourth paragraph of the “conclusion” there was more good news: “Our findings suggest that opportunities may exist for political entrepreneurs to radicalise those open to revolutionary workerism and ‘anti-imperialism’.”
The authors noted also how “the possibilities that now exist for political mobilisation without the need for a conventional party structure – [online campaigning] – are helping revolutionary solidarity and organisation.”
The reason for such a seemingly positive result (for socialism) of a Tory investigation was desperation by the authors of the paper to find anything that justified their work. They had nothing so they said something they thought might instill fear. However, rather than fear, their contrived deductions offered hope.
Another conclusion was to find no evidence of potential for the far-left in Britain to become violent but, because there was also no evidence to the contrary, the authors said “the findings of this study give no reason to assume that left-wing ideas would be incapable of playing an analogous role [to far-right violence].” To conclude an academic paper with such an insult to logic and reason revealed the intrinsic lack of professionalism of the three contributors.
McAndrew, Hirsh and Allington were paid by the tax-payers to do something that they and the government knew was unnecessary. They did what they were told and produced an utterly ridiculous worthless piece of trash. All three are an embarrassment to their respective universities whereat they teach.
From April this year: Prediction of what the CCE report will be