There are a range of different explanation for the far-right riots. Alex Snowdon sorts through the wheat and chaff

In the wake of the fascist agitation and racist riots, a number of arguments have arisen about their causes and how they are interlinked with other phenomena. I want to address a number of the arguments that have emerged.  

There has, in recent weeks, been far greater emphasis on blaming external forces for the racist riots than has ever previously happened with far-right agitation. For some, it is Russia; for others, it is Israel (those blaming Russia tend to be liberal centrists, while those blaming Israel loosely identify with the left and/or the Palestine movement). Either way, the idea is that far right and racist rioters are being manipulated by foreign powers.  

It is an irrational idea in that its proponents never explain the mechanisms at work: how this manipulation relates practically to what is happening on the ground. It is one thing to highlight facts about how a foreign state has financial links or other connections with elements of the far right. It is quite another thing to explain how this connects with the people rioting in Southport, Sunderland or Rotherham.  

It is also a very conservative and apolitical explanation. It lets off the hook the domestic political forces that influence these events: the politicians, the media, and the far-right groups. Consequently, it is also paralysing. There is little we can do about foreign powers, but we can take action about our own politicians and the threat from the domestic far right. 

This kind of narrative is comforting for those who buy into it. It is much easier to believe a highly simplistic story than engage with nuance and complexity. It also tallies with a sense of powerlessness when distant forces are identified as the culprit.  

It is true – as documented by, for example, Lowkey’s video for Double Down News – that Tommy Robinson has links with the Israeli far right, has met with pro-Israel lobby groups and received funding from supporters of Israel. There are links both practical and ideological. However, the leap that some are making to the conclusion that Robinson is a tool of Israel, who does what Israel or its lobby groups want, is unfounded. He and the movement around him have political agency that is independent of Israel or any other external forces.  

Lowkey’s method is to accumulate facts about the links between Robinson and the far right and, on the other hand, Israel and its supporters. But the mere accumulation of facts isn’t enough. It is necessary to have a sense of proportion: to consider how far all this goes in explaining the phenomenon. There are other factors that get excluded in this account, due to seeing the far right entirely through the prism of Israel. 

Israel, racism and the far right 

Support for Israel is indeed part of current far-right ideology. This is for two main reasons. One is that fascists and hardline racists perceive Israel (correctly) to be an ethnocratic state where one ethnic group is explicitly privileged over another. They admire Israel for that and ideally would seek to emulate it. 

The other reason is their virulent Islamophobia. They hate Muslims and they perceive Israel as being at war with Muslims. The cause of Palestine is a rallying point for Muslims and those who will march alongside them. The fascists have found the mass demonstrations against the Gaza genocide infuriating. 

Support for Israel is, however, a long way from being the main plank of far-right ideology. Islamophobia in particular, and racism in general, are central to the current street movement, the core of which is committed to fascist ideas. Islamophobia has been the most prominent (and respectable) form of racism in British politics since at least 2001. 

The far right here has international links, but it is largely home grown. Even its international links are not primarily with Israel, but with well-funded US-based operations and with European fascist parties and networks. It would be just as easy to gather material for a video on the far right’s links with American supporters of Donald Trump as it is to highlight connections with Israel. 

The British far right operates in a country with its own history of imperialism, war and state-led racism. It feeds off the Islamophobia that has accompanied the successive wars and invasions of Muslim majority countries since 2001. This has been further exacerbated by mainstream political support for Israel in its genocide, accompanied by the dehumanisation of Palestinians, scaremongering about ‘Islamists’ and efforts to delegitimise the mass movement of solidarity with Palestine. 

The far right has been emboldened by the backlash against the Palestine movement. That backlash has come from the highest levels inside the UK. It was then Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, who encouraged the fascists to riot on Armistice Day with her ‘hate marches’ rhetoric. 

We also have our own far-right ‘influencers’ like Douglas Murray, Darren Grimes, Lawrence Fox and Katie Hopkins, spreading disinformation online. We have Nigel Farage and Reform UK winning over four million votes at the general election. These political forces are all very open and public; it isn’t necessary to search for shadowy, secretive forces in a bid to explain the fascists and racists.  

An obvious problem with accounts that emphasise foreign influences is that they ignore the history of fascist organising and racist violence in this country. The far right grew in the 1930s (Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists), the 1970s (the National Front), and in the last three decades with waves of growth for the British National Party and later the English Defence League. All of these far-right movements were overwhelmingly home grown and fuelled by the sort of racism that has been nurtured by British imperialism, the state and politicians. 

Social conditions and politics 

The far right also grows out of social conditions – and this is another area of debate. Some have focused entirely on poverty and other economic factors to explain the riots, something that risks obscuring the distinctive role of racism.  

Conversely, there are those who don’t talk about poor housing, lack of good jobs, poverty, austerity or the erosion of communities at all. The riots thus appear as an irrational outpouring of either criminality, stupidity or prejudice, or a combination of the three. This is often accompanied by crude stereotypes of working-class people. It also fuels the idea that the riots ought to be treated purely as a ‘law and order’ issue (with heavy sentences imposed) rather than as a political issue requiring both an anti-racist response and attempts to address practically the dire economic and social conditions that millions of people endure. 

Poor social conditions are a massive factor underpinning the recent racist riots and the currency of racist ideas in many poorer communities. Acknowledging social conditions is never enough on its own though. Those conditions only become fuel for attacking Muslims, asylum seekers etc if there is racist agitation, whether from government, media or fascist groups.  

I have interviewed Heather Wood for Counterfire. She has lived her whole life in an area of County Durham that saw Reform win 30% of the vote at July’s general election. She provides a detailed account of the social and economic forces that have led to such a situation. 

The hollowing out of communities that she describes breeds alienation and hopelessness, which provides fertile ground for racist ideas. It is also a large part of the context for the riots in similar areas. 

Most of the success for the far right in whipping up trouble has been in England’s large towns. It isn’t, by and large, the big multi-racial cities where racist riots have taken place. It is principally large towns with lots of poverty that are proving fertile ground.  

Heather pointed out in our interview that the left has become overwhelmingly rooted in the cities, with very little footprint in towns and villages. This is symptomatic of the long-term decline of all strands of the left that it has become narrower in its demographics and more geographically concentrated. 

We cannot overcome that immediately, but we do need to consider how to develop roots in those communities the media like to call ‘left behind’. It means both directly confronting racist ideas and offering positive alternatives on the range of economic and social issues blighting people’s lives.