LABOUR is weathering a co-ordinated campaign which combines criticism of Jeremy Corbyn’s policies and persona with an intensified drive to brand any criticism of the murderous policies pursued by Israel’s rulers with anti-semitism.

I was once branded an anti-semite. It was the during the Thatcher/Major years and I was editing the newspaper of the trade union for executive civil servants. 

Our cartoonist, the brilliant, award-winning Frank Boyle, drew a series of strips which called out the Tories for their dogma-driven privatisation policies. 

One depicted the Cabinet as bloodthirsty pirates of a distinctly unsavoury disposition —  chief among them a swarthy, hook-nosed, carbuncled cutlass-wielding figure in a striped vest, battered pirate hat.

A flood of letters arrived, a good proportion using strikingly similar phrases, rather obviously co-ordinated and some clearly unfamiliar with the actual cartoon and more generally concerned at the  left-wing character of the union’s policies. 

To my surprise I was accused of publishing anti-semitic images. In discussion with one or two of the more reasonable of my correspondents we were able to agree that the conflation of stereotypical Cornish pirates with the anti-semitic depiction of Jews was too far-fetched to be taken as evidence of intent. 

But it was a useful illustration of how an image can possess an ideological power that transcends both literal meaning and the intent of its creator, the context of its creation and thus have an impact on an audience already sensitised by their own ideological position and their life experiences.

This was a useful experience in my next job working at the anti-fascist magazine Searchlight.

It is in the light of this experience and after several decades of anti-racist and anti-fascist activity that I approach the question of the now-destroyed East End mural that is the pivot on which the latest assault on Corbyn turns.

Lest I am accused of gratuitously circulated anti-semitic images, I can claim that, in four years at art school, two years specialist art teacher training and three years of post-graduate research as an art historian, I encountered many medieval, Renaissance and modern art and design objects imbued with anti-semitic notions. 

These artefacts possessed a wide currency in the times in which they were created but nevertheless remain the object of critical scrutiny. 

We must bring the same approach to the examination of the mural depicted here. Called Freedom for Humanity, it was painted by the Los Angeles-based graffiti artist Kalen Ockerman, also known also as Mear One.

We can describe the formal features of the mural thus — against an apocalyptic background that includes rather ambiguously crafted elements of industrial production and power generation sit six elderly business-suited men playing what appears to be Monopoly. 

The surface on which they are playing rests on the backs of crouching, naked, possibly androgynous figures and includes a pile of currency notes and tokens that signify industrial production, oil extraction, property ownership and, perhaps, in the case of a miniature Statue of Liberty, political values.

To the left foreground a man is carrying a poster placard that proclaims: “The New World Order is the enemy of humanity” while his left arm is raised to a clenched fist. To the right a melancholy mother holds her baby.

Rising above the central group is a pyramid and all-seeing eye, sometimes taken to signify Freemasonry and more universally recognised as an element in the design of US dollar bills.

It is conventional to catalogue the formal features of a work and the processes used. We can see that the artist works in a contemporary medium using commercially available saturated spray colours. 

We know from basic research and observation that the artist is proficient in this medium and a high degree of preparatory work and a measure of expert draughtsmanship and technical expertise is evident. 

This conclusion is supported by a film, available on social media, which shows the process under way.

So, having described the content how do we analyse its meaning?

We can of course, go with our immediate, subjective impressions. This clearly is what many people have done. Judging by the social media discussion, some have even ventured an opinion without actually looking closely at the work. But to understand more fully we need to ask what is the painting about. 

One way is to take its title. Freedom for Humanity has a clear and transparent political meaning. In a game of chance and skill six white men dispose of power and wealth while the oppressed and the propertyless support the structures which permit this disparity of means.

But this is not enough. Context is all-important. As it is public art we already know something about the audience, we know it was made in 2012 and destroyed by the local authority. We know who made it. We know from the BBC report at the time that the artist said his artwork was not targeting Jews. 

We need to locate the mural in relation to other work, including that of the artist himself, the local and global politics of its production and display and we need to understand how the public discourse around the work was originally constructed and how it has been reconstructed in the present moment.

This takes us to the contested meaning of the painting and the significance of the central group. The Times on March 24 this year reported that Corbyn had been forced to apologise after initially defending his apparent support for “a mural depicting Jewish bankers playing Monopoly on the backs of the poor.”

The day before, The Guardian had said the that mural pictured several “apparently Jewish bankers” playing a game of Monopoly.

The Guardian was on the same wavelength as the Daily Telegraph, which reported that Corbyn had questioned a London council’s decision to destroy an anti-semitic mural “which depicted a group of Jewish bankers counting money on the backs of ethnic minorities.”

A more careful, or perhaps better informed, Jewish Chronicle article told us about the identities of the six. It said the “controversial” artwork depicted a group of businessmen and bankers sitting around a Monopoly-style board and counting money. 

At the time, in 2012, there was relatively limited coverage of the mural’s destruction. Reportedly, on Facebook, Corbyn, then a backbencher, had suggested that the artist was in good company. 

“Rockefeller destroyed a Diego Rivera mural because it includes a picture of Lenin,” he said. A Labour spokesman at that point claimed Corbyn was standing up for free speech.

It is unclear whether Corbyn, who is fluent in Spanish and very well-informed about Latin American history, politics and culture, was mobilising his pre-existing cultural knowledge or if he knew something of the mural’s content. However, the connection here artistic freedom and Rockefeller, who is one of the (non-Jewish) figures depicted in the East End mural.

In 1933 the Mexican communist painter Rivera was commissioned to paint frescos on the lobby of the Rockefeller building in New York. He titled them The Frontier of Ethical Evolution and The Frontier of Material Development, representing capitalism and socialism. 

When the patron Nelson Rockefeller pressed Rivera to remove images of Lenin and a Soviet May Day scene, Rivera refused and the mural was painted over. Rivera recreated the artwork in Mexico as Man, Controller of the Universe.

There is little critical comparison between Rivera’s work and the contemporary mural. 

Working in plaster and more translucent media, Rivera deployed a rich and subtle colour palette, complex imagery, a vast cast of characters and drew upon a rich heritage of political understanding which articulated popular and revolutionary currents of thought.
The technical differences in production are clear enough. Both are public art, both have an avowedly political content, both are didactic. However in scope and sophistication the works could not be more dissimilar.

Given the highly politicised context of the present controversy this gives us a handle on the kind of criteria we must apply in evaluating Ockerman’s work 

Two immediate issues arise. First, are the bankers and businessmen all or predominantly Jewish? Second, in the light of the answer to this question, is the depiction of the characters anti-semitic?

To quote Ockerman, “I came to paint a mural that depicted the elite banker cartel known as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Morgans, the ruling class elite few, the Wizards of Oz. They would be playing a board game of Monopoly on the backs of the working class. The symbol of the Free Mason Pyramid rises behind this group and behind that is a polluted world of coal burning and nuclear reactors. I was creating this piece to inspire critical thought and spark conversation.”

We have to take him at his word. The problem is that the iconography draws on a very restricted set of references and these references are, in themselves, problematic. 

Set aside the passivity and subordination with which the oppressed are depicted. Look instead at the central figures who are depicted as distinctive types, painted with a clear reference, if distorted, to real historical protagonists.

Even if only two of these six bourgeois, Warburg and Rothschild, are Jewish, we still need to make a judgement about the character and currency of their depiction. 

The draughtsmanship clearly exaggerates the distinctive features of all six men. The problem is that exaggerated depictions of Jews are created, disseminated and understood in a historically defined context that includes a powerful, even dominant, discourse that draws upon the long traditions of anti-semitism embedded in the dominant ideology and expressed, over the centuries, in the dominant visual culture, including both traditional art forms, religion, politics, popular culture and mass media.

That these traditions are currently more diffused than hitherto and that today, for example, Islamophobic narratives are more virulent and produce more dramatically dangerous consequences than does contemporary anti-semitism is no justification for a lack of vigilance.

In truth, the subterranean narratives around notions of the Illuminati, Freemasonry and bourgeois conspiracies cannot, in much popular imagination, be disentangled from deeply suspect discourses in which alien, semitic and covert elites are the controlling forces in our lives. 

Such notions run exactly counter to the kind of materialist analysis that take the real and existing features of contemporary class society and seek to reveal their workings. 

State monopoly capitalism operates at vastly more profound levels and bourgeois hegemony is maintained by vastly greater systems of ideological domination than are illuminated by Ockerman’s mural or accessible through his restricted political imagination.

Inevitably, this mural was going to be understood in the context of existing traditions. If Corbyn had not risen to his present stature, this mural would have been long forgotten. 

The truth is that neither its formal construction nor its artistry, neither its political language nor its iconography, is articulated with sufficient levels of complexity and sophistication. It simply collapses without sufficient theoretical or ideological underpinnings into an inversion of its creator’s avowed purpose.

This is bad art and worse politics.

When, five years later, the long-forgotten facts around this painting’s destruction are weaponised in a new coup against Labour’s popular realignment, we can only marvel that the theoretical poverty of these latter-day art critics is matched by their political hypocrisy.

I am reluctant to criticise Corbyn, who is the most transparently honest and principled leader of the Labour Party in decades. It is true that his 2012 defence of artistic freedom might have been expressed with more circumspection and today a more robust defence might counter some of his more unprincipled opponents. 

But the unceasing assault on him is so obviously manufactured that I suspect its effect has a limit and that itself has more traction with a metropolitan and political elite than with broader masses of people.

It is possible to discover in the mountains of social media data instances of clear anti-semitic intent. More common are maladroit formulations, poorly constructed arguments, ignorant and lazy conflations of terms that are logically distinct, along with arguments that reflect various levels of conscious and unconscious bias. 

The diligent will find examples of trolling that have their origins in the crude public language in some sectors as well as provocations of even more dubious origin.

We can be sure that one agency or another is searching for any clumsy formulation or ill-advised comment that can be weaponised against Labour. 

That no such diligence is directed at the Tory Party or the media that serves bourgeois interest is clear enough indication that this is a project with a clear purpose.

The many hundreds of thousands of Labour folk know this. Many millions more sense the artifice entailed in this campaign. 
It is instructive that in working-class Britain, which by and large is not deeply involved in this controversy, popular sentiment senses that Corbyn is the target. 

How else to account for the reports that crowds at boxing contests and football matches are breaking out in chants of Corbyn’s name. 
Already the spurt in Labour (and Momentum) membership is taken by more intransigent zionist opinion as proof itself of a wide currency of anti-semitism. 

Similarly, Corbyn’s seder night feast with a group of irreverent young Jews in his constituency itself is weaponised. Associating with the wrong kind of Jews is also anti-semitic it seems.

The association of Blairite MPs with the campaign being waged by the Board of Deputies and the more obviously Conservative-linked Jewish Leadership Council  will do them no favours with Labour supporters who know from their own experience just how limited is the purchase of anti-semitic ideas in the party and the broader labour movement. Interestingly, the non-zionist Jewish Voice for Labour is experiencing a new wave of support. 

We cannot disentangle the alarm that the zionist establishment feels at the success of the boycott, disinvestment and sanctions movement from this current offensive. 

Corbyn is the target because he maintains his principled solidarity with the Palestinian cause and remains opposed to the imperial war plans that pivot on Israel’s strategy towards its neighbouring states.

The real danger is that in conflating, for narrowly sectarian political purpose, what is a fairly widely diffused currency of anti-semitic ideas with the more poisonous political anti-semitism that exists as a conscious ideology this campaign runs a real danger of reinforcing the latter. 

It is not enough to point out that the most reactionary trends in zionism act on the basis that the existence of anti-semitism is the principal validation of their political project. 

Anti-semitism needs to be confronted at every level — not as a privileged category of political action but as part of a conscious movement to assert the universality of human values. 

Calling out the crude conflation of zionism with Jewish identity is the basic building block of any project to combat anti-semitism.

That this necessarily entails a principled criticism of its mirror image in the most virulently reactionary trends in present-day zionism is a powerful demonstration of dialectical truth.