A revolutionary, not a cultural mascot
Born in Trinidad in 1915 and raised amid Harlem's poverty,
Jones joined the Communist Party in 1936, motivated by the Scottsboro campaign.
She became a prominent intellectual within the party, offering influential
analyses of the “triple oppression” faced by Black working-class women—long
before these issues entered mainstream discourse. Her activism resulted in
government crackdowns, including imprisonment under the Smith Act and expulsion
from the U.S. due to Cold War legislation aimed at alleged “subversives.”
Jones arrived in Britain in 1955 and immediately encountered
the racism faced by Caribbean workers involved in rebuilding post-war Britain.
The Notting Hill riots of 1958 and Kelso Cochrane's killing in 1959 were more
than mere 'community tensions'; they were episodes of fascist violence
tolerated by authorities. In response, Jones launched the West Indian Gazette
and organised the first indoor Caribbean carnival in 1959, using these events
as acts of political defiance and collective self-assertion, not just cultural
celebrations.
Today’s official commemorations reduce Jones to a simple
symbol of “diversity,” dismissing the Marxist elements that defined her life.
Events like her imprisonment, deportation, her support for the Soviet Union,
and her stance against colonialism are often downplayed or ignored. This move
to present Jones as a multicultural figure seems motivated by a political goal:
to conceal the truth that her fight against racist violence, police harassment,
and exploitation of immigrant labour stems from capitalism. In contrast, her
actions were driven by a sense of international working-class solidarity.
The Pseudo‑Lefts and the Notting Hill Carnival
The 60th anniversary of the Notting Hill Carnival has been
marked by the familiar voices from Britain’s pseudo-left circles—Labour
councillors, NGO activists, academics, and media figures—who frame Carnival as
a celebration of “diversity,” “community,” and “Black cultural expression.”
This narrative is strategically convenient because it is ultimately misleading.
It overlooks the Carnival’s roots in working-class struggles and instead
promotes a depoliticised identity-politics story that benefits the state and
corporate interests.
Carnival did not originate from simply 'heritage '. Instead,
it grew out of racist violence, police harassment, and the exploitation of
Caribbean workers brought to Britain after the war. Claudia Jones, the
communist who organised the first indoor carnival in 1959, was not merely a
cultural promoter but a revolutionary Marxist. She was imprisoned and deported
by the American government because of her political beliefs. Her efforts in
London—via the West Indian Gazette and her activism against the 1958 Notting
Hill riots—were based on a conviction that racism was inherently linked to
capitalism.
The pseudo-left struggles to acknowledge this history
because it reveals their own complicity. Over time, they have shifted from
class-based politics to identity politics, turning anti-racist efforts into
symbolic cultural displays that do not threaten capitalism. The modern face of
Carnival—with corporate sponsorships, heritage plaques, and endless debates
about “representation”—fits their perspective perfectly. It lets them celebrate
“Black joy” while ignoring the displacement of Caribbean working-class
residents from Notting Hill, the gentrification that has transformed the
neighbourhood into one of London’s wealthiest areas, and the large police
presence that now dominates the event.
Their politics centre on accommodation. They celebrate
Carnival because it has been commercialised and lost its socialist roots. The
hidden truth is that Carnival originated as a working-class protest, founded by
a communist whose beliefs conflict with the pseudo-left’s focus on identity
politics and capitalism.
The Commodification of the Notting Hill Carnival
The commercialisation of Carnival has paralleled the
gentrification of Notting Hill and surrounding areas, which has become one of
London's priciest districts because of property speculation. The Caribbean
working class, originally responsible for organising the carnival, has
gradually been pushed out, while corporations and government bodies now try to
link themselves to its “heritage.” Although the heightened police presence at
the modern carnival is often viewed as a logistical issue, it masks the more profound
social inequalities and gentrification reshaping the community.
The Notting Hill Carnival originally symbolised
working-class Caribbean resistance against racist violence and government
hostility. Over the past forty years, it has gradually turned into a commercial
spectacle—marketed, policed, and monetised by the same institutions that
initially aimed to suppress it. What started as an act of political protest has
now been transformed into a “cultural asset,” losing its socialist roots and
becoming subordinate to the commercial and ideological interests of the British
government and corporations.
From resistance to revenue stream
Carnival originated from intense social conflicts such as
the 1958 racist riots, the killing of Kelso Cochrane, and ongoing harassment of
Caribbean workers by police and landlords. Claudia Jones’s indoor carnivals
served as acts of communal self-expression by a community under pressure. The
initial outdoor processions were casual, improvised, and openly rebellious
against authority.
Today, Carnival is regarded as a brand. Transport for
London, global alcohol firms, property developers, and local councils vie to
link themselves with its “heritage.” The event is marketed as a major tourist
draw, bringing in hundreds of millions of pounds to London’s economy.
Meanwhile, the Caribbean working class, who created Carnival, has been pushed
out of Notting Hill by rising rents and real estate speculation, even as their
cultural work is exploited for commercial gain. This shift is not accidental;
it mirrors the broader capitalist trend of appropriating, sanitising, and
transforming opposition-driven cultural forms into commodities.
Policing replaces politics
The modern Carnival is accompanied by an enormous police
operation—one of the largest in Europe—framed as a matter of “public safety.”
The same state that ignored racist violence in the 1950s now deploys thousands
of officers, surveillance drones, and crowd‑control infrastructure. Sensationalist
media coverage justifies the policing by treating Carnival as a security
problem rather than a political tradition rooted in struggle.
This intense policing serves
dual purposes: to keep Carnival within manageable boundaries, preventing it
from turning into a space for political activism or social upheaval; and to
support the idea that Caribbean communities need supervision, echoing the
racist reasoning behind initial conflicts. The commercialisation of Carnival is
inherently linked to its securitisation, both demonstrating the state’s effort
to depoliticise and dominate a cultural expression that originated as a form of
resistance.
Official “heritage” programs—such as plaques, exhibitions,
and curated histories—are central to this process. They highlight Carnival as a
symbol of diversity but obscure its political origins. Claudia Jones is recognised
as a cultural pioneer, rather than as a communist persecuted by the US
government. The racist violence that contributed to Carnival’s rise is
mentioned only in softened, depoliticised terms. Meanwhile, the systemic
exploitation of Caribbean labour, police involvement, and the links between
racism and capitalism are subtly omitted from the story. Ultimately, heritage
serves as a tool of ideological control: a way to showcase the imagery of past
struggles while downplaying their true meaning.
Notting Hill has undergone a dramatic transformation. The
area's working-class Caribbean community has gradually been pushed out due to
property speculation, luxury redevelopment, and rising rents. Carnival now
occurs in a neighbourhood increasingly disconnected from the community that
created it. Sixty years later, the official Carnival showcases how political
leaders portray historical struggles while minimising their true significance.
Claudia Jones’s genuine legacy—her Marxist beliefs, internationalist
perspective, and understanding that racism is linked to capitalism—remains too
controversial to be publicly acknowledged. While the carnival continues, most
modern celebrations prefer to forget the revolutionary ideals that once
inspired it.
Sources and Bibliography
Primary Sources
- West
Indian Gazette (1958–1964). Issues edited by Claudia Jones, including
coverage of the Notting Hill riots, Kelso Cochrane’s murder, and early
Carnival organising.
- Claudia
Jones, “An End to the Neglect of the Problems of the Negro Woman!” Political
Affairs, 1949.
- Claudia
Jones, speeches and correspondence (various), held in the Claudia Jones
Archive, Black Cultural Archives, Brixton.
- BBC
Television, Caribbean Carnival broadcast, January 1959.
- Home
Office papers on the Notting Hill riots (1958), National Archives, HO 376
series.
- Metropolitan
Police reports on the murder of Kelso Cochrane (1959), National Archives,
MEPO series.
Historical and Scholarly Works
- Carole
Boyce Davies, Left of Karl Marx: The Political Life of Black Communist
Claudia Jones (Duke University Press, 2008).
- Winston
James, Holding Aloft the Banner of Ethiopia: Caribbean Radicalism in
Early Twentieth‑Century America (Verso, 1998).
- Brian
Alleyne, Radicalism and Cultural Politics in the Notting Hill Carnival
(Mellen Press, 2003).
- Ruth
Glass, London: Aspects of Change (Centre for Urban Studies, 1964) —
foundational text on gentrification, including early analysis of Notting
Hill.
- Tariq
Modood, Multicultural Politics: Racism, Ethnicity and Muslims in
Britain (University of Minnesota Press, 2005) — for context on state
multiculturalism.
- Paul
Gilroy, There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack (Hutchinson, 1987) —
on race, nationalism, and cultural politics in Britain.
Political Analyses and Contemporary Reporting
- World
Socialist Web Site (WSWS):
“The
political legacy of Claudia Jones” (various articles)—coverage of the Windrush scandal, British racism, and
pseudo‑left identity politics.
- The
Guardian and The Observer archives on Notting Hill Carnival
(1966–present).
- The
Times and Evening Standard reporting on policing, sponsorship,
and gentrification of Carnival.
- Greater
London Authority (GLA) reports on Carnival funding, policing, and economic
impact (2000–2025).
- Transport
for London (TfL), “Carnival 60” heritage programme documentation (2026).
Works on the Pseudo‑Left and Identity Politics
- David
North, The Frankfurt School, Postmodernism and the Politics of the
Pseudo‑Left (Mehring Books, 2015).
- Alex
Lantier, “Identity Politics and the Pseudo‑Left” (WSWS, various).
- Eric
London, The CIA’s Role in the Promotion of Identity Politics (WSWS,
2021).
- Adolph
Reed Jr., “The Limits of Anti‑Racism” (Left Business Observer, 2000) —
critical of identity politics from a class perspective.
Urban and Social Context
- London
Borough of Kensington and Chelsea housing reports (1970–2025) —
documenting displacement and gentrification.
- Centre
for London, “The Changing Face of Notting Hill” (2018).
