Anti-fascism in the 21st Century
In Britain and Europe today, organised fascist groups have been
gaining strength and popularity on a scale unseen since the end of the
Second World War. A majority of European countries now have fascists
elected to government, they form a significant coalition in the European
Parliament, and their appeals to popular racism on issues like
immigration are easy fodder for mainstream politicians determined to
push the agenda even further to the right.
The important question, for any dedicated social activist, then, is how do we stop this?
The fascist agenda quite clearly runs contrary to the goals of
liberty, equality, community, and solidarity that are at the heart of
labour, socialist, and anti-capitalist organising. Thus, a strong
anti-fascist movement is vital to the class struggle and to grassroots
community activism.
The rising tide
The sheer scale of the rising tide of fascism across
Europe is startling. To give just a few examples, the Swiss People’s
Party (SVP) rose to power in Switzerland on the back of an openly-racist
“black sheep” anti-immigration campaign. In Greece, the police have
been openly collaborating with fascist paramilitary group Golden Dawn to
wage a war of terror against migrants and left-wing workers’ groups. In
Italy, the government has revived the Blackshirts as part of its
vicious pogrom against the Roma people. Both Germany and Russia are
experiencing an unprecedented level of neo-Nazi thuggery.
In Britain, traditionally the strongest bastion of anti-fascist
sentiment in Europe, the British National Party (BNP) have made leaps
and bounds in local council elections, as well as having their leader as
an MEP. Meanwhile, militant groups such as the English Defence League
(EDL) and Casuals United have taken over the mantle of street violence
that the BNP have at least officially abandoned.
The consequences of such a rise are apparent for all to see. Amnesty
International has pointed to a “growing trend of discrimination against
Roma people across Europe,” from recent attacks in South Belfast to
Government discrimination in Slovakia and fascist marches through Roma
areas in the Czech Republic. Every so often, anti-Semitic attacks and
vandalism will spike in France, among other places. And across the
continent/, attacks on Arabs and anti-Muslim sentiment have reached
fever pitch.
Faced with such consequences, it is clear how anti-fascists must
respond. What we need, quite simply, is solid organisation willing to
take the fight to the fascists on any ground that they choose. If they
have groups of thugs amassing on the streets, then we must be prepared
to take the streets back from them and stand up as a physical opposition
to their violence and intimidation. If they hold rallies and marches,
then we must drown them out with our own rallies and marches. If they
attempt to organise, then we must fight this by dispersing their
meetings and disrupting their calls to arms. If they hand out leaflets,
then we must oppose them with our own leafleting campaigns, combating
their lies and fear-mongering whilst making sure that their message of
hate does not spread. And, most importantly, we must be ready to combat
their ideas with our own.
Every piece of misinformation must be exposed by way of facts and
reason, and all their claims to “credibility” and “legitimacy” shown up
for what they truly are. This is particularly important at election
times as, though undoubtedly there are a myriad of problems with the
status quo, what the fascists represent is a thousand times worse.
For the most part, the above describes tactics that are already in
use by anti-fascist organisations. However, there are some serious flaws
that need to be addressed. For instance, whilst groups such as Antifa
are firmly rooted in grassroots, non-hierarchical structures, the bigger
anti-fascist groups such as Unite Against Fascism (UAF) are extremely
hierarchical, and the decisions at the top aren’t influenced by the
opinions of the supporters on the ground.
This, to my mind, is serious folly. What this means, in essence, is
that UAF are completely detached from the ordinary people whose lives
are affected by fascism every day. They hold rallies and protests where
the destination is set by upper-echelon planners after negotiations with
police, with no input at all from the bottom, and they release
statements to the press. As far as serious activism and organising goes,
however, their achievements are non-existent.
This kind of “anti-fascism,” then, is precisely of the kind that we
need to avoid. One cannot wave a placard whilst hemmed in by police,
shout out a few chants, and buy a copy of the Socialist Worker, and call
it activism. It is not. Quite simply, performing this kind of action
whilst remaining detached from the local community is not only
ineffective but counter productive.
Addressing the roots of fascism
Anybody can see the consequences of organised fascist activity and
know instantly how to respond to it. What makes a successful movement,
however, is also looking towards the roots of such sentiment and trying
to address that.
Fascism did not emerge one day from a vacuum and nor is it populated
solely by people who are simply irrational racists the world would be
better off without. No, a popular and growing fascist movement quite
clearly contains a significant number of quite ordinary working class
people who have for one reason or another thrown their lot in with the
far-right. Unless we want to bow to snobbery, we cannot simply write
this off as proof that the “lower classes” are all simply vile racists,
we must begin to address the concerns of these people.
Unfortunately, an awful lot of people who oppose fascism on an
intellectual level do move towards that conclusion, and fascists prey
upon that fact. So, when somebody says that we need immigrants because
“poor people are all lazy, ignorant, benefit-cheating scum” they are
able to use this to their advantage and appeal to yet more people. We
must reject this tactic and see it for the thinly-veiled class hatred
that it is.
What we need, instead, is education. At the core of any workable
organising effort is a group of dedicated activists doing their utmost
to educate people about the problems that need to be overcome, about the
importance of organising as a community and networking with similar
groups, about the realities that we’re faced with, and so on. This
involves going into schools, colleges, workplaces, and local communities
to find people willing to hear our message. We have to spread the word
on what fascism is, why it is a bad thing, how we oppose it, and what
the alternatives are.
This cannot be done through sloganeering, either. Whether the
audience is students, workers, or concerned local people, they are not
stupid, and they will not see your point of view by being patronised or
by having a slogan drilled into their heads. Fascists are gaining
support by playing on and twisting legitimate grievances, and the only
way to combat that is by addressing both the distortions and the
underlying worries openly and honestly.
To take a more common example, it is quite clear that immigrants are
not “stealing our jobs,” as fascists claim. However, what is happening
is that corporations are exploiting immigrants and turning the native
and foreign elements of the working class against each other in order to
maximise profit. We need to get this message out, and to show that the
solution isn’t to simply “kick them out.” A far more realistic and
viable way of combating this problem is to work with immigrants, to
bring them into trade union struggles, and to work together to fight the
real cause of our problems – corporate capitalism.
That’s just one example, but it’s quite clear that anti-fascism needs
to link into social activism: labour organisation, anti-capitalist
organisation, local health and social programs for those abandoned by
the government, education, and the like. In other words, engaging with
local communities on issues they’re concerned about.
Anti-fascists also have to be careful with how we campaign during
elections. In the first instance, we cannot overstate the importance of
voting. Voting is neither the prime nor the most effective way of
combating fascism. It has its uses, particularly when it can be used to
help keep the extreme right out of power, but it also has its limits.
For example, we cannot be seen simply as another arm of the campaign
for the ruling parties, as a lot of people are – quite justifiably –
disillusioned with them. To take the recent European Parliament
elections as a case in point, one of the main follies of the British
anti-fascist group Hope Not Hate was to involve Labour Party MPs,
including Prime Minister Gordon Brown, in what they were doing.
Particularly as one of the main ways in which the BNP won support was
by portraying themselves as the “alternative” to the Labour government,
this was a grave error. New Labour have, during the last decade,
continued the Conservative policies that entrenched private power and
annihilated the organised working class. Hence, utilising them for a
campaign will only serve to alienate ordinary people from the
anti-fascist cause.
What we need to be doing, instead, is countering the idea (put about
by the government as much as by the BNP) that fascism is radically
different from the incumbent ruling class. Rather, the likes of the BNP
merely represent a logical extreme of mainstream politics. It is the
government which has destroyed the labour movement, wedded private power
ever tighter to the state, waged a vicious war on migrants with
internment and forced deportations, and used race to turn the working
class in on itself. The role of the fascists on the fringes has been to
help push the government agenda even further rightward whilst providing a
convenient foil to mask this fact.
The folly of sloganeering
A common mistake of anti-fascist groups like is that they play into
this deliberate misconception through their use of sloganeering as a
campaign tool. As an example, take the favourite slogan of UAF; “the BNP
is a Nazi Party – smash the BNP.”
Undoubtedly, the sentiment expressed within the slogan is true. The
BNP are fascists, utilising extremely authoritarian nationalism to
promote a world order in which state and corporate power are absolute
and intertwined. Their manifesto includes a pledge to “restore our
economy and land to British [state] ownership” as a part of their “third
position” economics, which echo Mussolini’s statement in The Doctrine
of Fascism that “Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to
socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or
corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and
harmonised in the unity of the State.”
At the same time, the party goes beyond fascism to Nazism with their
ethno-nationalist ideology, opposing “miscegenation” (race-mixing) and a
“multi-racist” society in favour of the one composed of “the
overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed prior
to 1948,” as outlined in the party’s constitution. Even if this is
achieved by expulsion rather than extermination, as was Hitler’s
original intention, this amounts to nothing less than ethnic cleansing.
It is true, then, to declare that “the BNP are a Nazi party,” but
what exactly does chanting such a slogan achieve? In my own opinion, the
answer is nothing at all. Presented with the evidence, from the party’s
own constitution and policy statements, the public could very easily
conclude that the BNP are Nazis and fascists. But whilst the BNP are
framing their ideology in sophisticated polemics which address the
concerns and fears, if grossly distorted for doctrinal purposes, of
ordinary people, chanting “the BNP are Nazis” only serves to put people
off.
Parties such as the BNP are seen, falsely, as offering a radical
alternative to a mainstream political system that has annihilated
working class culture and marginalised great swathes of the population.
If all anti-fascists are doing is chanting and saying “no, they’re bad”
without offering our own grassroots alternative, then we will be seen
merely as cranks and we will get nowhere.
If we are to present a credible alternative to organised fascism for
ordinary people, it must also be an alternative to what is on offer in
the mainstream. Here we have to be extremely honest. People have to know
that there’s no quick fix to the problems that we all face if they’re
not to vote for fascists offering exactly that. They have to know that
the electoral system and reform have their limits, as history tells us.
If we take any successful progressive movement of the past, whether it
be civil rights, the suffragettes, the abolitionists, or anybody else,
then we can see this. They used votes and petitions and so forth, but
they also broke the law and were sent to jail for struggling. They used
sit-ins, occupations, blockades, strikes, and virtually every other
means at their disposal. Had they not, then we certainly wouldn’t enjoy
the freedoms that we do today. So, yes, there is a hard fight ahead, but
it can achieve real results and certainly offers greater promise than
voting for or supporting fascists.
Opportunity and danger
We have reached a point, right now, where people are disillusioned
with the status quo. They can see the effect that a culture of greed and
selfish pursuit of profit, fostered under the dominant
corporate-capitalist system, has on society.
Workers are losing their jobs so that their bosses can maintain
profits in the recession. Billions of pounds of public money have been
poured into keeping the banks afloat as they repossess homes at
unprecedented rates. Social atomisation brought on by corporate
dominance of the public sphere has led to spiralling crime rates and an
entire generation marginalised by the system.
Such
a situation offers both opportunity and danger to those struggling for
serious social change. A population this disaffected by the status quo
can go one of two ways, providing of course that a resurgent capitalist
class don’t quickly reassert control through the propaganda system.
Either they can be mobilised into mass popular movements that will
challenge the injustices we see all around us and make a real, positive
difference to the world that we live in, or they will turn to fascism.
At the moment, it is the latter course that is winning out. Instead
of seeing the chance to organise the entire working class and fight
against a system that has brought our society to its knees, they are
turning on immigrants and minority communities. Instead of creating a
real alternative to the disastrous policies offered up by a government
in thrall to private power, they are voting for parties that will
strengthen the ties between state and corporate power. Instead of
fighting the disastrous division of the working class along racial
lines, they are further withdrawing into their own, atomised racial
“community.” The people are choosing fascism over activism.
This is precisely why anti-fascism has to be tied to class struggle
and social activism to be truly effective. We have to make a serious
effort to mobilise the population in a positive way and show them that
there is a real alternative to the problems we currently face.
Otherwise, all we are doing is driving away one fringe group for the
benefit of a ruling class already enacting some of their worst policies.
Race and Class in the Anti-fascist Movement
A major criticism of the anti-fascist movement is that it is
dominated by white, middle class people. This demographic, and the
liberal, reformist perspective they offer, alienates those most affected
by organised fascist activity – ethnic minority groups and the white
working class. The result, so the argument goes, is an isolated,
single-issue movement adept at nothing more than ineffectually waving
placards.
I have written before about need for anti-fascism to have a radical,
working class perspective that addresses the roots of fascism with a
powerful economic argument. But where does race fit into this equation?
Fascism is a divisive movement. The aim is to split apart the working
class along any line possible – race, religion, nationality, etc – in
order gain influence and power. In order to most effectively fight that
division, we need a movement that is not just based in class struggle
but one which is as diverse as the working class itself.
There are several reasons why working class people of colour are put
off from engaging in anti-fascist activity. All of them need to be
addressed and challenged if that situation is to change.
A patronising anti-racism
Primary among those reasons is the sheer preponderance of white
people. Faced with scenes where, for example, an overwhelmingly white
crowd of students sang “we are black, white, Asian, and we’re Jews” at
a protest in Liverpool, non-white communities are more often perplexed than encouraged by such action.
Liberal anti-fascism, as with liberalism in general, proliferates a
patronising form of “anti-racism” and “inclusiveness” that seems to
demand subservience more than it does equality.
The image many people have of anti-fascism today is that of a movement largely dominated by white, middle-class students
As an example, look at the society that has emerged under the
dominance of liberals eager to promote “multiculturalism.” In a fascist
society, it is true, we would not see black rappers performing sellout
tours, gay people camping it up on television, or Muslims defending
their faith against criticism. But in this liberal society, we do not
see
black artists who rap about more than girls and guns, offering a radical critique of the dominant culture. We do not see
queers who reject camp culture and demand true equality over being treated as
amusing pets. We do not see
Muslims or Arabs resisting the authoritarianism and patriarchy forced upon them by their mullahs.
Liberalism, whatever its pretences, offers not acceptance and
equality, but a begrudging tolerance in hopeful exchange for silent
acquiescence. In place of integration and cooperation we have a
segregation of people into supposedly-homogenous “communities” where
unelected “community leaders” repay state handouts with votes. Liberal
“multicultualism,” then is a way to divide the working class whilst
claiming to promote “diversity.”
With liberal anti-fascism, the principle is roughly the same. By
offering a critique of fascist organisations that is not grounded in
class struggle but a defence of the status quo and this statist
principle of “multiculturalism.”
As such, the liberal anti-fascists offer a very patronising
anti-racism to non-white people. Instead of offering an economic
argument that tears down the false racial divides thrown up by the
far-right, they will turn them around against the white working class.
Instead of grassroots organisation across such artificial lines, they
recruit “community leaders,” whose job is to keep their particular
“ethnic community” in line in order to cement their own position, and
who often represent the same authoritarianism, misogyny, and homophobia
that is so loathsome in the far right.
This latter issue is particularly acute amongst the “traditional”
left at large, such as the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) and George
Galloway’s Respect coalition. As I have written
previously,
they have become apologists for the worst elements of Islam, taking on a
simplistic version of anti-imperialism which supports groups such as
Hamas or the clerical regime in Iran. As they are involved in liberal
anti-fascism as much as liberals, Unite Against Fascism (UAF) being an
SWP front, this approach coalesces with the “multiculturalist” one.
The result is a movement that promotes social equality whilst
ignoring economic equality. One that, with the mainstream trade unions
on board, speaks of the working class yet has the highest echelons of
established power amongst its
benefactors.
Class as a turn-off for ethnic minorities
In response to these criticisms, those they are aimed at will throw
the accusations right back. Talk of class war and socialism puts
immigrants and ethnic minorities off, they respond. In truth, this is
yet more patronising nonsense. Socialism and class struggle are hardly
white priorities, and to suggest otherwise is to suggest that a
different skin pigmentation equates to an entirely different set of
concerns and values.
In fact, as already discussed, such patronisation is more off-putting
than anything. But if class is in any way a factor in turning
non-whites away from anti-fascism, then it will be for the fact that
liberal anti-fascism is a predominantly middle-class movement.
Overwhelmingly, those blacks and Asians who do work with UAF, Hope
not Hate, or similar factions, are of a fairly privileged background.
Just as it does with white working class people, this turns black and
Asian workers away. It is facile to think that a one-dimensional race
argument will mobilise people who, on top of this, are facing the same
struggles as we do in being a part of the working class.
Removing class and economics from the anti-fascist argument reduces
it to a moral position which, as already covered, feels patronising more
than empowering.
Moreover, it is another sop to the far-right. In dropping all emphasis on social class, we become the opposite side of
their coin, defining people purely by the colour of their skin.
“Community Leaders”
Returning to what I said earlier about liberal multiculturalism, one
particularly notorious way of splitting anti-fascism into racial blocks
is to engage with often self-appointed “community leaders” as a
substitute for grassroots community organisation.
As already stated, the effect of this is to create and build upon
racial schisms in the working class under the guise of “diversity.”
Another consequence is that entire racial groups become defined by the
worst traits of their unelected “leader” or “spokesperson.”
As a more obvious example consider
Iqbal Sacranie, former leader of the
Muslim Council of Britain.
In January 2006, he denounced homosexuality as “not acceptable” and
called civil partnerships “harmful.” Because he was a “community
leader,” this was reported not as an individual with distasteful views
but as “
Muslim head says gays ‘harmful’.” Through his very status as “leader,” he had transposed this opinion onto every Muslim in Britain.
As “community leaders” are unelected and without an opposition
candidate, this leaves ordinary people even more voiceless than they are
under parliamentary “democracy,” unable to get their message out if
they disagree. This is somewhat troubling even with a well-meaning
spokesperson. When those who claim to speak for their race or religion
stand for the worst kind of authoritarianism and bigotry, it is
downright dangerous.
Often, anti-fascists walk a tightrope on racial issues. They risk
being caught between promoting racial segregation as apologists for
values utterly antithetical to their own, and tokenism, condescendingly
“allowing” blacks to take part in a “white” movement, as long as they
don’t upset the applecart.
The need for grassroots organisation
The only way to avoid falling into this trap is to draw the
antifascist movement back to the grassroots. To put it bluntly, a
genuinely diverse anti-fascism cannot emerge within a top-down structure
where opposition to racism must fit into a framework of established
power.
Combating racial segregation and hatred must mean utterly rejecting
the idea of homogenous “communities” and the “leaders” that come with
them. At the same time, however, it must recognise that victims of
racism (as victims of capitalism) are not helpless creatures requiring
rescue by the “right-on.” We cannot “allow” non-whites to be
anti-fascists or “invite” them to join us, as we have no monopoly on the
movement.
White, middle-class students are not black, Asian, or Jews. They are
white. Segregation is not diversity, even when you call it
multiculturalism. If white people can organise and resist without the
go-ahead from a “leader,” then so too can non-white people.
We must not only recognise that, but push against those trends. We
need open and honest dialogue about the flaws of the anti-fascist
movement as it is and how we might fix them. Most importantly, we must
return to the grassroots and ensure that people hear the argument
against fascism based upon class, not race.
If this does not happen, then anti-fascism will remain a white,
middle class movement ineffectually waving placards whilst cordoned off
from the fascists by the police.
On Violence and Censorship
Traditionally, antifascists have held to a philosophy of “no
platform” and “physical opposition” to the far-right. However, in recent
times, these stances have come under particular scrutiny and criticism.
Both the efficacy and the morality of “no platform” have come under
intense scrutiny, particularly from liberals, and many have been quick
to equate “physical opposition” with wanton violence.
One problem with the debate as it stands, however, is that it lacks
context. Particularly, the meaning of each phrase is not the same to all
those involved in the debate, even if on the same side of it.
In the previous articles of this series, I have offered a radical,
working class perspective on antifascism. Here, my aim is to apply that
perspective to the questions of “no platform” and “physical opposition.”
The militant tradition
It is important, at this point, to differentiate between militant
antifascism and liberal antifascism. The contrast between the two
currents is vital to understanding this issue.
Apart from tactics, which I shall come to, where militants and
liberals differ is on the perspective that they offer with regard to
fascism.
Liberal
antifascists from Unite Against fascism (UAF) march against the BNP's
Red, White and Blue (RWB) festival under police escort
The liberal stance is a moral one, seeing fascism as”extremism” and a
particularly virulent form of racism and bigotry. For example, Hope not
Hate
argue
that the British National Party (BNP) “remains firmly entrenched in the
principles of racial superiority and the banning of racial integration.”
Their aim, then, is to oppose the BNP for “the great British tradition
of tolerance, equality and compassion.” Every point against them is in
the context of race, with only the occasional usage of the word “Nazi”
pointing to any wider political criticism.
In contrast, militant group
Antifa make the following point;
It’s quite common for people to equate fascism with
racism and it’s often the case that fascist groups will use racist or
xenophobic rhetoric and propaganda in order to spread their message.
However it would be wrong to see fascism solely as a form of racism.
Traditionally fascist parties have used ethnic minorities as a
scapegoat for the problems created by capitalism. For instance the BNP
often point to migrant workers as being the cause for the degradation of
the NHS or the reason for the lack of decent social housing. Similarly
they blame migrant workers for “taking our jobs” instead of attacking
the employers who routinely pay derisory wages and treat workers like
disposable commodities. The reason fascist groups tend to attack ethnic
minorities and immigrants in this way are because they want to divide
the working class. By sowing the seeds of division, fragmentation and
suspicion in working class communities they undermine notions of
solidarity and cooperation thus strengthening the status quo and
perpetuating existing inequalities in society.
Racism and xenophobia are not the primary goals of fascism but are
rather part of their means for promoting the ascendancy of the nation
state. Fascism promotes the ideals of nationalism and patriotism in
opposition to internationalism and class solidarity. Fascism’s
glorification of the nation is really the veneration of the hierarchies
that exist within the nation. Fascist’s promoted the interests of ruling
elite above those of the majority and in the past has used all the
apparatus of the state to ensure that those hierarchies in society are
maintained and bolstered. In this context talk of supporting the
“indigenous people” is used to garner the support of the white working
and middle classes to undermine class unity between people of different
race or nationality.
Fascism should be opposed because it aims to crush all autonomy and
freedom in the name of creating a strong nation state; it curtails
freedom of expression, supports rigid hierarchies and most importantly
stands against the interests of every working class person regardless of
their race or nationality.
Moreover, liberal antifascists are particularly concerned with
“legality” and “legitimacy.” There is much hand wringing over this
matter, and constant attempts are made to prove that the BNP is not “
legitimate” or “
respectable.” To the contrary, Antifa
say
that they have “no interest in the legality or otherwise of the BNP.
Nor do we care whether the State permits or prohibits such fascist
groups.” No, their only interest is that “the working class have every
right to stand up to and act against fascist politics and sympathisers
in our communities and workplaces.”
For them, “the current Labour government have done more harm to
communities than the BNP could even hope to do at the moment.” As such,
“it’s no good telling people to vote for anybody but the BNP in order to
keep them out because invariably that means either voting for the
government or voting for another party who would implement the same sort
of policies that Labour has done.” Thus, “legitimacy” means nothing
when granted by those who are “undermining the welfare state and job
security while simultaneously pitting domestic workers against migrant
workers,” and have consequently “created a situation whereby the BNP are
seen as a radical opposition to the government.”
The two forms of “no platform”
In the context of these two competing perspectives, it is not surprising that “no platform” has two entirely different meanings.
For liberal antifascists, “there is a world of difference between
defending free speech and choosing to provide a platform for fascists.”
As such, they will actively oppose the right of fascist individuals and
groups to speak publicly, whether at a debate on freedom of speech
organised by the
Oxford Union, or on the BBC’s flagship current affairs show
Question Time.
The essential position, then, is censorship.
Hope not Hate
talks about the “good example” set when BNP candidates are “not
invited” to debates, or have their “invitation withdrawn” under public
pressure.
As critics point out, such a policy plays right into the hands of fascists. In
New Statesman, over a decade ago, Kenan Malik
argued
that “there has always been an ambiguity about policies which made an
offence of incitement to racial hatred, or which tried to deny a
platform for racists and fascists: the concern for greater equality and
freedom for black people sat uneasily with demands for restrictions on
free speech.” His question is “how can we establish the distinction
between truth and falsehood without open debate?” Those who would censor
fascists or other “extremists” are unwittingly “making it much more
difficult to answer [them].” His hope, then, is “that equality and free
speech are seen not as antagonistic claims, but as two necessary
elements of a freer society.”
On the now defunct
Far Left Watch, a right-wing blogger makes a similar point;
1) It is outrageously hypocritical.
NP is a concept introduced and enforced by people who have absolutely
no legal power or democratic mandate. Groups such as UAF and ‘Hope Not
Hate’ do not stand for election. Therefore, these people take it on
themselves to spit in the face of democracy and decide in their
pseudo-elitist, unelected groups as to whom the rest of the population
are permitted to hear and whom they are not. Needless to say, those whom
the world are forbidden to hear are those who disagree with far left
politics.
Such a policy is enforced physically on regular occasions. Can you
imagine anything more hypocritical than such actions from a group that
claims to oppose Fascism?
2) It is counterproductive.
Westerners are raised in a cultural and academic environment that
encourages critical thinking and questioning of authority. If I tell you
right now: “Don’t you dare read the rest of this text!” you will have
two reactions. One of them will be “Who the hell are you to tell me what
I can and can’t read?!” and the other would be “Wow! I wonder what it
is in this text that I can’t see! Must be good!”. You will become twice
as determined to read it.
So when the UAF and their ilk attempt to enforce their rules on
people, a sizeable number of them will have their curiosity tweaked and
will dislike the UAF.
3) It is unprogressive.
There was a time when it was sacrilege to believe that The Earth
orbited The Sun. There was a time when it was abominable to believe that
women should have the right to vote. If we allow self declared thought
police to control what sacred cows we can and can’t discuss, who is to
say that this will not be a serious liability to our development?
4) It creates hysteria, lies and corruption.
Last week I was in a “debate” with a UAF supporter (you know who you
are!) on Facebook who had requested (and been denied) that I was banned
from a certain group (or as he put it: “Can we adopt no platform?”). He
went on to say that “racial assaults have soared in Barking and Dagenham
where the BNP have seats. When the BNP get confident, they get
vicious.”
I immediately stepped in to show him a police report that
specifically showed racial assaults had dropped in the area. If this UAF
member had his way, his lies would have been allowed to spread because I
would have been banned.
And lies emanate far more frequently from political groups who have
no opposition to balance them. They believe in their own power, they
become arrogant and they become dishonest. There are examples of this
around the world.
5) It is unnecessary.
We already have the only restriction on free speech that is ever
required. It is called Common Law. Common Law is apolitical (in theory)
and has evolved over the hundreds of years that we Brits have striven
towards democracy. As such it is not designed from the whims of any self
important extremists, it is not so vulnerable to fashionable thought of
one short period and it is democratic. Common Law provides the
protection we need from those who would incite others to do us harm, or
violate our civil rights. Many people have died struggling for Common
Law to protect us all, and it should never be overruled by a mob.
I have, myself,
argued along such lines.
My own thought is that “if we are to try and censure that which is
hateful or offensive, then an obvious question arises: who is left to
decide what is hateful and offensive?” History tells us that the state
is more likely to censure genuine radicalism before it does the reaction
of movements such as fascism, and the primary victim would be the
ability to question established power.
What, then, is the militant version of “no platform?” Is it not
covered by the criticisms made above? It is not, because in fact groups
such as Antifa agree with the sentiments I have expressed. “None of us
have the power to stop fascists saying what they think, we cannot
legislate against their words no matter how vile we consider them to be
and neither would we want to be in a position to do so,” as they say on
their own website.
However, there is a distinction to be made between speech and organisation.
As the Workers’ Solidarity Movement declare in a
policy statement,
“we do not oppose the right of racists to free speech,” although
“racists should be actively challenged and opposed on all occasions. The
task is not to prevent racists from speaking but to defeat their
arguments by putting forward a strong alternative, and by challenging
the assumptions and myths on which racist arguments are based.” However,
“attempts by fascist groups to recruit members to fascism cannot be
tolerated” and “racist organisations/individuals who physically attack
people … do not have the right to organise, to recruit for such
activities.” Thus, “in such instances, force should be met with force.”
A
neo-Nazi in Moscow attacks gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, just
one example of the physical threat posed by organised fascism
Antifa agree. “If all Nick Griffin and his disciples were doing
was talking amongst themselves about repatriating migrant workers,
clamping down on those they saw as deviants and splitting communities
along lines of race then there wouldn’t be a serious problem.” But this
is not the case. “The reality is the BNP are organising to gain seats of
power and to implement their white nationalist policies,” and “this
attempt to gain power and influence must be challenged by all effective
means.”
This is the militant version of “no platform.”
Physical opposition or wanton violence?
There are those who argue that such a position is simply one of
violence and intimidation, more akin to fascism than to antifascism.
In the
Guardian
after last year’s Red, White and Blue Festival, Rick Lyons made the
case that Antifa “gifted the BNP a PR victory by allowing them to seem
the more law-abiding and reasonable group.” Their crime, as he puts it,
was “fighting with police, taking private property and scaring
residents.”
In fact, as Lyons himself admits, the group were actually partaking
in non-violent direct action by blocking the road “with objects from
farmyards.” Riot police subsequently used excessive force to remove them
“severely and quickly.” As I have discussed
previously, “direct action – in
all
its forms – is the precise reason that we enjoy the (limited) freedoms
we do today.” As with Antifa’s road blockade, the sit-ins of the Civil
Rights movement were met with police brutality. The only difference is
that Antifa, not being pacifists, physically defended themselves.
It was George Orwell who argued, in
Pacifism and the war,
that “Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist.” Though he was referring
specifically to World War II, there are points that modern antifascists
need to take into account;
As an ex-Indian civil servant, it always makes me shout
with laughter to hear, for instance, Gandhi named as an example of the
success of non-violence. As long as twenty years ago it was cynically
admitted in Anglo-Indian circles that Gandhi was very useful to the
British government. So he will be to the Japanese if they get there.
Despotic governments can stand ‘moral force’ till the cows come home;
what they fear is physical force.
This rebuttal can clearly apply to Lyons, who urges that Antifa “take
off their black bandannas and hoods, put down the missiles [?], and
join” the “moral force” of “Unite Against Fascism, Stop the BNP and
trade unions,” in their “well-attended march and rally.” But, if direct
action was “a complete failure” in this instance, what success can
waving a banner and shouting in an area designated by police – whilst
the BNP enjoy their festival utterly unperturbed – possibly achieve?
Lyons clearly intends to imply the accusation, which Orwell is
utterly scornful of, that “those who fight against Fascism go Fascist
themselves.” Far Left Watch made a similar point, as quoted above, with
regard to no platform being “physically enforced,” and the idea that
Antifa are “thugs” and “black-hooded goons” prevails, unsurprisingly, in
far-right circles as well as liberal and libertarian ones. But are the
accusations valid?
Antifa – as well as the affiliated
635 Group and the now-defunct
43 Group – follow a militant tradition which they trace back to the
Battle of Cable Street and the
Spanish Civil War. As explained above, they view physical resistance as a necessity in defence of the working class. However, according to their
founding statement,
“physical confrontation [when necessary] is only one of our tactics …,
we do not aim to fetishise it as one tactic above all others, nor will
we allow a hierarchy to develop based on the kudos of street-fighting.”
Of course, they also say that “those with a moral problem regarding this
issue should be advised that this is not the group for them,” but this
is pointed at those of a pacifist leaning rather than those who might
object to unprovoked attacks. Though they are unapologetic about their
tactic of “confronting fascism physically,” they are also unequivocal in
their intent only to use it “when it is necessary.”
Such necessity is more evident in Europe and Russia than in Britain, though perhaps only because the BNP tries (though often
failing) to keep a tight rein on the violence of members. At least when the press are around.
Ivan Khutorskoy aka Vanya-kostolom, a Russian antifascist shot dead on his own doorstep on Monday 16th November 2009
In Europe, however, there is a considerable list of Antifa activists
murdered by fascists. Far-right attacks in Germany reached a
record high in Germany in 2007, whilst gay rights activist Peter Tatchell witnessed first hand the
violence on offer from Russian neo-Nazis. Other examples, notably in
Greece and
Italy,
abound. America, too, sees considerable ultra-nationalist activity, from “skinhead” marches in
Philadelphia to incidences of
mass murder in Canada.
Antifa Belfast arose in response to a spate of
anti-Roma violence in Ireland.
The necessity of resistance
These few examples, then, demonstrate the necessity of physical
resistance to fascism, as enshrined in the militant “no platform”
policy. Organised fascist and racist groups pose a physical threat to
ethnic minorities, LBGTQ people, and, primarily, to the organised
working class. In the face of this, and given the documented complicity
of the state in such repressive violence, resistance organised at a
grassroots level is the only sensible option.
It is important, in organising such resistance, that we do not live
up to the criticisms directed at us. A movement built upon the
repression of freedoms and unprovoked violence is antithetical to the
interests of the working class, no matter who leads it, and we should
resist such a trend. Likewise, Searchlight’s complicity in Security
Services harrassment of left-wing activists is a warning of the dangers
inherent in an “antifascist” movement that collaborates with the state.
Criticisms such as those mentioned above will come our way no matter
what, and our perspective should be clear enough that we can challenge
them head on.
Against Collaboration with the State
In their
founding statement,
militant antifascist organisation Antifa say that they “will not work
with, accept information from, nor pass information to the magazine
Searchlight.”
On the other hand, liberal antifascist group Unite Against Fascism (UAF)’s
founding statement
argues that the threat of fascism “requires a strong and united
response from all those dedicated to freedom and democracy.” To this
end, they
seek “to unite the broadest possible spectrum of society to counter this threat.” Their
signatories include MPs from all political parties and trade union and religious leaders.
These two contrasting positions, then, demonstrate the divide between
liberals and radical militants as far as antifascism and the state are
concerned. Here, I will argue that the Antifa approach is the right one,
and that antifascists should be wary not only of working with the state
but also with others who collaborate with the state.
The state as antagonistic to the working class
Having already argued that antifascism needs to be rooted in working class activism in the original
Anti-fascism in the 21st century,
I won’t dwell on the subject here. Operating from that perspective,
however, the relationship between the state and fascism is worth noting.
In
Killing and dying for “the old lie”,
I stated that “it was in the context of [World War One] that millions
of workers rose up in revolt against social and economic oppression, and
the ruling classes fostered fascism as a way to crush this
revolutionary wave and divide the working class.” To the examples
offered in that article, we can add this observation on the modern
British National Party by the Anarchist Federation;
During the Great Miners’ strike, which was eventually
defeated by Thatcher’s government as well as by Scargill’s (the then
leader of the National Union of Mineworkers) incompetence, the BNP
actively worked against these working class heroes. Not only did the BNP
not support the strikes, but they actively called for the miners to
return to work and called on the Army to be used to break up pickets. A
former BNP parliamentary candidate in Yorkshire and a candidate in
Dewsbury in the 1990s, the Dowager Lady Jane Birdwood ran Self-Help, a
right wing pressure group dedicated to smashing unions and funded scabs
during the strike. She, among many others such as the late John Tyndall
who remained in the party up until his death only a few years ago, saw
the miners’ strike as a “Communist plot” to destroy Britain and even saw
Thatcher as being too weak towards the miners. For anyone who remembers
the great battles during the 1984-85 strike would remember how Thatcher
ruthlessly persecuted mining communities and trade unionists and
brought in London police and the Army to batter the miners into
submission, at the Battle of Orgreave, soldiers in police uniforms
herded miners into a field before charging at them on horseback, and to
the BNP, this was seen as being too soft. Jane Birdwood found support
from … guess who … mine owners, who actively worked with her and her
pressure group to undermine the strike.
My statement that “fascism was used by the powerful as a way of
fracturing class consciousness in favour of nationalism” remains true
today. This can be seen in contrasting state reactions to the likes of
the BNP and to class-based radical organisations.
Back in October, I wrote
Question Time’s service to established power,
discussing BNP leader Nick Griffin’s appearence on the BBC talk show.
My opinion was that Griffin was “invited on specifically to flail and
flop” and that “in doing so, he and the BNP serve well their role, both
as convenient foils for mainstream parties, and as part of the flak
machine driving the political agenda rightward.”
Searchlight
front campaign Hope Not Hate has openly worked with Prime Minister
Gordon Brown, a cynical attempt to con antiracists into backing a
viciously racist authoritarian party in order to prevent the encroach of
the viciously racist and authoritarian BNP
On the streets, the BNP has also been the recipient of strong police protection. When the party held a
march
in Liverpool last November, “police informed [antifascist] organisers
that the BNP had not shown up in Liverpool” before they “protect[ed] the
one hundred and fifty strong BNP contingent.” “Two lines of police
separated the two demonstrations” before “they managed to isolate those
who had been agitating for us to hold our ground, we were read a section
of the Public Order Act before being frog marched to where [UAF leader
Weymann] Bennett had obediently reassembled the demonstration (nearly a
kilometre from the fascists) and released.” “At this point the crowd
(now numbering around one hundred) had been completely hemmed in by the
police, whilst the BNP marched back across town and held a rally on the
steps of St. George’s Hall, declaring the they had “reclaimed the
streets of Liverpool.”" This is just one example.
Meanwhile, radical left activists are branded “
domestic extremists,” and their photographs and details
held on intelligence databases. Evidence has emerged of police covering up their badge numbers (and of the top brass
covering up this fact) before
brutalising protesters. In response to this, one activist has even been brutally manhandled and arrested for
asking for a policeman’s badge number.
The above is just a small sample of evidence that, in the words of
Antifa, “the State will employ fascist tactics if necessary in the cause
of suppressing dissent.
Betrayal of activists by state-sponsored “antifascists”
What, then, of antifascist organisations that work within the law and
collaborate with the powers-that-be, such as Searchlight? According to
Antifa;
As an organisation that works hand-in-glove with State
agencies, we cannot trust them or the agenda they pursue. Their
influence within, and manipulation of, militant anti-fascism has been
deeply divisive over the years, their methods and involvement with State
security services are well documented and entirely incompatible with
our own position.
The links between Searchlight’s publisher, Gerry Gable, and MI5 are well-known. The first article to expose them was
Searchlight and the State, originally published in Anarchy 36 in 1983. According to the article;
Searchlight has built up an impressive reputation for
investigative reporting, and has done pioneering work of genuine value
in exposing the activities and international links of fascist
organisations. But the political expediency of a perceived identity of
interest in the short-term, in the cause of ‘anti-fascism’ just as in
‘anti-communism’, is apt to lead one to work with some strange allies.
In Searchlight’s case, opposition to the ‘extremists’ of the Right has
opened up the door to the extremists of the centre, for whom Right and
Left are equally perceived as a threat to ‘democracy’.
Not only has Gable admitted, as part of his defence in the 1963/4
burglary trial, that he hoped to supply information to Special Branch on
David Irving, but a confidential memorandum written by him to his
producers in London Weekend Television (where he worked until recently
as a researcher/presenter on the London Programme: he is now trying to
work his ticket with an alleged ‘heart condition’) on 2 May 1977 gave
clear, hard, evidence that he has also engaged in a two-way traffic of
information with the security services of several countries, and acted
as a conduit of misinformation for MI5 against fellow journalists, and
socialists.
As an
appendix to
Bash the Fash: Anti-fascists recollections, 1984-1993 notes;
There are three main reasons why co-operating with the
police against the fascists is a bad idea (i) the police demand or
covertly obtain information about our side who they regard as a worse
enemy anyway (ii) the police agenda is against ‘extremists’ left and
right, which may account for Searchlight’s disgraceful smear campaign
against some fine anti-fascists in the DAM and Class War (iii) as some
hairy bloke once said “the emancipation of the working class is the task
of the working class alone” ie we can fight our own battles thank you
very much.
In 2005, Searchlight wrote their “
Letter of resignation to UAF.”
Citing “a difference of strategy with regards to our own local
campaigning and UAF’s national strategy,” Searchlight “resign[ed] our
two places on the [UAF] steering committee.”
However, this does not exempt UAF from such criticism. The problem
with UAF is that it attempts to walk in both worlds, committed to
legalism through a need to secure MP and trade union funding, whilst
trying to lure in more experienced antifascists by pretending to direct
action and militancy. An article on
Workers’ Liberty offers a pertinent recent example of this;
The UAF has no history of mass pickets of BNP events.
Politically, it subsists on “Uniting everyone against the Nazis” —
including government ministers and Tory politicians.
UAF has been successful in gathering up trade union support and
money. Whilst remaining — obviously, ostentatiously — an SWP front, UAF
has been endorsed and tolerated by union leaders as a convenient,
tokenistic gesture. UAF affliation neither disturbs the unions’
kowtowing to the government, nor risks pulling them into radical action
that might cause them embarrassment. The union bosses can continue to
pretend they were fighting fascism — by giving great amounts of money to
the UAF/SWP.
To spice up UAF a bit, on marches over the last few years, such as
the RWB in 2008 and the Stoke demonstration after that, the SWP has
engineeed fruitless minor confrontations with the police, usually miles
from the BNP. The simple purpose seems to be to make the protests a
little more exciting for possible SWP recruits who might attend, and to
disguise the fact that UAF had put little work in preparing a more
serious protest.
At this year’s RWB the SWP made a turn. They now seem to believe that
more radical action on the streets will help them to relate to “angry
youth”.
Sadly, rather than try to persuade UAF’s union sponsors that such
action could be justified for reasons other than aiding SWP recruitment,
the SWP has faced in two directions. At RWB they promised the local TUC
that there would be no direct action, but organised it anyway.
And, at a demonstration against the English Defence League in Leeds,
we saw how easily UAF commitment to legalism, as with Searchlight’s
commitment to connections in the security services, leads to the
betrayal of antifascists. To quote the
Anarchist Federation;
The Anarchist Federation condemns the group Unite Against
Fascism (UAF) who, on Saturday 31st October at a mobilisation against
the English Defence League (EDL) in Leeds city centre, openly handed one
of our members over to the police. Several UAF stewards, including the
head of UAF Leeds, physically prevented our member from rejoining the
cordon, and then called the police over to arrest him. We will not
tolerate collaboration with the state to halt the activity of genuine
anti-fascists and ask other progressive organisations to do the same.
UAF’s policy of negotiating with the state for its public protests is
well known, as is its alliance with religious leaders, trade union
bureaucrats and politicians. UAF, apart from being nothing more than a
front group for the Socialist Workers Party, has never been an effective
means to combat the rise of fascism in Britain nor does it offer
anything to working class communities.
According to
Antifa,
such betrayals stem from a desire to “retain control over anti-fascism
in Britain.” Their “reluctan[ce] to support a protest that they do not
control, and one organised with the involvement of other socialist
groups” demonstrates clearly that they “are so utterly enamoured with
the commercial business school approach to growth (market monopoly and
brand strength) that they are willing to sabotage genuine efforts to
confront the BNP.”
Police
in Liverpool during a BNP rally, where they were accused of aiding and
protecting the fascists whilst spreading disinformation to antifascists
The need for an antiauthoritarian antifascism
After the 1936
Spanish Revolution,
antifascists should have learned the folly of working with both the
state and those that cooperate with it. Those events should also have
cemented the moral of the
February Revolution in Russia in 1917, and it’s betrayal by Lenin’s “Vanguard” that
October.
Knowing that history, antifascism today should be very different. It
should be a non-hierarchical grassroots movement, based upon radical,
working-class opposition to the state and capitalism.
In the words of
Antifa;
[We] believe in organizing within our own communities
against the spread of racism stirred up by everyone from the mainstream
media to New Labour, and against the fascism of the BNP. Only by
organizing in our own communities and workplaces can we hope to defeat
fascism once and for all. In the white working-class areas where the BNP
have already gained a toe-hold (primarily former Labour strongholds
where people rightly feel betrayed by the mainstream parties and have
been conned into seeing the BNP as some form of ‘radical’ alternative),
as well as confronting the BNP physically, we should aim to challenge
the BNP’s fascist politics and replace them with our own anti-racist,
anti-state, and pro working-class politics.
The reasons why such a movement does not exist are complex. However,
they can be traced back to a steady dilution of class consciousness over
the last century, and the ability of parties such as the SWP to
dominate popular movements with recruiting fronts, thus robbing them of
all potency. In this context, it would have been more of a surprise if
the fascists were
not able to falsely take up the mantle of
class politics and offer themselves as a “radical opposition” to a
ruling class steadily chipping away at all our hard-won rights.
If we are to undo this damage, then there must be an open and honest
dialogue addressing precisely these follies. The case against state
collaboration must be made, and argued out, using reason and the lessons
of the past. But to attempt such is to be labelled “sectarian.” Of
course, we must be aware of the danger of this – turning in on ourselves
over ideology only makes the working class more vulnerable to attack by
fascists and the rich. But at the same time we cannot allow the threat
of such a label to end the debate and silence all dissent.
Today, antifascism is one of many areas of radical politics dominated
by marginally different sects of “socialist” Vanguards, using it as
another front to compete for numbers, funding, and paper sales. It is
they who are guilty of a cynical sectarianism, along with the betrayal
of genuine activists, in the pursuit of their own interests. In
opposition to this, we must stand with Antifa and declare that “we are
not asking for people to join us; we are not asking for your contact
details or for your money; we are simply asking for you to ACT.”
The Far-right and Elections
Elections offer a particular contradiction for antifascists. On the
one hand, we of course want to stop organised fascist movements from
gaining the political power to enact their policies. On the other hand,
as social activists often involved in other movements to challenge
pre-existing injustice, we do not wish to offer even an implicit support
for the status quo or the incumbent ruling class.
This contradiction raises two significant problems.
The first is that fascists are often able to capitalise on this
contradiction in order to present themselves as radicals. Their
propaganda effectively paints them as the only serious opposition to the
government, and the only group who really cares about the issues
affecting real people. By extension, antifascists are associated with
the incumbent parties and those same socio-economic ills, regardless of
the truth.
The second is that a looming election and questions of how to
approach it quickly bring on a schism in the antifascist movement,
particularly between socialists and anarchists. Not only does this the
fallout from such a tactical disagreement create disunity, it impedes
the ability of the left to make the political arguments against fascism.
As a result, the moral arguments of liberal and even conservative
“antifascists” take precedence, allowing a genuine campaign against the
far-right to be overtaken by more cynical campaigns to
appropriate their support for the centre-right.
If there is to be a serious, radical antifascist challenge to the
electoral ambitions of white nationalists, it is clear that this
contradiction, and the problems it creates must be overcome. The
question is, how?
The problem with voting
During last year’s European Parliamentary elections,
Hope not Hate made the case for voting;
Nothing is certain in politics and while the terrain is
certainly getting tougher the BNP can be defeated. However for this to
happen requires a massive campaign to mobilise everyone opposed to the
politics of hate to turn out and vote. We have shown time and again that
there is a huge anti-BNP vote out there and if it is organised and
motivated then it will turn up at the polling stations and be decisive
in an election.
There is a valid point within this. The prime aim of fascist parties
is to gain the political power with which they can enact their policies.
As such, by ensuring that those who vote do not vote for the far-right,
we keep them out of power. However, the logic of this idea is not
watertight.
A common anti-BNP electoral slogan, as offered by Unite Against Fascism
Most people who vote for the far-right are not themselves white
nationalists or fascists. They are, in the main, white members of the
working class who once voted for labour and socialist parties. As Johann
Hari
writes,
they are “not straightforwardly bigoted,” but “angry and alienated,”
with a vote for fascism being “the sharpest needle to jab into the
eye of the political process.”
Mainstream politics is the business of maintaining power and
privilege at a profit. Under the neo-liberal economic system which
dominates the globe, the vast majority of people live in abject poverty
for the benefit of the richest 1 – 5%. In the West, through trade union
militancy and outright rioting, the working class has been able to
resist this trend. Every important social advance that we have seen,
from the end of slavery and indentured servitude to women’s suffrage and
socialised medicine, has been a result of intense and often violent
struggle. However, since the 1980s, the ruling class has had some
success in rolling those gains back.
At the same time, neo-colonialism and globalisation have combined to
offer the world a hitherto unprecedented phenomenon in mass migration.
Met with an increasingly repressive system of controls aimed at dividing
people into citizens and non-citizens, legal and “illegal,” migrants
quickly became a near-inexhaustible source of cheap labour. Not only is
this invaluable for employers who wish to undermine hard-won rights and
undercut wages, it also makes for an invaluable propaganda tool. Thus,
immigrants become the guilty party in a system that they, too, are
victims of.
The only challenge to
the divisive myths about immigration
comes from a liberal press which offers no class perspective and an
open apologism for the status quo. As Hari writes, “instead of offering
these solutions, we have turned the white working class into a
national punch-line. We dismiss them as “chavs”, “pikeys” and
racists, and jeer at their clothes, voices and names.”
In this context, and with the left too riven by factionalism and
navel-gazing to offer any serious alternative, the far-right becomes
very attractive. As
Antifa note;
For decades the middle-class Left have told us ‘Vote
Labour Without Illusions’ – or some other trite slogan. Under Thatcher,
they told us we had to vote Labour ‘To get Maggie out’. What did that
get us? If anything it got us a government that was even further to the
Right. Since 1997 New Labour have continued to shit on the poor and
institute a vicious Police State. They have completely alienated
working-class people, pushed the political agenda immeasurably to the
Right, and fostered the rise of the fascist British National Party.
Ordinary people are understandably VERY pissed-off with politicians.
The BNP are hoping to capitalise on the current economic crisis by
scapegoating immigrants and asylum-seekers, and to capitalise on anger
against Westminster by mobilising a so-called ‘protest vote’ – ie a vote
for the fascist BNP. Meanwhile, the drips of ‘Unite Against Fascism’,
‘Hope Not Hate, the ‘Socialist Workers Party’, and all the other
middle-class idiots who told us to vote New Labour in the past, are
telling us not to ‘waste’ our votes! They know that working-class
communities are not going to vote Tory, do they really think that a vote
for New Labour is a vote AGAINST fascism?! This is the party that has
been bombing the shit out of Iraq and Afghanistan for years now, and
locking up and deporting refugees en masse.
It is this sort of patronising, condescending stupidity that has led
to the rise of the BNP in the first place. It is an insult to the
intelligence of ordinary people. Antifa are not calling on people to
vote Labour or ‘Respect’ to stop the BNP, we are calling on people to
boycott the whole election charade, and to get out onto the streets and
combat the rise of the BNP in the only way that matters – by Direct
Action.
We can understand the contempt people rightly have for the mainstream
political parties. We can understand why white working-class
communities feel abandoned and alienated. But a vote for the BNP is NOT a
so-called ‘protest vote’, it is a vote for FASCISM.
Don’t believe ANY of their lies.
Don’t play the politicians’ games.
Don’t vote – Organize!
Working class self-organisation
Although that latter sentiment should be one common to all
revolutionary left groups, it has now become associated almost
exclusively with anarchists. Within the trade unions and the
vast myriad of socialist parties that exist, a belief in the power of electoralism still prevails.
As such, a common approach is to attempt to unite all the various
sects under the banner of a broad electoral coalition. One example is
the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (
TUSC), which will be standing candidates in the forthcoming British general election;
With the coming ferocious attacks on public spending,
wages, living standards and workers’ rights, regardless of which party
(Tory or New Labour) forms the next government, the coalition aims to
bring home the urgent need for “mass resistance to the ruling class
offensive, and for an alternative programme of left-wing policies to
help inspire and direct such resistance”.
Here, again, theory and practice diverge. In reality, such coalitions achieve
little significant success,
and are defined by their differences more than their commonalities.
With TUSC, “different strategic views about the way forward for the left
in Britain, whether the Labour Party can be reclaimed by the labour
movement, or whether a new workers’ party needs to be established,” and
it already faces difficulties from “the lack of formal endorsement of
the coalition from even left-wing trade unions like the RMT, the POA,
the PCS or the Fire Brigades Union.”
But, without the ambitions towards power that drive such
factionalism, an electoral coalition could work. But it would have to be
one built not to win votes but to, using the pretext of the elections,
galvanise communities to organise themselves and take matters into their
own hands. Writing for
Truth, Reason & Liberty, I explained how community resistance can be far more effective than even the most “strategic” mark on a ballot paper;
All politicians are wankers, and all political parties
are conglomerates of worthless, power-hungry, often-reactionary
horseshit. But people have power in numbers.
Most people think of community participation as “neighbourhood watch”
and other such peeping-tom exercises. But it doesn’t have to be. It can
mean organisation, and resistance, for a better society. Whether it’s booting out Islamist / fascist rabble-rousers, stopping your council from closing a public footpath, resisting forced eviction and building up a squatters’ movement to make good use of derelict homes for the homeless, occupying a school so the council can’t close it down,
or any other act of defiance, we can build up a new society within the
shell of the old. With organisation, education, and activism, anything
is possible.
Antifascism, being the most significant area within which otherwise
quite disparate left-groups work together, offers the best basis for
such an initiative. Not only can antifascists work within their own
communities with an aim to educate people and organise them against the
threat of the far-right, but they can offer the disenfranchised a way to
work towards genuine change without having to choose a lesser evil.
A
European Election poster for the British National Party. The BNP's
awareness of voter discontent with the main parties is one reason why
urging people not to vote for them often appears as a tacit support for
the status quo
A clear and honest perspective
In writing this series of articles, my purpose has been to give a
clear and honest perspective on antifascism, both as it stands today and
where it is going in the future.
Too often, those who make such points are leapt upon as “sectarian”
and silenced. Such a tactic is particularly endemic within Unite Against
Fascism (UAF), being a front group for the Socialist Workers’ Party
(SWP). But such suppression of dissent is both off-putting to new
antifascists and actively counter-productive. It speaks of an
authoritarian movement unwilling to tolerate differences of opinion, not
of a movement which is supposedly
opposed to groups with such tendencies.
There is a need for openness and honesty. There are serious flaws
with the antifascist movement, and it is not just antifascists who are
aware of them. As such, attempting to brush them under the carpet will
only make us more isolated. Addressing these flaws directly, in a
democratic way among equals, will win far more respect than a figure of
“authority” shouting down “sectarianism.” Especially as, in their
attempts to
monopolise resistance, such authorities are in fact far more
sectarian than any of their detractors.
The course ahead
It is, of course, unlikely that those for whom antifascism is a
recruitment platform will see the error of their ways. Likewise, those
who wish to use bashing the BNP as a way to pull in support for the
status quo will continue to do so.
However, by being open about what we want, the difficulties we face,
and the differences of opinion among us, genuine antifascists can offer
an antithesis to such stale and cynical campaigning. With democratic and
non-hierarchical organisation, we can show other sincere activists that
they need not be fooled by their so-called “leaders.” And, through
activism and engagement at a grassroots level, we can spread the word
that people need not vote for fascists to oppose the current system.
¡No Pasarán!
Phil Dickens is an anarchist, anti-fascist, and trade unionist from
Liverpool, England. He writes regularly about class struggle, racism,
fascism, and imperialism, and his blogs can be found at http://truth-reason-liberty.blogspot.com and http://propertyistheft.wordpress.com
