Why we do not and should not call for a ban on the fascists by the representatives of the State

Alf Filer is speaking at next week’s Socialist Resistance forum in London, the details for which are in the corner. Here are his views on asking the State to stop fascists. In calling on the Home Secretary to ban the EDL march in Leeds, the anti-fascist movement is making a serious error. This will only…

Liam

October 29, 2009

2–3 minutes

Alf Filer is speaking at next week’s Socialist Resistance forum in London, the details for which are in the corner. Here are his views on asking the State to stop fascists.

In calling on the Home Secretary to ban the EDL march in Leeds, the anti-fascist movement is making a serious error. This will only come back to haunt our movement in the future and we will live to regret it.

The lessons of the struggles against fascism in the 30’s , at Lewisham, Harrow etc have shown the need to have confidence in the independent actions of the working class and their allies in confronting the fascists.

The nature of fascism is that it feeds off the crises in Capitalism to divide and disarm the working class in the various struggles for freedom, democracy and justice. It divides communities, reinforces sexism and spreads the evils of racism, homophobia and Islamaphobia today.

The State and its representatives have a direct interest in protecting the interests of Capital and at times drops the veneer of liberalism through repressive actions, which undermine our civil liberties. The recent reports on police monitoring of demonstrators is just the latest example.

To call on the Home Secretary to ban the EDL, means calling on the Home Secretary who is responsible for policing. The same Home Secretary, who is a member of the same Cabinet endorsing, “British jobs for British workers”, the slogan used by the fascists. The same Cabinet that is endorsing further infringements on our civil liberties and undermining the Muslim community, through the Prevent policing strategy . Do we believe that we can trust the forces of law and order to protect our communities from Nazi attacks? I think not. The only defence is self defence.

Others may call for such a ban, and we understand their sincere reasons for doing so. However, the police and Home Secretary have more than enough evidence to arrest the fascists for breaches of the various laws on incitement to riot, breaches of the peace, racist abuse, insulting behaviour etc etc. Has this happened? No.

In Harrow, a fascist gave a Nazi salute and gets a free ride out of the borough for his own safety. Why not arrested?. The destruction caused in Luton when fascists attacked local people and ran riot did not result in one arrest.

The mass movement against fascists and racists must not be demobilised by relying on State bans. The people of Harrow and elsewhere made it clear, “They shall not pass”, and nor did they. The Left must hold firm and remain confident in the willingness and ability of the people united to fight off the fascist threat. Do not compromise on the No Platform for Fascists. Only we can ban them by remaining strong and united.

69 responses to “Why we do not and should not call for a ban on the fascists by the representatives of the State”

entdinglichung

October 29, 2009 at 4:45 pm

very good posting … it is my experience, that it is generally easier to convince people not involved in radical left politics to confront fascists directly than to convince the same people of the necessity of a socialist program; unfortunately, many leftists think, that it is better to appeal to moderate aliies or the bourgeois state instead

LikeLike

Reply
prianikoff

October 29, 2009 at 5:38 pm

Alf’s got it right.

LikeLike

Reply
martin ohr

October 29, 2009 at 9:19 pm

anti-fascists in leeds haven’t called for the home secretary to ban the edl rally as far as I am aware, we call on anti-fascists to turn up and counter demonstrate

LikeLike

Reply
martin ohr

October 29, 2009 at 9:27 pm

sorry, I take all that back. I now notice that hope not hate, uaf and leedsuaf have made such a call. I naively assumed that because the various anti-fascist groups in leeds had chucked out this stupid idea it wouldn’t happen.

Alf is indeed correct in this part.

Also see our statement: http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2009/10/12/edl-mobilisation-manchester-should-sound-alarm

LikeLike

Reply
martin ohr

October 29, 2009 at 11:41 pm

in fact the police have enforced a ban, they’ve banned the feeder marches from our local communities

LikeLike

Reply
alf filer

October 30, 2009 at 4:54 pm

So now we know, if we did not know before. The police are determined to discourage young people, especially young muslims, from opposing the EDL in Leeds on Saturday.

City & Holbeck Divisional Commander, Chief Supt Mark Milsom is quoted as saying in the local paper.

“We expect there may be some disorder, given previous events elsewhere and have plans in place to deal with that. Because of the EDL focus on Islamic issues, members of the local Muslim communities, particularly younger people, might feel threatened and be tempted into attending.

“This would potentially play into the hands of both groups and I want to reinforce the message we have been taking to those communities. Don’t get drawn in, let the police handle the event, let people stage their protest then go on their way.”

Young Muslim youth, like all youth in Britain today, have every right to show their disgust at the racist and fascist messages put out by the EDL. Yet the police are actively preventing this.

So much for watering down the ” No Platform” position.
The mobilisation of the youth, especially the Muslim youth, is central to an effective anti-fascist struggle today. Do not let the State dictate who has the right to fight fascism.

LikeLike

Reply
alf filer

October 30, 2009 at 6:10 pm

can you take off my email
ta

LikeLike

Reply
andy newman

October 31, 2009 at 12:42 am

Sounds like very sound advice from the police in Leeds, ,people woul be well advised to follow it.

i think the mistake that Alf makes is in considering the situation in Harrow, where the EDL were seeking to protest at a mosque, with the situation of them havving a town centre rally as they are in leeds.

A pitched battel between Muslim youth and the hooligans of the EDL in the town centre is exectly what the EDL are trying to achieve – and would be a potential disaster for community rellations.

LikeLike

Reply
alf filer

October 31, 2009 at 6:10 am

Andy, the point that I am making is that only mass action of the organised labour movement, along with the youth, and wider social groups can defeat fascism.
No, individual acts of violence is not the way forward, nor are calls to rely on the State either.
There are debates to be had on the way forward for anti-fascism and how the movement does not just chase the EDL around the streets to let them dictate the events.
However community relations are affected badly if the EDL are not opposed. Community relations in Harrow were strengthened when people came together to actively oppose fascism.
There is a danger of the sense of defeatism and a lack of confidence in the community when we rely on the State.
I hope that this debate continues within the movement to draw the real lessons from both the past and present.

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

October 31, 2009 at 8:48 am

Historical analogies are not always helpful but I’ll risk one.

Someone I know who works in a local school, not noted for its radicalism, is doing a cross curricular project on Cable Street. The message that the kids are being given is that what happened there was a very good thing and that it was the right way to stop the fascists.

Even allowing for the changed circumstances part of the struggle against the fascists is that for control of the streets. As Alf points out, the way to do this is not small groups of leftists taking on the EDL or BNP but using the weight of communities and the labour movement to force them off the streets. A strategy of relying on the police to limit the fascists’ movements is accepting that they are neutral and does not politically prepare the anti-fascist movement for some inevitable struggles.

LikeLike

Reply
andy newman

October 31, 2009 at 12:14 pm

But whay not use the strength of the community to pressurise the local council, MPs and media, to get the police to ask for a ban under the ublic Order Act.

Or use the strength of the community to expose the essentialy hooligan non-political nature of the EDL?

Honestly, the best thing is NOT to give the EDl to hooligans an exciting day out fighting, and dodging the cops, which they enjoy.

Let them turn up in the town centre, be ignored, kettled by the police for four hours, and sent home bored and disillusioned by the futility of the whole exercise.

LikeLike

Reply
andy newman

October 31, 2009 at 12:21 pm

Liam

the analogy breaks down because the EDL and not the same type of phenomenon as the BUF.

they are not a political, facsist movement, they are a mob of hooligans relfecting media driven common sense islamophobia.

the closest we have seen to this phenomenon in the past in the Uk is the way that rangers hooligans turn out sometimes for loyalist parades in Glasgow.

The EDL are both much less political,and much more handy than past more genuinely facsist mobilisations.

Ironically, organising against them in the way that UA are doing is providing them witha political education of sorts, and runs the danger of hardening up their right wing politics, at the same time giving them the adrenelin bizz they crave from fighting, machismo and danger.

Honestly, it is necessary to understand that the EDL are not actually facsists, they are hooligans, and they shoudl be dalt with in the same way as any other large group of violent young men looking for trouble.

Our thrust should be to argue that they shodl not be dignified by the police with being trated like a political movement witha right to protest and demonstarte. they are a public order problem, and should be treated like potential criminals.

LikeLike

Reply
alf filer

October 31, 2009 at 1:55 pm

Police intimidate the anti-fascist movement and intimidate students and young Muslims from participating in anti-fascist demonstration. So much for neutrality of the police. Their approach is to ensure that fascists are given the same rights as anti-fascists.

This is from the BBC news today:

Hundreds of demonstrators have gathered in Leeds city centre amid a heavy police presence as a group stages a protest against Islamic extremism.

The English Defence League (EDL) rally in City Square is less than half a mile from a rival protest by Unite Against Fascism (UAF) in Victoria Gardens.

People arriving at nearby Leeds railway station are being searched by police.

Officers fear there could be disorder and urged young Muslims and students to avoid getting involved in any trouble.

A BBC reporter said about 500 people were in Victoria Gardens for the first event staged by UAF supporters about an hour before the EDL rally was due to begin.

Hundreds of police officers are on duty to act as a barrier between the rival protesters.

Police visited mosques in the city on Thursday to urge young people not to get drawn into any disorder.

West Yorkshire Police also sent an e-mail to students in Leeds which said: “Everyone is entitled to freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest, but people who take this too far and commit unlawful acts can expect to be positively dealt with by West Yorkshire Police.

“Being arrested and gaining a criminal conviction for violence or disorder is likely to have a significant impact on your studies, including potential disciplinary proceedings involving your university, and also affect your career prospects after completing your course.”

Dozens of people were arrested when trouble broke out at similar protests in Manchester earlier this month and in Birmingham in September.

“ Don’t get drawn in, let the police handle the event, let people stage their protest then go on their way ”
Ch Supt Mark Milsom
Ch Supt Mark Milsom, from West Yorkshire Police, said: “We have been involved in ongoing discussions with both groups about their respective events, our aim being to facilitate peaceful protests, with minimum disruption to the public.

“We expect there may be some disorder, given previous events elsewhere and have plans in place to deal with that.”

Mr Milson said because of the EDL focus on Islamic issues, members of local Muslim communities, particularly younger people, “might feel threatened and be tempted into attending”.

He said: “This would potentially play into the hands of both groups and I want to reinforce the message we have been taking to those communities.

“Don’t get drawn in, let the police handle the event, let people stage their protest then go on their way.”

Mr Milsom said the protests were away from the city’s main shopping areas and people coming in to Leeds to shop would be unaffected.

He said the majority of people at the demonstrations wanted them to be peaceful, but anyone who did become involved in disorder would be arrested.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/8335419.stm

Published: 2009/10/31 13:07:59 GMT

© BBC MMIX

LikeLike

Reply
Doug

October 31, 2009 at 5:49 pm

i can’t believe Andy Newman’s call for the police to use the Public Order Act as some sort of neutral legal means to deal with the EDL, as a kind of hooligan threat. This is a nonsense. Historical evidence bolsters a Marxist assessment of the role of the state when it comes to fascism and opposition to it. Naive people in the 30s thought the BUF threat could be neutralised by asking the state to use the law to stop them. What happened? The Public Order Act was brought it and, hey presto, more Leftists got the rough end of it than the fascists. This whole issue separates serious anti-fascists from the bankrupt and counterproductive UAF popular front approach – endorsed by Andy Newman and his ilk.

LikeLike

Reply
johng

October 31, 2009 at 6:28 pm

But Andy isn’t a supporter of the UAF strategy Doug and spends most of his time polemicising against it. In this case against the idea that there should be a counter-demonstration against the EDL. I’m still waiting to hear how it went, but my understanding is that there was a counter-demonstration by the UAF, and over at casuals united they seem quite pissed off. The police statement equates fascists with anti-fascists as has been pointed out and singles out students and muslims threatening them with the consequences of attending an anti-fascist demo. To refer to this neutrally as “good advice” is quite incredible. There may be differences amongst anti-fascists about state bans, but Andy’s position is something else entirely.

LikeLike

Reply
alf filer

November 1, 2009 at 7:42 am

When I and others, seperately raised the issue of maintaining the ” No Platform” position, it was not to initiate any sectarian debate or to question the integrity of other forces, including the UAF comrades, in the fight against the fascists.
The aim was to ensure any discussion does not remain the property of any one group but to widen out the debate.
The comrades in Leeds UAF and elsewhere, deserve our full solidarity in their struggle against the EDL. The UAF has played an important and key role in the mobilisations. The wider united front against fascism involves many forces in the organised labour movement and wider social, community and ethnic groups of all types.
The tactics to be adopted are to some extent influenced and determined by the forces on the ground at the time. Howvever, the principle remains one of mobilising the widest forces possible to deny the fascists a platform.
The issue of leadership, the type of leadership and the method best suited for building such a united front does require an ongoing debate within a democratic environment of the best traditions of the labour movement.
Thus I hope we can contribute to such a debate without it being misinterpreted by others. No one is questioning anyone else’s credentials or intentions in the struggle against fascism, nor should they. The issue remains that the united front against fascism is the property of all anti-fascists, and it is in all our interests to ensure it remains so. Hence the need for debate.
I hope now, in light of the lessons of Harrow, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, we can go forward together to build on the successes whilst addressing these issues openly and honestly.

LikeLike

Reply
johng

November 1, 2009 at 1:05 pm

I think the really consequential arguments are between those who argue in favour of demonstrations and those who argue against them. The main task is to win arguments about the neccessity of mobilising against the fascists when they march and arguing against those who say that demonstrating against fascists just gives them a platform. In other words its not the argument on the far left that matters. I notice that even on some anti-fa and anarchist sites which are quite hostile to the UAF way of doing things, it was conceeded that there was little alternative given the balence of forces. The plus side is that the fash national mobilisations are smaller then the lefts local mobilisations fairly consistantly. But there is still a huge argument to be won about the need to mobilise both in the trade union movement and socially. Its only in this context that more detailed arguments can have any purchase on reality.

LikeLike

Reply
jimp

November 1, 2009 at 4:24 pm

About 1500 anti-fascists turned up in Leeds yesterday, but the UAF were determined we should not confront the EDL. Instead we were to have a rally outside the library in the pig pen provided by the police.
A group lead by the youth organisation Revolution broke out, and got quite near but but were chased back by police with batons drawn. A group lead by Antifa did something similar.
UAF stewards were quite hostile to anyone critical of what UAF were doing. Chief steward Weyman Bennett asked me if, “Workers Power could stop talking shit”. I offered to discuss whether we were “talking shit” but he “didn’t have time for that”.

LikeLike

Reply
alf filer

November 1, 2009 at 4:24 pm

I agree totally with johng’s last comment. However the point I was making is that in calling for a ban it can act as a demobilising factor if comrades take the view that all we have to do is to rely on the police.

Whether people call for a ban or not, the concrete issue that makes a real difference is the extent of the mobilisation by anti-fascists.

We need to educate wider forces why there is a need to control the streets and so restrict the options available for fascists.

The recent video clips show how the EDL understand the importance of getting their people onto the streets to shout their racist abuse.

We need to ensure that no one is intimidated from coming out onto the streeets to counter the fascists.
One slogan used in Leeds by the anti-fascists was taken from the success in Harrow, ” whose streets, our streets”.

The police may have tried to discourage people and we have to ensure that in future, the number of trade unionists, students, youth groups and the wider community groups, plus Muslim youth, present on the streets are even larger in number.

On that we all agree, and this is surely the only way forward.

LikeLike

Reply
johng

November 1, 2009 at 5:35 pm

Yes on that we agree and thats important. The really scary thing is that the plus side of things (ie that we can mobilise more then they can oraganise nationally) is not static. The wider political arguments in the movement are absolutely vital. Now I can’t know (I was’nt there but I was there at Harrow. and what was great was the mobilisation of asian youths what was worrying was the sheer paucity of presence of the rest of the anti-fa left) exactly the in’s and out’s of what went on at Leeds. But it’s clear that we had more then they did, but that we did not have nearly ENOUGH more then they did. I’m quite happy for a debate about whether WP was ‘talking shit’ or not, but it really does’nt matter. Because if we had had 10,000 people there (its not bloody unreasonable given the stakes) this would have been an entirely different argument. Thats why I think the key argument is to engage with everyone on the left, and (hopefully) many beyond that we MUST demonstrate against these people. Those most hostile to the demo’s need to ask themselves: would they REALLY be happy if Nick Griffen on Question time had passed WITHOUT a demonstration. What would that say about Britain today? And all in all, when we are discussing these questions we should think in terms of these scales.

LikeLike

Reply
alf filer

November 1, 2009 at 7:10 pm

May I suggest to any other reader who feels that the “No Platform ” debate is uneccessary, or feel that we should take a more “liberal ” line on the issue, that they read this article on the 43 Group.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/jan/27/holocaust-memorial-day-43-group-public-event

Jewish ex service men and women confronted Mosley and the British Union of Fascists almost daily after the 2nd World War, for nearly 5 years. They had no worries about liberal niceties on how best to deny the fascists a platform. They were faced with even greater numbers in the East End at the time.

We too easily forget our own history and the lessons of the past. This is not about a romantic appeal to nostalgie but about realising the need for mass mobilisations. It is also about a belief in our ability to build a mass movement in a non sectarian manner.

LikeLike

Reply
alf filer

November 1, 2009 at 7:40 pm

One final comment is to suggest comrades read the article by D. Renton on the history of fighting fascism in Britain.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/mere_pseud_mag_ed/History/Renton1.htm

LikeLike

Reply
johng

November 2, 2009 at 2:04 am

scrolling does’nt work on the above alf..

LikeLike

Reply
martin ohr

November 3, 2009 at 8:31 am

There’s a set of reports and discussion of the UAF ‘strategy’ at http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2009/10/31/english-defence-league-rally-and-march-leeds-we-need-movement-stop-them#comment

Sadly the UAF stewarding prevented any counter-activity and the EDL we given a free hand to march through leeds. Stranger a lib-dem councillor to addressed the rally; it seems no-one is too right-wing or anti-working class to unite with. Shameful stuff.

LikeLike

Reply
entdinglichung

November 3, 2009 at 9:09 am

some good points: Filling The Vacuum by London AFA (1995)

LikeLike

Reply
alf filer

November 3, 2009 at 9:01 pm

I am very concerned that the discussion on the way forward for the anti-fascist movement does not get reduced down to a debate on who allegedly said what to whom re Leeds. Much of which is hear say.

I have no intention of commenting on personal statements made by others elsewhere. They are not helpful nor constructive.

There is a political debate to be had on issues of policies, how best to organise,on what basis the movement is built and the way forward.

We all have a duty to the wider movement to ensure honest and open debate occurrs in a comradely manner, respecting differences and devoid of personalities. There is too much that unites us and we can ill afford uneccessary divides.

LikeLike

Reply
Ger Francis

November 3, 2009 at 11:04 pm

Let me get this right. If the EDL announce, for example, they want to revisit Birmingham and say, plan to march to the mosque at the end of my street, or Central Mosque further down the road, you believe I should not make demands on the police to prohibit such a march. Even though it would obviously be designed to provoke race hatred and violence.

Instead, I should say to my neighbours, most of them Muslim and immigrants, forget making demands on the police that you and your family have a right to live in your neighbourhood free from fascist harassment, and don’t worry about whether your kids get involved in the inevitable confrontation with a bunch of racists, because ‘the only defence is self defence’.

This is the gist of your argument, yes? (Obviously supplemented with punchy Marxist explanations about the nature of the police under capitalism, the needs for rucks with fascists to build ‘confidence’, and more besides).

If this is your argument it is ultra-left, anarchist bollocks.

Socialists make demands on the state all the time. If it is legitimate for trade unionists to do so by calling for prohibitions in the employment of fascists in the state sector, it is certainly legitimate for minority communities who bear the brunt of fascist violence to do likewise.

Rather than your strategy ensuring anti-fascists would ‘remain strong and united’ I cannot think of anything more designed to result in political isolation and ridicule.

It is not just perfectly legitimate to place demands on the state about prohibiting racist marches, it is an essential part of the process anti-fascists have to go through in building the broadest opposition. Making such a call in no way prevents anti-fascists calling counter mobilizations. In fact, it strengths their legitimacy if they so do.

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

November 3, 2009 at 11:25 pm

Ger, you seem to be implying that what happened at Harrow Mosque was an ultra-left, anarchist nightmare. That’s a wee bit of a stretch.

It was actually a strong example of a community and the left dealing with the fascists in a suitable manner.

Defeating the far right

LikeLike

Reply
Ger Francis

November 3, 2009 at 11:34 pm

Rubbish Liam. I am not implying anything of the sort. Read again. This article is an attempt to make general arguments about how anti-fascists politically argue their case. My point is it that it is both ultra-left to say on principle socialists should never call on the state to ban racist marches and, more seriously, damaging to the anti-fascist movement.

LikeLike

Reply
alf filer

November 4, 2009 at 7:15 am

Dear all
If there is a call to ban the fascists , that is not the issue. During the mid 40’s, motions were put to Labour Party conference to ban the B.U.F. and rejected by Laski on legalist grounds and excuses in the defence of liberalistic arguements .
All I and others are saying is that what others call for is one thing, and if you read my original article, I said that they had sincere and I add, genuine reasons, in calling for such a ban.
We, as Marxists however identify that the State is not neutral on this issue . We point it out as part of the process of explaining and building the anti-fascist movement. At the same time we work alongside all anti-fascists within a united front. This position does not, nor should not, become a fetish preventing such unity.
At the same time we argue why and how it is in the best tradition and interest of the working class and wider society, to implement no platform.
We further recognise that no platform position can not be super imposed but must be patiently explained and argued for .
In Harrow, whilst some were suggesting we allow the buses through and not prevent the police from allowing the EDL to march, many took up the call, “whose streets, our streets.” The debate was not abstract, it happened on the streets during the struggle in action. It was not a sectarian debate, as the youth of Harrow and others, realised. Their answer was quite clear, the EDL were not to be allowed to march and insult the community.
This came from the strength of mass action and not individual acts. Nor was it a matter of turning backs on others but about winning the arguement.
Let us not get into putting up false positions . What unites us is anti-fascism. The debate is how best to build such a movement. The discussion on bans is ongoing. The campaign to defeat the fascists is essential.
It is ultra left if one substitutes themselves for mass class action, which was not the case in Harrow. How and when one can repeat this success depends on many objective and subjective factors.

LikeLike

Reply
Ger Francis

November 4, 2009 at 8:33 am

Compare:

‘In calling on the Home Secretary to ban the EDL march in Leeds, the anti-fascist movement is making a serious error. This will only come back to haunt our movement in the future and we will live to regret it.’

With:

‘This position [calling for bans] does not, nor should not, become a fetish preventing such unity.’

The former is an emphatic statement that anti-fascists should not make demands for bans on the state. The latter a statement that really, socialists should not get too worked up about the issue if it would be divisive.

Put under the slightest pressure in the abstract your position falls apart. In real life this would be even more the case because pursuing it would create a completely unnecessary line of division between anti-fascists and those they want to appeal to.

LikeLike

Reply
prianikoff

November 4, 2009 at 8:59 am

The trouble is that there’s absolutely no evidence that those who want to use the law to stop racist marches have ever mobilised sucessful demonstrations.

Almost without exception, the police have used such marches, to arrest, beat up and kill anyone who objects to the incitement of racial hatred.

i.e. the state is incapable of enforcing its own democratic laws, because its enforcers are corrupted and this corruption goes to the top.

In that respect, Alf’s position is neither “ultra-left”, nor “anarchist”. It’s in line with the experience of the mass anti-fascist movement in Britain since the 1930’s.

LikeLike

Reply
Ger Francis

November 4, 2009 at 10:44 am

More abstraction and false polarisation.

There is no contradiction between calling on the state to ban racist marches and at the same time calling for mobilizations against fascists. Indeed, one can strengthen the other.

But socialists who only argue the latter while ignoring the former leave themselves wide open to ridicule that they are only interested in violence and are happy to make cannon fodder of kids from black communities.

Most people where I live have an acute awareness about the experience of the riots Bradford in 2001 which resulted in nearly 300 arrests and over 600 years of jail sentences being handed down. The overwhelming bulk of those doing the jail time were Muslim. Not surprisingly, people today in the Muslim community are very nervous about any repetition and nervous about falling into provocations laid for them by fascists and agent provocateurs who want violence in order that it projects in the media an image of the Muslim and non-Muslim communities at war with each other.

These are legitimate concerns.

In order to address them, and build the broadest united anti-fascist opposition, people have to go through a process, and part of that process in the advent of fascist provocations is anti-fascists making demands on the state that people have a right to live in their neighborhoods free from fascist threat. To do so in no way means arguing the state is the only protector of that right or that communities don’t have the right to protect themselves.

Rather than build anti-fascist unity, ultra-left propaganda of the type in this article only undermines that task.

LikeLike

Reply
martin ohr

November 4, 2009 at 11:34 am

Ger, but the reality of anti-fascist activity is 1) that the police, council, home secretary etc do not ban marches by fascists- they ban our counter demostrations.

As happened in Leeds the police refused permission for the local feeder marches, but they took place in defiance of those bans.

2) by calling on the state to do something which we already know they cannot and will not do we risk sowing illusions that the answer to fascism is legalistic rather than self-organisation

3) calling for state bans in general raises the questions of giving police further powers, resources and kit to control our lives- they already have enough of that kind of thing

4) to avoid a repeat of Bradford or Harehills we should call for better organisation of the anti-fascist forces -not worse and certainly not under the control of the idiots in the SWP.

LikeLike

Reply
Ger Francis

November 4, 2009 at 11:59 am

It is not true that the state cannot ban racist marches. The EDL were banned in Luton. My substantive political point is that by refusing on principle to call on the state to implement such bans, and by arguing that the call for any such bans is somehow disastrous for the anti-fascist movement, you immediately sow serious and quite unnecessary division with some of those we want to build unity with.

By exhausting all pressure points while simultaneously building resistance in the advent of the police not implementing a ban, you avoid unnecessary splits and division and build a stronger anti-fascist movement.

LikeLike

Reply
martin ohr

November 4, 2009 at 1:37 pm

Ger,

I don’t understand who you refer to when you say this creates unnessary division. There is only one force that can defeat fascism and it’s not the police; moreover we don’t want to delegate the job of defeating fascism to the police. To call for something that you don’t want and that won’t happen seems to me the defition of a waste of energy.

That said I think there are times when tactically you might make a call on the state to do something just to prove that they will not/cannot- these are the exception rather than the rule though.

We need to engage positively with those who have illusions in police/state bans and explain why they are wrong- that does not preclude unity in action. Far from it- only by having such discussions out in the open can any real unity occur. Pretending to agree with things as the SWP do when they have their UAF hat is self-defeating.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

November 4, 2009 at 2:55 pm

Ger Francis;
“There is no contradiction between calling on the state to ban racist marches and at the same time calling for mobilizations against fascists. Indeed, one can strengthen the other.”

As was demonstrated in Birmingham. Not.
The reason that socialist/anti-fascists have previously opposed calling for state bans is because they have an analysis of the state – capitalist and racist – and an analysis of fascism – pro capitalist and racist.
Therefore they have traditionally understood that fascism cannot be defeated by the agency it seeks ultimately to support. In fact as the experience of the last few months has shown, the EDL would not have been able to meet and grow without considerable police protection.
What’s more socialists/anti fascists have an ideology of emancipation, which is based on self-emancipation, i.e. working class people liberating themselves from oppression.
That applies to the anti-fascist struggle too.
Ger Francis alternative, try and build a cross class non-political, multi party, establishment friendly alternative to persuade the police to stop being racist and authoritarian has been found wanting over the last months to say the least.
As is his follow up policy for when none of that works. Stay and home and ignore the problem.

LikeLike

Reply
alf filer

November 4, 2009 at 3:04 pm

I repeat,”In calling on the Home Secretary to ban the EDL march in Leeds, the anti-fascist movement is making a serious error.
In my view it is a waste of time and it will result in demobilising of anti-fascist forces. I hope that I am wrong but that is my view.
It does and should not prevent us working with those who call for a ban. It does not prevent us building a mass movement on the streets and in the working class and wider communities to prevent the fascists marching.
We must debate with those calling for a ban that ok you have called for a ban, now what? The issue is what e does one do? . There are those who call for a ban and support mass action. Then there are those who call for a ban and do not mobilise against the fascists.
The calling for a ban and dropping of the no platform position by some on the grounds of some “new reality” is defeatist.
The sectarian approach is to say I wont march on the streets and work with those who call for a ban. We must win the political arguement as well.
The SWP comrades in Harrow and elsewhere played an important role in building the UAF in Harrow. New debates may be opening up, fine, but lets have them in an open and comradely manner without throwing labels at each other. This will only set us back further. We need to go forward by respecting that we all come from a genuine anti-fascist viewpoint.

LikeLike

Reply
alf filer

November 4, 2009 at 3:08 pm

I repeat,”In calling on the Home Secretary to ban the EDL march in Leeds, the anti-fascist movement is making a serious error.
In my view it is a waste of time and it will result in demobilising of anti-fascist forces. I hope that I am wrong but that is my view.
It does not, and should not, prevent us working with those who call for a ban. It does not prevent us building a mass movement on the streets and in the working class and wider communities to prevent the fascists marching.
We must debate with those calling for a ban . OK, you have called for a ban, now what? The issue is what does one do next?
There are those who call for a ban and support mass action. Then there are those who call for a ban and do not mobilise against the fascists.
The calling for a ban and dropping of the no platform position by some on the grounds of some “new reality” is defeatist.
The sectarian approach is to say I wont march on the streets and work with those who call for a ban. We must win the political arguement as well.
The SWP comrades in Harrow and elsewhere played an important role in building the UAF in Harrow. New debates may be opening up, fine, but lets have them in an open and comradely manner without throwing labels at each other. This will only set us back further. We need to go forward by respecting the fact that we all come from a genuine anti-fascist viewpoint.

LikeLike

Reply
Ger Francis

November 4, 2009 at 4:25 pm

‘That said I think there are times when tactically you might make a call on the state to do something’

Exactly.

‘In my view it is a waste of time and it will result in demobilising of anti-fascist forces. I hope that I am wrong but that is my view.’

If all that is being posed is to just leave it to the police well then of course if will demobilise. That is not my argument and yours is a lazy response to the actual complexities of building confidence and unity around an effective anti-fascist strategy, especially in those communities bearing the brunt of fascist hate and only too aware of their own political isolation.

LikeLike

Reply
Dirty Red Bandana

November 4, 2009 at 4:52 pm

I agree with Ger here. Abstract positions do not explain what the precise intent of the fascist movement is at any one time. The EDL was formed out of problematic anti-troop demonstrations in Luton that allowed fascists to harness public anger and direct it into violence against Asians in the area.

With the election of two MEPs and the desire to consolidate electoral support (that really exists and so few of the people arguing this abstratc stuff go anywhere near the areas where it does exist), the EDL has been staging provocations to get large numbers of young Asians onto the streets and into battle against the police. Look at the target cities – the Oldham/Bradford scenario is clearly intended. Also, these were organized for city centres with initially small numbers of EDL.

The police, councils and Home Secretary know this yet claim that it is a ‘freedom of speech’ issue, not a question of provocation and incitement. Do we abstain from exposing this? No.

We place the demand that the provocation is removed and if the authorities will not act then they are responsible for the consequences.

Hammers in pockets, trying to break police lines to get as a demonstration that you barely outnumber and promising precisely the scenario that the EDL and BNP want (pitched battles with police where only Asians seem to get arrested and jailed) strikes me as hubris masquerading as strategy.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

November 4, 2009 at 5:27 pm

“Hammers in pockets, trying to break police lines to get as a demonstration that you barely outnumber and promising precisely the scenario that the EDL and BNP want (pitched battles with police where only Asians seem to get arrested and jailed) strikes me as hubris masquerading as strategy.”

It strikes me as cobblers masquerading as argument.
Why not address the actual arguments instead of your own made up ones?
And underhanded as well inasmuch as it implies that anti-fascists who support no platform aren’t prepared to put their money where their mouths are and only want to get “Asians” arrested or jailed.
And racist as well in as much as it implies that “Asians” don’t support no platform and aren’t prepared to implement it. Certainly not my experience in Leeds on Saturday.
Pretty low.

LikeLike

Reply
prianikoff

November 4, 2009 at 6:01 pm

Obviously, no one should be encouraging small minority actions leading to mass arrests.
It’s a question of building a mass united front.
But there’s little evidence that calling for state bans can be strengthen such a campaign.

The EDL in Luton were banned under Section 13 of the Public Order Act. This was a result of the Chief Constable feeling that the local force couldn’t police the event. So, the Luton ban would have almost certainly banned any anti-racist demonstration too.
This hardly strengthens any democratic demands!

The call by Birmingham City Councillors to ban the march there was ignored using the same criteria, but the reverse reason.
It would be interesting to see what happened if a local authority tried a legal injunction against one of these demonstrations on the basis of
” racially or religiously aggravated fear or provocation of violence” & “racially or religiously intentional harassment, alarm or distress”.

My guess is that it would be tied up in court for months on end and meanwhile, the march would go ahead!

Hansard reports the following question on October 26th

Mr. Grieve:

To ask the Solicitor-General how many prosecutions have been brought for the offence of incitement to religious hatred under Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986 as amended by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006; and how many convictions have resulted.

The Solicitor-General: To date one prosecution has been brought but has not concluded: a person has been charged and a trial date has yet to be fixed.

(It is thought that the single prosecution relates to a Lancashire BNP activist who distributed leaflets blaming Muslims for the heroin trade. His case was due to be heard at Preston Crown Court on 9 November)

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

November 4, 2009 at 6:10 pm

The EDL, BNP, NF and the rest share one feature: they attempt to use demonstrations and marches as platforms for racist attacks. It is entirely appropriate to say that we should not allow them to march. Is it right for people to have to put up with fascists marching through an are hurling racist abuse, “If you hate the P***, clap your hands!”, throwing bricks, attacking people? No. It is absolutely right to gather to prevent the racists from marching and we should spread this message far and wide.

It is right to assemble to prevent them from marching. Ger calls this ultra-left. I would like him to put this point to a meeting of hundreds of antiracists, including Asian, Black and white activists to see what reception his comment gets.

I have been in such meetings in Oldham and other places and most people would support demonstrating against the BNP or EDL and preventing them from marching. Some- perhaps a majority- support calling on the police to ban the BNP. However, we can see that even when the BNP or EDL is banned policing is used far more against the antifascists predominantly Asian youth. Does this mean they should allow free reign to the fascists? No. It means or should mean building a united movement to stop them.

If some want to call on the police to ban them – fine. I’d argue it is a serious tactical mistake and have done so. Did it mean a division in the antifascist movement? Did we refuse to march together or become demobilised? No. Not at all. It is possible to have differences of opinion and continue to work together. However, to not warn that the police may and indeed will use any ban in a racist manner would be dishonest.

Jason

LikeLike

Reply
prianikoff

November 4, 2009 at 6:21 pm

“Wednesday marks the 70th anniversary of the day that Jews, communists, trade unionists, Labour party members, Irish Catholic dockers and the people of the East End of London united in defiance of Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists and refused to let them march through their streets.
Shouting the Spanish civil war slogan “No pasaran” – “They shall not pass” – more than 300,000 people turned back an army of Blackshirts. Their victory over racism and anti-Semitism on Sunday October 4 1936 became known as the Battle of Cable Street and encapsulated the British fight against a fascism that was stomping across Europe.
Mosley planned to send columns of thousands of goose-stepping men throughout the impoverished East End dressed in uniforms that mimicked those of Hitler’s Nazis. His target was the large Jewish community.
The Jewish Board of Deputies advised Jews to stay away. The Jewish Chronicle warned: “Jews are urgently warned to keep away from the route of the Blackshirt march and from their meetings.
“Jews who, however innocently, become involved in any possible disorders will be actively helping anti-Semitism and Jew-baiting. Unless you want to help the Jew baiters, keep away.”
The Jews did not keep away. Professor Bill Fishman, now 89, who was 15 on the day, was at Gardner’s Corner in Aldgate, the entrance to the East End. “There was masses of marching people. Young people, old people, all shouting ‘No Pasaran’ and ‘One two three four five – we want Mosley, dead or alive’,” he said. “It was like a massive army gathering, coming from all the side streets. Mosley was supposed to arrive at lunchtime but the hours were passing and he hadn’t come. Between 3pm and 3.30 we could see a big army of Blackshirts marching towards the confluence of Commercial Road and Whitechapel Road.
“I pushed myself forward and because I was 6ft I could see Mosley. They were surrounded by an even greater army of police. There was to be this great advance of the police force to get the fascists through. Suddenly, the horses’ hooves were flying and the horses were falling down because the young kids were throwing marbles.”
Thousands of policemen were sandwiched between the Blackshirts and the anti-fascists. The latter were well organised and through a mole learned that the chief of police had told Mosley that his passage into the East End could be made through Cable Street.
“I heard this loudspeaker say ‘They are going to Cable Street’,” said Prof Fishman. “Suddenly a barricade was erected there and they put an old lorry in the middle of the road and old mattresses. The people up the top of the flats, mainly Irish Catholic women, were throwing rubbish on to the police. We were all side by side. I was moved to tears to see bearded Jews and Irish Catholic dockers standing up to stop Mosley. I shall never forget that as long as I live, how working-class people could get together to oppose the evil of racism.””

The Day the East End Said “No Pasaran’ to Blackshirts (30th September, 2006)

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

November 4, 2009 at 8:56 pm

Very apposite quote, prianikoff.
Article here http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2874

LikeLike

Reply
Ger Francis

November 4, 2009 at 10:35 pm

‘it is right to assemble to prevent them from marching. Ger calls this ultra-left.’

No Jason, I don’t. I call squadist posturing ultra-left. When I asked at the well attended UAF meeting after our last EDL visit how many of those doing the chest thumping about physical confrontation were actually among the 90 arrested the answer was ‘none’. And that includes the Workers Power (or whatever you call yourself) contingent.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

November 4, 2009 at 10:41 pm

Given that there is one member of Workers Power in Birmingham, that’s not really surprising now is it?
But to their credit at least they turned up.

LikeLike

Reply
Ger Francis

November 4, 2009 at 10:50 pm

And did the cheerleading while others did the fighting. No change there then.

A single member after decades of political practice in the city, eh? Prehaps you might want to reflect on that…

LikeLike

Reply
Dirty Red Bandana

November 5, 2009 at 12:53 am

Prianikoff – the placing of the demand is about turning the debate on ‘free speech’ on its head. These demonstrations are provocations so the authorities are being disingenuous in claiming that anti-fascists are out to deny that right.

In practice, there are a series of legal courses that can be used by the police and Home Secretary but they choose not to use them. This can be exposed.

The point is to change the parameters of the public debate in order to prevent the EDL and BNP strengthening their electoral base.

Bill J – Not sure what rattled your cage so much. Far be it for me to get in the way of your happy little hunting game. You may not have known but at all the recent EDL demos and counter mobilizations, Asian community and youth groups were preventing mobilization of young Asians with constant text messages forwarded around saying that this is a provocation and remember Oldham. I received numerous texts to this effect. Accusations of racism come cheaply, but not as cheap as texts.

I prefer masquerading as argument to masquerading as cobblers, mate! Cheer up, one day you may be able to pool your experience and construct a strategy.

LikeLike

Reply
alf filer

November 5, 2009 at 6:45 am

I feel that the consensus that is emerging here and elsewhere is the following:
1. The need for a united front. We need to build and broaden out the UAF.
2. The need for mass mobilisations to be built against fascist presence uniting wide sections of the communities and trade unionists.
3. A recognition that bans are used against the Left /anti-fascists more than they are against fascists.
4.The State is not neutral on this issue.
5.Those calling for a ban and also heavily involved in organising mass opposition are not the enemy,. The enemy is fascism.
6. Anti-fascism has to take up wider campaigns around racism,islamaphobia, homophobia,housing, jobs,the Peoples’ Charter , STW, etc etc, which is central to this.
7.We need to build the unity of the Left and agree how to provide an alternative voice for the dispossed, alienated and demoralised sections of society who feel let down by this New Labour Government and other parties.
Such a debate must be along principled and non sectarian lines. Personal attacks must also be excluded. The debate must be open and honest in order to build movement we so urgently need.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

November 5, 2009 at 8:46 am

“A single member after decades of political practice in the city, eh? Prehaps you might want to reflect on that…”

Indeed I have. That’s why I’m no longer a member.

@ Dirty Red. You’re right I was a bit OTT.

@ Alf I don’t think there is a consensus, but I basically agree with your summary. Although I’d also say we need an alternative non-UAF anti-fascist group.

LikeLike

Reply
Ger Francis

November 5, 2009 at 10:28 am

If bill want to fantasize about setting up some very pale ‘Red Front’ imitations, good luck to him.

As regards his smears about Birmingham, the fact is that after one anti-EDL mobilisation, at which Salma Yaqoob was the only elected political figure present, there was a backlash in which anti-fascists in the city were seriously on the defensive. Now, if you are happy with your head in the sand, this does not matter. But if you are serious about marginalising the appeal of fascists, this is very dangerous. Within a month that situation had been turned around exactly because, led by Salma, there was a more serious attempt to build the united multi-party, multi-faith response that bill looks down his nose own.

And in order to hold the ground gained that entailed some tactical calls. One was that UAF should not physically confront them on the EDL last visit. In the battle for the public’s hearts and minds we felt it was critical that the responsibility for the inevitable street disturbances that would accompany their visit would be placed at the EDL and no other organised force. That the public spotlight should shine on the EDL and the EDL alone.

On that specific occasion that strategy worked, although the more one-dimensional on the left came close to blowing it. In other circumstances other tactics would be required. The fact remains EDL said afterwards they were not coming back, not because they were afraid of trouble, they want trouble, but because they had lost the wider political battle.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

I am sure they will be back. But, as was evidenced by the discussion of policing in Tuesday’s city council, next time we are now in a much stronger political position to build unity. (Plus the climate is now more favorable to us. More is now known about the EDL, their ‘we’re not racist just anti Islamic extremist’ guff, which did have resonance, now has less because they have shown their true racist agenda).

But all of that work entailed patience and trying to take people with you. And making a principle out of not placing demands on the state fractures our side completely unnecessarily. Also, in my experience, it is not where the argument is at. Now, maybe this is not the case in other parts of the country, but during the Birmingham experience we would have welcomed a situation where there was a profound sense of outrage at the very prospect of the EDL even attempting to show their faces.

This was not the case.

Our main problem was not that people were harboring illusions in the state to stop the EDL from marching. Our main problem was that either too many people thought the EDL had a legitimate right to express their viewpoints, however noxious, and that the best thing anti-fascists could do is not challenge them at all. Or, that people thought any counter mobilization would fall into a trap waiting for the Muslim community which was designed to project a image of communal warfare in the city.

In both case the tactical advice offered in this article would have compounded our difficulties in building anti-fascist resistance, not alleviated them.

LikeLike

Reply
Ger Francis

November 5, 2009 at 10:34 am

Sorry, a bit rushed. Third para should read:

‘And in order to hold the ground gained that entailed some tactical calls. One was that UAF should not physically confront the EDL on their last visit. In the battle for the public’s hearts and minds we felt it was critical that the responsibility for the inevitable street disturbances that would accompany the EDL’s visit be placed at the EDL and no other organised force. That the public spotlight should shine on the EDL, and the EDL alone.’

LikeLike

Reply
Duncan Chapel

November 5, 2009 at 12:11 pm

There’s a great article by Alf Filer on anti-fascist strategy at http://socialistresistance.org/?p=716

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

November 5, 2009 at 4:47 pm

“Smears”, “looks down his nose”, this is typical Ger Francis speak. I haven’t smeared anyone. I’ve simply pointed out (and not just me) that neither himself or Salma Yaqoob attended the second EDL demo and what’s more they were against people going on the second EDL demo. They thought the EDL should be left without any organised opposition to them.
When the heat was on – they got out of the kitchen.
I think that was a terrible mistake and not a way to fight the fascists. But it was a natural indeed the inevitable consequence of their multi-party, pro police, respectable, anti-fascist strategy, that isn’t really an anti fascist strategy at all.

LikeLike

Reply
Ger Francis

November 5, 2009 at 5:18 pm

‘When the heat was on – they got out of the kitchen’

The heat was on full blast after the first demo, and the only person in the kitchen was Salma, who received well publicized death threats (with someone charged), for her role against the EDL, and has been subsequently targeted by them. And you question her courage. Good job Liam operates a moderation policy.

Go set up your new, super-revolutionary anti-fascist organization and let the rest of us see if actions match your rhetoric. But something tells me, its never going to happen.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

November 6, 2009 at 12:09 am

Ger writes “UAF should not physically confront the EDL on their last visit. In the battle for the public’s hearts and minds we felt it was critical that the responsibility for the inevitable street disturbances that would accompany the EDL’s visit be placed at the EDL and no other organised force. ”

The point is though that if we allow fascists to march, to congregate, to demonstrate, they will target people. When the BNP were active in Oldham in 2001 as people will know we saw Asian workers barracked in their cars, windows smashed by baseball bats, homes broken into, a house firebombed, and Asian people viciously attacked because of racism. Under such circumstances we should be for the right of organised self-defence and the wider labour movement offering full support and solidarity to black communities under attack.

This is not to say that under all and every circumstances that we advocate physical attacks against fascists. Not at all.

It is a defensive measure and one that is easily understood by most working class people, certainly in my experience, that if a gang of racists is marching in an area intent on physical attack and racist abuse that this is not acceptable and that it should be stopped by a mass show of solidarity to block their path and determined action to stop racist attacks. This is not ‘rhetorical’, ‘super-revolutionary’ or, sadly, even particularly ‘new’.

Nor is it to say that the main or only tactic is one of physical force. No,it isn’t. More important and crucial is a united campaign against cuts, against service attacks to show in practical terms that white, black, Asian and other workers are much stronger in unity than divided and to counter the despair on which fascism feeds.

However, offering basic support for self-defence is an essential prerequisite to building a united movement against fascism that can also offer positive solutions. This will not only mean rebuilding a united workers’ movement but within it a socialist alternative that can offer concrete practical solutions to workers’ problems: including what to do when confronted with a racist mob determined to burn you out of your house.

LikeLike

Reply
Ger Francis

November 6, 2009 at 2:16 am

You are taking a particular tactical call, relevant to a specific instance, making facile, emotive comparisons and inferring that I am opposed in all instances to anti-fascist mobilisations. Not true, and a poor method of argument.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

November 6, 2009 at 7:15 am

Ger has perhaps misread what I said.

I said, “This is not to say that under all and every circumstances that we advocate physical attacks against fascists. Not at all. ”

I make my points to show that in many cases fascists offer physical violence to Asian people, black people, immigrants etc.

All the insatances I quoted above from Oldham are real incidents. It is neither ’emotive’ nor ‘facile’.

I quoted Ger: I did not make an inference at all. Perhaps he can find suhc an ‘inference’ and point it out. I will be happy to answer any such misunderstanding but I think it is imagined in this instance.

I am arguing that the EDL present a physical threat. Taking on the arguments of racists politically by constructing a united workers’ alternative is essential but so is a mass defence based on mobilisation on the streets.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

November 6, 2009 at 8:54 am

For all Ger Francis’ fulminating he can’t change what he did.
We obviously have now way of knowing his subjective motivation. I have my own opinions about that, as I’m sure do others. But we can comment about what he did, the policy he supported, and the things he proposed. Namely, keep out of Birmingham City Centre and allow the EDL to march unopposed on their second demonstration.
He doesn’t oppose all anti-fascist mobilisations he says, but he did oppose the second demonstration against the EDL. That was a terrible mistake, but the inevitable consequence of his political method, the most visible failure of his non-class politics.

LikeLike

Reply
Ger Francis

November 6, 2009 at 10:20 am

Rather than being a ‘terrible mistake’, it was a critical tactical call in turning the tables on the EDL. You were not active here during that time, have no idea about the mood on the ground, and are therefore in no position to offer tactical advice one way or the other.

But good luck with your new ‘class based’ anti-fascist organisation in opposition to all the sell-outs. When is the launch date?

LikeLike

Reply
NollaigO

November 8, 2009 at 9:59 pm

No Socialist Resistance / old time IMGer is being frank about the ” No platform” policy without going back and honestly examining the Red Lion Square debacle in 1974 where one of their supporters got killed as IMG was trying to implement “No platform” – the NF meeting passed off without interruption.
“Bash the Fash” fills an emotional void for those who have found it hard to grow up over the last thirty years!
It is sustained by a misguided view of what the Cable Street battle achieved in the 1930s. In no way did it banish the Mosleyites from the East End as they held several marches and meetings in the immediate aftermath.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

November 9, 2009 at 2:54 pm

We are talking at cross purposes.
Abandoning the streets to the EDL was a terrible mistake from the point of view of anti-fascism, socialism and the working class.
I wasn’t there true, but then again neither were you. The difference is, I’m not politically active in Birmingham, you are.
Of course from another the point of view that of Liberal electoralism it was exactly the right thing to do. That’s why you support it, that’s why I don’t and that’s why we’re never going to agree.

LikeLike

Reply
prianikoff

November 9, 2009 at 6:07 pm

NollaigO writes:- “No Socialist Resistance / old time IMG’er is being frank about the ” No platform” policy without going back and honestly examining the Red Lion Square debacle in 1974”

It wasn’t the “No Platform” policy that caused the ‘debacle’ at Red Lion Square. It was the fact that there was no substantive organisation behind it.
Most of the 600 or so people demonstrating were mobilised as a result of Student Union motions.
i.e. it was a piece of adventurism, for which the Ross leadership rightly received a lot of flack.

They rapidly got cold feet and did a “U-Turn” on the whole question. Even attacking the IS for carrying placards saying that Kevin Gately had been murdered by the Police!

In fact, prior to RLS, the IS wasn’t even promoting “No Platform”. I recall a conversation in which Duncan Hallas told us we “shouldn’t be chasing after every march” the NF called.
But that position changed at Leicester, and later, the SWP and ANL was the main force behind the anti-NF campaign.

Without doubt there was mass support from the local communities for the demonstrations in Southall and Lewisham. Just as there was in Cable St in the 1930’s. (see above)

All of these events were the result of fascist “provocations” too.

All of the mass demonstrations against them, *including Cable Street*, were contrary to the Popular Front line of the Communist Party leadership.

Respect’s leadership echoes the same arguments today, as they do on many other issues. That’s what Socialist Resistance supporters should be questioning!

Cable St, Southall and Lewisham were VICTORIES.
The political lesson is that “No Platform” can only be enforced by a mass United Front with real roots in the area.

LikeLike

Reply
Robm

November 9, 2009 at 6:14 pm

“Respect’s leadership echoes the same arguments today, as they do on many other issues. That’s what Socialist Resistance supporters should be questioning!”

Which we do, of course. See our extensive propaganda in Birmingham- some of which is on the SR website. What we don’t do is issue ultimata to others in Respect we (attempt to) engage in a dialogue and patiently explain…

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

November 9, 2009 at 7:43 pm

Red Lion Square was before my time but the method was of a piece with the IMG’s ultra leftism. You can call it “substitionism”, “adventurism” or “squaddism” but small groups of leftists pretending they are replacing a mass mobilisation is obviously wrong. At its worst you end up like the latter days of AFA.

To reinforce Rob’s point, I said at the Convention of the Left that we disagreed with Salma’s support for a police ban. Respect has the democratic space to allow these discussions and we accept that not everyone approaches these issues from the standpoint of a revolutionary Marxist.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

November 9, 2009 at 8:54 pm

“The political lesson is that “No Platform” can only be enforced by a mass United Front with real roots in the area.”

I think that’s right: but it would be naive to think that it didn’t alos require special organising such as community defence patrols, spotters, people willing to be organised into direct physical defence because fascists do present a real and physical risk to black people and it is only right for the labour movement and the local community to lend its support to organised self-defence.

LikeLike

Reply
prianikoff

November 10, 2009 at 8:17 am

Good.
BTW. Just to reinforce that point about the CP and Cable Street.
Joe Jacobs “Out of the Ghetto” describes how the CP planned a rally in Trafalgar Sq on the day of the march.
2 local meetings were also planned on the same subject and the line was not to stop the fascists.
But the local Party members operated under the name of the ex-Servicemen’s Association>
Later on, in 1937, Jacobs was expelled for street fighting – a premature Squaddist!

By contrast, the role of the ILP is generally forgotten.
They actually took a much better line than the CP’s national leadership.
On Friday, October 2, an ILP meeting at Hackney Town Hall issued a call for “an overwhelming demonstration against the Fascist march”.

Subsequently, their press argued:-
“As in Spain, Fascism must be opposed not by appeals for the defence of Capitalist Democracy, but by a call to united working-class action for Workers’ Power and Socialism.”
The Trotskyist Red Flag, paper of the Marxist League, called upon militant workers to follow up their victory and “swing the entire organised working class movement into action. The effort of the Labour Party leaders to teach the workers reliance on the police must be exposed for what it really is – a policy which will secure the Fascists freedom to conduct their anti-Jewish, anti-working class propaganda, and engage in brutal attacks on workers in East London”. It went on to link the fight against fascism to bringing down the National Government and the struggle for workers’ power.
It’s also significant that Phil Piratin, an active participant in organising Cable St was one of the only 2 CP members elected as an MP in 1945

See:-
http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/History/Cable.html

LikeLike

Reply