Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Beating the Fascists: The authorised history of Anti-Fascist Action

Joe Reilly said:
I would have thought the chronology was pretty well covered in BTF?

The pivot was of course the 'no more marches, meetings punch ups ' decalaration by Tony Lecomber in March 1994. With the NF,B&H and C18 having to all intents and purposes well and truly mullered in the preceding years the white flag from the BNP indicated we were entering a new era.
From that very moment the life blood began to drain out of physical force anti-fascism. There were still major clashes in 1996 with C18 in Holborn and in January 1997 a large mobilisation in pursuit of the NF in Islington, and a clash at count in Glasgow in the same year, but in truth it was more than a little after the Lord Mayor's show.

That nearly two decades on this key moment is still a matter of faux controversy/or ignored is a tribute to the the unflagging pursuit of falsehood and make believe by groups with whose interests lie in establishing a very different narrative that translates victory on the streets into defeat and condemns the individuals who did more than most to deliver the victory into 'cowards who betrayed the anti-fascist movement'.

Far from fleeing the struggle as myth has it, RA were the last ones left, responsible from producing FT and sometime daily updates of the AFA site, until finally turning off the lights in 2001, long after everyone else had left.
Click to expand...

Dearie me Joe. There is always a danger in thinking ones own personal "take" on history is the only possible one. Also a great danger in thinking that a book one specifically produced to put forward this particular "take" is therefore an unimpeachable source of "fact". I assume Malatesta has been trying to assess and balance up the widely differing interpretations of what happened during the last few years of AFA's life, for his book. It aint going to be easy to reach a definitive assessment - because other writers in other books simply disagree with you, based on their own personal experience. Your defence of RA's behaviour towards AFA in its last years is essentially that "victory could be declared over (BNP) street fascism by 1994/1995", AND that by then there was no AFA "United Front" , because only RA was left. Therefore RA was justified in working to channel the previously single issue united front AFA into the completely different IWCA multi-issue political party project.

Sadly for your claims that aint how others saw it. Obvously you dismiss Dave Hann's take on the acrimonious break up period in No Retreat. though it seems to me a well balanced and believable account (pages 226 to 271), AND he even specifically buys into much of the "Filling the vacuum" strategy. He along with a lot of other RA -aligned, and most importantly anarchist-aligned members across the AFA network did not think that the move into electoralism by the BNP meant that the threat of street fascism from other grouplets had gone away such as to justify winding up the AFA network. As Hann says ( p.267) "AFA groups were for the first time being asked to accept a political programme based on the political philosophy of one particular organisation within it (AFA) .. I feared that .. would lead to splits and the eventual breakup, or neutering , of AFA..."

OK, let's move to the excellent new oral history book produced by LP from Hann's interviews of a stream of anti fascist activists in "Physical Resistance". The recollections of anarchist members of AFA in its final breakup years could not be more different from the BtF account, Anarchist anti-fascist militants likle John Severn and Ciaran Lynch recount the disruptive impact on the AFA Network's work of RA's determination to call a final end to anti fascist activity in favour of the very particular, non-socialist politics of the IWCA. It is quite clear from their accounts (can't give you the precise page numbers I'm afraid , as its on my Kindle) that there were still loads of non-RA, specifically anarchist activists working in AFA at that time - keen to carry on anti-fascist work against THE STILL CONTINUING sporadic street fascism outbreaks from the fascist grouplets still active on the BNP's Right. If there was no street fascist activity left once RA declared "final victory" and dissolved inself into (non-socialist) localist electoral politics, the many accounts of battles with fascist grouplets all over the UK , in the years following AFA's wind up are hard to account for. In fact of course the collapse/wind up of AFA was followed by the now mainly anarchist direct action anti fascist activists having to set up NEW anti fascist organisations in the years following AFA - specifically "No Platform" and then "Antifa". As Ciaran Lynch describes " We existed as a group called No Platform for several years and though largely anarchist based we worked with Socialist Party members on a regular basis. the groups or areas involved were from London, Leeds, Essex, Brighton, Nottingham, Bristol,and Bradford... " And so it goes on, proof positive that whereas the ex-RA members might have declared the anti-fascist street battle definitively won by 1995 - in fact this battle NEVER goeswaway for long. Nowadays Joe and co always simply write off any re-emergeance of street fascism as laughable or irrelevant. Real life however has now fully disproved this key element of their "filling the vacuum" prognosis. It has been left to a variety of reformist united front campaigns(HnH, UAR) and physical force anti fascism inside and around and beyond these , mainly by young anarchists, in the years after "victory was declared" , to counter the serious threat tht these periodic upsurges of street fascism has posed to the ethnic minority communities in which they carry out the provocations. Nowadays Joe and co have nothing to contribute to this important anti-fascist work.

Joe has attacked other versions of the history of the break-up of AFA - as essentially simply lies. I think any independent person looking at the various accounts, and at the complete failure of the IWCA in the years since to participate in any united front anti fascist work, will view with considrable suspicion the veracity of the account put out by Joe and co on that particular period of anti fascist history.
 
ayatollah said:
Dearie me Joe. There is always a danger in thinking ones own personal "take" on history is the only possible one. Also a great danger in thinking that a book one specifically produced to put forward this particular "take" is therefore an unimpeachable source of "fact". I assume Malatesta has been trying to assess and balance up the widely differing interpretations of what happened during the last few years of AFA's life, for his book. It aint going to be easy to reach a definitive assessment - because other writers in other books simply disagree with you, based on their own personal experience. Your defence of RA's behaviour towards AFA in its last years is essentially that "victory could be declared over (BNP) street fascism by 1994/1995", AND that by then there was no AFA "United Front" , because only RA was left. Therefore RA was justified in working to channel the previously single issue united front AFA into the completely different IWCA multi-issue political party project.

Sadly for your claims that aint how others saw it. Obvously you dismiss Dave Hann's take on the acrimonious break up period in No Retreat. though it seems to me a well balanced and believable account (pages 226 to 271), AND he even specifically buys into much of the "Filling the vacuum" strategy. He along with a lot of other RA -aligned, and most importantly anarchist-aligned members across the AFA network did not think that the move into electoralism by the BNP meant that the threat of street fascism from other grouplets had gone away such as to justify winding up the AFA network. As Hann says ( p.267) "AFA groups were for the first time being asked to accept a political programme based on the political philosophy of one particular organisation within it (AFA) .. I feared that .. would lead to splits and the eventual breakup, or neutering , of AFA..."

OK, let's move to the excellent new oral history book produced by LP from Hann's interviews of a stream of anti fascist activists in "Physical Resistance". The recollections of anarchist members of AFA in its final breakup years could not be more different from the BtF account, Anarchist anti-fascist militants likle John Severn and Ciaran Lynch recount the disruptive impact on the AFA Network's work of RA's determination to call a final end to anti fascist activity in favour of the very particular, non-socialist politics of the IWCA. It is quite clear from their accounts (can't give you the precise page numbers I'm afraid , as its on my Kindle) that there were still loads of non-RA, specifically anarchist activists working in AFA at that time - keen to carry on anti-fascist work against THE STILL CONTINUING sporadic street fascism outbreaks from the fascist grouplets still active on the BNP's Right. If there was no street fascist activity left once RA declared "final victory" and dissolved inself into (non-socialist) localist electoral politics, the many accounts of battles with fascist grouplets all over the UK , in the years following AFA's wind up are hard to account for. In fact of course the collapse/wind up of AFA was followed by the now mainly anarchist direct action anti fascist activists having to set up NEW anti fascist organisations in the years following AFA - specifically "No Platform" and then "Antifa". As Ciaran Lynch describes " We existed as a group called No Platform for several years and though largely anarchist based we worked with Socialist Party members on a regular basis. the groups or areas involved were from London, Leeds, Essex, Brighton, Nottingham, Bristol,and Bradford... " And so it goes on, proof positive that whereas the ex-RA members might have declared the anti-fascist street battle definitively won by 1995 - in fact this battle NEVER goeswaway for long. Nowadays Joe and co always simply write off any re-emergeance of street fascism as laughable or irrelevant. Real life however has now fully disproved this key element of their "filling the vacuum" prognosis. It has been left to a variety of reformist united front campaigns(HnH, UAR) and physical force anti fascism inside and around and beyond these , mainly by young anarchists, in the years after "victory was declared" , to counter the serious threat tht these periodic upsurges of street fascism has posed to the ethnic minority communities in which they carry out the provocations. Nowadays Joe and co have nothing to contribute to this important anti-fascist work.

Joe has attacked other versions of the history of the break-up of AFA - as essentially simply lies. I think any independent person looking at the various accounts, and at the complete failure of the IWCA in the years since to participate in any united front anti fascist work, will view with considrable suspicion the veracity of the account put out by Joe and co on that particular period of anti fascist history.
Click to expand...

The opinions that matter most are those who were around AFA during the period that Joe describes. You weren't, but you seem determined to put your own spin on a period of AFA activity that you played no part in. If you took any real notice of what others here post, you would note that I say nothing on those periods of AFA history when I was not active and played no part in anti-fascist organisations, I let those who were active do the talking. (i.e pre-1989... it was around then that a group of us in Scotland became active 'freelancers' against the fash and about a year later joined up with RA and AFA)

You, on the other hand, will continue to talk shite even though you were no longer involved in AFA and have absolutely no insight into the period that you opine about. Try sticking to your own period of activity, at least you have something of value to offer there.

Yet another who quotes John Severn as a credible, believable source. This is the man whose embarrassing testimony in PR includes the revelation that his contribution to the Battle of Waterloo was to be nicked - in advance of any clashes with the fash - for possession of cannabis. How fcuking stupid is it to be carrying drugs on your person on a major AFA mobilisation? No really, how fcuking stupid is that???

Independent my arse!
 
Yes when asked by a reporter 'What do you think of Western civilisation?' Gandhi replied 'I think it would be a good idea'.
 
ayatollah said:
Dearie me Joe. There is always a danger in thinking ones own personal "take" on history is the only possible one.

It's hardly a 'take' if you contribute to the writing the history of an organisation you helped found, along with the other founder members. Or are we all in fact, 'generals of the arm-chair variety', which was the view expressed by one of Louise Purbicks little helpers at a public meeting in Belfast? According to this clown it was actually Dave 'Maximus' Hann who did all the real fighting while we just held his coat. Deareg was there. Don't know what he made of it. But she didn't bat an eyelid. Just the kind of integrity cherished in academia no doubt.

Also a great danger in thinking that a book one specifically produced to put forward this particular "take" is therefore an unimpeachable source of "fact". Unless you wish to challenge the facts or the chronology as laid out in BTF this is nothing but scene setting: implying something underhand but not saying so in order not to be directly refuted. Nice try. No cigar.

I assume Malatesta has been trying to assess and balance up the widely differing interpretations of what happened during the last few years of AFA's life, for his book. It aint going to be easy to reach a definitive assessment - because other writers in other books simply disagree with you, based on their own personal experience.

And what exactly is the provenance of these 'writers'. What is that they did specifically to merit their assumed status of anti-fascist truth givers? Do you know who 'Ciaran Lynch' you refer to later on actually is? No you don't. But I at least can make an educated guess. His one claim to fame in AFA was to attack a stuffed fox in pub in Leicester Sq when off his head. As for 'John Severn'? Even a Manchester organiser couldn't even put a face to that one. (Genuinely curious. Make some inquires will you, there's a good chap.)
In the meantime you take their words as gospel. Only because it fits in with your twisted anti-RA agenda. Which is of course, when stripped down, the same old Searchlight pro-state anti-working class one.


Your defence of RA's behaviour towards AFA in its last years is essentially that "victory could be declared over (BNP) street fascism by 1994/1995", AND that by then there was no AFA "United Front" , because only RA was left. Therefore RA was justified in working to channel the previously single issue united front AFA into the completely different IWCA multi-issue political party project.
There was no attempt to channel AFA into the IWCA - the case was laid out, based on the analysis that the BNP was going to enter the mainstream and that militant anti-fascism had an investment in doing likewise. Meetings were held in Scotland, Northern Network etc in around 1995, and tellingly the people most opposed to the analysis were not anarchists, but Leeds branch/aka Searchlight. The same individuals who later admitted leading AFA away from confronatations with the C18/BNP on instruction from Gable and co.

Thereafter RA pursued it's own strategy with other avowed anti-Labour elements. From '98 onwards pilot schems were set up with various degrees of success and commitment. Notts, Brum, Hatfield, Manchester, Glasgow, Islington, plus Hackney and Havering all had a go, and within the context of the left of Labour efforts post war, produced some spectacular results. Pity you didn't know about it at the time or you could have been out canvassing for Labour against the IWCA.

Sadly for your claims that aint how others saw it. Obvously you dismiss Dave Hann's take on the acrimonious break up period in No Retreat. though it seems to me a well balanced and believable account (pages 226 to 271), AND he even specifically buys into much of the "Filling the vacuum" strategy. He along with a lot of other RA -aligned, and most importantly anarchist-aligned members across the AFA network did not think that the move into electoralism by the BNP meant that the threat of street fascism from other grouplets had gone away such as to justify winding up the AFA network.
So again for the second time of asking, you ducked it the last time as you tend to do, tell us all when and how precisely AFA was wound up?

As Hann says ( p.267) "AFA groups were for the first time being asked to accept a political programme based on the political philosophy of one particular organisation within it (AFA) .. I feared that .. would lead to splits and the eventual breakup, or neutering , of AFA..."

OK, let's move to the excellent new oral history book produced by LP from Hann's interviews of a stream of anti fascist activists in "Physical Resistance". The recollections of anarchist members of AFA in its final breakup years could not be more different from the BtF account, Anarchist anti-fascist militants likle John Severn and Ciaran Lynch recount the disruptive impact on the AFA Network's work of RA's determination to call a final end to anti fascist activity in favour of the very particular, non-socialist politics of the IWCA. It is quite clear from their accounts (can't give you the precise page numbers I'm afraid , as its on my Kindle) that there were still loads of non-RA, specifically anarchist activists working in AFA at that time - keen to carry on anti-fascist work against THE STILL CONTINUING sporadic street fascism outbreaks from the fascist grouplets still active on the BNP's Right.
So tiny groups of anti-fascists were were working against even smaller groups of fascist deadbeats - to what political end? Meanwhile in the real world these same dedicated anti-fascists utterly ignore the challenge posed by the BNP electorally - the climb from 100,000 to best part of a1,000,000 in a decade was apparently of no concern. Imagine how history would have looked if anti-fascism always opted for the lack of focus. And where were your beloved state socialists - no where. Still racking up the same 30 votes they were getting in 1979. No responsibility on them to challenge the BNP - no - let Labour do that and we will be your cheerleaders. That's the anthem you think anti-fascists should still be singing.

If there was no street fascist activity left once RA declared "final victory" and dissolved inself into (non-socialist) localist electoral politics, the many accounts of battles with fascist grouplets all over the UK , in the years following AFA's wind up are hard to account for. In fact of course the collapse/wind up of AFA was followed by the now mainly anarchist direct action anti fascist activists having to set up NEW anti fascist organisations in the years following AFA - specifically "No Platform" and then "Antifa"


As Ciaran Lynch describes " We existed as a group called No Platform for several years and though largely anarchist based we worked with Socialist Party members on a regular basis. the groups or areas involved were from London, Leeds, Essex, Brighton, Nottingham, Bristol,and Bradford... "
Under the direction of Searchlight. Which is why NP was wound up. It was effectively state run. Funny how SP found time to work with these 'die-hards' after the BNP had abandoned the streets, and yet when their support might have been genuinely welcomed the bottled it. 'You can't work with AFA they're psychopaths!'

And so it goes on, proof positive that whereas the ex-RA members might have declared the anti-fascist street battle definitively won by 1995 - in fact this battle NEVER goeswaway for long. Nowadays Joe and co always simply write off any re-emergeance of street fascism as laughable or irrelevant. Real life however has now fully disproved this key element of their "filling the vacuum" prognosis. It has been left to a variety of reformist united front campaigns(HnH, UAR) and physical force anti fascism inside and around and beyond these , mainly by young anarchists, in the years after "victory was declared" , to counter the serious threat tht these periodic upsurges of street fascism has posed to the ethnic minority communities in which they carry out the provocations.

Of course the battle honours probably trip of the tongue.

Would you like to remind us of any of them?

Or even one?



Nowadays Joe and co have nothing to contribute to this important anti-fascist work.

Joe has attacked other versions of the history of the break-up of AFA - as essentially simply lies. I think any independent person looking at the various accounts, and at the complete failure of the IWCA in the years since to participate in any united front anti fascist work, will view with considrable suspicion the veracity of the account put out by Joe and co on that particular period of anti fascist history.

Your are acting here as an out and out provocateur. The strategy being employed by the Tilzey/Purbick camp is to try and subjectivise historical reality. Smear the lens. The best they can ever hope for is a score draw. For reasons that are not clear you are determined to act as one of their stooges in their pursuit of this aim. You had a more than respectable anti-fascist career John, so why you have ended up on the same side as proven pathological liars, homophobes, fantasists, spooks and charlatans, even after a 25 year hiatus admittedly, is something of a puzzle. But plough on by all means. But as your old chum Tilzey found out, the farther you go the narrower the furrow.
Click to expand...
 
Frankly, Ayatollah, your post is very disappointing and I have no idea really why you have succumbed to such base bitchiness tbh.

You seem to veer from quite insightful comment on occasion to agenda(and ego) driven bile on others. You have better than this, surely? Floundering about the place desperately seeking something to 'prove' what you want to be the 'truth' - and studiously ignoring everything that contradicts it. Not exactly empirical socialist inquiry is it?

A few pages ago you were heartily endorsing Joe Reilly's filleting of Geoff Robinson. Nothing clouding JR's judgement then, was there? Or is it that when his views and recollections are in accordance with your own experience they are impeccable - but when they diverge from your blinkered political narrative (over events of which you have no first-hand experience) they suddenly become suspect?


I for one welcome free and open discussion around this or any other AFA-related issue, but when your starting point is just wishful projection....
 
And by the way... your old friend and comrade Demu was fairly central in all of these events.

Are you suggesting he too is being economical with the actualité? Or is that just one more pesky fact to be ignored?
 

Whoooooshhhhh.....dare offer any alternative 'critique' and be lablled a liar a pathological one at that.And to be placed in some sort of conspiratorial camp...again the motto of desperation. You were wrong about Searchlight /NR and you are clutching at straws again. All you can achieve by your continued demonisation of peole who offer up a different perspective is ridicule. The desperation seeps through every post. The late and unlamented Tilzey. A pathetic swipe and Framed...I think its weak to say you cant have an informed view of a subject just because you wernt there..this is history...that sort of thing happens.

And to add to the John Severn thing which I agree with you on. I think you should be aware of a pal of yours mentioned previously who was also guilty of such lapses to such an extent that when a close comrade of his was arrested the first thing was to get rid of his stash incase a connection could be proven. The paranoia was alrewady setting in. And big style soon after. I might come across as a bit of a cunt saying this but for me it came across as dont let a demo get in the way of a good weed.
 
bignose1 said:
And to add to the John Severn thing which I agree with you on. I think you should be aware of a pal of yours mentioned previously who was also guilty of such lapses to such an extent that when a close comrade of his was arrested the first thing was to get rid of his stash incase a connection could be proven. The paranoia was alrewady setting in. And big style soon after. I might come across as a bit of a cunt saying this but for me it came across as dont let a demo get in the way of a good weed.
Click to expand...

Yes. You do 'come across as a bit of a cunt for saying this'.

Surely on hearing that a 'close comrade' had been arrested - and fearing a home visit from plod was imminent - it would be criminally stupid not to 'get rid of his stash'.

Are you really attempting to equate having a bit of spliff round your house with the errant stupidity of having it on your person on a major anti-Fascist mobilisation - when you are likely to be stopped and searched as a matter of course at some stage?

It used to really piss me off when some people drew Police attention to us by insisting on their 'right' to indulge themselves in ridiculous posturing - such as attacking (or was it attempting to liberate?) a stuffed animal in a pub; or refusing to buy a £3 Travelcard that allowed us all to move quickly and freely around Central London without drawing attention to ourselves because 'We don't pay - we're anarchists'.

This should NOT be read as an attack on Anarchists btw... many anarchist comrades were as annoyed by these type of antics as we were.
 
LiamO said:
Yes. You do 'come across as a bit of a cunt for saying this'.

Surely on hearing that a 'close comrade' had been arrested - and fearing a home visit from plod was imminent - it would be criminally stupid not to 'get rid of his stash'.

Are you really attempting to equate having a bit of spliff round your house with the errant stupidity of having it on your person on a major anti-Fascist mobilisation - when you are likely to be stopped and searched as a matter of course at some stage?

It used to really piss me off when some people drew Police attention to us by insisting on their 'right' to indulge themselves in ridiculous posturing - such as attacking (or was it attempting to liberate?) a stuffed animal in a pub; or refusing to buy a £3 Travelcard that allowed us all to move quickly and freely around Central London without drawing attention to ourselves because 'We don't pay - we're anarchists'.

This should NOT be read as an attack on Anarchists btw... many anarchist comrades were as annoyed by these type of antics as we were.
Click to expand...

I would have thought if your going out on something where you might get captured ..removal of said items prior might have been more sensible than relying on a messy aftermath situation. And Im saying also that people who indulge in serious use of weed are a liability full stop (and I wouldnt have trusted them not to have had some on them when out and about)...thats if they could be bothered to get up in the first place. AND would any one have criticised a certain big name in M/CR for his more serious 'drug' habit had he been lifted on a similar event...would they fuck. Some people seem to be more immune from that sort of censure. Its selective. Very selective.

I too found pissed people on actions a liabilty...I didnt drink til I was nearly 39. It was a fucking hassle having to prise people out of a session..and then only to be told the opposition have gone.
 
john severn is a nom de guerre and if its who its who i think he is, he was sound as a pound, very motivating for young uns and active round the NW for years, with DAM, anarchos, AFA etc.
 
'This should NOT be read as an attack on Anarchists btw... many anarchist comrades were as annoyed by these type of antics as we were.'


i pardon you!
 
Reminds me of Workers Powers contribution to a demo which was one of their comrades and at the time a poster on here getting arrested for possession .
 
I saw several AFA still pissed from the night before on actions. It's not just stoners who can be a hassle!! Though it does beggar belief that a person would mobilise on an action and have drugs on their person.
 
malatesta32 said:
john severn is a nom de guerre and if its who its who i think he is, he was sound as a pound, very motivating for young uns and active round the NW for years, with DAM, anarchos, AFA etc.
Click to expand...

What do you think about his arrest for drugs as described in post 4267? Motivating? Sound? Or irresponsible
 
no silly, drugs like football should be illegal. i am sure we have all done daft things but if its who i think most people wd know him as a jolly good all rounder with a good political batting average. to condemn someone for 1 thing is a wee bit excessive!
 
TopCat said:
I saw several AFA still pissed from the night before on actions. It's not just stoners who can be a hassle!! Though it does beggar belief that a person would mobilise on an action and have drugs on their person.
Click to expand...

yeah, hands up who has never been out on business with a hangover on an early saturday or sunday morning?
 
malatesta32 said:
no silly, drugs like football should be illegal. i am sure we have all done daft things but if its who i think most people wd know him as a jolly good all rounder with a good political batting average. to condemn someone for 1 thing is a wee bit excessive!
Click to expand...

I don't think drugs are daft but taking them on an action is bad form
 
bignose1 said:
Whoooooshhhhh.....dare offer any alternative 'critique' and be lablled a liar a pathological one at that.And to be placed in some sort of conspiratorial camp...again the motto of desperation. You were wrong about Searchlight /NR and you are clutching at straws again. All you can achieve by your continued demonisation of peole who offer up a different perspective is ridicule. The desperation seeps through every post. The late and unlamented Tilzey. A pathetic swipe and Framed...I think its weak to say you cant have an informed view of a subject just because you wernt there..this is history...that sort of thing happens.
Click to expand...

Still waiting to hear about us all 'hiding behind gangsters' Steve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tim
MPs beating people up.
2 3 4 5
Replies
139
Views
5K
Hotel Chocolate
H
Voley
What next for Ed Davey, Action Man?
2 3 4 5
Replies
147
Views
5K
ViolentPanda
ViolentPanda
RevolutionSound
Tory councillor accuses Dawn Butler of anti semitism on LBC
Replies
1
Views
620
GarveyLives
G
HeAthen
BBC accused of antisemitism
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
4K
ska invita
ska invita
TopCat
Anti coronation protests
Replies
4
Views
604
FridgeMagnet
FridgeMagnet
Back
Top Bottom