Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Joe, on Wikipedia, I think you're right. That para is one of the ones mostly by the Wikipedia editor "Spandrell". I'll work on it some more later in the week.

In too much detail to be relevant to the Wikipedia edit issue, I broadly share your analysis of this period, but with two slight caveats.

Joe Reilly said:
1. The IWCA is counterposed to" challenging the fascist presence on the streets". But as we have pointed repeatedly after 1996 there was no fascist presence on the streets.... It can't be stressed enough that the turning point for AFA followed the historic abandonment of the 'march and grow' strategy, (not just by the BNP but all the other smaller groups as well who just weren't strong enough to risk AFA's wrath) and after that, the odd physical force spectacular apart (Bloody Sunday 1995, Hoborn 1996) near everything else was in political terms very much after the Lord Mayor's show.
Click to expand...

I agree that in that period there were no more big battles, and the fash no longer mounted any real physical challenge - but they didn't dissappear off the streets did they? Wasn't there still a question of whether physical confrontation remained a valid strategy even when they were no longer competing spectacularly for the streets as they had in an earlier period?

Joe Reilly said:
4. When AFA was re-launched in 1989 the springboard for organisation nationally were the DAM, Workers Power and Red Action. It was through their extant branches that AFA was set up in structured democratic way (prior to that there were hardly any branches at all - everything was run top down) and crucially allowed unaligned individuals to get involved. Though it made a political contribution up until 1991 WP was by then feeling the strain and looking a for a way out.
WP left to join the ANL in I think 1992.

By about 1995, the DAM too was suffering internal difficulties and seemingly over-night morphed into the Solidarity Federation.
Interestingly, SF never affiliated to AFA. Outside of RA the only other group involved was the tiny Communist Action Group. In other words, contrary to the claim that AFA contained 'a number of political groups with different programmes' by 1996 the only two remaining groups actually became active sponsors of the IWCA. So much for 'internal recrimination'.
Thus the notion that RA pushed the IWCA down the throats of rival groups to the point where AFA itself felt apart is false. There is no basis for it at all. It should be struck out.
Click to expand...

I agree, but doesn't this to some extent underplay the presence of non-aligned individuals who, as you say, joined AFA on some scale after the 1989 relaunch? It's true that there were no other groups (apart from CAG) by the late 1990s, but there were still large numbers of non-aligned individuals. Outside of E and N London, and maybe some other places (Manchester?, Oxford?, Glasgow?), I suspect Red Action were still not a majority in most AFA branches. There were still Labour Party members and refugees from all sorts of Trot groups in lots of branches, as well anarchists. Some of these non-aligned individuals embraced the FTV analysis but not the electoral form that IWCA later took, some of them were completely resistant to abandoning physical confrontation, some of them followed the IWCA route. In other words, it wasn't just Searchlight agents and their stooges who didn't sign up to the RA line, and (without wanting to over-emphasise it as "Spandrell" does) there was some internal recrimination.

(Apologies, coming late to this forum, if this is rehashing the ground you've already been going over.)
 
BobFromBrockley said:
In other words, it wasn't just Searchlight agents and their stooges who didn't sign up to the RA line, and (without wanting to over-emphasise it as "Spandrell" does) there was some internal recrimination.
Click to expand...

Bob, on the 'internal recrimination', how many branches of AFA that were part of the national network have you got down, can you list them here please?

There were AFA branches that played no role whatsoever at a national level, sent no delegates to national meetings, etc, but which did play an important role at regional level. Liverpool AFA is probably the best example. I can't remember ever meeting anyone from Liverpool AFA at any national meetings, but they were an important component of AFA in the north-west.

It's important thought that we deal with genuine AFA branches that were part of the network of militant anti-fascists and that we do not include the likes of TWAFA, which was a state-funded Searchlight satelite based in the north-east.

Off the top of the head I can think of the following AFA branches:

North London
South London
East London
Oxford
Bristol
Birmingham
Wolverhampton
Nottingham
Leicester
Manchester
Liverpool
Leeds
Huddersfield
Sheffield
Newcastle (not TWAFA)
Glasgow
Edinburgh

I'm not sure that the views of Leeds and Huddersfield on the IWCA would be entirely relevant as they were 'struck off' the national network after their involvement in state and Searchlight 'black ops' were exposed. Newcastle came fairly late to the AFA Network (approx. 1993/94) and had strong connections with people in Edinburgh AFA.

Do you have more to add to that list, as I may have missed some?

Can you please give some info as to the particular branches where there was 'internal recrimination'. There's no point continuing to talk only about the debate at the level of the AFA NC, if you have details of internal branch discussions where this 'recrimination' took place... (?)
 
slightly OT, but I always said Telford was dodgy

483834_10151305148791485_164554967_n.jpg


Who knew the far-right had taken to selling Apple products of dubious authenticity?
 
BobFromBrockley said:
Joe, on Wikipedia, I think you're right. That para is one of the ones mostly by the Wikipedia editor "Spandrell". I'll work on it some more later in the week.

In too much detail to be relevant to the Wikipedia edit issue, I broadly share your analysis of this period, but with two slight caveats.



I agree that in that period there were no more big battles, and the fash no longer mounted any real physical challenge - but they didn't dissappear off the streets did they? Wasn't there still a question of whether physical confrontation remained a valid strategy even when they were no longer competing spectacularly for the streets as they had in an earlier period?

Who raised the question? It might have been nice to be able use our old strategy against their new strategy except if the BNP didn't tell you where they were going to be, how were you going to find them? Sure you might knock this or that canvassing team every now and again bit if you tripped over them some night, but how is that applicable when they are standing say 800 candidates?

And again after nearly 20 years of cessation why is it so difficult for some people to take on board that it is not some kind of ruse?





I agree, but doesn't this to some extent underplay the presence of non-aligned individuals who, as you say, joined AFA on some scale after the 1989 relaunch? It's true that there were no other groups (apart from CAG) by the late 1990s, but there were still large numbers of non-aligned individuals. Outside of E and N London, and maybe some other places (Manchester?, Oxford?, Glasgow?), I suspect Red Action were still not a majority in most AFA branches. There were still Labour Party members and refugees from all sorts of Trot groups in lots of branches, as well anarchists. Some of these non-aligned individuals embraced the FTV analysis but not the electoral form that IWCA later took, some of them were completely resistant to abandoning physical confrontation, some of them followed the IWCA route. In other words, it wasn't just Searchlight agents and their stooges who didn't sign up to the RA line, and (without wanting to over-emphasise it as "Spandrell" does) there was some internal recrimination.

(Apologies, coming late to this forum, if this is rehashing the ground you've already been going over.)
Click to expand...

1.The reference to no other 'groups' is purely in response the allegation that FTV was imposed on others 'groups' and that this lead directly to the break up of the network.

2. There is no underplaying of the role of non-aligned individuals - on the contrary the whole strategy for the 1989 relaunch was based on individual membership. Prior to that they were only groups. The point is that they were individuals and made up their mind accordingly, and on an individual basis. Which is why the meetings had to be held up and down the country. None of the groups individually, or the groups collectively, were representative of the AFA membership in its totality.

3. Red Action were in all probability not the majority in any branch. Red Action created the structures for precisely that reason - to increase by 100 fold the level of activists involved on the ground. That was the whole purpose of setting up AFA in the first place. Which is why RA were not only central to the national re-launch beginning in London, as well as bringing WP and DAM [back] on board, but were also key to the regional relaunches in Scotland, the West Midlands and the re-booting of the Northern Network. If Red Action relied on packing meetings to get it's way AFA would not have been structured from the bottom up, creating the basis not only for groups 'with different programmes' but for individual members to be represented within the decision making structures.

4. You can be credibly 'resistant to the idea of abandoning physical confrontation' only up the point where it becomes crystal clear without the least shadow of doubt that the fascists you are meant to be opposing have entered a new arena where the previous strategy has little or no application. Thereafter you can posture - or you can take responsibility for following them there.
'There' supposedly being the Left's very own working class constituency of course.

5. The FTV analysis was formally adopted at an all London meeting in May 1995 and carried by a significant majority. It followed that thereafter the arguments too and fro were mainly from that perspective. There was no Red Action 'line' as such.

6. The only people who tried to influence others outside of their own branches were Searchlight entryists or under their influence. Tellingly It is only Leeds that ever put pen to paper - or putting it another way, sought to put a 'spin' on the London AFA analysis.
Outside of that, the core of their argument was simple: 'it is not up to [AFA] to decide how or who should fill the vacuum'.
It was from the outset, a pro-Labour, pro establishment argument. And remains the position of Hope Not Hate today.

As outlined in BTF there was indeed much sceptisism a) had the BNP effectively surrendered b) would the Isle of Dogs model be applicable even if they had and c) and much later on, if it turned out that AFA indeed need a specific 'political wing' at all - why wasn't the likes SLP etc fit for purpose. History provides the actual answers to all of those questions. Except that as we all know others are already busily re-writing it.

7. When FTV was published AFA was at it's absolute zenith. So there was a certain shock when people were sort of informed the game was probably over, when for many it felt like we were really hitting our stride. Which is why AFA ascendancy and the BNP abandonment of a core fascist principle are co-related. This is exactly how the BNP leadership sought it too. Where the problem lay for those behind the FTV analysis is that it was always a projection of what was going to happen down the line - almost a decade down the line as it happens - if we see the election of the first BNP cllrs as a vindication. As for a I know the Left has no real history of doing that succesfully, so intense debate was inevitable. Generally it was fairly amicable with one or two exceptions. The point is that from the March 1994 declaration, AFA operationally was redundant. Whether or not not the FTV analysis was published, whether or not RA sought sponsors for the IWCA outside of the militant anti-fascist parameters had nothing to do with AFA's decline as an organised entity. That physical part of the job was done, and done well. The far-right were driven from the streets. But now it was over. The only question FTV posed is 'what comes next?

The only way you can tie FTV to AFA ultimately ceasing to be, is to entirely ignore the BNP decalaration 12 months previously that the 'war' as understood was over, which is of course precisely what those who support the revisionist argument always do.
 
"I've expressed many times my disagreement with the IWCA's politics. Which I think were mistaken, opportunist, workerist, and profoundly reactionery. However history has passed judgement on them by now too. It was a failed initiative - based on set of inaccurated judgements and perspectives. Let it rest in peace."

do the math .. the IWCA with barely a handfull of activists built groups in Oxford, Islington, Hackney and Havering which won or almost won local council seats.wheras the Left, in the community, has achieved fuck all with, apparently thousands of activists, at least over the years
but sorry but how you can write your qoute and not see the irony ..
it is the Trotskyist Left that
" .. history has passed judgement on them by now too. It was a failed initiative - based on set of inaccurated judgements and perspectives. Let it rest in peace." "

ayatollah said:
And I can assure you I respect all of you for your anti fascist activism, back in the day. However, that was then, this is now. It's always amusing when a loosely identifiable grouping of avid posters on Urban75, who seldom seem to claim IWCA membership, but nevertheless all "sing from the same political hymn sheet" , accuse a political critic of "sectarianism". "Pot and Kettle" time chaps. This IWCA 'esque grouping's comments can be tracked back on every thread on Urban for years rubbishing each and every political initiative by the radical Left - particularly broad united front anti fascist initiatives over the last few years. Indeed BtF, though generally an excellent book, is used to yet again float a deeply sectarian IWCA "line" on the Left - which is repeatedly caricatured as being innately ,hopelessly "Liberal, middle class, multiculturalist, ignoring the white working class, obsessed with identity politics" , and by a very non-logically-connected inference the entire political tradition of Socialism, is seen as therefore no longer "relevant" to the working class. Looks pretty "sectarian" politics and commentary to me. But then maybe when YOU lot are attacking the Left and every one of their initiatives , this is just "fair comment" ? Well maybe it is indeed. And maybe when commentator after commentator from the anarchist Left in particular , in books like "Physical Resistance" or periodic thread posts here, who were active when the argy bargy in the mid 1990's was occurring around the attempt by RA to funnel the AFA Network into the (we now know dead-end) non-socialist, localist, electorally focussed, IWCA project express their very different recall of the impact of RA's role in the mid to late 1990's on the continuing ability of anti fascists to organise against the still sporadic upsurges of fascist activity, then, and later, maybe that is genuine , "I was there... this is how I recall it", "fair comment " by them too ? Neither side actually need to be lying - it's how each side actually experienced that time and interprets events. Hann in "No Retreat is certainly in no doubt that the "line" from RA WASN'T to keep both the IWCA initiative AND AFA going in parallel. RA wanted to "fold" the AFA network into the IWCA project - on the basis that "street fascism was over.. It's time to get down onto the landings in White working class communities". A viable view then, but not one held by many others in the AFA Network . And given the peculiar politics of the IWCA - not an alternative political project that was likely to attract many people who wished to remain socialist activists to.

I've expressed many times my disagreement with the IWCA's politics. Which I think were mistaken, opportunist, workerist, and profoundly reactionery. However history has passed judgement on them by now too. It was a failed initiative - based on set of inaccurated judgements and perspectives. Let it rest in peace.

You've got to be able to "take it" as well as "dish it out" lads.. without wailing "sectarian" and "nasty man" at every critic. You used to be able to do that on the physical front back in the day, but on the debating front nowadays you all too often react to alternative views and criticism like a maiden aunt confronted by a rampant flasher.
Click to expand...
 
Joe Reilly said:
3. Red Action were in all probability not the majority in any branch. Red Action created the structures for precisely that reason - to increase by 100 fold the level of activists involved on the ground. That was the whole purpose of setting up AFA in the first place. Which is why RA were not only central to the national re-launch beginning in London, as well as bringing WP and DAM [back] on board, but were also key to the regional relaunches in Scotland, the West Midlands and the re-booting of the Northern Network. If Red Action relied on packing meetings to get it's way AFA would not have been structured from the bottom up, creating the basis not only for groups 'with different programmes' but for individual members to be represented within the decision making structures.
Click to expand...

This is an important point imho, and one that I was trying to clumsily make in my last post.

Perhaps the point that it was strength of political argument rather than weight of numbers that counted in most AFA branches is illustrated by the fact that at the height of AFA activity Scotland, Red Action had 6 'full members' in Glasgow and only 1 in Edinburgh and another 3 based in the north of Scotland dotted between Aberdeen and Elgin. We had a number of 'supporting members' beyond that, but those 7 'full members' in the central belt are those that could be relied upon to attend AFA branch meetings in addition to mobilising for street activities.
 
Fozzie Bear said:
There is a brief mention of AFA in this piece by Mark Metcalf on spy cop Mark Jenner/Cassidy
http://www.bigissueinthenorth.com/2...of-knowing-how-much-damage-jenner-caused/7622
Click to expand...

Interesting piece:

"By the end of 1997 Jenner’s involvement in the CRC had lessened. He still attended some events but mainly to report on his activities within Anti-Fascist Action (AFA), a militant group that had successfully physically confronted the BNP. AFA member Patrick Hayes had been convicted of causing two explosions in the South East on behalf of the IRA in 1993 and the state was certain to be interested in preventing any such actions in the future. Hayes was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment and later released under the Good Friday Agreement. It may be that AFA was always Jenner’s main intended target."


 
framed said:
This is an important point imho, and one that I was trying to clumsily make in my last post.

Perhaps the point that it was strength of political argument rather than weight of numbers that counted in most AFA branches is illustrated by the fact that at the height of AFA activity Scotland, Red Action had 6 'full members' in Glasgow and only 1 in Edinburgh and another 3 based in the north of Scotland dotted between Aberdeen and Elgin. We had a number of 'supporting members' beyond that, but those 7 'full members' in the central belt are those that could be relied upon to attend AFA branch meetings in addition to mobilising for street activities.
Click to expand...

Joe, Framed, I basically agree with you. (I don't buy into the RA "line-pushing"/"meeting packing"/"ruse" position; sorry if I gave that impression!) The point about the branches is important.

I think in the mid-1990s when AFA was at its peak, Fighting Talk listed 30-something branches. (There are 31 listed in 1997 http://libcom.org/files/FIGHTING TALK - 16.pdf for example, including Wigan, York, Southampton, Colchester, Exeter, Ipswich.) On the one hand, some (quite a few?) of these were probably tiny or defunct; on the other hand, there were actually always 3 fairly sizeable London branches, as well as several isolated individuals in places like Kent or Somerset that bought into the AFA "brand" and could be mobilised for it, but weren't organised in branches.

I think AFA was unusual in the sense that the "brand" (as created through the 1989 relaunch and its clarification of a militant, two-track position) was endorsed by many more people than ever signed up to the organisation formally, and the loose national structure enabled considerable autonomy for local groups that were barely semi-detached at a national level (although sometimes regionally networked). And on a more local scale, AFA was able to mobilise people for actions who never came to meetings. (My understanding - I'm not sure if this is right - is that even in London there were members of the Stewards Group (or people who be drafted into it for specific actions) who never went to branch meetings.) It was in this very large outer layer that the shock of the game being declared over took longest to reach but hit hard. This was probably more apparent to those outside London, but even in London it did create "recriminations", even if not on the scale the "revisionist" line suggests.

It seems to me that, for all of its successes in the early 2000s, the shift of energies to IWCA without maintaining some structure that could keep this wider movement alive and connected to it meant that a lot of the energy was lost - and this contributed to IWCA's unability to sustain itself on the same high level for too many years. In other words, AFA was at the heart of, and set the agenda for, a <b>movement</b>, whereas IWCA wasn't, and the loss of that movement is something we are paying the price for now.
 
Joe Reilly said:
Welling on the other hand was a police riot. I think that is broadly accepted? Yet it was AFA that was signalled out by the media, police and a WIA documentary as a, according to the Times editorial, a 'threat to democracy' or words to that effect.
Click to expand...

A police riot suggests that come what may the police had every intention of ensuring a riot happened at the chosen spot.

I am not so sure. I think the police made a decision that come what may, the march was not going to go past the red line they had massed their people and equipment at. I am not sure at all that they then wanted to have the huge fight that took place, not least because of the large number of injuries they received at the hands of a ferociously brave crowd.

There was definitely a large element in the crowd who were spoiling for a fight; the view of myself and many comrades on the day was that we were unlikely to break through the police lines but would ensure the police paid a large and bloody price for protecting the BNP HQ in this manner.

The behaviour of the crowd that day was outstanding. The police were unable to out flank the front line as spiked railings on the police's off side had come down off all along the cemetery walls meaning the police would have to climb over a very dangerous obstacle to get at the offside flank and after they tried once, they never dared try again.

The police then repeatedly charged the front line despite being showered with block paving stones, though they did not get far. The crowd retreated a bit and interestingly then outflanked the police's front line on a repeated basis inflicting lots of injuries and causing the police to have to go in to rescue their fallen on many occasions.

The latter part of the day showed a big link up between protesters and local youth. Both joined together to attack the police via alleys, back gardens, front gardens; brick throwing angry people were everywhere.

So to simply dismiss the actions of the protesters on the day as being involved in a "police riot" is to miss a series of important points. This was a riot all right, but the police got far more then they bargained for.
 
TopCat said:
I think the police made a decision that come what may, the march was not going to go past the red line they had massed their people and equipment at. I am not sure at all that they then wanted to have the huge fight that took place, not least because of the large number of injuries they received at the hands of a ferociously brave crowd.
Click to expand...

That's what I saw going on.

Plus, the SWP marching the well-meaning mass into that red line, then pulling back themselves.
 
Fozzie Bear said:
There is a brief mention of AFA in this piece by Mark Metcalf on spy cop Mark Jenner/Cassidy
http://www.bigissueinthenorth.com/2...of-knowing-how-much-damage-jenner-caused/7622
Click to expand...
Apparently according to a friend who stayed at his place during this time, he was the ideal candidate for entrapement to any Republican Para Military Activity: always pushing a hardline position including indiscriminate violence and sectarian attacks.
As part of his cover(or at least using it as an excuse) developed severe dope habit as well!
 
Was East Surrey Anti Fascist Action ever officially affiliated to AFA?
Was wondering in connection to the relation with Tim Wright/Scargill, Class War and its relation to AFA as a whole!
 
does anyone have a problem with me quoting some of the previous stuff on AFA for the anti-fascist book? also i have drawn extensively from 1st person accounts on here if anyone has a problem with me using it let me know. cheers. hoping to finalise the book today!
 
malatesta32 said:
does anyone have a problem with me quoting some of the previous stuff on AFA for the anti-fascist book? also i have drawn extensively from 1st person accounts on here if anyone has a problem with me using it let me know. cheers. hoping to finalise the book today!
Click to expand...

Did you get anything on No Platform and 635?
 

just stumbled on this on youtube. anyone else taken trophies like the bnp/c18 flag in this video? i took a bnp placard off them once but i just smashed it up. not quite the same is it :oops:
 
krink said:

just stumbled on this on youtube. anyone else taken trophies like the bnp/c18 flag in this video? i took a bnp placard off them once but i just smashed it up. not quite the same is it :oops:
Click to expand...

i was at a fenian benefit in holloway many years ago when a man comes in sporting an orange sash. it turned out he'd relieved its original owner of the sash at drumcree.
 
krink said:
just stumbled on this on youtube. anyone else taken trophies like the bnp/c18 flag in this video? i took a bnp placard off them once but i just smashed it up. not quite the same is it :oops:
Click to expand...

Amongst a haul of Nazi tat we "acquired" on one occasion I got a pair of cherry red docs that fitted me perfectly. Lasted for years.
 
ah it was you TC. is it okay to put that in the book? bit of err.. light relief - though not for you at the time probably!
 
krink said:

just stumbled on this on youtube. anyone else taken trophies like the bnp/c18 flag in this video? i took a bnp placard off them once but i just smashed it up. not quite the same is it :oops:
Click to expand...


Thats me on there with the flag.....not so much a trophy...found it in a carrier bag after a demo in the midlands somewhere. Its a duvet cover and a pillow case......
 
And that's my footage of C18's first public outing shortly after their formation following the Kensington Library set to.
 
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