Beating the Fascists: The authorised history of Anti-Fascist Action
- Thread starter cogg
- Start date
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
The problem is not that the book contains violence. It's that it contains a huge amount of violence described in "hooligan lit" cliches, old battle stories about "tasty crews" and the like. Perhaps the purpose of this was to shift more copies to people like trevhagl.
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
were we in the same organisation?
Cheeky....
I should add upto a few years later. I would say that the decisions taken regarding what the AT did on the demo in Dover in late 1997 marked a notable change in how the AT was viewed and what it's 'job' was. It was most certainly a departure from what it's role was seen as previously. Whether or not that had been slowly changing down south previous to that demo I don't know. But the attitude of the leadership was certainly very different in 1993 as compared to 1997.
love detective
there's no love too small
what kind of language would you see as being acceptable to describe said violence then?
I was gonna post in answer to Blagsta, but you (as a manchester veteran) are the ideal person to do that Demu.
A little clarification/history might not go amiss which could be both honouring to Dessie's 20-odd year career as a committed anti-fascist activist, whilst not shying away from his 'day-job' (and how that evolved in line with social change).
I would hate for you to accuse me of jumping to conclusions or of putting words into your mouth, so in order to facilitate my response to this comment...
... could you please explain specifically what you mean by the phrase 'people like trevhagl',
... because at the moment they do not exactly paint you in a flattering light.
he means people who buy books because they expect them to be interesting, not full of pretentious long winded intellectual twaddle and theory
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
I am trying to get you to say what your sources are for the allegation of being a drug dealer and involved in anti social and anti working class crime . ( sorry , you have - the internet!)
People who like books in large type
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Then again perhaps the purpose of it is to tell it like it was .
What amazes me about your response ( although to be quite honest nothing would really amaze me , and I am sure other posters on here, about you) is that you have no response to the actual politics the book advocates. Perhaps you agreed with the content but just didn't like the style?
Perhaps it means uncouth, working class, oiky types who may like to engage in, nay celebrate even, their unkempt appearance, poor table manners, outrageous drinking habits and general yobbishness - I have heard some of them even like football (that's soccer, not proper rugby football of course).
dennisr
the acceptable face
awww, trev - see - someone loves you (or a stereotype of you)
past caring
The Cathars were right
Perhaps we should leave it to nigel to tell us what stereotype he was thinking of, eh dennis?
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I mean fucking idiots. And in particular fucking idiots who don't like political books to be weighted too much towards politics. You prolier-than-thou gobshite.
past caring
The Cathars were right
Scum from the estates.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
LOL. Who wear their violence on their sleeves.
dennisr
the acceptable face
I'm more interested in how trev feels about the perception of his online character
TopCat
Putin fanboy
I'm more interested in how trev feels about the perception of his online character
He is a font obsessive.
dennisr
the acceptable face
ba dum tish
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I've only started talking about the book.
The first thing that's noticeable about it is that large sections of it are written in tedious "hooligan lit" cliches. So far the responses to me pointing this out started with claims that I was wrong and have since shifted into accepting that ok, that may be so, but it's justified to do it that way. You could certainly argue that this presentation reflects politically on the organisation, at least in so far as swaggering braggadocio can be considered political.
I've so far gone on to to mention two more issues.
Firstly, that the book also regularly seems to equate the willingness to engage in fistfights and competence at brawling with moral fibre and political sense. Those who politically disagree with Red Action are over and over again revelealed as cowards and weaklings and wordy posturers as opposed to the manly men of Red Action. All of which reeks of adolescent wish fulfillment. This sort of thing isn't just a fixation of the writer, it seems to cover much of the Red Action scene - LiamO's response to criticism earlier in this thread was to give it some keyboard-warrior bollocks about how I'd back down if I had to meet his middle aged friends. Because of course their alleged ability to physically intimidate me would make their views correct.
Secondly, the book takes an uncritical, indeed at times openly admiring, approach to anti-working class parasites when it comes to "old school villains". Presumably said parasites are "hard" enough to impress the writer or because he thinks some toughness will rub off by association. Not just Noonan either, just read the lengthy anecdote about Peter Davies, a "villain of the old school" according to the book. A related but much less significant issue is its approach to apolitical or semi-political football hooligans.
I've plenty more to say about the book. Much of it positive. But lets stick to the negative parts for now. At least it'll give me some entertainment watching the terminally thin-skinned froth with rage. As always, the defining feature of RA/IWCA supporters is that they love to dish out criticism but border on emotional meltdown should anybody return the favour.
past caring
The Cathars were right
But again, at steps says, nothing about the politics the book advocates and the merits of those politics.
What it boils down to is;
- a dislike of the writing style (though I'd be interested to know which "hooligan lit" books nigel has actually read, just so we can be sure he actually knows what he's talking about on this one) in those passages which actually describe the details of the violence. I reject the assertion that these make up "large sections" of the book and to be frank, I'm not sure what nigel would want here - some sort of literary equivalent to a Peckinpah job?
- an assertion that RA equated being handy with having the better politics. A concrete example of this being proposed in the book would be useful, if nigel intends anyone to treat that assertion seriously.
- a distaste for some of the people AFA associated with or who joined AFA. I'll leave others who actually knew Dessie Noonan to speak about him (though I've no doubt nigel will be able to put some flesh on the bones of his "anti-working class parasite" jibe) and simply ask that he expand on quite what he objects to in the book's approach to "apolitical or semi-political football hooligans". Some specifics, like. Because so far, all we have is bluster.
What it boils down to is;
- a dislike of the writing style (though I'd be interested to know which "hooligan lit" books nigel has actually read, just so we can be sure he actually knows what he's talking about on this one) in those passages which actually describe the details of the violence. I reject the assertion that these make up "large sections" of the book and to be frank, I'm not sure what nigel would want here - some sort of literary equivalent to a Peckinpah job?
- an assertion that RA equated being handy with having the better politics. A concrete example of this being proposed in the book would be useful, if nigel intends anyone to treat that assertion seriously.
- a distaste for some of the people AFA associated with or who joined AFA. I'll leave others who actually knew Dessie Noonan to speak about him (though I've no doubt nigel will be able to put some flesh on the bones of his "anti-working class parasite" jibe) and simply ask that he expand on quite what he objects to in the book's approach to "apolitical or semi-political football hooligans". Some specifics, like. Because so far, all we have is bluster.
LiamO attempts sarcasm and fails miserably because there really are stuck up elitist cunts on the board that it's impossible to be worse than, even in satire
for volume 2 can we have a book about nice anti fascists who ask the nazis if they would mind refraining from participation in activities likely to cause harm or distress to homo sapiens of an ethnic persuasion.
There, i too can talk wanker-speak, aren't i clever
dennisr
the acceptable face
yep, but he knows that already mate
(come on - you have to admit - you walked into that one)
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I think quite a lot of what I've mentioned so far is political. It's more the politics implicit in the book's approach that I've mentioned so far, but there's plenty of time to get around to the more directly voiced arguments.
By the way, the extreme shitness of the index is a bit of a problem when it comes to finding things in it. It took me fifteen minutes to find the anecdote about Davies. At least it has an index I suppose. Noonan, Davies. Reread what the book says about them. Can you find a political explanation of what an "old school villain" actually is and does beyond apparently being a tough lad who's handy to have around and who illustrates the outlaw hardness of his mates? You don't think there's something else it might be important to say about the social role of gangsters?
Are you seriously telling me that the book doesn't repeatedly portray anyone who disagrees with RA as some combination of dishonest/cowardly/middle class/all talk/incompetent/no good in a fight? It's one of the recurring themes. And it's downright adolescent.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
I was was never a member of Red Action and actually stayed with the SWP when they were expelled ( I joined in 1977 and stayed untill the mid 90s ) . Despite political differences I never experienced Red Action in the way Nigel describes them as being phyiscally threatening to those who disagreed with them politically .In fact quite the opposite . Nigel would have us believe that Red Action were somehow politically light . Not the case at all . In fact free from the prison of Totskyist formula they were actually politically challenging. I moved from NW London to Manchester in the late 80s and had exactly the same relationship with members of Red Action and AFA in Manchester. They argued their politics, I argued mine. where we could cooperate we did, where we disagreed we disagreed. I must say that wasn't my experience of with Militant but perhaps the ones I met went to the same political day schools as Nigel.
past caring
The Cathars were right
Do you? That's probably why most think of you as a bit of a lightweight when it comes to anything other than lefty sectariana.
What are these politics that are implicit in the book's approach? Why have you got such great difficulty stating explicitly what they are and why they are wrong?
I don't have the book in front of me (have just moved and shelves are not yet up to allow me to unpack books) but my recollection of the story regarding Davies is that he figures once - and that almost by accident - as someone who a couple of AFA members happened to be sharing digs with when those digs came under attack. I don't see anything to indicate any ongoing relationship and, as such, no reason to elaborate on his activities as an "old school villain".
Is it? A good place to begin your reply might be taking particular disagreements and showing where others were right and RA was wrong.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
ra politically light? what nonsense!
I was going to point out exactly the same thing! He must hate hooligan cliches that much because he's already masturbated over enough of them for them to become... cliches.
They aren't cliches to people who don't ordinarily read those kinds of books. Revealing.
Similar threads
