Perhaps you should elaborate. Is this all searchlight sour grapes, as I can't see where this fits with AFA history.
Sounds like you are redefining your role now that you have split from gerry and co.
Think you have spent too long on the 'dark' side.
Beating the Fascists: The authorised history of Anti-Fascist Action
- Thread starter cogg
- Start date
Perhaps you should elaborate. Is this all searchlight sour grapes, as I can't see where this fits with AFA history.
Sounds like you are redefining your role now that you have split from gerry and co.
Think you have spent too long on the 'dark' side.
love detective
there's no love too small
But earlier you were trying to claim it was but a vehicle to allow people to relive the excitement of earlier times and its publication was not about the documentation of an important piece of social history in and off itself, but an actual product of the 'dissipation of energy around the IWCA project'
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
The interview was about allowing RA/iWCA to present their case, and respond to typical objections (liberal-left, Leninist, anarchist). It was hardly a hatchet job! You've already acknowledged that the kind of problem I'm talking about - buzz of the action taking over from political perspectives - *could* happen. So I'm both right but making a banal and obvious point, but also some uber liberal-left that is at the same time totally wrong!
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
You're doing your usual job of having three different faces depending on who you're talking to basically.
love detective
there's no love too small
the problem is the way you are coming across on this means that there seems to be little distinction on your part between acknowledging the possibility that something could happen (anything in reality could happen to anything at anytime,that's the banality of it) and recognising that it didn't - for you the possibility of the former seems to dominate the reality of the later - and instead of wondering or focussing or looking to learn about why it didn't happen (why it wasn't allowed to happen), you ground yourself entirely in the possibility that it could have, and use that as a stick to try and beat things with
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Well, I think it has something to say. But the saying of it is bound up with a nostalgia and enjoyment of reminiscing about the good old days which implicitly makes a contrast with the apparent lack of momentum as far as the present day IWCA activities go.
I'm trying to offer a balanced critical evaluation of what it represents - this doesn't seem to be acceptable. I need to say either "Yay for the real anti-fascists!" or "boo to the squaddist thugs!"?
love detective
there's no love too small
you should lay of the sauce mate - it's doing nothing for your critical faculties
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
's a bit of a low blow. You don't fight by Queensbury rules then?
I think what winds people up about you lot is the way that you assume that your actions and analysis have been totally exemplary in every respect, in comparison with whom everyone else on the left is more m/c, soft, "anti-fascist in name only", useless when tested etc...
But your grounds for asserting your wonderfulness is in a) something that didn't happen [for which you claim full and near exclusive credit], and relatively small successes of the IWCA - which are comparable with the achievements of some of the lefts you castigate so broadly.
Now, I don't know how well everyone involved managed to keep the buzz of the street action strictly subordinate to the overall politics at all times. I know that the conclusions you reached suggest that finally this didn't carry the day. And your analysis here is interesting and of some importance (even if I don't necessarily buy all of it). But the style and form of BTF suggests the vicarious enjoyment of past glories - at the same time as the energy and momentum around your present-day activities seem to have fizzled somewhat.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Should I be flattered that you've granted me a third face?
love detective
there's no love too small
i'm serious, your critical faculties and ability to reason in relation to this seem to be completely debilitated - your pairing together of completely different things as being somehow cause and effect, and the dominance in your analysis of the non-existant over the reality, does seem truly bizarre from where I am standing
love detective
there's no love too small
any kind violence isn't pretty, therefore political violence isn't pretty. to accurately document the history of a time when political violence was a tactic means the language/style employed to do so is not necessarily pretty either - if you choose to categorise this as hool-lit then you're free to do so, but it would seem to promote form over substance
as i said your debilitated critical faculties, the pairing together of unconnected things in a causal manner and the dominance of your analysis on the non-existent are the more worrying things here
as i said your debilitated critical faculties, the pairing together of unconnected things in a causal manner and the dominance of your analysis on the non-existent are the more worrying things here
bignose1
Searchlight Spoiler
You can only see what you want to see Denis...always have done so I wont waste my time explaining to you what you could never appreciate or understand...Why are you bothered anyway....
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
Nigel Irritable can speak for himself, but I've certainly never attacked the idea that physical confrontation with fascists is sometimes necessary. It doesn't follow that street fighting can't become an end in itself for people who get caught up in it and lose a sense of perspective. Maybe that's a banal and obvious thing to point out. But the idea that the merest hint of critically analysing the implications of your breathless hool-lit means we aren't "proper" anti-fascists is just plain daft.
You have singularly failed to provide a single example where physical force was employed to secure objectives that were anything other than political. Yet you claim you are involved in 'critically analysing' the conclusions drawn in BTF.
I'm beginning to question whether you have even read it. Because all of the banal questions you have asked on here were addressed in a variety of way throughout the book. Yet you still demand an explaination for the importance of 1994 in terms of the narrative? Or claim to fail to see what the connection can be between stopping Blood&Honour gigs and stopping the development of euro-nationalism.
On the face of it near every one is or claims to be an anti-fascist these days - including the BNP. But as the experience of the French resistance demonstrates it is sentiment that can evaporate at the firstwhiff of cordite. In actual fact, the capitulation occurs a long time before that. As I said before everyone can be an anti-fascist while it's easy, but at the first sign of risk to self, career or liberty 'the revolver is put back in the drawer'.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
This is quite funny given the whole thrust of your claim is to have caused something *not* to happen (Joe's "AFA dividend") - measured by what you positively achieved it's very hard to see how your justify your high-handed dismissals of the left in its entirety.
As for Joe;s question above, you're hardly going to write "and then we kicked someone else's head in for a bit of a laugh on the way to the next battle with the fash" are you? There is strikingly little in the book on say the miners strike or the poll-tax. And I know you'll say "well that's not what we were writing about". But it just seems that the fighting on the streets becomes the pre-eminent and essential way of defeating fascism, when actually building mass working class support for ideas that cut across fascism is surely the key, even though you need to protect the space you have to do this (march, selling papers, all the boring political stuff).
love detective
there's no love too small
somewhat disingenuous there i would say - both cases,
i) the AFA dividend, and
ii) ensuring that the political objectives that political violence sought to achieve, never ended up being subordinate to violence for the sake of violence
are examples of things explicitly happening to ensure something else didn't - focus can then quite correctly be put on the method and the implementation of that method in reality to achieve those objectives - and indeed so can focus be put on the achievement of those objectives. So there's nothing in there that resembles your charge of a focus on the non-existent
you on the other hand are purely focussing on the possibility that something could have happened (but didn't because of the discipline involved in ensuring that it didn't) and using that possibility to paint a picture over the reality of what did happen
if the underlying fascist threat predominantly manifests itself in the form of violence on the streets, what might you think would be an appropriate tactic to successfully confront that immediate threat? a paper sale, a meeting, a petition, a symposium?
and i notice you continually use the phrase 'street fighting' (to somehow put forward the notion of mindless violence for mindless violence's sake) instead of the disciplined politically motivated and directed violence that it actually was
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
The "AFA Dividend" is something you are concluding (ex post facto) happened from the belief that something else (the potential scale of sympathy for far right argument shown by the BNP vote wasn't tapped into by the fascists in their full pomp). But you haven't established causation. If I was being facetious I could just as easily refer to a "post-punk dividend" where people were diverted from far right ideas by listening to the Specials!
I use "street fighting" to denote fighting on the streets, which is what we're talking about! That it *can* be necessary for a political purpose doesn't mean it always *is* political anywhere and everywhere you engage in it. You'd accept that presumably?
I use "street fighting" to denote fighting on the streets, which is what we're talking about! That it *can* be necessary for a political purpose doesn't mean it always *is* political anywhere and everywhere you engage in it. You'd accept that presumably?
love detective
there's no love too small
well that's exactly my point, you are using the term 'street fighting' to help empty out the political content/objective/direction - because of course as you say street fighting is not always political
so rather than characterise/categorise it by the specific type of political violence it was, you generalise it so it just gets lumped in with a general category of fighting/violence - which is somewhat disingenuous yet at the same time entirely obvious as to why you choose to do so
if we have two things and one is a sub-set of the other then to describe the sub-set in terms of the wider set is to deny a more valid, legitimate and accurate description of that sub set - you'd accept that presumably?
so rather than characterise/categorise it by the specific type of political violence it was, you generalise it so it just gets lumped in with a general category of fighting/violence - which is somewhat disingenuous yet at the same time entirely obvious as to why you choose to do so
if we have two things and one is a sub-set of the other then to describe the sub-set in terms of the wider set is to deny a more valid, legitimate and accurate description of that sub set - you'd accept that presumably?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Something can happen - something did happen. Argue how and why.
Not a case of bothered....more of interest, hence the request to elaborate, after all this is a discussion forum and you are well placed to elaborate.
I am not aware of searchlight ever discussing their intel ops with AFA, so how they could 'deliberately obstruct and damage 'them is hard to fathom. Worthy of substantiation, but don't bother if you are going to start frothing at the mouth.
After all it will probably go straight over my head anyway.
The Prestonian
New Member
Firstly, that 'building the mass movement will defeat the fascists'' is the sort of head-in-the-ground logic the Trots have been throwing about for years. The truth is no matter how many people you can bring in for general lefty or working class activities; small groups who are dedicated, brave enough and capable of dealing with the violence of the fash are paramount. Theres a decent Trotsky quote on this:
'' But what is this "mass self-defense" without combat organizations, without specialized cadres, without arms? To give over the defense against fascism to unorganized and unprepared masses left to themselves would be to play a role incomparably lower than the role of Pontius Pilate. To deny the role of the militia is to deny the role of the vanguard. Then why a party? Without the support of the masses, the militia is nothing. But without organized combat detachments, the most heroic masses will be smashed bit by bit by the fascist gangs. It is nonsense to counterpose the militia to self-defense. The militia is an organ of self-defense.''
And I'd argue that the reason Beating the Fascists doesn't concern itself with those other topics (strikes, poll tax riots), is because there is information everywhere about those, very traditionally 'lefty' topics. Beating the Fascists deals with a topic which most people will have no clue about. I was only 18 when it came out (so theres no way I'd have remembered for example, news reports of the Battle of Waterloo) and Beating the Fascists was a revelation. My experience of anti-fascism was being herded into a kettle for a few hours then having riot police kick the fuck out of you for a bit. Every time I was told ''next time we'll have thousands, then we'll have the manpower to break the police line and chase the fash of the streets'' But the truth is at for example the EDL demo in Manchester in 2009, if there was no police the anti-fascists would have been massacred. BtF has inspired a new generation of Squadists (in a positive sense of course) in Manchester that I know of, a proposition hopefully mirrored across the country.
Going off on a tangent a bit, but my point is the AFA people who contributed to BtF are the couple of dozen people out the entire country who are best situated to talk about the importance (and the mechanics) of militant / physical anti-fascism. Why would they go off on one about the miners when thats saturated topic.
bignose1
Searchlight Spoiler
You know very well what went on...when there was a need for a more 'subtle'' approach you'd shout no wel'l get ...... ......Im not getting involved in a discussion with you on this matter Denis.Not a case of bothered....more of interest, hence the request to elaborate, after all this is a discussion forum and you are well placed to elaborate.
I am not aware of searchlight ever discussing their intel ops with AFA, so how they could 'deliberately obstruct and damage 'them is hard to fathom. Worthy of substantiation, but don't bother if you are going to start frothing at the mouth.
After all it will probably go straight over my head anyway.
...............As regards frothing at the mouth and getting angry...the amount of times Ive heard about you lashing out when someone disagrees with you(PW) for one....highlights your lack of restraint....take the TH incident...it doesnt convince me Id be speaking to a man of reason
.........Im still wondering why a man of 53/4 can come out with a statement ''should see the crew weve got now'. Is this the only world you can live in Denis??
Cheerio.
articul8 quote:
"I use "street fighting" to denote fighting on the streets, which is what we're talking about! That it *can* be necessary for a political purpose doesn't mean it always *is* political anywhere and everywhere you engage in it. You'd accept that presumably? "
In Manchester /North West in 70's and 80's we did much less actual street fighting than "home visits" to leading fascists, and of course completely "on demand/non-selective" stewarding of general Left meetings likely , or often erroneously thought by the meeting organisers, likely, to be attacked by fascists. Who knows.. if you'd been around at the time, we would have willingly protected a meeting of YOURS , articul8 ! We often travelled many miles in late evening in response to a paniccy claim by some Leftie meeting that "the fascists were about to attack".. only to find it was a false alarm when we got there ! It may often have been a waste of time, the stewarding bit, - but we always saw what we did as "political" I can assure you --- whereas we did very often see the endless empty self important posturing of a lot of the Left , particularly the Labourite Lefties, as simply pseudo political masturbation. All depends on your perspective and aims I suppose.
"I use "street fighting" to denote fighting on the streets, which is what we're talking about! That it *can* be necessary for a political purpose doesn't mean it always *is* political anywhere and everywhere you engage in it. You'd accept that presumably? "
In Manchester /North West in 70's and 80's we did much less actual street fighting than "home visits" to leading fascists, and of course completely "on demand/non-selective" stewarding of general Left meetings likely , or often erroneously thought by the meeting organisers, likely, to be attacked by fascists. Who knows.. if you'd been around at the time, we would have willingly protected a meeting of YOURS , articul8 ! We often travelled many miles in late evening in response to a paniccy claim by some Leftie meeting that "the fascists were about to attack".. only to find it was a false alarm when we got there ! It may often have been a waste of time, the stewarding bit, - but we always saw what we did as "political" I can assure you --- whereas we did very often see the endless empty self important posturing of a lot of the Left , particularly the Labourite Lefties, as simply pseudo political masturbation. All depends on your perspective and aims I suppose.
Red Storm
M14
The Institute of Race Relations seems to have a large quantity of AFA stuff in its archive. I don't have time to go check out what's there. I thought people might be interested to know it is there nonetheless.
The executive director, Liz Fekete, was the Treasurer of AFA at one point.
The executive director, Liz Fekete, was the Treasurer of AFA at one point.
How is your dissertation/studies going? You have given yourself an interesting subject to do it on.
Red Storm
M14
It's going well thanks. Finished my theoretical chapter and now on my AFA chapter.
Just having to read through all the AFA and Red Action literature now.
Once it is marked I'll probably put it on the archive.
Nice one. If you can't put it online send us a pm as I would like to have a gander.
Similar threads
