Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Tommy Robinson, the court case and (guffaw) 'free speech'

His blog is often good value, the only book of his I read was against the grain which was ok (but really just a collection of essays by different people and no way I'd have paid the excessive hardback price of it)
 
He's an academic in australia who seems very focused on the CPGB rather than trotskysism - has a book on the History of No Platform in the NUS/CPGB/etc coming out - or was supposed to have been coming out for some time. Doesn't look to have ever been active in any orgs.
Sorry got him confused with Ewan Gibbs. Yes I contributed something to his book on No Platform when he put a call out but god knows if he'll use it.
 
The best I can explain it is like trades unionism. Everyone joins for a common goal (protect jobs, collectively bargain for pay and conditions) but not everyone has to fit a particular mould of what a trade unionist must look like.
As mentioned above there's some supposed anti fascists who are pushing it towards being a niche when actually the direction of travel should be opposite direction.

Some of the people calling themselves anti-fascists currently, are of similar politics to the pissants who've spent decades condemning anti-fascists for violence. This is merely a pose for them.
I got roped into addressing an Extinction Rebellion meeting - about 60 people present - recently. The evening's subject was "non-violent direct action". I asked how many had been on a protest where the police had got a bit lairy, and half a dozen hands went up. I asked how many would fight back if the police came in batons swinging. No hands went up. My reply to this was "and that's why you won't get your demands met - you still believe that the Gandhi route will work, in this time and this place. When the state gets fed up treating you with kid gloves, they'll break your heads, and you'll sit there and take it, and let yourselves be beaten and arrested". I find it hard to comprehend just how strategically bereft XR are. They have good tactics, but their strategy is so narrow that it's easy to derail. My point here is that XR members tend to call themselves anti-fascist too, but seem to wage "struggle" purely on the verbal level.
 
Some of the people calling themselves anti-fascists currently, are of similar politics to the pissants who've spent decades condemning anti-fascists for violence. This is merely a pose for them.
I got roped into addressing an Extinction Rebellion meeting - about 60 people present - recently. The evening's subject was "non-violent direct action". I asked how many had been on a protest where the police had got a bit lairy, and half a dozen hands went up. I asked how many would fight back if the police came in batons swinging. No hands went up. My reply to this was "and that's why you won't get your demands met - you still believe that the Gandhi route will work, in this time and this place. When the state gets fed up treating you with kid gloves, they'll break your heads, and you'll sit there and take it, and let yourselves be beaten and arrested". I find it hard to comprehend just how strategically bereft XR are. They have good tactics, but their strategy is so narrow that it's easy to derail. My point here is that XR members tend to call themselves anti-fascist too, but seem to wage "struggle" purely on the verbal level.

Have you come across XR referring to themselves as "anti fascists"? .

My experience of them is that that struggle hasn't even registered with them. For most this is the first political thing they've ever done.
 
Some of the people calling themselves anti-fascists currently, are of similar politics to the pissants who've spent decades condemning anti-fascists for violence. This is merely a pose for them.
I got roped into addressing an Extinction Rebellion meeting - about 60 people present - recently. The evening's subject was "non-violent direct action". I asked how many had been on a protest where the police had got a bit lairy, and half a dozen hands went up. I asked how many would fight back if the police came in batons swinging. No hands went up. My reply to this was "and that's why you won't get your demands met - you still believe that the Gandhi route will work, in this time and this place. When the state gets fed up treating you with kid gloves, they'll break your heads, and you'll sit there and take it, and let yourselves be beaten and arrested". I find it hard to comprehend just how strategically bereft XR are. They have good tactics, but their strategy is so narrow that it's easy to derail. My point here is that XR members tend to call themselves anti-fascist too, but seem to wage "struggle" purely on the verbal level.

Not sure you were actually addressing my point which was more we should be drawing people in who are up for fighting fascists but don’t see themselves as communists and (gasp) may identify more with national identity over class, rather than working with every Tom, Dick and Hippy who are vaguely in the sphere.
 
Have you come across XR referring to themselves as "anti fascists"? .

Some. Mostly the older ones, but even then you question what they mean, and it boils down to "I've been on HnH and UAF marches". The

My experience of them is that that struggle hasn't even registered with them. For most this is the first political thing they've ever done.

I believe it has registered, but as some sort of idealised "march from A to B to stop fascism" crap.
 
Not sure you were actually addressing my point which was more we should be drawing people in who are up for fighting fascists but don’t see themselves as communists and (gasp) may identify more with national identity over class, rather than working with every Tom, Dick and Hippy who are vaguely in the sphere.

My point is that sadly the most politically-active group at the mo is a bunch of people who have got little clue. People who I'll work with on certain things, but who I wouldn't want beside me in physical force direct action because they think you can "work with" the state.

Anti-fascism doesn't draw that many people in, even when it would benefit them, for the same reasons it never has: Many people abhor violence even as a last resort (foolishly, IMO); many people avoid confrontation; many people are atomised from ideas of collective action, and the benefits to their community. Lastly, many people suffer from the popular delusion that "someone else will fight the fight for me".

As for national identity over class, I worked with many anti-Nazi skins in the '80s. Some people who lionise their British identity are fine, because they're clued up enough to understand that the nation is its people - all of them, not just the ones that sunburn easily. The people you want will rally to the cause when (not if) the time comes, just like they always have, but what you won't get is a movement in the way the term is currently understood. Movements can be suborned by wasters like the SWP, and members lose sight of their goals. Collective action through loose networks, on an as-needed basis has always worked better.
And you know what? Most of those who'll take up the fight will be working class. Why? Because we have the lived experience to know what's necessary, and the will to do it unmediated by middle class ideas about correct behaviour. That's why I mentioned XR and their narrowly-defined behaviours - because they're thoroughly m/c, and will founder on those behaviours, regardless of the righteousness of their aims.

TLDR: Political purity is bollocks,
 
i think leftists call themselves anti-fascist as fascism is opposed to their own beliefs but are really confusing it with being anti-racist, a position rather than an active role in opposing the far right culturally, in media, in the community, on physical resistance etc.
we are all fundamentally anti-racist but anti-fascism, for me, is contributing actively in whatever form or capacity you feel you can do.
 
My point is that sadly the most politically-active group at the mo is a bunch of people who have got little clue. People who I'll work with on certain things, but who I wouldn't want beside me in physical force direct action because they think you can "work with" the state.

Anti-fascism doesn't draw that many people in, even when it would benefit them, for the same reasons it never has: Many people abhor violence even as a last resort (foolishly, IMO); many people avoid confrontation; many people are atomised from ideas of collective action, and the benefits to their community. Lastly, many people suffer from the popular delusion that "someone else will fight the fight for me".

As for national identity over class, I worked with many anti-Nazi skins in the '80s. Some people who lionise their British identity are fine, because they're clued up enough to understand that the nation is its people - all of them, not just the ones that sunburn easily. The people you want will rally to the cause when (not if) the time comes, just like they always have, but what you won't get is a movement in the way the term is currently understood. Movements can be suborned by wasters like the SWP, and members lose sight of their goals. Collective action through loose networks, on an as-needed basis has always worked better.
And you know what? Most of those who'll take up the fight will be working class. Why? Because we have the lived experience to know what's necessary, and the will to do it unmediated by middle class ideas about correct behaviour. That's why I mentioned XR and their narrowly-defined behaviours - because they're thoroughly m/c, and will founder on those behaviours, regardless of the righteousness of their aims.

TLDR: Political purity is bollocks,

XR is definitely not about "physical force direct action" nor does it pretend to be.

It's a bizarre and contradictory movement, currently quite middle class but not exclusively. It is however pretty much the only movement tackling the most important issue of our times.
 
Back
Top Bottom