The Ungovernable Farce
10th December 2009, 16:29
I've not read all of it yet, but this looks interesting (http://www.freedompress.org.uk/news/2009/10/24/give-up-anti-fascism-an-anarchist-response/):
An article appeared in the August edition of Red Pepper magazine entitled ‘Anti-fascism Isn’t Working’. Written by a non-aligned anarchist it was originally called ‘Give Up Anti-fascism’ (presumably as a nod to the old ‘Give Up Activism’ article written by disgruntled activists after the J18 mass mobilisation) and it is this version we shall be referring to here for the simple reason it’s both the author’s original edit and the one most read, by radicals at least. Putting a case together
‘Give Up Anti-fascism’ offers up an interesting and valid addition to the debate on anti-fascism and should be viewed positively in that regard. Too easily radicals adopt and maintain familiar political criteria out of ideological loyalty, or just plain laziness, that stops them looking critically at what it is they are trying to achieve and the methods and tactics employed to achieve it. Although the article doesn’t mention anarchists’ relationship to anti-fascism, addressing itself as it does to the liberal left and radical left (we can only speculate as to why the author didn’t mention or even acknowledge Antifa in his assessment), anything that encourages us to look at and re*assess how we apply our ideas is always useful, especially at a time of the anarchist movement’s continued disorientation and lack of purpose, impact and confidence.
The article focuses on three distinct aspects: 1) where the BNP currently stand electorally; 2) the failure of the left to successfully combat the rise of the BNP; and 3) positive suggestions how the left could and should reformulate itself, laying out the problems with the on*going strategies for opposing the BNP. In a frank and considered way it centres itself around the question: is anti-fascism the answer to the BNP?
Conditions of participation
On the surface it commits a common sense approach to the problem of the BNP, and has a lot to commend it, but it also suffers flaws and contradictions. The first part of the article is expressed as “some brief facts and figures to situate the debate”. The problem with this is it doesn’t put those figures in any social or political context. This is troubling for two reasons. Firstly it gives us nothing to anchor our understanding about just why people are voting for the BNP in the numbers they are; secondly we are given no frame of reference, no insight into just who the BNP are appealing to and under what circumstances. No political party is cut off from the social, cultural and economic conditions of the day and simply presenting statistics this way does just that. We have had 12 years of a Labour government most of which have been spent involved either directly or indirectly in wars in the Middle East bringing with it the rise of political Islam and the hardening of Muslim identities; we’ve seen the imposition of official multi-culturalism as government social policy; we’ve seen the opening and expansion of the internal European Union borders resulting in economic migration on an unprecedented scale; we’ve seen escalating military conflict across the globe creating mass population displacement; we no longer have in this country sustainable heavy industries or large scale manufacturing to bind communities together or build discernible class dynamics in the traditional way. As reported previously in Freedom, we are living through a unique set of social conditions, and the BNP operate within these conditions. How and why the left have failed to address and capitalise on the same conditions in the same way is beyond the scope of this piece but one that will have to involve some fearless soul searching for all those concerned. The irony being in order for Labour to enjoy the longest uninterrupted term in office in its history it had to get rid of Clause 4, take away all elective and decision-making powers from the largely working class dominated area branches, effectively barren outposts of the Millbank Empire, and rope in endless middle-class consultants as policy makers to fill the gap. In abandoning the working class they have achieved their biggest victory.
Internal affairs
Similarly there is no mention of the internal mechanism of the BNP; Griffin’s ongoing strategy of ‘modernising’ the party – appealing to a wider electorate by watering down its political rhetoric. This continues to be at the heart of the BNP growth but brings with it its own fragile tensions. To keep those newly won voters placated the party must continue to remain accessible and not too politically extreme, moving from the political fringes, both in policy and presentation, to be subsumed in the arena of bourgeois parlia*mentary democracy. This may allow the BNP the privilege of rubbing shoulders with other career politicians on Question Time, but it means their fascist and overt racist tendencies must remain disused, if not completely discarded. It also causes divisions within the party with the more hardline membership feeling betrayed and sidelined by the current political trajectory. These ruptures can threaten to overwhelm the party at any point, as they almost did with the party split and challenge to Griffin’s leadership in 2007 and remain manageable by the leadership only as long as the BNP’s popularity is in the ascendant and the funds remain buoyant. If the party is diluting its political rhetoric in homeopathic proportions to gain votes, and have committed themselves not to engage in any ‘street based’ physical force activity, the revolutionary nature of fascism being all but buried beneath the desire for respectability, just where is the real threat from the BNP coming from? A question we shall come back to.
The second part of the article does a fairly assured job of highlighting the failures of current anti-fascist methods concerning Hope Not Hate, connected to the state-associated Searchlight organisation, and Unite Against Fascism, essentially a Socialist Workers Party front group (although supported by main*stream politicians and organisations across the political spectrum) and dismantling their various tactical approaches – ‘isolate and expose’ being the favoured one. This is where the author gets it spot on, from the absurdity of calling for ‘vote anyone but BNP’ to the policy of exposing the past indiscretions of various party members. Where the article is at its most interesting it is also at its weakest in the third section with the positive suggestions.
Real dangers, real solutions?
But first we must understand where the real danger from the BNP lies. According to the article it is in them “colonising the anti-mainstream parties vote and loyalty, thereby blocking the development of an independent working class politics capable of defending our conditions and of challenging neo-liberalism”. This sounds like rhetorical bluster. Certainly future BNP strategy, according to Griffin, will be based around ‘community politics work’, intended to build trust within communities and ease people into the idea of the BNP as decent neighbours rather than political extremists. The problem with this is they can only be a certain type of good neighbour to a certain constituency. But does it necessarily follow that colonising the anti-mainstream vote means a block on the development of an independent working class politics? And if so how? It’s wishful thinking or worst case scenario perhaps but it’s a prediction that relies on a lot of good will afforded the BNP by the working class themselves (with or without the job of the left being the defenders of the needs of working class communities).
The point is we as radicals have had no impact in creating those social conditions listed above nor have any means of changing them directly. All we can do is be a part of the discourse. The whole thrust of ‘Give Up Anti-fascism’ rests on the idea we don’t stop the BNP operating but we become an alternative and competing voice to the BNP about ‘the state we are in’. And the way that voice gains credibility is through operating in positive and practical ways in our communi*ties. Essentially be a better good neighbour than the BNP.
Getting our hands dirty
The need to build ‘community unions’ is the article’s key positive suggestion as an alternative to the current ineffectual model of anti-fascism. These unions would “work directly on helping to meet the needs of those politically abandoned working class communi**ties where conditions are deteriorating by the day. Based around the self-identified needs and plans of those communities” All solid enough stuff but a little idealistic especially in the suggestion they could be funded by trade unions while remaining organisationally independent. The three groups London Coalition Against Poverty (LCAP), Haringey Solidarity Group (HSG) and the Independent Working Class Association (IWCA), named as examples of those already engaged in this approach, need to be looked at a little closer. LCAP base their activity on helping the homeless and unemployed gain access to what they are legally entitled to from the state. As an advocacy group they draw their core membership from the middle-class activist scene, skilled and experienced in dealing with officialdom to essentially help people less fortunate than themselves, the very same methodology as criticised by the original J18 ‘Give Up Activism’ authors. Admittedly there are some in LCAP who wish to move beyond their current status and LCAP as a group should be encouraged and supported in that endeavour. HSG has been attempting for years to build a network of community groups in every London borough, based on precisely the same principles as these ‘community unions’, which only now seems to be bearing fruit. Going under the title Radical London, it’s a network of locally instituted groups made up largely of anarchists, or with anarchist sympathies, with the intention of offering practical support on local issues while engaging politically in working class resistance from an anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist perspective. Then there’s the IWCA. Formed out of the ashes of Red Action, who were more than successful in confronting the far right in the 1980s and ’90s, the IWCA were the first to recognise and take seriously the BNP’s shift from ‘street based’ politics to proper electioneering, adopting a strategy of “promoting and celebrating the political independence of the working class” as a direct challenge to the BNP. But after almost 15 years in existence, and eight years as a political party, the question remains why have the IWCA failed to engage with the working class on the same scale and with the same success as the BNP and why have the working class failed to turn to and embrace the IWCA as they have with the BNP? However valid the politics of the IWCA are they have yet to capture the imagination or interest of the working class in any significant way leaving the BNP to grow and indulge itself as a “radical alternative”.
Another key point is why these community unions would be a part of the opposition to the BNP at all? Unless going head to head with the BNP on issues in those areas or unless they’re invested with an outside political dynamic – confronting the BNP at election time, promoting a left-wing party alternative, this approach is simply one of successful community organising. Which brings us on to the confusion over voting/not voting. If these community unions aren’t based on electioneering, how is their success defined? Less BNP votes, councillors, MEPs? Less support for Labour? All of which of course could only ever be validated at election time. Being critical of the failings of a government in power is still simply that, a critical voice.
The anarchists
Where does all this leave anarchists in the fight against the BNP? Solidarity Federation, in the latest edition of their magazine Direct Action, re-confirms its policy of no platform for fascists encouraging its members to support militant anti-fascist campaigns. The Anarchist Federation states: “The AF does not have a single perspective on fascism and the way to counter it”, but offers no immediate methods of engagement with the BNP. Liberty & Solidarity have yet to express an opinion, although their members have been active in physically confronting the BNP – none offer a coherent long term strategy of dealing with the BNP.
With Antifa currently gone to ground, anarchists need to seriously consider how they organise around the issue of the BNP’s continued and seemingly uninterrupted growth. ‘Give Up Anti-fascism’ is worthy starting point for that discourse.
Your thoughts?
EDIT: Now that I have read it, two criticisms. This bit:
"If these community unions aren’t based on electioneering, how is their success defined? Less BNP votes, councillors, MEPs? Less support for Labour? All of which of course could only ever be validated at election time. Being critical of the failings of a government in power is still simply that, a critical voice."
Is bullshit - surely the success of community unions would be measured by winning real, tangible victories. It's impossible to say what those would be in the abstract, because their priorities have to be determined by their membership and not by activists on the internet, but I'd imagine winning things like more and better housing, lower rents, helping people get access to benefits could all be successes that would show community unions were working and had nothing to do with electoralism.
Secondly, having said that "Where the article is at its most interesting it is also at its weakest in the third section with the positive suggestions", it's frustrating that they totally fail to offer any positive solutions of their own whatsoever. Also when they say the AF "offer no immediate methods of engaging with the BNP", a) it's something we've put a lot of thought into, as evidenced by the fact that Organise 70 was an anti-fascist special, and b) we recommend people should get involved/form militant anti-fascist groups in their area, simple as that.
An article appeared in the August edition of Red Pepper magazine entitled ‘Anti-fascism Isn’t Working’. Written by a non-aligned anarchist it was originally called ‘Give Up Anti-fascism’ (presumably as a nod to the old ‘Give Up Activism’ article written by disgruntled activists after the J18 mass mobilisation) and it is this version we shall be referring to here for the simple reason it’s both the author’s original edit and the one most read, by radicals at least. Putting a case together
‘Give Up Anti-fascism’ offers up an interesting and valid addition to the debate on anti-fascism and should be viewed positively in that regard. Too easily radicals adopt and maintain familiar political criteria out of ideological loyalty, or just plain laziness, that stops them looking critically at what it is they are trying to achieve and the methods and tactics employed to achieve it. Although the article doesn’t mention anarchists’ relationship to anti-fascism, addressing itself as it does to the liberal left and radical left (we can only speculate as to why the author didn’t mention or even acknowledge Antifa in his assessment), anything that encourages us to look at and re*assess how we apply our ideas is always useful, especially at a time of the anarchist movement’s continued disorientation and lack of purpose, impact and confidence.
The article focuses on three distinct aspects: 1) where the BNP currently stand electorally; 2) the failure of the left to successfully combat the rise of the BNP; and 3) positive suggestions how the left could and should reformulate itself, laying out the problems with the on*going strategies for opposing the BNP. In a frank and considered way it centres itself around the question: is anti-fascism the answer to the BNP?
Conditions of participation
On the surface it commits a common sense approach to the problem of the BNP, and has a lot to commend it, but it also suffers flaws and contradictions. The first part of the article is expressed as “some brief facts and figures to situate the debate”. The problem with this is it doesn’t put those figures in any social or political context. This is troubling for two reasons. Firstly it gives us nothing to anchor our understanding about just why people are voting for the BNP in the numbers they are; secondly we are given no frame of reference, no insight into just who the BNP are appealing to and under what circumstances. No political party is cut off from the social, cultural and economic conditions of the day and simply presenting statistics this way does just that. We have had 12 years of a Labour government most of which have been spent involved either directly or indirectly in wars in the Middle East bringing with it the rise of political Islam and the hardening of Muslim identities; we’ve seen the imposition of official multi-culturalism as government social policy; we’ve seen the opening and expansion of the internal European Union borders resulting in economic migration on an unprecedented scale; we’ve seen escalating military conflict across the globe creating mass population displacement; we no longer have in this country sustainable heavy industries or large scale manufacturing to bind communities together or build discernible class dynamics in the traditional way. As reported previously in Freedom, we are living through a unique set of social conditions, and the BNP operate within these conditions. How and why the left have failed to address and capitalise on the same conditions in the same way is beyond the scope of this piece but one that will have to involve some fearless soul searching for all those concerned. The irony being in order for Labour to enjoy the longest uninterrupted term in office in its history it had to get rid of Clause 4, take away all elective and decision-making powers from the largely working class dominated area branches, effectively barren outposts of the Millbank Empire, and rope in endless middle-class consultants as policy makers to fill the gap. In abandoning the working class they have achieved their biggest victory.
Internal affairs
Similarly there is no mention of the internal mechanism of the BNP; Griffin’s ongoing strategy of ‘modernising’ the party – appealing to a wider electorate by watering down its political rhetoric. This continues to be at the heart of the BNP growth but brings with it its own fragile tensions. To keep those newly won voters placated the party must continue to remain accessible and not too politically extreme, moving from the political fringes, both in policy and presentation, to be subsumed in the arena of bourgeois parlia*mentary democracy. This may allow the BNP the privilege of rubbing shoulders with other career politicians on Question Time, but it means their fascist and overt racist tendencies must remain disused, if not completely discarded. It also causes divisions within the party with the more hardline membership feeling betrayed and sidelined by the current political trajectory. These ruptures can threaten to overwhelm the party at any point, as they almost did with the party split and challenge to Griffin’s leadership in 2007 and remain manageable by the leadership only as long as the BNP’s popularity is in the ascendant and the funds remain buoyant. If the party is diluting its political rhetoric in homeopathic proportions to gain votes, and have committed themselves not to engage in any ‘street based’ physical force activity, the revolutionary nature of fascism being all but buried beneath the desire for respectability, just where is the real threat from the BNP coming from? A question we shall come back to.
The second part of the article does a fairly assured job of highlighting the failures of current anti-fascist methods concerning Hope Not Hate, connected to the state-associated Searchlight organisation, and Unite Against Fascism, essentially a Socialist Workers Party front group (although supported by main*stream politicians and organisations across the political spectrum) and dismantling their various tactical approaches – ‘isolate and expose’ being the favoured one. This is where the author gets it spot on, from the absurdity of calling for ‘vote anyone but BNP’ to the policy of exposing the past indiscretions of various party members. Where the article is at its most interesting it is also at its weakest in the third section with the positive suggestions.
Real dangers, real solutions?
But first we must understand where the real danger from the BNP lies. According to the article it is in them “colonising the anti-mainstream parties vote and loyalty, thereby blocking the development of an independent working class politics capable of defending our conditions and of challenging neo-liberalism”. This sounds like rhetorical bluster. Certainly future BNP strategy, according to Griffin, will be based around ‘community politics work’, intended to build trust within communities and ease people into the idea of the BNP as decent neighbours rather than political extremists. The problem with this is they can only be a certain type of good neighbour to a certain constituency. But does it necessarily follow that colonising the anti-mainstream vote means a block on the development of an independent working class politics? And if so how? It’s wishful thinking or worst case scenario perhaps but it’s a prediction that relies on a lot of good will afforded the BNP by the working class themselves (with or without the job of the left being the defenders of the needs of working class communities).
The point is we as radicals have had no impact in creating those social conditions listed above nor have any means of changing them directly. All we can do is be a part of the discourse. The whole thrust of ‘Give Up Anti-fascism’ rests on the idea we don’t stop the BNP operating but we become an alternative and competing voice to the BNP about ‘the state we are in’. And the way that voice gains credibility is through operating in positive and practical ways in our communi*ties. Essentially be a better good neighbour than the BNP.
Getting our hands dirty
The need to build ‘community unions’ is the article’s key positive suggestion as an alternative to the current ineffectual model of anti-fascism. These unions would “work directly on helping to meet the needs of those politically abandoned working class communi**ties where conditions are deteriorating by the day. Based around the self-identified needs and plans of those communities” All solid enough stuff but a little idealistic especially in the suggestion they could be funded by trade unions while remaining organisationally independent. The three groups London Coalition Against Poverty (LCAP), Haringey Solidarity Group (HSG) and the Independent Working Class Association (IWCA), named as examples of those already engaged in this approach, need to be looked at a little closer. LCAP base their activity on helping the homeless and unemployed gain access to what they are legally entitled to from the state. As an advocacy group they draw their core membership from the middle-class activist scene, skilled and experienced in dealing with officialdom to essentially help people less fortunate than themselves, the very same methodology as criticised by the original J18 ‘Give Up Activism’ authors. Admittedly there are some in LCAP who wish to move beyond their current status and LCAP as a group should be encouraged and supported in that endeavour. HSG has been attempting for years to build a network of community groups in every London borough, based on precisely the same principles as these ‘community unions’, which only now seems to be bearing fruit. Going under the title Radical London, it’s a network of locally instituted groups made up largely of anarchists, or with anarchist sympathies, with the intention of offering practical support on local issues while engaging politically in working class resistance from an anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist perspective. Then there’s the IWCA. Formed out of the ashes of Red Action, who were more than successful in confronting the far right in the 1980s and ’90s, the IWCA were the first to recognise and take seriously the BNP’s shift from ‘street based’ politics to proper electioneering, adopting a strategy of “promoting and celebrating the political independence of the working class” as a direct challenge to the BNP. But after almost 15 years in existence, and eight years as a political party, the question remains why have the IWCA failed to engage with the working class on the same scale and with the same success as the BNP and why have the working class failed to turn to and embrace the IWCA as they have with the BNP? However valid the politics of the IWCA are they have yet to capture the imagination or interest of the working class in any significant way leaving the BNP to grow and indulge itself as a “radical alternative”.
Another key point is why these community unions would be a part of the opposition to the BNP at all? Unless going head to head with the BNP on issues in those areas or unless they’re invested with an outside political dynamic – confronting the BNP at election time, promoting a left-wing party alternative, this approach is simply one of successful community organising. Which brings us on to the confusion over voting/not voting. If these community unions aren’t based on electioneering, how is their success defined? Less BNP votes, councillors, MEPs? Less support for Labour? All of which of course could only ever be validated at election time. Being critical of the failings of a government in power is still simply that, a critical voice.
The anarchists
Where does all this leave anarchists in the fight against the BNP? Solidarity Federation, in the latest edition of their magazine Direct Action, re-confirms its policy of no platform for fascists encouraging its members to support militant anti-fascist campaigns. The Anarchist Federation states: “The AF does not have a single perspective on fascism and the way to counter it”, but offers no immediate methods of engagement with the BNP. Liberty & Solidarity have yet to express an opinion, although their members have been active in physically confronting the BNP – none offer a coherent long term strategy of dealing with the BNP.
With Antifa currently gone to ground, anarchists need to seriously consider how they organise around the issue of the BNP’s continued and seemingly uninterrupted growth. ‘Give Up Anti-fascism’ is worthy starting point for that discourse.
Your thoughts?
EDIT: Now that I have read it, two criticisms. This bit:
"If these community unions aren’t based on electioneering, how is their success defined? Less BNP votes, councillors, MEPs? Less support for Labour? All of which of course could only ever be validated at election time. Being critical of the failings of a government in power is still simply that, a critical voice."
Is bullshit - surely the success of community unions would be measured by winning real, tangible victories. It's impossible to say what those would be in the abstract, because their priorities have to be determined by their membership and not by activists on the internet, but I'd imagine winning things like more and better housing, lower rents, helping people get access to benefits could all be successes that would show community unions were working and had nothing to do with electoralism.
Secondly, having said that "Where the article is at its most interesting it is also at its weakest in the third section with the positive suggestions", it's frustrating that they totally fail to offer any positive solutions of their own whatsoever. Also when they say the AF "offer no immediate methods of engaging with the BNP", a) it's something we've put a lot of thought into, as evidenced by the fact that Organise 70 was an anti-fascist special, and b) we recommend people should get involved/form militant anti-fascist groups in their area, simple as that.