Bash the fash?

[Q]

Perhaps this belongs in Theory instead as it is a discussion on strategy and tactics, but many antifascists just watch this forum, so I'll post it here.

Mike Macnair speaking at a London Communist Forum fringe at Marxism 2010. He outlines a history of fascism, the left's varying responses in dealing with it and draws some conclusions on what strategy is needed to to fight reaction today.

13131154

13128522

[Luther Blissett]

I agreed and support the second video's summary of EDL, up to the point where CPGB called people to join them.

In any cross-platform response I feel there needs to be an agreement between all parties involved not to use the platform to actively recruit new members to their own cause.

A clear strategy needs to be formed to combat EDL ideology.

Any response must not resort to tactics using threats and violence (militancy) against EDL members, many of whom are plugged-in to the media-hype presented by Tv, radio, newspapers & the counter-jihadi-hype, which is mainly internet based.

The latter of these two (combat of internet-based counter-jihad ideology) will require a working-group of able-minded knoweldgeable persons with spare-time on their hands to counteract.

This doesn't mean, as the CeepyGeebie said, that self-defence when necessary is ruled out. We're dealing with ideas and carefully crafted propaganda, and these can't be fought with physical militancy or by creating a 'no platform' atmosphere where discourse becomes impossible.

[Q]

I agreed and support the second video's summary of EDL, up to the point where CPGB called people to join them.

In any cross-platform response I feel there needs to be an agreement between all parties involved not to use the platform to actively recruit new members to their own cause.
He doesn't actually say that, which is obvious from his comment about the need for a communist party in the first video, where he depicts his own CPGB as a small campaign group, the SWP as a small campaign group and all of the far left consisting of small campaign groups. What we need, argues Mike, is a class party.


A clear strategy needs to be formed to combat EDL ideology.

Any response must not resort to tactics using threats and violence (militancy) against EDL members, many of whom are plugged-in to the media-hype presented by Tv, radio, newspapers & the counter-jihadi-hype, which is mainly internet based.

The latter of these two (combat of internet-based counter-jihad ideology) will require a working-group of able-minded knoweldgeable persons with spare-time on their hands to counteract.
This could indeed be a way forward. I agree with Mike where he said that we need to take on the ideology of the EDL, not substitute that and pretend they're Hitlerites.


This doesn't mean, as the CeepyGeebie said, that self-defence when necessary is ruled out.
Mike also argues for this position in the first video or maybe I'm misunderstanding you here.


We're dealing with ideas and carefully crafted propaganda, and these can't be fought with physical militancy or by creating a 'no platform' atmosphere where discourse becomes impossible.
Agreed.

[Luther Blissett]

He doesn't actually say that, which is obvious from his comment about the need for a communist party in the first video, where he depicts his own CPGB as a small campaign group, the SWP as a small campaign group and all of the far left consisting of small campaign groups. What we need, argues Mike, is a class party.
Thanks for the clarification.

This could indeed be a way forward. I agree with Mike where he said that we need to take on the ideology of the EDL, not substitute that and pretend they're Hitlerites.
It's not actually EDL's ideology - it belongs to various Counter Jihad Projects and originates in USA. This ideology managed to take root in UK, following the fear generated by the 7/7 bombings in London.
Mike also argues for this position in the first video or maybe I'm misunderstanding you here.
My bad english is to blame. Sorry! I'm agreeing that we need to be prepared to use self-defence when necessary, without threats of violence/intimidation of EDL members.

Agreed.
Excellent.

[Luther Blissett]

I've given this a second listen.

I disagree with the CPGB speaker on just about everything apart from the fact that we need to address the EDL ideology, that the majority of EDL members are not 'nazis', and that self-defence should the need arise is part of any non-violent opposition, especially if we are being physically attacked.

He descends into utter conspiralunacy when he claims the EDL are backed by the state: 'which the state has got up as part of its pro-army, pro-war campaign. It's an incorrect assessment that fails utterly to undersand the fear felt in Britain after the 7/7 bombings (which he does not mention), and the loathing felt towards Choudary's rogues.

By failing in the understanding of EDL's origins and motivations, I also believe they fail to understand the EDL.

There was no clear analysis of the counter jihad ideology being funnelled to EDL supporters from the CPGB.
If the CPGB had done their research, instead of relying on tired old communist tropes, they would not have focused more on the ideology, and less on past-tales of their glorious youth as fash-fighters, which they themselves admit did nothing to prevent a resurgence of the ultra-right.

Whilst I agree with the CPGB that we should not tag the EDL supporters as 'nazis' (too late for the nutty Islamist supporting UAF), I agree we all need to address the nature of the ideology that EDL are exposed to (including the EDL).

Some EDL are going to be mightily annoyed when they discover that this counter jihad ideology is in most cases scaremongering and propaganda, barely based on fact and designed to manipulate them into supporting things that will undermine our own freedoms, in some cases hard-won freedoms.

Yes, we should be worried about militant extremists who want to hurt and maim the citizens of a country based on the actions of their government (e.g. the 7/7 bombers, the Trans-Atlantic plane plotters).

No, we shouldn't condone their prominent scare-tactics of other British citizens who come from the same religious or cultural background of people who committed crimes.

Clearly the CPGB have just recycled some old tropes and tried to make their analysis seem up to date, but they gave no answers aside from 'they're not nazis' (we already knew the majority were just patriotic/cultural nationalists who preferred english birdsong to the call of a muezzin) and 'you can use self-defence if physically attacked' (no sh!t sherlock!).

There's a lot of bullshit opinions being thrown at the EDL from the USA Counter Jihad Movement. These opinions are designed to inflate and escalate their fears, and ride upon genuine fear after the 7/7 and other plots to harm the citizens of the UK for the actions of their government.

Most of the crap being pumped at them belongs to the realm of fiction or conspiracy. It's easy to publish unsubstantiated opinions in the blogsphere/internet and this ideology couldn't have taken its insidious hold without the internet.

Quite alot of the dodgy Qu'ran-analyses can be sourced to the Christian Right (Dominionists, Premillennarian Dispensationalists), who see themselves in competition for converts with Islam. How can the use of an opposition to extremist Islamists which has been created by extremist Christians who want a theocratic state in USA going to bring an end to these religious extremisms? It's impossible.

The EDL made a grave error from the outset by continuing to take to the streets in shouty-matches that scared moderates who were against extremisms, and failed to bring in those who could assist them (namely British Muslims). They didn't say 'Well done for casting out Choudary' to Luton's Muslims, their leaders continued a trajectory which created more fear and more animosity. It's a fucking mess.
The only people who are attracted now to the EDL are those who want to air their aggression (fear) on the streets and a small number who really do believe that the EDL are only against extremist Muslims (this is not the case, as a look at their ideology will prove).

Let's hope the bright ones among them eventually weed out the fiction from the reality.

The lines between anti-Muslim bigotry and genuine opposition to Islamism are already so blurred in daily EDL discourse between EDL members that it will take more than a genuinely unbiased analysis of the propaganda/ideology they're being fed by the 'Counter Jihad' network to convince EDL members that they're being emotionally manipulated by insidious propagandists.

[Q]

Luther Blissett: I'll respond more thoroughly to your latest post at some later point if you don't mind.

For now however I'd like to link to the article based on this speech (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004011), for those who prefer text over video.

[Luther Blissett]

Luther Blissett: I'll respond more thoroughly to your latest post at some later point if you don't mind.
Not at all. It's a work-in-progress. I will probably edit it a few times, until a response is forthcoming, so take as much time as you need.


For now however I'd like to link to the article based on this speech (see link in Q's post above), for those who prefer text over video.
Useful, thanks.