Hat tip: Steve
“VENEZUELA isn’t Ukraine. Right-wing fascists are not going to impose themselves here,” Cilia Flores told a rally of government supporters in Caracas at the weekend.
Flores, the wife of President Nicolas Maduro, was correct to identify imperialism’s hand between the daily street confrontations in the Venezuelan capital, which have mirrored events in Kiev.
She is also right to conclude that Venezuela’s government has been more resolute in responding to far-right provocations than President Viktor Yanukovych was in Ukraine.
Having suffered a mercifully brief coup in 2002, the Bolivarian regime would not allow the opposition to set up a semi-permanent camp outside the national assembly from which to direct armed attacks on police, occupy official buildings and provide a convenient drop-in centre for visiting imperialist politicians from Catherine Ashton to Joe Biden.
Ukrainian opposition politician Yulia Tymoshenko told supporters, following her release from jail at the weekend, that the “dictatorship” had fallen.
In fact, whatever the considerable faults of Yanukovych, he was elected president in a free election, defeating the same Tymoshenko who, during her premiership, tarnished her own poster-girl image from the 2004 supposed Orange “Revolution.”
Both Yanukovych and Tymoshenko are linked to a tiny elite of oligarchs who made rapid fortunes in the years following the collapse of Soviet power.
Tymoshenko herself became immensely rich through involvement in the gas industry, selling Russian supplies to the Ukrainian market and earning the sobriquet “gas princess” for her efforts.
To imagine that she, her supporters or her right-wing competitors to succeed Yanukovych represent a further “revolution” is fanciful.
White House and European Union politicians, together with a compliant mass media, have eulogised the organisers of what can only be described accurately as a violent coup d’ etat and have averted their eyes from unappealing facts.
The role of fascist, anti-semitic and anti-Russian elements — Svoboda (Freedom), Praviy Sektor (Right Sector) Spilna Sprava (Common Cause) and Trizub (Trident) — in Kiev street fighting has been downplayed or excused.
Svoboda stormtroopers have been treated as allies by the EU-approved opposition parties — Vitali Klitschko’s Udar (Punch) and Tymoshenko’s Rodina (Homeland).
Svoboda principal Oleh Tyahnybok, who lauds wartime leading pro-nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, has not retreated from his political hinterland, damning the “Moscow Jewish mafia” that, according to him, runs Ukraine.
This wilful blindness to reality recalls Western indifference to Polish Solidarnosc leader Lech Walesa’s statement that he was a “real Pole,” with no Jews or Russians in his family tree.
International media chains’ determination to consistently describe those intent on a coup in Ukraine as “protesters” or “demonstrators” has its echo in Venezuela where the substitution of Henrique Capriles as de facto opposition leader by his campaign manager Leopoldo Lopez has heralded a change of tactics.
Lopez has unveiled a new stage of opposition called La Salida (Exit), whereby daily street disturbances, including targeted killings, are the order of the day, only to be blamed on Maduro supporters by the media.
The intention is to generate such chaos as to provoke public antipathy to the Maduro government or force it to use counterproductive repressive measures to quash violence.
As with Ukraine, the US-funded Venezuelan opposition, has effectively refused to abide by inconvenient election results and is set on overthrowing the Bolivarian revolution by any means possible.
Venezuela’s revolution needs international support, which is coordinated in Britain by the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign. Still greater labour movement backing for VSC is essential for the truth to penetrate mass media misrepresentation.
The struggle against the most pernicious and entrenched neo-Nazi force in Europe is at a critical moment.
At stake in the dramatic arrests of Nikolaos Michaloliakos and other leaders of the Golden Dawn in Greece is not only the immediate future of a Nazi party that has 18 MPs, with 7 percent of the vote at the last general election, and a considerable street-fighting arm, but also the course of the social and political resistance in the European country hit hardest by crisis.
At issue too is the wider struggle in Europe against fascism, racism and xenophobia — as the rise of Golden Dawn has acted as an exemplar and loadstone for radicalising, far Right forces across the continent.
The sudden turn by the state and government of Antonis Samaras against GD is testament to sustained anti-fascist campaigning in Greece and to the eruption of popular fury at the fascist murder of much-loved, anti-racist hip hop artist Pavlos Fyssas. Within hours of Pavlos’s murder, tens of thousands of people took to the streets of dozens of cities across Greece targeting GD, one of whose cadres wielded the knife that felled him.
It was fear of a repeat of the uprising of December 2008 — resulting from the police murder of 15-year-old school student Alexandros Grigoropoulos — intersecting with a rising strike wave and the growth of the radical Left that led the government to act.
It certainly was not some inherent hostility towards the fascists on the part of Samaras and his New Democracy party. At least three leading figures of the centre Right had entertained a possible coalition with the fascists (if they “moderated” slightly) as the ruling coalition dwindled to just the centre Right and the zombie social democratic party, Pasok.
Anti-fascist lawyers Evgenia Kouniaki, Takis Zwtos and Thanasis Kampagiannis outline the tip of a mountain of evidence linking GD to criminal activity and murder over the last few years, including to the murder of Pakistani worker Shehzad Luqman in January this year: one of his killers had piles of GD leaflets and a portrait of Michaloliakos in his flat. There were no raids of GD offices or of police stations implicated with the Nazis eight months ago.
Costas Douzinas, Hara Kouki and Antonis Vradis here sketch some of the extensive links between the fascists, and the centre Right and elements of the state. Last week brought revelations of paramilitary fascist training conducted by reserve elements of Greece’s special forces and the collusion of a leading figure of the secret service, EYP, in obstructing investigations into GD crimes.
Additionally, this is a government that has implemented the savage austerity memorandums while deliberately stoking racism, rounding up refugees and migrants, all as it increased state repression against the social movements. As this statement puts it succinctly, “It is the government that closed schools and hospitals, and opened concentration camps.”
It is also a government which, faced with the rise of the radical Left — with the main Left opposition party Syriza the potential victor of the next general election, has sought to vilify the whole Left, and by implication legitimise the fascist Right, by describing both as “twin extremes”, which are equally a threat to democracy.
Samaras revived that smear only this week on a visit to the US, comparing those in favour of an exit from the Eurozone and EU with GD thugs. That and the fact that the courts decided to release on bail several leading Nazi thugs — including Ilias Kasidiaris, who went on the run after attacking two female left-wing MPs on television last year — should be warning enough that the moves by the government and state against GD will not of their own accord destroy the Nazis. Still less will they tear out the links between GD, the centre Right, elements of the state and figures in the capitalist class.
Indeed, if the anti-fascist struggle is left at the institutional and “constitutional” level, there is a great danger that the Nazis can weather the storm and re-emerge as the anti-establishment pole in a society where there is an endemic crisis for the governmental parties.
The anti-fascist movement in Greece is contending with some key political lessons in order to avoid that and instead to turn this great upsurge into a movement that can liquidate the fascists as a political/physical force and in so doing undermine the government and policies that have incubated GD’s growth. These are lessons that have great salience elsewhere in Europe:
1) Fascism is a distinct threat — necessitating a broad yet militant response
The Greek anti-fascist and anti-racist coalition KEERFA was formed before GD entered the parliament last year and grew sharply. It argued that while, of course, the Nazis grew out of conditions and policies imposed by the governing establishment — austerity, institutional racism, the vilification of the Left using imagery from the civil war of the 1940s and so on — opposing fascism requires a specific political response rather than focusing on challenging its causes instead.
The fascist Right is not merely a resultant of political and social crisis. It is an actor in its own right, with force and direction. If allowed physical and political space to grow, the result is both its rapid establishment of street terror (under conditions of generalised crisis) and with it the radicalisation of the state machine and the politics of the Right as a whole.
The anti-fascist movement in Greece has argued consistently for closing down that space. It has meant popular mobilisations and the militant argument that the fascists are not a legitimate political force, but a violent gang, which should be treated as such in all arenas. On the basis of that argument it has sought to build the widest possible fighting unity across the Left, trade union movement and immigrant communities.
2) Anti-fascism requires anti-racism
After GD broke through many European media outlets honed in on fascist stunts, such as providing food distribution or blood banks for “Greeks only”. But GD’s growth was not the result of it being able to replace in any serious way state functions. Central to it was deepening institutional and popular racism. GD could say that while the politicians talked of being “overrun by immigrants” it was fascist cadres who were prepared to drive immigrants out of neighbourhoods and to take direct action.
So strategies that said that it was possible to deal with GD mainly by competing from the Left to provide social services missed the point. Challenging GD’s racism, concentrated into violent attacks on immigrants and then on the Left, was central. That meant putting the mobilisation and leading role of the immigrant communities who were directly under attack at the centre of resistance.
In so doing, migrant communities were re-presented as a part of the wider social resistance — part of “us” not “them”. At the same time such united mobilisations provided a visible and material basis for a fundamental anti-racist argument directed against the government and state.
While the fascists can attract some layers who are just disillusioned with establishment politics and the impact of austerity, their core support is from those who accept large numbers of racist myths. Opposing austerity without explicitly drawing anti-racist and anti-xenophobic conclusions, which usually do not “spontaneously” arise, will not destroy the fascist base.
3) Fascism grows with the state — not against it…
It was shocking, but not a surprise, to read reports that possibly half the Athens police force voted for GD in the second general election last year.
For all the pseudo-anti-capitalist and radical rhetoric, fascist formations have only ever seized power with the support of a dominant section of the capitalist class and their state. That was true of Mussolini, Hitler and the classical fascist parties.
The growth of fascism represents an extension and radicalisation of the state. The actual formation of a fascist regime comes after large elements of the state machine and ruling apparatus have already gone over to fascism as a final instrument when “normal” methods of police repression and right-wing, parliamentary politics have failed.
4) … But it matters enormously what the state does
That does not mean that we should be indifferent to what the state does or that the struggle against fascism is some kind of diversion from the battle against the governments of austerity and the repressive states they deploy.
To respond to the collusion between the police or government and the fascists by saying that the state and the fascists are as one is in effect to accept that the fascists are already on the road to power or that the state is so powerful it can militarise its response to the social movements at will. The seeming radicalism of that position reveals a fatalist despair.
It’s not that the establishment and the repressive forces of the state are not capable of terror. They are. It’s that the extent to which they feel able to deploy repression depends upon the balance of forces in the society. A key part of that balance is the extent to which fascist gangs are able to entrench inside neighbourhoods and in the social space.
The Left and working class movement have every interest in exposing collusion between the state and the fascists, rooting out fascist ties to the state and forcing the state to act against the fascists — not because the state is a reliable barrier to fascism, but because if it is forced to act the space to delegitimise the fascists grows and the door to weakening the repressive state itself widens.
5) The fascists are unconstitutional — but they will not be stopped through a “constitutional consensus”
Faced with the enormous backlash at the murder of Pavlos Fyssas, the government temporarily dropped the language of the “twin extremes” of Right and Left and called on all the political parties to form with it a “constitutional arc” rejecting the fascists.
Its aim is to usurp the very anti-fascist movement it has attacked. And what is meant by “the law” and “the constitution” is contested. Successive Greek governments have ruled “unconstitutionally” over the last two years, with the appointment of an unelected prime minister — banker Lucas Papademos — and now the increasing use of executive diktat rather than parliamentary norms.
The article of the criminal code — number 187 — under which GD leaders face prosecution as a criminal enterprise has indeed been used against the Left. This is not a “constitutional” axis that the Left can be part of, especially as the prosecuting authorities wish to limit investigations so as to leave untouched the establishment while, for example, the district attorney of Athens has laid charges against a key leader of the anti-fascist movement, Petros Constantinou, a councillor in Athens.
None of this means that the Left should somehow champion the “constitutional rights” of the fascists, directly or implicitly. Rather it means precisely cutting through establishment manoeuvres in order both to liquidate the fascists and undermine the government from the Left.
The “constitution” that is of value for the Left is the freedom and space that have been won for the workers and social movements, whether reflected in attenuated form in the official laws of the state or accepted as a political fact or convention on account of accumulated struggles. That is what is threatened by fascism, and it is that popular “constitution” that masses of people can be won to defend.
6) A mass movement beyond establishment limits
The mass movement has political effect. It is why the Greek government has been forced to take what action against the fascists it has.
To fail to engage with the political reality the movement itself creates, to disavow its effects, is both to undermine its confidence in its own capacity and to surrender the political initiative to others.
The demands and next steps of the anti-fascist movement in Greece are directed at widening the breach it has already created. Alexis Tsipras, the leader of Syriza, last week said that he was “not for placing GD outside the law [i.e. banned as a party], but brought before the law”. This week he said he “trusted the Greek judicial authorities”.
Today the judge hearing the remand cases of various GD leaders “accidentally” gave the fascists’ lawyers the name and details of the former GD member turned whistleblower, who has provided testimony against them.
So holding the criminals of GD to account cannot be left to the authorities, which have collaborated with them. It requires systematically arguing for the gang to be dismantled at every level and for the trail of investigation into its violence and criminality to be pursued wherever it leads.
It means forcing the government to cut off the state funds that go to GD. If GD is a criminal gang, then its offices in neighbourhoods are centres of organising terror. They should be closed down, by any means necessary.
In other words, the official moves against GD will only have purchase if they continue to respond to an independent, militant movement that goes beyond the official confines and is prepared to act.
That’s why it was absolutely right at the huge anti-fascist rally outside the Greek parliament last week that the anti-fascist movement broke with the constitutional and legalistic consensus and set out to march on the GD headquarters.
The move was not ritualistic or by a small ultra-radical minority. It was the political assertion of the centrality of a mass movement, by that mass movement, in driving the struggle against fascism and racism.
That movement, which is holding an important conference in Athens this weekend, is now in a position to push forward the dismantling of GD and also — in combination with ongoing mass strikes and social struggles — to raise the pressure on the government to go.
These are some of the general lessons, put rather telegraphically, from the last week of struggle in Greece.
The biggest lesson, however, is that politics, strategy and tactics are not deducible from abstract schemes. Radicalism does not come from rhetoric or finding ultra-militant postures or points of distinction. They all come from concrete engagement in building a mass movement and with it fighting for a politics that seeks to cut through, rather than evade, the responses of the state and establishment.
Kevin Ovenden is a national officer of Unite Against Fascism.
Dedicated to Lord Rothermere, Paul Dacre, the Daily Mail, and every British fascist who ever lived.
“We held the line because we were led to believe that was what was necessary to stop them passing. I hope it was. I think to some extent we had the easier target, we didn’t have the EDL. We need to remember that when the police pulls a fascist attempt to march before it ends, its because they realise that they can’t police it if the community tries to drive them back. If they move it from outer to central London, its because they want to ensure that they can control the situation and disarm resistance with greater ease. Its their turf. We can’t get away with the things we got away with in Tower Hamlets and Walthamstow.”
Mark Haddon’s book “The Curious Incident Of the Dog In the Night-time” was set in Swindon, referencing the famous dictum by Sherlock Holmes, in the story “The Silver Blaze”
Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”
Throughout the recent furore concerning Paolo Di Canio, the contrast between the reaction to his appointment at Sunderland and his appointment at Swindon has been pronounced. For example, pompous Tory idiot Iain Dale:
It was OK for him to manage little old Swindon Town in League One, but oh no, the thought of him managing Premier League Sunderland is repellent. No, I’ll tell you what is repellent – it’s the so-called ‘liberal left’ deciding who should do what based on whether someone conforms to their own idea of normality or political acceptability. And then, only deciding to enforce their own illiberal ideas when it suits them. Where were the howls of indignation when Di Canio took over at Swindon Town? No one cared, because, well, it was only little old Swindon, wasn’t it?
It is not entirely true of course that there was no reaction to Di Canio’s appointment at Swindon, as I have explained myself before. Several Swindon Town Fans returned their season tickets in protest at his appointment, as admitted by the Club’s chief executive, Nick Watson, in June 2011. Di Canio’s appointment was also noted by the far right, on the neo-Nazi website Final Conflict. (This was not a spoof). Opposition to Di Canio’s appointment at Swindon was also reported in the national press, for example the Daily Mail.
But certainly pressure on Sunderland AFC has been much more sustained. Even the American NBC have reported how the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have called for Di Canio to be sacked by Sunderland’s American owner, Ellis Short.
Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, dismissed the statement and said Wednesday that Di Canio should be fired, comparing him to sacked Rutgers basketball coach Mike Rice.
“I would say sports is a very special category. Sports plays a very important role with young people,” he said. “I would say racism or bigotry reverberates in a greater way, so the standard needs to be much higher than, I would say, the manager of a garage.”
“Our society uses athletes and sports figures not only to sell Wheaties and sneakers, but also because they are looked up to as role models,” he said. “Here [with Di Canio], I think firing is appropriate.”
Foxman said he believed people could have “an epiphany” about past mistakes and be given a second chance if they had genuinely changed.
“This is not one of those. He [Di Canio] is very clear what he is. He’s both a fascist and a racist and he’s proud of it,” he said.
“For the moment, he denies it [being a fascist and a racist] because his job is at stake,” he added.
I was delighted at the response of David Miliband in resigning as vice chair of Sunderland after the appointment of open fascist Paolo di Canio as manager. Since then, Durham NUM have asked for their banner to be returned, up until now proudly displayed at the Stadium of Light:
Davey Hopper, General Secretary of the NUM in Durham, and a former secretary at Monkwearmouth pit – on which Sunderland’s Stadium of Light is built – said the fury of his members had sparked the move.
He said: “We are writing to the club asking for the return of the banner unless Di Canio says he is not a fascist. Otherwise his appointment will besmirch the memory of the miners who lost their lives in the fight against fascism in World War II.
“We do not want our union associated with the club now.”
Back in 2011, Wiltshire and Swindon GMB, where I am branch secretary, withdrew our sponsorship and commercial links with Swindon Town FC, when they appointed Di Canio. During the twelve months up to that point we had provided £350 in direct sponsorship, and £3500 in business to the conference/catering arm as we used the club venue for training. We also provided a free advert for season tickets in our branch newsletter with distribution of 5000. These were popular decisions among the branch committee, and the direct sponsorship brought with it free tickets and other benefits that were raffled among members. Small beer compared to some big sponsors, but Wiltshire and Swindon GMB had a genuine commitment to the club.
Click to continue reading
On the 70th Anniversary of the Victory at Stalingrad, Mark Perryman explains why this battle and its outcome still matters today.
Seventy years ago, 2 February 1943 is the date of the Red Army victory at Stalingrad. From the moment of near-certain defeat the previous year, the siege of the city – Hitler’s gateway to success on the Eastern Front – had been turned into an encirclement of the German forces and their eventual, and humiliating, surrender. Up to this point in early 1943, despite the reverses in North Africa and the failure to launch an invasion of Britain the Nazi blitzkrieg had appeared virtually invincible. Hyped up by the Goebbels propaganda machine, German morale was at its height and the Allies could see no obvious end to the War. Stalingrad changed all of that, decisively.
This was a victory all committed to the anti-fascist war could celebrate. Stalingrad inspired those working underground in the resistance throughout Nazi-occupied Europe. King George VI commissioned a sword that Churchill himself presented to Stalin. On its blade the inscription read “To the steelhearted citizens of Stalingrad a homage of the British people.” The Communist Party was meanwhile engaged in what without doubt was the biggest and broadest campaign in its history, for a second front to relieve the awful pressure that the Nazi onslaught continued to impose on the Russian people.
Almost all of this history was to be hidden, first by the onset of the Cold War in the late 1940s. And then again during the second Cold War of the 1980s era of Thatcher and Reagan. At the time Scottish folksinger Dick Gaughan put the need to reclaim this past from the rewriting of the history books rather neatly in his song Think Again: “Do you think that the Russians want war? These are the parents of children who died in the last one.” But the sentiments that Gaughan turned into such a moving song were not only submerged under the weight of the second Cold War, they also had to contest with a bitter division in the Communist Party that revolved sharply around attitudes to the Soviet Union while the Trotskyist Left defined itself by how it would classify its critique of the USSR. Stalingrad and all it represented became almost lost.
1989, and the fall of the Berlin Wall was celebrated at the time by right-wing commentators as the ‘end of history’. Their neo-liberalism of course in large part produced the economic crisis of some twenty years later and the austerity we are still being forced to endure and resist as a consequence. But 1989 had another, perhaps less obvious, after-effect. Unburdened by the Cold War rhetoric that had adopted the so-called Iron Curtain as a means to divide the world into the free and the unfree, the true legacy of World War Two could be revisited by historians who previously might have been wary of according the Eastern Front the vital place it of course occupied in the defeat of Nazi Germany. Likewise the Communist, and to a lesser extent Trotskyist, Left were no longer defined by their reading of the development of the USSR into whatever they called it. Anthony Beevor’s epic book, ‘Stalingrad’, first published in 1998, was a surprise and runaway best-seller. Beyond the Left this helped to begin to establish a popular, and mainstream, understanding of the epic heroism the Red Army victory at Stalingrad represented and, more broadly, the Eastern Front’s key role in the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany.
But the kind of breakthrough in understanding that Beevor’s book began was soon to be reversed by the aftermath of 9/11, the so-called ‘War on Terror’, the invasion of Iraq and the occupation of Afghanistan. The popularisation of the ‘Help for Heroes’ message has facilitated the militarisation of national culture, the FA Cup is carried on to the Wembley Final pitch nowadays by uniformed members of the armed forces, while Remembrance Sunday has effortlessly connected Afghanistan to World Wars Two and One with no distinction made between the causes served by these vastly different conflicts. World War Two has become an epic of nostalgia entirely disconnected from the cause of anti-fascism, the sacrifices made by the Red Army on the Eastern Front once again hidden from history. Stalingrad, forgotten, scarcely meriting a mention in the mainstream media despite its fixation with all things WW2.
Stalingrad’s 70th Anniversary of course is not something to celebrate; on the Eastern Front an estimated 25 million Soviet citizens lost their lives. But it is an opportunity to engage with the processes that for long periods effectively hid the crucial role of Stalingrad and the other epic battles in the East that would lead to the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany. And at the same time connect that history to the cause, of anti-fascism, then, now and for ever.
Philosophy Football have produced a 70th Anniversary Victory at Stalingrad commemorative plate. A limited edition of 70, individually numbered, available from here
MARK PERRYMAN reviews Daniel Trilling’s new book on Britain’s Far Right
Daniel Trilling has been for some time one of the few mainstream political journalists to take the British Far Right seriously. While at various moments anti-fascism has been a galvanising force for wide sections of the Left, the centre ground has too often been dominated by the wish that if only the BNP’s opponents would ignore them then the BNP and others like them would go away. Trilling’s achievement is to confront the dangers of this passivity and reveal the frightening consequences of leaving the Far Right to their own hateful and violent devices.
Bloody Nasty People is an ambitious mix of journalism, investigation and political analysis. The journalism mainly consists of spending time with a number of key figures on the Far Right. The culture of those drawn to Fascism remains largely a mystery to their opponents, and more particularly the milieu of casual support and voters that the BNP in particular at its height was able to mobilise. In an earlier period, the mid to late 1970s Martin Walker produced the definitive account of the resistible rise of the National Front. Brilliantly written, Walker’s book The National Front read like a spinechilling thriller as he detailed how a neo nazi fringe moved into a position of becoming a mass movement focussed on anti-immigration and repatriation. Trilling seeks to equal the to date unmatched achievement of Walker’s book and he comes admirably close. The sections on the growth of the BNP under the odious Nick Griffin’s leadership after ousting the veteran Nazi John Tyndall, are strong as is Trilling’s detailing of the BNP’s earlier success winning their first council seat on the Isle of Dogs in 1993. But compared to another account of this earlier period of Far Right success Triling has a tougher challenge. David Edgar’s 1976 stage play, Destiny, broadcast two years later as a BBC Play for Today, almost uniquely uncovered the mix of emotional impulses that framed the Far Right. Edgar’s portrayal of Far Right activism has never in my view ever been improved upon. It is of course a difficult, ugly and sometimes dangerous task to reveal the organisational and ideological culture of the Far Right. Most often this has been done by anti-fascist moles, mainly from the magazine Searchlight, pretending to be their own worst enemies. This tale of what this undercover work revealed was told most recently in Matthew Collins’ painfully honest memoir Hate which is in many ways a more powerful read than Trillings’. Although in terms of the ‘inside story’ its already little dated, which gives Trilling’s book an extra edge as it is as up to date as any book of this sort can be.
One curious absence from Bloody Nasty People given the obvious political ambition of his book is any strategic discussion of the factors that has led both to the electoral collapse of the BNP and a failure of the street-fighting EDL to muster anything resembling significant support outside of its hardcore. Anti-fascism can be bedevilled by the most arcane splits, unlikely to be of much interest to the general reader. Yet the community campaigning led by Hope not Hate in particular, aided by the more street presence of groups such as Unite against Fascism, deserves a careful appreciation. Ahead of the 2010 General and London elections the BNP did seem on the verge of an electoral breakthrough, and similarly the anti-muslim campaigning of the English Defence League posed a different kind of danger. Both have largely failed, not just because they imploded but because the opposition succeeded.
Understanding how the Far Right, at least these versions, lost is key because the old right constituency they sought to represent hasn’t gone away. It is simplistic to simply situate UKIP in the same political space as the BNP. Yet it is undeniable they now offer a populist, anti-immigration threat to the Tories in 2015 that could yet prove to be as significant as the BNP targeting disenfranchised white working class Labour voters as new Labour headed towards defeat in 2010. This is the basis of the stand out chapter in Trilling’s book, his concluding ‘Ten Myths About the Far Right’. This is a framework for integrating anti-fascism into day to day political understanding and campaigning. Written with an urgency and imagination the subject demands the final pages ensure Bloody Nasty People not only informs its readers, but inspires us too.
Bloody Nasty People is published by Verso, 234pp £14.99
Mark Perryman is co-founder of Philosophy Football