File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/marxism-international.9707, message 73


Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 16:01:17 +1000
From: Jim.Casey-AT-uts.edu.au (Jim Casey)
Subject: Re: To Malecki and Sparrow (Was Re: M-I: "Bourgeois Freedoms")


This is a note in support of Tony & Jeff on this thread.

Andrew A said:

>Violence against fascists who have assembled for nonviolent and political
>purposes is outrageous.

I think in these lines the weakness of Andrew's position becomes clear. It
is impossible as far as I can see for fascists to assemble for non-violent
and political purposes at the same time. I assuming we all agree that the
fascist project is to  mobilise both the middle classes and the de-classed
as a political force which relies upon its ability to control or contest
the politics of the street. This is not a movement that sees the struggle
as limited to the polling booth. So if they are organising then they are,
by definition, organising for violence. Perhaps they are not at that second
planning the next firebombing - but by merely existing it is only a matter
of time. In that context physical confrontation is necessary.

I do want to add the disclaimer that mass mobilisations are the key to this
type of community censorship (for want of a better term). Otherwise there
is the risk, as Andrew pointed out, of working people generally viewing the
infighting between leftists and the far right as not only irrelevant to
them, but also extremely disturbing. But if the action is a mass action
then it seems obvious to me that revolutionaries should be see their role
as firstly to build the biggest campaign possible and secondly to convince
people that the movement should be aiming at total disruption of the
fascist public presence.

Two brief points:

1. One of the leaders of the National Front in Britain in the seventies was
interviewed a few years ago and stated that the thing which stopped, and
then reversed, their meteoric politcal rise was the mass demos the Anti
Nazi League called against them. The ANL actions were not passive by any
means - they openly attempted to stop the fascists marching or speaking.
Now if the far right itself is telling us that these tactics do stop them
mobilising then perhaps we should be listening to them.

2. It is a pity in this thread that no one has mentioned the role that mass
militant opposition to the far right can play in the class movement
generally, outside of the immediate issue of the fascists. To return to the
Hanson example for Australia - the left here has found that the bigger and
more militant actions (which have stopped or tried to stop Pauline Hanson's
public rallies) have actually strengthened the movement rather than
weakened it. Hobart is the capital city of Tasmania - it's by anyones
defintion a political backwater. But 4000 people rallied there for the
Hanson rally - stormed it and forced her to withdraw. And the left in
Hobart is healthier as a result than it's has been for since the big
environmental actions of the early eigthies. It's simply not the case that
working class people saw the militancy and said "oh no, they're denying her
freedom of speech". By accounts of comrades down there it polarised the
situation - with most people happy the demo had physically shut her up and
the exceptions tending to be her actual supporters. OK this last point is
argument by anectdote but hopefully of interest to the list regardless.

solidarity,

Jim Casey,
Socialist Worker,
Sydney.


EDUCATION IS A RIGHT - NOT A PRIVILEGE.

Jim Casey,
Postgraduate Reseacher/Organiser
UTS Students' Association
Tel: 9514 1154, Fax 9514 1157,
e-mail: Jim.Casey-AT-uts.edu.au






     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005