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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005