Reactions to Oldham and Bradford Riots

What is still arguably the most intriguing aspect about the initial riots in Oldham, and in Bradford - first time round - is the great difficulty in finding out, what had gone on. Even months afterward, events in Bradford remain clouded in allegation and counter allegation.

Was it really 'outside agitators' who sparked the trouble? Or once the torch paper was lit, did Muslim youth exploit the opportunity to exact retribution on ancient Hindu rivals? Typically the Left maintain that Asian youth were merely 'fighting back'. But against whom? The inference is that the aggressors were not only white, but were also 'National Front supporters'. Was it NF supporters who burned the eight cars outside the pub hosting a Hindu wedding, or did they own them?

The reason for asking these question is not rhetorical. Remarkably as in Oldham, despite the apparent media absorption, it is still far from clear who, or what, sparked the trouble.

Safe to say this smearing of the lens can hardly be accidental, and rather strongly indicates certain interests see political advantage in the whole truth not coming out. Obviously for the more conservative elements on the Left, that an institutionally racist police colluded with 'fascists' by not responding early enough to the swaggering aggression of the NF/C18/BNP (take your pick) is axiomatic. Fine, it is one explanation, but hardly the whole story, which is possibly the most damaging feature of the whole affair. Simply put, it is patently obvious to everyone that entirely for partisan reasons, the word of the Left simply cannot be trusted. If anything, it is as likely to lie as the is the far-right. Indeed for reasons we will go into, the left is now far more likely to do so. For instance, after the Bradford riots in July, the ANL line was that "Nazis had rampaged"!

Slightly less surreal was their role in the row following the attack on the Oldham pensioner Walter Chamberlain. Within a day, the BNP had adopted him as their 'poster boy'. Here was proof they said that 'no-go areas' existed. Whites were the primary victims of race attacks in Oldham, and something needed to be done about it, the BNP insisted. Not so, countered the Left. The attack on Walter Chamberlain was an 'isolated case'. It was in addition not even properly 'racist'. And any talk of 'no go' areas was a myth being peddled by an 'irresponsible media'. Motivated by hatred of the Macpherson report, police simply invented race attack statistics as back-up. A compelling theory, but as a chain of evidence, it is entirely bogus.

Atypically, even Republican News, was suckered by the seductive choreography. Challenged in the letters pages by AFA on the all important chronology of events, Fern Lane, the RN journalist in question insisted, without any attempt to quote sources, that the sequence of events peddled by the ANL/SA was accurate, and went as far as to question AFA's motivations in suggesting otherwise. Had she done her own research, she would have discovered that statistical evidence of racially motivated Asian attacks on whites was substantial. Neither is it a recent development, as available statistics stretch back as far as - 1993. The attack on the pensioner happened on April 21, days after the 'no go' allegations, (by Asian youth incidentally), were made to BBC's Radio Four. In other words it was the PC view of events she regurgitated, not the police figures, which had been doctored.

'Spin' apart, it is hugely instructive to note, that liberals generally struggle to find ways to express regret, much less condemnation for the attacks by minorities on whites, even when the victim is a pensioner, even as in Dover, when a twelve year old girl was slashed by a refugee, or even when, as in the case of Richard Everitt in 1993, the attack ended in the the murder of a schoolboy.

In contrast to the BNP, who strategically have no difficulty in condemning all race attacks these days, the SWP just cannot bring themselves to do so. Partly because it would be an admission that possibly anti-racism was not working, and partly from the rather quaint belief that only 'black people can be the victims of racism'. So regardless of any actuality, this 'greater truth' is the story the SWP is determined to tell. This is in stark contrast to the situation in the 1970's. Then it was anti- fascism that invariably stuck to objective reality and it was the NF who felt obliged to rigidly adhere to doctrinal orthodoxy. Not that the BNP are any more honourable than their predecessors. Hardly. It is just that if they lie less these days, it is because they don't have to.

A primary reason they rarely over-reach, is that 'race is everywhere'. A little over a week, following the best vote for the far-right post war, banner headlines in The Guardian and The Independent wrestled with each other to prove which section of the public sector would next wear the 'institutionally racist' label. One forecast it would be the CPS, while the other the NHS. Within the week, London Mayor Ken Livingstone's race adviser Lee Jasper insisted the entire school system too, was irredeemably bigoted. 'Black only' schools were the answer he announced. An echo of an earlier call from the head of an advisory housing body who had sought to justify 'black only housing'.

And despite displaying a certain degree of alarm, liberals when challenged, remain insistent calls by blacks for segregation are 'qualatively different' from identical demands made by the BNP. So when Nick Griffin calls for a 'peace line' in Oldham, the left feign outrage. Meanwhile the spokesperson for the CRE Chris Myant, can welcome the news that race is topping the agenda as a "positive development", while at the same time as former CRE chairman Herman Oueseley comments on the "brittleness of race relations in Britain".

But even in the midst of such manifest muddle, should AFA, say, pose the questions: 'Is anti-racism working?' or 'Can the LSA beat the BNP?' the uniform response is to close ranks, while calls to stone the messenger receive a sympathetic hearing.

In the same vein, when the Oldham Chronicle, correctly took the ANL to task for "effectively doing the NF's work for it - winning it publicity without out it needing to do anything itself", the ANL, in the interests of a free press, denounced it for "pandering to Nazis" and launched a campaign against the paper. But when Oldham MP Phil Wollas alarmed by BNP influence, argues that "the traditional tactic of the anti-racist movement must change" he is largely ignored. Traditionalists presumably assumed his analysis is purely geographical. 'Oldham' rather than multiculturalism is the problem they reassured each other. But that was before Burnley blew up. And before Bradford exploded for the second time. And are race relations so much better in neighbouring Rochdale, Keighley, Halifax? All of them towns, where AFA was required to physically beat the BNP into submission in the early 1990's. On one notable occasion in 1993, following running battles with AFA in the town centre in the run-up to an election, a BNP candidate got a total of nine votes - even his sponsors didn't turn out.

What has changed in Burnley and nationally, is that in the seven years since the 'no marches, meetings, punch-ups' capitulation in 1994, the BNP climb from the fringes has been relentless. From 1992 to1997 their national vote went up five fold. In the Euro-elections in 1999 it tripled again. In 2002, support in London leapt again, with a four fold increase bringing it up to 80,000 votes. In all of this it is most important to remember, that the Socialist Worker/Searchlight stance has been to deny, deny, deny. Both have worked tirelessly, even up to the point of fiddling results to sedate its own membership and anti-fascism in general, at every juncture. (In recent weeks, the SSP leader Tommy Sheridan has gone on record in the Weekly Worker as saying that the BNP's vote actually dropped at the last election!) Characteristically, when Weekly Worker addresses the Wollas warning it scrapes out the kernel 'change' and takes issue with the authoritarian husk'', and even gives credence to Michael Meachers' claim that of the almost twelve thousand BNP votes in Oldham no more than a 'dozen or more are racist'. What has so far also been totally ignored, is that unlike the 70's, 80's and 1990's instead of the clashes being between left and right, they are now inter- communal and inter-racial.

Prior to the election, the SWP was insisting it was 'not always wrong to follow a liberal bourgeois agenda'. Tacitly many on the left agree. But what is painfully manifest since the election, is that the entire Left also endorses a liberal bourgeois analysis.

With the BNP, already recognised as the 'radical alternative', by the media at least, and will we must now assume, confirm this with council seats next May, how much longer can we wait for the Damascene conversion?

In the interim what choice there is for the conservative left is unavoidably bleak. As we have repeatedly pointed out, it can conform to the European pattern and stick with a liberal agenda, deliberately stripped clean of class content, or it can - break with it. Given that much the same left were absent when the fight was physical, any real optimism it will respond with any greater courage when the challenge is political is practically non-existent.

What is more, the Socialist Alliance is politically stale. As an 'alliance', it is repeatedly shown to be utterly devoid of imagination, integrity and intelligence. It is conspicuously failing, and deserves to do so. Not only is failure, even by its own terms, seemingly assured, but for radical prospects apparently necessary. Unreconstructed socialism would like us to believe it's time has come, when in actuality, it's - time is very nearly up.

Reproduced from RA Bulletin Volume 4, Issue 12, July/Aug '01

Consequences of the Lefts focus on 'minority rights'

Sometime earlier in the year, a Dr Les May from Rochdale in a letter to The Observer, wrote: Forty years ago the British Left was concerned with economic and social justice for the mass of ordinary people. Finding this too difficult a task, the Left fell under the spell of the politics of 'gender', 'sexuality' and 'ethnicity'. The payoff for the Left was that it gained the endorsement of the so-called liberal elite. This paved the way first, to having a hearing in the media, and then to power. The great triumph of this alliance has been to convince so many people that making sure a few more women, homosexuals and non-whites get cosy, well paid jobs 'at the top', is a major contribution to producing a more equitable society. It isn't."

When precisely the Left lost the plot is a matter of conjecture. What is undeniable, is that for all the brouhaha about minority rights since, a more equitable society it ain't.

While it is true there have been concessions to the gender/sexual/ethnic lobbies, these advances have been allowed only when any perception of threat to the status quo has been extinguished.

So while their may be gays in the military and in the US a black Secretary of State, (who proved a safe pair of hands, by covering up Mai Lai) anything approaching social or political much less economic equity is long past. Mainstream gains by 'minorities' have not been in addition to a general working class advance on all fronts but - but instead of them.

Accordingly what we are witnessing today are the governing classes bustling about, recovering what was conceded to the spectre of communism in economic reforms in the previous hundred and fifty years. What in stark economic terms this redistribution amounts to is staggering. In America, the land of the free, statistics reveal that "Between 1979 and 2000... the wealthiest one per cent of Americans saw their share of the country's assets double, from a fifth to approaching half." (The Guardian, 13.1.01)

So as their share of the loot is increasing, it is not rocket science to figure out who is losing out.

Now, many on the Left would have you believe that the American working class, as a labour aristocracy par excellence, have been largely immune to the corroding power of capital. "Yet it is a fact that between 1973 and 1998, in spite of a period of economic nirvana for many, the hourly wage of the average worker fell by nine per cent. Adjusted for inflation it remained roughly the same as in 1967." Needless to say, as with the share of the country's general assets, the rise in the hourly rate the American worker might normally have expected, went of course to someone else.

As Jeremy Campbell reported in the London Evening Standard: "While wages went nowhere, economic inequality increased. In 1974 the richest five per cent of American families earned about 15 per cent of the total US income. By the end of the century, that share had risen to 21 per cent." (21.2.01)

But far from being sated, the new President Bush appears determined to increase the yawning disparity even further. 'It's conservative to cut taxes' says Bush, 'it's compassionate to let people keep more of their money.' But who is to 'keep more of their money?'

For a clue, contrast the federal tax system with that of former Governor Bush's Texas. At a federal level, an American family in the bottom fifth income level, pays less than nine per cent in tax; the top one per cent give 37 per cent of their income to the government. In Texas the tax burden actually drops as income rises: the poorest pay 13 per cent tax while the top one per cent pay 5 per cent. Now Bush has declared that he intends to bring the Texas tax model to Washington as, wait for it, a 'priority'.

And again, of the '$1.8 trillion tax cut planned, the top one per cent have been promised a 43 per cent share'. As might be expected, 'reforms to social security' the most drastic since the New Deal in the Thirties, will pay for the windfall.

In Britain too, the gap between the richest and the poorest, already 'the largest since records began' when New Labour came to power, is actually increasing. In 1999 the wealthiest 5 per cent owned 44 per cent of the UK's wealth, compared with 36 per cent in 1981. Between 1979 and 1998 the number of pensioners with less than half the average income doubled, while the total of all kinds of people in the same kind of poverty trebled. "Our child poverty", Observer columnist Neal Ascherson writes, "is the third highest of 25 nations. It is far higher than in Hungary and Spain, outstripped only by Russia and by our free-market paradigm, the United States." The only possible conclusion to be drawn from the new Breadline Europe study of the free-market economy is that "neo-liberalism is now creating poverty which is not only shallow and widespread but deepening into permanence. It [Breadline Europe] warns that the new prosperity of the few goes with the degradation of the many. It shows that a nations' economy can be glorified as successful when the living standards of its people are falling... A century ago, nice, caring people talked anxiously about the 'the problem of poverty'. How was it possible that the massive increase of wealth was accompanied by an equally massive increase in destitution? Could it be - frightful thought - that the growth of wealth actually depended on that growth of poverty".(11.3.01)

But what does that matter so long as the liberal Left have 'frontline women troops', 'racial equality in prisons' (the emphasis on minorities in the context, a surely threadbare tactic to camouflage and minimise the depth and scale of the deplorable conditions which exist for prisoners of all colours) and that final barrier to the sexual revolution, the 'age of consent scrapped' as a pay-off?

Reproduced from RA vol 4, Issue 11, May/June '01

Labours Reforms Of The Legal System

In the run-up to Christmas Tory leader William Hague was widely hammered in the media for linking the deaths of Steven Lawrence and Damilola Taylor to ‘police incompetence’ and Labour cuts in police numbers respec-tively. By general consent Hague was attempting to play the race card out of political opportunism borne of desperation.

Linking the decline in ‘stop and search’ and the consequent rise in street crime to the Macpherson report saw him lambasted by what he refers to disparagingly as the ‘feign outrage of the liberal elite’. Imagine the furore had he further demanded the abolition of jury trial for certain people for certain offences - and given that a racial spin? Exactly. Hague’s chagrin that jack Straw is allowed to do so, and come up smelling of roses is therefore perhaps understandable.

Straw wants to get rid of jury trial, for certain offences - for certain people. jury trial is expensive. Many people opt for jury trial because the chance of conviction there hovers around 50%, where as in the magistrates, or, as they were once commonly called ‘police courts’, the conviction rate can be somewhere in the 90% and upward bracket. So Jack Straw’s initiative having already been rejected by the House of Lords and seen a rebellion by Labour MP’s is not a widely popular move with civil liberties groups, influential sections of the legal profession and nor, despite his protestations to the contrary, is there any significant public backing either. Understandably, given the weight of opinion what was needed, jack decided, was to wrong-foot his opponents, and in the process make himself fireproof on the issue.

What jack needed was some of that old Millbank spin. And what better way currently to protect himself and his legislation, than stamp the Lawrence logo on it. Hence his rationale that the Lawrence case was the ‘defining case of the 90s’; the ‘political equiva-lent’ of the score or more of Irish citizens incarcerated by a lazy incompetent and bigoted police force in the ‘70s and ‘80s.The principle difference with Lawrence being, that rather than fit a victim up, the system just as controversially let a victim down. Or as he put it is his own words: "the issue was not someone who was innocent and found guilty, but the opposite failing: the system’s failure to secure a conviction in respect of whoever it was who murdered a black teenager."

But unfortunately for Straw apologists it is not the opposite failing, but the same one. It is the same lazy, incompetent and bigoted police force responsible whatever the scenario. A police force the Macpherson inquiry decided, are moreover ‘institutionally racist’, which is to say they were prone to decisions that led to discriminatory conclusions. And if the police are institutionally racist, is it not a fair bet ‘their’ courts might be as well? No inquiries planned there though, in effect greater powers instead. One amendment Straw proposed was that only those with ‘a reputation to protect’ would be entitled to opt for jury trial. On what criteria someone’s ‘reputation’ was to be assessed has never been made entirely clear. Moreover if in assessing whether or not the defen-dant was sufficiently respectable, in that a conviction for say, theft, would unduly damage his reputation; the defendants current social standing (ie whether upper middle or lower class) would undoubtedly be a consideration.

Whether of ‘good character’ or the other. Good character being based on whether the defendant ‘had form’ or was, as the saying goes, ‘known to the police’. Now obviously if someone on a shop-lifting charge had a string of previous convic-tions for a similar offence then is unlikely his or her reputation would be unduly damaged by a further conviction. A sort of common sense analogy Straw himself might have employed to reassure his doubters, but for the fact it would have let the cat out of the bag. For whether de facto or de jure it underlines the need for a magistrate to have access to a defendants record prior to hearing the evidence.

Consequently, in sitting as judge and jury to speak, it would require of the magistrate in ‘Diplock court’ fashion to ‘remind himself’ once having been convinced of the defen-dants guilt, to set aside any preconception or prejudices, in handing down out a sentence. Quite clearly, under such a system any defendant with a record, once charged would, faced with the inherent presumption of guilt, understand the need to prove his innocence. Many would also quickly come to understand, that even when innocent, copping a guilty plea might be preferable to pleading not guilty and subsequently incurring the possible wrath a vengeful magistrate. The then arbitrary nature of British justice, would not be lost on the ‘bobby on the beat’ either, Any arrest where actual evidence other than the word of an officer(s) was absent, could result not only in a charge, but would also practically guarantee a verdict of guilty. Wary of allegations of discrimination Straw nonetheless proposes to extend that logic to include jury trials as well. But if, as Straw insists, the police are ‘institutionally racist’ on what precise sectors of society does the caring Mr Straw imagine his ‘anti-racist reforms’ will have the greatest negative impact?

Any removal of jury rights aligned to prior disclosure, will certainly guarantee for Straw the fast track American style justice he so craves, but only by turning the law on its head. America, so admired in certain liberal/left circles for its overt affir-mative action policies, implemented such measures some years back, it now has more people, and more working class black people in jail, one million and counting, than other country in the world.

Allowing for the reality of class rather than race being ultimately the defining factor, the hypocrisy bridging anti-racist rhetoric and reality is surely unsustainable. In the meantime for scoundrels everywhere ‘anti-racism’ has displaced ‘patriotism’, as the body armour of choice.

Reproduced from RA vol 4, Issue 10, March/April '01

Marxism And Immigration Controls

Brutal candour has been a feature of Red Action analysis from the very outset. Subject matter apart, it is usually the no prisoner conclusions that cause so many on the left to recoil. Of late, a number of organisations have opened up public discussions on where the fault line in Marxist thinking lies. ‘There is a break somewhere and I am not clear where. All of us would say - Marx, Engels, Lenin.Then what?’

As Red Action instigated a search for ‘the break’ over a decade ago, when the entire left united in denying there was a problem, any thawing in dogma is welcome.

That is not to say that qualifications with regard to the efforts of this batch of pioneers is unwarranted. For as is openly stated the latest ‘search’ is to be conducted within firmly proscribed boundaries. Thereby insuring that the investigation will not reach politically unpalatable conclusions. A conclusion that undermined their own reason for being would never do.

Unburdened by such ideological baggage, and with absolutely no concern for the maintaining of reputations, the Red Action approach was entirely objective. After much discussion, much of it conducted in public, it concluded the decisive theoretical ‘break’ had taken ‘concrete’ form in Russia as early as 1918.This was a date that thoroughly implicated Trotsky, but also placed Lenin, an even bigger Bolshevik icon, firmly in the frame. Indeed as was made clear, the ‘break’ did not happen after Lenin - it began with him.

As far as Red Action were concerned the choice thereafter was between the methods of Marx or Lenin. Outraged at such revisionism various groups, otherwise bitter rivals found common cause. Workers Power, The Leninist, Open Polemic among others, rushed to the defence of their idol, all visibly eager to claim a renegade scalp. Too eager as it turned Out.

To their chagrin, Red Action they found, were well dug in. Confronted with an analysis, firmly grounded in historical and theoretical fact, it was all too clearly they, and not Red Action, who had not done their homework. Horribly embarrassed they retreated with indecent haste. Possibly, some face-saving agreement was reached between them, for all of a sudden the matter was dropped.

Now brutal candour is again on the agenda. and again brickbats abound. As before in an effort to disavow logic there has been a concerted effort to demonise Red Action instead.

But with no evidence of Red Action wilting, the knockout-blow has, (unwisely as it turns out), been sought in the writings of Marx himself. Reminiscent of the debate of a decade ago generalities have since been flourished, with uncertain authority, by it must be admitted, (if lack of integrity is any consideration) some of the least serious protagonists.

For some time Red Action has been warning that the alarming growth of the Right in Europe is not attributable purely to their own efforts. On the contrary the fault lies with a multicultural ideology which has successfully supplanted ‘class’ in favour of ‘ethnic minority’ in the public mind. This has created the basis for the right to ‘return the serve’ by successfully campaigning for privileges for an ‘ethnic majority’.

It is imperative, Red Action has been arguing, for the Left to step outside the limits of this ‘minority versus majority’ logic, and set about reclaiming the initiative by displacing race with class, and thus shifting the burden of justification back on to the other side.

From a progressive perspective hard to argue with, you might have thought? But far from it. As if the political or social consequence were of no mind, ‘opposition to all immigration controls’ is to continue to be championed ‘as a bed-rock of Socialist Alliance policy’ we are told, on the basis that ‘where capital enjoys unrestricted freedom of movement it seems inescapable that labour must demand the same freedom’. Who this freedom is to be demanded of is not made clear? From capital? Which has just won for itself unrestricted freedom?

Further disregarding the current balance of forces, ‘economic migration’ is in future to be championed as a human right’, while the ‘welcoming’ of infinite numbers of ‘immigrants’ regardless of political or social repercussions is hailed as ‘a communist principle’.

Is it not odd that the upholding of a principle of communism is directly responsible for the rebirth of its political opposite? Or that Marx, who knew a thing or two, seems never to have heard of if? In fact, he was it appears, distinctly less evangelical on the subject of ‘economic migration’ than those who would claim to be his followers.

In 1866 for instance, he reported on the attempts to bring down wages in the tailoring industry in Scotland through the recruitment by master tailors, mostly 'big capitalists' of migrant labour from Germany. Writing on behalf of the Central Council of the International Working Men’s Association, Marx said:

“The purpose of this importation is the same as that of the importation of Indian coolies to Jamaica, namely the perpetuation of slavery. If the masters succeeded through the import of German labour, in nullifying the concessions they had already made, it would inevitably lead to repercussions in England.”

“No one would suffer more than the German Workers themselves, who constitute in Great Britain a larger number than the workers of all the other Continental nations. And the newly-imported workers being completely helpless in a strange land would soon sink to the level of pariah’s. Furthermore it is a point of honour with the German workers to prove to other countries that they like their brothers in France, Belgium and Switzerland know how to defend common interests of the class and will not become obedient mercenaries of capital in its struggle against labour.”

The efforts of the International in warning the Germans against migrating under such conditions was as Marx recorded “a great success”. A success not only in it’s own right, but with the practical benefits of the International on display, the English sections rushed to affiliate. What would have been the consequences for the Scottish, German and English workers, and the International itself had Marx, in response to a call for advice and support, mumbled something from the Manifesto about ‘internationalism’, and instructed them, as the LSA recommend “to move fast with cards and a welcome party” instead?

Currently, Labour is thinking about scrapping the 1971 Immigration Act in order to recruit skilled workers from India. The motivation is undoubtedly to drive down wages and conditions in the burgeoning computer industry. As things stand, even if the Left had leverage in India, it would not be exercised. As far as it goes all ‘obedient mercenaries of capital’ are deemed welcome. It is afterall their human right.

As the whole thing is a mess, it is entirely consistent Red Action and fellow travellers should be too deemed ‘pariah’ for saying so. But as hinted at, the current controversy and the previous debate are not unrelated. Back then, a staunch Leninist in danger of partially succumbing to the Red Action logic on some point or other, was publicly rebuked by a colleague who outlined his priorities as follows: “Of course, you realise comrade, that if Red Action are right, then we are wrong.” This time the equation is even more straightforward. Indeed it is perfectly simple. ‘Either we are right or the BNP are’. Your call ‘comrades’

Reproduced from RA vol 4, Issue 9, November/December '00

Red Action And The LSA

On the heels of Red Action’s application to join the London Socialist Alliance, ‘just what are they up to’ has clearly been the question on many lips. More than once the accusation has been made that we are simply jumping on a bandwagon. And a successful one at that.

But few eyebrows will raise on realisation that the rationale, is a mite more complex than that. Particularly as the support of one and a half per cent of Londoners, is hardly the stuff to set the pulses racing.

What is of genuine interest however, regardless of the motivation of the sponsors themselves, is what the emergence of the LSA signifies. Here at last, is the entire Left (almost) collectively attempting to ‘re-invent itself’. Judged objectively, that has to be regarded in a positive light.

A tacit though untheorised admission that ‘the era of the sect is over’ must also be judged progressive. In such circumstances, if Red Action is to remain true to it’s own politics, it is duty bound to seek to maximise it’s influence within the new formation.

All who voted at the RA conference, including those that moved the motion (particularly them), recognised that even at its most productive, the most the orientation to the LSA offers is - possibilities.

Of the many possibilities, perhaps the vital one, is the opportunity it provides for the entire Left to take stock: to politically re-group. And while the LSA is not itself a real movement of the class, it is for the first time in more than 30 years undeniably a real movement of the Left, the simultaneous movement of the class away from Labour and the rich potential/danger offered up, by the otherwise almost unrelated desertions coinciding, is key to understanding the Red Action attraction.

Given Red Action’s history, it will be no surprise that we are keeping at least one wary eye on the far-right. Already the BNP look more than capable of pulling away from the LSA in London. Barring an implosion, the BNP currently has the potential to repeat the trick in the general election, and thus lay claim to the radical alternative slot nationally. As has been pointed out before, there is no proven antidote to Euro-nationalism.

In short, what the far-right renaissance, not just here but across Europe, heralds (though many on the Left seem unaware of it) is a new phase of struggle. A new phase of struggle always means change. Immense change certainly, over a relatively short time for the more conservative of the left. First, and especially, for the conservative wing of the LSA.

Accordingly a central part of the RA remit within the LSA will be the stress on the need for new thinking, new strategies, new tactics and even new language, if that is -working class hegemony remains the unchanging goal.

An acknowledgement on that issue, and there is a real possibility of the LSA being transformed into something of genuine value. At present the Left may not appear to have changed all that much, but exterior conditions have. Accordingly the dynamic for political change both inside and out is - not - under the control of the Left.

On the contrary, they are, as the pace of their own development shows, controlled by it. They are not changing the course of history as they might imagine, or make out - but adapting to it.

That cherished straplines like ‘Rebuild the Fourth International!’ ‘General Strike Now!’ ‘Vote Labour without illusions!’ now appear cretinous - even to them - is proof of the changing landscape. The day of reckoning between loyalty to antiquated theories and political survival, also beckons.

Currently the LSA meets the immediate needs of the left when the real task is to meet the immediate needs of the class. That is the Red Action objective. Red Action has joined the LSA with honest intentions. It is in short, our intention to revolutionise it from within.

Reproduced from RA vol 4, Issue 8, September/October '00

Strengthening The Centre

Over the last few months a disturbing trend has begun to emerge. In France there are attempts to impose sanctions against the internet company Yahoo! on political grounds.

In Germany there is call for the banning of political parties. In Britain there is support for jailing political opponents without charge. Now none of this is new. Such calls for censorship have been a feature of political life in most countries, particu­larly at times of political crisis. What is novel today is that these demands are almost uniformly coming from the left. They are moreover being made in the name of anti-fascism. In Germany there is wide support among the Greens for the banning of the far-right NPD and others. Antiracists in France want Yahoo! closed down because an American client is trading in Nazi memorabilia. In Britain, not only does the ANL want the state “to jail all the Nazis”, but Searchlight’s Gerry Gable feels comfortable in describing, live on television, the deputy head of the anti-terrorist squad as “a colleague”. Meanwhile, the Racial and Violent Crime Task Force on which Gable serves as ‘a lay member’ openly admits that it targets “extremists on the right.., and on the left”.

In an even more bizarre departure from anti-fascist custom and practice, the ANL sought to extend the ‘no platform principle’ to a democratic debate, where the legacy of the Holocaust was being discussed - in front of an audience made up overwhelmingly of Jews

A notable feature of this stridency, and the almost complete loss of a sense of priorities, is that in the real world, the far-right go about their business practically unmolested. One gets the impression that in parts of Germany the far-right, control the streets in what they refer to as ‘liber­ated zones’. In France successive surveys find that the majority, as much as 60% of the population, reject anti-racist perspectives. In Leicester a gay rights march attacked by a small number of NF and forced to be diverted by police, is still hailed as a ‘victory’ by the ANL, the Socialist Party, and even elements on the periphery of AFA.

Consistent with this is that Bexley, Tipton and Burnley where the BNP have recently polled over 20% are all studiously ignored by these largely bogus dot.com anti-fascists. Just as comically, fraternisation with Searchlight, a self-confessed conduit to the state/from the state, continues to be defended on the grounds of ‘information’ requirements by these same elements Under these twin pressures something called ‘anti-fascism’ is not only becoming embourgeoisfied, but is gradually being totally assimilated into a state strategy of anti-extremism.

Thus to strengthen the centre against extremes is merely to strengthen the state against one’s self. Those unable to understand the implications, will more and more come across those happy to make the distinction for them.

Reproduced from RA vol 4, Issue 8, September/October '00

London Socialist Alliance Election Results For Greater London Assembly

“If you look at the statistics and ignore the emotion this was not such a bad result”
Louis Van Gaal commented after losing in the Champions League semi-final to Valencia on May 10. For the London Socialist Alliance who had contested the Greater London Assembly elections a week earlier, it is the exact opposite. In the LSA case: ‘if you ignore the emotion, and look at the statistics’, calling it ‘not such a good result’ is to be frank, putting a gloss on it.

However to listen to the SWP one would have imagined the Left had won by a landslide. In the real world, of the one in three who bothered to vote, 98% of them did not vote LSA. “Their one-point-something percentage hailed as an ‘extra ordinary’ breakthrough by SWP spin-doctors pretty much scotches the idea that the Left” in the opinion of Guardian pundit Charlotte Raven “will be the ultimate beneficiaries of the current disillusionment with Blair”. Evidently ‘emotional’, sports writer Mike Marquese testily insisted the LSA showing was “exceptional by any historic measure”. Exceptional certainly. Socialism cannot hardly have had a worse result this century. 150 years after the drawing up of the Communist Manifesto for unreconstructed socialists to regard 2.8% of their combined vote as a triumph, is tragic, bordering on the comic. But then for some time now looking only on the bright side can be habit forming.

When for instance the SLP attracted 70,000 votes nationally in the general election in l997, Arthur Scargill vaingloriously announced that the SLP were now the “fourth biggest party” in the country. And even when only two years later, the same SLP polled only 0.68% across Wales, though “exhausted and shell shocked” a full three months later, an activist felt justified “in gloating just a little that our efforts had been worthwhile”.

Thereafter “enquiries poured in” we were assured, leading to “new Constituency Parties being set up” and the SLP generally moving “forward steadily” and so on. Shortly prior to the GLA elections where the once ‘fourth biggest party’ received exactly half the LSA stipend on the Top Up List, the total membership in its London heartland was estimated at around - twenty - almost to a man incidentally hardline Uncle Joe devotees. For Scargill the general election of 1997, his first, proved to be the beginning of the end, rather than as he imagined, the end of the beginning.

There can be no doubt a similar fate awaits his triumphalist Trot counterparts, unless a serious reality check is enforced. And this time it will be no laughing matter. For if a united Left are not to prove the ‘ultimate beneficiaries of the disillusionment’ with New Labour is does not require a rocket scientist to figure out who will.

Reproduced from RA vol 4, Issue 7, June/July '00

It's Official : We're All Middle Class Now

There are 59 million people in Britain. For the first time in over twenty years official government statistics examining the wealth differential between social classes, were published in The Guardian on May 11.

The report shows the distribution of wealth - as opposed to income - has altered little in the past 20 years. In 1996 over half the total wealth was owned by 10% of the population. In the same year the wealthiest 50% owned almost all the wealth -93%. In 1997-98 about 30% of households said they had no savings, and over half had savings of less than £1,500.

Only 14% of households had savings of more than £20,000. In 1976 the death rate for babies born to families of “unskilled” workers was more than twice that for babies born to those with “professional” jobs.

By 1997 the infant mortality rate for children of unskilled workers had fallen to just under twice that of the professional groups.

So half of the populations households have savings of less than £1,500 and the mortality rate for working class babies has advanced from just over, to just under, twice that of the offspring of those in professional jobs. Oh Yeah. ‘We’re all middle class-now’.
 

Reproduced from RA vol 4, Issue 7, June/July '00

The current state of the Peace Process and the British Lefts response to it

At the onset of the peace process “IRA CALLTHE SHOTS!’ ran the Red Action headline. Back in August 1994 many scoffed.

Then and since the standard line of Republican dissidents and the British Left was that the entire process was designed to emasculate Republican resistance, and for Sinn Fein to even countenance participation was effectively ‘surrender’, and an objective ‘betrayal’ of Republican ideals and nationalist interests.

At every stage of the process, the squeal of ‘Sell-out” is repeated. By far the loudest bawlers in this respect are the same organisations who for over twenty-five years just as stridently denounced armed struggle as immoral. It takes considerable dissembling of reality to be wrong on both sides of a war and peace argument but the British Left have managed it somehow.

When, as now, the wheels are threatening to come off, and when in response Republicans have done precisely the opposite of what was predicted for them, trapped in their own dogma, the Left invariably opt to ride out the contradictory storm.

Of course the kind of thinking that led to the unilateral suspension by Peter Mandelson of the institutions set up under the Good Friday Agreement, continues to be hard for anyone to fathom. Ostensibly it was to save David Trimble, and with him the Agreement, from the ‘No men’ of Unionism. But rather than strengthening his leadership, every concession served instead, as was predicted, to further weaken his personal position. ‘Moderate Unionism’ so called, which steadfastly refused to prepare its own constituency for change, has inherited the lame duck leader it deserves. With the IRA withdrawing from even cursory contact with the De Chastelain decommissioning body, and the May 22 ‘deadline’ steadily looming, the inability to ratio­nalise, much less rectify, such a palpably anti-Machiavellian strategy, all too visibly now extends to the British administration and Mandelson himself.

That for a time there was consternation in Republican circles at such apparently aberrant British behaviour is understandable. But whatever its impact on Republican’s analysis of ultimate British intentions, the theme of ‘betrayal and surrender’ propounded by the spooks, dissidents and their Trotskyist bedfellows, much like the Good Friday Agreement itself, lies in tatters. In simple terms if ‘IRA sell-out’ was what happened in 1994, why six years later have they still not ‘sold out’? If the peace process was the British strategic victory painted, can someone please explain why the institutions designed, we are told, to ‘enshrine partition, imperialism and the New World Order’ were unceremoniously torn down by the British Secretary of State? In truth, of all the players in the peace process, it is SF, whose agenda the peace process is, who alone have made any intelligent effort to save a it.

Only recently Adams admitted that his party’s strenuous efforts in this regard saw SF go beyond their obligations. This he concedes ‘might have been a mistake’, as it relied on others to show equal commitment.

But if tactical ‘mistake’ it was, it is one unlikely in the short term to be repeated. For even in advance of the successful wounding of Trimble, SF were already ‘moving forward on the basis that a new phase of struggle is now opening up’. In so doing they were turning their backs on the possibility of serious negotiations under present conditions. Instead they will be concentrating on strengthening their own hand, in line with, as was predicted in these pages nine months ago, the inevitable emergence of a ‘Republican plan B’.

In ‘opening up this new phase of struggle Adams predicts that “at some time in the future a

new agreement will be negotiated. We will have to ensure that Sinn Fein is there in a better position to negotiate a better agreement than the one which is now in tatters”, and added with emphasis “we will only get as much freedom as we can take”,

As things stand Republican potential and ambition to do so, is both vast and impressive in equal measure. Never better in fact.

While supplanting an ageing SDLP in the Six Counties is probable rather than possible, and sooner rather than later, SF’s unmistakable ambition is to ‘get in amongst’ the gombeen politi­cians in the 26 counties. “Officially, local politicians from other parties play down the threat they pose at the next general election”, according to the latest edition of current affairs magazine Mogul, “but privately they admire their application and are bracing themselves for big changes in the political landscape”. As SF is the only party that operates on a 32 county basis, ‘big changes in the political landscape’ carry with them an inescapable 32 county flavour. And as night follows day, with it too de facto, and undeniable, if not quite yet de jure, abolition of political partition. Prisoner releases and other ‘concessions’ not withstanding, prospects all round appear to be none too bad for a largely working class movement sections of the right-wing British establishment and the entire British Left, prepared eager obituaries for in August 1994. As the SF trajectory suggests, there appears to be some immutable law, which ordains that the British Left like a flawed compass, must always get everything horribly wrong. Whatever the cunning in the plan, in the opposite direction lies ‘Nirvana’.

Now the same Left, under the banner of the London Socialist Alliance, are feverishly preparing to put their collective theories to the electorate in a unified way for the first time. Though many of the participants, notably the SWP, were dragged into the electoral arena kicking and screaming, an almost triumphalist air, not dissimilar to the type of optimism that greeted the launch in 1995 of the now semi-defunct SLP is once again apparent. The London Assembly elections are on May 4. Given the accuracy of the ‘flawed compass’ thus far, it will be interesting to see, who precisely is in position to ‘call the shots’ come May 5?

Reproduced from RA vol 4, Issue 6, April/May '00

Liberal responses to racism in football

Something, somewhere, is very, very, wrong. According to a recent report by the Sir Norman Chester centre for football research at Leicester University, Celtic fans are among the most racist in Britain. Celtic came a close third behind Everton and Rangers “in the league table for making the largest number of racist comments heard” reported The Guardian (7.1.00).

Most curious. Particularly as, despite allegedly questioning 33,000 fans, not one team outside of the Premiership even rates a mention, And yet it is in places like Oldham, Scunthorpe and Carlisle where many believe terrace racism proportionally, remains at its most overt. Not only that, but it was Leicester and Coventry that witnessed the only mass examples of outright and unrestrained bigotry in recent years. Leicester are placed eighth in the league table of shame, but on this occasion in question it was the 3,000 away fans who were the source of it. Similarly at Coventry where a spokesman for the guilty party, ruefully admitted that most of the ‘4000 away crowd seemed to have been involved’. The considerable embar­rassment of Kevin Miles was understandable, as his club Newcastle are flagged up as one the two major state sponsored anti-racist success stories within the game.

The other notable pilot scheme at Leeds, who are allotted an almost relegation and there­fore respectable place in ‘the league of shame’, were the visitors who gave mass vent to their feelings about ‘Pakis’ in Leicester. Something similar had also happened only a couple of months earlier when Leeds were away to Blackburn. After the Leicester game in January 1999 the ‘Leeds Fans Against Racism’ website made at least some effort to explain it.

But when Leeds fans rampaged in Glasgow during a pre season friendly at the beginning of this season, targeting Irish/republican pubs in particular, an event, which drew banner headlines in Scotland, the silence south of the border, and within the anti-racist world generally was deafening. Neither ‘Kick it Out!’, ‘Give Racism the Red Card!’, nor Searchlight, who regularly eulogise the so-called Leeds blue-print had anything to say. Socialist Party inspira­tion Tommy Sheridan, who had publicly recommended the Newcastle model to Celtic fans (albeit before the Coventry match) was equally and unusually tight-lipped. Coincidentally the only paper, which saw fit to investigate the incident at Coventry v Newcastle, was not the liberal Guardian, but the Irish Times.

Up until the survey it was very much ‘the curious case of the dog that did not bark’. But with the arrest of Leeds players Bowyer and Woodgate following a serious attack on an Asian youth in Leeds city centre, the affair is given an added twist. Both Bowyer and Woodgate had, it appears, featured in a ‘Kick it Out!’ poster campaign.

Unsurprisingly national coordinator Piara Powar concedes that even without a conviction the credibility of his campaign has already been ‘damaged’. Yet the self restraint displayed by him and other state linked bodies is again marked. And apparently so confident was Leeds chairman Peter Risdale, of his self-muzzling pet, he confidently declared, in advance of anybody even being charged, that “the suggestion of this being a racially motivated attack is without foundation” (Sunday Telegraph 22. 1 .00). Contradictions and red faces all round when a few days later the South Yorkshire police, who as a rule, state sponsored bodies insist should have ‘institutionally racist’ enamelled on their helmets, announced a contrary conclusion.

For state sponsored anti-racism to determinedly turn a blind eye to the one club in Britain whose supporters are routinely targeted in murderous attacks simply for wearing the club’s colours is to say the least unprincipled. To then allow the same Celtic fans to be labelled racist, again without comment, is little short of contemptible.

Taken as whole, it merely confirms what many anti-fascists have come to suspect. Not only is the race relations industry blinkered, incompetent, wrong headed, increasingly self-fulfiling, self serving, and self-defeating, but in all probability corrupt.

Reproduced from RA Bulletin Volume 4, Issue 5, Feb/March '00

Making History

In 1988 a couple of reporters were commissioned by BLITZ magazine to do a feature on Red Action. As part of their research they approached various sections of the Left for comment.

Most, when not openly hostile, simply refused ‘for one reason or another’ to be quoted. One group ARAFA (Anti-Racist Anti-Fascist Action) went a step further, and to the astonishment of the hacks attempted to censor/edit the project themselves! “The outcome of the meeting” was, the stunned reporters recorded, “a statement put together on the spot and endorsed by the group as a whole”. It read: “Islington ARAFA disassociates itself from any article primarily focused on Red Action. The focus of any article should be on the positive aspects of the anti-racist, anti-fascist movement with no more than a small mention of Red Action (ie one paragraph)”.

The ‘ignore them and they will go away’ followed by the slightly more progressive ‘damned by faint praise’ approach is not restricted to Red Action only. ‘One paragraph’, is precisely what AFA is allowed in Searchlight’s recent account of anti-fascist resistance in the 1980’s. (It does not figure at all in the account of the 1990’s). As for the SWP, any public acknowledgment of AFA’s existence, no matter how grudging would in itself be a bombshell.

Traditionally, outfits who serve their time at the coal-face, such as the paramilitary 43 and 62 Groups are invariably more concerned with making history, than making propaganda. Up until recently this was also true of AFA. Until it realised that if it didn’t take responsibility for writing it’s own history, others were only too happy to write them out of it. Consequently a new pamphlet on the history of militant anti-fascism between 1985-2000 with anecdotal evidence from the fighters themselves is currently in production. To the chagrin of the ‘one paragraph more than enough’ revisionists, a new entirely independent publica­tion irredeemably undermines any future attempt at militant anti-fascist emasculation.

Anti-Fascism in Britain by Nigel Copsey (printed by Macmillan) is the first and only academic study of the tactics and strategies of anti-fascism in it’s own right. It’s overreaching feature, being an examination, from 1923 up to the present day of the “historic divide between radical anti-fascism with its emphasis on physical confrontation - and legal forms of anti-fascism”. Despite the occasional intrusion of the liberal, not to say naive personal politics of the author, it is nonetheless an honest exploration of motivations, strategies and tactics. And because of Copsey’s blatant objectivity, rather than being cast, if at all, as either peripheral, or mere auxiliaries to liberalism, militant anti-fascism in each generation strides centre stage as of right. Hence the real value of Copsey’s endeavour is not the level of research, the quality of the writing (though crisp) or the veracity of conclusion, instead the quiet satisfaction in the AFA camp, despite the staggering £49 price tag, is the actual existence of the book itself.

Reproduced from RA Bulletin Volume 4, Issue 5, Feb/March '00

The Conservative Left's Continuing Support for Labour

Labour, whose victory was wildly celebrated by the conservative Left, is now roughly half way through its first term. In an effort to cover their embarrassment at how things have turned out, these unwanted, unloved, but ever so loyal supporters, are obliged to continue to insist Blair remains the ‘lesser evil’.

All despite Blair, rather pointedly, never making the slightest effort to conceal that he sees his party’s future on the centre Right, or (with plans to cut jury trials, mandatory drug testing for offenders and ‘anti-terrorism’ extended to include all ‘direct actions’) arguably right of Centre. Historically the longer Labour is in office the further it moves to the Right. Given that it is guaranteed a second term (something that it has previously not managed) it is amusing to consider what political criteria the conservative Left (those still afloat) will be forced to employ in order to justify New Labour as the ‘lesser evil’ in five years time?

One thing’s for certain, they certainly have not tired of New Labour yet. It only takes a half plausible cause, or a candidate such as Ken Livingstone to tug at the old loyalty and have them up and running. Even a paper that railed against what it describes as the conservative Left’s ‘auto-Labourism’ on practically a weekly basis is now seen to gush that “even if Livingstone ends up as the official Labour candidate - in the teeth of an all out pro-Dobson Millbank campaign - we [working class revolutionaries] should still mobilise for his candidacy, but against New Labour”. Which is to say ‘we mobilise for the New Labour candidate - against New Labour!’

This very process of resowing old illusions in New Labour, just as the mass of the working class are breaking with Labour can “create the possibility of a mass working class movement, independent of Labour” we are told. (Weekly Worker 11.11.99) At a point when working class communities are increasingly standing their own candidates (albeit tentatively) the self-styled collective leadership advises they ‘remain Labour’s tail’. Or as Weekly Worker previously put it “it has been an enormous strength of bourgeois politics that the left wing of social democracy has been able to divert proletarian anger and aspirations for change into the safe channels of the Labour Party.” So from that point of view, why now the evangelical zeal to re-anchor the working class to Labour? Because it has fallen to Livingstone to displace Blair from the mantle of ‘the lesser evil’, and “so to stand back for offering strong support would be a profound mistake”.

There is little doubt that the shenanigans surrounding the selection of the Labour candidate is a source of huge personal chagrin for Blair. If indeed as the W.W. over optimistically forecasts the whole affair results in ‘mass defections from Labour in London and a realignment of forces on the left’, all to the good. But just because you envisage some advantage, does not mean you pitch in on the one side or the other. Much less because you deem it ‘progressive’ does it mean you are obliged in principle, as working class militants, to formally offer political support. This is after all, a falling out amongst those inside the enemy camp, is it not?

‘Class politics’ is after all about picking sides. At no time this century can the choice have been more straightforward. And once set, that base orientation is decisive, governing all else. Everyone knows this. All the breast beating in the world thereafter cannot conceal the reality of the Left continuing to operate unashamedly, day in day out, in the interests of one or other enemy faction. After an unbroken pattern lasting the entire century is it too outrageous to conclude that here is where their hopes, aspirations, and ultimately loyalties lie? Which is why, increasingly, for those of us looking on purely from a working class perspective, it is no longer what they think they are doing, but only what they are actually doing that counts.
 

Reproduced from RA vol 4, Issue 4, Dec '99/Jan '00

Dover Attacks

Initially the slashing incidents in Dover in August were put down to "refugees", denomination uncertain. Whether they be Kurds or Kosovans appeared to be largely a matter of indifference. No one, not least the media, seemed particularly bothered about the facts, much less securing any agreement on the identity of the guilty party. With battle lines drawn on the basis of the editorial line being either in the pro or anti immigrant camp, truth rather inevitably was the first casualty.

Playing fast and loose was certainly the Guardian style with this interpretation of events: "The violent scenes, as local knife wielding thugs clashed with asylum seekers leaving 11 people wounded gave a nightmare glimpse of the future that may face those who arrive in Britain each year to claim refugee status" (24.8.99). "Local" in this context, presumably meaning white. Socialist Worker was a trifle less gung ho. While denying "lurid pictures" of refugee violence as "filthy lies" it tacitly accepted some refugee culpability in the affair. In mitigation adding that the community had been provoked beyond endurance, and "in the face of racist taunts one asylum seeker had gone for local youths with a knife... allegedly". Whatever the damage done, (of which there is no reference) this was 'a lone nut' for which no one else should be held to account was the SW spin. Complaining that the Dover Express, which last year described refugees as "human sewage" and this time round under a title "blood bath at funfair" illustrated the piece with "a graphic picture of a slashed Kent youth", the Observer expressed outrage that the papers coverage seemed so "completely one sided". "The paper does not" fumed the Observer "highlight that at least one Kosovan had his face slashed" (Observer 22.8.99). Curiously neither, when presented with the opportunity, did the Observer.

In any case having nailed its colours so firmly to the mast last year, being 'one sided' is hardly a charge the Dover Express is likely to refute. But what of the Guardian, Socialist Worker and the Observer itself? It would be hard to imagine the Observer absolving anyone else of blame, regardless of provocation, if for instance on a ratio of ten to one, the victims had (a) not been white and (b) not been working class. Here as with the race killing of Richard Everitt, the liberal press allowed itself to appear entirely neutral. There are of course two sides to every story, but their reticence speaks volumes. When in the liberal mind such things, the slashing of a couple of ten year old girls, or even a racist murder is ignored, dismissed as 'hype', presented as understandable, or if done in the right cause even meritorious, it is easy to see the danger signs. Promoting a minority over majority, policy regardless, is reverse nationalism, not anti-racism. Automatically, from this stand-point, the interests of refugees or other minorities are counterpoised to the interests of, as the Guardian described them, the "locals". And with the white working class cast as the enemy designate, 'round up the usual suspects' is the watchword. Quite simply liberals wants to abolish 'the abuses of society on the basis of the same principles that gave rise to those abuses', so the entire race question is approached from a moral stand-point - only. Nasty 'locals' versus 'nice' refugees and vice versa. Talk of extra funding to 'grease' proper integration is considered impossibly vulgar. Thus in the competition for dwindling resources the most impoverished are set against each other. Politicians and the media merely choose sides. "In Oxford a racist gang took its cue from the right wing press" according to SW " [and] with iron bars, axes and bottles attacked a house where Kosovan refugees lived." Local papers in Oxford however presented a very different account. Again, somebody, somewhere was telling porkies.

Obviously when the media take sides on the basis of race, without regard to objective truth, it makes it harder and harder for everybody else to discover what is actually happening. The general uncertainty as to what is really going on only makes it easier to for a fundamentalist agenda to find favour. Truth might be the first casualty but in a war of half truths the 'big lie' will always be victor. And we all know who has the pedigree in that department.

Ascribing to refugees a host of virtues highly prized in middle class culture but assumed to be absent in the host community (usually the toughest of neighbourhoods incidentally) is self defeating. Particularly when not true. Particularly when impossible to live up to. A compound error being to lie, when as in Dover, the unpalatable happens.

By contrast authentic anti-racism is to recognise that when you really get down to it 'refugees are as bad as the rest of us'. So for anti-fascism 'no better, no worse' remains the anchor. To attempt to 'improve' reality for some imagined political advantage stumbles, perhaps unwittingly, into the camp of those for whom racial preference is second nature.

Just recently Anti-Fascist Action was denounced as "racist" in the letters pages of a weekly left-wing paper for questioning the efficacy of liberal anti-racism. But 'Refugees welcome here!' is not a strategy, but a proclamation. And those who bawl it loudest, mostly hide, rather stand behind it. They hide from reality in other ways too. Not least the notion that they, as sterling defenders of the status quo, are at one and the same time, attacking militant anti-fascism from the left.

Ultimately the extent to which a positive outcome is possible depends entirely on how refugees interests can be shown to be a defence, not of narrow sectional interests merely, but of needs which are accepted by working class communities as universal.

Reproduced from RA vol 4, Issue 3, Oct/Nov '99

BNP Euro-election Campaign

"The British National Party" according to the July issue of Searchlight "polled a smaller share of the vote than it did in the 1997 general election. In total it gained 102,647 votes, a miserly 1% share of the votes cast.

This compares poorly with the 1997 general election when the party stood 56 candidates gaining 1.43 % of the vote". Got that? Seems clear enough. More people voted BNP in 1997 than they did in 1999. Encouraging, you might think? Except it's not true.

In fact, the numbers of people actually voting BNP almost tripled, from 35,000 in 1997 to over 100,000 in 1999. True, they stood 23 more candidates in the Euro election. But surely the ability to do so is merely evidence of a strengthening of infrastructure than anything else. Additionally, these electoral gains were off the back of a new post-war low of less than one in four of those eligible actually voting. When you take into account that from the outset the election campaign was designed to recruit, raise the BNP profile nationally, and break out of the protest group slot, "failure," "disastrous," much less a "fiasco" are just a little misleading.

In order to justify the tabloid type reporting, the 1% in 1999 is judged unfavourably against the BNP percentage in 1997 by dividing the total vote accrued by the BNP amongst the BNP 's own candidates rather than against a percentage of the total numbers of votes cast. Comparing like with like, the real 1997 percentage of "votes cast" is revealed as a mere 0.13%. So not only did the fascists almost triple it's number of voters from 35,000 to 102,000 in two years, but also increased it 's percentage share of the vote seven fold. As a side dish the champions of the socialist Left in the form of the SLP were roundly beaten in seven out of the nine English regions.

Without taking off his socks any fascist that was numerate could work this out for himself. So, the Searchlight spin cannot be explained away as an attempt to demoralise the Far Right, when the people they are really mugging off are at the other end of the spectrum.

For entirely opportunist reasons it would appear the BNP Euro campaign was written up as calamity simply so Searchlight could justify it 's existence by claiming as a "success" it 's "repeated exposes" in the lead up to the election. Searchlight co-editor Nick Lowles, responsible for the sleight of hand, was exposed in July 1997 after a protracted AFA internal inquiry as a mole who ruthlessly manipulated the anti-fascist movement in general and AFA in particular to further Searchlight 's sectional agenda. Two entire AFA branches who had fallen under the Searchlight spell were reluctantly purged. And judging by reports it was not for his 'steadiness under fire ' against a violent Far Right that Lowles earned his spurs. Rather as a result of his efforts in Yorkshire it was militant anti-fascism rather than militant nationalism that was fatally undermined. Less subtly, in Germany recently Searchlight agents attempted to prevent, with accompanying threats of violence, militant anti-fascists from presenting their analysis to a large political rally. Not that any of this will give Gerry Gable any sleepless nights. The 'end justifies the means ' is a motto, had it not existed, Gable would have been required to invent. But given that Gable has publicly 'come out ' as a member of John Grieve 's State-sponsored 'Racial and Violent Crimes Task Force ', what is increasingly puzzling militant anti-fascism across Europe is no longer the dubious means - but what from a Searchlight perspective is the desired end? A battle cry of 'Never Again! ', combined with an 11 million strong, Europe-wide, fascist vote, in tandem with a Searchlight headline reading "Far Right set back," simply doesn't compute. I don 't know who they think they 're fooling, but they 're not fooling us.

Reproduced from RA vol 4, Issue 2, Aug/Sept '99

Stamina, Ambition, Orientation

"It's a story of neglect. Of poor housing, no facilities or community centres for young people or old, of unemployment, of big money unjustly distributed, of queues for hospital beds, of withdrawal of medical services.

It is a story of neglect and injustice. It is also a political story of apathy, of hopelessness, of corruption, of political parties scrabbling for votes against each other, and between party running mates, of political want-to-be's, blowing into areas for votes and blowing out again, passing the parcel between them on councils, taking elections as an accolade not an obligation".

All an all it is a familiar story throughout much of Europe. Conditions ready made you would have thought for a breakthrough by a dynamic progressive working class party. Yet in the last fifteen years we have become conditioned to accept that in the unlikely event the mold is broken, it will inevitably be by the extreme-Right.

However in local elections in the 26 counties in June, Sinn Fein trebled its representation on city and county councils, taking in total 62 local authority seats. Quite apart from it 's success on the other side of the border, SF is now the fourth largest party in the 26 Counties. And yet as republicans are only too happy to admit there is no secret to their success.

"The vote represents all the work which has been done by Sinn Fein down the years, every week, going out talking to people, putting newsletters out to over 10,000 houses, letting people know what we are doing, being actively involved in the community campaigns around the issues that concern people".

Expanding on the point another local activist pointed out that "people know we are not afraid. We 're from the community, we live here, not like the other candidates who park their car a mile away. We 've lived here all our lives. Sinn Fein lives in and is part of the community".

Overall SF 's success is "a testament" according to An Phoblact/Republican News "to arduous patient work without glamour on the ground amongst the people." Simple as that.

As well as being an inspiration to those of us pursuing a similar strategy, what a devastating rebuke to the 30 year investment in entryism, opportunism, middle class student recruitment, sectarianism, paper selling and demos practiced by the now collapsing European Left.

Politics has always been the art of the possible not the improbable. It is essentially a collection of successful recipes. Orientation, stamina and ambition being the critical ingredients. Once the political objective is agreed, the course of least resistance is decided. Any serious or prolonged deviation from this course of action comes under the category of hobby.

Reproduced from RA vol 4, Issue 2, Aug/Sept '99

London Nail Bombings

Allowing for the diverse array of 'experts' given air time after the recent London bombings it is amazing how many were on message. All including Searchlight and the ANL were agreed that the bombs, were 'acts of desperation'. A natural consequence of the frustration among the Far-Right from being in a continuous decline since the 1970's. A spin on events summed up by soundbite from the Prime Minister who declared racists to be the 'real outcasts'.

Having established the context, the arrest of a suspect led to high fives all round. Particularly, as the police were quick to point out, he was not 'connected to any group'. And if indeed he was not connected, then the bombings were not deemed politically motivated. If the perpetrator was a lone homicidal maniac, then a fundamental review of anti-racist strategies, as proposed by AFA to the steering group of the National Civil Rights Movement recently, was unnecessary. No need to fix something that wasn't broken. Such was the evident relief, that any who departed from this consensus, became instant outcasts themselves. Including Cardinal Hume, who a day prior to the arrest had the temerity to suggest the bombings reflected some 'underlying sickness in society'. A London Evening Standard editorial attacked him for being 'hysterical and foolish' simply on grounds of the bombings now being known to be the work of a lone wolf, rather than a wolf pack. A pack as a product of society might have required some soul-searching, but a nutter was an aberration, for which nobody in an otherwise tolerant multi-cultural society need be held to account. An entirely rational response if true. Except that very same day Cabinet Minister Nick Raynsford announced plans to raise the threshold needed to secure a seat in the London Assembly elections next May, specifically, in order to prevent the Far-Right 'gaining a foothold on the democratic ladder'.
Then less than a week later, on May 10, a tenfold increase in race crimes in London in the last year, from 250 to over 2,000, caused Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve to remark: 'There is something poisonous in London which is now bubbling to the surface'. On May 26 a Daily Mirror exclusive putting the bomber and Tyndall together only eighteen months earlier was entirely ignored by the same press, which had taken such succour from the 'lone wolf' theory. Reminiscent of the town council in the film Jaws, now that the scare was over, the media including the Evening Standard (who take a keen interest in such matters) didn't want to know.

Meanwhile on Searchlight instigation, the Mirror announced that that of the 81 candidates put up by the BNP for the Euro elections, 8 had given false addresses. This led 50 MP's from all parties to demand a investigation into electoral fraud and a media debate on the probity of banning electoral broadcasts by parties 'like' the BNP.

During one such discussion, a journalist from the Mirror suggested that only those whom a 'tolerant society found acceptable' should be allowed to publicly express their views. Of course these days groups 'like' the BNP, no longer means simply parties of the Far-Right but anyone deemed extremist by 'reasonable people'. (A point underlined by the police who zeroed in on AFA leafletters at a May Day Rally, the day after the Soho bombing, demanding names and addresses for "intelligence purposes".) The catch-all term 'extremist' now includes tenants fighting against council privatisation, those opposed to cabinet style local government, or indeed anyone involved in politics outside of the mainstream parties. Local initiatives by the IWCA in the Midlands are instantly branded 'NF' by Labour, or 'exposed' to non-plussed working class communities as 'subversive by Special Branch.

For over quarter of century British rule in the North of Ireland has facilitated the promotion of 'reasonable people' to positions of quasi-power, and has been facilitated in turn by the pretence that such men and women represented both their communities and a viable future. Naturally the media encouraged this trend, by promoting the views of the right sort of people who sat on quangos and discussion panels. The 'soft unionist' views of the Alliance Party were matched by the 'soft nationalist views' of the SDLP. In short the two governments wanted people they thought might think like them.

It was a dictatorship of the centre that never quite convinced working class communities in the same way. The demonisation of Irish republicans in particular has rebounded so spectacularly, that Sinn Fein leaders like Adams and McGuinness are regarded by working class kids on both sides of the border as 'film stars' rather than politicians. Proving that legislation can delay but never prevent political ideas, if genuinely representative, taking root.

The current strategy of demonisation promoted by Searchlight, the ANL and sections of the media will ultimately not only fail, but risks glamourising fascism in the process for the same reason: they insist on addressing a symptom rather than a cause. In that the policy of 'race first' of which they approve, ie. the constant racialisation of every issue from policing, to education, to football, invites everybody to identify with their own tribe only. A conscious promotion of division responsible for a balkanisation that allows the 'centre' a political rule untroubled by either radical or sustained opposition.
Moreover in the wider political process, the government makes it perfectly clear in its promotion of policies at a national and local level that it is not the 'racists' who are outcast but the working class as a whole. This is not likely to change even if Labour was so minded. Because unless it continues to bribe and flatter middle class sensibilities, old class loyalties will reassert themselves and Labour will lose a host of southland seats again.

Meanwhile the combination of racialising every social issue, at the same time as treating the working class as just another minority, and an abandoned one at that, risks driving those desperate for change toward the Far-Right almost forcibly. A further round of restrictive legislation in order to avoid (in reality put off) the crisis of the vast reactionary reservoir the 'reasonable people' have created, being reflected electorally is then called for. That the demonisation of the Far-Right results in the camouflaged criminalisation of working class activists is, they would claim, evidence of even-handedness. Even-handed maybe, but anti-fascism it ain't. Fascism can be fought only by extending the class struggle, by extending democracy, not shelving it. The centre is still holding, but you sense, only just.

Reproduced from RA vol 4, Issue 1, June/July '99

Race Attacks

It is now over a decade ago, since a 2,000 strong AFA march to the Cenotaph on Remembrance Day first attempted to highlight the issue of race attacks. Under the title 'Remembering victims of fascism yesterday and today' AFA vainly sought to bring both Left and media attention, to the epidemic which back then registered at a mere 70,000 incidents a year. Apart from a negative response from the Daily Mail the initiative was ignored by the rest of the media, and attracted no response from the left. In 1989, in Camden, in 1990 in east London, in 1991 and 1993 in south-east London, militant anti-fascism repeatedly sought to make links at a grass roots level, in order to hammer out an effective counter strategy. On every occasion, those efforts were rebuffed, or in some cases sabotaged by the council appointed 'community representatives'.

With the latest race attacks figures being put at 290,000 many of that same strata, indeed many of the very same individuals, are now crowding in behind the new Civil Rights movement. It would appear that in the wake of the Stephen Lawrence campaign, the race attacks issue, has become sexy. Their overwhelming concern now, of course being that the whole thing is controlled by them. No place for social undesirables like AFA who media darling, Suresh Grover, recently described "as a bunch of skinheads who intimidate people". A point underwritten by fellow steering group member Searchlight who snubbed an AFA approach for a pre meeting to discuss it's concerns.
For the signatories to the Macpherson Report meanwhile racism, is not only society's greatest evil, but it's only one. Consequently everything, civil rights and common sense included, must be sacrificed toward it's eradication. Defending the proposal to outlaw racist behaviour in private, inquiry member Dr Stone asks: "is there really no way we can nail someone for using disgusting racial language." "Is there no way to nail some one for disgusting racial thinking" is the same question put more precisely.
A mindset borne of a belief that the various anti-racist strategies proposed by liberals like him over the last fifteen years are actually working. And therefore, all that is required is one final push. Except, that the evidence strongly suggests the exact opposite is happening. If racial violence, which has been on a steadily rising curve since 1982, is judged an effective barometer, racist thinking is becoming more rather than less entrenched. A reactionary reservoir that will at some stage be tapped politically. But like a blind man dancing on a roof, Dr Stone knows nothing of this. In his 'expert' opinion the far-right were so resoundingly defeated after the war; they "haven't been back since". Having never even heard of the National Front, he will be blissfully unaware that the BNP intend standing in all regions in England in the European elections in June. And of the millions of recruitment leaflets distributed in that campaign, his own furious defence of the Macpherson recommendations, will in probability, feature prominently in every one of them.

It is not of course being suggested that racism must be tolerated for fear of provoking a backlash. But people need also to be made aware that politicising the issue of race; placing race at the top of the national agenda, dovetails nicely with agendas other than their own. Britain is indeed a deeply divided society but not only, or even primarily, on grounds of race.

And so those who point to statistics which show that blacks are five times more likely to be stopped by police than whites, as evidence of blatant police bias, something that can and must as a priority be addressed by quotas or better training, miss the real point by as wide a margin as Dr Stone. 'Stop and search' figures compiled by Human Rights Watch/Helsinki demonstrate, that in places like Hackney and Lambeth, where blacks make up 22 % of the local population, they represent 44 % of those stopped. However, in places like Kensington and Chelsea, and Harrow, areas where black motorists are perceived to be socially 'out of place', the odds of being stopped increase from 2-1 to 7-1. An acknowledgement that the police whatever their personal prejudices accept that their primary duty is not to protect white from black, but rich from poor. Consequently, Richmond upon Thames, where blacks make up only 0.75% of the population has proportionately the highest racially based stop and search figures in the Met, and therefore probably in the country.

Even then the outcome, depends entirely on how the suspect is classified after identification. Of course by the police criteria middle class black professionals are initially just as likely to be stopped as the working class unemployed. But generally for the black professional the inconvenience ends there. Once identified they are treated as respectfully as their status entitles them. They are not, abused, strip searched, denied bail, framed, beaten or killed. On the occasions when the police get it wrong huge sums are paid out in compensation. As a result black lawyers, journalists and doctors are no more likely to figure in police deaths in custody statistics than their white counterparts. For blacks their colour may get them stopped, but it is their class, or from a system perspective, their lack of it, that gets them killed. Class matters. Fatally so. Or put another way, of the 32 deaths at the hands of the police referred to by Ken Livingstone recently, nine were black. Disproportionate certainly, but any guesses on the common denominator with the remaining 23?

In December 1998, an AFA representative took part in a seminar on racism and race attacks on the Isle of Dogs. The majority of the contributions were from academics and youth workers. A consensus that current anti-racist strategies were counter productive, was agreed from the outset. An underlying reason being that in rejecting either the possibility and desirability of a redistribution of wealth from rich to poor, multi-culturalism instead places it's entire emphasis on resources such as they are, being shared on an equitable basis, thereby racialising social issues. In a nut shell, it is a sham. A stratagem to deflect the consequences of increasing social inequality back into the section of society that bears the brunt of it. Fanning the flames of racial and cultural division, while systematically depriving the targeted communities of resources is akin to the mother, invited to explain the anti social nature of her child who commented: "She was born like that. I beat her raw everyday and it didn't do any good".

Similarly, despite platitudes from the organisers prior to the launch meeting of the new National Civil Rights Movement on March 28 about 'not forgetting the white working class', in attempting to block any input from militant anti-fascism the NCRM is effectively ensuring the working class are excluded as well. Without this anchor, the likelihood is that it will be swept into the black nationalist slip stream. And under the motto 'equality before the law and fraternity in exploitation' civil rights will be perceived by the public to be broadly synonymous with the narrow aspirations of a wannabee black elite. An opportunity squandered is on thing. To conspire in a scenario where the BNP, in the eyes of the public, can then quite legitimately 'return the serve' - a boo boo of historic proportions - will require a political response of an altogether different calibre.

Reproduced from RA vol 3, Issue 6, Apr/May '99

Anti-Fascist Strategy

Anti-fascism might best be described as a rearguard action 'until better times'. In previous phases of the post war struggle against fascism, from the 43 Group through to the 62 Group, to the original ANL, the accepted custom and practice of anti-fascism was to blunt fascist aggression - collect the plaudits, hastily wind up the organisation and retire. It was never the intention that the advantage should be pushed home. In the sense that having defeated fascism in working class areas, there is no real evidence of any ambition to politically replace them there. Ultimately this political shortsightedness guaranteed that the respite would be brief.

Consequently, having suffered substantial defeat in the late 40's, the far-right, reorganised by the late 50's. From taking a hammering in the early 60's it was on the threshold of mainstream breakthrough by the mid 70's. Electorally emasculated by Thatcher's 'swamping' speech in 1979, and despite splits, schisms and internal squabbles the NF could still mount a 2,000 strong march to the Cenotaph in 1986. By the early 1990's the vote for far-right parties (despite standing less candidates) had climbed by 600%.

Military theorist Von Claueswitz, famous for the term 'war is politics by other means' stated that 'if the defensive is the stronger form of conducting war (preservation being easier than acquisition) but has a negative object, it follows of itself that we must only make use of it so long as our weakness compels us to do so, and that we must give up that form as soon as we feel strong enough to aim at the positive object'. The normal object of anti-fascist defence, is to preserve. Either an organisation or an area, or democracy itself depending on the stakes and the level of aggression. But as conditions change and become more favourable the negative, according to Von Clausewitz, must be jettisoned for a more positive objective. For previous generations of anti-fascists, the inability or lack of will to change from defensive, to the politically offensive meant their efforts were invariably wasted. Or to put it more accurately, 'if the natural course of war is to begin with the defensive and end with the offensive'; then despite their undoubted personal commitment - the job was always left half done.

'Leaving the job half done' is for this generation of anti-fascists is not even an option. Principally as the far-right, having staged a strategic withdrawal from the streets are far from destroyed. On the contrary intelligence indicates that not only are they using the time to develop a cogent infrastructure, but the BNP claim a 35% growth in membership in the last 12 months alone. Artificial though it maybe, but this then is our 'respite', our 'better times' and we must make the best of it. Otherwise there is a danger that this time around the job may be left, not half done, but undone. So for militant anti-fascism, the challenge as it has been since the BNP 'cried uncle' in 1994, is to move collectively from the defensive stance and negative objective, to an offensive and politically positive objective. Which means switching from a position of simply denying the far-right political and territorial acquisitions, to systematically working towards acquiring zones of political influence we can advance from, or retreat to, ourselves.
Despite various policy adoptions since early 1995, due to the stress always being firmly on the need to move collectively it was never going to be easy, and so it has proved. And for that same reason the transition is still patchy. Some when looking to the 'positive' objective, were understandably overawed by the size and nature of the task; others were reluctant to decommission their own ideologies. Meanwhile conservative elements; 'the Real AFA' appeared determined to reduce militant anti-fascism to a tactic of physical force - only. Encouraging signs from unconnected parts of the country suggest there is a growing recognition that with the Left decomposing, it is increasingly a matter of militants taking on the responsibility or it not getting done. Yet for many, the hardest part is knowing where to start. Increasingly the medical profession argue that the key to a cure is 'to treat the patient rather than the disease'. Focus more on how your community might be helped, and less on how the far-right might be hindered, is that logic applied to the body politic. As Machievelli noted 'political disorders can be quickly healed if seen in advance, when for lack of a diagnosis they are allowed to grow in such a way that everyone can recognise them, remedies are too late'. Fortunately, anti-fascism has made it's diagnosis. And made it collectively. However for the impact to be felt, the remedy needs to be applied collectively as well.

Reproduced from RA vol 3, Issue 5, Feb/Mar '99

Murder And The First Minister

For Sinn Fein's Republican News 'book of the year' is undoubtedly The Committee which is unavailable in all good bookshops, or indeed any bookshops in Britain and Ireland, mired as it is in legal battles.
This a result of exposing the complicity of leading politicians, businessmen, and the RUC with the running and control of the loyalist death squads. Collusion between death squads and the RUC; death squads and the British Army and between death squads and M15 is well documented. Equally, few would deny that leading Unionist politicians have always enjoyed 'a nod and a wink' relationship with loyalist paramilitarism. What The Committee purports to show is both the scale and hands on role few suspected. We use the word 'purport' advisedly, for like RN, we 'do not claim all the assertions of author McPhilemy's main informant are correct'. Not all of them have to be. A mere percentage are enough to prove that mainstream Unionism is, in essence, reactionary, corrupt and irredeemably anti-democratic. The insight into the Unionist mindset, provided by the book gives lie to the notion that the crucial contributions to the peace process as reflected in the Nobel Prize awards, were from moderate unionism and constitutional nationalism. As with the war, the cutting edge and impetus for negotiations lie elsewhere; first and foremost with Irish republicanism, thereafter with the British establishment. And if the British establishment wants to painlessly extract itself from Ireland as the evidence indicates, then mainstream Unionism must be faced down. Sunday Times editorials which routinely proclaim 'that those who want peace must remove it [Republicanism] from the equation' know that every conceivable variation of that formula applied against republicanism has failed. The only real option left as the Sunday Times peace lovers are aware, is to invert it, and do something that British policy have singularly avoided ever since the Curragh mutiny in 1912, which is to apply the formula to Unionism instead.

Reproduced from RA vol 3, Issue 5, Feb/Mar '99

AFA and Searchlight

In an obviously controversial decision, the previous issue of Red Action carried an article by a leading BNP strategist. The article by Tony Lecomber, which was reproduced in full, appraised the political developments within militant anti-fascism since the BNP's abandonment of the 'march and grow strategy'. In particular it focussed on the recognition by some AFA militants of the need for a 'political wing'. Our purpose in publishing the article was to allow militant anti-fascism a unique insight into the perceptions of it's current strengths and weaknesses from an opposition standpoint; to allow militants to see themselves as the enemy do.

Sometimes the opinions of our enemies come nearer to the truth about us than our own opinions. Hence the saying: 'If you know your enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt.' Consequently in this issue we follow-on with the perspective of an equally hostile element, since exposed as entryists from the 'state friendly' Searchlight. Apparently threatened by AFA's interest in a political strategy they sought from the beginning to disable it. With the authors since unmasked as infiltrators and dupes, a closer study of their emasculating technique, and in particular the political logic behind it, is instructive.
Three years ago, on September 23 I995, a forty-strong Northern Network AFA delegate meeting in Sheffield was addressed by three representatives from London AFA. The purpose of the meeting was to counter the growing cloud of mis- and dis-information in regard to what the relationship between AFA and the Independent Working Class Association was, was likely to be, or should become.
The meeting lasted over three hours, primarily a question and answer session on the nature of the IWCA, its structure, the organisations already involved, its proposed method of operation, the specific reasons behind it, its direct relationship to militant anti-fascism and so on. London AFA representatives asked for specific questions to bring the greatest clarity to the discussion and got them. In all of this 'Simon' from Leeds in casting himself as 'devil advocate in chief,' in allowing the most searching, tricky, provocative questions to be competently fielded unwittingly played a constructive role. Despite or more likely in acknowledgement of his relative failure at Sheffield, 'Simon,' using Huddersfield AFA as a flag of convenience, produced two documents in quick succession with the determined intention of undermining growing AFA support nationally for the IWCA strategy. His method was to make the same allegations and 'demand' answers to precisely the same questions - as if the 'clear the air' meeting in Sheffield had never happened! Significantly, both documents were distributed directly to all AFA branches prior to London being notified or afforded the right of reply (in a further twist when the net began to close on the covert Searchlight operation in Yorkshire and his pivotal role in it, in addition to reinventing himself as an anarchist, he suggested that his on the record opposition to the IWCA was the real reason why London AFA in particular were 'out to get him!'). Despite a prompt and detailed 6,000 word rebuttal from London, no response was forthcoming. The intention was merely to inflame or confirm existing prejudices; to smear - not debate.

And as with those initially impressed by his elaborate crochet of lies and energetic defence in response to initial accusations surrounding his involvement with Searchlight, this overtly political sabotage caused considerable confusion in similar quarters. Leeds/Huddersfield branches and temporarily Nottingham registered as casualties. Even now, despite incontrovertible evidence, certain elements within AFA continue to argue that the change of strategy by the BNP is more 'one of style rather than substance'. Consequently the IWCA is presented as 'the cause of AFA's loss of focus' rather than a strategical response to it. In 'private' it is whispered that the 'leadership's' enthusiasm for the political strategy can be primarily put down to 'loss of bottle'. As Machiavelli observed, 'the deciever will always find someone ready to be decieved'.
Twelve years after writing the Communist Manifesto, Marx was forced in 1860 to address a highly publicised attack on him by a prominent political leader, and yet to be unmasked police spy Carl Vogt. His crushing riposte, 'Herr Vogt: A spy in the workers movement' which took a full year to compose, was as Marx emphasised, designed to be a "model for defending the revolutionary movement against lies, provocations and infiltration". As the foreword explains, "the struggle against the agents and their 'patrons and accomplices' is closely related to the struggle for an independent revolutionary working class leadership against all petty bourgeois tendencies and diversions." According to Karl Marx then, 'the fight for an independent working class movement is intimately connected with the struggle against lies, state infiltration, provocateurs and all middle class inclinations and detours'. No change there then.

Reproduced from RA vol 3, Issue 4, Dec '98/Jan '99