Although this sounded like an interesting brief, I was not sure whether I was able to make a meaningful contribution because Republicanism has been the subject of so much debate, discussion and acrimony. Nevertheless, a personal experience recently has reinforced a particular point that I believe is worth reiterating to Republican activists. So, if you have enough patience and are willing to indulge me, I shall make my observation via a more circuitous route.
I recently attended a conference on Marxism in London, organised by the SWP. I am not a member of the SWP, but I wanted to listen to Noam Chomsky, whose work on US foreign policy I have always admired. Unfortunately, he had to cancel due to illness. I was, therefore left with time to spare and found myself rummaging through a variety of books of varying interest to me. Unfortunately, I came across a book entitled Say it Loud! edited by Brian Richardson which had a chapter in it by Weyman Bennett, evidently the SWP’s resident expert on all things anti-racist. Bennett’s contribution was entitled “Beating back the fascist threat”. In his contribution he said this about AFA (in the 1980s):
Now this is something upon which I can claim to have some knowledge, having been an active member of AFA (I have also published widely in this area, which is less relevant). Bennett’s comments are nothing more than a grotesque distortion of what actually happened in that period. Indeed, we might adapt and apply an old aphorism to Weyman Bennett: it is better to stay silent and appear to be a fool – rather than publishing bollix, thereby removing all possible doubt!
Let me explain. AFA was one of the very few left-wing organisations that was absolutely rooted in working class communities in Britain, and the idea that we assumed the white working class was racist is little short of absurd. In fact, several of our key members were ex-fascist (NF/BNP etc) - why would we try to win them over if we assumed the class was irredeemably racist? It’s nonsense.
Moreover, AFA could point to significant successes against the Fascists. We drove them from the streets in the 1980s and 1990s. I know this, not just because I was there, but because I had access, via a sympathetic intermediary based in Bradford, to BNP and C18 internal documentation. I saw the minutes and the policy documents and the only anti-fascist organisation that genuinely concerned (even horrified) them was AFA (particularly Red Action). Indeed, I vividly remember reading a crucial strategy document written by Nick Griffin and Tony Lecomber, and the phraseology remains embedded in my consciousness: “no more meetings, marches or punch ups”, and “there is no virtue in fighting drunken red Fenians”. What they really meant was that there was no victory in it (and, by the way, we were never drunk!). They quit, as a consequence of the pressure we applied on them, which was relentless and occasionally ruthless. There is no need to take my word for it – read the autobiographies of ex-fascists like Matthew Collins. Take as evidence the words of Joe Pearse, one of the most prominent fascist activists of his generation:
I recently attended a conference on Marxism in London, organised by the SWP. I am not a member of the SWP, but I wanted to listen to Noam Chomsky, whose work on US foreign policy I have always admired. Unfortunately, he had to cancel due to illness. I was, therefore left with time to spare and found myself rummaging through a variety of books of varying interest to me. Unfortunately, I came across a book entitled Say it Loud! edited by Brian Richardson which had a chapter in it by Weyman Bennett, evidently the SWP’s resident expert on all things anti-racist. Bennett’s contribution was entitled “Beating back the fascist threat”. In his contribution he said this about AFA (in the 1980s):
Anti-Fascist Action (AFA) drew the conclusion from the rise of the BNP that white workers are racist and have no role to play in the struggle against the Nazis”, indeed AFA “relied on a small group of fighters to confront the fascists” and “small groups of people attacking Nazis have never smashed them.
Now this is something upon which I can claim to have some knowledge, having been an active member of AFA (I have also published widely in this area, which is less relevant). Bennett’s comments are nothing more than a grotesque distortion of what actually happened in that period. Indeed, we might adapt and apply an old aphorism to Weyman Bennett: it is better to stay silent and appear to be a fool – rather than publishing bollix, thereby removing all possible doubt!
Let me explain. AFA was one of the very few left-wing organisations that was absolutely rooted in working class communities in Britain, and the idea that we assumed the white working class was racist is little short of absurd. In fact, several of our key members were ex-fascist (NF/BNP etc) - why would we try to win them over if we assumed the class was irredeemably racist? It’s nonsense.
Moreover, AFA could point to significant successes against the Fascists. We drove them from the streets in the 1980s and 1990s. I know this, not just because I was there, but because I had access, via a sympathetic intermediary based in Bradford, to BNP and C18 internal documentation. I saw the minutes and the policy documents and the only anti-fascist organisation that genuinely concerned (even horrified) them was AFA (particularly Red Action). Indeed, I vividly remember reading a crucial strategy document written by Nick Griffin and Tony Lecomber, and the phraseology remains embedded in my consciousness: “no more meetings, marches or punch ups”, and “there is no virtue in fighting drunken red Fenians”. What they really meant was that there was no victory in it (and, by the way, we were never drunk!). They quit, as a consequence of the pressure we applied on them, which was relentless and occasionally ruthless. There is no need to take my word for it – read the autobiographies of ex-fascists like Matthew Collins. Take as evidence the words of Joe Pearse, one of the most prominent fascist activists of his generation:
We definitely treated AFA and Red Action with the respect that their physical presence demanded. They were largely working-class men who could handle themselves. My friend Ian Stuart, of Skrewdriver fame, was ambushed and beaten badly by Red Action, and I recall street fights during the Greenwich election campaign in the mid-eighties with AFA members, and one hell of an explosion of violence at a public election meeting at which I was the candidate.
He goes on:
As for the ANL/SWP, they were wimps! I remember at Turnpike Lane about a dozen of us standing our ground as hundreds of SWP ran toward us. They stopped about 30 yards before they got to us and none of them had the courage to come closer. The odds had to be ten to one.
Socialist sectarians like Bennett should reflect very carefully on such words before disparaging fellow anti-fascists in public. Bennett, with his ill-considered, factually incorrect, and bizarre intervention, has achieved absolutely nothing apart from sawing off the branch he was sitting on. AFA denied the BNP and C18 public space and restricted their capacity to “control the streets”, which Hitler and the Nazis knew was a precondition for their political success. The fact is that our little outfit did a lot of the “heavy lifting” in those years. Bennett either knows this and is lying in the service of his own organisation(s), or he doesn’t know it and should therefore not be considered an authority on the subject.
The difference between Bennett and myself is that I am fully prepared to acknowledge the complicated nature of this period and the important contribution of other groups in the process of confronting Fascism. Bennett cannot accept this complexity because it would undermine his messianic commitment to a particular organisation and strategy. However, it is worth noting that the obfuscation that results from doing AFA such a grave disservice, does not augur well for the contemporary struggle against the re-emergence of the fascist menace. Fortunately, facts have the stubborn characteristic of remaining facts, whether they are believed or not.
I want to use this particular and very personal example to illustrate a very basic point about the nature of Republicanism. When it comes to the “interpretation” of history, certain red lines should not be crossed – if we allow the record to be reconfigured in the service of a particular political organisation or party, we will lose the very essence of reality. In this regard Republicans need to fasten themselves securely to the mast of truth in order to survive the blizzard of revisionism that has taken place in recent years. At this point it is worth quoting Marx who said (I’m paraphrasing) “I have principles, but if you don’t like them, I have others”! That was, of course, Groucho (not Karl) but it accurately describes the political trajectory of Sinn Fein in recent years.
The truth is that Republicanism was/is not (only or primarily) about civil rights for Catholics, nor was it a means of enhancing Nationalist ethnic identity. Despite Sinn Fein’s ideological contortions, Republicanism was always about securing a united, independent Ireland. Sinn Fein have, in effect, been deploying a tawdry post-modern technique which emphasises that there is no meta-narrative and no definitive truth – so you can simply make it up! Clearly, Shinners who bend the knee to British Royalty cannot, in any serious sense, be considered as ideological Republicans.
Genuine Republicans know the truth. Bobby Sands did not die for cross-border cooperation, power-sharing in Stormont, or more Catholic entrepreneurs. Consequently, I urge all Republicans to guard their history very carefully. This means telling your own truth, via TPQ and elsewhere, because if you do not engage in the struggle to reclaim historical reality, others will do so on your behalf and they will, in the process, disarm you politically. The future of Republicanism depends on the success of this endeavour.
⏭ Mark Hayes has published widely on a variety of subjects. He is a republican and a Marxist, unapologetic on both counts.
Genuine Republicans know the truth. Bobby Sands did not die for cross-border cooperation, power-sharing in Stormont, or more Catholic entrepreneurs. Consequently, I urge all Republicans to guard their history very carefully. This means telling your own truth, via TPQ and elsewhere, because if you do not engage in the struggle to reclaim historical reality, others will do so on your behalf and they will, in the process, disarm you politically. The future of Republicanism depends on the success of this endeavour.
⏭ Mark Hayes has published widely on a variety of subjects. He is a republican and a Marxist, unapologetic on both counts.
No comments