What next for the DFLA?


Some six thousand supporters of the Democratic Football Lads Alliance marched through central London yesterday, outnumbering anti-fascists by around ten or twenty to one. Speakers included Milo Yiannopoulous and Tommy Robinson, while spotted in the crowd were members of the London Brigade of the Ulster Defence Association, the Racial Volunteer Force (a split from Combat 18), and Generation Identity, as well as the FLA and DFLA’s more familiar constituency of football supporters organised through fans’ networks, often without any previous history of mobilisation by the right.

The event was billed as a day for free speech. But these are politics which are repeatedly allowed a public platform. If there was a secret Islamic conspiracy limiting the far-right’s access to Newsnight or Question Time then it has not been very successful. Neither Milo nor Robinson ever owned their own newspapers or television stations, rather they have been able to build up social media followings on the scale of film stars through being promoted by other more mainstream voices. What they mean by free speech is free and unchallenged speech; the right to frighten and subordinate Muslims.

The DFLA isn’t a “finished” party. It is making every effort to be something, it has not found its final form yet. You can see that sense of trying in the group’s name. It calls itself the Democratic or (sometimes) the True Football Lads Alliance, because last year there was an FLA, which split. Several of its leaders are former supporters of the English Defence League which they are plainly trying to recreate. Even the EDL wasn’t a finished party: most of the time it felt like a racist and violent project with no other unifying politics (like the Klan in the US or the British Brothers League a century ago), but it also went through long periods of trying to be the UK affiliate of someone else’s far-right international, and it even had a short and successful electoral phase (Kevin Carroll won ten percent of the votes in Police Commissioner elections in Bedfordshire).

On the left, the most common understanding of the EDL has been that it was either a fascist party or evolving rapidly in that direction. Given its racism and appetite for violence, that seemed a plausible enough theory. But nine years have passed since the EDL was launched. There about half a dozen books now about the EDL plus we have examples of EDL type parties in around ten other countrie). We can see much more clearly now where it was heading.

If we’re serious about political categories, then the EDL did not evolve towards fascism. It started at a distance from the politics of Hitler or Mussolini (it did not put forwards Tommy Robinson as a leader capable of saving Britain, it never evolved a coherent fascist ideology, it expressed no loyalty to the interwar past) and never came closer to fascism. Neither have any of the other EDL-type parties in Germany (Pegida), Italy (the League) or Eastern Europe, which have also remained in a constant racist and Islamophobic state without going over to fascism.

The EDL did provide a milieu in which fascist groups and individuals could win new recruits, but that did not make the EDL or even the DFLA fascist (after all, Donald Trump has done much the same in the US: benefiting from fascist support without building a fascist party).

A far more likely next stage for the DFLA would be for it, or for one of the parties sheltering under it, to turn to electoralism.

We can see how that has happened – in the last two years – in Germany with the rise of a party (the AfD), which won 13% of the vote in elections in September 2017 with a base in exactly the same Eastern cities (Dresden and the surrounding area) where a street movement (Pegida) had recently enjoyed mass support.

If I am right about this risk, it is not exactly good news. There are still serious barriers to the rise of a properly fascist party in European popular memory. That’s why, with the exception of Greece, Slovakia and Hungary, there are no mass parties in Europe which combine street politics and far right electoralism. Everywhere else you look, it is one or the other, but not both. Where the far right turns hard towards fascism it affronts beliefs which are shared far wider than just the revolutionary left. Even in countries such as Slovakia where left-wing traditions were very weak, anti-fascism movements grew in response to Our Slovakia and stopped them.

As we have been reminded repeatedly over the last two years, the barriers towards a populist, racist, non-fascist demagoguery are much lower. Politics of that sort can win elections or can come close.

From that perspective, the parts of the DFLA which require the most careful opposition aren’t necessarily the central London street rallies, but events such as its Birmingham mobilisation, for which the FLA and the DFLA reinvented themselves as the allies of a local political issue (the lack of prosecution for the Birmingham pub bombers), and tried to create the sort of local right-wing culture which could justify standing in future elections. That’s the next step which worries me the most.

What should the left be doing in response to this new threat? Part of the reason the DFLA has been able to turn out numbers on this scale is that almost the whole far right has been willing to mobilise behind a single banner and no doubt in future weeks, a call will go out that the left needs to do the same. Plainly, some of where the DFLA comes from is the threat of a Corbyn government. A different approach, more concerned with unity, could potentially appeal to the JC4PM generation. If we could open up the closed-seeming ranks of anti-fascism to new generations that would be more than welcome.

But if I am right about the direction that the DFLA is heading then what is needed is not just a practice of mobilising from one demo to the next. We also need to create local cultures of anti-fascism. No-one from DFLA would think about setting up a chapter for Celtic fans, or for Liverpool fans (who spent yesterday singing the Mo Salah song even in defeat to Chelsea), or in Brighton with its strong AFN group, or in Kent where several years of localised anti-fascist campaigns have made life unbearable for UKIP. We need similar cultures of anti-fascism in every city.

The cruelty of the new right: Why the Empire Windrush generation matter


Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May prepares to speak to the media outside 10 Downing Street, in central London

I don’t ever remember politicians working so hard to force a story out of the headlines. The Windrush generation will be given citizenship (as David Lammy points out, how can you give people something they’ve always had?). They will be given compensation (a minimum figure should be that £54,000 the state was proposing to charge Albert Thompson for cancer treatment on the NHS). Everyone caught in the scandal will have their right to remain confirmed within two weeks. The promises keep on coming, so fast that you almost end up having to ask yourself: what is it about Theresa May’s government, what are they trying to hide?

What the Empire Windrush generation exposes is not just a single Home Office policy, but a set of relationships which are at the core of British politics, have been for the last two years and will remain there until the next election.

The first point to grasp is this, that even prior to Brexit but with ever greater urgency since then, the contract between the British state and the British people has reduced to a single promise: if “we” can get “them” to leave, then there will be more for “you”.

Compared to Britain at every stage in its history, compared to any liberal state this side of military or fascist rule, our country tolerates an extraordinary degree of authoritarianism. It is only in the last twenty years that we have put migrant children in prisons. It is only since 2010 that “migrants” (meaning everyone that the Home Office considers a migrants, a much larger category than those who actually lack the right to remain) have been required to prove their immigration status when trying to marry, when renting a flat. It is only under this period of Conservative government that vans have been driving round London carrying a message to migrants that they must leave.

We think of the 1970s as the worst moment for racism in modern British history but Britain in 1976 was not a deportation state: just 291 people were removed from the UK that year. In 2015-2016, by contrast, there were 13,248 deportations. Since Brexit that number has grown – with new groups of people being targeted including EU national and those who had been living in Britain legally for decades.

Brexit has seen the office of Prime Minister go to the former Home Secretary, and all politics narrow to the two issue which May comprehends: reducing net migration to 100,000 people per year, and forcing through a deal with the EU.

Of course, this isn’t just a British phenomenon, it is the politics of Trump, of Le Pen, of Geert Wilders when his party told voters in Holland, “It’s one or the other, either a welfare state or an immigration country.”

The lie that the British people were told during the Brexit campaign was the one summed up by Aaron Banks, “less immigration [will] also mean less competition for jobs and higher wages.” Relatively few voters accepted this argument: most workers, after all, voted to Remain. But arguments for racial exclusion were key to swinging a group of older working class voters, and then delivering the Conservatives the gains in the 2017 election which now keep them in power, seats such as Derbyshire North East, Mansfield, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland.

In order to keep going, even cruel people have to tell themselves that they are kind. One reason why Theresa May remains in government is that most of the time an argument for the racialisation of welfare benefits and their restriction to UK nationals seems like an argument for generosity. If we just raise out borders, keep “them” out then of course there will be more for everyone.

What the Windrush generation expose is that the violence being inflicted by higher borders is not felt only outside the UK but impinges here as well.

The person who grasped this best was Enoch Powell, in his Rivers of Blood speech. What he saw was that immigration controls must be a question of numbers. For Powell, it was not a task of limiting net migration to 100,000 a year. What mattered to him was whether the black population of Britain was 1 per cent or 10 per cent. But even if the figures were slightly different, the politics were the same.

As soon as you start counting the inevitable next step is not simply to raise the borders but to remove those who are already here. In Powell’s words, which May’s government has carried into action: immigration control means “virtually stopping further inflow and … promoting the maximum outflow.”

Strip out the euphemisms and Britain in 2018 shows what that politics means: UK citizens who have given fifty years of their life to low-paid but necessary jobs caring for everyone here have been torn from their homes and families.

This isn’t an error in our systems, it’s the new politics of the right in their purest form.

For – and beyond – Corbyn



Recently, I was at an anti-fascist conference in London. The comrades there were young, excited, with a range of views from Labour loyalists to anarchists. I heard a discussion begin which I’ve not heard anywhere else. If Labour comes in, I suggested, expect the far-right to organise; Corbyn is their hate figure. Yes, a comrade from Greece accepted, they hate him. But if the left is in government, we can’t stand down our forces.

She’s right. After 2 and a half years of Corbynism, we can start to predict with some certainty what a Labour government will be like:

+ To a greater extent than any previous Labour government will be open to policies suggested by the social movements. From blacklisting to autism, Labour figures have pledged to take on board our campaigns.

But being “open to”, is not the same as actually using the state. It can mean a range of things, from in the best cases introducing legislation, to in a middling case providing public, spoken support (in the style of those Labour cabinet ministers of the 1970s who would stood on innumerable picket lines, but declined every opportunity to actually legislate for beleaguered workers), to signalling goodwill but not doing anything more than signalling.

Politics will not stop at the moment Labour is elected. In office, Labour will have a limited amount of parliamentary time, a limited amount of good-will and it will have to choose – while also being subject to lobbying against action from the unions, the Labour right, the press and increasingly (as the government goes on) from capital.

+ Repeatedly, a Corbyn Labour government will give opportunities for people to put pressure on it. Corbyn will welcome that dynamic. But, it also likely, that he will require the pressure to come through the Labour Party. (The recent campaign against the HDV in Haringey may turn out to be a good example; it was a mass movement, but the “mass” aspect was mediated through the Labour Party. The old Labour councillors lost control when hundreds of people streamed along to Labour selection meetings and voted against them.) Expect under Labour repeated polls of the membership, and conference votes which put demands on the leadership. Corbyn and McDonnell, to their credit, want to be subject to demands and know that reforms will only be introduced under pressure.

+ When Labour starts to choose which parts of its programme to introduce, the key force in the Labour Party will be the trade unions, or more precisely UNITE, which already has the casting votes on the NEC, controls Corbyn’s office, and will soon control the key position of General Secretary in the Labour Party. UNITE’s politics are Milibandish: the union swung to supporting Corbyn late in 2015. In practice, therefore, there is already a veto of Labour policy on + nuclear weapons + nuclear power and + immigration. Indeed, this is part of a general problem under which Corbyn, in order to build up a team has been compelled to draw on the existing Left and has acquired our weaknesses (e.g. over Syria). He takes up our best and our worst and he is shaped by them both. UNITE is by far the most important part of this. If you think Corbyn’s government will be unilateralist, you aren’t listening closely enough to him. Before he was leader of the Labour party, Corbyn was the closest figure we had in parliament to a supporter of free movement. As leader, he has given multiple speeches insisting that free movement will end and blaming (in line with the policy of the UNITE leadership) migrants for lowering wages. A Corbyn government will reluctantly, agonisingly and with as much kindness as the leadership can supply go along with the positions he has argued for ever since he became Labour – i.e. a slow reduction in migration to the UK. His position in the Labour Party, and his dependence on UNITE, will prevent Corbyn as PM from doing anything better.

+ We all have an idea of how Labour governs from the left: i.e. the party adopts policies, *persuades* voters of their need, and then relies on popular approval to act as a counterweight to the pressure from the right. This will not happen under Labour – policies will not be communicated in advance. The public will not be prepared for left-wing government. In the last two years there have only been two periods where the leadership articulated coherent policies – during the initial phase of his 2015 leadership campaign – and again, after the negotiation of the manifesto, during the election campaign. What is Labour’s policy on student loans? What is Labour’s policy on the EU? Is it still Labour policy, as Corbyn argued in 2015, that there should be right to buy for private tenants? It’s impossible to know because on each of these policies, Labour figures have made a flurry of proposals. The priority has been positioning, not policy. Ideas have been raised, dropped, exchanged for others. I am not being critical – Labour has been under enormous pressure, Corbyn has been vastly better than any under Labour leader would be. All I am saying is that no-one will know in advance of a Labour government what Labour’s priorities really are; Labour will not have a programme for the first 100 days. Now, positioning is not trivial – it may enable Labour to introduce radical policies quickly in response to emergency situations – but in the absence of prepared policies the likelihood is that for most of its period in office Labour will feel significantly more like “politics as usual” than most of my friends expect.

+ Finally, Labour will face a new and unfamiliar form of political pressure – hostility not merely from the press, the Labour right, within Parliament, but also (and for the first time) from the international markets. I expect that Labour will enjoy a longer honeymoon than any government since 1945 (being seen to have been sensible on Brexit will buy Labour an opportunity space; and many kinds of capital would do very well under a McDonnellite expansion of our national infrastructure). But at some time, and with increasing force as Labour gets in – expect opposition to potential policies such as confiscation of unused land to build council houses. The longer Labour is in and the more Corbyn tried to do, the harder government will be.

None of these are arguments against Corbynism, they are ways of saying rather that even if Corbyn doesn’t feel much like the Syriza government of which the comrade warned us: it will still be a project of reform, i.e. negotiated change, and there will be more defeats than victories.

If there are victories, they will come about because the movements have needs which last longer than any Labour government. And because people (whether in Labour or outside) see beyond the leadership and continue to press and put demands on it. Even the best of Labour leaderships will need people outside, putting demands on them.

Why I can’t stand philo-semites.



Because they don’t understand the first things about Jewish history. This isn’t about Cable Street. This is about the subtle legacy of Judaism, and the tradition it leaves even as a group of people are secularised. They don’t understand that long before the Jews had a relationship with the left. Jews *were* the left: the anarchists in the East End with their visions of the end times that had already come, the socialists at meetings of the SDF, talking after the speaker ended and sighing about Hyndman, and saying, We are going to have do something about him, aren’t we? And not wanting to have to act but knowing that they should.

Because they don’t understand that this history isn’t finished, you can see it in the synagogues where even now people collect for refugees. You can see it in the left, in the people, In the groups.

Because they don’t feel doubt.

Because they don’t understand Israel. They don’t grasp that even among many centre-right Jews, there is a disquiet about Israel’s crimes: the corruption, the narrowing of the country’s politics, the killings of Palestinians. When even the Union of Jewish Students is running a petition, right now, about the country’s racist treatment of Africans, you know that the discontent among British Jews is far, far higher than it is among the philo-semites for whom every atrocity has to be put in quotation marks.

Because they think that by caring really hard about anti-semitism they are entitled to feel its pain, when they don’t understand for a second how the trauma stuck around, how many even in the second generation it broke.

Because they never, ever, tell jokes.

Because at the end of their politics are silences. The Jews in France right now, who are going on demonstrations, attacking the left and applauding Marine Le Pen: they are made to vanish. Trump’s anti-Semitism, the attacks on Jewish cemeteries which he blamed on Jews: none of this happened.

Because they guard the flank to their left and they keep the flank to their right unguarded.

And because the monsters we are going to have to face will not wear the uniforms of the past. But they are coming closer.

(first published on facebook).

Trump; the far right and fascism today


Until the last year, when activists have thought about post-war fascism, the sorts of example we have often had in mind has been something like Britain’s National Front. At the end of the 1970s, this was a successful far-right electoral party: between 1976 and 1977 its results included 40,000 votes in Leicester, 8% of the vote in Stechford in Birmingham, and 120,000 votes in London, with a credible third place in thirty three of the seats it contested there.

The Front was recognisably a fascist party: a point argued most persuasively by the social psychologist Michael Billig. In parties of this sort, he argued, there is always a difference between their ‘exoteric’ ideas (i.e. the message that is aimed at the general public) and their ‘esoteric’ ideology (i.e. the philosophy that is used, internally, to motivate the core activists).

The Front was both far-right and fascist: it had leaders who had grown up in a neo-Nazi milieu, were conscious of and loyal to the politics of fascism in the 1920s and 1930s. Individuals such as John Tyndall and Martin Webster filled their speeches with phrases borrowed from classical fascism. They intended to capture the state and purge the civil servants, the press, the church, and replace them with NF supporters who would be loyal to them.

The Front was harassed by anti-fascists and became unpopular. In 1979, it suffered a major reverse when despite standing 300 candidates in a general election it won just 0.2% of the vote.

One feature of the Front’s politics was that while it was fascist, at the same time, this politics caused the party significant shame. The leaders of the NF knew they needed to modernise, but where to they couldn’t decide. John Tyndall warned National Front supporters against, ‘surround[ing] themselves with obscurantist regalia, tap[ping] the sides of their armchairs to martial music and defer[ring] to political leaders of a bygone age’. John Bean confesses in his memoir to having suffered nightmares at the thought of the Holocaust’s victims. Following the 1979 election, the party split into four hostile camps. Those who opposed the old leadership blamed the Front’s failure on the old guard’s previous history in neo-Nazi cells, their willingness to be photographed in SA-style uniforms. Jenny Doyle, another founder member wrote, “If the Party is ever going to succeed it must rid itself of all the N[ational] S[ocialist] diehards”

This shame was an important asset for anti-fascists. While the National Front was growing, it was able to ignore accusations of fascism. But when the organisation stalled, the criticism served to lever apart its most committed members from their periphery.

Since 1945, indeed, the exposure of fascist shame has perhaps been ta key tactic of anti-fascists. It is an approach however that can only work with a particular kind of adversary. To say to a supporter of Hitler in 1933, ‘You are a fascist’, would have been no insult. Of course they were, and proud of it. Equally, if you are faced with people with no organic link to fascism whatsoever, the accusation does not hurt. If someone can say, with a straight face that they are not a fascist, they have no interest in fascism, and that if fascism was alive today they would oppose it – then to shout back at them ‘But you really are a fascist’ would be meaningless and ineffective.

When thinking about the far right now, the most striking feature is the heterogeneity of the right. In the 1980s and 1990s, the most important trend was what you might call ‘Euro-fascism’, i.e. a kind of politics which like the National Front in Britain sought to combine a principally-electoral form of organisation with a certain consciousness of loyalty to the fascism if the 1930s. The exemplary party was in many ways that Italian Social Movement (MSI). By 1994, it was so strong that it was capable of joining a government coalition, in support of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. For anti-fascists alive then, this was a terrifying moment: the last minority fascists to enter government in Europe had been Mussolini and Hitler. Yet the MSI, by now renamed the National Alliance (NA) failed to dominate that government, fell in behind the kleptocratic personality of Berlusconi and failed to push the state in a more authoritarian direction.

Other Euro-fascists since then have included Britain’s BNP (which won 50 council seats and 2 MEPS but ultimately failed to modernise) and Le Pen’s Front National, which has followed the same direction of travel as MSI/AN without – quite – breaking the links to the 1930s.

After 9/11, the most dynamic groups on the right have tended to be organisations such as Pegida or the EDL – Islamophobic rather than fascist, social movements rather than parties, without an ideology of personal leadership, and with no real continuity of personnel to previous fascist parties. The National Front’s Chairman was, significantly A. K. Chesterton – one of the very few British fascists of the 1930s to have fought for Britain rather than Hitler. The members of the EDL, by contrast, gathered in pubs where they sang the Dam Busters theme tune. While the parties of the 1970s needed a ‘good’ fascist to front up a group that was otherwise loyal to the tradition of Hitler and Mussolini; the successful far right of our own times feels no such loyalty to the past.

An analogy could be drawn with the way in which the activists of the left sometimes imagine our own tradition. In the early days of the socialist movement, it was common for leftists to conceive of our past as a sort of intellectual family tree. So, at one time, there was Thomas More with his idea of Utopia, then there were the Levellers, the Diggers, the Chartists, Marx, Engels, New Unionism, and so on. The idea expressed in that way of looking at the past is that at any moment, there are people trying to push history in a revolutionary and egalitarian direction. They inhabit the same point in the political spectrum even if there is no ideological continuity at all from one generation to the next. Perhaps the same dynamic has been taking place on the right: that there are today counter-revolutionaries and inegalitarians, occupying the same point on the left-right spectrum as fascism, yet with no continuity of ideas or organisation between their generation and the counter-revolutionaries on the right who preceded them.

The most important development, just now, is the effect that Trump has had in galvanising politics at every point on the far-right spectrum. Some of this is down to Trump himself who occupies a liminal space between standard conservatism and the non-fascist far-right. The language of his speeches employs what fascism scholars call an ideology national palingenesis (the idea that America will be reborn under his leadership). He has travelled to far-right parties in other countries, notably Poland, and given speeches promoting their own right-wing myths. The rejection of mainstream politics, the willingness to work with Bannon and Breitbart, the idea of Presidential government as a kind of CEO-state occupied by large numbers of the ultra-rich, all these are politics as practised by far right.

Indeed between summer 2016 and summer 2017, there was a process of convergence under which political forces which normally inhabit separate and distinct parts of the right-wing spectrum were working together as if they were allies: conservatives (Trump and the Republicans), the non-fascist far-right (Farage, Bannon, Gorka), and fascists (Le Pen).

If the process has been halted since it was only as a result of Charlottesville which raised the stakes for the non-fascists in this coalition, putting so much pressure on Trump that he was forced for the first time to distance himself from his erstwhile allies.

Is there still such a thing as a fascist ‘shame’? You saw it at Chalottesville – although not so much among the fascists who were there, as among their allies.

You saw it, in a different way, when Richard Spencer was punched by a protester. You may remember the exchange that precedes the blow. Spencer is asked, ‘Are you a neo-Nazi?’ He answers, ‘No I am not a neo-Nazi,’ but there is a look on Spencer’s face, a look of smug contempt, an inability or lack of desire to explain to this particular audience the particular way in which Spencer tells himself he has exchanged fascism for a more sophisticated theory of its co-thinkers. It’s the look – ‘I’m not, I’m not: but I am really‘ – which justifies the blow that follows.

In the last year, we have seen – since Trump’s victory – the reemergence of fascist groups operating in a mimetic relationship to the past, copying the politics of the 1930s. We have also seen fascist politics, eg a return to the open, naked, anti-semitism of the past.

Yet the sense remains that the most dangerous people aren’t the open fascists who are weakened, after all, by the continuing taboo associated with that past. The ones to watch are the people who are shaped by the crises of 9/11 and 2008 rather than the events of eighty years ago.

Looking in the rear view mirror: the conflicts of the 1970s seen from the perspective of 2017

Looking in the rear view mirror: the conflicts of the 1970s seen from the perspective of 2017

The two dynamics I want to focus on today are the questions, first, of whether the National Front was in fact a fascist party, and second, whether it was undermined by anti-fascist opposition. Both of these questions require, I believe, more nuanced answers than might have been sufficient, say, ten or even five years ago.

During the recent French presidential elections, Douglas Murray, a centre-right author whose books warns of the danger posed to Europe by Muslim immigration, complained in the Spectator of the tendency of Le Pen and Trump’s critics to describe people holding many varieties of right-wing positions as far right whether they were in fact anti-Islamic, anti-EU, or those he termed ‘actual fascists and Nazis’. Murray suggested that the term far-right had become incoherent. He focussed in particular on the tendency of critics to say that because the Front National had been founded by a generation that included fascists therefore it was by definition always a fascist party. ‘If,’ he wrote, ‘we allow movement on the political left, surely we must allow it on the political right?’

Indeed, looking at the far right today what is striking is its ideological mobility. You can find examples of post-9/11 parties with no discernible debt to fascism, there are also mimetic fascist organisations which insist on copying even the images of the 1930s. Some are becoming more extreme, others (this is a relative term) more moderate.

When I began writing about fascism, journalists and to a lesser extent academics used the term ‘far-right’ principally to refer to what you might term ‘Euro-fascist’ parties, of which the paradigm cases were the FN in France and the MSI in Italy. The latter emerged from the Italian Social Republic (RSI) founded by Mussolini in 1943. The party’s first three leaders all served under Mussolini. From the early 1990s, however, the MSI’s new leader Gianfranco Fini excluded its most aggressive fascists. The party was renamed the National Alliance and in 1994 it entered government as a junior party in Silvio Berlusconi’s coalition. Here was a shocking moment, a minority-fascist government for the first time in Europe since 1945. Yet Berlusconi’s government is not remembered today for prison camps but for the corruption of Berlusconi himself. The AN participated in two Berlusconi governments, losing votes to his party. The AN suffered electoral annihilation in 2014, and was dissolved.

Not all far right parties turn in the direction of conservatism. But some do. Of the three parties which came together to form the National Front in 1967 the largest the British National Party (not to be confused with the more recent party of the same name) was originally a neo-Nazi party of Hitler revivalists, including in its membership the widow of arch anti-semite Arnold Leese. The BNP had, however, recently been considering a turn towards electoralism, justified by the 9 percent of the vote the party won at Southall in the 1964 general election. It was this success which drove the merger talks which led to the NF.

One way of thinking about the Front might therefore be as a modernisation project akin to recent Euro-fascism, that is, as a party which was moving in the direction of electoralism, albeit slowly. How far was this transformation complete by, say, 1978?

The classic analysis of the Front’s ideology is Stan Taylor’s book, The National Front in English Politics. Taylor argues that outrider parties distinguish between their esoteric and exoteric ideologies. The exoteric is the public face, the message you might put in a leaflet or a public broadcast, to win new converts. The esoteric is the insider ideology, deployed only with trusted members. This distinction points towards a dynamic in which the NF’s leaders felt obliged to camouflage their message. Even in internal publications, there was a pressure against speaking openly. Through the 1970s, the leader of the National Front John Tyndall was under attack from two sources – his rivals within the NF who in 1974-5 were even briefly able to topple him – and from external critics. His magazine Spearhead was obtained by opponents who did not hesitate to publish extracts from it. Even in Spearhead, Tyndall had good reasons for being less than candid.

Before Tyndall joined the National Front, Spearhead featured openly neo-Nazi messages, there were cartoons of the right’s Jewish opponents, and demands to make every man ‘Jew-wise’ and Britain ‘Jew-clean’. There were repeated Germanisms: Britain was urged to become a ‘volks-gemeinschaft of the Anglo-Saxons – within an Anglo-Saxon Reich’. Spearhead ran advertisements for Hitler portraits and swastika badges. Whole articles were composed simply of long quotes from Mein Kampf. After 1967 and the Front’s formation, Spearhead’s racism remained express. But its fascism became muted.

Issue 100 of Spearhead contained a long article defending Tyndall from accusations that he was a Hitler supporter. This allegation was characterised as ‘the lowest depths of gutter journalism’ and Tyndall was said to be ‘critical of certain of Hitler’s policies, particularly his foreign policy.’ No detail of his supposed criticisms was given.

A follow-up article in October 1978 seemed to go further. Here, Tyndall identified the NF with Hitler’s economic and social policies and with territorial expansion. Unlike in Germany, he insisted, the NF could achieve the same goals peacefully, without needing dictatorship or racial war. Britain could rebuild her African empire by negotiation.

Spearhead told the NF’s members to modernise. Yet this modernisation was posed as a question of presentation rather than belief. In a ‘Message from the Chairman of the National Front’, in issue 94, for example, Tyndall warned the Front’s members against ‘surround[ing] themselves with obscurantist regalia, tap[ping] the sides of their armchairs to martial music and defer[ring] to political leaders of a bygone age.’ In the place of such old-style politics, members were invited to engage in ‘practical, business-like political activity’ while ‘not sacrificing the strength of their inner convictions.’ The Front’s ‘convictions’, the Chairman seemed to accept, were the same as they had always been.

Turning now to the effects of anti-fascism: this August, at Charlottesville, American anti-fascists were confronted with the spectre of between 500 and 1000 alt-rightists, chanting Heil Trump and ‘Jews will not replace us’. For the first time in the recent history of the US the right had control over the streets, significantly outnumbering its opponents. The clashes between the right and its opponents culminated in the attack by James Fields Jr., of American Vanguard, who drove his car into anti-fascist protesters, killing Heather Heyer. Asked about the events, President Trump declined to criticise the white supremacists, saying there was ‘blame on both sides’. In the days that followed Trump was criticised by Republicans and, in an attempt to deflect the criticisms, dismissed his Chief Strategist Steve Bannon the man who embodied the link between Trump and the alt-right. If you were to stop the clock at, say, the end of August 2017 then the judgment would be that the US far-right had overreached itself at Charlottesvile, giving the mainstream right no option but to break all ties with it. Not for the first time in the history of the conflict between fascists and anti-fascists, the left were a minority but by exposing the violence of the fascists succeeded in driving a wedge between the mainstream and the extreme right.

Charlottesville reminds us that the physical battle between left and right and the political battle for the interpretations of the clashes are capable of different outcomes. This insight helps to make sense of the confrontations in Britain in the 1970s. One is the Battle of Red Lion Square on 15 June 1974 when a National Front march to Conway Hall was met with counter-demonstrations and fighting between police and anti-fascists resulting in the death of one protester Kevin Gateley.

There was a public inquiry into the events at Red Lion Square and the NF’s Martin Webster was cross-examined by Stephen Sedley on behalf of the National Union of Students. Under questioning, Webster admitted that he and John Tyndall had a history of anti-Semitism. He recalled the chants used by the Front, ‘The Reds, the Reds, we’ve got to get rid of the Reds,’ and admitted that Front expected their opponents to respond angrily to them. He was asked to describe the Front’s preferred banner poles and accepted Sedley’s description of them as wooden flag poles with pointed aluminium tops (i.e. as weapons).

However Lord Scarman’s conclusions gave to succour to fascists, absolving both the police and the NF of any contribution to his death and concluding that ‘those who started the riot’ [i.e. the IMG] ‘carry a measure of moral responsibility for his death’. This also appears to have been the popular understanding of the events: the NF had accepted police instructions and were standing still even as the IMG and the police fought.

There are also times when the right used the possibility of conflict to demand greater activity from its own supporters. In the archives there is a 1974 circular from the Front’s Birmingham branch. It began with what sounded like a note of complaint, ‘It is doubtful if many members are aware of the intense hostility which our campaign in Birmingham has engendered.’ From there, the tone shifted rapidly to crowing, ‘On Thursday … [the] I[nternational] S[socialists] and I[nternational] M[arxist] G[roup] failed dismally to break up a public meeting in Handsworth … After the left-wing trash was thoroughly trounced by our stewards … we enjoyed a most stimulating meeting.’ The conclusion shifted again to warning, ‘We have received information that another public meeting, to be held on Tuesday 8 October at 8pm, is most certainly going to be subjected to the same treatment by the opposition who are determined to try and “Smash the National Front in Birmingham” … All activists are urged in the strongest possible terms to attend.’

For the left, the most straight-forward examples of victory have come when anti-fascist majorities have been able to take and hold the streets, driving away fascist minorities. The best example of this, in the 1970s, was the Battle of Lewisham in August 1977 when some eight hundred supporters of the National Front attempted to hold an anti-mugging march through Lewisham, but were met by groups of anti-fascists who fought them at their assembly point at Clifton Rise, threw rocks, wood and bricks at their opponents and repeatedly charged the National Front. When the remnants of the Front eventually reached central Lewisham they found it occupied by larger numbers of anti-fascists and were led away by the police, abandoning the streets to the left.

While the Anti-Nazi League presented itself as the party of street resistance to fascism, Lewisham preceded the League’s formation. Indeed the reason the League was formed was that in the immediate aftermath of the events at Lewisham, the 1970s left received almost as much press hostility as today’s right did after Charlottesville.

The Sunday People’s headline was, ‘Bobbies pay the price of freedom’. A leader in The Times blamed the Socialist Workers’ Party, ‘whose members and adherents, some of them armed with vicious weapons, came prepared to fight.’ The Daily Mail used a front-page picture of a policeman holding a studded club and a knife, weapons supposedly found at Lewisham, and beside him was the headline, ‘After the Battle of Lewisham, a question of vital importance, now who will defend him?’ While the usual approach is to see the League as being launched on a high – in the aftermath of a physical victory – it was in reality a defensive manoeuvre, an attempt to bring together all those who were glad to see the Front’s defeat (i.e. to broaden the left and neutralise the political attacks), and to move the discussion on from the press attacks.

So while Lewisham could have weakened the left, the press hostility was neutralised by the formation of the ANL, which seemed to mark a compromise between moderate and militant anti-fascism. The right had to face both the legacy of physical defeat and a popular perception that, in the words of the Front’s John Bean, ‘the NF had marched through an immigrant area deliberately to stir up trouble’. Both sides faced hostile public scrutiny. Unlike the left, the NF failed to evolve to meet it.

Joe Pearce was sixteen at the time of Lewisham. A recent recruit to the NF, his recollection was of feelings of exhilaration in the aftermath of the fighting, mixed with pride in that he had been physically tested but not afraid. A month later, Pearce would bring out the first edition of an NF youth paper, Bulldog. Yet even in Pearce’s upbeat memories, there is a passing acknowledgment of the Front’s future difficulties. He notes that prior to Lewisham, the NF had been capable of pulling together crowds of several thousand supporters. The crowd at Lewisham was younger and smaller. ‘In the future,’ he writes, ‘the older, respectable NF supporters, including the old soldiers, would stay away.’

Martin Webster tried to explain Lewisham to readers of Spearhead. ‘I cannot discuss these matters as Court cases are pending,’ Webster wrote, ‘But it is obvious that the Police were used by the Political Authorities of the State to suppress the right of National Front members to counter-demonstrate.’ He hinted without conviction at the possibility of using overwhelming violence to defeat the Front’s opponents.

Some three-quarters of Webster’s article was given over not to the events at Lewisham or his plans for what would follow but a retrospective justification for calling the march. ‘The Activists’ he wrote, [i.e. the members of the Front who planned the event] ‘felt that as, over years, the Police had always allowed SWP/IS embers, International Marxists and Reds of various other stripes to “militantly demonstrate” against [the Front’s] marches … the Police would give equal counter-demonstration rights to the National Front.’ Incoherent and inadequate, this was Webster best answer to Bean’s criticism that by marching several hundred NF supporters into a black district, the NF had ceded the morality of self-defence, handing the political victory to their opponents.

Through 1978 and early 1979, the balance between left and right shifted in the left’s favour. Under the pressure of repeated opposition, the tone of NF speeches changed from bravado to weary frustration. Here is Martin Webster, again, speaking at a school in Leeds in April 1978 after protests, ‘We have been put on the defensive today by raucous beer can throwing stinking animals. They are in fact an insult to the animal kingdom. Coming to this meeting we had to go through spit, shouts of abuse, kicks, obscenities and filth … They are deluging the public with the impression that the National Front is a jack booted short-moustached organisation.’

By the time of the events at Southall, the thousands who had marched with the Front after Red Lion Square and the hundreds at Lewisham had reduced in number to a single coach carrying just 20 NF supporters to an election meeting. The anti-fascists had also grown in number, with around ten thousand people – the large majority of them from Southall’s Sikh population – coming onto the streets in order to oppose the Front. In order to keep a balance between the two sides a total of 2875 police officers (including 94 on horseback) were required.

It is worth remembering that this very area of West London had been the justification for the right’s previous electoralism. In fifteen years, Southall had moved from being a place of opportunity for the right to somewhere it could no longer organise.

Southall has lived longest in the memory of all the confrontations of the 1970s. Some of this may be down to the intense local support that anti-fascists were able to generate for their mobilisation. Unlike, Red Lion Square Southall was the centre of a politicised black community. After his death, Peach’s body was left in a Southall cinema were it received thousands of visitors. Fifteen thousand people, including former Cabinet Minister Tony Benn, joined his funeral procession. Peach continues to be memorialised to this day, in an annual award presented by the National Union of Teachers and in the name of an Ealing school.

Another reason for Southall’s legacy is that after Blair Peach’s death, unlike the killing of Kevin Gateley, there was a campaign to bring Peach’s killer to justice. While the inquest verdict was death by misadventure, which seemed to exculpate the police from any responsibility, this was an outcome which has failed to stick in collective memory. The police had investigated the killing and identified Blair Peach’s murder; the coroner held back their report and refused to disclose it to the inquest jury.

Re-reading the fascists, it is striking how rarely they describe, even in later memoirs, being cowed or broken by physical confrontation. Of course, the people who publish their memoirs are the movement’s former leaders and they have no reason to give retrospective validation to their former opponents. That said, there are other points at which the fascists seem to acknowledge that their opponents had the better of them.

One is in terms of the Holocaust and its legacy.

John Bean was active on the far right for 25 years between 1952 and 1977 and latterly the Deputy Chair of the Front’s Executive Directorate. Near the end of his memoir and looking back on his political career, he recalled one incident with real regret: campaigning with other fascists in 1961 for the release of Adolf Eichmann. By this point retired from the struggle, Bean admitted that of course Hitler had practised genocide and he spoke of his private ‘shame’: a humiliation which, he admitted, had caused him a recurring nightmare in which he seemed to see the emaciated victims of the Holocaust. He should never have taken part in this action and he criticised himself for having allowed the ‘emotion of a bad taste, sickening, sixth form prank … to dominate the intellect.’

The intriguing word here in Bean’s account is ‘shame’.

The one action which anti-fascists took in the 1970s which seems to have generated a similar reaction was to reproduce photographs of Front Chairman John Tyndall from his Greater Britain Movement days in the early 1960s and in Nazi-style uniforms. The use of this image was a repeated complaint of the right. As early as June 1974, Spearhead complained about the ‘printing and distribution of the criminally libellous “smear” leaflets attacking the National Front which appeared in their hundreds of thousands during the last General Election in constituencies where the NF had candidates,’ and warning that if the police failed to prosecute the individuals responsible for them ‘the National Front will make such arrangements as circumstances indicate are necessary to secure its survival in what will have proved to be an unfree, undemocratic, unfair and violent society provided over by cowardly  or corrupt men.’ If the threat seems hollow, the tone of hurt and anger is unmistakeable.

An anonymous Front defector explained to the East End local journalists in August 1977 that the first time she had questioned consider her membership was ‘when she saw a picture of the NF’s leader John Tyndall wearing jackboots and sporting a swastika. “I won’t stand for any of this ‘Zieg Heil’ nonsense,” she said.’

During the Front’s 1979-1980 faction fight the vulnerability of Tyndall and his ally Martin Webster was a theme of his inner-party critics. They argued that Tyndall and Webster ‘play[ed] the fool in the days when they should have been taking their British nationalist politics seriously – and neither they, nor anyone else for that matter, can sue matter sue anyone or any institution if what is said or written is literally true’.

The problem with the accusation of Nazism was not that it challenged the NF’s patriotism but that it associated the Front with the Holocaust and with a genocide that even the fascists had to admit (albeit only to themselves) was unjustifiable.

It is possible to imagine a far-right party whose members and voters are proud and loyal fascists (think of the Italian fascists in the early 1920s). To say to members of such a group. ‘But you are all fascists,’ would be a pointless tactic. Of course we are, they would say. That’s how we see ourselves. It is also possible to conceive of a far-right party whose members all see themselves as non- or anti-fascist (think a pub of EDL members singing the Dam Busters theme tune). To say to members of such a group ‘But you are all fascists,’ would be equally pointless. They would laugh off the accusation.

The Front was at a particular stage in the history of the post-war right, when (to a much greater extent than today) its most violent militants were unable to think of any coherent basis for a far-right party except in the emulation of the past.

The Front’s members were neither secure in their fascism, nor were they beyond it. They behaved as if it was a private humiliation.

It was their incomplete disavowal of fascism, their shame, which rendered the Front’s supporters vulnerable to their opponent’s reproduction of Tyndall’s photograph and the accusation which lay behind it that the NF were still a party of Nazis.

Judging by what can be found in the memoirs of the Front’s former supporters, it seems that this repeated attack on the NF at its weak point did more to damage its member’s morale than anything else.

The challenge for anti-fascists since has been to find a tactic that might be equally successful in our own – very different – times.

Links, round-up


Back in May, I gave a talk at a London RS21 meeting with Jairus Banaji on the far-right. There’s a video of that meeting at that meeting here  and the text of the talk is on the Socialist Worker (US) site. I spoke to Quartz magazine post-Charlottesville, and some of my comments made it into the article here.

The big news for lawyers in the UK over the next few years will be the shift to an online court system. I’ve posted some early comments about it here, and was interviewed as part of a BBC programme about online courts here.