United Kingdom Anarchoblogs

Yesterday, a mob of between 150-250 fascists ran free on the streets of Liverpool. As well as hounding a tiny demonstration against police brutality out of Derby Square, they were able to turn an Irish Republican march way from the City Centre. Yesterday was a definite win for the far-right and underlines the need for a serious re-evaluation of anti-fascist organisation.

I've said on numerous occasions before that we're seeing the return of the traditional fascist tactic of controlling the streets. The British National Party is in electoral decline, whilst the English Defence League's limited strategy of having people shout in a police kettle has disenchanted followers in much the same way as the left's penchant for A to B marches. However the splinter groups, in particular the Infidels, offer those up for it a more genuine chance to run amok whilst being free to be as violent and racist as they like due to the lack of electoral ambition as a moderating force.

The response to this, however, has been at best inadequate. In theory, the fact that we're facing the biggest crisis in a generation and that we're seeing an upsurge in workplace and community struggles should have the left in the ascendancy. Instead, it remains stagnant to the point of stubbornness, with the left sects doing their best to co-opt grassroots movements where the bureaucracy cannot extinguish it altogether. In the midst of which, the threat of fascism is almost forgotten.

Unite Against Fascism, the best known incarnation of anti-fascism, is not up to the task. It never has been, in truth, but over a decade of the fascists being confined to electoralism and moderation after retreating from Anti-Fascist Action had given them some cover. Now, with a renewed willingness from the fascists to take on the left and use physical force, it has become apparent just how hollow a strategy of waving placards inside police kettles, marching away from confrontation, and propping up mainstream politics as a foil for the far right really is.

This is underlined by the fact that UAF has never mobilised against the EDL splinter groups. When they opposed the EDL in Leicester, it was down to independent anti-fascists to mobilise against the Infidels in Rochdale, as it didn't even warrant a mention by UAF. On Saturday, with the Infidels and Combined Ex Forces mobilising to "smash the IRA," the lack of BNP and EDL meant that as far as mainstream anti-fascism is concerned the day might as well have not happened at all. Hope Not Hate, even more wet and mainstream as well as being tied to the security services, give threats to Occupy Liverpool a mention but find Tommy Robinson's Irish heritage more interesting than physical violence against Liverpool's Irish community.

So what of militant anti-fascism, then? It's still here, in the sense that there are still those around who believe in a class response to fascism and direct, physical opposition to their presence on the streets. But the plain fact is that the movement that once existed currently doesn't.

Antifa fell off the radar several years back. The Alliance for Workers' Liberty's Stop Racism and Fascism Network failed to really get off the ground. Manchester Anti Fascist Alliance folded not too long ago. Other groups, such as Liverpool Antifascists and Brighton Anti-Fascists still exist, but certainly in Liverpool the ability we had to punch above our weight due to very active comrades has recently been strained by the pull of other causes in the fight against cuts, privatisation and the wider class struggle.

I say this not with any air of fatalism, but simply because the only way to build up and overcome your weaknesses is to start from an honest appraisal of the situation. The anti-fascist movement is in a dire state at the moment, and there's a lot of work that needs doing. In terms of which, discussions are happening internally, and soon hopefully across the workers' movement as well. We're not about to jack it all in and admit defeat, any more than we would march away from the confrontation and declare a victory where there was none, UAF-style.

One definite mistake made yesterday was that there was no public anti-fascist call out, locally or nationally. Liverpool Antifascists did mobilise, but that we did so amongst ourselves but were severely limited in numbers due to no demo being announced. This meant that any response we were going to offer to fascists who had mobilised nationally was going to be inadequate.

The Infidels, Combined Ex Forces and Casuals United assembled at St George's Hall from 11am, with the intention of going on to Derby Square for a static demonstration. Their reason for being out - the Irish Republican Flute Band march in honour of an Irish republican fighter called Sean Phelan - was kicking off from Kirkdale at 12.30 and marching into the City Centre. Already, the fascists' choice of muster point at Derby Square has hampered their plans and the march now had no idea of its end point.

The wild card in this was a demonstration against police brutality, also set to take place at Derby Square from 12pm. This had been called in response to police attacks on an anti-cuts demo outside the town hall, and was set to largely be composed of young and inexperienced protesters, mainly with a background in the Occupy movement.

In the event, that demonstration's presence in Derby Square largely confined us there as well, since the anti-fascist mobilisation effectively tripled their numbers and nobody would have felt comfortable leaving about ten kids to fend for themselves against a mob of baying fascists.

That was exactly what we faced, from the offset. The crowds pouring past jeered and hissed at the demo, instantly deciding that it was "pro-IRA" and therefore a worthy target. A couple of local boneheads decided to jump in and act like hardmen against the younger ones in the crowd, whilst the broader gathering of fascists only grew in confidence at the sight of this small opposition.

The police, for their part, apparently decided that the fascists were the perfect weapon to use on those demonstrating against them. Two fascists were ushered over to "have a chat" with the other demo, the fascists were allowed to half-surround the anti-police protesters, and the use of cameras by the far right coincided perfectly with a Section 60 AA order for all protesters to remove masks and face coverings. When this was, naturally, objected to, several officers barged into the crowd and started ripping face coverings off whilst threatening arrest.

This, understandably, panicked those who had come to demonstrate against police brutality. Fearing a repeat of the town hall incident, they moved away from the square and down the street. As the rest of us took heed of what was happening and made a hasty attempt to keep people together, they turned it into an unofficial march. Chants of "we won't take police brutality" rang out and a banner was unfurled at the front.

All of this whilst fascists continued to flow past towards their demo, sneering and snarling as they did. The situation had now become unsalvageable, and it was all we could do to intervene when boneheads tried to lunge at demonstrators. Several were able to throw punches, with the police response being to simply move them along, if not ignore them entirely. At the same time, the chants and flag waving continued as if this was all just part of the plan.

Ultimately, we herded the march to News From Nowhere, and disassembled it in the social centre. It was infuriating to concede the streets to the fascists, and a decision that will only see them grow in confidence for future actions, but we were essentially left with no choice in the name of safety. As it was, several passers by were still assaulted by fascists in town, and during the incident that caused police to block the road and turn the Republican march back, several people were assaulted there as well. All in all, an ugly end to an ugly day.

The events yesterday were in turns grim and frustrating, as well as frightening for those new to this kind of activity. But they should also serve as a wake-up call to anybody who claims to oppose fascism. This is not an activity for armchair activists, nor something you can outsource to "specialists." A violent ideology is growing on the streets, and we can only stop it by mobilising as a class to physically oppose them.

To those who would look to someone else to do this, I ask two simple questions: if not now, when? If not us, who? Fighting fascism is a job for us all, and it's about time we got to it.

After rumours about March 1 and March 15, it now appears that the next big day in the pensions dispute will be March 28. The PCS union is holding a consultative ballot to seek its members approval for the date, following NUT's confirmation that its members support a rejectionist stance. Other unions including the FBU are set to follow suit.

This is certainly good news in the context of what followed the November 30 strike, with the leadership of UNISON and the TUC urging almost immediate compromise for no tangible gain. The prospect of a "sell out" highlighted the tensions within the coalition of striking unions and their different levels of expectations. For UNISON at one end, this was always just a "damage limitation exercise," with participation effectively forced by rank-and-file demand. For PCS at the other, such damage limitation had already been done several years back and this new change is nothing but an unnecessary extra imposition.

There is also a matter of inclusion. The current pension reforms have been brought up without the involvement of the union, and in the dispute the government has worked hard to isolate them. Thus, alongside an unwillingness to compromise twice there is a fight to restore the union's role in the management of workers' conditions.

Both the left and the establishment have, falsely, portrayed this dichotomy as one between "militants" and "moderates." This isn't the case, and to ignore the material reasons behind PCS and others sticking it out longer is dangerous. For a start, it brings us back to the illusion of "good" union leaders, removing the need to build up a genuinely militant rank-and-file that can take control of its own struggles. When that illusion takes hold, it becomes a lot harder to resist when the "good," "militant" leaders also inevitably sell out.

A similar suspicion should be taken for union leaders' and the left's support for "rank-and-file" action. Whilst they may use the same language as militant workers and libertarian communists, for them the role of the rank-and-file isn't to control its own struggles. Instead, they want to "harness" such militancy to bolster the leadership - the way one Unite bureaucrat defined it in a debate over the Sparks' struggle being as a "good cop, bad cop" relationship, wherein "the message to the employer is, deal with us and settle, or deal with them and face occupations, sabotage and wildcats."

However, whilst it is true that "the more militant the rank and file, the better the legal agreement the union can win," this idea ignores the long history of active collaboration by union leaderships to suppress rank-and-file movements. It is disingenuous at best to suggest that this - rather than discontent with how officialdom is operating - is why workers organise on the ground, or that they are content when it comes time to settle.

Returning to the prospect of March 28, we can see where this (unwitting) good cop/bad cop dichotomy gets us. For though there is a feeling and a pressure on the ground that there needs to be a fight over pensions, there isn't a conscious movement threatening to outflank people like Mark Serwotka from below. Thus he can continue to talk idly of escalated, selective and drawn out action, whilst delivering nothing more than periodic one-day strikes. The only response being a collective grumble at ground level.

Ahead of March 28, the task for militant workers remains the same as previously - to organise, build and make the argument for rank-and-file workers taking control of their own struggles. That task looks more difficult than ever as the roadshow of one-day set-pieces trundles on. But if we don't try, we know that whatever we get at the end of this dispute, it won't be a victory.

On Tuesday, PCS members in HM Revenue & Customs are taking strike action against privatisation plans. I've already explained the need for solidarity here, but this dispute also highlights another point that I've long made. It demonstrates the need of workers to organise in order to defy anti-strike laws.

The strike on Tuesday doesn't in fact involved all workers in HMRC, but only those in a section called Personal Tax Operations (PT Ops). In essence, this means that those not in PT Ops have to go into work on the 31 January - and if they work in a building that contains members of the striking section, as most of them do, it means that they will have to cross picket lines.

A previous anti-privatisation picket line at HMRC Euston Tower

Understandably, a great many are not happy or comfortable with this. There has been a lot of arguing internally over the matter, with many reps in the other areas saying they won't cross picket lines and with calls for the Group Executive Committee to issue guidance. The GEC happily complied with this, and provided a number of ways that those outside PT Ops could support the action. But, on the fundamental question, the union officials could only ever provide one answer: "as a union we cannot under any circumstances encourage or induce members to take part in industrial action for which they have not been balloted."

For a union to say otherwise would be suicidal. They would risk having their assets frozen and other measures that would in essence stop it functioning altogether. As such, when appealing to the union for guidance, the only thing that those outside of the balloted section were ever going to be told is to cross picket lines.

This is compounded by the fact that the choice of action by PCS has been poor at best. Previously, the dispute was challenged through short walkouts, which didn't as dramatically emphasise the non-participation of other members - and in fact allowed them to join in by taking longer lunch breaks or flexi time in solidarity with little fear of sanction. But a full day's action effectively forces the divide, which we should not be surprised at since the interests of the workers and the interests of union leaders can often be at odds.

For workers who do want to show solidarity - and, as importantly, to build a workers' movement that can seriously challenge the ruling class - something much more radical is needed. The trade unions themselves cannot and will not challenge restrictive industrial action laws. But militant workers can, and indeed should, do so.

The most basic starting point for this is to organise with your fellow workers. This doesn't mean getting them to sign a union form so they can be represented if they get in trouble, but by building an active movement within your workplace of those willing to take action - regardless of union presence or membership. For those unsure on how they might go about this, the Solidarity Federation workplace organiser training is an excellent starting point, whilst these articles on libcom.org are well worth a read.

From there, what? The point of this post isn't to provide step-by-step instructions, but the easiest course of action is probably to convene off-site meetings for those affected. Talk to all the other workers, push attendance, make people interested in coming along. You can't promote unofficial action through a leaflet or casual chats, you need a meeting, and most importantly you need it to be one where everyone can have their say. If there's a debate, followed by either a consensus or a vote, people are more likely to follow through than if they're just nodding along to a speech by one person. It also brings everyone in on the act, rather than people just following the leader - which leaves said leader open to being singled out and targetted by management.

The Sparks rank-and-file group at a picket of Blackfriars in London

Of course, the one thing you absolutely must not guarantee is that nothing will happen to people. It may well, and the bosses will look for any opportunity to clamp own on such activity. But what you can say is that greater solidarity brings a greater chance of success. The prime example of this remains the Lindsey Oil Refinery dispute of 2009, where all of those (lawfully) sacked for taking wildcat strike action got their jobs back - because every other site across the country took wildcat action in support of them.

In a situation such as that PCS has forced upon HMRC workers, something like a sick-out may work better than a blatant wildcat strike. But either way, if the conversation isn't had and the topic not broached, then workers are left at the mercy of the bosses and union officialdom. Whereas if that kind of rank-and-file organisation gets off the ground, then we can reach the point that the Sparks did late last year - taking strike action even after the union capitulated to the threat of a court injunction. And we must even go beyond that, as the rank-and-file still face sell out from Unite officialdom.

We have now reached a point where the working class are literally being attacked on all fronts. An effective fight back requires a level of militancy which we have not seen here since the great unrest. But the ruling class have put in laws to prevent that whilst the union bosses are cosy enough to be complicit. In order to stand any hope of winning, we must defy both.

On Tuesday, Gary Dobson and David Norris were found guilty of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. For Lawrence's parents, this was the vindication of an 18-year hunt for justice, perhaps some closure over the death of their son. For others, it has proved another occasion to promote their own agendas and to re-awaken old vendettas.

The most significant fallout from the Stephen Lawrence murder is that - via the MacPherson Report - it exposed the institutional racism of the Metropolitan Police. The recommendations that came with this revelation can be seen as one of the main drivers of an institutional focus on diversity and race relations, and thus the "political correctness" that would become the bug bear of both the conservative and far right. The Lawrence verdict, particularly as a counterpoint to other events, has become an excuse to wheel out the same arguments.

For example, one article doing the rounds - re-blogged by BNP supporter Centurean2 and ex-BNP, now British Freedom Party supporter Lee Barnes - is this one over at the Libertarian Alliance. In it, Robert Henderson "contrast[s] the elite response to [Richard Everitt's] death and that of Stephen Lawrence." He notes that whilst Everitt's murder was also racially motivated, "there has been no public inquiry into Richard’s murder," "there has been no concerted media campaign stretching over nearly two decades" and "pressure was put on Richard’s parents at the time to go along with the usual Maoist pc line that they were not racist and so on." This proves that "in really important matters such as the administration of justice [political correctness] was already solidly entrenched two decades ago."

However, presuming that use of the phrase "Maoist pc line" hadn't already set alarm bells ringing, there are glaring holes in this narrative. For one, as Henderson himself points out, "the gang were arrested the same night for a separate incident" which saw Richard's blood found on them. "After nine months the police had arrested 11 people in connection with the murder," and two people were jailed in connection with the crime in 1997 - three years after the murder.

It is true that the entire gang involved did not face trial, let alone sentencing, and that there appear to be serious problems with the way in which this issue was dealt. But, in trying to prove that somehow Lawrence's murder was taken more seriously, Henderson is on to a loser. Let's not forget that the Lawrence murder took eighteen years to see any kind of resolution, and that the killing wasn't the result of a mass campaign and parliamentary inquiry on the basis of being a racist murder - it was so because of a mishandled police investigation, rooted in the Met's institutional racism.

Casuals United take issue with the fact that the Attorney General considers the sentencing in the Lawrence case "unduly lenient." Trotting out cases of white people being killed where they consider the sentence lenient, they thus conclude "our legal sytem is dominated by political correctness and is not there for white people, except to persecute them." Thus, the fact that bad things also happen to white people with shitty redress (and that Stephen Lawrence's parents were able to build a campaign with considerable momentum and support) becomes proof that non-white people are somehow privileged and political correctness has run rampant. Though, if you want to see what that argument boils down to with all sophistry removed, I'd suggest a quick glimpse of this Facebook thread.

As an example of how far this ridiculous, desperate scramble to salvage white victimhood goes is in the response to what Diane Abbott said on Twitter. In fact, the only mention on the BNP website of the Stephen Lawrence verdict is the briefest of references when bemoaning Abbott's turn as an "anti-British bigot." Which is, of course, an utterly ridiculous comment coming from someone with as long and proud a history of bigotry as Griffin has.

What Abbott said was "White people love playing 'divide & rule' We should not play their game." This, as Adam Ford points out, was not offered as a reference to the tactics of colonialism - tactics that remain in force today. The ruling class have long played off one section of the working class against another in order to avoid being challenged themselves, and racism is just one example of this. It is true that "by couching her Tweet in purely ethnic terms, Abbott has laid herself open to easy and convenient accusations of racism," but that doesn't mean that it was racist.

If anything, the context of her tweet actually leaves her open to criticism from the opposite direction. Namely, that she was incorrectly referencing the divide-and-rule tactic in order to silence a legitimate criticism of official, state multiculturalism by another black person. Journalist Bim Adewunmi had tweeted "I do wish everyone would stop saying 'the black community'," clarifying that "I hate the generally lazy thinking behind the use of the term. Same for 'black community leaders'."

This was a legitimate point, since the liberal habit of referring to imaginary, homogeneous "communities" has long been used for political capital, with "community leaders" having funding thrown at them in exchange for votes. Meanwhile, it serves only to emphasise ethnic separation (albeit from a "progressive" point of view) and over-write issues such as class. In defence of this practice, Abbott responded to Adewnmi's criticism by declaring "you are playing into a "divide and rule" agenda" and later, "ethnic communities that show more public solidarity & unity than black people do much better," with the hashtag #dontwashdirtylineninpublic - in other words, shut up and accept the official line.

Ultimately, Abbott was herself playing divide and rule - in its multicultural rather than colonial guise. But to suggest that it is racist, thus equating a reference to colonial tactics to suppress non-whites with the insinuation that all blacks are criminals or all Muslims terrorists, is a nonsense.

Returning to the Lawrence case itself, here too there are serious criticisms to be made about how it was handled. For example the cynical opportunism with which people attached themselves to the cause - not least the Daily Mail, who have claimed an enormous amount of credit yet started out with a considerably more hostile editorial line. Yet this is nothing new, nor exclusive to cases of racist murder. We might remember how Tony Blair used the murder of James Bulger to raise his profile, as David Cameron exploited the case of the "torture brothers", or tabloid hysteria over any number of high profile murders and disappearences. Cynical political maneuvering doesn't equal political correctness.

Also of concern is the change in the law which resulted in this conviction - the removal of "double jeopardy." In essence, where once people were protected from being tried for the same crime twice, they are now not. This is something with potentially far-reaching civil liberties implications, and a point that I can't claim to have an answer to. It could be said that this is the inevitable result of campaigning for the state to intervene on your behalf - especially given the government's form in this area.

This is not something that can be laid at the feet of the Stephen Lawrence campaign or of "political correctness." The lesson here is only that a racist murder doesn't change the interest of the state to consolidate its own power. Meanwhile, beyond the fury, opportunism and right-wing propaganda, the verdict may bring a sense of closure and justice to at least two people.

PCS General Secretary Mark Serwotka, writing in the Guardian, tells us that "we have the opportunity to fight and win on pensions." A fine sentiment, and one that I hope turns out to be true, for sure. But it's missing one crucial detail - any discussion whatsoever on how we might win.

The headline and the conclusion of Serwotka's article make the same point. In between, however, there is no indication of exactly how we might win or why we have the chance to do that in 2012. He tells us that the changes are unfair, that there has been no meaningful negotiation on key issues and that PCS are being wilfully excluded from talks - all of which most people following this dispute will be well aware of. But any idea of what we must do to win or acknowledgement of any question or debate on that issue is notable by its absence.

Liverpool Solidarity Federation on the N30 strike march in Liverpool

We might expect that, of course, seeing as Serwotka is a salaried union leader and not a shop floor militant agitating for action. But it serves as a useful reminder that - even without the capitulation of several big unions - public sector workers are not on the verge of even significant concessions in the pension dispute. Let alone victory.

November 30 saw the biggest strike in a generation, with more workers out than during the 1926 General Strike. But once the day was over, the disruption ceased and business as normal resumed. As it was after the June 30 strikes. PCS and the left have talked tough on resisting sell-outs by the most moderate union tops, but there is no indication that any - with the notable exception of the Alliance for Workers' Liberty - have any wish to go beyond this limited strategy of periodic, set-piece actions.

John McInally, Vice President of PCS writes in the Socialist newspaper that "action must be escalated" - but the only escalation he offers is an appeal tothe Public Sector Liason Group to "name the day" of the next single-day action. Albeit perhaps with "more unions on board including private sector workers like those in Unilever."

Now, it's certainly true that this dispute needs to be generalised beyond the public sector - and Unilever workers, having recently had their own pension strike, are one key example of this. But it also needs to go beyond periodic one day strikes. The PCS Independent Left faction - in which the AWL has influence - are suggesting that "selective and targeted action, levies for strike funds, and sustained action short of a strike" should all be on the agenda, and I'd agree. I'd also second their call for workers to have democratic control of the dispute, through strike committees and mass meetings.

Where we disagree, perhaps, is on the notion that a conference called in London - where those present will be representative of the various "left" groupings in PCS and of the left more broadly, but not necessarily of the rank-and-file of the union - can bring this about. Such control needs to be built from the ground up, however shaky progress on that front may be - as I've found out first hand organising ahead of N30.

A strike meeting held during PCS walkouts in Bootle in early June

Nonetheless, it is useful in that it forces a debate amongst PCS and other union activists that - in some quarters - isn't being had at all. There is a considerable appetite for the idea of greater rank-and-file control and of pushing beyond one day strikes - as I've witnessed first hand within my own union branch. But in a lot of places that simply isn't being tapped into. If the idea is dragged into the open, it offers more space for those already arguing for and trying to push such a strategy locally, gives more confidence to those who might agree but be more hesitant about doing anything, and means that any individuals or groups who might wish to derail rank-and-file control have to take a step back and appear to endorse it for fear of being outflanked from below.

Not that any of this needs the "permission" of the union tops, of course. To be truly effective, such initiatives should be as independent of them as possible. There will still come a point (including with PCS) where we either push beyond them and take control of our own struggles or accept some form of managed defeat.

Returning to the main point, Mark Serwotka is right when he says "we have the opportunity to fight and win on pensions." But that will only be the case if workers are prepared to respond with the simple question of "how?" Not so that he or the other bureaucrats can tell us what they want us to do, but so that it opens up that space for debate in the unions where the rank-and-file can take control of the struggle.

The Liverpool branch of the Labour Party have called a demonstration against NHS reforms for Friday 27 January. Saving the NHS from privatisation is indeed one of the most important fights in the battle against the cuts, but the Labour Party will not be the saviour of our health service. This is merely another opportunity for the Party to exploit people's anger at what's happening for electoral gain.

On Liverpool City Council, the same branch of Labour that has called this demo are enacting cuts which are devastating services and sweeping away people's livelihoods. Their council leader, Joe Anderson, has called anti-cuts protesters "scum" and lied about being attacked when they protested against him and his council. Now, they are asking - without a hint of shame - that we "join Liverpool Labour Group Councillors & Members of Parliament" in order to support their campaign against NHS reforms. Even more absurdly, they add that "the NHS is only safe in the hands of The Labour Party."

The only aim of the Labour Party in this instance is to co-opt people's anger and make political capital out of it. Should we see a Labour government replace the current coalition, we will not see an end to the cuts or to the privatisation, and the belief that we will is an illusion which threatens to derail the real fight against the cuts. If they are allowed to claim ownership of this battle, all they will do is demobilise the working class to their own ends.

We did not get the NHS by voting Labour - we got it because the Beveridge Report reflected the very real fear of the ruling class that "if we don't give them reforms, they'll give us revolution." We will not save the NHS by voting Labour - we will save it by building a mass movement, based on direct action, that gives the government that same fear once again.

On Friday 27 January, join the demonstration. But don't demonstrate under the Labour banner to get the Tories out, demonstrate against the privatisation of the NHS - by Labour as well as by the Tories!

Demonstrate against NHS privatisation
Friday 27 January, Royal Liverpool Hospital, Prescot Street, 11am-2pm

The following post comes from Adam Ford. It covers a subject which I had every intention of writing about today but couldn't find the words to articulate my thoughts. As Adam's managed to do that remarkably well, I hope he won't mind me sharing it.

Behind police lines during the 1981 Toxteth riots

Ah, the summer of 1981! The spectacle of a 'fairytale' royal wedding was a distraction for some as a Conservative PM led a ruling class offensive and unemployment skyrocketed, while riots shook the inner cities. 'The more things change, the more they stay the same', some have commented today, as government documents from those days are released under the thirty year rule.

Amongst revelations that the government lied about negotiations with the IRA during the hunger strikes and that Thatcher - shock! horror! - paid for her own Prime Ministerial ironing board, we are given a glimpse of the Thatcher cabinet's reaction to rioting in London, Bristol and - in particular - Liverpool. It turns out that Thatcher played referee in a policy battle between then Chancellor Geoffrey Howe and then Environment Secretary Michael Heseltine.

Heseltine believed the riots showed that something needed to be done in Liverpool. Of course, he didn't advocate a redistribution of wealth from the top to the bottom. Still, his It Took A Riot report argued for significant resources to be dedicated to regenerating the areas in which some of the poorest lived. This was a product of his 'one nation conservatism' - a philosophy based on fear that the poorest will rise to challenge capitalism as usual if they are left to rot.

But even then, one nation conservatism was on the wane, as speeding globalisation and a falling rate of profit compelled the ruling class to break with the social democratic consensus which had been part of the post-war settlement with the working class.

Heseltine at the garden festival site earlier this year

Thatcher had been put in power to make that seismic break with social democracy, and she wasn't about to let a few nights of insurrection shake her will. Something close to her position was articulated by Howe, when he warned her "not to over commit scarce resources to Liverpool".

"I fear that Merseyside is going to be much the hardest nut to crack," he said. "We do not want to find ourselves concentrating all the limited cash that may have to be made available into Liverpool and having nothing left for possibly more promising areas such as the West Midlands or, even, the North East. It would be even more regrettable if some of the brighter ideas for renewing economic activity were to be sown only on relatively stony ground on the banks of the Mersey. I cannot help feeling that the option of managed decline is one which we should not forget altogether. We must not expend all our limited resources in trying to make water flow uphill."

In short, for Howe and much of the ruling class, Liverpool's wounds were largely "self-inflicted". Of course, by Liverpool they meant the Liverpudlian working class, and by "self-inflicted" they meant that it was historically characterised by industrial militancy. Minutes of a key meeting show it was believed that: "The Liverpool dockers had caused the docks to decline by their appalling record of strikes and over-manning. Likewise, many companies had been forced to run-down their plants because of labour problems." This was unforgivable from a bourgeois perspective, and the city's population should not be encouraged by having "limited" cash squandered on them just because the people of Liverpool 8 had - to use a favourite local term - 'kicked off'.

Liverpool people know that Howe and Thatcher prevailed. Heseltine was made unofficial 'Minister for Merseyside', but his impact was generally limited to the garden festival of 1984, the commercialisation of the Albert Dock and the planting of new trees down Princes Avenue, as the government took on the local Militant tendency and ultimately won. Meanwhile, heavy industry was allowed to decline, culminating in the shutdown of the docks in the 1990s. Commercialism and culture were billed as rescues, but these waves began to recede in 2009, once the recession hit and the 'Capital of Culture' festivities were over. Liverpool's population continues to shrink, and "managed decline" would indeed be a fitting description of the last thirty years.

As I wrote following the riots of August this year, which again lit up the streets of Toxteth:

Liverpool of 2011 is very different to the Liverpool of 1981. Back then we'd only had six years of the neoliberal assault. Now it's thirty-six. The latest crises of capitalism have created a generation of ghetto children with even less to lose.

At the start of this month, Nick Lowles of Hope not Hate / Searchlight wrote an essay titled Beyond the BNP, The future of HOPE not hate¹. In it, he talks about how the group's "targets and vision have expanded" in the wake of "some fantastic successes" against the far-right. It reads as a stark revision of recent anti-fascist history and promise to expand on the most problematic elements of liberal anti-fascism.

I won't dwell too much on Lowles' version of the fight against fascism in the past year, as I intend to write a blog specifically on that subject soon. However, suffice to say that his claim to have "consistently brought communities together, around positive shared identities, to resist the hatred of the EDL" ignores the achievements of militants in this regard. In particular, Bradford demonstrated both that the call for a state ban didn't stop the EDL from turning up and that direct, physical opposition did prevent them from rampaging.

Likewise, when he claims "persuad[ing] the Metropolitan Police to request a ban on an EDL demonstration in Tower Hamlets" as one of their victories, they ignore the huge negative repercussions. Not to mention that this not only didn't stop the fascists from turning up, it didn't stop them from marching. They didn't get into Tower Hamlets itself, but that was due to a huge anti-fascist presence there rather than a ban.

Lowles' further claims that "the current problems of both the BNP and the EDL owe much to our ability to combine research and intelligence gathering with both localised and national campaigns." However, this is at best a selective reading of recent history. The BNP's failure at the polls in 2010 underpinned a growing disillusionment with Nick Griffin's leadership - creating a rift that exploded most violently in Liverpool, where Searchlight have minimal to no presence. This isn't to say that Hope not Hate had no impact - their leafleting campaign in Barking & Dagenham was hugely successful. But, as Liverpool Antifascists have also demonstrated, leafleting of estates targeted by the BNP is not a tactic exclusive to them.

In terms of the EDL, the "current problems" faced by the leadership boil down to the more hardline elements splitting off into new groups such as the Infidels and those who came along for a piss up and a day trip falling away. That the splinter elements are on the upsurge and have returned to the traditional fascist tactic of controlling the streets demonstrates that this brand of street fascism is first-and-foremost a physical threat, and it has become prominent due to a failure to adequately deal with it as such.

But this doesn't matter too much to Searchlight. The title of this essay - "beyond the BNP" - reflects an idea that the text doesn't explicitly state: that the fascists in their present incarnation have been beaten and it's time to move on. This reflects the same self-assured attitude shown by the leadership of the Anti-Nazi League when they declared the National Front defeated - leaving it to the militant Anti Fascist Action to physically beat them and then the BNP off the streets in the face of increasing street violence and rising numbers of racist attacks as their electoral chances crumbled to dust².

Turning to next year, Lowles cites the Searchlight report Fear and Hope³ when talking of the need to "be more proactive and unite communities around a positive, united vision of society." Thus, they produce a series of initiatives for the new year on the basis that "there is a clear connection between economic insecurity and pessimism with suspicion and hatred of outsiders."

This last point is quite correct, as fascists have a long history of offering up a minority section of the working class - Catholics, Jews, immigrants and asylum seekers, Muslims - as a scapegoat for the damage being inflicted by capitalism. However, naturally, Searchlight avoid mention of class and go instead for less terrifying (to mainstream supporters) words like "community" and "shared identities." However, the proposed initiatives offered do not necessarily follow from this analysis.

Most of them are fairly innocuous or in-line with what Hope not Hate is already engaged in, and so of little concern. One, the "online community organising project" has the potential to be somewhat interesting. But there is also a fair potential for Searchlight to further feed into the narrative of the authoritarian state.

In particular, I'm concerned by the following points;

We will be seeking to engage more actively in public policy debates, such as Prevent and Integration strategies, but do so in a more innovative way that involves our supporters in the discussions and developing responses.

Aside from being a typically wet, liberal illusion in the idea that fascism can be defeated through electoral politics, this is just plain dangerous. We already know that Searchlight is a statist organisation - its first port of call being asking for the government to ban actions and proscribe organisations. We also already know that these calls have manifested in exactly the way that militant anti-fascists predicated - most notably the "ban" on the EDL at Tower Hamlets becoming a mandate for a ban on protests in five boroughs.

Combine this with the organisation's blind eye to these repercussions and the state's eagerness to clamp down on dissent at present, and you have a very dangerous combination. Especially since, by deliberately talking of "extremism" rather than of fascism and Islamism, Searchlight is offering the opportunity to view any organisation which goes beyond what it terms "the mainstream middle" as dangerous, seditious and deserving of state repression. Moreover, from its lack of any response at all to the jailing of anti-fascists for taking on the far-right, we can expect the organisation to not acknowledge this problem even when it manifests itself in the heavy repression of the left.

Then there's this;

Next summer we will host the “Great British Party� as an initiative to unite communities and help develop shared identities in the run-up to the 2012 Olympics. Backed up by over 100 local community newspapers and a new Community Champion award, this has the potential to be our biggest project yet.

Again, this only feeds into "values" and "identities" as defined by the state. Arguably, by focusing on the "Great British Party" at a time of growing "economic insecurity," it offers a lighter, liberal equivalent to fascism and nationalism - diverting attention towards identity and the nation-state at a time when our class is under attack. It also ignores that the 2012 Olympics bring with them one of the biggest attacks on our civil liberties by telling us all to forget what's going on in the world and have a party.

2012 brings with it a renewed threat of fascism, particularly in the form of street gangs going on the offensive. What we need in response to this is what militant anti-fascism has always offered - a class analysis of fascism, effective organisation against the far-right in working class areas and physical opposition to their violence. What we do not need, as Nick Lowles offers, is civic (as opposed to ethnic) nationalism and an increased mandate for the authoritarian state.

On her blog at the New Statesman, Laurie Penny has written about "panda-gate*." She is talking about the BBC including a panda in its "faces of the year - women" feature and what this says "about how sexism works in cultural production." Here, I'd like to take issue with one particular point in her writing.

First, I should say that I largely sympathise with the thrust of the article. I would argue that, rather than indicating any sexism inherent in the BBC specifically, the BBC's list merely reflects the particular expectations of women and gender stereotypes within a patriarchal society. It does raise questions about "on what basis women should be celebrated," but this list and the BBC are in this instance an echo chamber of mainstream opinion rather than the instigators of some new offence.

However, that aside, it's this statement in the article that I take issue with (emphasis mine);

Newsworthy male feats in 2011 include, apparently, being a politician (3), being a police officer, being a soldier (3), being an Oscar-winning screenwriter, being an athlete, being a revolutionary martyr, being a fascist mass-murderer who definitely shouldn't have any more sodding publicity, and being shot by the Metropolitan police. To be considered a newsworthy woman in 2011, meanwhile, you have to make an allegation of rape, be a pop star, go on a date with a pop star, get married to a royal, be the sister of someone who got married to a royal, be a royal and get married to someone who isn't a royal, or be a panda called Sweetie.

Again, whilst I get what Pennie is saying, here she is throwing in "mak[ing] an allegation of rape" with a list of things only considered achievements by the vapid, celebrity-obsessed consumer culture. In both of the cases she is referring to, this is insulting.

First, we have Nafissatou Diallo, who reported being raped by the then-head of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn. In doing so, she was subject to intense media scrutiny which bordered on the absurd. Strauss-Kahn's supporters pulled apart her background in order to discredit her, and as Katrin Axelsson put it in the Guardian, "woman who reports rape is expected to have a virginal past to qualify as a credible rape victim." Penny made similar comments on the case herself.

Diallo came forward in "a criminal justice system where prejudice and politics may shape the investigation and any trial – and even determine the outcome." For that, her life was turned upside down, every inch of it scrutinised and she was smeared in the world media before her alleged attacker got off Scot-free. She cannot be compared to royalty, pop stars and pandas.

Next up, there is Eman al-Obeidi. This is the woman who burst into the Rixos Hotel, hosting foreign press in Libya, and told them that she had been beaten and gang raped by Gaddafi's milita. She exposed to the world how the late Libyan dictator was using rape as a weapon of war, and as a consequence detained by the government. She was eventually released and received asylum in the US, having already been described by the Washington Post as "a symbol of defiance against Gaddafi among activists seeking to oust his regime."

Once more, it isn't fair to compare her to the "famous wives, brides and girlfriends" as somehow separate from the "women who have done brave, brilliant, newsworthy things this year."

As I said earlier, I agree with the overall argument Penny is making, even if I wouldn't focus so heavily on the BBC. My only issue is that by throwing in these women with Adele, Pippa Middleton et al, she too is doing them a disservice.

*Don't get me started on the use of -gate as a suffix to denote a scandal. FFS.

I've written before about the absurd urban myths surrounding Christmas. The idea that Christmas is being "banned" or "watered down" in the name of "political correctness gone mad" isn't just absurd - it's dangerous. As we saw when the EDL threatened demonstrations over it. But if there's anything that won't solve the problem, it's liberals doing online activism.

On Christmas Eve, the Guardian reported on the Happy Christmas 4ALL campaign, by a group called Phoenix: An Inter-Community Initiative for a New Centre Ground. Which almost immediately tells you how in touch it is with the hopes and concerns of working class people. The aims of their campaign, as described by the Guardian, are "counter[ing] such myths" as we see in the media as we approach Christmas and "highlighting participation by non-Christians in traditional activities." For example, their Facebook page "shows pictures of Muslim students taking part in a nativity play, while others highlight common religious beliefs shared by different faiths."

At the same time, they are "encouraging non-Christians to enter into the spirit of goodwill by getting involved in volunteering, particularly on and around Christmas day." Julie Siddiqui, vice-president of the Islamic Society of Britain (ISB), will be "volunteering at her local church in Maidenhead on Christmas Day." Others from the ISB "are helping out at Christian charities or non-faith groups like the homelessness charity Crisis at Christmas."

Ultimately, according to Vidhya Ramalingam from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, "the idea is to promote volunteering at Christmas and volunteering to take over the work of some Christian charities." Which is all well and good, as far as a charitable exercise to "mak[e] sure no one feels vulnerable." This might promote good will between charity volunteers from different faith groups and those who benefit from them - something which isn't lacking if this truly is "simply continuing the tradition over the years of non-Christian professionals in essential professions such as medicine volunteering to work over Christmas to relieve their colleagues."

But whether it will actually address the myths promoted by the tabloids, and the underlying concerns and insecurities that make it easier for people to believe them, is a whole other matter. After all, the people promoting such myths - and those believing them - are not those who regularly volunteer for charity out of Christian piety. The groups feeding off them like the EDL are not appealing to the devout. When you boil it down, this remains a class issue.

To labour the point, those who read the tabloids and truly believe that councils across the country are banning nativity plays because they offend Muslims, or whatever, aren't getting outraged because they really like nativity plays. They're getting outraged is because what they can see around them is life getting harder, the economy taking a battering, jobs growing scarcer and people finding it harder to get by. In a world of increasingly casualised labour, longer hours, less pay, where housing is scarce and many people have to rent and often move around more frequently, communities fall away. The working class culture that older generations remember is vanishing before their eyes. With the left all but absent from the poorer and more deprived estates, the only narrative on offer to explain that is the one which blames immigration - and the war on Christmas slides into that quite neatly.

In such a context, what does an online "campaign" saying that such stories are myths (but little else) and encouraging an increased level of middle class paternalism offer? The answer is, not much. You might reach people who regularly surf the net, but even then only if they're willing to move beyond the online comfort zones many people will have established. Those without internet access, whose main source of news is the Daily Star or the Daily Express, will be all but unaffected.

This is not to mention that, by not addressing the question of class and sticking with the presumption that people can be neatly divided into communities based on race or (in this case) religion, the campaign only feeds the sense of separation and "otherness" which feeds the narrative described above. It's all well and good to talk of "inter-community" dialogue, but you're still dividing people up and classifying them on the basis of these imagined, homogeneous communities in the first place. Cooperation and interaction becomes missionary, then, rather than a simple act of class solidarity.

There's no easy alternative to this, of course, but there are a few basic steps which can - and do - have much more of an impact. We can challenge ideas that have permeated our communities (real, geographical communities, not imagined racial or religious ones) by getting feet on the ground and leafleting estates. More so if this is a regular act within our own communities than a one-off publicity stunt we've parachuted in for. We can fight the sense of despondency and alienation that feeds into right-wing narratives by organising within our communities and workplaces, giving people a sense of their own collective power and fighting the real issues wherever they manifest. People don't need scapegoats when they have real answers to real problems.

I've no doubt that those behind initiatives such as Happy Christmas 4ALL are well meaning. But that doesn't mean it will have any effect. There are real issues that need to be addressed, but the answer is working class organisation and solidarity - not liberal paternalism and charity.