“You are as bad as the fascists”, “who are the real fascists?” and “you are just the same” are a few of the monotonous and textbook liberal taglines we have all seen and heard before. Sometimes on demos, sometimes online, sometimes in meetings and sometimes elsewhere but it is always the same and it is textbook.

It could be put down to lack of political experience and naivety but often enough even when provided with an explanation and counter-argument, they fail to take heed, often willingly out of sheer ignorance or commitment to liberal dogma (same thing really).

What I am referring to of course is physical force politics, most commonly in the form of anti-fascism.

The liberal argument ignores the nature of fascism, the end result of fascism, the process and means it employs and the history of the fight between anti-fascism and fascism.

For a start fascism deems violence as a necessary component in order to cleanse society, a sort of social and political cleansing agent if you will. Socialists, as anti-fascists (or in any other capacity for that matter), do not. For those socialists who employ violence as a means to deal with fascists, it is a tool rather than a principle.

Then there is the simple fact that violence has existed since the beginning of time so fascism is not violence personified. Violence predates the establishment of fascism which was in Italy in the first half of the 20th century. In a very simplistic way of using the liberal line of argument, Cain is a fascist because he killed Abel (a Biblical reference, I am an atheist though). He used violence did he not? To use violence is automatically fascist is it not?

Violence is an act which people perform, usually towards an end. Violence is not an ideology and set of political, social and economic principles.

If it were the case that the use of violence automatically equates to fascism then everyone who uses violence, including drunk people having a casual scrap, are fascists.

But liberals would sometimes argue that it is to use violence with a political motive, to subdue someone for their political opinions which makes one a fascist. Fascism is a very specific set of economic, social and political principles not an act. If you do not subscribe to those very specific set of political, economic and social principles then you are not a fascist whether violence is or is not used. Adding the use of violence as a means to subdue a political enemy is not an indicator of your political ideals because as I have already said, fascism is a set of social, economic and political principles. As anti-fascists, even if violence is used as a tool, we are not fascists because as the name suggests we oppose those economic, social and political principles which make up fascism. An analogy I often use (some may say a poor one which to be honest, it probably is) is that a lion and a dog both have teeth and attack and defend, but the two are not the same. This is the case for fascism and anti-fascism.

The fact that we may smash a brick into a fascist, kick, knee, punch or lay a nut on them or whatever else does not change our political convictions, it reinforces it as anti-fascists.

‘Violence does not actually work in defeating fascists’ or ‘it does not subdue the fascist threat’ (liberals often even argue such a threat does not exist). Such is the historical twisting and ignorance of their ilk. Cable Street (broke the back of the British Union of Fascists) [1] and then we have the Warsaw Ghetto uprising (which despite the uprising being put down by the nazis, more Jews survived as a result of the uprising) [2]. More recently we have had Brick Lane (BNP had to abandon their main paper sales pitch because they kept getting kicked all over) [3], BNP Scottish conference (a severe dent to the BNP’s operations and morale in Scotland) [4], the breaking of the back of Blood and Honour at Waterloo (halting it coming out into the open and going more mainstream) [5] and Lewisham 1977 (which broke the back of the National Front on the streets in the 1970s) [6].

Then we have the example of Chapel Market in the early 1980s in which the National Front, no longer playing to an electoral facade and more obviously violent as a result, were defeated in an area they considered ‘their own’. This left them with less area and base to organise in. This can only be considered a success [7].

Even more recently, the trouncing of National Action, once in Newcastle (some of their members and supporters were battered, a couple got sent to hospital) [8] and twice in Liverpool [9]. In Liverpool, first for the second White Man March when they had to call off their own demo and second, when they announced a return and needed an entire police public order unit to protect them. Despite that, they still got battered.

Then there was the physical defeat of the Chelsea Headhunters at Maidstone Services this year which prevented them reaching Dover where they were going to physically confront other anti-fascists [10].

The examples of anti-fascist successes involving physical force goes on.

In a plain and very practical way of putting it, if a fascist comes at myself or anyone else with the intent of causing us harm, they are going to meet physical resistance. It really is that simple. This can be reactive or preemptive.

I am not saying that all anti-fascists need to be involved in physical force tactics, all I am saying is do not denigrate those who do. Especially do not equate physical force anti-fascists to those whom physical force anti-fascists put themselves at risk fighting. Physical force anti-fascism is not for everyone, I get that and the fight against fascism is multifaceted. It is not as if physical force is the only tactic which physical force anti-fascists employ. Physical force is a tool which some anti-fascists use, among other tactics. Fascism will only be defeated if the tactics employed are multifaceted, including the physical and non-physical. Violence is one of the tools which anti-fascists have in their arsenal to use as and when necessary (if those carrying it out are prepared, able and capable to do so) and no one can remove that fact from the past nor the present.

I have wrote this because I am seeing liberal arguments a lot lately and so I am sick and tired of hearing the liberal argument on the use of violence when dealing with fascists. It is not only an insult to anti-fascists who do and have used violence to deal with the very real fascist threat, it is an insult to those communities who have had to and may still have to use violence as a means of self-defence against fascist threats and violence. This is my attempt at providing an explanation as to the use of violence in anti-fascism. Not that I have to justify my views to liberals but it is an attempt at countering their argument in the public arena.

Over and out, I am off to drink my liberal tears.

[1] An assortment of political groups and general public.

[2] The Zydowska Organizacja Bojowa/Yidishe Kamf Organizatsie (Jewish Combat Organisation, or ZOB)

[3] Anti-Fascist Action (AFA) and The Away Team (On one or two occasions).

[4] Anti-Fascist Action

[5] Organised by and composed in the majority of people from Anti-Fascist Action but included associated groups such as Class War (who were founding members of AFA and had members in AFA on an individual and branch basis) among others as well as unaligned anti-fascists.

[6] In the main a community response but heavily involved the Squads (The precursor to Red Action) and other anti-fascist individuals and groups.

[7] Red Action

[8] Anti-Fascist Network as well as a Red Antifa element.

[9] Community response with heavy input from unions, community groups, football casuals, Anti-Fascist Network and some members of Red Antifa. Unaligned individuals also heavily involved.

[10] Anti-Fascist Network, unaligned individuals and members of Red Antifa.