NationStates Jolt Archive

Next week is the 70th anniversary of the day when residents in London prevented the Fash from marching through their streets. Many saw it as a crushing blow against Fascism in the UK. There is festival in celebration of the anniversary on Cable St on October 8th, 12-4pm. Admission is free.

Seventy years ago, the Battle of Cable Street saw Jews and left-wingers stop fascist Blackshirts marching through east London. But is it still important?

Turn left out of Tower Hill tube station and even in October there are throngs of tourists making a beeline for the Tower of London.

But few of those transfixed by tales of tyrants and their victims will make the half-mile journey to another historic site, one where the people of east London made a stand against a "tyrant-in-waiting".

Walk through the tourists, past the glass headquarters of merchant banks and soon you are in drab Cable Street, lined by council estates on one side, while the railway thunders overhead on the other.

Here is the site of a major milestone in the mythology of the left, the celebrated Battle of Cable Street.

Various plaques and a giant mural pay tributes to the thousands of Jewish residents, communists, trade unionists and Irish dockers who gathered on 4 October 1936 to stop Sir Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts marching through the East End.

The anti-fascists battled for hours as the police tried to clear a way through, first through the "Gardiner's Corner" junction and then along Cable Street, and won. With the police unable to prevail, the Blackshirts were ordered to turn back. To those who fought it was Britain's stand against a doctrine that cast a dark shadow over Europe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5405598.stm

Day the East End said 'No Pasaran' (http://libcom.org/news/day-the-east-end-said-no-pasaran-to-blackshirts-30092006) - story on news reposted from the Guardian.

http://www.eastendtalking.org.uk/OurEastend/WhereWeLive/CableStreet/theBattle.jpg

I'll be there.

Pity George Galloway can't say the same, eh?

I'll be there.

Pity George Galloway can't say the same, eh?


Who needs him?

*puts on liberal hat*
*spins the propeller on it*

i strongly disapprove of that action. the fascists should be allowed to speak or march wherever they want. who cares that their proclaimed goal is tyranny, oppression, and murder? they have a right to try to take power, and we shouldn't physically stop them.

*puts on liberal hat*
*spins the propeller on it*

i strongly disapprove of that action. the fascists should be allowed to speak or march wherever they want. who cares that their proclaimed goal is tyranny, oppression, and murder? they have a right to try to take power, and we shouldn't physically stop them.


Well played, well played.

*puts on liberal hat*
*spins the propeller on it*

i strongly disapprove of that action. the fascists should be allowed to speak or march wherever they want. who cares that their proclaimed goal is tyranny, oppression, and murder? they have a right to try to take power, and we shouldn't physically stop them.

Agreed, to an extent. Physical violence should only be used as a last resort. Education and constructive political activity should be used first.

Agreed, to an extent. Physical violence should only be used as a last resort. Education and constructive political activity should be used first.

Nah. They always are willing to use violence. It's part of their doctrine. So we should always prepare to physically stop the fascists from the start.

Nah. They always are willing to use violence. It's part of their doctrine. So we should always prepare to physically stop the fascists from the start.

absolutely and totally

good to see this fantastically brave coaltion of socialists, anarchists, jewish groups and non-aligned locals taking on the facists and the filth still remembered.

Nah. They always are willing to use violence. It's part of their doctrine. So we should always prepare to physically stop the fascists from the start.

Ah. The "they did it first so we should do it right back!!!" approach. Wonderful.

Ah. The "they did it first so we should do it right back!!!" approach. Wonderful.

As opposed to the "don't prepare and allow your entire movement to be violently crushed by fascists" approach. Magnificent.

As opposed to the "don't prepare and allow your entire movement to be violently crushed by fascists" approach. Magnificent.

I haven't seen any evidence for that particular slope being slippery. Letting a few nutjobs march seems not to result in them crushing entire political movements violently, oddly enough.

I haven't seen any evidence for that
particular slope being slippery. Letting a few nutjobs march seems not to result in them crushing entire political movements violently, oddly enough. It's how the Nazi party gained fame. And those who fought knew it.

Damn, hell yeah, I never knew of such an event, I really have to hand it to you British, and some Irish.

England, 1936.
The grip of the Sabbath day
In London town the only sound
Is a whisper in an alleyway
Men put on their gloves and boots
Have a smoke before they go
From the west there is a warning of
A wind about to blow

Like Caesar marching to the East
Marches Mosley with his men
Dressed in their clothes of deepest black
Like a gathering hurricane
This is the British Union
With its flag of black and red
A flag that casts a shadow in
Berlin and in Madrid

So listen to the sound of marching feet
And the voices of the ghosts of Cable Street
Fists and stones and batons and the gun
With courage we shall beat those blackshirts down...

.

Ah. The "they did it first so we should do it right back!!!" approach. Wonderful.

more like "they did it first, they're doing it now, they intend to do it even worse in the future. their ideology explicitly calls for and glorifies it; aimed at people like you and me, no less. their ideology also explicitly rejects enlightenment prinicples like 'reason' and 'debate' as weak and decadent. this is a matter of self defense and survival - to the barricades!"

*puts on liberal hat*
*spins the propeller on it*

i strongly disapprove of that action. the fascists should be allowed to speak or march wherever they want. who cares that their proclaimed goal is tyranny, oppression, and murder? they have a right to try to take power, and we shouldn't physically stop them.The state shouldn't. Just like the state shouldn't remove nonviolent counter protestors that are blocking their path.

I haven't seen any evidence for that particular slope being slippery. Letting a few nutjobs march seems not to result in them crushing entire political movements violently, oddly enough.Better to err on the side of caution in this case.

*puts on liberal hat*
*spins the propeller on it*

i strongly disapprove of that action. the fascists should be allowed to speak or march wherever they want. who cares that their proclaimed goal is tyranny, oppression, and murder? they have a right to try to take power, and we shouldn't physically stop them.

the point i was going to make exaclty, except i would of worded it wrong and some how gotten called a nazi by half the thread and an idiot by the rest(but this is partially true :D )

The state shouldn't.

*removes liberal propeller hat*

damn straight. give those bastards that power, next thing you know they'll come for me.

So we are supporting the suppression of free speech now? If you fear protecting the speech of any group, including Nazis and other fascist, you have an unclear view of what actually occurred in the Weimar Republic.

So we are supporting the suppression of free speech now?

Is a march speech?

Is a march speech?
Yeah. It's expressing views. Just like burning a flag is speech, and you know, you've also got the whole assembly thing, as well.

I don't really care about Cable Street, but it always amuses when so many people on the internet fancy themselves as some brave left wing street warrior who would always have the courage to 'Bash the fash'.

Yeah. It's expressing views. Just like burning a flag is speech, and you know, you've also got the whole assembly thing, as well.

Is smacking someone with a chairleg a form of speech? It is certainly an expression of views.

What 'whole assembly' thing?

I don't really care about Cable Street, but it always amuses when so many people on the internet fancy themselves as some brave left wing street warrior who would always have the courage to 'Bash the fash'.It's almost as amusing as some racist joining the British military, but not having the guts to show his true colors if his superior is muslim...

Yeah. It's expressing views. Just like burning a flag is speech, and you know, you've also got the whole assembly thing, as well.Taking that flag away from the idiot that is burning it and dousing it is a form of Freedom of Speech too. Would you like to forbid that?

It's almost as amusing as some racist joining the British military, but not having the guts to show his true colors if his superior is muslim...
At least I know what humanity is like and I don't buy into the fantasies of all these little keyboard warriors.

Taking that flag away from the idiot that is burning it and dousing it is a form of Freedom of Speech too.

So is it okay burning other people's flags, but not your own nation's one?

At least I know what humanity is like and I don't buy into the fantasies of all these little keyboard warriors.I could say the same thing about knowing what humanity is like, only it applies to people of your conviction.

Is smacking someone with a chairleg a form of speech? It is certainly an expression of views.

What 'whole assembly' thing?
The freedom of assembly. I suppose they don't have such a thing in the UK.
Is smacking someone with a chairleg a form of speech? It is certainly an expression of views.

Violence is always crossing a line.
Taking that flag away from the idiot that is burning it and dousing it is a form of Freedom of Speech too. Would you like to forbid that?
Wait. “Idiot burning a flag?” That doesn’t sound like you.
If it doesn’t result in violence, I guess it should be legal. Which is why you need police to protect demonstrations.

So is it okay burning other people's flags, but not your own nation's one?Where'd I say anything about whose flag was being burned? Personally, I think flag burning should be legal, but looked down upon. Burning another nation's flag is worse than burning your own, since you have no claim to it.

Where'd I say anything about whose flag was being burned? Personally, I think flag burning should be legal, but looked down upon. Burning another nation's flag is worse than burning your own, since you have no claim to it.
Why should it be looked down on? A burning flag is a powerful symbol.

Wait. “Idiot burning a flag?” That doesn’t sound like you.
If it doesn’t result in violence, I guess it should be legal. Which is why you need police to protect demonstrations.I consider flagburning rather rude behavior. I'm fiercly in favor of it being legal, as I do similar things that would undoubtedly be grouped with it, but outright destruction of a flag still annoys me.
I usually only see radical muslims or neonazis burning flags, so the term "idiot" usually applies. (I may seem a bit irritable at the moment. I had to walk through rain for half an hour to get to the library and my shoes are only just beginning to dry :p)

Why should it be looked down on? A burning flag is a powerful symbol.It's the destruction of the flag, a very strong sign of disrespect. I prefer means of defacing or covering flags to show protest.

It's the destruction of the flag, a very strong sign of disrespect. I prefer means of defacing or covering flags to show protest.
I don't see how burning a flag is any different than defacing one.

I don't see how burning a flag is any different than defacing one.Defacing a flag still leaves it intact. Burning it destroys it. To me, that means a big difference. ;)

Nah. They always are willing to use violence. It's part of their doctrine. So we should always prepare to physically stop the fascists from the start.

The old pre-emptive retaliation strike. Good one.

I don't really care about Cable Street, but it always amuses when so many people on the internet fancy themselves as some brave left wing street warrior who would always have the courage to 'Bash the fash'.

given that i know several "people on the internet" that have served jail time over it, it may not be so much a mere 'fancy'

Good on 'em, an event well worth remembering. Solidarity brothers.

*removes liberal propeller hat*

damn straight. give those bastards that power, next thing you know they'll come for me.

I hear that.

Like several have said - it's a shame that if the same thing happened in Briton today many many people would be be condeming those who prevented this march.

Violence is always crossing a line.
I always thought this odd. A person can do incredible damage to another person with words - they can tarnish their reputation, they can split up a marriage, they an get someone fired from their job, they can lower someones standing in atheir community (which can severely damage a persons job prospects and social standing in a close community). All of these can cause far more damage to a person then punching somebody - and yet the first is regarded as little more than rumor spreading which would rarely if ever end up in court, while the second can easily land you in jail.

So we are supporting the suppression of free speech now? If you fear protecting the speech of any group, including Nazis and other fascist, you have an unclear view of what actually occurred in the Weimar Republic.

so tell us what happened, then

Yay! Smash that free speech thing! That'll show the facists! Oh wait...

I haven't seen any evidence for that particular slope being slippery. Letting a few nutjobs march seems not to result in them crushing entire political movements violently, oddly enough.Oh man! I've ALWAYS wanted some of those Zaphod sunglasses! Lucky bastard!

Though, you better take them off before you flunk history 101.

Oh man! I've ALWAYS wanted some of those Zaphod sunglasses! Lucky bastard!

Though, you better take them off before you flunk history 101.

who needs to pass history when you look so cool?

It's how the Nazi party gained fame. And those who fought knew it.

Yeah, lots of folks have gained fame or publicity by marching. But you'll notice that it takes either popular or military support to gain the requisite power to enforce their views. Marching around may give them some publicity, but it ain't going to do anything beyond that if the people don't buy their shit and they haven't infiltrated the military.

Don't worry if nutjobs are just marching around shouting. Worry if they have the popular support or the powerful allies to do more.

Oh man! I've ALWAYS wanted some of those Zaphod sunglasses! Lucky bastard!

Though, you better take them off before you flunk history 101.

I hope that at least made you feel better about yourself, because it accomplished precious little else.

who needs to pass history when you look so cool?

I sure as hell don't. :cool:

I don't see anything wrong with people stopping the march. If the general public were OK with a march but the government stopped it, they'd be acting in an oppressing manner, but if it's the general public stopping it, they're simply taking a more direct approach to democracy.

Yeah, lots of folks have gained fame or publicity by marching. But you'll notice that it takes either popular or military support to gain the requisite power to enforce their views. Marching around may give them some publicity, but it ain't going to do anything beyond that if the people don't buy their shit and they haven't infiltrated the military.

Don't worry if nutjobs are just marching around shouting. Worry if they have the popular support or the powerful allies to do more.

It's precisely because the fash were physically confronted in the 30's that they never gained popular support.

It's precisely because the fash were physically confronted in the 30's that they never gained popular support.

*snort*

Actually, the fact that folks were willing to physically confront them just indicates that they didn't have any popular support to begin with, and in fact had popular opposition already.

Kinda makes it unlikely for them to gain popular support, what with folks already strongly disliking them.

*snort*

Actually, the fact that folks were willing to physically confront them just indicates that they didn't have any popular support to begin with, and in fact had popular opposition already.

Kinda makes it unlikely for them to gain popular support, what with folks already strongly disliking them.

except for, you know, the popular support they had. it wasn't overwhelming support, but it did exist. they were a real movement.

except for, you know, the popular support they had. it wasn't overwhelming support, but it did exist. they were a real movement.

The KKK has those things in the US, but I'd hardly see them as likely to gain power. A few fanatics who agree and are willing to speak out and run around with signs and slogans do not a legitimate threat by themselves make. Hell, I'm reluctant to even call a small percentage of the populace who have extremist views "popular support" for any cause.

The KKK has those things in the US, but I'd hardly see them as likely to gain power. A few fanatics who agree and are willing to speak out and run around with signs and slogans do not a legitimate threat by themselves make.

No, I wouldn't say the KKK has any popular support. How many members do they have compared with the British Union of Fascists in 1936? The fascists were and always are a legitimate threat because they don't stop at marches. They use violence and intimidation to attack sections of the community and promote hatred. It's only damn straight that the residents of Cable Street decided it wasn't going to happen in their neighbourhood.

No, I wouldn't say the KKK has any popular support. How many members do they have compared with the British Union of Fascists in 1936? The fascists were and always are a legitimate threat because they don't stop at marches. They use violence and intimidation to attack sections of the community and promote hatred. It's only damn straight that the residents of Cable Street decided it wasn't going to happen in their neighbourhood.

As far as membership numbers go, I'm not sure. You want me to look up some stats?

I have no problem with folks defending themselves from violence and intimidation, and I'm hardly crying tears of sadness because some fascists got the stuffing knocked out of them. I'm just not willing to advocate pre-emptive violence against political marchers.

And before anyone asks, no, I wasn't in favor of the pre-emptive strike in Iraq. ;)

It became a battle when the police (with the help of some fascists) attempted disperse the anti-fascists. The cops lost and the fascists had to leave.

As far as membership numbers go, I'm not sure. You want me to look up some stats?

40,000 according to oswaldmosley.com - a bit over half what the lib dems currently have.

Next week is the 70th anniversary of the day when residents in London prevented the Fash from marching through their streets. Many saw it as a crushing blow against Fascism in the UK. There is festival in celebration of the anniversary on Cable St on October 8th, 12-4pm. Admission is free.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5405598.stm

Day the East End said 'No Pasaran' (http://libcom.org/news/day-the-east-end-said-no-pasaran-to-blackshirts-30092006) - story on news reposted from the Guardian.

http://www.eastendtalking.org.uk/OurEastend/WhereWeLive/CableStreet/theBattle.jpg


this happen in ww2 iam i right
as i think i read in book about life in the war

40,000 according to oswaldmosley.com.

For the BUF or the KKK?

this happen in ww2 iam i right
as i think i read in book about life in the war

1936, while Hitler was playing war games in Spain.

For the BUF or the KKK?

British Union.

1936, while Hitler was playing war games in Spain.

thank you
like i said all i know was let me think about two lines in a book i read

British Union.

Ah. I'll see what I can find on the KKK, and the relative populations of the US and UK at the time, for comparison purposes.

Edit- I'll try to finish this tomorrow. Time for dinner and fun!

From KKKlan.com:

At the height of its power the revived Ku Klux Klan had a membership of 8,904,871*- more then one out of eight American males between the ages of 21 and 65. This figure is even more impressive when one considers that many American males in this age group were ineligible for membership because they were Jewish, non white, Catholic, foreign born, or of bad reputation; quite possibly, the Klan's eight million plus membership was as much as one third of the eligible male population. If one wants to calculate the total membership of the entire KKK then one must add to this 8,904,871 figure the more then one million members of the Women of the Ku Klux Klan, a separate KKK organization. To that add the combined memberships of the Junior Klan for teenage boys, the Tri-K-Klub for teenage girls, the Ku Klux Kiddies for pre-teens, the American Krusaders (the Klan auxiliary for foreign born naturalized American citizens), the Klan's Colored man's auxiliary, and the branches of the KKK established in Europe, Canada, Mexico, and New Zealand. So total KKK membership would have exceeded ten million.

given that i know several "people on the internet" that have served jail time over it, it may not be so much a mere 'fancy'
They're probably just fantasists.

*puts on liberal hat*
*spins the propeller on it*

i strongly disapprove of that action. the fascists should be allowed to speak or march wherever they want. who cares that their proclaimed goal is tyranny, oppression, and murder? they have a right to try to take power, and we shouldn't physically stop them.

*puts on liberal hat, spins propeller*
That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

so tell us what happened, then

The Weimar government failed to protect free speech. They feared the Nazis and their supporters so they allowed the Nazis to break up other groups’ meetings and prevent others from demonstrating.

We do not fear the fascist today, nor should we. We must know that our ideas are stronger.

I'm conflicted on Cable Street.

On the one hand I am a Fascist myself and can identify with some of them, but on the other hand I feel that the BUF had become a largely Nazi organization by the time of Cable Street, so I would that much of the movement deserved what they got.

My main problem with cablestreet is that the crowds attacked the police who were doing their job alongside the BUF.

Of course I'm not British so my opinion really doesn't matter to you guys over on your island.

We do not fear the fascist today, nor should we. We must know that our ideas are stronger.

Knowing that your ideas are stronger won't stop them beating up protestors at anti-war marches, it hasn't stopped them vandalising homes in communities with large populations of ethnic minorities and it hasn't destroyed them.

Knowing that your ideas are stronger won't stop them beating up protestors at anti-war marches, it hasn't stopped them vandalising homes in communities with large populations of ethnic minorities and it hasn't destroyed them.
They should be prosecuted for those acts, just as those that attack fascists should be prosecuted.

They should be prosecuted for those acts, just as those that attack fascists should be prosecuted.

there is a profoundly worrying amount of posters who are willing to defend the facists 'right' to march and intimidate.

you have obviously never had the dubiuos pleasure of actually having to deal with these animals.

i mean seriously, it was wrong to confront fascists in europe in 1937? get real!!

there is a profoundly worrying amount of posters who are willing to defend the facists 'right' to march and intimidate.
I am willing to defend the rights of anyone to march, not just fascists.

I am willing to defend the rights of anyone to march, not just fascists.

think. for just one second. put the cable st resistance into some form of historical context.

facsim had seized power in italy and germany. it was in the process of stealing power in spain. all the successful fascist movements had started as uniformed militias marching. in germany there was a huge undercurrent of anti-semitism.

so when the BUF march on a jewish area, take a wild guess what they were planning.

nice little ideals like freedom to march are lovely. till the first synagogue burns down.

think. for just one second. put the cable st resistance into some form of historical context.

facsim had seized power in italy and germany. it was in the process of stealing power in spain. all the successful fascist movements had started as uniformed militias marching. in germany there was a huge undercurrent of anti-semitism.

so when the BUF march on a jewish area, take a wild guess what they were planning.

nice little ideals like freedom to march are lovely. till the first synagogue burns down.

I said they should be allowed to march, not burn. As soon as anything turned violent, the march should have been stopped by the authorities, who, as I understand, were present.

Ah. I'll see what I can find on the KKK, and the relative populations of the US and UK at the time, for comparison purposes.

Edit- I'll try to finish this tomorrow. Time for dinner and fun!

From KKKlan.com:

Well this sucks. Anyone know any good sites for population data prior to 1950? I'm having a devil of a time finding one.

I said they should be allowed to march, not burn. As soon as anything turned violent, the march should have been stopped by the authorities, who, as I understand, were present.

again, you arent dealing with students marching for more grant money.

think of the bigger picture.

the entire purpose of the march was to go to a jewish area and intimidate (and no doubt smash the place up if possible) and also to prove they could go there if and when they wanted. the state facilitiated this at a time when it was kicking off all over europe and the locals said no.

the fact the fascists got spanked was a message to both the state and the BUF that this sort of political movement was unwelcome and would be met head on. that was a major factor in the subsequent failure of fascism in britain.

but you are right, they should have allowed fascists march through a jewish area in 1936, sure they were only there for a giggle. :rolleyes:

think of the bigger picture.
I am thinking of the bigger picture. I support the rights of fascist to march so that others may march as well.
the entire purpose of the march was to go to a jewish area and intimidate (and no doubt smash the place up if possible) and also to prove they could go there if and when they wanted. the state facilitiated this at a time when it was kicking off all over europe and the locals said no.
Too bad. No majority has the right to override the fundamental rights of a minority.
the fact the fascists got spanked was a message to both the state and the BUF that this sort of political movement was unwelcome and would be met head on. that was a major factor in the subsequent failure of fascism in britain.
but you are right, they should have allowed fascists march through a jewish area in 1936, sure they were only there for a giggle. :rolleyes:
We let them do so in this country. Nothing happens.

I am thinking of the bigger picture. I support the rights of fascist to march so that others may march as well.

Too bad. No majority has the right to override the fundamental rights of a minority.


We let them do so in this country. Nothing happens.

i think your last point is telling. you are looking at it from your leafy middle american point of view. not the same point of view a jew living in europe in the 1930's would have. its very easy for you to be so smug and grant fascists rights to try and establish a regieme in britain. you obviously have never been directly confronted with head on political violence.

to be honest anyone who comes out with the inane comment "I support the rights of fascist to march so that others may march as well" clearly has no understanding of fascists and what they are trying to achieve.

the battle of cable street is rightfully remembered as a brave group of locals successfully fending off a fascist incursion into their area when the state failed to protect them. anyone who argues otherwise has an agenda to neuter people power.

. to be honest anyone who comes out with the inane comment "I support the rights of fascist to march so that others may march as well" clearly has no understanding of fascists and what they are trying to achieve.
I'm not an idiot. I know what they want, and as long as the state keeps them in check, which they didn't do in Germany and Italy, they will not succeed.
the battle of cable street is rightfully remembered as a brave group of locals successfully fending off a fascist incursion into their area when the state failed to protect them. anyone who argues otherwise has an agenda to neuter people power.
I’m sorry if I don’t think that “the people” (in actuality the most charismatic people) have the right to decide what appropriate speech is for another human being.

You could say that the locals were having a counter march near their homes and it was their right to protest to, the fascists could have easily gone and marched somewhere else.

I'm not an idiot. I know what they want, and as long as the state keeps them in check, which they didn't do in Germany and Italy, they will not succeed.

I’m sorry if I don’t think that “the people” (in actuality the most charismatic people) have the right to decide what appropriate speech is for another human being.

the state had clearly decided not to 'keep them in check', thats fundamentally the point.

i dont understand how you can use the second point to defend fascism? its totally counterintuitive.

i dont understand how you can use the second point to defend fascism? its totally counterintuitive.
That’s just the thing. I’m not defending fascism. I’m defending free speech. I can fundamentally disagree with someone, but still think that they have the right to speak their mind.

That’s just the thing. I’m not defending fascism. I’m defending free speech. I can fundamentally disagree with someone, but still think that they have the right to speak their mind.

but that right is not extended to the residents of Cable St when confronted with a mass rally of swastika yielding BUF thugs?

you live in cotton wool wrapped fantasy land if you think the locals defending the jewish population of london in the 1930's from fascists was wrong.

seriously, think for a second what you are criticising

i think your last point is telling. you are looking at it from your leafy middle american point of view. not the same point of view a jew living in europe in the 1930's would have. its very easy for you to be so smug and grant fascists rights to try and establish a regieme in britain. you obviously have never been directly confronted with head on political violence.

The above points notwithstanding, because they're not particularly relevant to my point...

to be honest anyone who comes out with the inane comment "I support the rights of fascist to march so that others may march as well" clearly has no understanding of fascists and what they are trying to achieve.

the battle of cable street is rightfully remembered as a brave group of locals successfully fending off a fascist incursion into their area when the state failed to protect them. anyone who argues otherwise has an agenda to neuter people power.

Yes, of course. Anyone who disagrees with you must be either ignorant of fascist aims or a fascist themselves. :rolleyes:

Wait...maybe it's just that some folks aren't willing to take away the freedoms of others just because they think their ideology is harmful. I think the modern liberal ideology is incredibly harmful, as well as what's termed neo-conservativism, but I certainly wouldn't want the right of those folks to march taken away from them. I don't see any reason to draw the line at "fascists marching" when the problem isn't that they are marching, or that they have extremist views. The problem comes in when they go beyond the marching to violent oppression of other folks, so it seems to make a bit more sense to draw the line there, rather than drawing it at the marching and restricting liberty unnecessarily.

TThe problem comes in when they go beyond the marching to violent oppression of other folks, so it seems to make a bit more sense to draw the line there, rather than drawing it at the marching and restricting liberty unnecessarily.

christ on a bicycle. this was fascists marching on a jewish area of london in 1936. what the fuck else were they trying to do if it wasnt 'violent supression of other folks'. place this in the context of the Kristallnacht in germany and the ongoing spanish civil war.

it actually worries me how many americans seem to think the residents of cable streey were in the wrong by refusing to allow themselves and the local jews to be intimidated by a european wide movemnt that was in the process of setting out to destroy them.

i mean comparing neo-cons to fascists in the 30's? do me a favour.

but that right is not extended to the residents of Cable St when confronted with a mass rally of swastika yielding BUF thugs?

you live in cotton wool wrapped fantasy land if you think the locals defending the jewish population of london in the 1930's from fascists was wrong.

seriously, think for a second what you are criticising

Actually, you might want to take your own advice. The position that I (and Neo Undelia) seem to hold is that fascists have the right to march.

You seem to be defending the moral quality of the decision of those folks on Cable Street to counter-march violently. The discussion has moved beyond the incident at Cable Street and into the realm of general political principles, so why is the morality of the counter-march so relevant? Aren't we discussing the right to march in general now?

If you want to know my opinion on the counter-march, here goes. It was incredibly brave, and considering how much I dislike fascism, I'm not exactly disappointed that the BUF got what was coming to them. Nonetheless, stooping to the level of fascists in an effort to stop fascists seems to just bring us down to their level more than anything else. We just end up perpetuating the very wrong we are trying to oppose.

i mean comparing neo-cons to fascists in the 30's? do me a favour.
How about to communists then? Or to environmentalists? Or to radical Muslims? Everyone has the right to express their views publicly.
christ on a bicycle. this was fascists marching on a jewish area of london in 1936. what the fuck else were they trying to do if it wasnt 'violent supression of other folks'. place this in the context of the Kristallnacht in germany and the ongoing spanish civil war.You seem to be advocating prior restraint.

Actually, you might want to take your own advice. The position that I (and Neo Undelia) seem to hold is that fascists have the right to march.

You seem to be defending the moral quality of the decision of those folks on Cable Street to counter-march violently. The discussion has moved beyond the incident at Cable Street and into the realm of general political principles, so why is the morality of the counter-march so relevant? Aren't we discussing the right to march in general now?

If you want to know my opinion on the counter-march, here goes. It was incredibly brave, and considering how much I dislike fascism, I'm not exactly disappointed that the BUF got what was coming to them. Nonetheless, stooping to the level of fascists in an effort to stop fascists seems to just bring us down to their level more than anything else. We just end up perpetuating the very wrong we are trying to oppose.

and i believe in no free speech for fascists. why should we allow them abuse it when they have the explicit intention of taking it away from us? history has proven that every time we give them an inch they abuse the tolerence they get and take a mile.

such flippant, empty statements like 'fascists have the right to march' has backfired so often its not funny. the folks in cable street were ahead of their times. not an inch.

such flippant, empty statements like 'fascists have the right to march' has backfired so often its not funny. the folks in cable street were ahead of their times. not an inch.
Like I said, look into the history of Italy, Spain and Germany. You will see that speech was not protected there. That the governments did not just let the fascists speak, but let them get away with atrocities as well.
why should we allow them abuse it when they have the explicit intention of taking it away from us?
Because we are better then them.
and i believe in no free speech for fascists.
We're done here. I don't debate with fascists.

Like I said, look into the history of Italy, Spain and Germany. You will see that speech was not protected there. That the governments did not jusr let the fascists speak, but let them get away with atrocities as well..
thats a piss poor reply. what the hell does that mean? i know all this, hence we should do everything to stop them getting a foothold.


We're done here. I don't debate with fascists

there are numerous groups such as the anti-nazi league and anti fascist action that confront the extreme right wherever and whenever they appear. by your crap logic they are fascist anti-facist groups? 0/10 for brains there.

how many times have americans in particular crticised the policy of appeasement of Nazi's? whats the difference?

not an inch.

and i believe in no free speech for fascists. why should we allow them abuse it when they have the explicit intention of taking it away from us?

Precisely because we do not wish to become that which we despise.

history has proven that every time we give them an inch they abuse the tolerence they get and take a mile.

Has it now? In that case, I'm sure you'll have no problem providing examples of fascist takeovers in all the countries where they have been allowed to march.

such flippant, empty statements like 'fascists have the right to march' has backfired so often its not funny. the folks in cable street were ahead of their times. not an inch.

And advocating a policy of "do unto others before they do unto you" is such a substantial and reasonable position? I'd have to have considerably more explanation and justification on that before being convinced.

And advocating a policy of "do unto others before they do unto you" is such a substantial and reasonable position? I'd have to have considerably more explanation and justification on that before being convinced.

i can think of about 8m reasons why we should not give fascists the benefit of the doubt.

those who dont learn from history etc. :headbang:

there is a profoundly worrying amount of posters who are willing to defend the facists 'right' to march and intimidate.

you have obviously never had the dubiuos pleasure of actually having to deal with these animals.

i mean seriously, it was wrong to confront fascists in europe in 1937? get real!!

To not let us march would be censorship in itself. You would be becoming similar what you so clearly state you are against.

Remember, Not all Fascist are racists [Though I do agree that much of the BUF was at this point racist, even though it did not start out as such] and not all modern Fascists are violent. In america we do not attack our enemies because we do not wish to lower ourselves to the barbaric tactics of the Fascists and Nazis of the early 1900s...even if they did work.

the battle of cable street is rightfully remembered as a brave group of locals successfully fending off a fascist incursion into their area when the state failed to protect them. anyone who argues otherwise has an agenda to neuter people power.
The state WAS there and would have been prepared to protect them, except for the fact that the state was attacked alongside those fascists.

You could say that the locals were having a counter march near their homes and it was their right to protest to, the fascists could have easily gone and marched somewhere else.
You could also say that the Fascists had their march first since the locals were reacting to it.

The state WAS there and would have been prepared to protect them, except for the fact that the state was attacked alongside those fascists.



with respect, thats a profoundly incorrect analysis of why cable st happened. the state was there to force the march through. which was partially why the locals reacted with such fury, they felt betrayed by those who were supposed to be there to protect them.

Actually, you might want to take your own advice. The position that I (and Neo Undelia) seem to hold is that fascists have the right to march.Actually, specifically, the position that you hold is that fascists have the right to attempt to control the streets as a precursor to attempt to take power.

Don't take my word for it. Have it straight from the horse's mouth.

Only one thing could have stopped our movement – if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day had smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement.- Adolf Hitler

So, at least going by that quote you don't want to stop fascist movements taking power. Or, at the very least, you only think resistance to them is acceptable when they're already killing people. If that isn't the case, specifically when do you think resistance to fascism is permittable?
You seem to be defending the moral quality of the decision of those folks on Cable Street to counter-march violently. The discussion has moved beyond the incident at Cable Street and into the realm of general political principles, so why is the morality of the counter-march so relevant? Aren't we discussing the right to march in general now?Because marches don't exist in a vacuum. Not all marches are the same. Not all demonstrators have the same intentions. In the case of the fascists it isn't a simple demonstration. It's a deliberate tactic of trying to take control of the streets.

The electors of Millwall did not back a Post-Modernist Rightist party, but what they perceived to be a strong, disciplined organisation with the ability to back up its slogan 'Defend Rights for Whites' with well-directed boots and fists. When the crunch comes, power is the product of force and will, not rational debate.- Nick Griffin, British National Party

If you want to know my opinion on the counter-march, here goes. It was incredibly brave, and considering how much I dislike fascism, I'm not exactly disappointed that the BUF got what was coming to them. Nonetheless, stooping to the level of fascists in an effort to stop fascists seems to just bring us down to their level more than anything else. We just end up perpetuating the very wrong we are trying to oppose.Only if you believe that fascists are the personification of violence. In other words, if you believe that it is the violence that makes a fascist rather than the political position they hold. If that's the case, considering the large number of groups that have used violence throughout history, there's an awful lot of fascists about.

Actually, specifically, the position that you hold is that fascists have the right to attempt to control the streets as a precursor to attempt to take power.

Do allow the person taking the position to determine their position. Otherwise you're just putting up a straw man to whack away at.

Don't take my word for it. Have it straight from the horse's mouth.

Only one thing could have stopped our movement – if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day had smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement.- Adolf Hitler

You'll have to excuse me for not quite believing that ol' Adolf was correct on this, given his serious lack of, you know, sanity, reason, that sort of thing.

So, at least going by that quote you don't want to stop fascist movements taking power. Or, at the very least, you only think resistance to them is acceptable when they're already killing people. If that isn't the case, specifically when do you think resistance to fascism is permittable?

Let's get something straight, mate. Resistance to the proliferation of an ideology does not have to involve violence. Hell, resistance in general does not require violence. Just ask Ghandi.

That said, the moment fascists destroy property or assualt another citizen, I'm cool with squashing their asses, with violence.

Nonetheless, resistance to fascism can start, and should start, IMO, with education and the responsible use of those liberties we have. If folks are educated on the dangers of fascism, and they are being responsible with the liberties they have, then fascists don't have as much of an excuse to take power and "make things better" as they see it.

Because marches don't exist in a vacuum. Not all marches are the same. Not all demonstrators have the same intentions. In the case of the fascists it isn't a simple demonstration. It's a deliberate tactic of trying to take control of the streets.

Very true. It's an attempt to establish a presence in an area, get folks accustomed to them being there, which in the minds of the residents creates a certain psychological perception of fascist ownership. It's a subtle form of psychological warfare, and the appropriate response to psychological attacks is a psychological defense, not a physical attack.

The electors of Millwall did not back a Post-Modernist Rightist party, but what they perceived to be a strong, disciplined organisation with the ability to back up its slogan 'Defend Rights for Whites' with well-directed boots and fists. When the crunch comes, power is the product of force and will, not rational debate.- Nick Griffin, British National Party
Only if you believe that fascists are the personification of violence. In other words, if you believe that it is the violence that makes a fascist rather than the political position they hold. If that's the case, considering the large number of groups that have used violence throughout history, there's an awful lot of fascists about.

Actually, I don't consider that many groups are fascist, though I will allow that many of them have at times taken action similar to fascists. Being a fascist is a manifestation of a political ideology, just as being a liberal is a manifestation of a political ideology. Using violence to force that ideology is an action, not a state of being, and I am quite able to make the distinction between an action and a state of being, thank you.

Do allow the person taking the position to determine their position. Otherwise you're just putting up a straw man to whack away at.

Nope, it this case I'm not actually presenting a straw man. I'm arguing that is the objective result of the position you hold, not your aim. While you obviously disagree with that, it's quite different than arguing it's your goal. Which, I'd agree, would be a strawman, but I'm not saying that.

You'll have to excuse me for not quite believing that ol' Adolf was correct on this, given his serious lack of, you know, sanity, reason, that sort of thing.Lack of reason? What are you basing that on? I certainly think Hitler was psychotic, but within that, I think he was a master tactician.

Let's get something straight, mate. Resistance to the proliferation of an ideology does not have to involve violence. Hell, resistance in general does not require violence. Just ask Ghandi.Yes, however resistance to fascism does. Or at least it has done in every case we have to look at, so I think it's reasonable to draw conclusions from that. And, it is the case that Ghandi is an anomoly. Pretty much every social change has had at least an element of violence involved. Whether we're talking about the American War of Independence, the struggle for women to have the right to vote or the resistance to Hitler.

That said, the moment fascists destroy property or assualt another citizen, I'm cool with squashing their asses, with violence.If that's the case, why are you against that sometimes happening premptively? To use an analogy, if someone has constantly expressed their desire to cause me physical harm, if I see them walking towards me with a knife, is it really out of line for me to throw the first punch?

Nonetheless, resistance to fascism can start, and should start, IMO, with education and the responsible use of those liberties we have. If folks are educated on the dangers of fascism, and they are being responsible with the liberties they have, then fascists don't have as much of an excuse to take power and "make things better" as they see it.

Certainly. I'm only looking specifically at physical confrontation because that seems to be the main bone of contention in this thread at the moment. The ideological struggle is at least as important. In the UK, I'd say the current battleground is at least 80% ideological. Not so much education (the current leader of the BNP is a Cambridge graduate after all), but undercutting the fascist's support by actually being to put the work into economically deprived areas on issues such as housing, so the fascists don't get to be the only people who appear to be listening to the residents.

Very true. It's an attempt to establish a presence in an area, get folks accustomed to them being there, which in the minds of the residents creates a certain psychological perception of fascist ownership. It's a subtle form of psychological warfare, and the appropriate response to psychological attacks is a psychological defense, not a physical attack.Surely the specific defense needed in this case is to not allow them to control the streets of an area?

Part of my views are based on the fact I've actually worked with ex fascists, who've joined the other side, in the past. And invariably their view has been that when they were fascists, they only respected those opponents who could combat that attempted control, because they were the only ones who were actually damaging their prospects in an area.

Actually, I don't consider that many groups are fascist, though I will allow that many of them have at times taken action similar to fascists. Being a fascist is a manifestation of a political ideology, just as being a liberal is a manifestation of a political ideology. Using violence to force that ideology is an action, not a state of being, and I am quite able to make the distinction between an action and a state of being, thank you.Well, if that's the case, how is the use of violence stooping to their level? Surely the morality or otherwise of violence as a political tactic is an entirely seperate issue?

/Sense/

S R, you are arguing with a soundbite.

Some people are willing to side with fascists marching on jewish areas because on some vague mantra about free speech, despite the stated intent to smash up the place and try and impose themselves kristelnacht style.

americans are funny about their 'free speech' totem. even though its restricted more there than in europe.