75 years after the rise of Hitler to power....Against Racism, Against Fascism Rally

by Young Socialist - SY Mon Jan 21, 2008 15:04 socialistyouth at hotmail dot com 01-6772592

Here is a sticker being produced for the occasion.

Socialist Youth sticker

by tomeile Mon Jan 21, 2008 16:11

I hope your rally goes well , but the link you provided did not indicate why people should be worried about fascism at the moment. There has always been a lot of racism around ,but racism isn't the same as fascism and neither is homophobia or sexism .
If the Socialist Party believes that there is a current " threat of fascism in a number of countries" ,it should name those countries ,because there is a lot of confusion on the issue - HOPIeire ,for instance ,has often linked to articles saying that Iran is a fascist country.

by w. Mon Jan 21, 2008 22:03

Given that fascism is a specific reaction to working class militancy that arises throughout history, why do SY think holding an anti-fascist demonstration in Ireland at the moment given the low ebb in workers militancy and complete absence of any organised fascist groupings (thanks largely to the work of AFA and more recently Anarchist Youth) is worthwhile?

Is this just a meaningless populist protest?

by maximus Tue Jan 22, 2008 15:36 socialistyouth at hotmail dot com P.O. Box 3434 01 6772592

here's the poster for the event

in reply to w, far-right and fascist groups have managed to grow and pose a threat in the absence of a generalised rise in worker activity and militancy. Front National, Vlams Belang and the BNP have done just that, mainly in the context of former workers' parties and Social Democrats introducing neo-liberal counter-reforms thereby giving the far right an opportunity to opportunistically and cynically whip up anti-immigrant sentiments about a "them immigants" taking all the jobs etc etc. With the likelihood of a recession intensifying the race to the bottom and attacks on wages services and conditions, that can pose opportunities to the far right in what ever guise getting organised.

The Socialist Party and Socialist Youth have consistently and actively opposed the far right whenever they raised their head. along with anarchists we initiated Fascists Out! Campaign in the north http://www.indymedia.ie/article/66259 http://www.indymedia.ie/article/64287

In limerick SY along with others, removed posters and stickers by a far right racist group Movement to Save Ireland last year.

poster for the protest and meeting

by Daitihi Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:45

Not a bad turnout considering the weather, good turnout from the securitate as well -two dozen branch and uniforms - good to know our taxes are being so wisely spent.

by kbranno Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:24 kevinbrannigan at hotmail dot com

A big thanks to John H from Connolly Youth, for turning the rally into a farce with another controversial flag from his large collection of anything left goes memorabilia. This time we were treated to the flag of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
While I recognise the contribution made by Tito and the rest of Yugoslavia in the fight against fascism during World War Two, why John felt it necessary to bring this flag along last night is beyond me as it was infact quite embarrassing and also left passers by wondering what indeed the 30 or so people in the middle of O'Connell Street were protesting about.
I don’t want to have a go at Connolly Youth as they do quite a good deal of hard work on a lot of issues but maybe next time leave the flags, that have come to symbolise a regime which in its dying years practiced genocide, at home.

by Daithi Thu Jan 31, 2008 15:11

And I would like to congragulate the comrade for the inspiring sight of the flag of Yugoslavia - do not compare the post 1991nationalist bastardation to the multi-ethnic anti fascist state which was the only country in Europe which liberated itself from the fascists.

by Johnny - CYM (Personal Capacity) Sun Feb 03, 2008 18:16

Firstly Kevin Brannigan, who are you? As far as I know, I've never met you or talked to you. Also if you hated my flag so much, why didn't you come over to me at the demo and say something rather than making noise here like a drama queen? Very strange behavior altogether. I don't appreciate you posting my full name here either, not cool bro.

"A big thanks to John H from Connolly Youth, for turning the rally into a farce with another controversial flag from his large collection of anything left goes memorabilia." One flag turned the demo into a farce? And I have a large collection of memorabilia? As far as I know, I just have that Yugoslav flag, a soviet one and a Lebanese one I painted myself. Please point me in the direction of my memorabilia collection and I shall go have a look. Idiot.

"why John felt it necessary to bring this flag along last night is beyond me"
I brought this flag along in honour of Tito and his anti fascist partisans who were the only resistance group in Europe to liberate their own country. Tito also fought in the Spanish civil war against the fash and the Yugoslav Socialist Republic stood for workers unity between its different demographic populations of Slovenes, Croats, Serbs and Macedonians while Tito was in power. Thats why I brought it and I would again, sorry if that upsets your liberal sensibilities.

"It left passers by wondering what indeed the 30 or so people in the middle of O'Connell Street were protesting about."
Really did it? Perhaps the big "nazis out" banner or all the placards against fascism might have given them a clue.

I have no idea why you posted the above comment other than to stir up trouble and if you wanted that then you have succeeded.

by Bar Mitzvah - LAD Mon Feb 04, 2008 18:30

I saw you speaking to Kevin briefly at the demo. And you were questioned about the flag. The yugoslav flag was indeed a sad sight. Hardly inspiring, definitely not necessary. Why bring it?

by gareth - cym Mon Feb 04, 2008 19:16

i rarely bother commenting on this site as i have more important things to do and dont like wasting time entertaining this nonsense but with such a deliberate attack upon a comrade i will take the required few moments

flying an international flag symbolic of anti-fascist resistance is absolutely relevant and necessary at anti-fa demos and especially as the soc youth banners specified nazism as the point of attack as well as fascism in general. john did not bring the international character to it, it was already there

also given the many new communities of peoples settling here only using irish known propaganda defeats the purpose of propaganda as you are limiting greatly your audiences ability to understand your message

whether you Kevin like it or not the Yugoslav flag would in fact be recognisable to many non-Irish passing that day and would send a clear anti-fascist message, surely the whole purpose of the demo!

thank you daithi for your above comments

gareth

by Cogsy (M-L) Mon Feb 04, 2008 19:37

Though criticisms are welcomed (usually) in the united front, its unfortunate infantiles like Branno and Bar Mitzvah caricature John as a rabid Serb nationalist, paradoxically echoing the slurs of right-wing and liberal opponents of the multi-ethnic workers' state in Yugolsavia. There was lots of comradely discussion and debate between various left traditions (LY were conspicious by their absence) on the night and its unfortunate none of you were confident enough to raise them directly with John as I did.

by Bar Mitzvah Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:33

Cogsy, I'll raise them with you personally the next time I see you and John was asked about it. He's lying if he says he wasn't. Bringing a Yugoslav flag was infantile childish posturing and defending him is like defending the chinese regime because it was economically progressive in the past.

by pat c Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:47

Perhaps Johnny could have made things clearer by bringing along a placard containing both the Yugoslav flag and some text to get his point across. But its now obvious to all concerned that the flag was there to commemorate a country that freed itself from Fascism. I have differences with the CYM/CP but the above sort of attack is not the way to discuss those differences.

by Bar Mitzvah Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:56

My problem is not what John and the rest of us know he meant but with what the casual passer by would associate the flag with. It would be confusing to some and would discredit the message in the minds of others so it is not "infantile" to raise this objection.

by w. Thu Feb 07, 2008 12:37

The flag was a bad idea. Bitching about it on indymedia is a bad idea too.

There seem to be a lot of young people around these days who are quite happy to support any old bizarre state-capitalist regime that collapsed before they even knew it existed. I imagine its only a matter of time before people are flying North Korean flags, although perhaps that regime doesnt have the same retro-cool aesthetic.

Top-man is doing a full line in 'eastern bloc' fashion this spring guys, perhaps you can appease the dictator inside by going there instead.

by John Bull Thu Feb 07, 2008 18:51

They took a pretty hard line on the nazi's when they got going- just like the Authoritarian communists - who it also took a while to move don't forget the red brown pact until 194.1

by Caobhin Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:19

I bringing a union jack the next time

And I will look forward to you sight of you explaining to "the "casual passerby" about whom there was so much concern about expressed here already, the reasons why you are "bringing" the butchers apron to O'Connell st .

And don't forget the Brit/Nazi pact of 1938, the butchers apron and the swastika "got it together" long before the reds.

by w. Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:32

We could start carrying the american and israeli flags on demos too like the german ultra-left anti-deutsche do on their antifascist demos?

After all, they're really really antifascist. Nothings more anti-fascist than a nuclear bomb like.

by Sceptic Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:43

"don't forget the Brit/Nazi pact of 1938"

The Munich Agreement of 1938 was a desperate attempt to head of the threat of a world war later broken by the German side. It was in no way an alliance of common interest between Britain and Nazi Germany. Across the political spectrum in Britain there was fierce antagonism to the Nazis since their appearance. The British had their failings but they were never sympathetic to fascists even if they tried unsuccessfully to appease them.

by Caobhin Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:39

So the brit-sponsored fascist carve-up of Czechoslovakia was okay because it was done with the best of British decency? And of course I'm sure the Czechs didn't mind because that it was "no way an alliance of common interest" . No doubt the Spanish popular government similarly did not mind the Brit royal navy support given to the fascists.

Any brit opposition to fascism was purely based on rivalry between fellow gangsters -look at Churchills record against Welsh miners.

All very noble especially when you consider that the brits wee simultaneously carrying the "white mans burden" with their glorious empire.

by Sceptic Fri Feb 08, 2008 16:53

It was not a carve up - there was nothing in it for Britain. It was a desperate attempt to avert world war and world opinion would have been behind any attempt to preserve the peace at that time. War could not have been averted without some loss of principle. The villain of the peace was Hitler not Chamberlain. The policy may have been misguided but arguably it was worth a try. After all the stakes could not have been higher and Germany had been treated harshly in the peace of 1919. This was recognized on both sides. As for the White Man's Burden quoting Kipling does not constitute an argument. Churchill was not a fascist - he was voted out soon after the war for one thing. Taking a firm stand against strikers does not make one a fascist. Trade Unions can be bullies too - some were in the 1970s and 1980s in Britain. The episode with the Welsh miners in the 1930s was murky - some of the criticism of Churchill was unfair. Notably it did not stop Nye Bevan serving under Churchill in Government. He may have had his disagreements with him but he was a big minded enough man to see Churchill was the right man to lead the nation during the war.

by Caobhin Fri Feb 08, 2008 18:12

So the brit sponsored nazi carve-up of Czechoslovakia - is to you merely a question of "loss of some principle". From what dank room in the Imperial Office are you writing from? And where do you get the effrontery to characterise my criticism of the brit/nazi pact and it's filthy empire of atrocity as "small minded anglophobia".

by Sceptic Fri Feb 08, 2008 18:58

Munich was nothing to do with imperialism and there seems to be no lack of effrontery on this site, including from your good self, so there is no need get up on your high horse about it. Besides it should be obvious to all but the most small minded that Churchill’s role in history cannot be dismissed in one or two lines of vitriol from an Irish republican. That is small minded.

It seems to me you are digging yourself into a hole with your efforts to associate Britain with the Nazis.

Counterfactually if Munich had succeeded would it have been worth it? All Munich agreed to was the ceding of the Sudentanland not the whole of Czechoslovakia and there was some validity if not a lot in the German claims there and in western Poland. Both Poland and Czechoslovakia had been created not long before in the post war settlement. It’s easy to denounce and cast stones on the British with the benefit of hindsight. It was different then when it may have succeeded and when the people alive then would have had to bear the great cost of war. Also it’s somewhat contradictory for you to be both so stridently anti-Churchill and also anti-Munich since Churchill was the leading critic of Munich at the time.

There was no Security Council then – it was up to the powers to make realpolitic arrangements to avert war. Britain was not alone at Munich – France and Italy were party to the agreement too. An advantage of the exercise was that if it broke down thee would be no doubt about who was the guilty party. And the people in the democracies would have fought more whole heartedly when they saw that every possible effort had been made to avert war and that faith was broken by the other side.

50 million lives were lost in the war. Arguably the Sudentanland would have been a reasonable price to pay to avert that carnage even if it did mean yielding to a bully. That was the calculation made at the time. You have no right to be so disparaging now.

by john bull Sat Feb 09, 2008 08:38

My point was a perhaps over the top point to illustrate the iodiocy of presenting the soviet bloc as the great anti facsists. Of course the Britsh capitalism comprimised with fascism until the Nazi regime started to threaten the empire and old blighty. This comprimising damages their crditenials. In a very different way the Soviets image is also very questionable. They were happy to comprise with German fascism to preserve the Soviet order of power.

I'd image Poles would't see the Soviets as great opposers of Fascism. Firsly they split the country with the Nazi's and then subsequently stopped their advance on Warsaw in 1944 allowing the German army destroy the Polish resistence whilst the Wehrmacht itself was weakened. They then occupied a city where the concept of any opposition had been destroyed by the german masacring of the uprising

by kbranno Mon Feb 11, 2008 00:42

Firstly I'd like to apologise to John for some of the content of my post, bitchy little attacks are not what Indymedia is here for, I do though stand by the overall context of the post as regards me questioning the reasoning behind bringing along a Yugoslav flag to the rally.

On the night you said it was less controversial than a hammer and sickle or DDR flag, hence my "anything left goes" comment.

I did, in my post, recognise the roll of Tito and Yugoslavia in the fight against fascism but why bring along a flag which also flew over Milosevic's head to a rally, possibly not the most welcoming sight for comrades from some of the Former Yugoslavia who might have felt like joining in.

I also felt to the "casual passer by", who some posters have shown a lot of disdain towards for some reason, that waving a random Yugoslav flag would have made them loose all perspective on what the rally was about, which I would have thought as with all rally's that was the main objective.I'd also echo W's views, as he made the point I was trying to make clearer and with out resorting to a personal attack.

Anyways I realise my comment was over the top and I apologise to John for that. I'll talk to you (again) at another next rally or march.

by Robert - Irish republican Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:52

Oh come off it lads and lassies

Im a libertarian socialist who attended the demonstration and I didnt see a huge deal in the flag being present. It actually added more life to the demo.

This reminds me of someones wedding day. People want everything to be "perfect", and get overly conscious about how such and such looks - despite, the reality, which is that it dosnt change things greatly, or the perceptions of people walking by.

Its an antifascist symbol - thats it! simle as. Most passers by wouldnt even know what country its from, never mind the ins and outs of its history.

It was colourful. It had a red star on it. It was eye catching - Great.

People are such nit pickers, and the way the CYM guy was mentioned on here is just horrible. Why was it brought up over the internet? - why not say it to his face instead of making a mockery of his contribution and effort on front of god knows how many viewers.

people would want to cop on, stop being so "conscious" of what passers by might think, and focus on embracing the contributions made by fellow comrades in the same struggle.

by Tim Pat Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:28

An Irish Republican Liberterian Socialist, thats a new one.

by Nikita - CYM (Per Cap) Mon Feb 11, 2008 14:00

So all credit to them for taking them. Just thought I'd post them across..

by Robert - Provo Nationalist Anarchist Tue Feb 12, 2008 00:19

""An Irish Republican Liberterian Socialist, thats a new one""

And whats your point? - can one not be opposed to authoritarian or hierarchial styles of political organization and yet still see the arbitrarily constructed sectarian statelet called Northern Ireland as a barrier to creating socialism?

Infact, the Irish socialist network has libertarian Marxist politics while most? of its members would call themselves republican socialists. Any contradictions are in your own head im afraid.

I took those photo's Nikita.

by Caobhin Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:13

Wishful thinking that I am digging a hole for myself - I am not the one contorting-logic retrospectively seeking to justify the betrayal of Czechoslovakia. And I know , “All Munich agreed to was the ceding of the Sudentenland not the whole of Czechoslovakia” (even this sentence is dripping with apologia) but what happened in March 1939 and what was the Brit reaction? (Answer: Nazi occupation of rump Czechoslovakia and nothing). Face it - the British collaborated with fascism right up until 1939.

I only mentioned your beloved Churchill once and am not trying to dismiss his role from history or stridently anti-the old tory–stop making things up. But seeing as you keep bringing him up - I could mention the fact that as well as being an opponent of Hitler, the man was an avowed imperialist, anti-worker and admirer of Mussolini’s fascism.

Britain was not alone at Munich – France and Italy were party to the agreement too. An advantage of the exercise was that if it broke down thee would be no doubt about who was the guilty party. And the people in the democracies would have fought more whole heartedly when they saw that every possible effort had been made to avert war and that faith was broken by the other side.
This is a bit dubious to say the least, when did the brits ever worry about breaking faith when attacking an opponent? I suppose you think the british empire was a jolly amicable affair, all settled over tea and cucumber sandwiches. For your information, people in democracies were fully aware of the threat of fascism long before their blinkered rulers – thousands repudiated the british governments support for Franco by joining the International Brigades and it was the people of London who stopped Mosleys blackshirts and their police allies.

50 million lives were lost in the war. Arguably the Sudentanland would have been a reasonable price to pay to avert that carnage even if it did mean yielding to a bully. That was the calculation made at the time.

You could justify the Nazi-Soviet pact similarly –though the Soviets are usually condemned for pulling that stroke although the “democracies” had already led the way.

You have no right to be so disparaging now.

And you do not have the right to retrospectively seek to justify and whitewash British/Nazi collaboration because it does not suit your cosy view of Britannia.

And as it was the Socviet bloc who had 80-90% of allAllied losses in WW2 and faced 80% of Nazi strength do it is not "idioitc"(sic) to present the USSR as the "great anti facsists"(sic). Hope to see more Soviet/Jugoslav flags at anti-fascist rallies.

by Sceptic Tue Feb 12, 2008 15:11

Munich was a four power agreement entered into in good faith by the western powers. When it was broken in 1939 it was not possible or feasible to go to war to protect the rest of Czechoslovakia – one has to be practical and realistic about things. . Bohemia and Silesia are on the eastern side of Germany not the western for one thing. The right response was arms build up to prepare for war which is what happened. You persist in describing the agreement as collaboration – it was not. It is possible to negotiate and agree even with a rogue regime without collaborating with it. That is to misunderstand the nature of diplomacy. Also there is no comparison of the Munich Agreement with the Nazi Soviet Pact which was a collaboration in the carve up of Eastern Europe and which was to be achieved by war. That Pact could only be implemented by war whereas Munich was to avert war and war duly happened within weeks as first the Germans then the Soviets invaded Poland. Moreover Munich was an open agreement whereas the Nazi Soviet Pact had the famous secret protocol on “spheres of influence”.

On Churchill “the man was an avowed imperialist, anti-worker and admirer of Mussolini’s fascism.”. I am not a defender of imperialism but historically it only becomes a term of abuse word around 1950 and one has to recognize and respect that. Churchill was a 19th century style grand imperialist but he was of his time and there were plenty of defenders back then of the notion of enlightened empire in Victorian times as a promoter of evangelisation, commerce, development of the colonies as well as the enlargement of the national interest. Basically the European powers which were able to got empires for themselves. Had Ireland been a European power then presumably it would have too. It was the thing to do at the time. It was how well one behaved as an imperialist and your standards of governance that mattered more than the principle and this is where the “benefits” of imperialist can accrue to the former colonies or not as the case might be. I don’t defend the British Empire but there were some things to be said in its favour not least the political, linguistic, legal and administrative inheritance it left behind in its former colonies as well as railway, ports and the like. The British were not the worst imperialist of the time – the Japanese were followed by the Belgians.

Just because Churchill did not see the world in the same terms as Tawney or Kier Hardy did not mean he was “anti worker” and it was quite common to admire some aspects of Italian fascism in the 1920s before they got the war habit. It was new, it was effective, it was idealistic, it was non-communist, it instilled national pride and purpose, it motivated people and it ended the ongoing stalemate and paralysis of Italian politics .It was not anything like as bloody or sinister an affair as the German variant later became. Don’t forget it was popular success that drove fascism in Italy and Germany – it was not imposed from above. Enough people wanted it wanted it and were prepared to try it to enable it to get a grip. Moreover don’t forget that many foreigners volunteered to fight for Franco as well as against him. Like imperialism, it was only later that fascism got a very bad name for itself. It is only realistic and just to allow for this when judging historical figures in our own time and above all in our own terms.

by Tickell Wed Feb 13, 2008 01:58

...after all communist regimes have killed and tortured far more people than fascist regimes so why not have an "against communism" rally?.

by Bar Mitzvah - Magical Mystery Tours Wed Feb 13, 2008 09:16

Why don't you organise one and see how many people turn up?