******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
Louis is right about the focus in the 1939 article being about the battle with the cops over whether a counterdemonstration was to be allowed, not whether to "deny fascists free speech." See also: https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/swp-us/education/antifascism/weiss.htm Note the emphasis on seeking union involvement. Note also the careful demarcation of the Smith movement from the Bund (the openly Nazi group which was being protested at MSG). On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:23 PM, DW via Marxism < [email protected]> wrote: > ******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. > ***************************************************************** > > The article concludes with: "Meanwhile, the answer to the bigger > question—How to fight Fascism?—was given in thunderous tones by the > magnificent demonstration which reached its highest note on the cry: > Workers Defense Guards to crush the fascist danger!". That is pretty clear. > I've talked, as I'm sure Louis has, with old timers who were there. The > idea was not just to "protest" but *drive them out of NYC*. And they were > prepared to do that, to make what happened last week in Chicago look pale > by comparison. > > I've had some fruitful discussions with some current supporters of the SWP > over this issue (not Chicago, but over 'free speech for Fascists'). The > line you and I, Louis, were educated in was best exemplified by the Malik > Miah document from 1975 that Andy P. posted earlier yesterday. In fact > there is a *Socialist Appeal* article that directly takes on the issue of > free speech for Fascists and attack the concept of it in the opposite > direction Malik supposes in his document. The entire demeanor of the SWP > from the early 30s onward was to drive Fascist groups out of any city the > party had a branch in, and by any means necessary. Those 'means' included > everything but *always*, and here Malik is correct: though united front > *mass* actions when ever possible. > > Until 1950, you never saw anyone express concern of the "right" of Fascists > to hold meetings. This was raised beginning in 1950 by Dobbs who, under > vastly different conditions, addressed, in a somewhat revisionist way, this > issue of denying the Fascists a right to platform. Subsequently Cannon > wrote a letter in 1960 with a huge emphasis on defending the Bill of Rights > against those that would deny that right to Fascists. This perspective more > or less represented the times of defending the Party against bans and other > far-right activity directly assaulting the Party's right to exist. > > The "revisionism" I noted about Dobb's 1950 position (and reflected in all > the Education for Socialists bulletins) reflected being a socialist party > under McCarthyism and it legislative equivalents from the Taft-Hartly Act > to the McCarren Anti-Communist Act. The SWP's actual *policy on the ground > appeared*, across the board prior for this period, was the use of > "defensive formulations" but with the clear intent of smashing the Fascists > when ever and where ever possible. > > > David Walters > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: > http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/acpollack2%40gmail.com > _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
