anti-capitalist | Wessex Solidarity

A song for John Hardy Day.

On 25^th November we celebrate Class Warrior John Hardy, killed in action on that day in 1830 near his home in Tisbury, Wiltshire. Four hundred quarrymen and labourers confronted the landowner and local M.P. John Bennett to demand two shillings per day. Bennett was knocked unconscious and his threshing machines broken.

The starving workers were attacked by the infamous Yeoman Cavalry, a petty bourgeois militia modelled on such as the Carolina slave patrols, French Gendarmerie and the Dublin Constabulary, the ancestors of modern law enforcement. Fighting with a crowbar and an axe, Hardy put up ferocious resistance, slaying two cavalrymen and unhorsing another, as he took aim with a captured musket he was shot dead.

Come and see Spanner with other rebel musicians at the Boscombe Underground on 17th January, a benefit for Dorset Radical Bookfair.

November 25, 2025
Categories: Bristol, Captain Swing, Wiltshire . Tags: anti-capitalist, Class War, History, Spanner, workers . Author: wessexsolidarity . Comments: Leave a comment

Digital ID – The New Chains of Capitalist Surveillance

Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement

The world is entering an era where identity is no longer a matter of personal relationships, lived experience, or even paperwork. Increasingly, it is reduced to biometric scans, algorithmic verification, and digital tokens. Across the globe, governments and corporations are rolling out digital identification systems, facial recognition passports, biometric driver’s licences, app-based vaccine passes, QR-coded welfare access, and unified digital wallets. The language that accompanies these projects is familiar – efficiency, convenience, modernisation, inclusion. We are told that digital ID will make life easier, reduce fraud, and open new opportunities.

The reality, however, is far more sinister. Identification has never been neutral,

View Post

October 9, 2025
Categories: Anarchist, Aotearoa (NZ), Articles . Tags: anti-capitalist, Benefits, claimants, Class War, Freedom, International, Legal, workers . Author: wessexsolidarity . Comments: Leave a comment

Make November International Terrorism Month. By Jesus Abu Bakr Al-Sideeq Ó Flaithbheartaigh.

Let’s face it, November is a bloody boring month, sandwiched between the Holy Month of Halloween and the weird rituals that accompany the latter-day midwinter feast; bonfire night ain’t what it was.

On 25^th November we celebrate Class warrior John Hardy, killed in action on that day in 1830 near his home in Tisbury, Wiltshire. Four hundred quarrymen and labourers confronted the landowner and local M.P. John Bennett to demand two shillings per day. Bennett was knocked unconscious and his threshing machines broken. The starving workers were attacked by the infamous Yeoman Cavalry, a petty bourgeois militia modelled on such as the Carolina slave patrols, French Gendarmerie and the Dublin Constabulary, the ancestors of modern law enforcement. Fighting with a crowbar and an axe, Hardy put up ferocious resistance, slaying two cavalrymen and unhorsing another, as he took aim with a captured musket he was shot dead.

What is terrorism? It’s how states govern, instilling fear of starvation, exclusion, incarceration, violence and death at the hands of their hired thugs. The world over, governments of venal charlatans accuse journalists, musicians, artists, writers and peaceful campaigners – even medics, of terrorism, whilst butchering non-combatants with impunity.

So this November, let’s celebrate all those who fearlessly, recklessly or fecklessly took up arms against overwhelming force, in the name of personal autonomy and conscience. Now we know none of these are spotless, they are only flesh and blood, so pick your favourites and we won’t judge.

You might like: John Brown, Dedan Kimathi, Wat Tyler, Ravachole, Laureano Cerrado Santos, Abdullah Ocalan, Kaneko Fumiko, Bobby Sands, Leila Khaled, Francesc Sabate LLopart, Nat Turner, Warren James, Emilliano Zapata, Alexander Berkman, Spartacus, Alfredo Bonanno, Constance Markievicz, Manuel Lecha, Peter the Painter, John Barker, Luigi Galleani, Georg Elser, Clara and Pavel Thalmann, Mikhail Bakunin, James Connolly, Marusya Nikiforova, Stuart Christie, Fanya Kaplan, Satoshi Kirishima, Cato, Nelson Mandela, Wolfe Tone, Anna Campbell, Buenaventura Durruti, the Ascasos, Karari Njama, Jim Larkin, Bhagwati Charan Vohra, Ulrike Meinhof, Joe Slovo, Jack White, Toussaint L’Ouverture, General Ludd and Captain Swing, the Arditi del Populo, the Makhnovtchina, the Communards, the Chartists, the Bonnot Gang, the People’s Will, the Zapatistas, Conspiracy of the Cells of Fire.

And don’t forget those who were tarred with the terrorist brush by spiteful and clueless regimes: Francisco Ferrer, Fred Hampton, Big Bill Heywood, Iris Mills, Angela Davis, Andreu Nin, Emma Goldman, Altheia Jones-LeCointe, the Reavey and O’Dowd families, Frank Little, Flores Magón, Ethel MacDonald, Steve Biko, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, Winston Silcott, Kneecap, Darcus Howe, Anas al-Sharif, Jean-Charles de Menezes, Martyrs – Haymarket and Tolpuddle, the sailors of the Baltic Fleet at Kronstadt, Bradford, Guildford and Birmingham numbers, the Enugu Colliers, the proprietors and patrons of McGurk’s bar.

How to celebrate? Well that’s up to you, but if you’ve never heard of these people you could start by doing a little research, then you can judge their actions by your own standards. And if you’ve ever been accused of terrorism, take courage, it’s nothing to be ashamed of.

September 1, 2025
Categories: African, Anarchist, Captain Swing, Catalunya, Chicago, Derry, Feminist, France, Germany, Greece, Haiti, Kenya, Kurdish liberation struggle, Lewes, London, Luddites, Mexico, South Africa, U.S.A., Ukraine, Wiltshire . Tags: All fucking wankers, Anti fascist, anti-capitalist, Class War, Freedom, International, IWW, Legal . Author: wessexsolidarity . Comments: Leave a comment

Thickies, toffs and TERFs. (A considered response to the ill-considered Supreme Court judgement). By Mal Content.

It’s taken me a while to get around to reading this because I found the media reaction to it profoundly depressing, but I will attack it on its merits, its philosophical weakness and lack of intellectual rigour.

The TERFs are crowing, with backing vox from a spectrum of authoritarian reactionaries: Tories, god-botherers, Bolsheviks and fascists. Media and politicians breathe a sigh of relief, “a victory for common sense”, insofar as they no longer need think before they open their mouths. Anecdotally we hear of trans workers having their rights curtailed at work. Toilets are allegedly being policed (how?) The government has issued guidance, but there has never been such a thing as a single-sex toilet anyway, regardless of the silly symbols they put on the door. Motorway service stations advertise that their cleaners can be male or female, the same applies in factories.

So has the world changed? No, it hasn’t; the judgement of the Supreme Court on appeal from For Women Scotland Ltd – hereinafter referred to as the TERFs – v The Scottish Ministers, is extremely narrow. It deals with the intended meanings of words as used by parliamentarians, (not renowned for their intelligence or integrity) when they enacted the Equalities Act in 2010, and the legislative competence of the Scottish government under devolution – that’s it.

Who are the Supreme Court? The upper echelon of the judiciary, drawn from a narrow and rarefied stratum of society – toffs, in other words. Until August 2009 it was the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, an arcane and archaic institution. The second largest legislative chamber outside the People’s Republic of China, and the only one with reserved seats for the clergy, apart from the Guardian Council of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its membership peaked at 1330 in 1999, despite the fact you can only get 400 toffs in there at a time, and its largest ever vote was 631.

In the interests of separation of powers between Parliament and the courts, the Justices were moved out of the House of Lords into another building. Only two years later, a Working Class insurrection burst onto the streets of Britain, the politicians panicked, and judges slavishly served the executive by incarcerating poor people for gathering bottled water, babies’ nappies and sanitary wear off the pavement.

From its own website: “By moving to the historic setting of the former Middlesex Guildhall, the Supreme Court took its place in the cluster of official state buildings that surround the edges of Parliament Square; the Houses of Parliament, Westminster Abbey and the Treasury.” So I think we all know what we’re dealing with. The function of the judiciary is to maintain the state’s monopoly on violence, enabling it to guarantee property and enforce debt, in the interest of the prevailing mode of production.

The judgement rests on the inherent inadequacy in legislation. It’s incredibly self-referential, as would be expected from the court of final appeal. Their lordships quote each other obsessively. It draws on semantics interpreted from earlier laws, in particular the Equal pay Act of 1970*, the Sex discrimination Act 1975, and the Gender Recognition Act 2004, all examples of the ruling class scrambling to catch up with real life. It shows up how badly drafted the GRA and EA actually were, the EPA and SDA belonging to a different era. As I get older, I see language used in government documents of a standard that would have earned me a thick ear when I was at school. Case law then, in this and all examples, is the pronouncements of thickies, interpreted by toffs.

* Equal pay for men and women has yet to be achieved after fifty-five years, and those who care for children and other dependents are disadvantaged throughout life.

The toffs are keen that legislation shall be framed in words easily understood by the proles, the better to abide by the law, “Citizens, with the assistance of their advisers, are intended to be able to understand parliamentary enactments, so that they can regulate their conduct accordingly.” Elsewhere it states that words shall have their “ordinary meaning”. Does that imply they must pander to popular misapprehensions? It forces me, against my will, to delve once again into etymology.

Life has changed since 2010, let alone 1970. My own views on sex and gender have been greatly overhauled and refined since the unseemly fracas at the 2017 London Anarchist Bookfair. Some old friends have transitioned, and to my astonishment, a couple of geezers I’ve known for years confided that they had been assigned female at birth. If these chaps ever set foot in a ‘ladies toilet’ they are going to scare the taxpayers! So I did a bit of research, reading scientific journals and papers rather than polemics.

The world I grew up in had more in common with the First World War than the present day. Look at a crowd scene from the mid-20^th century; you will see only two kinds of people, and subject to class, most likely you will only see two kinds of hat. That period was devoted to the industrialised slaughter of nameless, faceless humanity in the name of ideology. Individual identity was not respected, or even recognised. If we are really going back to that, it’s not only the trans community who will regret it.

In 1970 it was legal to exclude British subjects of the global majority from premises on the grounds of their skin pigmentation. The Offences Against the Person Act dates from 1861, a time when many parliamentarians believed in creation, race as an objective category, and the literal existence of heaven and hell. In its original draft it outlawed “buggery” and abortion. The government are only now looking at the Vagrancy Act of 1824, a component of the Great Expropriation.

Can the understandings of parliamentarians be relied upon? In modern times we had a Prime Minister who was a practicing Hindu, presumably believing in one of those beings that has three arms off each shoulder joint (draw the linkage for me please) politicians who think virgins can give birth, and that a dead hippy came back to life and lives in the sky, drawing on the cosmology of the iron age. If you could make wine out of water we’d all be doing it – common sense, my arsehole! I’m quite comfy with these folk living according to their belief systems, but don’t go lecturing me on biology, or engineering.

Apart from trans people, the other category I feel sorry for are biologists, who must be heartily sick of their studies being misrepresented by slack-witted humanities graduates. The “ordinary meaning” of biological terms I would expect to be defined by biologists. The Supreme Court adopted a few novel definitions of the adjective “biological”, all borrowed from TERF culture. Let’s see what the dictionaries have to say:

The Cambridge dictionary offers this:

“Biological (adjective) connected with the natural processes of living things”

Collins:

“Biological (adjective) is used to describe processes and states that occur in the bodies and cells of living things.”

And, “Biological (adjective) is used to describe activities concerned with the study of living things.”

The O.E.D. wanted me to pay so they can get stuffed.

The Britannica Dictionary:

“1: of or relating to biology or to life and living things”

“2: related through birth — used to distinguish the parents who gave birth to a child from the parents who later adopted the child

The online Biology Dictionary says:

“Biology is the study of living things.”

But offers no definition of “biological”

The judges coin the term “biological sex”, and define it as a category assigned at birth, which must be based entirely on observation of the external genitalia. From this they extrapolate that gendered words can have a “biological meaning” which is poppycock. Our learned friends’ confusion may arise from the commonly accepted term “biological parents”, meaning the suppliers of gametes that cause conception. This is entirely logical*, since “biological sex” is universally understood to be the process by which two gametes form a zygote and it develops into a new individual. That’s all it’s ever meant, to me anyway.

* Mind you, where the foetus is carried by a third party, having undergone the inarguably biological processes of implantation, gestation and delivery, if they laid claim to this term, I’d say they had a point.

I don’t want to keep repeating myself, so if you are interested and would like to read some actual biology, I’ll put some links at the end to the work of proper scientists. Plus you can read anything I’ve ever written on this blog. You’ll find that biology recognises reproductive physiology, chromosomal sex, genetic expression of sex chromosomes, and the social and psychological constructions of gender. None of these are binary, rather a continuum. So I will say, once and for all, that the phrases “biological sex”, “biological male/female”, “biological man/woman” and the idiotic “biological meaning” are in this context utterly meaningless. Therefore I contend that the basis for this Supreme Court Judgement is entirely bogus. If these fools worked for me I’d sack them – oh, wait…

The judges conclude that sex and gender are used interchangeably in law, without any analysis of the etymology of those terms. Until recently, gender was a grammatical term, applying to languages in which words were deemed male or female, for linguistic rather than ‘biological’ reasons. In industry, pipe fittings and connectors, electrical, pneumatic and hydraulic were categorised by gender, possibly because it sounded more polite than sex. But gender is complicated; a ‘male’ D connector is the one with turned pins in it rather than sockets, so the female one enters the housing of the male. I doubt a judge would know that.

The gender binary is highly Eurocentric, as many cultures do not recognise it. The World Health Organisation has this to say:

“Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.”

Gender acquired its modern connotations thanks to mad scientist John Money, who believed babies with ambiguous genitalia could be assigned a gender surgically applied, then conditioned to live in it. He caused so much misery. Controversy rages amongst academics over whether expressions of gender are the cause, or the result of internal gender identity. Leave them to it I’d say, it’s whatever works for you.

Those who regard sex as an immutable characteristic all hang it on the possession of a penis, or a vagina, the two being mutually exclusive. I suppose they’ve never been to Frankfurt or Amsterdam, never mind. These are precisely the characteristics that can be surgically altered, which only leaves the moment of birth for their essentialism to cling to. Although an important milestone in the development of an individual, it has no more scientific significance than meiosis, mitosis, puberty, maturity, senility or death. Birth is habitually fetishised by nationalists and god-botherers, who like to claim anyone who pops out on their manor. I don’t know when the easily understood “sex-change operation” became “gender reassignment surgery” but this has done a great deal to muddy the water.

There are no points in life for being thick, even for Lord Snooty and his pals; nevertheless, they have uncovered a serious flaw in these laws and the way they interact. Firstly, equalities legislation is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act, so that the Scots parliament is not allowed to deviate from interpretations of these laws set in Westminster. There are two Protected Characteristics at issue here, sex and gender reassignment. Most of the sex provisions relate to women, and mainly deal with gynaecology and reproduction, maternity etc.

Because prior legislation treats sex as binary, it cannot be otherwise, regardless of empirical data. Gender reassignment is defined thus:

“(1) A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

The controversy arose when the Scottish Parliament set positive quotas for the appointment of women to certain public bodies. A transwoman would count towards these quotas:

“if, and only if, the person is living as a woman and is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of becoming female.”

The TERFs appealed to the Scottish courts who decided that the Scottish Parliament had exceeded its authority. It was deemed to have changed the statutory definition of the protected characteristic “woman” which is a reserved matter (to Westminster). I covered the historical etymology of “woman” in an earlier blog post. I note the Scottish Ministers used the phrase “biological sex” in a letter to the TERFs solicitors so they must take some responsibility for this bilge.

In response the Ministers rowed back, on advice of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), they asserted that a person who had been issued with a full GRC such that her acquired gender was female, had changed sex so that her appointment would count towards the quota. Having painted themselves, and possibly the entire trans population of the UK, into this tiny corner, they left the field to the TERFs.

A GRC doesn’t change anything about a person; it slightly modifies their relationship to the state in ways entirely determined by the state. It was easy then for the law Lords to reduce the new Scottish position to the absurd by pointing out a few anomalies. For example, a transman with a GRC who became pregnant, would lose the protected characteristic of sex in respect of maternity rights and so on. None of these rights would be covered by the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. To make an equal pay claim under EA10, a worker must identify a comparator of the “opposite sex”*, acquisition of a GRC would reverse the position in either case. Equal pay still not sorted out?

* Another anachronism, in what sense are sexes opposed to each other?

The toffs also had a good think about the definition of a lesbian. Oh what fun they must have had with that one!

If lesbian facilities are for women who are attracted to each other, nobody is going to suddenly become more attractive by brandishing a GRC. Never mind, if transwomen are invited to the party and some lesbians don’t fancy them, that’s too bad. I’ve never been to one where I expected every attendee to like me.

Politicians are no brighter than they look so their enactments are full of unintended consequences. Section 1 of the GRA 2004 provides that a person aged 18 or over can apply for a GRC by satisfying four conditions, one of which is a medical diagnosis of “gender dysphoria”, which is a psychiatric condition (the other three are obvious). Remember when ‘homosexuality’ was listed as a mental illness, alongside bestiality and necrophilia? It wasn’t that long ago. Is it any wonder that most transpeople don’t want to jump through this hoop?

I don’t know if the toffs sympathise with the TERFs, and I doubt they have much contact with the LGBTQAI community. They insist their judgement does not impinge on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment but the backlash has started already; a lot of sorry-arsed invertebrates are out there looking for someone to kick. The Transport Police have announced that henceforth, transwomen will be searched by male officers; this will include fully transitioned, female-bodied women, with or without a GRC. Can you see anything there but an act of petty spite, leading to humiliation, profound psychological damage, and given the character of the average policeman, risk of serious sexual assault? You don’t liberate one group by persecuting another.

Rights, by definition are only ever granted by entities with the wherewithal to withhold them. The state grants rights in response to social unrest, industrial stoppage or other interference with the means of production, and sometimes to bring it in line with overseas trading partners. It likes to remind us that rights can be taken away at any time. Equal rights are to emphasise that all are equally subject to the state, but the state knows full well that not all have the same value to it, or the bourgeois market.

This can’t be the end of the story, until society has matured enough not to need definitions of sex and gender, self-identification serves most purposes. Until it has outgrown the division of labour in production and reproduction. Until the Working Class is freed from the imperative to replicate at its own expense, cranking out wage-labourers to feed the engines of capitalism or deliver groceries to toffs and TERFs alike, or go to war for the bosses’ interests.

We wouldn’t need any of these semantic gymnastics if people didn’t discriminate against each other in the first place, if the capitalist mode of production did not place different values on various forms of human expression.

In 1963 Haile Selassie addressed the United Nations referring to the bogus category of ‘race’, but his words are equally apt applied to sex and gender:

“that until there are no longer first class and second class citizens of any nation;
[…]
until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all
[…]
until that day, the dream of lasting peace and world citizenship, and the rule of international morality will remain but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but never attained.”

In 1936 he had told their predecessor, the League of Nations:

“It is us today. It will be you tomorrow.”

Until that day, I’ve got to say: War!

Appendix.

The online Biology Dictionary defines many terms used in biology, but sex is not among them; it does have this to say about sexual dimorphism, a TERF obsession:

“While humans do have some sexual dimorphism, we are near the monomorphic side of the scale.” It postulates that dimorphism results from sex-selection, whereby heterosexual individuals choose a mate, consciously or unconsciously, to reproduce with.

Who but a politician requires a definition of sex? Biologists have done their best, but the rulers have chosen to ignore their efforts. The following links all deal with sex as construed by the life sciences:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-of-biological-sex/

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/biological-sex-male-female-intersex

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/lies-and-deception/202412/what-is-biological-sex

https://www.asrm.org/advocacy-and-policy/fact-sheets-and-one-pagers/just-the-facts-biological-sex/

https://disruptingdinnerparties.com/2014/04/08/take-the-red-pill-the-truth-behind-the-biology-of-sex/

Debunking a common TERF argument:

https://anarchasteminist.wordpress.com/2017/12/07/transgender-self-identification-and-data-gathering/

And my stuff:

All right let’s have it then! (That debate about gender)

Thoughts on the Divisional Court ruling preventing the prescription of puberty-blocking medication to transgender children.

Delayed puberty for trans kids – part two

Patriarchy: A design for oppression.

Freedom, equality, and the law.

June 12, 2025
Categories: Anarchist, Ethiopia, Feminist, Scotland . Tags: All fucking wankers, Anti fascist, anti-capitalist, bent coppers, Freedom, Legal, LGBTQ, NHS, TERFs, toffs, Women's history . Author: wessexsolidarity . Comments: Leave a comment

Carlos Guarita — in Retrospect. 2 Apr 2025. Bridport Town Hall.

World Press Photo Winner, Carlos, would not describe himself as a war photographer, but he has spent a large part of his life recording the human cost of conflict … from military fairs to the aftermath wars wreak …

Time & Location

Wednesday 2 Apr 2025, 19:00 – 22:00hrs Entry: £5
Bridport Town Hall, East Street, Bridport DT6 3LF, UK

April 1, 2025
Categories: African, Anarchist, Bridport . Tags: All fucking wankers, Anti fascist, anti-capitalist, International . Author: wessexsolidarity . Comments: Leave a comment

Labouring in vain, again, by Mal Content.

It was just too easy for the ruling class to smother Corbyn’s mild-mannered Keynesian project, using his sympathy for Palestine as evidence of “antisemitism”. Despite his history of antifascism, being re-elected year on year by a constituency having the tenth largest Jewish community in the UK, and having good relations with many observant Jews in it, this was the stick they chose to beat him with.

The bourgeois media, aided and abetted by the parliamentary labour party, an uninspiring gang of careerists and time servers who would rather see a thousand years of fascism than anything resembling social democracy, closed ranks. All those publicity-hungry Jewish ‘celebrities’ allowed themselves to be led by the nose, following their self-appointed ‘community leaders’ into spluttering that they would feel unsafe in the care of the labour left. They’ve been strangely quiet of late. No other community or diaspora on this island recognises such a leadership, one that consistently opposed autonomous anti-fascist activity by Jews that foiled genuine antisemites many times in the 20^th Century.

Never mind, for my money the Labour Party lost all credibility when it supported the First World War.

How they rejoiced when Starmer ejected the tatty old Bennite possiblist and routed the loony left, who had deluded themselves they might achieve economic democracy (and free broadband) by voting for it. He returned labour to a centrist euro-style Christian democrat party, halving its troublesome membership in the process, though he had no problem spunking the money they brought in on his election campaign.

Starmer would like to revive the post-war consensus, of which the pundit and former MP Brian Walden remarked: “The two front benches liked each other and disliked their back benches … turning the opposition into government made little difference, for we believed much the same things.” Walden was closer to Corbyn than Starmer, but then so was Ted Heath.

Anyone who “voted for change” is going to be sorely disappointed. Sturmer warns the Working Class we won’t get any special consideration and menaces us with all manner of authoritarian provisions. He is dedicated to the alienation of labour and by extrapolation, the alienation of needs from abilities. Now he’s having a pedal over artificial intelligence, which might give him enticing new opportunities to coerce and control us. Capitalism is a dirty word now except in the USA where it is mistakenly confused with an ideology, so it is hidden behind ciphers such as “business” and “economic growth”. Socialism is so out of fashion few people can coherently describe what it involves.

I characterise economic growth thus: We are digging a hole and piling up the dirt, the bourgeoisie sits on the pile, in return for our efforts we are allowed to eat the dirt that falls on us. As the hole gets deeper, the pile grows higher, representing their increasing purchasing power, and inequality expands. Increasing productivity means we dig harder, and the dirt piles up faster. It is the wealth of the few that restricts our access to the products of our social labour, including the necessities of life. It determines where we can live, and what we eat, whether we get medical treatment and education, whether we die in comfort or misery. It is literally a power of life and death.

Are the bosses satisfied now then? Not a bit of it, consensus is not on their agenda. They will accept nothing less than unhindered capital accumulation. The bourgeoisie must be free to pursue their trajectory of pharonic inequality in resources and imbalance of power. Whatever the electorate may seem to want, they must not have rights at work, free public utilities, any kind of progressive taxation or redistributive economics. They must pay to access the services they themselves provide, to use the land and the structures they built on it. They are human resources, they must submit to their exploitation, even to destruction.

So this benighted government will give no-one anything they want; the walls are closing in already as they bleat forlornly about the mess they inherited. Every government in my lifetime has spent years doing this before becoming mired in corruption and incompetence. The state broadcaster, unusually not chained to the governing party but to the feudal status quo, is daily trumpeting its failures. Talk of market volatility is disingenuous, the traders are gambling on Sterling going down. It’s interesting that the long-term thirty year gilts are especially unpopular, indicating that the bourgeoisie believe they have already wrung the dregs out of our people.

The fact is the markets couldn’t care less if children are prostituted, deal drugs and stab one another or burn to death in tower blocks, if the innocent are imprisoned or deported. Contaminated blood; they got paid for that. Slavery is back, arms sales are booming, mugs gamble their lives away on their phones, and if half the earth becomes uninhabitable, they will simply charge a premium to live on the other bit.

Narcissistic half-wit Elon Musk presently controls as much purchasing power as some countries, such that his incoherent prejudices are reported and discussed, otherwise no-one would give him the time of day, like the nutter on the bus. One of Musk’s companies, Star link, a provider of mobile internet connections, played a significant part in the Ukraine war, after its services were offered free of charge. Once they’d become utterly dependant on it the Ukrainian generals were dismayed to find that musk had opinions about how it should be used and would limit its range accordingly. It’s as if your twelve year-old computer nerd offspring had taken over not only the family business but the whole high street.

If you’re familiar with my writing you will appreciate that I am disdainful of ideology, which I regard as self-delusion. You can at last, for all intents and purposes, take the ideology out of politics. We are living through the death of empire, like any other: Rome, Egypt, Greece, Spain, England, USA. This is the end of civilisation, by which I mean the habit and ethic of living together in communities, not some high-blown concept of converting heathens. Whether barbarism arrives through a glowing screen or swarms down from the hills makes no difference.

So what is left? The Working Class are still digging that hole, still doing it for love – but of what? The bastards can’t do a thing without us and they know it; that will never change. Artificial intelligence is never going to change their light bulbs for them. The more they big up their technology and belittle us, the more insecure they look. They distract you with gadgets and gimmicks like bloody snake-charmers, but you can bite them any time you choose. Am I the only one whose blood boils when some rich geezer explains that security of employment will put us all out of work?

The Working Class is powerful when it declines to work, when it occupies territory and declines to relinquish it. Withdrawal of labour is all we’ve got, as Tim Acott once put it “the only spanner big enough for the job”. Wildcats, sit-ins, sabotage, we need riots targeted to coincide with stoppages, not futile expressions of abstract frustration. We the Working Class are ultimately responsible for everything that ever was or will be. When we accept that responsibility and harness our strength to our imaginations, we will do a lot better than this.

January 16, 2025
Categories: Anarchist, London, Palestine . Tags: Anti fascist, anti-capitalist, antisemitism, Class War, Der Starmer, International, Labour party, state repression, strike, workers . Author: wessexsolidarity . Comments: 1 Comment

Stop Portland Waste Incinerator – Saturday 16 November Weymouth.

Ignoring the community’s concerns, the government has approved the building of an unsightly polluting incinerator on Portland’s Jurassic Coast. Please support demonstration on Saturday 16th November 11.00am at Weymouth Clock Tower.

Flier attached – please circulate widely.

October 29, 2024
Categories: Portland, Weymouth . Tags: anti-capitalist, Environment, Labour party, Legal, Protest . Author: wessexsolidarity . Comments: 1 Comment

In response to Simon Elmer ‘a Communist in Hong Kong’. – Updated.

In the past we’ve re-blogged posts from Architects for Social Housing. We had some admiration for Simon Elmer’s work – when they stuck to their field. Latterly they’ve become a disciple of the late Enoch Powell.

Elmer’s response to my sincere critique of this article: https://architectsforsocialhousing.co.uk/2024/10/02/the-great-replacement-immigration-to-the-uk-part-one/ which I concluded by taking issue with their misuse of the word “woke” was so shrill and petulant it could not be left unanswered.

For a couple of days we have been trying to reply but it seems we’ve been blocked – spineless, Simon. If they delete it all we’ve got it saved. Predictably, that is what happened, as you can see the links no longer work, so:

https://architectsforsocialhousing.co.uk/2024/10/02/the-great-replacement-immigration-to-the-uk-part-one/#comment-26423

https://architectsforsocialhousing.co.uk/2024/10/02/the-great-replacement-immigration-to-the-uk-part-one/#comment-26424

Our initial comment

October 23, 2024 at 12:58 am.

You’ve done some good work in the past, Simon but this pisses all over it. For all the statistics and graphs it is fatally flawed. You insist on presenting ‘race’ as an objective category – an illusion rejected by UNESCO in 1950 and by Darwin 75 years earlier. As in “mixed race” and “white working class”. The Working Class has never been white!

The wealth of these beleaguered Western powers was built on the enclosure of indigenous lands, the pillage of Asia and the Americas, and the trade in Africans. The death throes of the Roman empire lasted five hundred years and the fallout from European Imperialism has barely started – tough shit.

Black people didn’t invent ‘race’ any more than poor people invented money or workers invented borders – if you are a Marxist you should recognise these apparitions as components of the Great Expropriation. There is no white Working Class because there is no white race. It was invented to retrospectively justify the wars of empire and stave off the movement for the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade.

Where in your lengthy tome do you analyse the cultivation of ‘political Islam’ by the West as a foil to agressively secular post-Stalinist independence movents during the cold war? When the bolshevik experiment collapsed they switched to ‘clash of civilisations’ and it bit them in the arse.

You don’t need freakish conspiracy theories to explain the pharonic wealth inequality resulting from the switch to fictitous capital (volume 3 if memory serves), driven by the arms industry, or the use of technology for malign purposes. It turns out everyone who believes we need bosses would like to be one.

Where is your analysis of artificial scarcity, or the manufactured crisis of ‘illegal’ migration? You destroy the infrastructure of five countries, then leave the inhabitants to sit in the rubble or perish in the sea. You stick the refugees, with no support, in hotels next to Working Class estates devastated by decades of austerity, still banging on about artificial scarcity, and say nothing to the locals. When they build student accomodation in a new area they try harder than that.

This fear of the ‘other’ is stoked to soften us up for some serious crimes against humanity, as a quarter of our land mass is shortly to become uninhabitable.

So what is your agenda? Why do all that research and ignore the bleeding obvious? There is some conceit in writing an article so long-winded you can be pretty confident no-one will ever study it in detail. And don’t you dare use “woke” ironically. If you don’t know what it means, fucking look it up.

Mal C.

Simon Elmer says:

October 23, 2024 at 8:22 am

I don’t have to look up what woke means: you have provided a textbook example of it. I use the categories of Black, Asian, White British, etc, as they are used by the Office for National Statistics and other organisations recording data on the demographic composition of the UK, just as I use the word Nigerian to refer to people from Nigeria, English to decribe people from England, British to describe people with British citizenship, Londoners for people who live in London. I, for example, am an Englishman currently living in China, and if my son were born here and lived all his life here, he would still be an Englishman in China. There is no insult in using words to describe differences between peoples and places. All the world understands this. All the world except those indoctrinated into the unthinking of woke.

I’m not in the least surprised that UNESCO, an agency of the United Nations, an organisation founded to destroy the sovereignty of the nation state, rejected the concept of race; but I am surprised that a professed Marxist should quote it as an authority on anything. When Che Guevara concluded his address to the UN in 1964 with the words ‘Patria o muerte!’, he understood, as you and your multicultural friends do not, that a working class without a homeland is dead.

I use Islam to refer to the religion, but distinguish between its foundational texts, the institutions that decide what those texts mean, the cultural forms they take in the UK, and the behaviours and attitudes of Muslims they sanctify. It is the latter with which I am primarily concerned. I make occassional reference to the effects of Western wars in the Middle East on the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the UK, but finding excuses for replacement immigration or Muslim rape gangs or Yemeni machete gangs isn’t my primary concern. I specifically cite the kinds of excuses made by different responses to replacement migration, which includes your own, in Part Three of my study, and point out why these do nothing to ameliorate or excuse the overwhelmingly negative effects of replacement immigration in the UK, socially and economically, which I have also shown in Parts 2, 3 and 4 is overwhelmingly born by the White working class. The sum total of your argument is that, because the ruling class of Western powers have invaded and exploited Africa, Asia and the Middle East, the White working class of Britain should be replaced by immigrants from these continents. This alone betrays the contempt in which you hold the class you claim to champion.

But none of this means anything to you. There are no races, no nations, no countries, no borders, just the free flow of capital and people under the neoliberal ideology of multiculturalism. According to the middle-class ideologues you follow, class itself is a fiction of White supremacism. So I presume, to follow through with your woke ideology, there are no men and women either, just games of trans identity. And, to complete the triology of woke ideology, your absurd reference to ‘a quarter of the world’s landmass becoming inhabitable’ shows you also believe we’re all about to die from global boiling, which means the 1-million-plus immigrants coming to the UK every year aren’t just refugees from war but climate refugees too. Al Gore would be proud of you. In short, you are indoctrinated into the apocalyptic ideologies I have identified in Part Four as responsible for the decline in the birth rate of the White British (which, of course, also don’t exist).

If I had wanted to write about the various topics you have accused me of not writing about I would have done so, and indeed I have done so in other articles, for example about Gaza, the Ukraine, etc. But what these articles are about is the policy, impact, response and solutions to replacement immigration in the UK, for which I have supplied 37,000 words of evidence, data, analysis and discussion, all of which you have ignored and dismissed as ‘all the statistics and graphs’. As this demonstrates, you are speaking the discourse of woke, which judges reality on whether it conforms to its authoritarian principles, not whether it actually exists. I address this ‘debunking of reality’ in Part Three of my study, but your comment is a better demonstration than anything I could have supplied.

The ultimate expression of this dismissal of reality is your declaration that White people don’t exist. I understand that this is precisely what woke wants us to believe. It is what you, in your abject self-loathing, appear to believe, if you are not merely virtue signalling to your tribe. But we do exist, and we will do everything we can to stop you, and the globalists you are serving, from erasing us, in language, in thought, in history, in policy, in practice.

You are not a Marxist, which in itself is a middle-class term that cleared the way for the colonisation of the Left by woke. You are the enemy of the working class, White, Black and Asian. Your ‘solidarity’ is with George Soros and the other oligarchs you serve. As such, you are my enemy. Fortunately, despite your own smartphone span of attention, many thousands of people have already read my ‘long-winded’ articles, and many thousands more, I hope, will, even under the threat of arrest by the government whose project you are defending. But thank you for this demonstration of the terror to which the virtues of woke lead, which I will leave here for others to read.

Simon Elmer

Our response – which we were unable to post – 27th October 2024 at 16:20:

So you don’t know what it means then. The phrase is “stay woke” in African American vernacular and is simply a reminder to be aware of the imminence of oppression by the hegemonic group. It first appears in Leadbelly’s (Huddie Ledbetter’s) 1936 recording “the Scottsboro boys” about a group of African American youths framed for a heinous crime and judicially murdered.

It’s what every African American mother says to her teenage son before he leaves the house. “Stay woke. Watch out for the cops, don’t run away, don’t get aggressive, and don’t put your hand in your pocket – because they really do want to shoot you”. I’ve been arrested at gunpoint in my home town and I know that sensation, but being light-skinned has kept me out of jail a few times. White supremacy still reigns in territories that were founded on it.

That’s all it means, nothing to do with tofu or pronouns, and no, you can’t buy a ‘woke burger’. Persisting in repeating it out of context will not cause it to mean anything else, and applying the term to any institution is self-contradictory. Anyone who uses ‘woke’ ironically or for marketing purposes insults the memory of the dead and I swear if you ever do it in my presence we will settle the matter in the car park.

“I, for example, am an Englishman currently living in China, and if my son were born here and lived all his life here, he would still be an Englishman in China.” That is pure bollocks, essentialism bordering on metaphysics. You are a ferocious hypocrite, banging on about migration whilst living overseas. Who are you replacing? Do you perhaps fancy yourself as a latter-day colonist? Bringing civilisation to them, are you?

Race was first postulated by a narrow group of North Western European academics in the seventeenth Century, none of them were Working Class. It was prompted by an existential threat to the old order. The landed gentry bought off a bourgeois revolution by allowing the nascent bourgeoisie to expand into the colonies and codify human chattel slavery in legislation for the first time. We might ask why the Romans never thought of it, or the Arab mathematicians, engineers and scientists who overshadowed Western academia as it dragged itself out of the superstitious swamp of christianity.

The first great replacement would have to be the Americas where 98% of the population perished from European diseases before they ever saw a European. The same happened in the Pacific. In Australia and Canada, a programme to breed out indigenous characteristics was underway in my lifetime, on land stolen from those same people by Europeans. The horrors you associate with migrants were being perpetrated by British troops in Kenya, also in my lifetime. Consider the map of Africa, all straight lines and right angles; it wasn’t the Hutus and Tutsis who drew it like that. I struggle to imagine why the global majority would give two hoots about the survival of your self-styled white race.

The Working Class didn’t invent the nation-state either. Eschewed by, but aggressively defended by Bolsheviks and their apologists. Guevara was a Stalinist. We know that borders serve only the bosses, to maintain differentials in prices and wages, raw materials and manufactured goods. You can’t stop the free flow of capital by tying Workers to the parish of their birth, as under Speenhamland to stop them moving around and looking for a better deal, on the land the bourgeoisie stole from us.

Class is no more or less than a relationship to the means of production, controller or operator. Of course the Working Class has no country, I’ve more in common with a worker in Jakarta or Khartoum than a bourgeois half a mile away, whose interests are diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive to mine. Self loathing would get a belly laugh from anyone who’s met me. I have been fighting people like you all my life and I would be mortified if anyone imagined we had anything in common. Your shrill, petulant response to my serious criticism gives you away.

You make a great many unfounded assumptions about me and my presumed ideological affiliations to fit your crank theory. I regard ideology as a coagulation of logical fallacies for which I’ve never had any use. You apply labels and catch phrases that mean nothing to me or anyone I know or, I suspect, anyone outside of your weird internet freakshow.

I certainly never claimed to be a Marxist, to me the only difference between a Communist and a fascist is the badge on his hat, and the inside of a cell looks much the same the world over. Marxist theory accurately describes the mechanics of capitalist accumulation, but his prescriptions were pure crap. Just as Newton’s theories are adequate to build a bridge or fire a projectile, I can do all that without taking account of any of his other views. I blame Lenin. The failure of the statist left to see beyond transaction and coercion not only paved the way for fascism in all its forms but preserved the capitalist power relation long past its expiry date. Look back a century to the Great Unrest and the currents of revolutionary syndicalism and self-organisation developing around the globe that could have easily superseded it.

“According to the middle-class ideologues you follow, class itself is a fiction of White supremacism”. – What bilge is this? I’ve never encountered such an incoherent jumble of words. Source please.

You couldn’t resist introducing gender, another Eurocentric obsession. The separation of production from reproduction was a component of the great expropriation. The introduction of the money economy in response to the crisis in late mediaeval society divided social from domestic labour. The nuclear family, a parody of the bourgeois household is the most efficient mechanism for the labouring class to reproduce and maintain itself at its own expense. It was unknown for most of human history. All your European gender- and hetero-normativity are just props in this fantastic confidence trick.

Nor does it matter whether you and your cult believe in global warming, traditionally inhabited territories are being abandoned all the time, so your borders will fall whatever you do, that’s reality, mush.

Who’s George Soros? Some rich geezer, he wouldn’t be Jewish would he? A member of the global elite, despite the attempts of two authoritarian tendencies to see him off? We’ve been here before, a long time ago. Al Gore? nothing to me. These people are irrelevant; they are of no interest next to eight billion proletarians.

What else? I neither follow nor lead, serve no-one and I only defend those I care about. I’ve never owned a “smart phone”, I read books. For all your pompous, esoteric gobbledegook, your opinions are those of the late Enoch Powell, or Herman Göring. You are no better than the sleazy alcoholics and nonces in ill-fitting suits we used to see shambling into NF meetings in the 70’s. We saw that lot off and we’ll see your gang off too. I guarantee the misguided folk tempted to follow you will never read a fraction of what you’ve written. “Look here’s some clever mushty with graphs to support what […] said.” I have written this for them: don’t be taken in by this charlatan!

You are correct in one respect; you and I are mortal enemies. If you ever return to blighty, do get in touch so we can arrange that car park fixture, “we will do everything we can to stop you.” Have a go you mug.

Mal C.

October 27, 2024
Categories: African, Anarchist, Antifa, Articles, Australia, Hong Kong, Kenya, Rwanda . Tags: Anti fascist, anti-capitalist, bolshevism, Environment, fascist, International, Leadbelly, Lenin, No Borders, racism, workers . Author: wessexsolidarity . Comments: 1 Comment

Interview with Sultana Hossain from the Amazon Labour Union in the USA

Listen on LabourStart

“We were dying,” says Sultana Hossain, describing the conditions that led thousands of Amazon employees in New York City to begin organising into a trade union. Initially, their union was independent and had no backing from anyone else — and yet the workers were able to force an election in the workplace, win a majority and inspire millions of workers with their story. Click here to learn more about that union and its amazing story.

For full coverage of workers’ struggles at Amazon around the world, check out LabourStart’s Amazon stories.

October 22, 2024
Categories: U.S.A. . Tags: amazon, anti-capitalist, exploitation, International, Solidarity, workers . Author: wessexsolidarity . Comments: Leave a comment

Fascism or right-wing populism? By Mal Content.

Antifascists, above all, need flexibility, precisely because fascism, though practiced by the most inflexible of people, has never been a coherent ideology. Its constituency is by definition the most confused section of any population, but a mob of confused people is dangerous; some years ago a confused but presumably well-meaning gang attacked the office of a paediatrician. This story tears me apart; there was a brass plaque on the door – as if you would … I have a belly laugh over how thick some people can be, then rage that members of my own Class have been so badly served by the education system we all paid for, and are so ill-equipped to live in the modern world.

Mussolini, who started in the labour movement, set about incorporating it into capitalism, ‘vertical syndicalism’, and the bourgeoisie into the state apparatus. This he called “Corporatism, a merger of corporate and state power”, everyone in their place, set from above. It requires a closed system, sited within one geopolitical entity, or nation-state.

Mussolini set the tone for the 20th Century, he read widely: Hegel, Kant, Kropotkin, Nietzsche, Marx, but rather than adopt any particular moral philosophy he learned the technique of creating inspirational, wise-sounding slogans that appealed to the masses. So to Hitler and his National Socialist Workers Party; smarting from the humiliation of Versailles, and paranoid antisemitism, the great depression gave them the popular support they needed to take power. Full employment was achieved through military Keynesianism.

During the Comintern’s “class against class” period, the phrase “social democracy equals social fascism” was their excuse for waging war on the parties of the Second International rather than the emerging fascist movement – with catastrophic consequences for both tendencies. The phrase is entirely apt, however. Under the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera which followed Mussolini’s example, the socialist U.G.T. union leader Largo Caballero collaborated with the government in compulsory arbitration boards, robbing the Spanish Working Class of any agency in industrial disputes. So between the wars Europe and the U.S.S.R. re-armed and re-built with centralised economies. It turns out the only viable way to fight an industrial mechanised war is to have everyone working for the state, and so it was for the next lot.

The cold war was a replay of ‘class against class’, allowing fascists to re-group in Britain unchecked apart from periodic Working Class direct action. Meanwhile the authoritarian Atlee government stuck to the corporatist model, building a social democratic settlement by ruthlessly pillaging Britain’s colonies as they struggled to break free, using conscripts to scab on strikes and enacting repressive anti-working class legislation. The bourgeoisie weren’t happy either, as they wanted unlimited capital accumulation – because that’s what capitalism requires. ‘Corporatism’ was still being used without irony by Labour politicians in the 1970’s, to describe the mixed economy.

The problem with all this is that the citizen is both client of the state and its adversary. This is felt viscerally and populism recognises it. Wage labour is an abusive relationship however you dress it up, and nationalised industry means your boss has his own army and police force, an unattractive proposition. If bureaucrats fix both prices and wages no-one is going to be happy with their decision, so to many, a free market was easily sold by bourgeois politicians.

This is why 20^th Century politics has lost its relevance; populism is right-wing by default because no party offers credible redistributive economics, the only worthwhile signifier of ‘the left’. Corbyn’s attempt at left populism failed because it didn’t – and couldn’t – go far enough. The people wanted brexit, dammit, not free broadband! “We want are country back” and they didn’t believe he could make the trains run on time.

But what about ‘social justice’? Well that always was a load of bollocks, justice is a bourgeois concept related to payment of a debt, it relies on transaction and coercion, which defeat both morality and utility. The only way to achieve freedom and equality for all is collectively, through Working Class solidarity, but end-stage capitalism has atomised the Class into a socio-economic continuum, so workers no longer identify with their Class, but with those who share their language, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, religion or football team.

Right populists like to define their views as ‘conservative’; it has an air of respectability about it and implies defence rather than attack, or even return to an earlier time. It is instructive that many A.F.D. supporters in East Germany are nostalgic for the D.D.R. They have no ideology, they want a wage, a roof, food and drink, and to not work too hard for it. If that means they have no say in the composition of any executive body, why would they care? Can you honestly say it’s helped you? Whereas the old regime struggled to keep people in, the A.F.D. – whose support is greatest in the least diverse areas, has a sinister policy it calls “re-migration”, a euphemism for deporting German citizens of non-German ethnicity; that won’t end well.

But just as one old gang of authoritarian demagogues liked to call themselves ‘communist’; conservative means nothing any more. Their opponents are characterised as ‘liberals’. Liberalism is simply the postulate of a theoretical freedom and equality under the law, with private property and the enforcement of debt, this takes in most modern vote-beggars but anarchists see it for the scam that it is. In the U.K., historically all fascist and proto-fascist groups have come out of the Conservative and Unionist Party, or the Young Conservatives, taken briefly to the streets then returned to electoral politics in a different form. This has been the case for over a Century.

One of the pillars of populism is artificial scarcity, an invention of the bourgeois state. If you want a hierarchical society, in which power is expressed by denying the needs or desires of others, you have to persuade your citizens that the necessities of life are in short supply, that they must be rationed or bargained for. Even that the state could “run out of money” – there’s another catastrophic failure of our education system! The Communists used artificial scarcity also, in a vast empire that produced unimaginable quantities of wheat, rice, coal, oil, minerals and manufactured goods. Better to export these to buy arms than let the workers have the fruits of their labour.

Does it matter then, whether the gang we face on the streets are National Socialists or right-wing populists? Not really, what counts is whether they can stand in the way of us acting collectively as a Class. We could draw a line however, between the sellers of this crap and the punters. That will take thousands of individual conversations between Working Class people, and will have to wait until the fighting is over, or ideally, before it starts.

The arguments are simple: firstly, there is no shortage of anything on this island; there are a million empty dwellings and millions of tons of food thrown away annually. Healthcare is rationed only because this social duty has been turned into a commodity, for profit. Secondly, borders serve only the bosses, not us, they exist to maintain differentials in prices and wages to keep down the price of raw materials and boost the markup on manufacturing. Gentrification creates borders even within the territory; we all know districts where we couldn’t afford a coffee, let alone accommodation, but you may still have to commute there to clean offices.

Remind your audience that capital, unlike labour, flows freely around the globe. Should the phrase “economic migrant” come up, I like to introduce vacuum cleaner merchant James Dyson, who received every privilege of the social democratic settlement, free education paid for by the Working Class, even free school milk, and is now reputed to be the fifth richest person in Britain. He moved hundreds of jobs from Wiltshire to Malaysia to pay them £3 per hour, which begs the question: if we all worked for that rate who’d buy his bloody vacuum cleaners at five hundred quid a pop? Imagine the outcry if Malaysians were coming here to take advantage of our paltry minimum wage, and if they get visas as doctors or midwives, that’s just a rich country leeching the education system of a poor one, and they won’t be allowed to bring their kids.

“What about all these asylum seekers?” Ask the criminal gangs that bombed the crap out of five countries to maintain their supply of petroleum. ‘Radical Islam’ promoted by NATO (yes, including bin Laden and Hamas) during the cold war turned out to be more successful at exploiting the grievances of marginalised and ill-informed populations than Marxism-Leninism, and came back to bite the West on the arse. Refugees are small in number compared to middle-class Ukrainians and Hong Kong Chinese, who have been allowed to work and pay tax, smoothly integrating with the economy.

Of course the real fascists don’t want them either. The hand-wringing of Tory politicians over children drowning in the channel cuts no ice with those who want to burn the survivors in their beds. I have no hesitation in describing such people as fascists, regardless of affiliation. They need taking out, not by the state but by the Working Class.

That just leaves the plethora of weird online cults devoted to misogyny, transphobia, conspiracy, crank science and what-have-you, tilting at windmills. They are in good company with the self-styled Western Jihadis. I can’t see these fantasists being defeated in their natural habitat, but eventually they must emerge from their holes into the real world, and where they resort to violence, they must be met by violence. I always advocate vulnerable people to form affinity groups with others who share their circumstances. These can federate into defence committees, co-opting any others willing to turn a hand. As ever, let the boots do the talking.

September 12, 2024
Categories: Anarchist, Antifa, Germany, Italy, Russia, Weymouth . Tags: Anti fascist, anti-capitalist, Class War, fascist, International, No Borders, people smugglers, Refugees, war crimes . Author: wessexsolidarity . Comments: Leave a comment