(Updated) Analysis: The Upcoming NSM “Rally”

Update: I will leave it to others to describe the NSM march and rally yesterday. If yesterday’s events warrant any revision to this post, it would be to point out the attention radicals could have given to a person or group within our own movement, rather than giving coverage to Nazis (see for instance, struggling comrades such as Saab Lofton). Those in opposition were the only attendants of the rally — a fact that only reinforces the earlier analysis in the essay below. Had the opposition not turned out, the NSM would have marched and rallied to the sound of their own irrelevance. In hindsight, there was far less justification for turning out in opposition. Indeed, one gets the feeling that this was a bit of theater planned with the hope of a vocal opposition.

Many radicals seem to have felt accomplished afterward, but it remains to be seen exactly what the opposition has won. From the position of the NSM, they were largely unimpeded from holding their march and rally. The vocal opposition helped to turn out additional media coverage of their event, and the anarchists and other radicals pulled no surprises. From the media’s perspective, the presence of the opposition helped the story’s newsworthiness — two fringe groups engaging each other and proving the stereotypes that the media uses as their frame. Lastly, normal people — who will only find out about the event through the mainstream news — will no doubt see it as either completely irrelevant or perhaps alarming (two militant groups confronting each other).

What is the most positive message one can possibly glean from actions like this? That one group is opposed to Nazis. Is that enough to garner interest from the public in the radical position? Probably not. What about action that would seek to define radicals in terms of what they are trying to accomplish or want to see?

Is it not time for radicals break their dependence on Nazis and others to define themselves and their movement? New, positive frames should be created that are the basis for building the society radicals wish to see.

What is the analysis of the National Socialist Movement “rally,” scheduled for this Saturday?

Locally, there has been discussion of opposition. Should the NSM rally be opposed? If so, how? Of course, ideologically and ethically, radicals should always oppose national socialists and other fascists. However, opposition should be strategic.

The October 28 title of the Phoenix Class War Council’s blog proclaims, “The NSM offers nothing for the white working class but more exploitation and misery.” While this PCWC headline is entirely correct, it is also important to identify not just what they have to offer, but also what they represent (a related, though distinct observation): white supremacy and a “race”-based analysis.

When giving thought to this subject, it is important to clarify goals for opposition and identify potential pitfalls. To begin, it is probable that the NSM is a tiny and irrelevant group within the broader racist movement. Their recent rally in Riverside drew about 20 “members” and 600 in opposition, according to the Feathered Bastard blog. While such an oppositional turnout is a strong rebuke from the Riverside community, one must wonder if the ensuing press coverage could be considered a victory for the likes of the NSM. After all, with such an unpopular position, any opportunity to spread their message will be seen as a victory – hence, their public “America First” rallies.

Indeed, opposition to individual events held by tiny and irrelevant hate groups must be contextualized within the greater struggle for equality. Recognition of these over-hyped publicity stunts lead to many dangers for the opposition, seemingly without much to be gained.

Particularly, any militant, directly confrontational action runs the danger of blurring the lines between anti-fascism and fascism, perhaps even leading to confusion among the public at large over the dramatic contrasts between the ideologies involved.

Before turning out on the street, it is important to consider exactly who or what is being opposed, and identify goals that would make such opposition “successful.” The supposition is that the NSM are a tiny and irrelevant group, creating the risk that opposition would be seen as unduly legitimizing them as a threat disproportionate to the power and influence they actually wield. After all, larger, broader, and more mainstream hate groups exist and act openly in Arizona every day (Minute Men and the MCSO spring to mind). Might it not be more effective to spend precious time and resources against these groups, and let the likes of the NSM whither on the vine?

Radical groups especially run the risk of stooping in reaction to even the tiniest and most pathetic hate groups like the NSM. Established organizations have little, if anything to gain by directing attention toward such marginal groups. Much more effective would be a turnout of independent, concerned members of the Phoenix area, standing in solidarity as parents, neighbors, and workers against a perceived common threat to their community. This is the perfect opportunity to display solidarity on a personal level — as neighbors and human beings, rather than political agents. [Another effective resistance would be to devote time otherwise spent at the rally to the positive radical projects which hopefully most of us are already a part (or to the creation of new projects).]

Questions remain: Are radicals opposing the NSM, or the larger issue of racism and hatred? Is the target of opposition the NSM members in attendance, or will it appeal to the hearts and minds of the public at large, posing an inclusive, liberatory alternative vision? Certainly, the Nazis minds are already made up.

While it is arguable whether the NSM should garner any type of public, physical opposition, in this specific context justification can be made. Arizona is a key front in the struggle against racism, making it a strategic location for the NSM. It is reasonable to suspect that the NSM considers this state ground zero for the supremacist movement and one of its few strongholds of support (all few-dozen strong). A turnout here by those in opposition has the potential to further marginalize the NSM within the greater racist movement, but there are caveats.

Those in potential opposition must not allow themselves to frame victory solely in terms of the numbers they turn out or the visible perturbations they can draw from the “rally’s” participants. Rather, they must give thought to the opportunity to shift the debate by marginalizing a hateful and one-sided analysis for a positive, inclusive, and holistic vision that has the power to sway potential “recruits” to the NSM, as well as gain traction among the public at-large. Giving Nazis a healthy fear of public speaking is not due cause for celebration.

Indeed, “victory” for the opposition should be seen as the extent to which the NSM’s voice has been marginalized. One aspect of this marginalization is, in fact, turnout. While this achievement is shallow, failure here would undermine greater measures of success: ten Nazis and five radicals makes both look marginal and irrelevant to the public at-large, as well as to the broader movements of which these more radical factions are a part.

Having now justified opposition to the NSM in this narrow and specific context, as well as identified the goal of marginalization, another objective should be realized: the presence of an alternative vision. If, as was argued earlier in this essay, the NSM represents white supremacy and a “race” based analysis, then an important second objective in marginalization becomes clear: the advancement of a superior, inclusive, and compelling alternative vision. Opposition should not come from a simple and vague anti-racist stance, but from the contradiction posed by a positive, “competing” vision. This strategy does not engage with the NSM on their terms, nor does it allow them to control or set the frame of debate. The presence of an alternative is an implicit, though powerful, statement of the inadequacy of their analysis. More importantly, it is a clear and positive affirmation of what the opposition stands for and is working toward. A larger presence of anti-fascists espousing an inclusive, alternative vision in a place of supposed strength for the NSM would be a strong image in the minds of people and may even serve to draw in, through superiority of vision, some tending toward Nazi sympathies. The question is, just what is the alternative vision?

Here in Phoenix, two analyses predominate in this context: a contemporary, class-based politics rooted in an analysis of the present advanced state of capitalism, and a “race traitor” politics that is a unique and specific variation of the more traditional class-based analysis. While theoretically there is some overlap and interrelation, practical manifestations of these two positions can differ dramatically. As such, this essay favors more contemporary class analysis as the most valuable and strategic position, over race traitor politics.

Race traitor theory seems to focus almost exclusively on “whiteness” and white supremacy. This can be seen in the race traitor analysis that the fractious nature of the working class is the result of a “cross-class alliance” between “white” workers who were given additional privileges over their classmates’ and the “white” capitalist class who granted privileges in exchange for the preservation of their power. Power is preserved through turning the working class against itself and undermining popular struggles. This nicely explains the contemporary lack of class consciousness by ”white” workers, their loyalty to the power structure — even as against their own class (and often individual) interests, and the adherence to reactionary economic and political positions due in large part to the myth of upward mobility. It also accurately depicts white supremacist groups as the crude tools of the ruling capitalist class.

Left unaddressed by the race traitor analysis, however, is the possibility of the power structure acting pragmatically to save its privilege and protect against class-based unrest through expanding the scope of this cross-class alliance. As mentioned earlier, the NSM has been identified as a white supremacist group, and this specific form of racism is almost exclusively the focus of a race traitor analysis. Indeed, race traitor theory to depend fully on the maintenance of this cross-class alliance, the elimination of which can only come from external pressure, and lead necessarily to a reunited working-class and the abolition of racism, as it manifests socially as a system of group privilege.

Yet, this picture overlooks certain important factors. The race traitor analysis intimately ties white supremacy with capitalism, to the point of linking the abolition of white supremacy to the elimination of capitalism, the former leading necessarily to the latter. While this relationship does indeed exist prominently, it remains to be seen whether white supremacy is tied necessarily to capitalism. White supremacy and racism are convenient ways of dividing populations to preserve privilege, but it seems that this relationship should be seen as a purely pragmatic position, given the highly malleable and cooptative nature of capitalism. Race traitor politics links white supremacy to the capitalist class, but under pressure it seems unlikely that the capitalist class would hold steadfastly to a supremacist (or even a racist) position if their cross-class alliance (and hence the stability of their system of privilege) were in danger of disintegration. Given the choice, it is reasonable to assume that the preservation of capitalist privilege would win out over loyalties to any supremacist stance.

If the supremacist position of the capitalist class is indeed one of pragmatic action, so too must be the cross-class alliance based on that position. This realization unearths the potential malleability of this alliance to be defined beyond “whiteness” and used as a more general wedge of separation for the preservation of power.

For instance, as the specifically white supremacist position becomes more marginal and extremist, it is reasonable to predict most holding such a position to attempt to find a role for themselves in the broader (and more dangerous, as it is more widely embedded among society) racist movement, which may include uniting against one specific “inferior race.” We seem to be seeing this here in the rise of anti-Hispanic sentiment and the permeation of this kind of racism into the public at large (perhaps even to other minority groups).

Just as it can be expected that the “white” workers will move toward a broader racist movement, it can also be expected that the ruling class will act pragmatically to alter the “cross-class alliance” to include the fewest number of people necessary to preserve their power (though by necessity broader than simply “whiteness”).

Race traitor analysis does not seem to concentrate on “whiteness” as the highest magnitude of racism, but conversely, as the idea upon which all racial inequality is based, the elimination of which would lead necessarily to the elimination of “white privilege” and the reemergence of class consciousness (through the elimination of the cross-class alliance) and arguably, of racism and capitalism itself. This view naively sees the loyalty of the capitalist class to white supremacy, rather than seeing white supremacy as a pragmatic strategy for preserving capitalist privilege.

However, this pragmatism is precisely what we are seeing locally. While many politicians have strong links with supremacist groups, the marginalization of that view (aided by the presence of a Hispanic movement) necessitates appeals to a broader, racist base. This is manifested in the scapegoating of Hispanic or (im)migrant populations against the rest of society — a strategy that may necessitate an expansion of the cross-class alliance as non-“whites” jockey for favor in appeal to the capitalist class over other, more vilified populations. This may be exactly what we are witnessing with the centrality of “citizenship” and legal status to the arguments of many reactionary politicians in a country of increasing diversity.

Indeed, race traitor politics serves to highlight the historical plasticity of “whiteness,” but fails to ultimately account for this as part of a historical strategy rooted in the preservation of privilege through reaction and pragmatism. If race traitor were to fully account for this, its analysis would take into account the possibility of abandoning the supremacist position in favor of something more helpful at the time, which does not necessarily need to be based on any kind of racism.

Overlooking these important facts leads to the conclusions of direct confrontation with any racist group, regardless of its marginalized standing among a more pragmatic and mainstream anti-Hispanic movement (the people more likely to be swayed by an alternative vision), possibly including other minority groups seeking to establish their own special agreement with the power structure and against “illegals;” gives undue attention, energy, and recognition to such groups. As well, it is vulnerable to the dangers involved in anti-fascist direct confrontation (just which one is which in the ensuing brawl?).

In summation, this essay argues that the NSM should be opposed in a specific and very narrow instance, recognizing them as marginal, and justifying opposition only because of Arizona’s important and strategic role in this particular struggle. The goal should be the increased marginalization of the NSM position through outnumbering them as well as presenting a positive, inclusive, liberatory alternative: a contemporary class analysis that emphasizes inclusion and solidarity, as well as resistance to capitalism and the state through a compelling vision of the society radicals aim to create. Conflict should be minimal, so as not to give the few rally attendants added legitimacy by radicals evaluating their threat level in disproportion to the influence they actually have.

The presupposition here is an appeal, not to Nazis, but to the consciousness of normal people, particularly those in danger of becoming sympathetic to the NSM position. The odds of any kind of confrontation leading to a Nazi change of heart are small. Let radicals rely on the strength and clarity of their vision to marginalize and drown out hatred from the social debate.

Armed with a clear strategy, compelling vision, and optimistic outlook, change will come. What is needed are fewer militants and more visionaries. On to better worlds and brighter futures!

In order to build a strong, broad-based movement for radical social, ecological, and economic change, the radical movement must rediscover the Utopian vision, optimism, and positivity present in many socialist traditions, particularly anarchism. This is just one of the benefits of a social ecological analysis. Radicals must move past the stagnation that comes from simply critiquing — whether it be capitalism, the state, ourselves, our movement, or each other. They must reject theories of immiseration, whether conceived as the catalyst to revolution, the period of revolutionary struggle, or the society that stems from the revolution. It must be recognized that revolution, revolutionary struggle, and the revolutionary society do not involve material immiseration, but a greater standard of living for all but the most affluent (whose wealth will be expropriated and distributed for the benefit of all).

In making such affirmations, the movement can finally begin to discard its apathy and nihilism. An optimistic outlook, which need not be naive, will go a long way in addressing the mental health of the movement, as well as society at large — helping to overcome the apathy, burnout, depression, despair, nihilism, cynicism, sarcasm, and loathing of humanity one commonly finds among the left today. Additionally, an optimistic view serves to firmly orient the movement outward, applying a positive vision to the real world and attracting real people (needed for any substantive, radical social transformation) as a result. Lastly, but importantly, such an outlook will serve to foster less sectarianism, a more comradely interplay of ideas, and lift the fog of vitriol in which we have engaged one another for the past few decades. This is the spirit to which Better Worlds, Brighter Futures is dedicated.

test Filed under Uncategorized | Tags: Analysis, anti-fascism, Phoenix Class War Council, social ecology | Comments (7)