Blood & Honour is an international neo-Nazi network, founded in 1987 in the UK, which promotes fascist ideology through music. Ian Stuart Donaldson, singer of the band Skrewdriver, was the co-founder — along with the gay bonehead Nicky Crane — and its leader until his death in 1993. The network (which is split into two rival factions) organises gigs, sells CDs and other merch, raises funds for the neo-Nazi movement, and engages in other forms of political activism. B&H is proscribed in Germany and Spain, but active in Australia and many other countries.

Blood & Honour took its name from the motto of the Hitler Youth, Blut und Ehre. The code 28 is often used to signify ‘Blood & Honour’ (derived from the second and eighth letters of the Latin alphabet, B and H).

In 1993, B&H Australia was the first franchise to be formed outside of the UK: the person generally blamed for this being Scott McGuinness of now-defunct local band Fortress — Fortress supposedly played their final gig in 2007. This gig was one of the many annual gigs in Melbourne organised by B&H (and boneheads belonging to the Southern Cross Hammerskins) to commemorate the death of Ian Stuart Donaldson. Recent venues have been:

    2008 : Beaconsfield Hotel, Beaconsfield
    2007 : Melbourne Croatia Social Club, Sunshine
    2006 : Birmingham Hotel, Fitzroy
    2005 : Birmingham Hotel, Fitzroy
    2004 : The Jam Tin, Cheltenham

The next B&H/SCHS gig is scheduled to take place in Perth on April 25, when the boneheads will be pissing on the memory of the Australians (and er, New Zealanders) who died fighting their hero Adolf Hitler. Like all other gigs organised by B&H/SCHS, while the date is advertised, the venue is not.


I was at a punk gig last night in Geelong, just checking out the local scene. I met a guy there that calls himself an “Aussie Pride” Skinhead and says he’s a part of Southern Cross Soldiers. His name is Sam, he’d be about 18. I want to suss him out, if he’s any good I’ll try and get a bit of a pro-White scene going on down here properly. I also met a guy, I think his name was Doug? Anyway, I was too pissed to remember exact details but he says he does vocals for Bail Up? If you or any of the other guys know this Sam guy, let me know your thoughts on him. I think he said he has mates that aren’t White, which I’m willing to tolerate, as long as he isn’t red, a druggie or a race-mixer.

He also says Indigenous Hate has pulled out of the ‘Fuck the ANZACs’ gig.

If correct, then the two bands scheduled to perform will be Quick & The Dead from Perth and Ravenous. Ravenous is a local Melbourne band, and closely associated with both Blood & Honour and the Hammerskins. Ravenous (and Deaths Head) member Jesse, a Hammerskin, maintains a channel on YouTube which, in addition to nutzi muzak, features two very brief cartoons featuring the decapitation and shooting of ‘Sheky’ the Jew. The band has also secured the co-operation of MySpace.


    Deaths Head is also notable for having provided local oi! band Bulldog Spirit with a drummer, Joel. Doug, the vocalist for Bulldog Spirit, is a big fan of mine, and it was in this spirit that he published what he claimed (erroneously) to be my work address on an online forum frequented by boneheads.

In addition to Ravenous (and Deaths Head), Jesse is also responsible for recently establishing a neo-Nazi distro called 9% Productions. It flogs muzak and sundry other items. See also : Nazi… sorry I meant… Noble Front (February 11, 2009) | Noble Front vs. ZOG (June 11, 2008) | Neo-Nazism in Germany: Music & Politics (March 5, 2009) | Neo-Nazi Muzak : Denmark, Germany… and Australia (August 29, 2008)


About @ndy

I live in Melbourne, Australia. I like anarchy. I don't like nazis. I enjoy eating pizza and drinking beer. I barrack for the greatest football team on Earth: Collingwood Magpies. The 2024 premiership's a cakewalk for the good old Collingwood.
This entry was posted in Anti-fascism, Music. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Toaf says:

    It had never occurred to me that being a neo-Nazi would mean you have no respect for Aussie soldiers who fought against Nazis. I don’t think the Aussie Pride lads will tolerate this anti-ANZAC shit.

  2. @ndy says:

    No… and yes.

    Depends what you mean by the “Aussie Pride lads”.

    Fascists — including of course neo-Nazis — have deep esteem for militarism. Inre the ANZACs, overwhelming emphasis is placed on WWI, Gallipoli, and the usual mythology surrounding The Birth of a Nation on blood-drenched Ottoman beaches. With regards Australian participation in WWII, this is generally regarded as a tragedy, but certainly not sufficient reason to repudiate Nazism. Rather, the general consensus is that the ANZACs — while remaining admirable — fought on the wrong side. It’s also the case that Nazi apologists frequently refer to those ex-servicemen who had Fascist and Nazi sympathies: Eric Butler may be the most famous Australian example.

    So: on the one hand, deep respect for the ANZACs insofar as they embodied militarist values (and the ‘defence’ of White Australia); on the other, regret and sorrow over what is regarded as being a conflict internal to White Civilisation.

  3. THR says:

    Toaf’s point is interesting. You’d think the smarter neo-Nazis would try to cash in on the unassailable status of the ANZACs. These guys have clearly failed Hitler 101.

    Also, and this is rather off topic, do you have any thoughts on Marxism 2009? I ask as they appear to have dedicated a section to critique of anarchism. From what I can see, some of the points raised have been addressed on this site before, but I’m always eager to see a socialist/anarchist dialogue/deathmatch.

  4. @ndy says:

    I certainly think Toaf’s point is relevant — and the smarter neo-Nazis do try to cash in. That said: self-described neo-Nazis are few and far-between; fascist ideology contains many contradictions, and most of its adherents, at least here in Australia, are chronically incapable of developing a means of overcoming these…

    Re Marxism 2009: yeah.

    ‘A history of Anarchism – a Marxist critique’ by Colleen Bolger
    4pm, Friday 10th April, Melbourne University

    Reading List for Marxism 2009

    Mick Armstrong, Is there anything radical about anarchism?, Socialist Alternative No. 117
    Paul D’Amato, Anarchism: How not to make a revolution, ISR No. 3
    Geoff Bailey, Anarchists and the Spanish Civil War, ISR No. 24
    Lance Selfa, A life of controversy, ISR No. 34

    Dunno if I’ll make it, but I expect at least one or two other anarchists may go.

    I’m very familiar with this critique, first having encountered it maybe 20 or so years ago — I don’t think it’s altered substantially since the iSt was formed — and it tends to ultimately rely on the work of Hal Draper. His argument is usefully critiqued by Tom K in ‘Marxism, Anarchism, & the Genealogy of “Socialism From Below”’, Upping the Anti, No.2, 2006.

  5. Run to Paradise says:

    Mick Armstrong, Is there anything not counter-revolutionary and traitorous about Mick Armstrong?, Socialist Alternative No. 117.

  6. @ndy says:

    Run to Paradise:

    You anarchist crazy!

    You are ultra-violent and in no serious sense part of the blogosphere. Just like your black bloc mates in Europe you simply exploit my blog for your own purposes.

    Right throughout your commentary you have made clear your hostility to and contempt for other people. Today you have done all you could to disrupt this blog and you are hostile, abusive, threatening and ultra-sectarian towards other people on it.

    The Australian blogosphere, fortunately, has not previously been blighted by the sort of black bloc anarchist activities which have had such a disastrous impact on blogs in Europe. You people are simply provocateurs that open up blogs to state censorship. In Europe, your ranks have been riddled by police agents and fascists.

    What gives you a certain critical mass on slackbastard is the presence of considerable numbers of anarchists from overseas. One of my staff members from New Zealand said he recognises the handles of at least 40 NZ anarchists. He knows at least 20 of them by name. There are also a considerable number of black bloc anarchists from Europe. We know of people from Sweden, Germany and England. These people are like football hooligans who travel the world looking for blogs to comment on and violence.

    On top of this, there are also a considerable number of commentators from interstate.

    Because of the behaviour of you provocateurs the media and the law and order brigade are having a field day.

    The left should offer no comfort to you crazies. We should do whatever we can to isolate you. You are wreckers. If you grow in Australia it will simply make it harder to build future blogs and websites.

  7. Toaf says:

    Since THR is raising these matters… I was wondering whether you’d read Wobblies and Zapatistas by Lynd and Grubacic. It’s on my reading list, but it’s a bloody long list. If you’re interested, the authors were on ATG last year.

  8. Toaf says:

    Oh, and on the Aussie Pride lads, I was thinking of the kind of blokes I run into at the Narellan Pub – southern cross stickers on the ute, southern cross tatts on the forearm, anti-immigrant attitudes. I don’t reckon the extreme message would wash with them. (Someone should tell ’em you can see the southern cross in Argentina, too…)

  9. @ndy says:

    Hey Toaf,

    I’m aware of the book; I ain’t read it, altho’ I’ve read other stuff by the two authors. (Thanks for the link.)

    On the Aussie pride bizo: yeah. Nationalist and xenophobic sentiment may be necessary to neo-Nazi ideology, but they’re obviously not sufficient. These sorts of attitudes often sit in a sometimes uneasy alliance with support for trades unionism, and a sense of class solidarity. The ways in which the labour movement and the working class as a whole responds to such matters has a long and sometimes inglorious history; transnational labour mobility is of course a pressing issue in the context of ‘globalisation’, and the political responses to this have been varied. Much of organised labour, or at least the more ‘progressive’ elements, has recognised the importance of forms of transnational class solidarity — a project which has its own, sometimes quite inspiring, history.

    The Great Dock Strike of 1889
    Australia to the rescue

    The crisis of the strike was reached at the beginning of September. Without more money, it seemed that the strike could not continue. H. H. Champion, the Strike Committee’s press officer recalled:

    “Things looked very black indeed – for though the collections made in workshops and in the streets, supplemented by contributions from the older trade unions and from private individuals, had reached a considerable sum, they were totally inadequate to provide even a shilling a day for a tenth of the families who were without means of subsistence.” ~ H. H. Champion, The Great Dock Strike in London, August 1889, (London, 1890), p. 18.

    Australian help

    From the beginning of September however money poured in from Australia. The first instalment of £150 was sent by the Brisbane Wharf Labourers’ Union. The press reported:

    “Meetings at which resolutions of sympathy with the strikers are passed are being held nightly throughout Victoria, and a similar movement is on foot in Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide and Hobart…

    A large and important meeting of citizens was held here yesterday at which resolutions were adopted expressing sympathy with the London dock workers on strike, and promising to support them to obtain their demands. The Chairmen announced that over £500 had been collected from all classes of the inhabitants, including Cabinet Ministers, and nearly all the members of the Queensland Parliament.” ~ The Pall Mall Gazette, 5 September 1889.

    Scent of victory

    In all over £30,000 was raised by the Australian dockers and their allies. It arrived at just the right time and meant the end of worries about feeding the strikers and their families.

    The dockers could now face a longer strike and the leaders knew they could now concentrate on the picket lines. Defeat through hunger now seemed very unlikely and the dockers scented victory…

    What chances are there of contemporary Cabinet Ministers, and nearly all the members of the Queensland Parliament, pledging financial aid to striking London dockworkers?

    Fuck-all, I’d hazard.

    Of interest: ‘The Liverpool dockworkers’ strike 1995-98 and the Internet’, Chris Bailey [PDF] and Striking dock workers + revolting RTS types, Bristle KRS, February 4, 2008 [inc video]

  10. THR says:

    Much of organised labour, or at least the more ‘progressive’ elements, has recognised the importance of forms of transnational class solidarity — a project which has its own, sometimes quite inspiring, history.

    I think this point is at the heart of the problem. We have a GFC, and yet there’s every chance that the left will pass up on the opportunity to change the system.

    I think there’s a serious economic argument to be made that the GFC could have been greatly mitigated, and possibly avoided, if workers in SE Asia had better pay and conditions. It might mean less consumption of cheap goods in the West, but nobody ever died from not having Chinese sunglasses or a Taiwanese DVD player. I can’t see too many politicans pushing for solidarity with Chinese workers.

  11. @ndy says:

    A few points.

    First, there is the nature of the GFC. This is typically portrayed as being triggered by the collapse of the US housing bubble in 2007, the effects of this collapse having then been magnified throughout the US banking and financial sector, and eventually the globe. The creation of this bubble is further blamed on lax (US) government regulation in the banking and financial sector generally; lax government regulation in this and other sectors of the economy being a product of the triumph of neoliberal ideology, which is generally recognised as having begun its ascent (in the West) in the late ’70s and early ’80s (while very similar programs were being forced upon various ‘developing’ and ‘Third World’ countries throughout the ’60s and ’70s via ‘structural adjustment programs’ administered by the International Mother Fuckers and the Whirled Bank).

    I’m unsure why you believe that “the GFC could have been greatly mitigated, and possibly avoided, if workers in SE Asia had better pay and conditions”, or what might have been the consequences this might have had or will have for consumption patterns in the West (the relationship between the two being complicated by a range of other factors).

    Secondly, there is the left and its response to these developments. The issues here are definition and scope. It might be worthwhile asking, in this context, what has been the response of the Australian left to the GFC? Assuming a fairly broad definition of the term ‘left’, this would include consideration of the response of the ALP and trades union movement (the political and industrial wings of the labour movement). On my assessment, these remain the main forums for left-wing ideas; there is relatively little ‘left’ political activity elsewhere in ‘civil society’, and a near-total absence of radical egalitarian movements in Australian society as a whole. In other words, and in summary, I’m not convinced that there’s much (of a) left to respond. Be that as it may, the most obvious — and in many ways most reasonable — response has been a reversion to more straightforwardly ‘Keynesian’ or ‘social-democratic’ economic measures: ‘social democracy from above’.

    As ever, the really interesting political developments — from my perspective — stem from the grassroots, whether among the peasant and workers’ movements in South America or even some parts of Europe. Part of the problem, I think, is that discussion of “the opportunity to change the system” requires an understanding of what “the system” is; the degree to which ‘it’ is responsible for the current crisis; whether this system might be properly identified as being ‘neoliberalism’ or capitalism in toto; and what alternatives, both practical and theoretical, the left is presenting, to whom, and what social forces are able and willing to adopt such programs should they exist.

    Speaking of taking action, a farking brilliant story from (where else?) France:

    PARIS, Mar 27, 2009 (UPI via COMTEX) — The manager of a 3M factory in France was freed Thursday after being held for 24 hours by workers angry over impending layoffs.

    Luc Rousselet, who managed a 3M plant in Pithiviers, was the second French executive to be taken hostage this month, Forbes reported. Two weeks ago, the head of Sony’s French operations was held by employees in a protest over layoffs, and two managers with the Michelin tire company were captured and held overnight last month.

    “In France there is an established culture of public and political protest that Britain and the U.S. don’t really have,” David Lea of Control Risk Group told Forbes. “The preservation of jobs is considered a major goal, so companies, particularly those that are engaging in pre-emptive layoffs, are facing problems.”

    The French government helped facilitate talks between 3M, headquartered in the United States, and the unions after Rousselet was taken hostage, Deutsche Welle reported. At Pithiviers, 3M had announced that 110 of 225 jobs would be cut.

    See also: João Bernardo, Seven theses on the present crisis, Revista Textos de Economia (vol. 11, nº 2, 2008), Departamento de Ciências Econômicas, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (Brazil).

    A survey of the financial crisis, systemic regulation problems for global capital, the economic growth of China, India and Brazil and its relation to the investment strategies of transnational capital.

    “Contrary to what happened the 1930s, the economic and financial crisis which the United States is undergoing is not a world crisis but rather the strengthening of the development opportunities of huge areas of the globe.”

    The author asserts that the tension between nation states and transnational corporations, with neither at present in a position to oversee the interests of the global system as a whole, will be central to any resolution of the crisis.

    With declining union membership ruling out the trade unions’ earlier role within post-war Keynesianism of brokering higher productivity in return for rising living standards, Bernado sees credit expansion as having become the new disciplinary weapon of a, for the moment, fragmented labour force. But, with unions functioning now primarily as “holders of capital” this weakened labour representation contains its own potential problems for capital in controlling and integrating the working class…

    Hear also:

  12. Toaf says:

    THR, about this:

    I think this point is at the heart of the problem. We have a GFC, and yet there’s every chance that the left will pass up on the opportunity to change the system.

    Indeed. And it may be that TEH LEFT doesn’t recognise that the opportunity is there. More importantly, much of what passes for the left doesn’t really want to change the system, only to make it somehow “fairer”.

    For that reason, I have to agree with @ndy that there isn’t much of an Australian left around at present. For mine, the left should see the current climate – in which the global economy swings from boom to bust – as an historic opportunity for the raising of class consciousness and education of revolutionaries. @ndy’s right: you don’t hear too many saying anything like that.

  13. THR says:

    I like to think my view on China is not merely a Bird-esque, crackpot theory.

    I accept your general characterisation of the GFC, and I would view the subprime collapse as the catalyst, and perhaps epicentre of the whole thing. However, I think more than the housing bubble and subsequent collapse need to be occurring for a GFC.

    A guy on an Against the Grain podcast had an interesting stat on a recent episode, namely, that about 25% of the world’s workers were Chinese. We in Australia know that, well before the GFC, our own manufacturing sector was decimated by the outsourcing/relocation of firms to Asia. Whilst US firms have been exploiting the Central Americans for years, as have the big European countries been doing to the former Soviet bloc, SE Asia has remained the world’s sweatshop.

    As regards the macroeconomic links between China and the GFC, an Australian right-wing econoblogger pointed to various factors leading to the crisis, including these two:

    i) High rates of savings in China and among the oil exporters which – despite local investment booms – could not be absorbed entirely locally in the economies that gave rise to them and which therefore spilt over into international capital markets driving down global interest rates;

    (ii) The long-term overvaluation of the US dollar (or equivalently the undervaluation of the Chinese currency) that facilitated the high rates of Chinese savings and which led to the debt-financed consumption-led boom in the US and other countries that was partly financed by resulting excessive balance of trade surpluses;


    Both of these factors could, in my opinion, have been very different had Chinese manufacturing not been founded upon sweatshop conditions. This in turn may have meant that the subprime collapse had shorter-lasting, and more localised effects. The blogger cited above also neglects to mention China buying up US treasury bonds, and the mass-migration of rural workers to the cities.

    Of course, all of this is rather speculative. I’m not an economist, and the discipline at times appears not dissimilar to tea-leaf reading.

    Anyway, last year, we had talk that Australia’s resource boom (funded by China’s growth) would save us from recession. This may very well not happen. China’s growth, whilst still positive, has slowed, and poor conditions of work in the city, coupled with massive job losses, has started a wave of mass migration back to the countryside.

  14. @ndy says:

    Look! Up in the sky! It’s Graeme Bird! It’s Plane Stoopid! No it’s… THR!

    Seriously but.

    “I think more than the housing bubble and subsequent collapse need to be occurring for a GFC.”


    Re China:

    Yeah, I understand your argument (I think). That is, the Chinese government has responded to declining foreign demand for Chinese manufactures by, in part, attempting to boost rates of domestic consumption. It is aided in this endeavour by the emergence in the last few decades (that is, since the death of Chairman Miaow in ’76 and following on from a series of economic reforms since then aimed at encouraging the growth of the private market) of a large urban middle class. Generally speaking, being the third largest national economy, whatever happens in China will have enormous effects upon the global economy.

    So: “the GFC could have been greatly mitigated, and possibly avoided, if workers in SE Asia had better pay and conditions”?

    To my mind, South-East Asia implies countries such as Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam and Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore and so on. But if China, Mongolia and so on are included in this definition, that’s obviously a massive number of workers, and a very large proportion of global labour. All things being equal, higher pay — that is, a higher proportion of profits on labour being returned to workers — translates into higher demand for domestic consumption of consumer durables (as opposed to profits being used for re-investment in financial speculation in, say, the US market).

    Regarding Chinese foreign investment, much appears to have centred on the US economy. The same applies in the case of oil-producing economies in the Middle East. While Chinese foreign investment (that is, FDI) has grown enormously over the previous decades, OPEC countries (meaning: the elites which dominate and control these economies) have been investing heavily in the West for a considerably longer period. The costs to the US state of maintaining a policy of military Keynesianism and its prosecution of the decades-long Gulf War has also been an important, perhaps crucial factor in altering the overall terms of trade between the US (meaning: the US-based corporate and political elites which dominate the US and much of the global economy) and its allies/rivals.

    In terms of historical periodisation, many argue that what we have been witnessing is the end of a period of global ‘neoliberalism’ the emergence of which dates back to the dismantling of the post-WWII Bretton Woods system in 1970s. Some argue that this cycle can be most properly understood by way of larger historical processes of labour composition.

    Of interest in this context:



    ‘Class conflicts in the transformation of China’, Aufheben, No.16, 2008 [PDF]


    ‘Marx’s Crisis Theory as a Theory of Class Struggle’, Peter Bell and Harry Cleaver, The Commoner, No.5, 2002/1982 [PDF]


    Key Thinkers Series – Antonio Negri
    Public Lecture
    Professor Verity Burgmann
    Thursday 30 April 2009 @ 05:45 pm – 07:30 pm
    Prince Philip Theatre, Ground Floor, Architecture Building (bldg 133), Parkville

    Antonio Negri, Italian political philosophy professor born in 1933, was prominent in the Autonomist workers’ movement in the 1970s and wrongly imprisoned for many years until 2003 for his alleged role in the Red Brigades’ terrorist activities. He has become the foremost exponent of ‘autonomist’ Marxism. Negri critiques classical Marxism for its emphasis on the power of capital and argues for a reorientation of Marxism to affirm the role of labour as an autonomous dynamic subject able to go beyond mere reaction to exploitation and take the offensive in ways that shape the class struggle and define the future. His ideas have inspired opponents of corporate globalisation, especially recent works such as Empire in 2000 and Multitude in 2004.


    The crisis of neoliberalism is also the crisis of social democracy. Articles from the UK journal Aufheben are especially useful:

    ‘Social Democracy: No Future? Introduction to Articles on the Retreat of Social Democracy’, No.7, 1998

    ‘The Retreat of Social Democracy… Re-imposition of Work in Britain and the ‘Social Europe”, No.8, 1999

  15. @ndy says:

    Oh yeah.

    On China.

    See also:

    China in Crisis: Reason to Panic?

    In December 2008 the Financial Times spoke of an irony of history if the Communist Party of China (CPC), that had survived the collapse of the socialist Eastern Block in 1989 (and the social upheaval of Tian’anmen), would collapse through the events that come along with the global crisis of capitalism in 2009. Another commentator said, China’s politicians, faced with a possible social explosion of workers, peasants and unemployed, were already in a “state of panic”. But this is not just about China and the rule of the CPC. The question is whether the current crisis and subsequent social turnover can lead to the formation of a global working class that can finish off the capitalist mode of production world-wide. For any answer to that question class struggles in China play an important role.

    China is still the biggest country in the world, with 1.3 billion people, and by now the third biggest economy. Through the opening and industrialization of the 1980s and 90s China became the “assembly line of the world”, is part of global chains of production and circulation, and acts as a “global player” in investment and credit.

    Over the past 20 years the immense process of industrialization has pulled millions of migrant workers from the countryside into the cities and special economic zones where they work in factories, on construction sites, as domestic helpers etc. After 2003 their struggles have gained momentum and put the regime of the communist party under pressure. The current global crisis is overturning the social relations in China again. The communist party is trying to deal with the effects. If it fails that might weaken and possibly decompose the regime and the rule of capital in China, with important consequences for the rest of the world.

    This article describes the interrelation of crisis and class struggle in China in the past two decades and the current development. It focuses on the situation in the cities, especially that of the migrant workers…

    Wildcat is also neat.

  16. @ndy says:

    [For grumpy cat] Dirty steenky communist Alain Badiou on BBC’s HARDTalk, March 24, 2009:

  17. @ndy says:

    On a somewhat related note, Saul Newman has written an Editorial on post-anarchism, the subject of the latest # of Anarchist Studies (Volume 16, No.2, 2008).

    Postanarchism is emerging as an important new current in anarchist thought, and it is the source of growing interest and debate amongst anarchist activists and scholars alike, as well as in broader academic circles. Given the number of internet sites, discussion groups, and new books and journal publications appearing on postanarchism, it is time that the challenges it poses to classical anarchist thought and practice are taken more seriously.

    Postanarchism refers to a wide body of theory – encompassing political theory, philosophy, aesthetics, literature and film studies – which attempts to explore new directions in anarchist thought and politics. While it includes a number of different perspectives and trajectories, the central contention of postanarchism is that classical anarchist philosophy must take account of new theoretical directions and cultural phenomena, in particular, postmodernity and poststructuralism. While these theoretical categories have had a major impact on different areas of scholarship and thought, as well as politics, anarchism tends to have remained largely resistant to these developments and continues to work within an Enlightenment humanist epistemological framework1 which many see as being in need of updating. At the same time, anarchism – as a form of political theory and practice – is becoming increasingly important to radical struggles and global social movements today, to a large extent supplanting Marxism. Postanarchism seeks to revitalise anarchist theory in light of these new struggles and forms of resistance. However, rather than dismissing the tradition of classical anarchism, postanarchism on the contrary, seeks to explore its potential and radicalise its possibilities. It remains entirely consistent, I would suggest, with the libertarian and egalitarian horizon of anarchism; yet it seeks to broaden the terms of anti-authoritarian thought to include a critical analysis of language, discourse, culture and new modalities of power. In this sense, postanarchism does not understand post to mean being ‘after’ anarchism, but post in the sense of working at and extending the limits of anarchist thought by uncovering its heterogeneous and unpredictable possibilities.

    This issue explores some of these new approaches to anarchist theory and practice. Benjamin Noys’ essay is important in this respect because it seeks to highlight a series of problems and conceptual and practical limitations that these new anarchist approaches often encounter. His essay explores the proximity – as well as critical distance – of contemporary thinker, Alain Badiou to anarchism. While Badiou’s political thought seems to reflect certain anarchist ideas about a radical politics that is autonomous from the Party and the State, he is also extremely critical of anarchism, and especially of what he sees as the libertarian element of the global anti-capitalist movement. For Badiou, these anti-globalisation ‘movementists’ – drawing on motifs of flux, flows of desire and deterritorialisation derived from poststructuralists such as Deleuze and Guattari, as well as Hardt and Negri – fetishise and, in a sense, mimic the movement of global capitalism itself, and are unable to gain any critical distance from it. Noys uses this critique to work through questions of strategy, organisation and coherence which are central to the anti-authoritarian radical politics today – for instance, is a contemporary anarchist politics practical and can it achieve anything without some form of organisation; and can the notion of organisation be rethought in ways that avoid the Party form and which do not conflict with anarchism’s commitment to decentralised and non-hierarchical forms of activism?

    We seem to have moved some distance from a bonehead gig in Perth on ANZAC Day.

    In that spirit:

    As a piece of totally irrelevant information, one may mention that the present popularity of “the Chinese” restaurant in Great Britain, and the growing interest in Chinese food, may be traced back to the tea house that was opened in Paris in 1902, as a means of financing anarchist propaganda! Naturally this was reinforced by modern travel making our eating habits more cosmopolitan. The idea that Chinese students should go abroad to learn about modern industry, and finance themselves by working in Chinese catering, came from Chang ching-chiang, the Anarchist. Few Chinese restauranteurs will know this today!

    A curious sidelight on Pa Chin’s works… was brought to my notice by a friend who visited China in 1948. One of the Chinese writers complained to him of the difficulty in translating many Russian and Polish novels was the fact that so many had Jewish characters usually in caricature or denigration, “Fagin” types, but that the Chinese reader had already a preconceived notion of Jews and these stage-Jews appeared incredible to him. The fault, he said, was Pa Chin’s, who had always depicted the heroic, militant and totally non-bourgeois Jew in his writings. Such figures… were not of course Pa Chin’s assumption of typical Jews; the only Jews he met were in Paris, where he met them in the anarchist movement and nowhere else. Emma Goldman appears in several of his novels; also Berkman, in various guises; and his great hero (in ‘Dream on the Sea’) is Sholem Schwarzbart, a Jewish anarchist who killed the Czarist general Simon Petliura in Paris, in revenge for the Ukrainian massacres of 1919-20. Pa Chin has even invented a Chinese word, Black Beard (Schwarz-bart; Hsia-t’zu-pa-te) to describe “the Jews who were never slaves”.

    ~ Albert Meltzer, ‘Origins of the Anarchist Movement in China’, Cienfuegos Press Review, No.4, 1978, p.104.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.