{"id":22457,"date":"2022-10-28T09:58:26","date_gmt":"2022-10-28T09:58:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/?p=22457"},"modified":"2022-10-28T12:46:37","modified_gmt":"2022-10-28T12:46:37","slug":"review-of-paul-masons-how-to-stop-fascism-history-ideology-resistance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/2022\/10\/28\/review-of-paul-masons-how-to-stop-fascism-history-ideology-resistance\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of Paul Mason’s – ‘How to Stop Fascism: History, Ideology, Resistance’"},"content":{"rendered":"

Over the Ukraine war, there have been two campist positions which have emerged on the Left – support or apologetics for Putin, and \u00a0support or apologetics for NATO, tied to backing for Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour leadership. Paul Mason is an example of the latter. Alfie Hancox’s review of Mason’s How to Stop Fascism: History, Ideology, Resistance<\/em> gets to some of the political roots of \u00a0Mason’s thinking. This article was first posted in Ebb<\/em><\/a> Magazine.<\/strong><\/p>\n

REVIEW OF PAUL MASON’S HOW TO STOP FASCISM, IDEOLOGY, RESISTANCE<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Paul Mason, the self-declared \u2018Gramscian social democrat\u2019 turned NATO cheerleader, who cooperated with counterintelligence agencies in a covert info war<\/a> against his erstwhile comrades, has written a book on anti-fascism. In How to Stop Fascism: History, Ideology, Resistance<\/em>, Mason constructs a familiar narrative in which the \u2018anti-systemic\u2019 (communist) left paved the way to fascism in Europe by alienating reformists and the liberal centre. His defence of the centrist politics of the \u2018golden mean\u2019 rests on the assumption that liberalism is self-moderating \u2013 a notion belied by the liberal establishment\u2019s response to the social and economic crises of the 1920s and 1930s. Reiterating Hannah Arendt\u2019s definition of fascism as the \u2018temporary alliance of the elite and the mob\u2019, Mason argues that the only thing that can stop it is \u2018an alliance of the centre and the left\u2019. Yet in the present-day context, it is evident that the \u2018lesser evil\u2019 of the \u2018extreme centre\u2019<\/a>, through its dogmatic support for economic austerity, anti-migrant policies, and imperialist warmongering, instead holds the lion\u2019s share of responsibility for the contemporary rise of authoritarian populism.<\/p>\n

Mason\u2019s claim to provide \u2018a new, materialist theory of fascism\u2019 is undermined by his tacit promotion of a culturalist framing of civilisational conflict and romanticised portrayal of the \u2018rationalist, liberal principles of the Enlightenment\u2019. This reflects Mason\u2019s increasing preoccupation to defend the liberal capitalist order against what he calls<\/a> the \u2018authoritarian, anti-modernist dictatorships\u2019 of the East, by advocating uncritical support for NATO interventionism and military escalation. At a time when neoliberal states are intensifying their powers to suppress popular protest and stifle intellectual dissent, How to Stop Fascism<\/em> calls for a revival of the \u2018militant democracy\u2019 adopted by anti-communist governments in the repressive Cold War context. Though the recent leaking of Mason\u2019s McCarthyite mind map of the anti-NATO \u2018infosphere\u2019 has damaged his credibility, the ideas elaborated in his book hold a good deal of currency among the reformist left in Britain and are therefore worth examining.<\/p>\n

Drawing on the lessons of the interwar period, Mason argues that \u2018Hitler\u2019s path to power was paved by the political theories of his left-wing opponents\u2019. Although communists like Clara Zetkin, Antonio Gramsci, and Leon Trotsky were the first to take seriously the virulent counterrevolutionary essence of fascism, and to theorise its dynamics as a mass movement, Comintern orthodoxy was, as Mason puts it, wedded to a \u2018fatalistic optimism\u2019. The Comintern leadership\u2019s belief that social revolution in Western Europe was imminent, and that the main enemy was therefore reformism, encouraged an underestimation of the fascist threat. This na\u00efve viewpoint was expressed by the Italian Communist Party leader Amadeo Bordiga, who claimed in 1924, a year before Mussolini consolidated his dictatorship, that \u2018Fascism, fundamentally, merely repeats the old game of the bourgeois left parties\u2019. Despite the early setbacks this approach produced in Italy and Germany, it was subsequently codified in the Comintern\u2019s ultra-left policy of \u2018class against class\u2019, when social democracy was defined as \u2018the moderate wing of fascism\u2019.<\/p>\n

While it\u2019s easy, as Mason does, to emphasise the \u2018futile sectarianism\u2019 of the Comintern\u2019s Third Period, there were real and unavoidable reasons for the \u2018great schism\u2019<\/a> between communism and social democracy. In the First World War, the reformist parties of the Second International allowed themselves to be swept up in the patriotic fervour \u2013 mobilising labour movement support for a catastrophic inter-imperialist conflict. Social democracy, by integrating into national state structures through the course of WWI, had tied its fortunes with that of a disintegrating liberalism. During the German November Revolution, the Social Democratic Party (SPD) took the side of capitalist restoration, helping suppress the Spartacist Uprising which culminated in the executions of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg. Over the following decade, the SPD\u2019s ability to advance a viable socialist counter to the rise of reaction was utterly hamstrung by its \u2018sense of constitutionalist responsibility and patriotic mission\u2019 and \u2018traditional prejudices about the undisciplined instincts of the non-Social Democratic masses\u2019.[1]<\/a> As Mason acknowledges, the reformists \u2018were blindly committed to legality and parliament, at a time when politics was becoming radical, violent, populist and moving to the streets.\u2019 Nevertheless, he argues that a viable left-wing strategy would have entailed \u2018an alliance with liberalism to defend the existing democracy, no matter how flawed it was.\u2019<\/p>\n

As emphasised in Enzo Traverso\u2019s Fire and Blood: The European Civil War, 1914\u20131945<\/em>, in the interwar conditions of severe capitalist crisis, the collapse of liberal and social-democratic corporatism was an objective situation which communists were responding to, not responsible for engendering. If reformism held over the working class in Britain, this owed not insignificantly to the fact that, relative to Germany and Italy, it was a \u2018sated\u2019 colonial power<\/a>, where prolonged imperial dominance provided the economic cushioning for the national crisis to be resolved in \u2018a peculiarly British collectivism\u2019.[2]<\/a> Even here, though, the Liberal social reformer William Beveridge suggested in 1932 that only \u2018a world dictator\u2019<\/a> could resolve the capitalist crisis. Writing shortly after the election of Hitler, dissident German communist (and future Cold War liberal) Richard L\u00f6wenthal captured the inescapable problems of reformism in the pre-fascist context: \u2018The dilemma of its position is expressed above all by the fact that any effective resistance to the attacks of the bourgeoisie only makes a capitalist resolution of the crisis more difficult; it intensifies the crisis and contributes to the further undermining of democracy. On the other hand, to make concessions directly benefits its opponents by weakening its own basis of support.\u2019[3]<\/a> Mason argues that the communists trying to \u2018out-shout\u2019 the fascists as \u2018revolutionary opponents of the system\u2019 was fatal since it alienated the reformists and liberals. Without a left-wing anti-systemic option, though, would not more disenfranchised workers, peasants, and declassed petty bourgeoisie have been pulled towards the fascist ersatz \u2018alternative\u2019?<\/p>\n

Mason is correct to say of liberal democracy that \u2018[n]ot only does it allow workers and oppressed people the space to organize in but we, the people, actually helped create it, through two centuries of struggle.\u2019 The crucial point, though, is that liberalism is not self-moderating: the bourgeoisie don\u2019t wait for their exploited opponents to organise to conduct their side of the class war. The collaboration of the parliamentary wing of the Italian Socialist Party with the liberal government did not prevent Prime Minister Giovanni Giolitti brokering an electoral pact with Mussolini\u2019s fascists. If communists had retreated from agitating among workers and confronting fascists<\/a> on the streets, and joined the reformists in allying with the bourgeois establishment, would that have prevented the industrialists and landowners from weaponising fascist terror against striking workers and peasants? As L\u00f6wenthal again pointed out, the passivity of German social democracy in the face of Nazism, and its support for the lesser evils of Br\u00fcning and von Papen, did nothing to improve its (or democracy\u2019s) fortunes: \u2018The more the labour movement becomes the passive victim of the democratic crisis, without the capacity to transform it, the more the mere continuation of its existence is widely seen as itself the cause of the crisis, or at least its perpetuation. The less it is able to exercise a Marxist dominance over the situation, the more the dominance of Marxism is made responsible for every misfortune.\u2019[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

If, as Mason maintains, Marxism\u2019s biggest weakness has been to underestimate the value and resilience of liberal democracy, one of its greatest strengths has been to demystify<\/a> the limited and contingent conception of freedom upheld by the political elite. As Ralph Miliband<\/a> noted<\/a>, more clearly than any other phenomenon the rise of fascism demonstrated how quickly the \u2018men of power, privilege and property\u2019 are willing to dispense with political liberties if they see this as necessary to preserving the capitalist order. If increasingly transparent objective circumstances \u2013 that fascism was not just the enemy of socialism, but of democracy as such \u2013 provided the basis for anti-fascist alliances with middle-class liberals, this was offset by the latter\u2019s counterrevolutionary instincts.[5]<\/a> Fear of Bolshevism, which represented the twin threat of proletarian insurrection and anti-colonial revolution, made fascism the preferred option of many bourgeois democrats. Before the outbreak of the Second World War, it was \u2018the widespread hope of imperialist circles, especially in Britain, to use a re-armed Fascist Germany, in unity with Japan, for war on the Soviet Union\u2019.[6]<\/a> The Liberal statesman David Lloyd George<\/a> found in Nazism \u2018a fierce and uncompromising hostility to Russian Bolshevism, coupled with a genuine admiration for the British people\u2019. Mason notes how fascism gorged upon \u2018the wider culture of colonialism, nationalism and militarism that flourished among conservative-minded people before the First World War\u2019 \u2013 but this was a culture that also swept up the liberal establishment steeped in the \u2018pseudo-humanism\u2019 of the Enlightenment<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In justifying his call for \u2018an alliance of the centre and the left\u2019, Mason points to the Popular Front alliances, which won elections in France and Spain, as \u2018the only historical example of democracies effectively defending themselves against a significant fascist threat\u2019. The politics of the anti-fascist national fronts were a product of what Eric Hobsbawm described as the \u2018moment of historical paradox in the relations of capitalism and communism\u2019.[7]<\/a> The liberal imperialist powers had previously preferred fascism to Bolshevism, but their hand was forced by Hitler\u2019s aggressive strategy of colonial expansion in Europe; while the Comintern\u2019s new policy of \u2018The People\u2019s Front Against Fascism and War\u2019, which completely reversed its earlier \u2018class against class\u2019 line, was a painful compromise in desperate conditions, as Nazi imperialism threatened the Soviet state\u2019s survival. Communists in the Allied imperialist countries dropped their prior anti-colonial commitments, entered class collaborationist agreements, and learned to sing the patriotic tune, with lasting consequences in the post-war period. It is doubtful that a Popular Front involving communists and liberals would have been possible at an earlier point in Italy or Germany \u2013 as Mason himself admits, this would have required the bourgeoisie to have wanted to stop fascism which \u2018as it turned out, they never did\u2019. And immediately after the defeat of the Nazi war machine, liberalism seamlessly switched from anti-fascism to anti-communism and neocolonial counterinsurgency under ascendant US hegemony. Despite this, Mason presents the Popular Front as a universal strategy that should be emulated today.<\/p>\n

The situation in the 1920s and 30s, when a much stronger left and labour movement was facing the phenomenon of counterrevolutionary \u2018battering-ram fascism\u2019<\/a>, was very different to today\u2019s danger of \u2018fascist creep\u2019. As argued by the Marxist scholar of fascism David Renton<\/a>, who wrote an overly-generous review<\/a> of Mason\u2019s book, if the left was \u2018genuinely facing\u2019 an \u2018immediate catastrophe\u2019, then \u2018an alliance with liberals would make sense, even if meant biting our collective tongues\u2019. In the present conjuncture, however, Renton points out, there are \u2018a lot of good\u00a0political\u00a0<\/em>reasons why people might not want to be in a Popular Front dominated by anti-Trump liberals\u2019, not least the experience of \u2018the 30-year history which caused tens of millions of voters to see Trump as legitimate\u2019. Mason claims that when the left attacked \u2018liberals like Hillary Clinton\u2019 alongside Donald Trump, they were repeating the sectarian errors of the Third Period. However, left-wing opposition to Clinton was based on a realistic understanding that the neoliberal centre, by delivering decades of economic austerity, systematic violence against migrants, and successive imperialist wars in West Asia, is responsible for the rightward shift of the political spectrum.<\/p>\n

Deploying the Gramscian language of hegemony, Mason argues that a modern Popular Front needs to occupy some kind of centre ground on social issues: \u2018if there is a social force that represents progress, deeply attached to its own conceptions of justice, solidarity and fairness, it needs to build alliances with other social forces who do not share those conceptions, and to avoid needless cultural friction with them.\u2019 This reference to \u2018needless cultural friction\u2019 tacitly plays into the dominant liberal discourse of political polarisation<\/a> that advocates for \u2018sitting on the fence between oppression and resistance\u2019. As much is evident when he writes how it \u2018unfortunately, may be true\u2019 that \u2018trashing the statues of slave traders\u2019, \u2018opposition to forced deportations\u2019 and \u2018active resistance to racist policing\u2019 has prevented Labour from winning back ex-industrial constituencies from the Tories. Mason\u2019s framing of the \u2018culture war within working-class communities\u2019 deliberately obfuscates the material stakes of racism in Britain\u2019s hostile environment. While statist \u2018multiculturalism\u2019<\/a> has done nothing to alleviate the economic impoverishment of Black, brown, and migrant communities, its association with neoliberalisation has enabled centrist politicians to blame excessive cultural \u2018tolerance\u2019 for the hardships caused by capitalist austerity and deindustrialisation. When describing an anti-BLM demo in London, Mason pays lip service to W. E. B. Du Bois\u2019s analysis of the compensatory psychological \u2018wages of whiteness\u2019. But in claiming that the left \u2018firmly rooted in the educated, city-dwelling and multi-ethnic workforce\u2019 is unable to address \u2018logical\u2019 concerns about immigration, Mason recapitulates the divisive narrative<\/a> of the \u2018white working class\u2019 being singularly left behind which has been central to the rise of contemporary right-wing populism.<\/p>\n

Like the social imperialists of the Second International, Mason aims to plaster over class antagonisms by appealing to traditional values, economic protectionism, and the nation\u2019s privileged positioning in the capitalist world-system. During the Corbyn years, Mason<\/a> called for Labour to adopt \u2018a programme to deliver growth and prosperity in Wigan, Newport and Kirkcaldy \u2013 if necessary at the price of not delivering them to Shenzhen, Bombay \u00a0and Dubai.\u2019 As has historically been the case, reformist efforts to maintain labour politics within the parameters of capitalist competition via \u2018the national-racialized scaffold\u2019<\/a> undermines working-class power in the economic crisis while giving fuel to the populist right. As David Broder<\/a> has written, Mason seems to think that Gramsci\u2019s argument for the workers\u2019 party to establish a \u2018moral and intellectual leadership\u2019 entails \u2018swallowing the imperatives of bourgeois politics, or posing as better exponents of the existing hegemonic values\u2019.[8]<\/a><\/p>\n

In 2018, Mason wrote<\/a> that \u2018[i]f we survey the remnants of centrist social democracy and social liberalism \u2013 Renzi in Italy, Schulz in Germany, Hillary Clinton in the USA and the Progress wing of the British Labour Party \u2013 the image that springs to mind is of shipwreck survivors clinging to pieces of wreckage.\u2019 This sober assessment has, however, since been overridden by his hostility to the Eurosceptic and anti-NATO left \u2013 what he refers<\/a> to as the \u2018Neo-Stalinism\u2019 which \u2018destroy[ed] Corbynism\u2019. Like many lapsed Marxists, Mason has allowed a romanticised view of Western civilisation to take the place of any materialist account of world politics. While in his book Mason distances himself from the Cold War theory of \u2018totalitarianism\u2019<\/a>, which served the political purpose of mobilising anti-fascist rhetoric against various threats to post-war capitalism, he has clearly internalised its inner logic. After the outbreak of the recent Ukraine conflict, Mason asserted<\/a> that \u2018the whole survival of Enlightenment thinking, democracy and the post-1945 charter system depends on defeating \u2013 morally, politically and if necessary militarily \u2013 states which have become aggressive, totalitarian and ethno-nationalist.\u2019 Mason\u2019s binary opposition between the \u2018globalist, democratic\u2019 West and the \u2018totalitarian\u2019 East is intended to insulate the former from criticism. Mason\u2019s description of the EU and North America as \u2018former imperialist countries\u2019<\/a> is unlikely to be taken seriously by the global populations still living under the thumb of neo-colonialist oppression. As summarised<\/a> by antiwar author Jeremy Scahill, \u2018the mass murder, the sanctions, the regime changes, the election interference, the covert support for anti-democratic forces determined to be good for so-called free markets is, today, as it was in the 1950s, sold in the name of bringing freedom\u2019. It remains the case that the question of democracy cannot be abstracted from the systemic violence of the international capitalist order.<\/p>\n

How to Stop Fascism <\/em>concludes by calling for a revival of the \u2018militant democracy\u2019 advocated by Cold War liberals in the post-war context. Mason describes how in post-fascist countries, \u2018constitutions were altered to avoid the fate that had befallen the Weimar Republic, with rules banning violent political parties and militias, restricting hate speech, and enshrining the state\u2019s monopoly of coercive force.\u2019 \u2018For all their flaws and failings\u2019, Mason contends, \u2018many of the regimes constructed after 1945 were anti-fascist democracies.\u2019 Yet the NATO bloc\u2019s rehabilitation of Nazi generals and industrialists in West Germany, and support for right-wing dictatorships in Greece and Portugal, suggested that Cold War liberalism was more concerned with suppressing communism and reconstituting capitalist hegemony under the leadership of US imperialism, than preventing the re-emergence of fascism. Mason\u2019s call for a return to McCarthyite repressive tolerance \u2013 what he terms \u2018Militant Democracy 2.0\u2019 \u2013 comes at a time when neoliberal states are already encroaching on the right to protest and voice dissent. Within Britain, Mason has helped provide left cover for Keir Starmer<\/a>\u2019s project to make Labour the preferred party of \u2018law and order\u2019. Mason\u2019s belief that a strongarm democracy is needed to \u2018push the extremists back towards populism\u2019 betrays a fundamental misunderstanding<\/a> of fascism as a process that exploits existing authoritarian tendencies in the state<\/a>. It shouldn\u2019t be easily forgotten how the political establishment\u2019s rabid demonisation of the \u2018unpatriotic left\u2019 encouraged a white-nationalist terrorist to murder Labour MP Jo Cox in 2016.<\/p>\n

Mason apparently misses the irony of psychoanalysing the \u2018authoritarian radical\u2019 mindset of socialists pursuing system change, while lamenting<\/a> that left-wing activists \u2018cannot imagine themselves running MI5, the British army or taking crunch decisions about an SAS operation.\u2019 Absence of literary acclaim notwithstanding, Mason\u2019s political trajectory mirrors that of the archetypal patriotic socialist, George Orwell<\/a>: both had stints at the BBC, both combined their anti-communism with an admiration for Popular Frontism, and both produced blacklists of the radical left with sinister emphases on ethnicity. Mason attacks the economic determinism of interwar Marxists, but, like Orwell, he has fallen victim to another kind of fatalism: the belief that in the end hope lies not with the proles, but with the bourgeois state. Unfortunately, Mason\u2019s state loyalism and parliamentary paternalism are reflective of wider opportunistic trends within the British left unable to contain their admiration for Starmer\u2019s \u2018ruthless pragmatism\u2019<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Attempts to moderate capitalist states by adapting to the centrist politics of the golden mean, to the detriment of building democratic resistance to an undemocratic system, have the opposite effect to that intended in the long run. The most significant lesson of Corbynism<\/a> was that the more the left made concessions to the liberal centre, for instance on issues of \u2018national security\u2019, immigration, and policing, the bolder the right-wing of the party became. Of course, this does not mean the left should revive the sectarian politics of the Third Period. Nor can it simply drag up ready-made models of either a \u2018united front\u2019 or \u2018popular front\u2019. Early communist debates on hegemony \u2018raised a host of questions that could not be resolved by reference to basic principle but required instead well-honed tactical flair grounded in local experience.\u2019<\/a>Nevertheless, Mason is an instructive case of what happens when the watering down of principle for the sake of pragmatism becomes a guiding political philosophy.<\/p>\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Geoff Eley, Forging Democracy<\/em> (Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 168.<\/strong><\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Stuart Hall and Bill Schwarz, \u2018State and Society, 1880\u20131930\u2019 in Crises in the British State<\/em> (CCCS, 1985), p. 30.<\/strong><\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> David Beetham ed., Marxists in the Face of Fascism<\/em> (Haymarket Books, 2019), p. 307\u20138.<\/strong><\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Ibid.<\/strong><\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> In Italy, a minority of radical middle-class intellectuals following the \u2018liberal socialism\u2019 of Piero Gobetti adopted a militant anti-fascist position.<\/strong><\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Rajani Palme Dutt, Fascism and Social Revolution<\/em> (M. Lawrence, 1935), p. 217.<\/strong><\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Extremes<\/em> (Abacus, 1995), p. 7.<\/strong><\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Mason claims that the Gramscian \u2018toolbox\u2019 includes \u2018an end to revolutionary phraseology\u2019 and \u2018an alliance with liberalism to defend the existing democracy, no matter how flawed\u2019 \u2013 as if Gramsci didn\u2019t spend his entire political career as a communist revolutionary attacking the deficiencies of Italy\u2019s liberal democracy, with its endemic parliamentary corruption, social-imperialist tendencies, inability to solve the \u2018Southern Question\u2019, and reliance on authoritarian methods to suppress industrial militancy.<\/strong><\/p>\n

17.10.22<\/strong><\/p>\n

__________<\/p>\n

also see:-<\/p>\n

Critiques of Campism<\/strong><\/p>\n

Why has Putin invaded Ukraine? Part 1, page 5 \u2013 Allan Armstrong<\/a><\/p>\n

The US is no ally of the Left in Ukraine or anywhere else \u2013 Yanis Varoufakis \u2013 openDemocracy<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

On the frontier of whiteness? \u2013 Expropriation, war and social reproduction in Ukraine \u2013 Olena Lyubchenko – LeftEast<\/a><\/p>\n

For the victory of the Ukrainian people – Yorgos Muitralis and Connor Costick<\/a><\/p>\n

We need peoples\u2019 solidarity with Ukraine against war not fake solidarity \u2013 Shaun Matsheza and Nick Buxton, Commons of governments\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n

Pro-Campist article<\/strong><\/p>\n

Former NATO military analyst blows the whistle on West\u2019s Ukraine invasion narrative \u2013 Jacques Baud<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

_________<\/p>\n

EL&SD coverage of Ukraine since 2013<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Over the Ukraine war, there have been two campist positions which have emerged on the Left – support or apologetics for Putin, and \u00a0support or apologetics for NATO, tied to backing for Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour leadership. Paul Mason is an example of the latter. Alfie Hancox’s review of Mason’s How to Stop Fascism: History,…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1843,1855,1858,1861,1867,1846,1854,1868,18,1864,1878],"tags":[9140],"class_list":["post-22457","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-how-capitalists-organise","category-exploitation-and-emancipation","category-oppression-liberation","category-alienation-self-determination","category-emancipation-liberation-and-self-determination","category-british-imperialism","category-the-left-crisis","category-against-imperialism","category-political-campaigns","category-our-history","category-england-against-unionism","tag-author-alfie-hancox"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":""},"views":7667,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22457","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22457"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22457\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22465,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22457\/revisions\/22465"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22457"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22457"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22457"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}