Show Me Your Laces: The Identical Aesthetic and Ideological Clash Exemplified by Anarchist and Neo-Fascist Punk

On the twelfth of September, 1992, the Waterloo station of the English National Rail system erupted into a riot, with two groups of men viciously attacking each other throughout the depot and the nearby streets. The ensuing clashes included both beatings and stabbings, and local police temporarily closed the train station to stop the chaos, eventually making thirty-six arrests[1].[2] The next day, The Independent issued a story describing the massive brawl as a “skinhead battle,” between an assembly of neo-Nazis and leftist attackers. In fact, the members of the two factions looked eerily similar—shaved heads, black leather boots, and a preference for dark jackets. To an uninformed bystander, the brawlers probably looked completely identical, but the two groups could not have differed more. This so-called Battle of Waterloo pitted the left-wing Anti-Fascist Action, or AFA, against neo-fascists and neo-Nazi concertgoers.[3][4] AFA launched this attack in order to shut down a concert put on by Skrewdriver, a prominent neo-Nazi punk rock band with support from Blood and Honour, a promotional organization that sought to spread neo-Nazi ideology through music[5]. Without context clues and further research, however, it proves all but impossible to determine from existing riot footage which bald, jackbooted man committing assault and battery belongs to which side[6]. Because of this odd visual aspect of the incident, the Battle of Waterloo exemplifies the similarities between anarchists and anti-fascists when compared to the neo-fascist far-right.

The identical appearances and tactics of the Battle of Waterloo’s participants directly reflects the nature of political punk in Europe and the United States. Punk as a whole formed a battleground, as anarchist and nonpartisan punk groups encountered encroachment from neo-fascists, some openly affiliated with neo-Nazi groups like terrorist organization Combat 18[7]. But as neo-fascists and their enemies, anarchists or not, clashed in mosh pits and on the streets, the problem exemplified by the Battle of Waterloo repeatedly comes to the fore. Not only do the men attacking each other look the same, but their music sounds the same, and they willingly use violence as a tool to achieve political ends. This begs a fundamental question about the political clash within punk: what difference, if any, exists between anti-fascists, leftist partisans or otherwise, and neo-fascists? Certainly, the Battle of Waterloo represents one of the largest physical confrontations between the anti-fascist left and neo-fascist right within the context of punk music, and nicely reveals the tactical and aesthetic similarity of the far-right and far-left. Nonpartisan bands, though not anarchists, often joined the fray simply because circumstances deprived them of any other choice. Ultimately, anarchists, nonpartisan anti-fascists, and neo-fascists all made use of nearly identical music and style of appearance, but each of these groups used punk music as a tool to attack each other and further their fundamentally different ideologies.

The conflict within the punk scene among neo-fascists, anarchists, and nonpartisan anti-fascists represents a clash between the post-1960s radical left, and a new generation of neo-fascists and neo-Nazis. Because of the political realignment that followed the upheaval of the 1960s, the far-left and the far-right adopted characteristics substantially different from their ideological predecessors. Thus, the appearance and tactics of punk rock anarchists of the last decades of the twentieth century self-evidently differ from the more academic approach of preceding self-identified anarchists. For example, Emma Goldman, preeminent anarchist theorist and violent revolutionary in her own right, left an intellectual legacy rather than one of raucous punk gigs and boisterous mosh pits[8]. But the fundamental difference between the Old and New Left consists of far more than a shift in venue and methodology. Certainly, punk provided a valuable, dynamic way for working class anarchists and anti-fascists to recruit and organize, but this new ideological cohort focused new set of issues. Rather than solely address labor and economic concerns, anarchists and leftists began to advocate for women’s economic and reproductive rights, anti-colonialism, LGBT rights, environmental preservation, and numerous other causes. These new social and economic causes exemplify the enduring intersectional priorities of the New Left, which prioritizes alliance building in the pursuit of popular revolution[9]. The causes of the New Left proved as diverse as the bands who sang about them, and in the present day, left-anarchist bands regularly advocate for violence against the far-right with one song, and then rail against the destruction of the planet’s ecosystem on the next.[10] Bands that eschew anarchism in favor of other political ideologies or forgo politics altogether demonstrate a similar breadth of focus. Regardless, anti-fascist and anarchist punk exemplifies post-1960s leftism and maintains little in common with its intellectual ancestors. Despite similarities with predecessors such as Goldman, such as their revolutionary aims, the punk rock anarchists completely embraced the priorities and tactics of the New Left.

Post-World War II neo-fascist movements also drastically diverged from their Nazi and Italian predecessors, mirroring the split between Old and New left. Fascist regimes such as those of Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco deliberately cultivated an image of purity, class, and culture. For example, Adolph Hitler’s taste for classical music in the form of Wagnerian Gesamtkunstwerk and his clean-cut, immaculately dressed Schutzstaffel provide a shocking contrast with the skinhead fashion and punk music loved by neo-Nazis[11]^{, [12], [13]}. During an interview in 2018, reformed neo-Nazi Christian Picciolini described an effort to “trade in our boots for suits” during a shift in the American neo-fascist movement, and while this statement addresses a topic somewhat removed from punk, it nicely describes how neo-fascist movements operate and why they differ so drastically from the first generation of fascist regimes[14]. The dynamic between “boots” and “suits” refers to the fact that neo-fascist movements usually rely on a small, academically-focused elite that directs a comparatively larger working-class base that proves more amenable to violence. Because of the decisive political and philosophical conclusion of World War II, fascism in Europe and America fled underground, straining this dichotomy. Any subsequently emerging neo-fascist movement faced a lack of organizational infrastructure as well as muscular resistance from existing governments and civil society. Therefore, neo-fascist movements largely developed in fringe areas of society where resistance proved most weak, finding a niche within working-class areas. Although multiple neo-fascist movements gained substantial street level support in Europe and the United States, broad resistance to neo-fascist ideology frequently prevented the self-styled neo-fascist upper class from gaining serious power. In short, a neo-Nazi street gang can largely operate outside the public eye, while neo-fascists with political aspirations, such as George Lincoln Rockwell, often encounter greater institutional resistance[15]. The neo-fascist underclass generally faced far less resistance within the punk scene than the men who ultimately sought to lead them from above. Thus, post-World War II neo-fascist movements emerged as unbalanced, and unable to imitate the original fascists they considered role models.

Although this article’s central purpose is not to offer partisan judgement but rather to document and analyze the primary political conflict in punk, some moral judgement on this issue proves necessary. Neo-fascist movements exist despite the participants’ full knowledge of atrocities like those conducted at Auschwitz and Dachau, and their members openly venerate such events as desirable, and hope to replicate them in the future. Less explicit neo-fascist movements often attempt to minimize or ignore these atrocities, but this tactic proves similarly detestable. Thus, in addition to the structural differences described above, neo-fascist and neo-Nazi movements possess a deliberate, unabashed nastiness that morally and practically sets them apart from their ideological predecessors. Although the fascist movements of Europe slaughtered millions, these regimes did not rise to power while openly advocating for genocide. Modern neo-fascist movements, especially explicit neo-Nazi groups, openly call for such atrocities either by commission or omission. Thus, rhetoric that judges “both sides” as equally guilty ignores all reasonable moral standards by fallaciously equating anarchists and anti-fascists with the neo-fascists they oppose.[16] [17] [18]While abrasive, violent, and often antisocial, punk rock anarchists and anti-fascists do not venerate ideologies and regimes that perpetrated some of the most hideous actions in recorded human history. While anarchists and anti-fascists merit serious scrutiny because of their revolutionary ideals and tendency towards violence, neither philosophy aims at implementing mechanized, race-based slaughter. Numerous similarities between anarchist and neo-fascist punk certainly exist, but any worthwhile conversation about their interplay must acknowledge that their ideologies exist in completely different moral categories.

Punk Music

Punk music’s vibrant and often violent political ecosystem has long fascinated scholars, resulting in extensive analysis. On the one hand, both anarchists and neo-fascists sought to use punk as a tool to spread their message and attack each other, but it appears that successfully utilizing punk as a political weapon undermines punk’s authenticity. In fact, numerous scholars argue that punk projects fail due to the genre’s inherent flaws, which eventually eliminate all characteristics that once qualified a given artist as punk. More practically, the scholarly histories of post-1960s anarchism and neo-fascism generally conclude that both political subgroups failed in their bid to use punk as an effective engine of social and political change.

Any discussion of punk music must address the origin of political music and the process by which music achieves political characteristics. John Street’s Music and Politics attempts to provide such an explanation, addressing how music contributes to the development of political movements. Street discusses at length the concept that political music directly reflects social and economic conditions, and he finds it “conceivable, at least, that music is well adapted to reflecting or responding to reality, and that certain styles of music-making are disposed to take advantage of this potential.”[19] However, Street ultimately rejects this hypothesis, citing a lack of any empirical or theoretical basis for the idea that political music exists as a product of external social circumstances. For example, during the peak of punk music, 1976 to 1978, artists did not produce a massive amount of “explicit political content”[20]. Therefore, Street adopts the idea that “internal mechanisms” drive change in political music, a phrase he uses to describe an institutional explanation for the creation and spread of political music[21]. These “mechanisms” specifically refer to the forces that motivate record labels and other music industry gatekeepers to collaborate with social movements for the purpose of mutual gain. “One way to think of this is to consider the ‘capital’ that is traded in the alliance of music and politics”[22]. The term “capital” can refer to either the actual funds required to produce records or put on shows, or social capital that facilitates the union of a given social movement with one part of the modern music industry, the type of entity that Street refers to as a “key player”[23]. In fact, Street’s institutional theory provides an excellent basis for the failure of punk to remain true to itself, a frequently discussed theme within the literature on punk music.

According to some scholars, punk music’s characteristics doom it to either obscurity or inauthenticity. Thompson argues in “Market Failure: Punk Rock Economics, Early and Late,” that punk inherently sets itself up to either fail in its mission of providing authentic music and social commentary by achieving economic success and popularity, or maintain its status as actual punk goals yet fail to achieve widespread commercial success or influence. Given punk’s thesis of rebellion, subversion, and challenge to authority, collaborating with major corporate groups in the music industry for the sake of commercial success constitutes abject failure. Additionally, the anti-capitalist biases of neo-fascism and anarchism guarantee a deeper sense of ideological failure for political punk bands that succumb to corporate pressure. Ostensibly, anarchism seeks the total destruction of the modern market capitalist economy, yet for most anarcho-punk bands to exist, the members must actively conform to the capitalist framework. Therefore, Thompson argues that “punk has failed and continues to fail, even on a relatively small scale, to overturn the dominant mode of economic production that is proffered it”[24]. In this case, she cites major record labels as dominating the music industry during the late twentieth century, and out-competing punk bands that chose to avoid participating in the market economy. Thompson’s analysis nicely meshes with Street’s institutional theory, since she explores the error of so-called “Big Six” rock labels in misreading public taste and creating an environment where punk could become a viable, albeit niche, option[25]. This test case appears to validate Street’s “key player” theory[26]. However, this early punk trend quickly evaporated, and bands quickly succumbed to external market forces, since “punk for itself is never considered commercially successful”[27]. Thompson’s analysis correctly explains the paradox of commercially successful political punk. For example, bands such as the Sex Pistols and Green Day ostensibly maintained strong ideological stances before abandoning them for the sake of money or suffering from absorption into the surrounding culture[28]. Within this paradigm, even if a punk band collaborated with major industry players while keeping ideological focus, the band would instantly lose the credibility necessary to successfully inhabit a given punk scene.

Narrower studies such as Rich Cross’s assessment of the British punk band Crass and its adherence to punk ideals exemplify the contradictory foundation of the genre. Crass’s approach to punk embodies a measured attempt to avoid the failure of the first generation of punk. Note that by this time, first generation punk bands like the Sex Pistols had fully entered the mainstream despite bringing the concepts of anarchy and punk to the public eye. In fact, “regardless of the political activity and artistic creativity the movement was able to inspire, for Crass and many of those around them it was never sufficient to realize the demands that it set for itself”[29]. Crass specifically advocated for strict anti-authoritarian individualism, and set itself in explicit opposition to the neo-fascist resurgence and miserable economic conditions in contemporary England. Also, the band exemplified the anarcho-punk ideal of do it yourself, or DIY, methodology, exemplified by squatted shows, privately printed and written music zines, and a complete disdain for commercial tactics[30]. However, the members of Crass eventually realized that they could not continue to put forth this massive effort, and subsequently disbanded. While their brand of anarcho-punk served as a response to punk’s self-defeating nature, the unsustainability of do it yourself tactics, and the bitterly ironic rise of strict social norms within punk scenes such as straight edge veganism also confirm this failure[31]. Although neo-fascist punk contains far less anti-capitalist rhetoric, this sub-genre proved similarly susceptible to commercial bastardization and failure as punk. Timothy S. Brown points out that one of the most influential neo-Nazi bands, Skrewdriver, adopted commercial and musical characteristics highly antithetical to the punk genre. Neo-fascist punk bands tended to deliberately adopt more genre flexibility, shedding characteristics of Oi! or hardcore punk in favor of other genres. “Whereas the original Oi! music was punk rock at its most basic, incorporating shouted refrains reminiscent of the old cockney pub sing-a-long, the “Nazi rock” pioneered by bands like Skrewdriver and the Bohse Onkelz came closer to heavy metal.”[32]^,[33] In addition to this abandonment of punk rock technique, many neo-fascist bands sought out rudimentary musical institutions in order to extend their reach. For example, Skrewdriver and numerous other British white power bands collaborated with the English neo-fascist National Front party. These bands comprised the White Noise Club, or WNC, effectively the party’s musical propaganda division[34]. Later, Skrewdiver and others formed Blood and Honour, the name of an umbrella organization and magazine for British neo-fascist bands. Given the inherent malleability and more exclusively political goals of neo-fascist movements, this proves unsurprising. That said, punk, especially anarcho-punk, dooms itself to ideological failure by virtue of its characteristics as a genre and the unyielding principles of anarchist philosophy.

However, some scholars emphatically disagree with the institutional explanation for political punk, instead preferring to rely on the aforementioned socio-economic explanation. Martinez adopts this argument, using Northern Ireland during Margaret Thatcher’s administration as a test case. He describes punk music as a mechanism by which socially and politically disenfranchised individuals could project their voices into the public consciousness. In fact, Martinez sees punk bands like The Smiths as providing a unique source of “self and communal understanding”[35]. However, Martinez does admit that some scholars such as Theodore Adorno view popular music as inherently commercialized and unfit to serve this particular function. Thus, he tangentially addresses the thesis of the scholars discussed above—that punk music maintains at best a precarious relationship with capitalism, and thus remains doomed to fail in the long run. Although he uses primarily anecdotal evidence, Martinez believes focuses on “violence and failing socioeconomic conditions that gave birth to punk and to which some punk music responded in late Seventies Britain”[36]. Northern Ireland and urban centers such as London that lagged in economic and social development form Martinez’ primary unit of analysis in this explanation of punk music. Within this hypothesis, punk forms an aesthetic response to these hardships. Thus, unlike Street and other scholars, Martinez prefers to describe the origin of political punk music as the outgrowth of social and environmental variables, rather than an institutional one focused on record labels and other aspects of the music industry.

Finally, Martin analyses how punk provided a vehicle for political movements to amass followers and translate their following into real world activism. Although his findings apply to both neo-fascists and anarchists, he focuses on the anarchist subculture in Vancouver Canada. Specifically, Martin views punk as a tool for movement building and radicalization, drawing a distinction between the anarchist movement that emerged during the post-WWII era and its ideological roots, classifying it as part of the New Left. Martin states, “While it is a highly amorphous concept, historians have generally framed the New Left as a series of broad transformations in the development, organization, and meaning of left-wing activity”[37]. The new anarchist movement in Vancouver sought to eliminate the boundaries between punk and politics, the personal and the political. In short, music and music festivals provided them the necessary tools to build a successful intersectional coalition movement in preparation for eventual revolution. While they did not succeed in overthrowing the prevailing economic and political system, these efforts did swell the ranks of the Vancouver anarchist movement and allow them greater capacity to succeed in direct action activism. Along the way, the Vancouver punks clashed intensely with the far-right, a situation that reflects the punk atmosphere at large. Despite their hatred for each other and tendency to rely on physical confrontation, the far-right and anarchist left shared this sort of radical paradigm. Thus, punk became territory to be held, and “various left movements on both sides of the Atlantic saw punk as an important setting through which to contest right-wing politics and culture.”[38] The British neo-fascist music organizations mentioned above, namely the White Noise Club and Blood and Honour, also saw punk music as a tool to achieving their racial and political ideals. Of course, they approached the situation a bit differently—while Martin points out that anarchists attempted to merge punk and politics, the neo-fascist strategy appears to focus on building a viable political movement without too much regard for the integrity of punk as an art form. Regardless, the mechanization and weaponization of punk formed a substantial common ground for the far-right and the far-left.

Neo-Fascist Punk

Consensus on the origin of political music, especially punk, continues to evade the academic community, as does the cause of political movements uniting with music interests for their own benefit. But while Street’s institutional explanation appears more plausible than attributing political music to contingent social circumstances, there remains room for social and political events to strongly influence the content of punk music. Nonetheless, Street’s analysis and the literature on the ingrained failure of the punk provides an excellent explanation for the obscurity of the conflict between anarchists and neo-fascists within the punk scene. Specifically, this article argues that punk’s contradictory aims, as well as pre-existing geographic and socio-economic variables limited the scope of the ideological battle between neo-fascists and anti-fascists. In fact, anarchists and neo-fascists both failed to transform society during the last decades of the twentieth century, and their chosen music genre all but buckled under its own weight. Most of society ignored their existence whenever possible, and today, their conflict forms a niche historical interest. But for decades, neo-fascists and anti-fascists used the punk scene as their private battleground, using both music and their boots as weapons. As such, cataloguing and understanding what battles these groups won or lost remains key to understanding both punk and the late 20^th century versions of these radical ideologies. The anarchist-fascist conflict within punk currently remains an often-overlooked historical oddity, yet an integral part of the history of punk.

With the above mission in mind, this article will provide an analysis of the causes, contributing factors, and nature of the political and musical conflict seen within the interplay among anarchism, anti-fascism, and neo-fascism on the punk scene. First, geographic proximity and socio-economic status nicely explain the aesthetic similarities between anarchist and neo-fascist music and dress. The intricacies of skinhead culture within the punk scene provide an excellent test case for this issue. In fact, social and geographic factors allowed this broader physical and ideological conflict to occur in the first place. A discussion of the political division in punk follows, focusing on how neo-fascist encroachment divided punk into anarchist and neo-fascist enclaves, with a sizeable group of nonpartisan bands who took up anti-fascist language and tactics out of necessity. An assessment of punk history will further provide insight into how the punk scene morphed into an asymmetrical, multi-sided battleground. Further discussion of nonpartisan anti-fascists focuses on the practical motives for non-anarchist anti-fascism, as contrasted with an ideological and practice motive. Next, this article will address how anarchists and neo-fascists viewed punk as a physical battleground key to winning an ideological war. Lyrical analysis of a series of punk songs, primarily within the Oi! genre, also called street punk, illustrates how performers used punk music itself to obscure the distinction between speech and violence, often merging the two. Additionally, the punk scene in England provides much needed understanding on how punk gravitated towards emerging musical institutions that furthered their bands’ political goals, thus undercutting their credibility as part of the punk genre. As such, the institutional theory of music best explains this fundamental tension. Next, Martin’s environmental theory is shown to provide a plausible explanation not for the emergence of political punk, but rather the origin of the hostility demonstrated by anarchists and anti-fascists towards neo-fascists, and the defining characteristics of that conflict. Finally, the work of Thompson and others show that political punk, both anarchist and neo-fascist, failed in its transformative political mission and even in remaining authentic punk music.

Geographic proximity and social class form the primary variables that created the aesthetic similarities between anarchist and neo-fascist punk. Commonalities among the multitude of punk scenes that developed in America, Germany, England and numerous other nations include urban environments, a predominately working-class fan base and often dissatisfactory socio-economic situations. Note that these organically developed scenes defined punk within the parameters of a given country, city, or subgenre. After the emergence of punk in the mid-1970s, extreme political ideologies quickly took root in many punk scenes, forcing a response from ideological opponents and nonpartisans alike. This resulted in widespread contention at punk shows and throughout the punk scene itself. As an integral part of the punk scene, skinhead subculture forms an apt test case, and merits further explanation given the prior discussion of the 1992 Battle of Waterloo. The skinhead subculture developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s in England, combining a caricature of the English working class with heavy inspiration from like Jamaican “rude boy” and English “mod” subcultures[39]. A typical skinhead might wear jeans, a bomber jacket, and steel toed boots like Doc Martins with colored laces, although individual and group style preferences varied drastically. Also “the most critical element in the symbiotic relationship between skinheads and black immigrants was music,” meaning that the skinhead subculture provided a cultural meeting-point for white Britons and black immigrants from the Caribbean[40]. Eventually, skinhead subculture shifted focus from ska and reggae to punk, but the subculture’s fashion norms remained constant. However, during the late 1970s and early 1980s, politics crept into the skinhead and the punk scenes, and “a schism developed between-on the one hand-right-wing skins ambivalent toward, or dismissive of, the subculture’s black roots, and-on the other-left-wing or ‘unpolitical’ skins who upheld these roots as being central to skinhead identity”[41]. Thus, the entrance of racism and neo-Nazism quickly divided the punk scene as well as skinhead culture. In fact, skinheads frequently identified each other by the color and pattern of their boot laces, and continue to make use of this shortcut today, simply because their similar dress can make identifying allies or enemies difficult. White or red laces typically signify allegiance to neo-fascist white power causes, particularly if the owner chooses to straight lace their boots[42]. Black usually indicates an apolitical alignment, and yellow often signals anti-racism[43]. Note that yellow can also express prejudice against Asian immigrants, and red laces might indicate allegiance to socialism, showing the ambiguity of these coded messages.[44] That said, given the uniformity of skinhead fashion, laces form the easiest way to identify a given person’s ideology and allegiance. This enduring battle for skinhead culture mirrors that for punk itself, but this nested pair of conflicts occurred within certain geographic areas and socioeconomic groups. As each scene developed, whether in New York, London’s East End, or the Pacific Northwest, the same kind of conflict erupted as working-class neo-fascists fought with working-class anarchists and anti-fascists for control of the punk scene.

Because of the influx of far-right political ideology, punk quickly divided into neo-fascist and anarchist enclaves, with a sizeable group of non-anarchist groups who nevertheless opposed the neo-fascists. Although the influence of bands such as the Sex Pistols quickly united the concepts of punk and anarchism in the public eye, and neo-Nazis largely appropriated skinhead subculture for themselves by 1980, these extremes did not define the mean[45]. Many bands wanted nothing to do with either ideology, preferring to follow their own politics or remain completely apolitical in lyrical content. In fact, contrary to popular perception, most punk bands avoided politics altogether. However, the mere presence of radical ideology and aggressive behavior forced apolitical bands to adopt political speech and action, often in the form of violence. Most members of society want nothing to do with neo-fascists and explicit neo-Nazis based on moral and ideological objections. Practically speaking, anarchist and even nonpartisan bands quickly realized however, that neo-Nazis would often seek out their shows, and worse, “Nazi skinheads occasionally stormed their concerts, stomped their fans, gave Hitler salutes in lieu of applauding, and generally turned a communal experience into one full of hatred and conflict”[46]. Oi! became a particularly intense battlefield within this conflict. Also called street punk, this particular subgenre frequently suffered epithets such as “punk’s stunted idiot half-brother,” which refers to Oi!’s simpler structure and more pugnacious content[47]. As an aside, Oi! takes its name from the Cockney Rejects’ 1980 single “Oi! Oi! Oi!,” and formed part of a third generation of punk comprised of “harder music on every level, guitar driven, [and] terrace choruses.”[48]^{, [49]} Within the incursion of the far-right, the Oi! scene transformed into a nexus of neo-Nazis activity and football hooliganism. This violent climate forced non-political bands to either incorporate anti-fascism into their lyrics, or simply take practical, often physical action against neo-fascists themselves. For example, the Cockney Rejects did not adhere to anarchism, but remain one of the most memorable Oi! bands simply for their confrontations with neo-Nazis and fans from rival football clubs. Conversely, neo-fascist groups and their fans often feared violent disruption from anarchists and leftists, as exemplified by the Battle of Waterloo. Thus, when a political faction first encroached on a rival scene, this forced all of the scene’s original occupants to take political action. Therefore, punk separated itself into political enclaves, each treating its own scene as a territory to defend and other scenes as hostile spaces to conquer or disrupt.

The incursion of neo-fascists on the punk scene not only created a serious political divide, but it turned punk shows into a practical and ideological battleground. First, from the perspective of anarchist or nonpartisan bands and their fans, keeping safe and preventing a takeover required vicious opposition to neo-Nazis and neo-fascists. For example, the Dead Kennedys created music with incisive anti-authoritarian political commentary, but they hardly venerated anarchism like bands such as the Sex Pistols or Oi Polloi. Yet their song “Nazi Punks F___ Off” constitutes an unmistakable ideological statement, and in a video of a gig played in Austin in 1982, singer Jello Biafra prefaces this song by dedicating it to the “f___ing rednecks, and the f___ing jocks, who bring in their bulls___ macho attitudes to these shows, try to wreck ’em by starting fights, spreading around their bulls___ racist attitudes.”[50] The aforementioned Cockney Rejects took a similar stance when confronted by neo-Nazis at their shows. In an interview with The Guardian, front man Jeff Turner reminisces about a gig where neo-Nazis instigated violence. Turner stated, “we weren’t going to have it. We just went down and absolutely slaughtered them.”[51] Similarly, during a Dropkick Murphys concert in 2013, a group of fans joined the band on stage. Bassist Ken Casey soon noticed a man on the stage repeatedly flashing the Nazi salute, and responded by shoving the offender to the floor. A group of fans quickly joined the attack, and quickly threw the offender off the stage. During the next break in the music, Casey yelled to resounding applause, “Nazis are not f___ing welcome at a Dropkick Murphys show.”[52] Politically, the Dropkick Murphys support groups like the AFL-CIO and the Democrat Party, and maintain no affinity for anarchist ideology.[53] This particular incident demonstrates the ubiquity of an anti-fascist response within the punk scene. Although a somewhat harmless occurrence compared to the more explosive British punk scene, this Dropkick Murphys concert illustrates the fundamental quandary that nonpartisan punk bands faced whenever neo-fascists would attend or attack their shows. Thus, non-anarchist and largely apolitical punk bands often adopted a militant anti-fascist stance in the face of what they viewed as an immediate, violent threat.

Perhaps more importantly, the political clash within punk served as a proxy war between the far-left and the far-right. Anarchists and fascists traditionally view each other as natural enemies, yet within the punk scene, the two groups understood that if they won the space, they could win the ideological war. Thus, preserving territory in the form of concert venues and gigs formed a key focus for explicitly anarchist bands such as Oi Polloi as well as neo-fascist groups such as Skrewdriver. Winning the space typically required violence, but said violence ultimately aimed at furthering ideology. So, while Oi Polloi might admonish its fans to train in order to participate in “aggro” against neo-fascist groups such as the BNP, they maintained their focus on the underlying conflict.[54]^{, [55]} In this context, the term “aggro,” refers to street violence, often in the context of football hooliganism.[56] Violence formed an integral part of anarchist and neo-fascist tactics because it directly and effectively furthered their ideology. Using the aforementioned Skrewdriver and Oi Polloi as a test case, the two existed as mortal ideological enemies, but both used music as a tool to spread their view of an ideal world, whether a racially pure England or a stateless society.

Anarchist bands particularly viewed punk as a vehicle to achieve their political goals, and largely understood that punk existed for the sake of ideology, rather than the refers. Eventually, punk became the default way to spread anarchist thought in the post-1960s world, and anarchists “saw it as politically congruent with specific ideas of revolutionary struggle.”[57] Anarcho-punk bands thus attempted to “merge activism and popular culture” to create a network of decentralized groups all focused on eventual popular rebellion.[58] In fact, many anarchists acknowledge this relationship between punk and anarchism, describing the scene as an anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian safe haven for anarchy prior to its adaptation to the digital age. However, while the “do-it-yourself punk scene offered a rare model for horizontal and participatory activity,” a group of anonymous authors writing for CrimethInc. caution against the “romanticization (sic) of obscurity and failure.”[59]^{, [60]} In other words, punk serves as a political tool for anarchists, but could simultaneously impede progress towards revolution by confining anarchism to the punk scene. Therefore, anarchists who adopted punk as a political tool faced a delicate balancing act. Although punk formed the best way to spread their ideology, this method contained inherent limitations, and could ultimately prevent the social transformation that they sought to accomplish.

The neo-fascist approach to punk, however, proves far more ideologically consistent with their ideals when compared to the anarchist agenda. While anarchists frequently viewed their participation in the punk scene as a revolutionary act on its own, neo-fascists adopted a far more practical approach to creating punk music. Punk became a tool, and as indicated above, neo-fascist bands deliberately experimented with musical styles that could even disqualify them as punk per se. This perfectly aligns with the inherent flexibility of fascist movements, which take on the characteristics of their native social and political environment often at the expense of principle. With ideological goals in mind, neo-fascist groups such as Blood and Honour and the Hammerskins began to actively use punk as the primary means to spread their ideas and recruit, and as recently as the early 2000s, “Right radical organizations have increasingly been getting into the music business, recognizing that record sales can allow them to make money and win recruits at the same time.”[61] The priority of ideology and political agenda thus determined that neo-fascists viewed punk as a utilitarian endeavor and cared very little about cultivating aesthetic purity.

The music that defined the conflict between neo-fascism and anti-fascism deliberately blurred the distinction between speech and violence, often advocating for the use of force against political foes. Although incendiary lyrics and violent crowd behavior such as moshing form an integral part of punk, anti-fascist and neo-fascist punk frequently includes explicit endorsement of brutal violence, or politically targeted messaging that cannot be reasonably interpreted otherwise. For instance, “Good Night White Pride” by German Oi! band Loikaemie includes the lines “Rights winger scum, you have no place on our scene / Right winger scum, we’ll show you what skinhead really means.”[62] Although the band stops short of explicitly verbalizing its intent, the broader context of punk reveals the violent intent behind of the lyrics. Ian Stuart Donaldson’s Skrewdriver offers a similar use of violent undertones. In “(Oh No) Here Comes a Commie,” Donaldson bemoans the rise of the Communist Soviet Bloc and its threat to England, singing, “Oh no, here comes a commie / Won’t you off and die?”[63] Skrewdriver’s other songs, including the egregiously named, “Dead Paki in a Gutter,” frequently abandon any pretense of non-violence.[64]^{, [65]} Other bands more deliberately cross the line between implication and advocacy, in particular Scottish Oi Polloi, led by Deek Allen. For example, the music video for their song “The Face” features unedited footage of counter-protestors beating the Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon a march held in Orange Country California during 2016.[66] The song itself opens with the lyrics, “Nazi bonehead on the street—you think you are the master race / But antifascists put you on the deck and they’re kicking you in the face” (Oi Polloi—The Face).[67] The rest of the song and the music video consists of variations on this singular theme. “Bash the Fash” by Oi Polloi arguably goes further, since a spoken word interlude includes the statement, “The only way to stop Nazi scum like the BNP is by physically confronting them and literally kicking them off our streets,” and one of the next verses states that the neo-fascists in question are “gonna eat boot.”[68] These statements exemplify the troubling tendency within punk to weaponized the unification of speech and violence against political enemies. By seamlessly merging violence and politics in ways rarely seen in other music genres, these songs serve as statements of belief and intent. The manner in which artists like Loikaieme, Skrewdriver, or Oi Polloi invoke or promote violence differs in scale and severity, but their overall intent remains clear. Whether used by anarchists or neo-fascists, punk frequently served as a tool to promote political violence.

Anti-fascist and neo-fascist punk bands eventually formalized their prioritization of ideology over artistic credibly, and tied themselves to rudimentary institutions reminiscent of the broader music industry. The exact moment that bands chose to “sell out” depends on the group, but in England, the anti-fascist Rock Against Racism initiative began in 1976, and the National Front began to seriously use music as a tool in the early 1980s by founding the White Noise Club.[69]^{, [70]} Thus, neo-fascist bands like Skrewdriver allied themselves with the National Front, supporting party initiatives like Rock Against Communism and the WNC. In fact, Ian Stuart Donaldson “single-handedly forged a connection between the skinhead scene and the extreme right in Britain, forming the National Front-financed “White Noise Club” (WNC) to release right-wing bands, and releasing his own “White Power” single on the label.”[71] Official National Front support allowed Skrewdriver, led by Donaldson, to become a commercially viable band. This relationship benefitted both parties, since it allowed Donaldson to promote his ideology of choice, and National Front viewed his work as a viable method of youth recruitment. The White Noise Club also focused on exporting their version of punk to Germany, and after Donaldson broke ties with the National Front, he independently formed Blood and Honour in 1987.[72] Neither the White Noise Club or Blood and Honour successfully rivaled mainstream record labels, but Blood and Honour proved especially effective at spreading white power punk on an international scale. The anti-fascist Rock Against Racism, or RAR, mirrored the purpose and function of the White Noise Club, and provided a more formal channel for opposition to neo-fascist music and ideology. RAR thus brought together punk bands concerned with the resurgence of neo-fascism in English society and politics, and “RAR sat at the intersection of political and musical networks—local musical and political scenes—constituting the infrastructure and political capital necessary for the movement to flourish.”[73] In fact, RAR enjoyed formal political support from the English anti-Nazi League as well as the Socialist Worker’s Party, and represented a broader leftist response to neo-fascism.[74] That said, RAR’s loose association never approached the strict top-down business model that most record labels use, and its strength and longevity as an organization proved comparatively lesser than Blood and Honour. Controversy over its composition and support remains, but anti-racism and a broader form of leftism rather than anarchism formed RAR’s driving ideological influence. That said, RAR and its neo-fascist counterparts the WNC and Blood and Honour represent the consummate failure of anarchist and neo-fascist punk to exist purely as punk. Joining rudimentary musical institutions represents a departure from punk’s individualist, anti-commercial goals. Thus, the fact that neo-fascist and anti-fascist bands voluntarily joined these institutions shows a clear prioritization of political goals over artistic authenticity.

A socio-economic analysis of punk does not explain the origin of the genre, but rather elegantly addresses the nature of the political conflict between anarchists and neo-fascists in the punk scene. Using Ireland as test case, Martinez erroneously attempts to describe punk as a response to the failure of the Thatcher regime, stating that punk “captures pockets of alienated voices that existed outside of dominant political narratives.”[75] As indicated above, Street’s objection all but invalidates this theory’s applicability to the origin of punk. However, socio-economic conditions do explain why and how the conflict among anarchists, nonpartisan anti-fascists, and neo-fascists occurred within the punk scene. Individual punk scenes exploded into political violence because they arose within communities and areas already vulnerable to violence and extremist ideologies. As argued above, many developing punk scenes witnessed the arrival of radical ideologies and far-right violence, and any response took on immediate political implications. Punk became a political battleground between anarchists and neo-fascists as the New Left and neo-fascist right violently clashed within urban working-class environments. Skinheads and punks of any variety did not attend punk shows in Midtown Manhattan or Kensington, but in their own neighborhoods such as London’s East End or the Five Points of Atlanta. Social class and geographic proximity allowed for the establishment of punk scenes and the interactions that created the conflict in the first place. Ultimately, this conflict formed the most prominent battleground between anarchism and neo-fascism during the last decades of the twentieth century, as political radicals who preferred a more academic approach chose to operate in other spheres. Thus, a socio-economic explanation for punk like that provided by Martinez nicely explains the fundamental factors that defined this conflict rather than the origin of punk rock itself.

An institutional perspective, however, provides insight on punk’s inability to stimulate political change as well as the failure of anarchist and neo-fascist punk as an authentic form of music. Clearly, the post-World War II liberal democratic order still exists, despite some fraying at the edges in the early twenty-first century. As such, both the anarchist and the neo-fascist movements of the post-war era failed in their attempt to destroy the established order. Given this political failure, it becomes painfully clear that anarchists and neo-fascists failed because they could not transform punk into an effective weapon. Perhaps just as important, both anarchists and neo-fascists failed to remain faithful to the fundamentals of punk. Since punk seeks to challenge social norms and simultaneously allow the artists economic separation from the mainstream market, punk projects must weigh economic success against authentically embodying punk. In fact, Thompson writes that “Beginning in 1979, a rapid shift in method and emphasis occurred within punk attempts to engage in economic resistance.”[76][77] Anarchists in particular maintained a vested interest in separating their music from the economic mainstream, as all varieties of left-anarchism strongly oppose market capitalism. However, doing so proved all but impossible, and Crass’s struggle to maintain independence and the DIY aesthetic exemplifies the fate of authentic punk projects to naturally self-destruct. However, it appears that a sufficient number of twenty-first century anarchists simply do not care about this failure. As shown by the CrimethInc. piece above, punk allowed for the incubation of anarchist ideals, but proved largely ineffective at guaranteeing their spread, leading the authors to point out that punk exists to spread anarchism, rather than the other way around.

Neo-fascist punk bands clearly faced the same problem of balancing punk credibility and ideology, albeit a less extreme version than that confronting the anarchists. Although neo-fascist ideology includes a skepticism of the unregulated free market and disdain for consumerism, it does not maintain the same hostility to capitalism. So, when Skrewdriver chose to operate as a part of Blood and Honour, or Rock Against Communism bands such as Skullhead joined the National Front’s White Noise Club, they more openly displayed their willingness to adopt flexibility for the sake of politics. Neo-fascist punk bands more commonly used rudimentary musical institutions and abandoning the punk rock style because they recognized that their music existed to spread a message. Therefore, while neo-fascist and anarchist punk eventually encountered the same problems, neo-fascist bands more willingly abandoned the core aspects of punk and did not face the same crisis of identity as anarchists. Non-political bands with a lesser interest in resisting market capitalism still faced the same inherent quandary within punk, but with clearly lower stakes. Selling out might damage a band’s credibility within the punk scene, but would not betray their band’s fundamental ideals. However, the process of selling out revealed conclusive failure on the part of anarchist and neo-fascist bands, primarily because doing so did not help them reach their ideological goals. Therefore, both anarchists and neo-fascists not only failed to change the world, but they also failed to retain their status as authentic punk projects.

Conclusion

The 1992 Battle of Waterloo provides an excellent test case that illuminates the relationship among neo-fascism, anarchism, and nonpartisan anti-fascism within the context of punk music. It illustrates the core paradox in visual terms: the fascists and anti-fascists look the same and make use of violence to serve different, yet radical, political ends. Also, a punk show featuring a band from any of the aforementioned political alignments would sound identical but for the lyrics. Perhaps most importantly, fascists and anarchists both seek to overthrow the established political order in favor of their brand of utopia. Inhabitants of liberal democracies rightly look askance at the tactics and behavior of neo-fascists, anarchists, and even nonpartisan anti-fascists, and ought to remain cognizant of their similarities. However, the commonalities between anarchism and neo-fascism within punk above occurred due to geography, class, and the pre-existing climates of specific punk scenes. Both preach political radicalism, albeit at different ends of the traditional political spectrum. Anarchism and fascism also pose a direct challenge to the post-World War II liberal order, whether in the form of proletarian utopia, or militarized ethnostate. Although these ideological similarities certainly exist, anarchism and anti-fascism writ large do not exist on the same moral plane as fascism. Thus, morally equating anarchist anti-fascism with neo-fascism proves painfully inaccurate, but in the context of punk, the two share a number of superficial similarities.

 

Notes

[1] Borrill, Rachel. “Station Closed in Skinhead Battle.” The Independent. October 22, 2011. Accessed February 11, 2019. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/station-closed-in-skinhead-battle-1551122.html.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Bray, Mark. Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook. Brooklyn: Melville House, 2017.

[4] The source used is Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook by Dartmouth professor Mark Bray. The book forms Bray’s attempt to document, promote, and support anti-fascism, which he readily and openly admits. His partisan beliefs and goals aside, his history of anti-fascism is excellent, and thus used as a source in this article.

[5] Borrill, Rachel. “Station Closed in Skinhead Battle.” The Independent. October 22, 2011. Accessed February 11, 2019. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/station-closed-in-skinhead-battle-1551122.html.

[6] 45antifascist. “Blood and Honour Routed by Anti Fascist Action at Waterloo 1992.” YouTube. May 06, 2012. Accessed October 22, 2018′. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpXMObMdR8I.

[7] Bray, Mark. Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook. Brooklyn: Melville House, 2017.

[8] Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Emma Goldman.” Encyclopædia Britannica. June 23, 2018. Accessed October 28, 2018. http://www.britannica.com/biography/Emma-Goldman.

[9] Martin, Eryk. “The Blurred Boundaries of Anarchism and Punk in Vancouver, 1970-1983.” Labour / Le Travail 75 (2015): 9-41. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44122883.

[10] Oi Polloi’s 1987 Unite and Win! provides an excellent example of this trend.

[11] Deutsche Welle. “How Much Hitler Is There in Wagner?” DW.COM. Accessed February 11, 2019. http://www.dw.com/en/how-much-hitler-is-there-in-wagner/a-39903954.

[12] Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “SS.” Encyclopædia Britannica. December 3, 2018. Accessed November 7, 2018. http://www.britannica.com/topic/SS.

[13] Nazi paramilitary active in perpetrating the Holocaust.

[14] Davies, Dave. “A Former Neo-Nazi Explains Why Hate Drew Him In – And How He Got Out.” NPR. January 18, 2018. Accessed November 12, 2018. http://www.npr.org/2018/01/18/578745514/a-former-neo-nazi-explains-why-hate-drew-him-in-and-how-he-got-out.

[15] Beckett, Lois. “George Lincoln Rockwell, Father of American Nazis, Still in Vogue for Some.” The Guardian. August 27, 2017. Accessed October 27, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/27/george-lincoln-rockwell-american-nazi-party-alt-right-charlottesville.

[16] This standard applies equally to punk-oriented clashes like the 2006 San Bernardino riot where concertgoers fought with neo-Nazis, and purely political incidents like the 2017 Unite the Right Rally where a neo-Nazi killed Heather Heyer.

[17] “Hhfoundation.” Hhfoundation. Accessed November 12, 2018. http://www.heatherheyerfoundation.com/.

[18] Gencer, Arin. “15 Arrests at Concert as 4 Officers Are Hurt.” Los Angeles Times. March 06, 2006. Accessed October 4, 2018. http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/06/local/me-riot6.

[19] Street, John. Music and Politics. Oxford: Wiley, 2013.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Thompson, Stacy. “Market Failure: Punk Economics, Early and Late.” College Literature 28, no. 2 (2001): 48-64. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25112581.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Street, John. Music and Politics. Oxford: Wiley, 2013.

[27] Thompson, Stacy. “Market Failure: Punk Economics, Early and Late.” College Literature 28, no. 2 (2001): 48-64. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25112581.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Cross, Rich. “”There Is No Authority but Yourself”: The Individual and the Collective in British Anarcho-Punk.” Music and Politics, IV, no. 2 (Summer 2010). doi:10.3998/mp.9460447.0004.203.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Sutherland, Sam. “Straight Edge Punk: The Complicated Contradictions of Straight Edge Punk.” Exclaim! Music. July 1, 2006. Accessed November 12, 2018. http://exclaim.ca/music/article/straight_edge_punk-complicated_contradictions_of_straight.

[32] Brown, T. S. “Subcultures, Pop Music and Politics: Skinheads and “Nazi Rock” in England and Germany.” Journal of Social History38, no. 1 (2004): 157-78. Accessed October 27, 2018. doi:10.1353/jsh.2004.0079.

[33] German for ‘Evil Uncles.’

[34] Ibid.

[35] Martínez, Robert. “Punk Rock, Thatcher, and the Elsewhere of Northern Ireland: Rethinking the Politics of Popular Music.” The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association 48, no. 1 (2015): 193-219. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43549877.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Martin, Eryk. “The Blurred Boundaries of Anarchism and Punk in Vancouver, 1970-1983.” Labour / Le Travail 75 (2015): 9-41. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44122883.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Brown, T. S. “Subcultures, Pop Music and Politics: Skinheads and “Nazi Rock” in England and Germany.” Journal of Social History38, no. 1 (2004): 157-78. Accessed October 27, 2018. doi:10.1353/jsh.2004.0079.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Ibid.

[42] “Racist Skinhead Glossary.” Southern Poverty Law Center. Accessed October 2, 2018. http://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2015/racist-skinhead-glossary.

[43] Pietrowski, Joseph. “The Color of Your Shoelaces Might Tell Someone You’re a Neo Nazi.” The Odyssey Online. June 8, 2016. Accessed October 2, 2018. http://www.theodysseyonline.com/psa-skinhead-shoelace-code.

[44] Ibid.

[45] Duncombe, Stephen, and Maxwell Tremblay, eds. White Riot: Punk Rock and the Politics of Race. London: Verso, 2011.

[46] Knopper, Steve. “Nazi Punks F**k Off: How Black Flag, Bad Brains, and More Took Back Their Scene from White Supremacists.” GQ. January 16, 2018. Accessed October 22, 2018. http://www.gq.com/story/punks-and-nazis-oral-history/.

[47] Petridis, Alexis. “Misunderstood or Hateful? Oi!’s Rise and Fall.” The Guardian. March 18, 2010. Accessed November 12, 2018. http://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/mar/18/oi-cockney-rejects-garry-bushell-interview.

[48] Ibid.

[49] Refers to songs sung by fans at football matches.

[50] The Founder of Myself. “Dead Kennedys – Nazi Punks Fuck Off (Live).” YouTube. June 12, 2013. Accessed November 6, 2018. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTs_Q4hEqmA&feature=youtu.be.

[51] Petridis, Alexis. “Misunderstood or Hateful? Oi!’s Rise and Fall.” The Guardian. March 18, 2010. Accessed November 12, 2018. http://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/mar/18/oi-cockney-rejects-garry-bushell-interview.

[52] Zakarin, Jordan. “Dropkick Murphys Singer Beats a Skinhead Giving Nazi Salute Off Stage at NYC Concert (Video).” The Hollywood Reporter. December 5, 2013. Accessed October 28, 2018. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/earshot/dropkick-muphys-neo-nazi-beatdown-429779.

[53]  “Dropkick Murphys Discuss ‘Rock Against Bush’ with AP.” Epitaph Records. August 09, 2004. Accessed November 4, 2018. http://epitaph.com/news/article/dropkick-murphys-discuss-rock-against-bush-with-ap.

[54] “Oi Polloi – Bash The Fash.” Genius. Accessed October 28, 2018. https://genius.com/Oi-polloi-bash-the-fash-lyrics.

[55] British National Party, successor to the National Front after its collapse.

[56] “Definition of Aggro in English.” English Oxford Living Dictionaries. Accessed October 28, 2018. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/aggro/aggro.

[57] Martin, Eryk. “The Blurred Boundaries of Anarchism and Punk in Vancouver, 1970-1983.” Labour / Le Travail 75 (2015): 9-41. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44122883.

[58] Ibid.

[59] “Music as a Weapon.” CrimethInc. October 22, 2018. Accessed October 20, 2018. https://crimethinc.com/2018/10/22/music-as-a-weapon-the-contentious-symbiosis-of-punk-rock-and-anarchism.

[60] CrimethInc. is an anonymous, online anarchist collective. Although nakedly partisan, their output provides hand confirmation that anarchists view music as a political tool.

[61] Brown, T. S. “Subcultures, Pop Music and Politics: Skinheads and “Nazi Rock” in England and Germany.” Journal of Social History38, no. 1 (2004): 157-78. Accessed October 27, 2018. doi:10.1353/jsh.2004.0079.

[62] “Loikaemie – Good Night White Pride.” Genius. Accessed October 28, 2018. https://genius.com/Loikaemie-good-night-white-pride-lyrics.

[63] “Skrewdriver:(Oh No) Here Comes A Commie.” LyricWiki. Accessed November 16, 2018. http://lyrics.wikia.com/wiki/Skrewdriver:(Oh_No)_Here_Comes_A_Commie.

[64] Hamm, Mark S. American Skinheads: The Criminology and Control of Hate Crime. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994.

[65] The term “Paki,” is a British racial slur referring to immigrants from Pakistan and other central Asian countries.

[66] Hamm, Mark S. American Skinheads: The Criminology and Control of Hate Crime. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994.

[67] Pejorative used by anti-racist skinheads to mock far-right racist skinheads.

[68] “Oi Polloi – Bash the Fash.” Genius. Accessed October 28, 2018. https://genius.com/Oi-polloi-bash-the-fash-lyrics.

[69] Duncombe, Stephen, and Maxwell Tremblay, eds. White Riot: Punk Rock and the Politics of Race. London: Verso, 2011.

[70] Vulliamy, Ed. “Blood and Glory.” The Guardian. March 04, 2007. Accessed November 14, 2018. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/mar/04/race.otherparties.

[71] Duncombe, Stephen, and Maxwell Tremblay, eds. White Riot: Punk Rock and the Politics of Race. London: Verso, 2011.

[72] Copsey, Nigel, and John E. Richardson, eds. Cultures of Post-war British Fascism. London: Routledge, 2015.

[73] Street, John. Music and Politics. Oxford: Wiley, 2013.

[74] Bray, Mark. Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook. Brooklyn: Melville House, 2017.

[75] Martínez, Robert. “Punk Rock, Thatcher, and the Elsewhere of Northern Ireland: Rethinking the Politics of Popular Music.” The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association 48, no. 1 (2015): 193-219. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43549877.

[76] Thompson, Stacy. “Market Failure: Punk Economics, Early and Late.” College Literature 28, no. 2 (2001): 48-64. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25112581.