Griffin and BNP strategy

[TremulousTetra]

Talk about re-writing history. Talk about straw man arguements (and worse). So why does the organisation you support seperate the two out? - to the extent of 'vote labour - its better than the BNP', put tories on platforms in a 'popular' front etc etc etc. The campaign against the BNP should put forward class slogans - "jobs and home not racism" - "working class unity against tory cuts" - not Liberal mentality "unity". Don't try and hide 20+ years of SWP hypocricy.

SW does separate the two, that is the point of difference. Socialist worker does not subscribe to the idea that in order to be antifascist, you have to be a revolutionary socialist, socialist, or any kind of political. There is not a check list which people have to fulfil before they oppose fascism. People can oppose fascism, without subscribing to the view that we need to have social revolution if THEY want. Socialist worker do not subscribe to the view that opposing fascism can only be done by THOSE building social revolution.

ps. The issue about popular fronts, is another issue. Yes I agree antifascist organisations should use working class methods. MASS opposotion.

 

[ViolentPanda]

what is it now? Has to be nearly 16 years of anti-asylum seeker/immigrant propaganda on a daily basis.

More like 30+ years. The only thing that changed was the label - from "refugee" to "asylum seeker".

Even the BNP recognise this is the basis of their growing support.
One reason they haven't got a bigger foothold in my opinion, is because whether or not it is anything to do with anti-fascism, in most people's minds, the BNP have been most definitely tagged as a neofascist party. Something, however shit the mainstream parties, something most people would want nothing to do with.

Which is why they're constantly attempting to re-brand themselves.

At the end of the day, people pick up on a word, instead of addressing the whole post. There is no disagreement whatsoever over the issue of the necessity to build an alternative. An electoral alternative? Having been on the knocker in two failed attempts to build a 'reformist' with revolutionaries involved mass party, an electoral alternative, I have my doubts whether this is the best way to go. Obviously I could be wrong, and would love it if the Socialist party, whoever, proved me wrong. I really don't have any issue with that.

What I have an issue with, is this simplistic, nonsensical notion, that antifascism and building an alternative cannot be done at the same time. That the two activities cannot go hand-in-hand. That KPD mentality.

You'd have a point if anyone had expressed the notion that fighting fascism and building a political alternative can't be done at the same time. No-one has.

 

[Pickman's model]

SW does separate the two, that is the point of difference. Socialist worker does not subscribe to the idea that in order to be antifascist, you have to be a revolutionary socialist, socialist, or any kind of political. There is not a check list which people have to fulfil before they oppose fascism. People can oppose fascism, without subscribing to the view that we need to have social revolution if THEY want.

ps. The issue about popular fronts, is another issue. Yes I agree antifascist organisations should use working class methods. MASS opposotion.

i think what you mean here is that anti-fascist organisations should use the working class methods of which you approve. if you look at the range of tactics deployed in strikes, riots and demonstrations - all of them working class methods - you'll find they're a bit wider than the mass opposition you seem to think is the only one.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Nobody is saying to be antifascist you have to be a revolutionary socialist. But antifascism has to offer or lead to some sort of alternative, because people turn to the far right precisely because they are seeking a radical alternative to the centre. Antifascism that fails to offer or point to an alternative and instead appeals to the centre and establishment politics is worthless.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Talk about re-writing history. Talk about straw man arguements (and worse). So why does the organisation you support seperate the two out? - to the extent of 'vote labour - its better than the BNP', put tories on platforms in a 'popular' front etc etc etc. The campaign against the BNP should put forward class slogans - "jobs and home not racism" - "working class unity against tory cuts" - not Liberal mentality "unity". Don't try and hide 20+ years of SWP hypocricy.

It's all the fault of those who don't unite with the SWP though, Dennis, not the fault of the SWP.

 

[Pickman's model]

It's all the fault of those who don't unite with the SWP though, Dennis, not the fault of the SWP.

it never is, is it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

i think what you mean here is that anti-fascist organisations should use the working class methods of which you approve. if you look at the range of tactics deployed in strikes, riots and demonstrations - all of them working class methods - you'll find they're a bit wider than the mass opposition you seem to think is the only one.

Indeed, I recall the SWP eschewing the use of physical direct action quite vehemently, which denied them the use of a valid political instrument.

 

[MellySingsDoom]

Nobody is saying to be antifascist you have to be a revolutionary socialist. But antifascism has to offer or lead to some sort of alternative, because people turn to the far right precisely because they are seeking a radical alternative to the centre. Antifascism that fails to offer or point to an alternative and instead appeals to the centre and establishment politics is worthless.

Somebody please staple this to the heads of Messrs Gable, Lowles, Collins, Bennett and Smith please.

 

[TremulousTetra]

What is antifascism, in your view, RMP3?

If antifascism is defending the mainstream then I am no antifascist, to paraphrase a dying man with a beard.

This pamphlet addresses itself to the Social Democratic workers, even though personally the author belongs to another party. The disagreements between Communism and Social Democracy run very deep. I consider them irreconcilable. Nevertheless, the course of events frequently puts tasks before the working class which imperatively demand the joint action of the two parties. Is such an action possible? Perfectly possible, as historical experience and theory attest: everything depends upon the conditions and the character of the said tasks. Now, it is much easier to engage in a joint action when the question before the proletariat is not one of taking the offensive for the attainment of new objectives, but of defending the positions already gained.

shish

 

[ViolentPanda]

it never is, is it.

Not according to the history recorded in Socialist Worker etc, anyway.

 

[Proper Tidy]

shish

Why don't you just answer the question?

 

[Pickman's model]

Why don't you just answer the question?

because he's full of shit.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Somebody please staple this to the heads of Messrs Gable, Lowles, Collins, Bennett and Smith please.

You're presuming that they give much of a shit about where things go after their brand of anti-fascism has been exercised, unless it accrues benefits to them.

 

[MellySingsDoom]

You're presuming that they give much of a shit about where things go after their brand of anti-fascism has been exercised, unless it accrues benefits to them.

Indeed - there isn't a sarcasm smiley unfortuanately. Never mind, there's always another non-existant "terror group" to get out of the cupboard and dust off.....anyone for another Column 88 exclusive?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Nobody is saying to be antifascist you have to be a revolutionary socialist. But antifascism has to offer or lead to some sort of alternative, because people turn to the far right precisely because they are seeking a radical alternative to the centre. Antifascism that fails to offer or point to an alternative and instead appeals to the centre and establishment politics is worthless.

And nobody is saying that some kind of alternative doesn't need building. As long as you have capitalism, you will always have fascism.

BUT! MASS action anti-fascism, does not need to thrash out an agreement about a new society, before it defends democracy from fascism. Sometimes you have to defend what you've got.

The job of building an alternative, falls those who are agreed upon what the alternative should be, and how you achieve it.

The two operate separately, but they are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason why you cannot operate in both forms of organisation. And why you cannot argue strongly with those are not YET convinced of the need for an alternative working in anti-fascism, that they are wrong, that they also need to be part of building an alternative.

It goes back to the conversation the other day, emancipation of the working class, has to be the act of the working class, and revolutionaries need to be at their side WHEREVER the working class are in struggle, not in some purist sectarian ghetto shouting from the sidelines. IMO.

This is the mistake the KPD made IMO.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Why don't you just answer the question?

Trotsky already has.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Trotsky already has.

No, you're projecting the answer that Trotsky gave to a contextually somewhat different question as the answer to a question you were asked, which isn't the same thing.

 

[MellySingsDoom]

For those interested in the election results for Morley South, where ex-BNP splitter Chris Beverley was standing for the English Democrats:

Neil Dawson (Labour) - 2129 (33.44%)
Terry Grayshom (Morley Borough Independents) - 2076 (32.61%)
Chris Beverley (English Democrats Party) - 1245 (19.56%)
Neil Hunt (Conservatives) - 736 (11.56%)
Robert Jacques (Liberal Democrats) - 180 (2.83%)

Turnout - 6336 (38.21%)

A very respectable vote for a "nationalist" - how many "left" party candidates in the locals scored near on 20%?

 

[audiotech]

Morley South, has a history of some, in what they would term, 'significant levels' of support for fascists - from as far back as the BUF and later the NF. Independents make a strong showing there also. To be blunt, it's a backwater, with little diversity. I wouldn't take this as typical and I wouldn't extrapolate anything from this result either.

 

[sihhi]

For those interested in the election results for Morley South, where ex-BNP splitter Chris Beverley was standing for the English Democrats:

Neil Dawson (Labour) - 2129 (33.44%)
Terry Grayshom (Morley Borough Independents) - 2076 (32.61%)
Chris Beverley (English Democrats Party) - 1245 (19.56%)
Neil Hunt (Conservatives) - 736 (11.56%)
Robert Jacques (Liberal Democrats) - 180 (2.83%)

Turnout - 6336 (38.21%)

A very respectable vote for a "nationalist" - how many "left" party candidates in the locals scored near on 20%?

That's because of a local (unofficial) UKIP-EDP pact in Leeds. EDP (like UKIP in many ways) when you get down to it, are a heap of Liberal Democrat-like-contradiction, they oppose cuts to services in many cases
'I will also campaign for an end to the unfair treatment of England over prescription charges and university tuition fees only for our students.' etc etc
But the EDP mayor makes cuts in Doncaster; they believe in the deficit problem which can be simply solved by cutting immigration, leaving the EU and having an English Parliament.

If Labour and Lefts were to make a pact so that Labour stood in 90% of seats and Lefts in 10% in a given council - and the Lefts chose a name with 'Labour' in it, then the Lefts would do well where they stood too.

But yes Chris Beverly is pragmatic and a good operator, he got part of the elderly vote by promising to have elderly-only areas of council housing patrolled by security guards so the hoods would have to pick on other houses.

He deleted all the stuff about how he disliked UKIP on his blog (from his BNP days).

 

[sihhi]

Morley South, has a history of support for fascists - from as far back as the BUF and later the NF. Independents make a strong showing there also. To be blunt, it's a backwater, with little diversity. Oh and don't forget Beverley had won a council seat under the BNP banner, so he was the incumbent losing.

That's not quite true it was lost in 2010 to the Morley Independents

Published on Friday 7 May 2010 13:04

THE British National Party has lost the Morley South seat to the Morley Borough Independent's Shirley Varley in the Leeds City Council elections.

The full result as follows:

Shirley Varley (Morley Borough Independent) - 2,837

Rob Wilkinson (Labour) - 2,497

Chris Beverley (BNP) - 2,246

Andrew Haigh (Conservative) - 1,880

Rowena Skinner (Liberal Democrat) - 1,149

http://www.morleyobserver.co.uk/new...outh_to_morley_borough_independents_1_1474780

 

[Pickman's model]

That's not quite true it was lost in 2010 to the Morley Independents

let's not let the facts get in the way of a good argument, eh?

 

[audiotech]

That's not quite true it was lost in 2010 to the Morley Independents.

I stand corrected.

 

[audiotech]

let's not let the facts get in the way of a good argument, eh?

Poster cop's here again.

 

[Proper Tidy]

And nobody is saying that some kind of alternative doesn't need building. As long as you have capitalism, you will always have fascism.

BUT! MASS action anti-fascism, does not need to thrash out an agreement about a new society, before it defends democracy from fascism. Sometimes you have to defend what you've got.

The job of building an alternative, falls those who are agreed upon what the alternative should be, and how you achieve it.

The two operate separately, but they are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason why you cannot operate in both forms of organisation. And why you cannot argue strongly with those are not YET convinced of the need for an alternative working in anti-fascism, that they are wrong, that they also need to be part of building an alternative.

It goes back to the conversation the other day, emancipation of the working class, has to be the act of the working class, and revolutionaries need to be at their side WHEREVER the working class are in struggle, not in some purist sectarian ghetto shouting from the sidelines. IMO.

This is the mistake the KPD made IMO.

Will you stop banging on about the KPD?

I am not arguing that antifascism has to "thrash out an agreement about a new society". I am saying that antifascism which says 'vote anybody but the BNP', promotes Labour/Liberal/Tory politicians, and appeals to the state to ban this, that and the other will not enjoy any success in appealing to those sections of the working class that are completely alienated from centre politics and mainstream society. Indeed, that brand of antifascism only serves to entrench support for the far right. It leaves the road clear for the far right to offer a radical alternative, whilst the perception of antifascism and the left is, understandably, that they are part and parcel of the centre and of the mainstream liberal consensus.

You don't do yourself any favours do you?

 

[Joe Reilly]

It goes back to the conversation the other day, emancipation of the working class, has to be the act of the working class, and revolutionaries need to be at their side WHEREVER the working class are in struggle, not in some purist sectarian ghetto shouting from the sidelines. IMO.

This is the mistake the KPD made IMO.

The KPD made mistakes. What party hasn't made mistakes? But 'shouting from the sidelines wasn't one of them'. It was the primary and only consistent, (physical and otherwise) opposition to the fascists from 1924 onwards. So to accuse them of spectating is a cowardly lie. It is cowardly for a multitude of reasons, not least that many rank and file communists died for the cause, but also because in finger-pointing at the inadequacies of the KPD, the wretched and much bigger SPD are left off the hook almost entirely.

Paul Foot was a repeat offender in this regard, even employing his column in The Guardian to vilify anti-fascist militants. Bambery was another who distinguished himself in this regard.

Odd isn't it that even now Trots still prefer the company of the political sponsors of the Free Corps (nazis fore-runners in many respects) to the working class revolutionaries of the KPD?

Then again when you think of their own record of sleazy collusion not that odd after all.

 

[Pickman's model]

Poster cop's here again.

you don't need to announce yourself like that.

 

[TremulousTetra]

The KPD made mistakes. What party hasn't made mistakes? But 'shouting from the sidelines wasn't one of them'. It was the primary and only consistent, (physical and otherwise) opposition to the fascists from 1924 onwards. So to accuse them of spectating is a cowardly lie. It is cowardly for a multitude of reasons, not least that many rank and file communists died for the cause, but also because in finger-pointing at the inadequacies of the KPD, the wretched and much bigger SPD are left off the hook almost entirely.

Paul Foot was a repeat offender in this regard, even employing his column in The Guardian to vilify anti-fascist militants. Bambery was another who distinguished himself in this regard.

Odd isn't it that even now Trots still prefer the company of the political sponsors of the Free Corps (nazis fore-runners in many respects) to the working class revolutionaries of the KPD?

Then again when you think of their own record of sleazy collusion not that odd after all.

fair point about the KPD. Shouting from the sidelines was more in reference to my point the other day about anarchists in Seattle, and on here. So in correction I should have said the KPD made a similar mistake to this.

It was similar, in that they sought to act as a minority of pure revolutionaries, rather than uniting with the majority SDP workers. I underline workers because it is them Revolutionaries have to unite with imo, not the SDP leadership, to create a MASS direct action.

No it is not odd. Even though it was the SDP who sent in the soldiers to put the rifle butt through Rosa Luxemburg's head, the SDP workers were the majority of the working class, and the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of these people, and revolutionaries have to stand with them to win them to revolution imo.

Referring to these workers as social fascist, ghettoised the KPD from the vast bulk of the working class. It's like the call for revolutionary unions, where all the workers with the most revolutionary ideas about transforming society join this fantastic union, leaving the vast bulk of 'capitalist workers'to be influenced by the the 'reformists'.

so the SDP/reformist leadership 'collusion', is only a means to an end, uniting with the vast bulk of 'capitalist workers' to produce mass antifascist action By the working class for the working class, rather than a self-selected minority carrying out anti-fascism on behalf of the 'capitalist workers' imo.

In short Joe, I can see your point, but I do not agree with you that a minority can substitute for the majority, which is what the KPD/AFA were doing IMO.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Will you stop banging on about the KPD?

I am not arguing that antifascism has to "thrash out an agreement about a new society". I am saying that antifascism which says 'vote anybody but the BNP', promotes Labour/Liberal/Tory politicians, and appeals to the state to ban this, that and the other will not enjoy any success in appealing to those sections of the working class that are completely alienated from centre politics and mainstream society. Indeed, that brand of antifascism only serves to entrench support for the far right. It leaves the road clear for the far right to offer a radical alternative, whilst the perception of antifascism and the left is, understandably, that they are part and parcel of the centre and of the mainstream liberal consensus.

You don't do yourself any favours do you?

that isn't what you said above.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The KPD made mistakes. What party hasn't made mistakes? But 'shouting from the sidelines wasn't one of them'. It was the primary and only consistent, (physical and otherwise) opposition to the fascists from 1924 onwards. So to accuse them of spectating is a cowardly lie. It is cowardly for a multitude of reasons, not least that many rank and file communists died for the cause, but also because in finger-pointing at the inadequacies of the KPD, the wretched and much bigger SPD are left off the hook almost entirely.

I mentioned on here a few days ago that the SPD were more guilty of non-cooperation with their fellow-left than the KPD, but perhaps rmp3 is just retailing the Swappie line, rather than historical fact.

I'm currently re-reading Bracher's "The German Dictatorship". He heaps an awful lot of evidence up to show that in terms of left sectarianism and non-cooperation, the SPD were in a class of their own, with their non-participatory oppositionism considerably weakening the credibility of the Weimar governments.