IWCA v BNP, on your radio

[love detective]

So, given you've said plenty about what you think shouldn't have been done

What, taking into account the local circumstances discussesd, would you have done if you were in Stuart's shoes?

 

[Fedayn]

So, given you've said plenty about what you think shouldn't have been done

What, taking into account the local circumstances discussesd, would you have done if you were in Stuart's shoes?

I wouldn't have agrred to appear with Darby, I would have asked what the radio station were playing at by inviting them. After all i'm assuming that the area covered by the station will have already heard of the BNP so why wait for a debate before taking their politics to task on the programme? The IWCA could have exposed the BNP's politics on their own. Last I heard Stuart was a councillor, as such hardly be a shocker for him to be on such a radio show on his own. Does he have to have the BNP on with him to criticise their politics?

 

[love detective]

Right, so in your own words, you would have done two things:-

1. Asked the radio station why they invited them (and received the response given in the text quoted above), and

2. Not have went on the show

Now we know what you would have done, can you tell us why the consequences/outcome of these two things would be less worse than a pro working class progressive argument being aired, not just against the euro nationalism of the BNP, but also against the reactionary liberal anti-fascist argument put by the political mainstream. Why is the absence of a pro working class progressive alternative better than its presence?

Also it does seem to me that your biggest gripe here is actually with the radio station (hence my previous question) but you are somehow holding the IWCA responsible for what you see as a wrong move by the radio station

 

[Fedayn]

Right, so in your own words, you would have done two things:-

1. Asked the radio station why they invited them (and received the response given in the text quoted above), and

2. Not have went on the show

Now we know what you would have done, can you tell us why the consequences/outcome of these two things would be less worse than a pro working class progressive argument being aired, not just against the euro nationalism of the BNP, but also against the reactionary liberal anti-fascist argument put by the political mainstream. Why is the absence of a pro working class progressive alternative better than its presence?

Also it does seem to me that your biggest gripe here is actually with the radio station (hence my previous question) but you are somehow holding the IWCA responsible for what you see as a wrong move by the radio station

Are you claiming that not to appear on the same programme as the BNP would have been a bad move? Where is the evidence? What huge difference would the BNP appearing on that radio station as opposed to all their media appearances? What would this programme be so crucial? You appear to be suggesting that once those who listened to this show heard the BNP they'd be won over with no trouble.

I think the radio station fucked up, but I think the IWCA apprearing on the same programme compounds the fuck up. Did the IWCA at any point question the invite? Did they wonder why they'd been asked to appear? If not why not?
I'd also ask why did the radio station and the IWCA by agreeing to appear think the only way to skewer the BNP was to sit in the studio with them? That certainly doesn't chime with the IWCA's previous work.

 

[Casually Red]

But if the SWP are local they might well have a better view surely? Of course i've no dispute re Stuarts ideas being better than the SWP, but the 'local' bit is a tad of a cover all imho.

surely the SWP just follow the party line regardless

 

[Casually Red]

Are you claiming that not to appear on the same programme as the BNP would have been a bad move? Where is the evidence? What huge difference would the BNP appearing on that radio station as opposed to all their media appearances? What would this programme be so crucial? You appear to be suggesting that once those who listened to this show heard the BNP they'd be won over with no trouble.

I think the radio station fucked up, but I think the IWCA apprearing on the same programme compounds the fuck up. Did the IWCA at any point question the invite? Did they wonder why they'd been asked to appear? If not why not?
I'd also ask why did the radio station and the IWCA by agreeing to appear think the only way to skewer the BNP was to sit in the studio with them? That certainly doesn't chime with the IWCA's previous work.

maybe he'll take the opportunity to chin the cunt on air

 

[love detective]

Are you claiming that not to appear on the same programme as the BNP would have been a bad move? Where is the evidence? What huge difference would the BNP appearing on that radio station as opposed to all their media appearances? What would this programme be so crucial? You appear to be suggesting that once those who listened to this show heard the BNP they'd be won over with no trouble.

I think the radio station fucked up, but I think the IWCA apprearing on the same programme compounds the fuck up. Did the IWCA at any point question the invite? Did they wonder why they'd been asked to appear? If not why not?
I'd also ask why did the radio station and the IWCA by agreeing to appear think the only way to skewer the BNP was to sit in the studio with them? That certainly doesn't chime with the IWCA's previous work.

I'll ask the original question again which you seemed to have missed above

Why is the absence of a pro working class progressive alternative better than its presence?

 

[Fedayn]

I'll ask the original question again which you seemed to have missed above

Why is the absence of a pro working class progressive alternative better than its presence?

Was the only way to get that pro-working class alternative over to appear on the same show? You know the answer full well, after all you wouldn't have agreed to a different programme later on if it was.

 

[love detective]

you not going to answer the question then?

your actions would have brought about it's absence, ours would have brought about its presence

why is the absence, in general terms, better than its presence?

 

[Fedayn]

you not going to answer the question then?

your actions would have brought about it's absence, ours would have brought about its presence

why is the absence, in general terms, better than its presence?

My actions would have simply got it aired at a different time, something the radio then offered after the BNP spat the dummy. Clearly even the IWCA realised that was also going to allow them to put across their alternative or they wouldn't have agreed to appearing at a later date as they clearly agreed to. So 'my actions' would have simply had the reply at a differnt time not stopped it.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Fed your suggestions remind me of the BBC dubbing Ger and Marty with actors. What contortions must we go through to uphold the myth of no platform?

 

[love detective]

My actions would have simply got it aired at a different time, something the radio then offered after the BNP spat the dummy. Clearly even the IWCA realised that was also going to allow them to put across their alternative or they wouldn't have agreed to appearing at a later date as they clearly agreed to. So 'my actions' would have simply had the reply at a differnt time not stopped it.

surely the general principle/strategy is that you confront fascism in the arena and on the terrain it manifests itself as a threat, and ideally actually at the same time as they are on that terrain, not a few days later after they've left. So that those seeing what fascism gives out, also sees at the same time it getting it's arse kicked (either literally or metaphorically ) and allows them to be seen for what they are

so your suggestion that we specifically leave that terrain clear for them to progress on, and then come back later after they've gone, is a bit odd and tactically dubious

also reminds me a bit of the UAF/SWP 'countering' this or that right wing demo by arranging it miles away from the place the thing it's countering is to be held

 

[Fedayn]

Fed your suggestions remind me of the BBC dubbing Ger and Marty with actors. What contortions must we go through to uphold the myth of no platform?

Given i've not once suggested they should be no platformed i'm at a loss as to why you're even asking that question? I'd also add it would be difficult to no platform them if you're not on the same show wouldn't you say? It does strike me as strange they were invited the concerns of the manager notwithstanding. it also strikes me as a ridiculous claim that to take their arguments on you have to appear on the same programme with them, that flies in the face of reality.

 

[Fedayn]

surely the general principle/strategy is that you confront fascism in the arena and on the terrain it manifests itself as a threat, and ideally actually at the same time as they are on that terrain, not a few days later after they've left. So that those seeing what fascism gives out, also sees at the same time it getting it's arse kicked (either literally or metaphorically ) and allows them to be seen for what they are

Well in that case why did the IWCA agree to appearing at a later date with the caveat they said would be used? If it isn't possible to refute their arguments on the later date why bother to agree to appear?

so your suggestion that we specifically leave that terrain clear for them to progress on, and then come back later after they've gone, is a bit odd and tactically dubious

Obviously yheir appearance on this radio show is crucial and to not appear with them will be a disaster for IWCA politics, yet you still fail to provide a scintilla of evidence for this claim.

also reminds me a bit of the UAF/SWP 'countering' this or that right wing demo by arranging it miles away from the place the thing it's countering is to be held

Fuck right off, that's a pathetic smear as well you know.

 

[love detective]

Well in that case why did the IWCA agree to appearing at a later date with the caveat they said would be used? If it isn't possible to refute their arguments on the later date why bother to agree to appear?

In light of what I said above, given the chance to refute the argument at the time they are made or at a later date - what do you think would be the most effective in terms of making them look like fools? I would say at the time those arguments were made. If that opportunity wasn't available would it be better to not refute them at all? You seem to be suggesting that because the IWCA were not going to be allowed to appear at the same time as the BNP and therefore agreed to do a slot later this is somehow evidence that shows they shouldn't have agreed to go head to head with the BNP in the first place. The only reason for agreeing to do the later date was because it was the next best thing to attacking them at the time. This in no way contradicts anything i've said above

Obviously yheir appearance on this radio show is crucial and to not appear with them will be a disaster for IWCA politics, yet you still fail to provide a scintilla of evidence for this claim.

you still refuse to answer - why is the absence of a pro working class progressive alternative better than its presence?

Fuck right off, that's a pathetic smear as well you know.

It's you who is suggesting that the most effective way to counter something is by not being in the same place as them at the same time

 

[Fedayn]

In light of what I said above, given the chance to refute the argument at the time they are made or at a later date - what do you think would be the most effective in terms of making them look like fools? I would say at the time those arguments were made. If that opportunity wasn't available would it be better to not refute them at all? You seem to be suggesting that because the IWCA were not going to be allowed to appear at the same time as the BNP and therefore agreed to do a slot later this is somehow evidence that shows they shouldn't have agreed to go head to head with the BNP in the first place. The only reason for agreeing to do the later date was because it was the next best thing to attacking them at the time. This in no way contradicts anything i've said above

If this was the case i'm sure you were raging that the BNP were on QT, after all the lack of the IWCA was a disaster for your politics. Sorry it doesn't follow at all. I'm still waiting for your evidence that to not appear on the same show would be some kind of set back. Would appearing later be critically too late? Would it be bad for working-class politics?

you still refuse to answer - why is the absence of a pro working class progressive alternative better than its presence?

Straw man again, given I never said the IWCA shouldn't appear on the radio station i'm at a loss as to why you think i'm opposed to them putting across their alternative, but hey ho make it up as you go. I've said repeatedly, which you make a shite swipe at later in your post, that appearing at a later date, not to do a cookery show, but to argue a pro-working class alternative is not in any way arguing for its absence.

It's you who is suggesting that the most effective way to counter something is by not being in the same place as them at the same time

Different political time, tactics, context and reality as you well know. You're accusing me of avouiding them as the SWP did, nice smear there.

 

[love detective]

Straw man again, given I never said the IWCA shouldn't appear on the radio station i'm at a loss as to why you think i'm opposed to them putting across their alternative, but hey ho make it up as you go.

eh? i asked you what you would have done if you were in stuart's shoes - you said you wouldn't have gone on the show - i then went on to talk about the consequences of your decision compared to that of Stuart's and i asked you why you thought the absence of a pro working class progressive voice was better than its presence - i.e. i was comparing the consequences of your decision with the consequences of stuarts

so why now say I am making things up - everything i have said has been based on what you said you would do had you been in that situation

If this was the case i'm sure you were raging that the BNP were on QT, after all the lack of the IWCA was a disaster for your politics. Sorry it doesn't follow at all. I'm still waiting for your evidence that to not appear on the same show would be some kind of set back. Would appearing later be critically too late? Would it be bad for working-class politics?

I still don't understand why you don't get the basic principle that to show fascists up for what they are while they are actively trying to do their thing, is far more effective than waiting till after they've departed

 

[Fedayn]

eh? i asked you what you would have done if you were in stuart's shoes - you said you wouldn't have gone on the show - i then went on to talk about the consequences of your decision compared to that of Stuart's and i asked you why you thought the absence of a pro working class progressive voice was better than its presence

so why now say I am making things up - everything i have said has been based on what you said you would do had you been in that situation

Not on the same show correct. That doesn't stop the IWCA putting forward it's arguments at a later date. The IWCA would be entirely able to put forward it's politics later on. The IWCA clearly agree they would be able to do so given they were going to appear at a later date as requested by the station. So i'm not arguing for the absence of a working-class alternative in any way.

 

[love detective]

sorry this is just going round in circles, just because the IWCA agreed to what they saw as the second best option (an interview at a later date) this in no way proves that they think that this is the best or only option. The best option for the IWCA was to present a pro working class progressive argument at the same time and directly against the BNP (and liberal anti fascist argument), i.e. to demolish their arguments as they were given them, humiliate them there & then on the spot - not wait a few days until the target has had their chance to present themselves as the radical alternative to the no doubt staid liberal anti-fascist counter they would have got in the absence of the IWCA

 

[Fedayn]

sorry this is just going round in circles, just because the IWCA agreed to what they saw as the second best option (an interview at a later date) this in no way proves that they think that this is the best or only option. The best option for the IWCA was to present a pro working class progressive argument at the same time and directly against the BNP (and liberal anti fascist argument), i.e. to demolish their arguments as they were given them, humiliate them there & then on the spot - not wait a few days until the target has had their chance to present themselves as the radical alternative to the no doubt staid liberal anti-fascist counter they would have got in the absence of the IWCA

It's not going round in circles at all. You wanted the IWCA to appear on the same programme claiming it was the only way to articulate a pro-working class position. I don't think the BNP need any more legitimacy than they already have and think it entirely possibly to articulate those politics at a later date. Had the IWCA not been invited onto the programme or even informed would they have felt it was impossible to respond in any way?

 

[love detective]

It's not going round in circles at all. You wanted the IWCA to appear on the same programme claiming it was the only way to articulate a pro-working class position.

no we didn't say it was the only way, we said it was the best way, given the particular situation (a BNP with an eye on the area and a significant block of people in that ward who had already been prized away from the political mainstream)

when there is a far right presence, surely the presence of a direct pro working class progressive counter as close to it (in both time/space) is a more effective counter tactic than vacating the territory and giving it a few days before attempting to counter - can you imagine this approach transported back into the era of physical force anti-fascism - it would be hatstand.

 

[Fedayn]

no we didn't say it was the only way, we said it was the best way, given the particular situation (a BNP with an eye on the area and a significant block of people in that ward who had already been prized away from the political mainstream)

when there is a far right presence, surely the presence of a direct pro working class progressive counter as close to it (in both time/space) is a more effective counter tactic than vacating the territory and giving it a few days before attempting to counter - can you imagine this approach transported back into the era of physical force anti-fascism - it would be hatstand.

But it's not the same is it? Back when it was on the streets is not comparable to sharing a studio and debating the issues, they are in no way comparable.

 

[love detective]

i'm not saying they are comparable, but the strategy of attacking them on the terrain/in the arena they appear (and at the same time/place they appear) is the same

anyway, i'm losing the will to live on this, we're just going round in circles - we've made our points, let's leave it at that

 

[Frances Lengel]

you couldn't find your circumference with both hands

That sounds like a compliment if anything.

 

[Fedayn]

i'm not saying they are comparable, but the strategy of attacking them on the terrain/in the arena they appear (and at the same time/place they appear) is the same

anyway, i'm losing the will to live on this, we're just going round in circles - we've made our points, let's leave it at that

But they can't be compared in the way you say because the dynamics are totally different. But fair enough I doubrt we'll agree so aye leave it at that.

As an aside, are there still plans for the IWCA to appear on this station?

 

[The39thStep]

Who are the 'anti fascists' then?

You tell me Fed, those advocating no platform should be delivering no platform imo.

 

[Fedayn]

You tell me Fed, those advocating no platform should be delivering no platform imo.

Well given i've not argued for no platform i'm still wondering who you're referring to.

 

[love detective]

But it's not the same is it? Back when it was on the streets is not comparable to sharing a studio and debating the issues, they are in no way comparable.

a response from an IWCA member in Blackbird Leys:-

In many ways it's exactly the same. For anti-fascists there are no prizes for coming second. If anti-fascists want to be taken seriously within working class areas they need to be seen to show no physical or intellectual fear of the likes of the BNP. Anyone who says otherwise is either deluded or dishonest. The IWCA’s stock in Blackbird Leys has grown stronger due to the BNP bottling it and as a consequence the IWCA’s tactics/political arguments are being investigated by the local working class young men and women running the local radio station as an example of successful anti-fascism. Aside from Stuart’s 30 - 40 minute appearance tomorrow morning, a programme is also being dedicated to an interview with veteran London AFA activists discussing the ‘Beating The Fascists’ book. How anyone can portray this as a victory for the BNP in any way whatsoever is beyond me.

 

[Citizen66]

Not on the same show correct. That doesn't stop the IWCA putting forward it's arguments at a later date.

The way I see it, there's nothing to guarantee the potential BNP voters seeking confirmation bias from the radio show tuning in at the later date to hear the counter arguments. Surely its more effective to counter the far right position while theres bums on seats?

 

[Fedayn]

a response from an IWCA member in Blackbird Leys:-

In many ways it's exactly the same. For anti-fascists there are no prizes for coming second. If anti-fascists want to be taken seriously within working class areas they need to be seen to show no physical or intellectual fear of the likes of the BNP. Anyone who says otherwise is either deluded or dishonest. The IWCA’s stock in Blackbird Leys has grown stronger due to the BNP bottling it and as a consequence the IWCA’s tactics/political arguments are being investigated by the local working class young men and women running the local radio station as an example of successful anti-fascism. Aside from Stuart’s 30 - 40 minute appearance tomorrow morning, a programme is also being dedicated to an interview with veteran London AFA activists discussing the ‘Beating The Fascists’ book. How anyone can portray this as a victory for the BNP in any way whatsoever is beyond me.

Where did I say the IWCA was in any way physically or intellectually feart of the BNP or their likes?! Glad to hear Craft is appearing on the programme tomorrow.
Where did anyone portray this as a BNP victory? What would give the IWCA member the impression that anyone said it was a BNP victory?