placing Red Action then the IWCA theorethically

[jackie 68]

Asking a blunt question is not 'starting a row' in my book. I worked for years with the fella in the print shop (and there are enough anarchos and others - including fed who could vouch for my safe identity here if you want to pm). Neither could be called 'leading lights'.

The point didn't really need answering but *sigh* if i must burst that bubble. There was a danger of folk losing a sense of perspective. Such disagreements would be quite normal in an organisation - there is no need to paint words with a small number of individuals as some SWP style, 'anti-squaddie witchunt' which we both know it was not. It might make you feel better given your personal choice - but it still does not turn the molehill of reality into a mountain. Similarly no need to distort the practise of Militant's anti-fascism. RA themselves had - eventually - drawn the conclusion that a single tactic (as a replacement for an alternative) was no longer effective - if it could ever have been effective on its own. The difference between the two organisations was that the Militants had never seen one tactic as the basis of all of the work that they carried out. As for 'aberations' the AT tactics may well have been used - on occasion - since your disappearance from the scene without any internal problems. Individuals members may well even have gone down as the result of the use of such tactics. There may well even have been a few cases of individuals moving towards this difficult activity over all others (understandably), luckily they were in an organisation that could offer a wider perspective and balance to their activity (but that is not to say it would not have resulted in disagreements over the weight or importance of such activity on occasion. Again that is a natural part of being in the Militant. You would not know about that because you were no longer around. If used - such tactics would not have been seen as a replacement for politics by the organisation as a whole.

In fairness I dont know anything about the away team I only ever heard it mentioned in relation to one day thats why I was asking. If I have elevated anyone to a leading face Ill withdraw that and move the discussion on.
However your answer itself raises other questions..
I dont get your point as to why it was shut down.. simplify that for me.
I also dont get your point re the group not having control of its own actions, is this some party/army dichotomy!! (if thats a word).Expand on that if you would.

Further I think the characterisation of AFA as a single tactic is wholely wrong, I myself was involved in a football fanzine red attitude, various music based groups, cable street beat, freedom of movement etc, and spent much more time giving out leaflets on windy estates than fighting fascists physically etc etc. Such characterisation is like dismissing the militant as lefty papersellers, its just lazy!
Anyhow you started this thread counterposing the away team and its record to that of RA/AFA, that is of some interest if you would like to expand on it.

 

[dennisr]

However your answer itself raises other questions.. I dont get your point as to why it was shut down.. simplify that for me. I also dont get your point re the group not having control of its own actions, is this some party/army dichotomy!! (if thats a word).Expand on that if you would.

Happy to chat with you via PMs. But - remaining vague for obvious reasons - to give a general reply to your question. Folk involved in physical confrontation (and all of the organisation and intelligence gathering etc that goes with that) could find themselves losing a sense of the wider politics or the actual role they were playing as part of this wider political movement they are assisting practically. Could they not? They may well develop an overblown sense of the importance and centrality of the single tactical role they are playing. May they not? Its not a criticism of the work being done - it would only be a 'comradely' point of disagreement with close allies over the danger of one tactic being argued for to the exclusion of others. In terms of that work such a fighting body would have complete control over its actions. But, in terms of the use of the tactic as part of wider activity it would, of course, have had to be accountable to political leadership. The very intense nature of the activity this group would be involved in makes that accountability even more important than in other circumstances. It is not like occasional stewarding or suchlike.

Forgot to add one practical point: One would never want political leadership or its strategy to be compromised by the occasional physical activities that were carried out some anti-fascists as a necessary tactic. If a group of paper sellers are being physically attacked by fascists - to the point were they are scared and it effects their ability to carry out their task - it may well be necessary, when called upon by these paper sellers, for a political leadership to 'informally' ask that a quiet but very firm word with the intimidators is given (making clear the ability to follow up with further sharp discussion as and if needed) by a more well-organised, tight-knit and 'physical' team of individuals. Now 'officially' these folk act on their own. You can see the practical reasons why this would be. Better still - they remain invisible (they don't have a 'record' or score card to keep - it was never the point of what they were doing).

Further I think the characterisation of AFA as a single tactic is wholely wrong, I myself was involved in a football fanzine red attitude, various music based groups, cable street beat, freedom of movement etc, and spent much more time giving out leaflets on windy estates than fighting fascists physically etc etc. Such characterisation is like dismissing the militant as lefty papersellers, its just lazy!

To be honest - you seem to have reinforced this caricature rather than contradicted it in your list of activities My apologies if I did tend to caricature to an extent. (In my defence - This was though a response to a series of caricatures you raised about my organisation - and I can be a lazy bast**d... I get what you are saying - it was not all just physical anti-fascist activity. Yep, I'm the first to accept that. But it was all just anti-fascist activity wasn't it? What about all of the other work we need to carry out if we are going to counter racist and fascist ideas? RA themselves have moved on.

Anyhow you started this thread counterposing the away team and its record to that of RA/AFA, that is of some interest if you would like to expand on it.

Actually I didn't - I just replied to counter some (imo...) crude generalisations made. I'm happy to leave the conversation over respective records - other folk can argue over old history (and frankly I have never questioned the central role AFA played in physical anti-fascism. They have every reason to be proud of that aspect of their activity - I just don't think it is the 'be all and end all' of fighting fascism). I tend to only reply to comments made about my politics or organisation's role when I feel that these comments need some clarification.

Do I know you then jackie (my real name is my user name)?

 

[jackie 68]

Again not looking for a row so Ill let some of that stuff slide, however again seeking further clarification.
1) Why have I never heard any of this before, is there evidence for more than one or two outings? If so why a hidden history, surely the purpose of any vanguard type politics is defeated by total secrecy (beyond operational safety stuff), surely it becomes elitist? AFA always maintained a public profile in areas it carried out actions so people could join, pass on info etc, otherwise the squadism accusations would have foundation ie substitution for class action, no?.
2) yes afa was all about anti-fascism what was the away team about if it was more than that? Most people were in other political parties too but AFA was single issue.
3) I was seeking clarification on the central point was the AT under outside political direction from non-combatants? Your posts seem to see it as an adjunct to a party, an armed wing type set up. How did this play out? Did it fall asunder under this contradiction?
4) Of course anti-fascist semi covert activity is prone to all sorts of paranoia etc. Are you really saying you were engaged at that level over a sustained period? If you were doing all that you talk of intelligence gathering etc etc you didnt share much!!
5) Why a separate AT not involvement in AFA?
6) respect where its due and all that whether the AT was a fleeting thing or more sustained whether it was an aberation from the normal militant approach or not well done to all involved.

 

[The39thStep]

Thanks dennis for responding but it is still a case of 'fog of war' with the AT. Not really clearer about what they did , whether it was just defensive ,jus defensive in protecting militant paper sellers, why they remained outside AFA or even ANL. There are two books out on AFA's activity is there no one who could tell the story ( how ever brief) of the Away Team?

The Panther scenario reminds me of the SWP's Big Flame experience .

 

[dennisr]

Again not looking for a row so Ill let some of that stuff slide, however again seeking further clarification.

yep sound

6) respect where its due and all that whether the AT was a fleeting thing or more sustained whether it was an aberation from the normal militant approach or not well done to all involved.

Firstly there is little or no evidence of anything - And I would guess folk would prefer to keep it that way ) - But no - there was no long term secret conspiracy just a reliable team of "cdes" who could come together as and when needed (and yep sustained sometimes for a while). Don;t get me wrong - It would not have been a replacement for AFA and could not compared to the sustained work of AFA.

Where there was joint work at various points with various organisations over the last couple of decades the folk people they were working with would know about it.

I think I can best answer all questions by this wee reply would be some self-critical views on stuff i have 'heard' about:

Was it an abberation?: no it remained a tactic used on occasion though - not something sustained in the way AFA was over decades. But that would be the key - a tactic - not a replacement for a political strategy.

What where the limitations in using this tactic?: a) occasional reliance on outside intelligence (that cannot always be trusted). b) occasional reliance on outside groups - opening AT individuals up to more attention than they wanted or needed and c) most importantly - the exact danger you talked about - an element of 'elitism'/substitution - hence the need for accountability.

What is my view of the effectiveness of this tactic?: Sometimes one would not have any option, sometimes individuals could make the mistake that a few effective hits could be transformed into a 'quick-fit' replacement for political activity building towards mass action and sometimes it could be seen as an easy replacement for the long-term work needed.

And, yep, sometimes it was actually easier to beat the feck out of some ejet - certainly stopped em and yep, made me feel better to be frank - but that was not the most effective approach in countering the underlying causes and problems. In some ways you could even argue it is a sign of the potential weakness of the anti-fascist movement rather than its strength (which comes though mass activity). I always argue it is a necessary tactic - an adjunct - to be used sparingly and as needed but when it is necessary - make sure to do it properly.

The balance - and a sense of perspective is a hard one to keep - I think the relationship folk involved in such activity have would with wider political organisations would certainly help to keep a sense of proportion.

 

[dennisr]

Thanks dennis for responding but it is still a case of 'fog of war' with the AT. Not really clearer about what they did , whether it was just defensive ,jus defensive in protecting militant paper sellers, why they remained outside AFA or even ANL. There are two books out on AFA's activity is there no one who could tell the story ( how ever brief) of the Away Team?

Frankly - i don't think it: a) deserves a story - it is not comparable to AFA and b) those involved are still involved in wider politics so don't want to live on the necessities of the past. (not saying AFA members ain't still involved - but that is the simple view/perspective of those who did AT work)

Yep, I guess you could say defensive - although some could have been pre-emptively defensive (say where fash thought they were able to go out canvassing with impunity and there was little or no time to build political opposition in numbers)

It is a tiny, tiny part of a more important anti-fascist movement. AFA has its own view of the importance of physical activity.

The Panther scenario reminds me of the SWP's Big Flame experience.

He, he - i guess there are some similariities - hopefully not too many

 

[dennisr]

Thanks dennis for responding but it is still a case of 'fog of war' with the AT. Not really clearer about what they did , whether it was just defensive ,jus defensive in protecting militant paper sellers, why they remained outside AFA or even ANL. There are two books out on AFA's activity is there no one who could tell the story ( how ever brief) of the Away Team?

Just to say - there were serious discussions/disagreements about how to approach the growth of AFA - 'internal discussion documents' even (and that when you can tell they are serious ;-) - the general view was - yes, work with on practical activities (not easy given the security taken by all both of us) but physical anti-fascism could not be a replacement for - tedious as it might be - politics - trying to push mass activity (even if this may have had to be defended by physical back-up). YRE - "jobs and homes not racism" was the result.

 

[Joe Reilly]

Similarly no need to distort the practise of Militant's anti-fascism. RA themselves had - eventually - drawn the conclusion that a single tactic (as a replacement for an alternative) was no longer effective - if it could ever have been effective on its own.

Isn't that a bit like saying Churchill finally came around to Chamberlain's policy of appeasement after the war?

 

[dennisr]

Isn't that a bit like saying Churchill finally came around to Chamberlain's policy of appeasement after the war?

No its like saying physical anti-fascism could not on its own defeat fascism - not without raising a political alternative. You know that, I know that - but hey stick to cheap shots if you like

 

[jackie 68]

What I think you are missing on the development from AFA to IWCA is two things 1)the change in BNP tactics, the retreat from the streets etc. AFA had won the battle of the streets but was still faced with the choice of adapt or die. 2) The failure of the left. I think there is a tendency on the left to see us moving over to their position with the benefit of experience blah di blah. In actuality the move to the IWCA was a realisation that the idea we could create and hold the space for the left to fill was a seriously flawed plan ie the left werent gonna fill it. If not them then who were gonna challenge the BNP politically? That was where the IWCA came in, 2 strands pushing us in the direction of the IWCA, left failure and BNP change of tactics. We never believed as you imply that physical anti-fascism could on its own defeat fascism, we thought you lot and others could morph into a political alternative. It was all your fault!!

 

[Nigel Irritable]

And how is the IWCA currently doing in its attempts to build a political alternative?

 

[jackie 68]

good, yourself?
Ill let others answer this as Im not involved having left the country in 99 but it looks like they have done well considering , tiny acorns and all that.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

tiny acorns and all that.

Well the problem would seem to be that the acorn is rather tinier than it was when it was planted.

 

[The39thStep]

good, yourself?
Ill let others answer this as Im not involved having left the country in 99 but it looks like they have done well considering , tiny acorns and all that.

Gem !!

 

[The39thStep]

Well the problem would seem to be that the acorn is rather tinier than it was when it was planted.

"...the entire history of mankind is governed by the law of uneven development." Leon Trotsky

 

[dennisr]

What I think you are missing on the development from AFA to IWCA is two things 1)the change in BNP tactics, the retreat from the streets etc. AFA had won the battle of the streets but was still faced with the choice of adapt or die. 2) The failure of the left. I think there is a tendency on the left to see us moving over to their position with the benefit of experience blah di blah. In actuality the move to the IWCA was a realisation that the idea we could create and hold the space for the left to fill was a seriously flawed plan ie the left werent gonna fill it. If not them then who were gonna challenge the BNP politically? That was where the IWCA came in, 2 strands pushing us in the direction of the IWCA, left failure and BNP change of tactics. We never believed as you imply that physical anti-fascism could on its own defeat fascism, we thought you lot and others could morph into a political alternative. It was all your fault!!

he he. I don't see you as moving over to our position - you have moved from one 'tactic as being the only way forward' to another 'tactic as being the only way forward'. There was never any alternative to the need to fill the vacuam in which fascism breeds - politically. We are willing to use both the same and different tactics now as we did then. You over blow the importance of the 'left' in this process (which is weird given the usual RA point about the irrelevance of that same left) but that is nowt compared to the over blown importance you give to AFAs role in winning the 'battle of the streets'.

Having said that I can only apologise for this apparent abject failure on our part ) - you should have advised us. our view was that we had to do our best to hold on to what ground we had - taking advantage of what small electoral and campaigning opportunities existed but that the situation would change - new opportunities would open up - as the economic situation changed. I think it has - finally (although this will still be drawn out)

It'll be interesting to see how the respective organisations have positioned themselves to take advantage of the up-coming situation - what role each organisation can play - who is already burn out and who isn't - how they have positioned themselves within the tu movement (which I think still has a potentially powerful social weight - I know we disagree on that) and what role they play within that - only after then, imho, can we start writing histories.

 

[jackie 68]

Arent all the groups?

 

[dennisr]

"...the entire history of mankind is governed by the law of uneven development." Leon Trotsky

which would be a better starting point to understanding processes going on than "it was the failure of the left"

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Arent all the groups?

I don't think all the groups have shrunk over the last five or six years, while the IWCA visibly has. But even if everyone was currently shrinking, aren't the IWCA supposed to have a better way than the "failed left"?

 

[jackie 68]

he he. I don't see you as moving over to our position - you have moved from one 'tactic as being the only way forward' to another 'tactic as being the only way forward'. There was never any alternative to the need to fill the vacuam in which fascism breeds - politically. We are willing to use both the same and different tactics now as we did then. You over blow the importance of the 'left' in this process (which is weird given the usual RA point about the irrelevance of that same left) but that is nowt compared to the over blown importance you give to AFAs role in winning the 'battle of the streets'.

Having said that I can only apologise for this apparent abject failure on our part ) - you should have advised us. our view was that we had to do our best to hold on to what ground we had - taking advantage of what small electoral and campaigning opportunities existed but that the situation would change - new opportunities would open up - as the economic situation changed. I think it has - finally (although this will still be drawn out)

It'll be interesting to see how the respective organisations have positioned themselves to take advantage of the up-coming situation - what role each organisation can play - who is already burn out and who isn't - how they have positioned themselves within the tu movement (which I think still has a potentially powerful social weight - I know we disagree on that) and what role they play within that - only after then, imho, can we start writing histories.

We kept telling you!! You wouldnt listen just kept quoting dead Russians.. AFA is no more, writing its history we feel is useful for those engaged in anti-fascism today and in the future, you disagree? Good luck with positioning in the TU movement! As for an overblown view of ourselves and our role in forcing the BNP off the streets they themselves have made that clear.

 

[dennisr]

We kept telling you!! You wouldnt listen just kept quoting dead Russians..

aye - we must be a bit mutton jeff - can't remember quoting any dead russians recently though (apart from paraphasing - is that the right word - the fella above)

ps I will be reading the book - it'll be interesting to me personally - but I'm not expecting any major theoretical breakthrough

 

[past caring]

Nigel is a dead russian?

I thought he was just brain dead.

 

[jackie 68]

Of course ask any of them they are all booming always have been, when I joined militant it had 7000 members 350 fulltimers, Mps, councillors blah di blah forward to a daily militant. That would be dialectics, right?

 

[dennisr]

Of course ask any of them they are all booming always have been, when I joined militant it had 7000 members 350 fulltimers, Mps, councillors blah di blah forward to a daily militant. That would be dialectics, right?

which I haven't said - but its easier arguing with straw man I guess - yep, I remember the forward to a daily militant illusion - well one lives and learns (hopefully...)

 

[jackie 68]

I was adressing my remarks to an irritable man out to score points. Clearly he is a member of a group that has only ever gone from glorious victory to sparkling success! I think Stuart has done great work in oxford for the IWCA

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Of course ask any of them they are all booming always have been, when I joined militant it had 7000 members 350 fulltimers, Mps, councillors blah di blah forward to a daily militant. That would be dialectics, right?

None of which explains why the IWCA has been slowly disappearing does it?

Whining about the allegedly irrelevant left will only get you so far. Eventually you have to account for your own failures.

The likes of yourself and past caring seem incapable of that.

 

[jackie 68]

How do you make out slowly disappearing? Explosive start then a set back when labour focus on defeating them at all cost. So explain how you are relevant? This is what happens when I try to play nice! Sectarian abuse!!

 

[Nigel Irritable]

How do you make out slowly disappearing? Explosive start then a set back when labour focus on defeating them at all cost. So explain how you are relevant? This is what happens when I try to play nice! Sectarian abuse!!

There's no sectarian abuse.

The IWCA has launched a number of branches or "pilot schemes". Some of them had some local success - successes, incidentally which I think can be learnt from. But these branches have slowly died out and new ones have not been forthcoming to replace them. Oxford has been the one that's shown a bit of longevity, but as you say even there there have been some setbacks. There's less IWCA now than there was three years ago, and there was less three years ago than six years ago. There's no sign of the model spreading, nor of it showing much tenacity outside Oxford.

At some point, IWCA members are going to have to draw a balance sheet of their own successes and failures and stop whining about the "irrelevant" left as a catch all excuse. I've yet to see any sign of them doing so.

 

[Joe Reilly]

There's no sectarian abuse.

The IWCA has launched a number of branches or "pilot schemes". Some of them had some local success - successes, incidentally which I think can be learnt from. But these branches have slowly died out and new ones have not been forthcoming to replace them. Oxford has been the one that's shown a bit of longevity, but as you say even there there have been some setbacks. There's less IWCA now than there was three years ago, and there was less three years ago than six years ago. There's no sign of the model spreading, nor of it showing much tenacity outside Oxford.

At some point, IWCA members are going to have to draw a balance sheet of their own successes and failures and stop whining about the "irrelevant" left as a catch all excuse. I've yet to see any sign of them doing so.

The great irony with all this carping is that it was the failure of Militant/SP to stand against the BNP on the Isle of Dogs (despite AFA being willing to provide what security would have been needed for canvassers etc) was what convinced the AFA leadership that the old left could not be relied upon to 'fill the vacuum'. You are even less prepared/willing to so today. As for the pilot schemes they had basically matured by 2006 so saying there are less pilot schemes now than in 2007 is sort of missing the point. Despite your patronising concession that the 'IWCA successes can be learned from' there is no visible evidence of anyone taking the lessons on board. Indeed, within days of the IWCA winning its first seat in 2002 the secretary of the Socialist Alliance declared proudly: "we have nothing to learn from the IWCA". Has anything changed since? Not really. In 2009 I think I attended a rally sponsored by your party and listened in depressed awe to speaker after speaker congratulating themselves for accumulating a fraction of the vote in the Euro elections - of the BNP! 'Something to build on' and so forth. It was frankly incredible. If the IWCA, while pondering the next step, seem to be taking an inordinate time with the 'success and failures of the balance sheet', who can blame them?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

The great irony with all this carping is that it was the failure of Militant/SP to stand against the BNP on the Isle of Dogs (despite AFA being willing to provide what security would have been needed for canvassers etc) was what convinced the AFA leadership that the old left could not be relied upon to 'fill the vacuum'. You are even less prepared/willing to so today. As for the pilot schemes they had basically matured by 2006 so saying there are less pilot schemes now than in 2007 is sort of missing the point. Despite your patronising concession that the 'IWCA successes can be learned from' there is no visible evidence of anyone taking the lessons on board. Indeed, within days of the IWCA winning its first seat in 2002 the secretary of the Socialist Alliance declared proudly: "we have nothing to learn from the IWCA". Has anything changed since? Not really. In 2009 I think I attended a rally sponsored by your party and listened in depressed awe to speaker after speaker congratulating themselves for accumulating a fraction of the vote in the Euro elections - of the BNP! 'Something to build on' and so forth. It was frankly incredible. If the IWCA, while pondering the next step, seem to be taking an inordinate time with the 'success and failures of the balance sheet', who can blame them?

See what I mean?

No serious discussion of the successes and failures of the IWCA, just more whining about the "irrelevant" left as a catch-all excuse.

It's really remarkable how the brave pioneers of the IWCA who were apparently going to fill a vacuum remain so obsessed with a socialist left they affect to despise. The IWCA exists in fewer and fewer places each year. You are smaller and weaker now than you were three years ago. You were smaller and weaker three years ago than you were six years ago. But you have no explanation, no balance sheet, no idea how to sustain your branches let alone spread them, no idea as to the way forward. You don't even want to talk about your own successes and failures and prospects. In fact IWCA members consistently have much more to say about the socialist left than they do about the successes and failures of their own organisation.

I do like the use of the term "maturing" as a synonym for "declining" though. Very imaginative.