Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why is UAF splitting the anti-fascist movement? For a united anti-BNP demo 16 August

butchersapron said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Because he comes across as a modern day Lord Snooty. :D

Btw, just because Lord Snooty and some other tory has signed a supporters letter doesn't make Unite Against Fascism a "cross class alliance". Only in the eyes of the purists could that distinction be made.
 
MC5 said:
Because he comes across as a modern day Lord Snooty. :D

Btw, just because Lord Snooty and some other tory has signed a supporters letter doesn't make Unite Against Fascism a "cross class alliance". Only in the eyes of the purists could that distinction be made.
Click to expand...

Uh, yes it does. Please let me see your argument that it doesn't. An charter that appeals to the memership of the tory party is cross class by definition. Unless David Cameroni s by some genetic quirk different from the rest of them and is actually working class.
 
butchersapron said:
Uh, yes it does. Please let me see your argument that it doesn't. An charter that appeals to the memership of the tory party is cross class by definition. Unless David Cameroni s by some genetic quirk different from the rest of them and is actually working class.
Click to expand...

Does Cameron decide tactics, does he influence anything in UAF? The answer is no does he fuck! He is one person who has signed a supporters letter and that's it. He could be described as a useful idiot, as Johnothan Dimbleby was in the ANL mk1.
 
MC5 said:
Does Cameron decide tactics, does he influence anything in UAF? The answer is no does he fuck! He is one person who has signed a supporters letter and that's it.
Click to expand...

Totally irrelavent. He doesn't have to influence or decide policy to indicate where the coalition is seeking support, who it's seeking alliancs with. Mere minutes ago you were threatening to rip up your membership card (if you were a member) in anger at cross class alliances, now it doesn't matter. I do so like poltical consistency.

What would 500 000 tory members joining say to you? Given that there's nothing now stopping them? That their membership was an objective indciation that they were being moved leftwards by the weight of anti-fascist activity?
 
butchersapron said:
Totally irrelavent. He doesn't have to influence or decide policy to indicate where the coalition is seeking support, who it's seeking alliancs with. Mere minutes ago you were threatening to rip up your membership card (if you were a member) in anger at cross class alliances, now it doesn't matter. I do so like poltical consistency.

What would 500 000 tory members joining say to you? Given that there's nothing now stopping them? That their membership was an objective indciation that they were being moved leftwards by the weight of anti-fascist activity?
Click to expand...

I would call for his expulsion, if this was not done I would rip my card up if I was member, which I'm not.

He's one tory and I'm quite suprised he's a supporter.

If 500,000 tories were accepted, then it would be a cross-alliance, but they won't be. Most tories are unlikely to want to.
 
One tory who repesents the level that membership or support is set at. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair could easily join.

Does this tell you anything at all about the UAF and the politics you support?
 
:hmm:
AWL said:
We should as far as possible involve ourselves in the genuine local anti-fascist campaigning groups that exist (eg in Dagenham, Leeds, Keighley), while maintaining and making propaganda for our position that cross-class "anti-racist" collaborations with the Lib Dems, Tories etc will not beat racism and fascism, and that alliance with conservative religious leaders beyond immediate physical defence against the far right is wrong. Essentially, we must embed ourselves within relevant antiracist and anti-fascist initiatives to agitate for and thus mobilise links with the labour movement, and to put across our distinct politics on both the nature of, and how to fight, racism and fascism.

We should where possible use materials produced by and participate in campaigns organised by Searchlight, in so far as it develops local anti-fascist activism and criticises Unite Against Fascism from the left, but we should also remain critical of the organisation's general politics and approach.

We should involve ourselves in the work of Unite Against Fascism, whilst maintaining and making propaganda on our position that cross-class ‘anti-racist’ collaborations with the Tories, etc, will not beat racism and fascism. And also that alliance with conservative Muslim leaders is wrong.

UAF is a top-heavy popular-frontist organisation, with little internal life or grass-roots activism, tying the trade unions to an "anti-BNP" alliance with such people as Tory ex-MP Teddy Taylor and former Orange Order and Monday Club leader Martyn Smyth, and geared to asking people to vote for any "respectable" party against the BNP. We oppose this approach. However it would be tactically maladroit to attempt to make disaffiliation an issue in the unions. Most likely such an attempt would simply isolate us. Much better would be to positively propose that trade unions found a democratic, labour movement-based anti-racist/anti-fascist organisation capable of instigating grass-roots campaigning work. This approach will be the focus for our propaganda work and our practical proposals.
Click to expand...
 
butchersapron said:
One tory who repesents the level that membership or support is set at. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair could easily join.

Does this tell you anything at all about the UAF and the politics you support?
Click to expand...

It tells me that you're losing the plot. :)

Gordon Brown has given his support to 'hope not hate' and Tony Blair supporting UAF is a joke right? :D
 
Luther: re the AWL motion - what is your point? A motion stating the position of the organisation, and saying that the best approach is to work within and build existing anti-fascist campaigns, while acknowledging and opposing their faults.

And as for "Join in with this latest sectarian-AWL splitters tactic and hurl anathemas at the UAF?" - in what conceivable way is the long-organised demo, initiated and organised by local anti-fascists and supported by pretty much everyone connected with the left and workers movements - except, we learn at the last minute, UAF, a "split"?
 
Hoxtontwat said:
i agree its not surprising but Sasha's right it is shocking.

When there's a possibility of physical violence- for gods sake don't split the crowd:rolleyes:. It shows a disregard for peoples personal safty which is inconsistant with comradely behaviour.
Click to expand...

But this is exactly what the Oxford-educated Alexander 'Sacha' Ismail of AWL is bringing about.

A brief recap of the political career of 'Sacha' Ismail shows he has a long-history of divisive and irresponsible activism:

'Sacha' Ismail, erstwhile Labour Club student candidate for OU President supported by an AWL 'minder', chosen by 'Sacha' himself to help him through the campaign process. This AWL-minder - Jim Bywater - set up a duplicate 'Student Stop the War' group using the existing coalitions logo, in an attempt to draw students from the real group, to the pseudo-group set up by AWL/Bywater.

'Sacha' Ismail was involved in the 1998/9 invitation to Oxford Union Debating Society of John Tyndall -- then BNP --leader to talk at Oxford. Ismail made a serious error of political judgement, and not for the first (or last) time. 'Sacha' should not kid himself. This Oxford-educated, middle-class reactionary is a prominent member of a Shachtmanite social-democrat group with a reactionary pro-militarist agenda - and about as ultra-left as any ex-Trot neoconservative could be.

'Sacha' Ismail, whose behaviour in Oxford undermined the then Campaign for Free Education as he tried to hi-jack the OUSU organised demo against fees for the AWL-supported group, effectively threatening to fracture the unity between other anti-fees groups and divert attention from the anti-fees campaign to his AWL-led brawl.

The mindset of 'Sacha' Ismail and AWL are geared to cause fracture and undermine multi-group unity on single issues. There is no difference today as we see attempts to undermine and split the multi-group demo against the BNP.

---------------------------​

AWL are the ones attempting to fracture and fragment the anti-fascist movement further than the historic Searchlight/UAF split which hasn't split the anti-fa movement as such - it's actually increased in size, consists of more than one group, and and has attracted greater cross-class, cross-political (Labour, Tory, Lib-Dem, Green, etc) and cross-faith involvement.

AWL are against cross-class, cross-political (or apolitical issue-based unity) and cross-faith anti-fa movements, and their conference of 29-30 April 2006 passed a motion to produce their own propaganda and attempt to position themselves between Searchlight and UAF "whilst involving themselves in the work of UAF", and simultaneously working against the UAF and "making propaganda on our own position", i.e., "that an alliance with conservative Muslim leaders is wrong."

AWL also seek to oppose the UAF 'anti-BNP alliance' that asks people to vote for anyone but the BNP (i.e. not Tory, not Green, not Lib-Dem, not Respect, etc, however no mention of asking people not to vote Labour is mentioned). AWL won't go so far as to oppose this in the TU's but will oppose this whilst they agitate against the UAF whilst attempting to position their brand of anti-racism. AWL asked students to join the Labour party to vote for John McDonnell during the Labour leadership contest. Does this show dual standards?

AWL supported the rights of right-wing newspaper Jyllands-Posten to publish the offensive anti-Muslim cartoons (along with BNP). Their reactionary stance was largely one of "not letting religious authorities" decide what's unpublishly offensive and what isn't". Are they qualified to spot racism even if it jumped up and bit them on their anti-religious, social-democrat asses?

AWL were at the forefront of a motion to ban the Tariq Ramadan from University premises and Student Union debates, at the same time as the Bush Administration were seeking to ban Tariq Ramadan from the USA soil. AWL did this by spreading misinformation, lies, and misrepresenting the views of Ramadan to the student populace. The Jewish Council for Racial Equality thankfully defended Professor Ramadan. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1561128,00.html).

AWL also attempted, time and time again to represent Muslim Students as uniquely reactionary on the issue of LGBT rights, yet when Rabbi Sacks was asked to speak to students, a man who led a campaign defending the homophobic Section 28 clause, the AWL made no similar campaign against him, and nor did they subject any other non-Muslim religious figurehead to the same vile smear treatment that they subjected Professor Ramadan.

AWL are about as 'ultra-left' than Living Marxism/RCP were. They're another entryist group that rub-along with any other group on the left because it's politically expedient for them to do so ("spread our propaganda"). In this, AWL are no better than the SWP in their creation of front groups, and appropriation of the ideas from other organisations and entryist behaviour into other groups for the specific purpose of bumping their membership role.

----------------​

Nota bene
|*Please circulate and publish this text. It was not issued by Notts Stop the BNP or the other sponsors of the anti-BNP protest, but by a group of concerned activists who want to see a united demonstration on 16 August. (The contact details we have put down here are for the official campaign, however.)"
Click to expand...
Clearly the AWL are creating political capital to their advantage from the difference in meet-up times by the various oranisations involved. As you can see, the AWL activists' take on the UAF is just another pile of sectarian bullshit.

This much is very clear. AWL, in their 2006 conference made plans to position themselves within the anti-fascist movement with the specific aim of undermining the UAF whilst distributing their own propaganda on their particular sectarian-brand of anti-fascism, and make attempts to glean members for their anti-racist campaign (conference motion quoted above).

It is crystal clear that it is AWL activists who are guilty of attempts to split the anti-fascist movement. This thread, from so-called 'concerned activists' is part of a long-pattern of AWL-sectarianism - it has their 'brand' all over it.

-------------​

The Derby campaign is quality grass roots activism that will involve activists from different groups, classes, faiths, and backgrounds. In the end, it will not matter that different groups are going to be active at different times. What matters is that there will be an overwhelming mass of people who show solidarity against the BNP's RWB 'festival'.

Everyone involved should pat themselves on the back for organising a successful demonstration(s) and guard themselves against any future susceptibility to the AWL's sectarian stirrings.
 
Tokyo said:
Luther: re the AWL motion - what is your point? A motion stating the position of the organisation, and saying that the best approach is to work within and build existing anti-fascist campaigns, while acknowledging and opposing their faults.
Click to expand...
It can be read like that. It's ambiguous.
Taken with the AWL's modus operandi though, it could also be read as "we'll work alongside while we determine the best methods to benefit politically from this, and then..."

Granted, the AWL aren't quite as shameless as the swappies about appropriating causes to their own benefit, but they're hardly innocent, either.

(expects floods of protestations of innocence from swappies and Matgamnites)
 
I hate to have to remind you all of this, but the AWL are not the issue there. They are only one small part of the local campaign and they in no way, shape or form control it.

The issue here is that there is a local campaign against the BNP festival, which organises on a united front basis all of the interested anti-fascists in the town. Instead of working with - or heaven forbid actually listening to - the locals, the UAF/SWP are planning on parachuting in and splitting the demonstrations on the day. This is an act of dire, destructive, sectarianism.

Whether Luther Blissett or Socialist Action or anyone else spent their student days bickering with one of the smaller groups involved in Notts Stop the BNP isn't really relevant to this discussion.
 
MC5 said:
Does Cameron decide tactics, does he influence anything in UAF? The answer is no does he fuck! He is one person who has signed a supporters letter and that's it. He could be described as a useful idiot, as Johnothan Dimbleby was in the ANL mk1.
Click to expand...

Is this not an indication of the politics of UAF? The ANL in the 70's was a highly influential movement which tried to unite against the backdrop of the NF, comparing the two makes you look stupid frankly. It just says how far the SWP have fallen to basically throw their toys out of the pram when theres potential for working with others and that theyre their political allies are as odd as ever.
 
JHE said:
Words are always words. The Social Workers use very revolutionary words sometimes, too, but in their alliances - anti-war, anti-BNP or electoral - they tend to avoid the socialist stuff so as not to put off their right-wing allies.

I suspect, as I've said, that the Social Workers are irritated and sulky at criticism from the Notts wotsits. What do you think explains the Social Workers behaviour?
Click to expand...
Centryism : Thats a bit too much of a compliment:eek::rolleyes::hmm:
 
Luther Blissett said:
But this is exactly what the Oxford-educated Alexander 'Sacha' Ismail of AWL is bringing about.

A brief recap of the political career of 'Sacha' Ismail shows he has a long-history of divisive and irresponsible activism:

'Sacha' Ismail, erstwhile Labour Club student candidate for OU President supported by an AWL 'minder', chosen by 'Sacha' himself to help him through the campaign process. This AWL-minder - Jim Bywater - set up a duplicate 'Student Stop the War' group using the existing coalitions logo, in an attempt to draw students from the real group, to the pseudo-group set up by AWL/Bywater.

'Sacha' Ismail was involved in the 1998/9 invitation to Oxford Union Debating Society of John Tyndall -- then BNP --leader to talk at Oxford. Ismail made a serious error of political judgement, and not for the first (or last) time. 'Sacha' should not kid himself. This Oxford-educated, middle-class reactionary is a prominent member of a Shachtmanite social-democrat group with a reactionary pro-militarist agenda - and about as ultra-left as any ex-Trot neoconservative could be.

'Sacha' Ismail, whose behaviour in Oxford undermined the then Campaign for Free Education as he tried to hi-jack the OUSU organised demo against fees for the AWL-supported group, effectively threatening to fracture the unity between other anti-fees groups and divert attention from the anti-fees campaign to his AWL-led brawl.

The mindset of 'Sacha' Ismail and AWL are geared to cause fracture and undermine multi-group unity on single issues. There is no difference today as we see attempts to undermine and split the multi-group demo against the BNP.

---------------------------​

AWL are the ones attempting to fracture and fragment the anti-fascist movement further than the historic Searchlight/UAF split which hasn't split the anti-fa movement as such - it's actually increased in size, consists of more than one group, and and has attracted greater cross-class, cross-political (Labour, Tory, Lib-Dem, Green, etc) and cross-faith involvement.

AWL are against cross-class, cross-political (or apolitical issue-based unity) and cross-faith anti-fa movements, and their conference of 29-30 April 2006 passed a motion to produce their own propaganda and attempt to position themselves between Searchlight and UAF "whilst involving themselves in the work of UAF", and simultaneously working against the UAF and "making propaganda on our own position", i.e., "that an alliance with conservative Muslim leaders is wrong."

AWL also seek to oppose the UAF 'anti-BNP alliance' that asks people to vote for anyone but the BNP (i.e. not Tory, not Green, not Lib-Dem, not Respect, etc, however no mention of asking people not to vote Labour is mentioned). AWL won't go so far as to oppose this in the TU's but will oppose this whilst they agitate against the UAF whilst attempting to position their brand of anti-racism. AWL asked students to join the Labour party to vote for John McDonnell during the Labour leadership contest. Does this show dual standards?

AWL supported the rights of right-wing newspaper Jyllands-Posten to publish the offensive anti-Muslim cartoons (along with BNP). Their reactionary stance was largely one of "not letting religious authorities" decide what's unpublishly offensive and what isn't". Are they qualified to spot racism even if it jumped up and bit them on their anti-religious, social-democrat asses?

AWL were at the forefront of a motion to ban the Tariq Ramadan from University premises and Student Union debates, at the same time as the Bush Administration were seeking to ban Tariq Ramadan from the USA soil. AWL did this by spreading misinformation, lies, and misrepresenting the views of Ramadan to the student populace. The Jewish Council for Racial Equality thankfully defended Professor Ramadan. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1561128,00.html).

AWL also attempted, time and time again to represent Muslim Students as uniquely reactionary on the issue of LGBT rights, yet when Rabbi Sacks was asked to speak to students, a man who led a campaign defending the homophobic Section 28 clause, the AWL made no similar campaign against him, and nor did they subject any other non-Muslim religious figurehead to the same vile smear treatment that they subjected Professor Ramadan.

AWL are about as 'ultra-left' than Living Marxism/RCP were. They're another entryist group that rub-along with any other group on the left because it's politically expedient for them to do so ("spread our propaganda"). In this, AWL are no better than the SWP in their creation of front groups, and appropriation of the ideas from other organisations and entryist behaviour into other groups for the specific purpose of bumping their membership role.

----------------​

Nota bene

Clearly the AWL are creating political capital to their advantage from the difference in meet-up times by the various oranisations involved. As you can see, the AWL activists' take on the UAF is just another pile of sectarian bullshit.

This much is very clear. AWL, in their 2006 conference made plans to position themselves within the anti-fascist movement with the specific aim of undermining the UAF whilst distributing their own propaganda on their particular sectarian-brand of anti-fascism, and make attempts to glean members for their anti-racist campaign (conference motion quoted above).

It is crystal clear that it is AWL activists who are guilty of attempts to split the anti-fascist movement. This thread, from so-called 'concerned activists' is part of a long-pattern of AWL-sectarianism - it has their 'brand' all over it.

-------------​

The Derby campaign is quality grass roots activism that will involve activists from different groups, classes, faiths, and backgrounds. In the end, it will not matter that different groups are going to be active at different times. What matters is that there will be an overwhelming mass of people who show solidarity against the BNP's RWB 'festival'.

Everyone involved should pat themselves on the back for organising a successful demonstration(s) and guard themselves against any future susceptibility to the AWL's sectarian stirrings.
Click to expand...

So you don't get on with Sacha then?
Think the way the Labour Group YCL et al, stitched him up over the Student Fees campaign was a bit 'unethical'. But, as Jack Straw quated in a student rag not much after this, "Everything I Learnt About Politics, I Learned From The YCL/CP at Oxford."(or there abouts.

Mind you the AWL are, on the whole nuts, and love playing the victim.
But they're not all bad.
 
october_lost said:
Is this not an indication of the politics of UAF? The ANL in the 70's was a highly influential movement which tried to unite against the backdrop of the NF, comparing the two makes you look stupid frankly.
Click to expand...

Unlike you, I was in the ANL mk1, so no history lesson necessary. If you read my post a bit more carefully, then you would realise that I wasn't comparing the two organisations.
 
Nigel said:
But, as Jack Straw quated in a student rag not much after this, "Everything I Learnt About Politics, I Learned From The YCL/CP at Oxford."(or there abouts.
Click to expand...

Oxford? YCL? I think Straw went to Leeds, not Oxford, and was in the Labour Club, not the YCL.

Labour was in the Broad Left along with the CP/YCL and various others - but, TBH, the comment you attribute to Straw just doesn't sound like him.

Even ignoring the Oxford aspect, the comment's more likely to have been from some ex-YCLer.

Peter Mandelson? He went to Oxford and was in the YCL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Orang Utan
Anti-Racist Counter Demos Summer 2024
2 3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
6K
hitmouse
hitmouse
Jeremiah18.17
UK Anti-fascist mobilisations 2023
2 3 4
Replies
101
Views
6K
hitmouse
hitmouse
C
New Bosses-same old game: business as usual for the Labour Government ACG online public meeting, August 21st at 7pm
Replies
1
Views
494
charlie mowbray
C
F
The Anti-Fascist Research Group Exposing Britain’s Neo-Nazi Threat
Replies
1
Views
452
rubbershoes
rubbershoes
Serge Forward
Romanian fascists?
Replies
2
Views
348
Serge Forward
Serge Forward
Back
Top Bottom