Question Time demo

[Partizani]

When first arriving at the BBC Protest in all black clothing i was questioned by a UAF senior whether or not i was a anarchist, deciding to avoid any sectarian conflict i said i was but a 'dedicated antifascist'. This kind of opposition which UAF have towards other antifascists is disgusting and seperating the united front that we should have against a common enemy. If it wasn't for the more militant of the protesters there then we would have been penned in by the fences being set up around the main entrance.
The UAF Chants of 'Smash the BNP' wont stop them, we antifascists need to put those words into actions.

No to UAF Dominance of the Antifascist front, yes to No Platform.

[Spawn of Stalin]

What the fuck? Were you seriously asked that by a UAF official? God I hate them.

[Partizani]

yeah, i had a homemade AntiFA Banner, quite amusing actually. They asked it when i asked if i could use thier gaffa tape for taping the banner to the fences. Apparantly anarchists cant be trusted with gaffa tape.

[Rory]

When first arriving at the BBC Protest in all black clothing i was questioned by a UAF senior whether or not i was a anarchist, deciding to avoid any sectarian conflict i said i was but a 'dedicated antifascist'. This kind of opposition which UAF have towards other antifascists is disgusting and seperating the united front that we should have against a common enemy. If it wasn't for the more militant of the protesters there then we would have been penned in by the fences being set up around the main entrance.
The UAF Chants of 'Smash the BNP' wont stop them, we antifascists need to put those words into actions.

No to UAF Dominance of the Antifascist front, yes to No Platform.

Frankly, I think the anarchists dressed in black proved this UAF steward right. Your guys weren't at the front, weren't leading the demo and were simply throwing projectiles and hitting our own comrades with sticks from behind. You were a fucking disgrace.

[Partizani]

I admit to seeing a person being hit by a comrade, but it was quite obviously a accident and you cant say it was clearly a act of violence against comrades. Thats like saying that the people pushing against the gates were 'attacking' those at the front because we had our bodies crushed against the iron gates.

The push into the bbc building was led by anarchists of which i am certain but i will not give any further information than that for fear of our safety.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I don't know exactly what went down, but I know how much anarchists like to get in the thick of it and I know that if they could have the anarchists would have been right on the front line. There were clearly a lot of people there, I've seen the pictures, but a lot of those at the front just looked like typical UAF types, perhaps if these bourgeois life-stylist liberals had made way for the anarchists they could have made more of a difference.

[Pogue]

Frankly, I think the anarchists dressed in black proved this UAF steward right. Your guys weren't at the front, weren't leading the demo and were simply throwing projectiles and hitting our own comrades with sticks from behind. You were a fucking disgrace.

What are you talking about?

[Rory]

I admit to seeing a person being hit by a comrade, but it was quite obviously a accident and you cant say it was clearly a act of violence against comrades. Thats like saying that the people pushing against the gates were 'attacking' those at the front because we had our bodies crushed against the iron gates.

The push into the bbc building was led by anarchists of which i am certain but i will not give any further information than that for fear of our safety.

I saw it several times, but that's what happens if you stand at the back and attack from behind other comrades consistently. It may not have been the intention to deliberately hit our own comrades but it happened too often. Fucking stupid and pathetic.

The charge into the BBC building wasn't led by anarchists. I know half the people who got in and I know they were SWSS and that charge was led by UAF leadership. Further information? You haven't got any, and even if you did, no-one's getting arrested for it, otherwise they would have been arrested inside the building don't you think?

[Pogue]

I saw it several times, but that's what happens if you stand at the back and attack from behind other comrades consistently. It may not have been the intention to deliberately hit our own comrades but it happened too often. Fucking stupid and pathetic.

The charge into the BBC building wasn't led by anarchists. I know half the people who got in and I know they were SWSS and that charge was led by UAF leadership. Further information? You haven't got any, and even if you did, no-one's getting arrested for it, otherwise they would have been arrested inside the building don't you think?

You mean 20 SWSS people got in, yes, fair enough, they did, fair play to them.

Whats your point about anarchists, though?

[Rory]

You mean 20 SWSS people got in, yes, fair enough, they did, fair play to them.

Whats your point about anarchists, though?


Previous poster said that anarchists had led the charge into the BBC building which was completely untrue.

Anarchists for all their posturing about being the true anti-fascists weren't at the front line, did more harm than good and the leading and most militant group on that demo was undubitably SWSS.

[Pogue]

Previous poster said that anarchists had led the charge into the BBC building which was completely untrue.

Anarchists for all their posturing about being the true anti-fascists weren't at the front line, did more harm than good and the leading and most militant group on that demo was undubitably SWSS.

I'm an anarchist and I was in the front line. I can vouch for one other anarchist in the front line too.

Not that this matters, because obviously not everyone can 'be in the front line'.

[nuisance]

I didn't know that the clothes people wear always identifies their politics.

[Partizani]

Yes i know no-one got arrested because i was one of those who got in.

In your earlier post you blamed AntiFA, but now you blame anarchists for hitting comrades.
Do you believe AntiFA is entirely comprised of Anarchists?

[Rory]

In your earlier post you blamed AntiFA, but now you blame anarchists for hitting comrades.
Do you believe AntiFA is entirely comprised of Anarchists?

Mostly, yes.

[Pogue]

Mostly, yes.

So the answer is not yes then, it is in fact no, because you beleive it is most of them, not all of them.

[Rory]

So the answer is not yes then, it is in fact no, because you beleive it is most of them, not all of them.

Okay then, I don't think it's entirely composed of anarchists, but the vast majority are anarchists.

Not that this matters because you know I was right and you know anarchists/AntiFa acted poorly at the demo.

[nuisance]

Okay then, I don't think it's entirely composed of anarchists, but the vast majority are anarchists.

Not that this matters because you know I was right and you know anarchists/AntiFa acted poorly at the demo.
It's ashame you didn't get twatted, by 'accident'.

[POUM]

And again sectarianism. Will you people ever grow up?

Sectarianism in this time and age is so fucking infantile and it is very disturbing reading discussions like this. Who cares if you're a fucking trot or a fuckin leninist or a fucking anarchist or a fucking socialist etc in a time when the left is reduced to crumbles. The only ones who should be ignored and excluded are obviously stalinists,but that's where it stops if you wish to create any kind of massive anticapitalist left-wing front to oppose the major parties and/or the BNP.

So my little revolutionaries, grow up or prove that you are nothing but lifestyle armchair che wannabes.


And obviously,these kind of things can't be settles on the internet. The more radical part of the UAF, the socialists and the communist parties, Antifa and others need to sit around a table and start talking seriously and make a consensus needed to take coordinated action,because this is the point where everything can go downhill.

[Hit The North]

There were clearly a lot of people there, I've seen the pictures, but a lot of those at the front just looked like typical UAF types, perhaps if these bourgeois life-stylist liberals had made way for the anarchists they could have made more of a difference.

Emphasis added.

:lol: That's one of the funniest things I've ever read! If your "brave" anarchist warriors don't even have the muscle to push past "bourgeois life-stylist liberals", what hope would they have against the pigs?

You really just demonstrate the level of fantasy many of the anachists exhibit on this forum and which the OP rightly identifies.

Thanks for the laugh, though.

[Hit The North]

It's ashame you didn't get twatted, by 'accident'.

You don't have to make such strenuous efforts to prove that you're a piss-poor excuse for a leftist, we know it already.

Disgraceful.

[BobKKKindle$]

Edelweiss, wishing police violence on any member is not acceptable, so consider this a verbal warning.

Of course there were Anarchists actively involved in this demo, but I agree that SWSS was the most militant and lively part, just as we are the most militant and lively part of most demonstrations - it's only recently that we've started forming a student bloc instead of marching with our separate local groups and party branches but I think it works really well, and at the BNP demo in particular one of the best things about it was how young the crowd was, especially towards the end. In a situation like that though, if I saw a comrade knocked to the ground I would help them back up regardless of whether they were an Anarchist or a member of the SWP, and I think the Anarchists who were there would be being dishonest if they said that SWSS was being liberal and non-confrontational, whatever you think of UAF, because it is a fact that many of our members did manage to get in though and into the building, if only for a short time.

[Pogue]

Emphasis added.

:lol: That's one of the funniest things I've ever read! If your "brave" anarchist warriors don't even have the muscle to push past "bourgeois life-stylist liberals", what hope would they have against the pigs?

You really just demonstrate the level of fantasy many of the anachists exhibit on this forum and which the OP rightly identifies.

Thanks for the laugh, though.

Stop judging the rest of us through the deluded bullshit of a few members of this board, both those who claim to be anarchists and those who are criticising them.

I was actually on this demonstration, I was actually at the front, and yes, there were actually other anarchists there with me. There were also, I am sure, Trotskyists, liberals, Marxist-Leninists, etc. If you took a group of 5 members from any part of the crowd you would have got all sorts. Please stop this childish and insulting argument.

[bricolage]

I think I missed the point where the merits of an organisation became determined on how many people it could get arrested.

[Aesop]

What is the SWSS?

[Rory]

What is the SWSS?

Socialist Worker Student Society. We're the student group of the Socialist Workers Party.

[nuisance]

You don't have to make such strenuous efforts to prove that you're a piss-poor excuse for a leftist, we know it already.

Disgraceful.
Fuck knows what company you keep in IRL.
If someone's being a prick you call them on it. I'd like to see if you're as lippy as you are on here.

[Hit The North]

Fuck knows what company you keep in IRL.
If someone's being a prick you call them on it.

So you were being a prick and I called you on it. What are you complaining about?


I'd like to see if you're as lippy as you are on here.

You can bet your life on it, pal.

[nuisance]

You can bet your life on it, pal.
Ha! Sorry, but I'm somewhat sceptical of that.

[Rory]

Ha! Sorry, but I'm somewhat sceptical of that.

You're a dick. Fucking e-anti-fascists.

[nuisance]

You're a dick. Fucking e-anti-fascists.
:thumbup1:

[Vanguard1917]

There was no militancy from anyone at the demo. It was, after all, a pro-establishment demonstration, calling on the state and the state media to censor and police public debate.

[Rory]

There was no militancy from anyone at the demo. It was, after all, a pro-establishment demonstration, calling on the state and the state media to censor and police public debate.

Yeah, that's right... If we (the protestors) had stopped Nick Griffin getting into the BBC building, that would have been state sponsored censorship?

You're fucking warped.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I somehow doubt the anarchists were staging a pro-establishment demo. UAF? Sure. Anarchists? No.

[nuisance]

You're fucking warped.
:blink:
That's rich coming from you, who has been throwing around basesless accusations throughout the course of this thread.

[Vanguard1917]

Yeah, that's right... If we (the protestors) had stopped Nick Griffin getting into the BBC building, that would have been state sponsored censorship?

So you oppose BBC censorship and you support it allowing the BNP a platform on QT?

[Partizani]

There was no militancy from anyone at the demo. It was, after all, a pro-establishment demonstration, calling on the state and the state media to censor and police public debate.


As other people have said, i highly doubt the Anarchists there, were there to ask to BBC to censor this racist. It was more of a No Platform kind of demo, hence the rush into the building inorder to stop it by physical means. We can't rely on the state to stop fascism, in 1930's they saw it as a way to 'keep those pesky commies in thier place', that was one mistake, one too big to forget.

[Vanguard1917]

As other people have said, i highly doubt the Anarchists there, were there to ask to BBC to censor this racist. It was more of a No Platform kind of demo, hence the rush into the building inorder to stop it by physical means. We can't rely on the state to stop fascism, in 1930's they saw it as a way to 'keep those pesky commies in thier place', that was one mistake, one too big to forget.

And you think that the way to stop support for the far-right in Britain is by you and a few other self-appointed guardians of progressive politics deciding what can and cannot be discussed in the public sphere?

While it's a good thing that you say you oppose state censorship, i think you should re-evaluate your assumption that the way to confront reactionary ideas is by shutting down public debate.

[Rory]

So you oppose BBC censorship and you support it allowing the BNP a platform on QT?

No, obviously not. I don't think the BNP should have offered them a platform. Had we stopped Nick Griffin getting into the building, how would that have been state censorship?

[Vanguard1917]

No, obviously not.

Then you support the BBC banning Griffin from its programme, and thus you support bourgeois censorship.

[Rory]

Then you support the BBC banning Griffin from its programme, and thus you support bourgeois censorship.

Is it bourgeois censorship that I'm not on Question Time?

[Vanguard1917]

Is it bourgeois censorship that I'm not on Question Time?

If the BBC forbade you from talking on QT because it saw your political views as too dangerous or offensive to be given a platform, yes, of course.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

And you think that the way to stop support for the far-right in Britain is by you and a few other self-appointed guardians of progressive politics deciding what can and cannot be discussed in the public sphere?

During strikes, do you think it's appropriate for "a few self-appointed guardians of progressive politics to decide who can and cannot carry out waged work" that day? Mainstream liberal anti-fascism is a massive pile of shit, but it's also totally different to self-organised militant/physical force anti-fascism. Calling on the state to ban the BNP is counter-productive, when posties refuse to deliver BNP literature it's genuinely progressive.

[Vanguard1917]

During strikes, do you think it's appropriate for "a few self-appointed guardians of progressive politics to decide who can and cannot carry out waged work" that day?

No. What point are you trying to make?

[Hit The North]

No. What point are you trying to make?

The point he's making is that the "few self-appointed guardians of progressive politics" could constitute a picket line and you are suggesting that workers who want to work should be allowed to cross it.

The irony being that although you call yourself Vanguard1917, you would have opposed the actual vanguard of 1917 as being "a few self-appointed guardians of progressive politics".

But at least your lack of solidarity with the fighters is consistent with your support for Sp!lked, who never support the left.

[Vanguard1917]

The point he's making is that the "few self-appointed guardians of progressive politics" could constitute a picket line and you are suggesting that workers who want to work should be allowed to cross it.

Meanwhile on planet earth, and contrary to the common lie-mongering of the bosses, strikes are very rarely the products of tiny groups of militant 'trouble-makers', but of a bulk of the workforce, the active agency of which the success of the strike depends on.

In contrast, the few hundred 'anti-fascist' activists last week wanted to enforce censorship -- despite widespread opposition from members of the public, who correctly recognised such censorious attitudes as patronising and belittling -- because they did not trust the agency of members of the public. They chose censorship because they disdainfully rejected the capacity of working class people to judge arguments on their merits as thinking, rational social subjects.



at least your lack of solidarity with the fighters is consistent with your support for Sp!lked, who never support the left


As we have already established many times over, demands like those of the few hundred activists last week were categorically rejected as reactionary by Marxism. Whether you like it or not, you don't stand in the tradition of the latter, and neither did they.

[Hit The North]

Meanwhile on planet earth, and contrary to the common lie-mongering of the bosses, strikes are very rarely the products of tiny groups of militant 'trouble-makers', but of a bulk of the workforce, the active agency of which the success of the strike depends on.


That may be the case. Nevertheless many disputes begin with the action of minority workers. If the job of the vanguard is to tail-end the least class conscious, least political, most passive workers then there is no point to the vanguard.


In contrast, the few hundred 'anti-fascist' activists last week wanted to enforce censorship -- despite widespread opposition from members of the public, who correctly recognised such censorious attitudes as patronising and belittling -- because they did not trust the agency of members of the public. They chose censorship because they disdainfully rejected the capacity of working class people to judge arguments on their merits as thinking, rational social subjects.
As has repeatedly been explained to you, the purpose of the demo was not to censor, it was to protest the decision of the BBC to give the BNP a platform and to register opposition to the BNP's organized racism.

Btw, I suppose your reference to the "widespread opposition" of the public is another sop to your tail-ending of public opinion - irrespective of the scant evidence you have to sustain your claim.


As we have already established many times over, demands like those of the few hundred activists last week were categorically rejected as reactionary by Marxism. Whether you like it or not, you don't stand in the tradition of the latter, and neither did they.
And it has been established that your abstract defence of freedom of speech as the highest political good, is the petite bourgeois reflex of someone who's political support and activity is limited to a website of second-rate cultural critics who's livelihoods depend upon spouting their opinion.

[Vanguard1917]

That may be the case. Nevertheless many disputes begin with the action of minority workers. If the job of the vanguard is to tail-end the least class conscious, least political, most passive workers then there is no point to the vanguard.


Yes. What's the point you're making? A strike involves the active participation of a bulk of the workforce. It's only bourgeois ideologues who try to paint strikes as being the work of a few conspirators misleading the passive, sheep-like workers.



As has repeatedly been explained to you, the purpose of the demo was not to censor


Yes, it was. It said that the BBC should not allow Griffin a platform because it will cause the impressionable and infantile public to go out on racist attacks. It was a classic argument for censorship: bad words will lead to bad actions and thus we need to restrict the former.



Btw, I suppose your reference to the "widespread opposition" of the public is another sop to your tail-ending of public opinion


No, it merely shows that the public instinctively saw the danger involved in allowing the establishment greater powers to police public debate.

It has nothing to do with 'tail-ending public opinion' (!). You, on the other hand, believe that working class men and women are child-like creatures who need to be protected from bad words by more sophisticated people like UAF campaigners.



And it has been established that your abstract defence of freedom of speech as the highest political good


I have never called it the 'highest political good' -- but i have agreed with Trotsky's argument that those on the left who call for restrictions on free speech in capitalist society are upholding a reactionary position (well, he actually called them 'traitors' who should 'leave the ranks of the working class') which should be opposed by Marxists.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

In contrast, the few hundred 'anti-fascist' activists last week wanted to enforce censorship -- despite widespread opposition from members of the public, who correctly recognised such censorious attitudes as patronising and belittling -- because they did not trust the agency of members of the public.
Who are these "members of the public" who "correctly recognise such censorious attitudes as patronising and belittling"? If you just say that no-one cares much about UAF, that's fair enough, but what's the proof for this widespread opposition? Beyond the fact that someone on the internet said it so it must be true?

They chose censorship because they disdainfully rejected the capacity of working class people to judge arguments on their merits as thinking, rational social subjects.
If working-class people, as thinking, rational social subjects, judge that the arguments for strike-breaking are justified, would you respect their decision? Or would you disdainfully reject it?


As we have already established many times over, demands like those of the few hundred activists last week were categorically rejected as reactionary by Marxism.
That's an awfully big claim to make. I thought Marxism was an abstract method of analysis that could be used by people to do things, not a real concrete force that could do things in its own right. It's perfectly possible that it was rejected by people calling themselves Marxists, but I'm curious to know how Marxism itself rejected it, unless there was an unearthly roar from Highgate Cemetery that I missed.

[Vanguard1917]

Who are these "members of the public" who "correctly recognise such censorious attitudes as patronising and belittling"? If you just say that no-one cares much about UAF, that's fair enough, but what's the proof for this widespread opposition?

Polls show (including a YouGov poll conducted for the Sunday Times) that most people supported the BBC allowing Griffin's views to be heard and debated on QT.

Speaking to people and reading opinions online, the most likely scenario is indeed that those who wanted censorship were indeed a minority.



If working-class people, as thinking, rational social subjects, judge that the arguments for strike-breaking are justified, would you respect their decision? Or would you disdainfully reject it?



What is the point you're making? Are you suggesting that working class people were wrong to oppose calls for bourgeois censorship? Are you comparing such people to strike-breakers? Are they somehow scabs for rejecting the belittling arguments of a few hundreds of UAF activists?

No. Those who rejected the arguments of the UAF -- unlike those who break strikes -- were right to do so.



That's an awfully big claim to make. I thought Marxism was an abstract method of analysis that could be used by people to do things, not a real concrete force that could do things in its own right. It's perfectly possible that it was rejected by people calling themselves Marxists, but I'm curious to know how Marxism itself rejected it, unless there was an unearthly roar from Highgate Cemetery that I missed.


Marxism's rejection of empowering the main enemy with greater powers to police public debate is based on very concrete analyses indeed.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

What is the point you're making? Are you suggesting that working class people were wrong to oppose calls for bourgeois censorship?
I'm not interested in defending UAF or calls for bourgeois censorship. I've made that clear.

Are you comparing such people to strike-breakers? Are they somehow scabs for rejecting the belittling arguments of a few hundreds of UAF activists?

No. Those who rejected the arguments of the UAF -- unlike those who break strikes -- were right to do so.

What about those who accept the arguments of the BNP? When people break strikes, do you support working-class people taking direct action to prevent those people using their abstract liberal freedoms?


Marxism's rejection of empowering the main enemy with greater powers to police public debate is based on very concrete analyses indeed.
Again, I completely reject giving the state any greater powers to police public debate. I defend militant grassroots anti-fascism - workers using their power to prevent fascists from organising. The best recent example of this is the posties who refused to deliver BNP leaflets. It was still "censorship", based on the idea that "working class men and women are child-like creatures who need to be protected from bad words by more sophisticated people like" the posties, so to be consistent you should still oppose it, but it's completely different to the calls for state intervention you get from UAF/HNH types.

[Vanguard1917]

What about those who accept the arguments of the BNP?

What about them?



When people break strikes, do you support working-class people taking direct action to prevent those people using their abstract liberal freedoms?



Yes. What's the relevance of that to whether or not i support a bunch of 'anti-fascist' campaigners trying to censor debate because they think that the public are too thick to make their own minds up?

But the majority of British society correctly rejected such elitist snobbery.

[Hit The North]

Your desperate appeal to the great British public and the "majority of British society", whatever that is supposed to mean, is both laughable and pathetic. You'll be supporting the royal family and the war in Afghanistan next!

You should be forced to change your user name to Rearguard2009.

[Vanguard1917]

Your desperate appeal to the great British public and the "majority of British society", whatever that is supposed to mean, is both laughable and pathetic.

Better than seeing the public as laughable and pathetic and irrational and dangerous if subjected to free and open debate. Your elitist contempt for the masses -- which you share with establishment politicians, the monarchy, the aristocracy, and the propaganda machinery of the state, which you claim as your own -- has been thoroughly exposed.

Of course i want to appeal to the masses. You, on the other hand, want to bypass the masses -- the majority of which rightly rejected censorship -- like the elitist that you are.

[ls]

You can't know everyone's motives for turning up at the demo, certainly some people may have turned up simply to register their disgust (militantly might I add) at Nick's racism.

[Hit The North]

Better than seeing the public as laughable and pathetic and irrational and dangerous if subjected to free and open debate. Your elitist contempt for the masses -- which you share with establishment politicians, the monarchy, the aristocracy, and the propaganda machinery of the state, which you claim as your own -- has been thoroughly exposed.

Of course i want to appeal to the masses. You, on the other hand, want to bypass the masses -- the majority of which rightly rejected censorship -- like the elitist that you are.

What delusional bollocks.

If you want to appeal to "the masses" go on X Factor :lol:.

Meanwhile the rest of us will attempt to organise the most class conscious and militant workers against our class enemies. Because that's what revolutionary socialists do, not pander to opinion polls in the Sunday Times.

[ls]

Meanwhile the rest of us will attempt to organise the most class conscious and militant workers against our class enemies.

What does this really mean though, do you mean we should for instance reject all people who voted for the BNP in protest, not even attempt to radicalise them? Not attempt to radicalise people who vote for parties like UKIP?

Where is that going to lead us?

[Vanguard1917]

Meanwhile the rest of us will attempt to organise the most class conscious and militant workers against our class enemies. Because that's what revolutionary socialists do, not pander to opinion polls in the Sunday Times.

I didn't say anything about pandering to public opinion. I said that the public were absolutely correct and justified to oppose the censorship that people like you wanted imposed for them.

You: We need censorship to protect the public from Nick Griffin's views.

The public: No thanks, we're alright.

You: Screw your opinion, this ain't X Factor.

[Hit The North]

Laughable.

You don't even understand no-platform and asking for advice from you about fighting fascism would be like asking a nun for advice on fucking.

It's really just a waste of time debating with you because your position always boils down to one thing and that is do not organise.

Unfortunately for you, it seems fairly clear that the BNP and EDL will continue to grow and with that growth we will see a growth in the size of anti-fascism to match it. You and your chums at Sp!ked can scoff all you want but, happily, you'll remain irrelevant to the struggle, because those who preach against organising always are.

[Hit The North]

What does this really mean though, do you mean we should for instance reject all people who voted for the BNP in protest, not even attempt to radicalise them? Not attempt to radicalise people who vote for parties like UKIP?

Where is that going to lead us?

There's only so much a small and divided left can do. People are radicalised for different kinds of reasons and most of those reasons are outside our control.

However, by concentrating on providing the means for organisation amongst those who already want to fight, we give courage and confidence to some of those others who are not yet quite as radical or determined.

When Griffin appeared on QT is was massively important that a lively demonstration of disapproval was organised. As principled anti-racists and anti-fascist we could not sit in silence.

V1917 would prefer this, however. He'd prefer people to sit at home and, at most, shout their opposition to the BNP at the TV screen.

That's not going to radicalise anyone.

[Vanguard1917]

It's really just a waste of time debating with you because your position always boils down to one thing and that is do not organise.

That's not organising, a central part of which involves engaging with the masses which you look down on and want to bypass.



When Griffin appeared on QT is was massively important that a lively demonstration of disapproval was organised. As principled anti-racists and anti-fascist we could not sit in silence.

V1917 would prefer this, however. He'd prefer people to sit at home and, at most, shout their opposition to the BNP at the TV screen.


No, i very much think that there is a profound need to actively protest. There could, for example, have been a potentially very fruitful demonstration against immigration controls and anti-immigrant labour laws. As the issue of immigration is central to the BNP's politics, radical activists could have taken the opportunity to put forward their position and thus an actual alternative -- thus taking a stand against the BNP and the mainstream politicians whose reactionary politics give rise to groups like the BNP.

But, of course, those around UAF have no desire to stage such a demostration and instead want to stand should to shoulder with the social and political forces which most powerfully uphold such reactionary state policies in the first place.

That's called conformism, not radicalism.


That's not going to radicalise anyone.

What's not going to radicalise anyone is calling for censorship, holding the masses who correctly oppose it in utter contempt, while shrilly shouting 'Nazi' and providing no political alternative whatsover to anything.

And it seems that even sections of your own party are begining to recognise the uselessness of having an abstract no-plaform policy: http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/791/timelyquestioning.php

[Die Rote Fahne]

Personally, green military fatigue and a black berét with red star would have been my choice of outfit. Che style.

If the UAF asked me if I was an Anarchist I would have asked if he was a Nazi.