WSM interview anti-fa

[Madvillainy]

After decades of underperforming, the far-right now poses a significant threat politically. In the North we have witnessed a rapid rise in racist attacks in recent years with Belfast being dubbed at one stage as the most racist city in Europe by the mainstream media. Micro and tiny fascist groups such as the BNP and BPP(British Peoples Party) have also attempted to play on peoples anxiety over immigration in areas mainly in the North Antrim coast with limited success. In response, they have and will always been met with resistance wherever they rise their ugly head from militant anti-fascists and anti-racist campaigners in their local communities. You can't run and hide forever! “Anarchists are inevitably anti-fascists, but our anti-fascism does not see fascism as ‘bad government’ and ask ‘good government’ to save us. Fascism is just the worst government and to it we oppose class struggle, human liberation, and physical opposition” (1)

Fascism is often a misunderstood ideology such as being solely equated with racism and Nazism. Firstly, what is fascism and why should it be opposed?

It’s quite common for people to equate fascism with racism and it’s often the case that fascist groups will use racist or xenophobic rhetoric and propaganda in order to spread their message. However it would be wrong to see fascism solely as a form of racism.

Traditionally fascist parties have used ethnic minorities as a scapegoat for the problems created by capitalism. For instance the BNP often point to migrant workers as being the cause for the degradation of the NHS or the reason for the lack of decent social housing. Similarly they blame migrant workers for “taking our jobs” instead of attacking the employers who routinely pay derisory wages and treat workers like disposable commodities. The reason fascist groups tend to attack ethnic minorities and immigrants in this way are because they want to divide the working class. By sowing the seeds of division, fragmentation and suspicion in working class communities they undermine notions of solidarity and cooperation thus strengthening the status quo and perpetuating existing inequalities in society.

Racism and xenophobia are not the primary goals of fascism but are rather part of their means for promoting the ascendancy of the nation state. Fascism promotes the ideals of nationalism and patriotism in opposition to internationalism and class solidarity. Fascism’s glorification of the nation is really the veneration of the hierarchies that exist within the nation. Fascist’s promoted the interests of ruling elite above those of the majority and in the past has used all the apparatus of the state to ensure that those hierarchies in society are maintained and bolstered. In this context talk of supporting the “indigenous people” is used to garner the support of the white working and middle classes to undermine class unity between people of different race or nationality.

Fascism should be opposed because it aims to crush all autonomy and freedom in the name of creating a strong nation state; it curtails freedom of expression, supports rigid hierarchies and most importantly stands against the interests of every working class person regardless of their race or nationality.

Should freedom of speech be extended to fascists?

None of us have the power to stop fascists saying what they think, we cannot legislate against their words no matter how vile we consider them to be and neither would we want to be in a position to do so. However that doesn’t mean we should tolerate their presence in our communities or allow them a platform from which to organise. History has shown that when Fascist groups come to power they use all the apparatus of the state to violently crush progressive working class groups and initiatives.

If all Nick Griffin and his disciples were doing was talking amongst themselves about repatriating migrant workers, clamping down on those they saw as deviants and splitting communities along lines of race then there wouldn’t be a serious problem. The reality is the BNP are organising to gain seats of power and to implement their white nationalist policies. This attempt to gain power and influence must be challenged by all effective means.

Does militant anti-fascist activity over-exaggerate the threat posed by fascist groups in comparison to the level of institutionalised racism within the state such as the draconian deportation of refugees?

Following the latest local elections in England the BNP now have 55 councillors, even in the days of Oswald Moseley’s British Union of Fascists or the heyday of the National Front in the 1970s such a result would’ve be seen as unachievable. In Stoke on Trent it is thought that the BNP could be running the council in a matter of years. It is naïve to think that the BNP remains a fringe party; they are now well established in a number of areas in Britain.

That said it is true that the current Labour government have done more harm to communities than the BNP could even hope to do at the moment. It’s the Labour government that has eroded civil liberties through the Terrorism Act, it’s the Labour Party that has overseen the creeping privatisation of the NHS, it’s the Labour Party that has undertaken the latest assaults on working conditions and lower earners and it’s the Labour government that continues to deport refugees back to countries where they are likely to be persecuted.

However the strength and popularity of the BNP can also lead to the political agenda being pushed further right. The NF in Britain was all but destroyed not simply by grass roots opposition but also because the Thatcher government appropriated much of their support. Fascism is directly linked to the social and economic conditions of society and the Labour government have created the conditions where the likes of the BNP can flourish. By undermining the welfare state and job security while simultaneously pitting domestic workers against migrant workers the Labour government have created a situation whereby the BNP are seen as a radical opposition to the government. While in essence being a staunch supporter of the status quo and the state the BNP has been made to look like a progressive party in the context of Labours continued attacks on the working class.

For anti-fascism to be effective it must be part of the wider class struggle. It’s no good telling people to vote for anybody but the BNP in order to keep them out because invariably that means either voting for the government or voting for another party who would implement the same sort of policies that Labour has done. If anti-fascism is to be successful it can’t be divorced from the social and economic conditions that give rise to fascism, it must be part of the general struggle against capitalism.

Whilst antifascist groups should always point out that racism and fascism originate with capitalism and the state (or capitalist and statist ideas), it should not prevent us from using this as a get-out clause for fighting fascists. This is something many far left and anarchist groups do, and it is mistaken at best, naive and cowardly at worst. The threat of fascist organisations is a threat to me and you first; the organised working class are their first target. This has not changed in the least, from the origins of fascism as a distinct ideology in the 1930’s, to its present ‘euro nationalist’ form. In the past it was more of a direct threat, with fascists attacking left wing groups and venues, and being used to break strikes. Because antifascists literally beat them off the streets by the mid 90’s in the UK this is no longer a focus for their activity -though they often can’t help themselves when they come across trade unionists or socialists – just look at the arrest records for even today’s “hands off” BNP. The threat the pose to us now is slightly more subtle but just as dangerous. By breaking communities and workplaces along racial and cultural lines, they destroy our class unity and make it twice as hard for class struggle activists to put our message across – often nicking left wing ideas directly, and putting a nationalist or racist spin on them. Militant antifascism has always been about:
a) Defending the left and
b) creating a ground for the left to organise safely. This hasn’t changed, regardless of whether the left is up to the job; we still need to make sure we lose as little ground to the radical right as possible, as it will be people like us first against the wall. All that said, we totally support people who focus on state racism and immigrant rights, and we have provided security for groups like No Borders. We are nonetheless separate groups for a very important reason: we are antifascists. Fascism uses racism: but racism can come from any source. We oppose fascism because it is fascism, not just because 9 times out of 10 it is racist. Combating every single occurrence of racism is not our goal, and antifascist groups which pretended they did have always ended up looking utterly ridiculous, like the ANL(Anti-Nazi League) picketing the movie Romper Stomper on the grounds it might give people ideas! Antifascism is a cause in and of itself, and should not tag onto other campaigns or left fronts.

Some people argue that because the British National Party (BNP) have attempted to portray themselves as a respectable political party that militant anti-fascist action is no longer an effective strategy. What is your response to this?

First off we'd like to point out from the outset that while the BNP are without doubt the threat in electoral terms, Antifa as a militant anti fascist organization target the far right in any shape or form they take. Whether that is the organized parties or the small groups of sad nutters that would like to be organized parties down to the boneheads of blood and honour. We are largely anarchist based with most members coming from a direct action background. To us a fascist is a fascist.

In answer to the question, It is true that the BNP would have us all believe that they are a new 'whiter than white'(pun intended) reincarnation of their former selves but we do not buy this lie for a moment. What is respectable about a party that cannot accept that we live in a multi-cultural society and at heart would enforce a fascist state if they ever seized power...

Are we seriously expected to believe that a man like Nick Griffin (leader of BNP) has had a road to Damascus vision and has chucked in the jack boots and uniform from his not too distant past and he now welcomes all and sundry? The BNP may think they are winning hearts and minds on the campaign trail and sadly in some areas that have been the case but historically what has fascism ever offered the working class? Other than serving the ruling class of course.

We cannot accept that militancy against the fascists is not an effective strategy, as we know it can and does work. Fascism is violent by its very nature and there must always be people prepared to counter that violence and we do, without apology. Many a candidate has withdrawn from the BNP and many a BNP leaflet has not been posted because of people taking a militant stand. It should also be noted however that violence is only one tactic we employ.

We also try to work in local communities and produce propaganda where we can. We produce a newsletter and print off thousands of stickers each year. We also run a website which we keep updated with any current news or information. The rank and file of the BNP have also shown that they still like to throw their weight around given the opportunity.

Given the poor showing for the BNP in this year’s local elections and the low membership and levels of support for organisations like the NF and BPP does this mean that the far-right is now less of a problem?

The local elections were not as good for them as they had hoped but to say the far right is now 'less of a problem' is wrong. In comparison to when? The BNP have dozens of councillors for the first time. We thought that the election of Derek Beacon was a result for the fuckers’ years ago but look what is happening now. It is no small coincidence that Griffin looked to Europe for inspiration. If you now look at the rising right wing feeling all over Europe and Russia you can only conclude that the far right are becoming more of a problem. We can only hope that the vast majority of people see through the charade and don't fall for their lies.

The likes of the NF and the White Nationalist Party (WNP)/ British Peoples Party (BPP) are very small as you state but that is not to say that do not have dangerous people within their ranks. Nothing we can’t handle though. Ask Eddy Morrison. What we do find though, is that a lot of the hard core fascists have their grubby little fingers in each other’s pies which often lead to them having internal disputes and bouts of infighting....much to our amusement.

Is ‘destroying the BNP’ still Antifa’s key objective. How can this be achieved?

The fight against fascism and organized fascists is an ongoing battle. There will always be extreme right wing groups and we believe that we are at the forefront in the fight against them. Though we would dearly love to see any far right group confined to the dustbin of history we are convinced that the battle will rage on. Some would argue that the likes of the BNP can only be beaten through debate and counter argument. While we see this as one approach we also believe that physical confrontation where necessary should not be dismissed. These people sow the politics of hate and division. They are our natural collective enemy.

Counter leafleting in the areas that the BNP stand candidates is another approach and we have done this when we have had the resources. We also keep our eyes and ears peeled for any juicy stuff about them that we can find out and then capitalize on it. Targeting their paper sales and canvassing teams is another tactic that can be employed to good use. It’s amazing how quickly they can lose that exterior 'new BNP' cool and revert back to their true colours.
NB :( I realize some of this could be giving too much 'tactical' stuff away....but hey, what was I going to say....vote labour!)

A good number of Antifa activists are also involved in other areas of struggle, such as trade unions and the IWW. Being active in the workplace and the unions is a good way to get our antifascist message across. Inevitably it will be people who vote that decide whether the BNP grow or not. As Anarchists or activists it should be our job to expose all the parties for the corrupt useless anti working class scum that they are but with the extreme far right? Well, they deserve just that little bit more of our attention.

What is your view of other anti-racist organizations like Unite against Fascism (UAF)?

Not a lot basically. First and foremost they work with ‘Searchlight,’ (anti-fascist magazine) which in turn work with the police and so the state. This is against Antifa policy. Their whole policy appears to be to shout racist at the working class folk who are hoodwinked into voting for the far right while urging us all to vote Labour who were responsible for failing the working class so miserably in the first place! It’s been said time and time again that these middle class liberals are only interested in selling the paper and building the party. We are not saying that there are not well meaning individuals within groups like the UAF and Respect etc but they really should have a good look at what they are involved with.

They despise us because we are prepared to use violence but then ask us to provide security when they feel the nasty big boys of the BNP might pop along. In the past they have also been guilty of blatant lies when claiming victories against the fascists as their own when this was not the case. A recent example of just how clueless their rank and file are, was witnessed again in Oxford last year, As the Antifa contingent made its very vocal way toward the main demo in opposition to Nick Griffith speaking, the UAF faithful mistook us the BNP and started hurling abuse at us. Not the first time that has happened.

Personally we don't believe these middle class Muppets offer the working class any real alternative and would be surprised if any genuine working class people would vote for them or give their politics the time of day. They would have more in common with the BNP!

Antifa see anti-fascism as part of the class struggle. Why is this?

It’s simple really. Fascism has historically been the natural enemy of the working class. They are programmed to do the ruling classes bidding. Class struggle has always been important to anti fascists and the fascists have always sided with the rich and powerful. It’s a right wing thing.

Can you say something about the international work that Antifa is involved in and some of the issues comrades face in other countries?

Antifa have made good contacts in Poland, Russia, Germany and the Czech Republic. We are in contact with groups and individuals in Ireland, France, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Holland, Belgium and the U.S. We have travelled to Germany as a group in the past and been active in demos abroad. Some of us have also attended the Anti fascist football world cup in Italy and made links there. We have also met people that have travelled here and made links. We also try to help out financially if groups abroad need funds and over the last few years have sent hundreds of pounds to groups or individuals in need.

The problems faced by our comrades abroad can be very severe compared to what we face over here. The fascists in places like Poland, Russia and the Czech Republic in particular are a lot more extreme with large Nazi bonehead gangs often attacking demonstrations. In Russia last year two anti fascists were killed by the fascists and in Spain a young sixteen year old was also murdered by the far right. In 2008 we hope to strengthen those links and grow as an organization both here and abroad.

Could you also write a few words about how you would like to be described and let me know if there are any events/issues Antifa would like highlighted?

We can be described by reading the founding statement below. Look out for the Annual Cable Street gig in Oct/November. We are also trying to put on smaller fund raising events throughout the year and would welcome any ideas or help from groups or individuals who might want to hold such an event for us. We would provide any necessary security where possible.

In Britain there is proud tradition of militant anti-fascism, what strengths and weakness if any can antifa learn from previous organisations such as Red Action and Anti-Fascist Action?

We think we can learn a great deal from AFA, an organisation in which many of us were involved. We need to realise though that times have changed in certain respects, and that the tactics we employed as AFA aren’t always appropriate or valid today. For better or worse unfortunately, certainly not at the moment, we do not have AFA’s numbers. For many, the fight against fascism is no longer a fashionable political activity it seems. We also need to realise that our opposition are using different tactics, and also that ‘security culture’ and policing has changed immeasurably since the 1980’s and 90’s. Antifa will utilise a range of tactics in our battle against organised fascism, rejecting the blind alley of electoralism, but certainly including physical force confrontation where appropriate. Other lessons we have learned from AFA include rejecting the pseudo-antifascist entity ‘Searchlight’ rejecting the ‘boys club’ mentality that has often prevailed among militant antifascists, and not wasting our time working with manipulative Trots (SWP, SP etc).

While we support the idea of organising in our own working-class communities, we think RA was wrong to lead AFA away from physical force opposition to fascism. The IWCA (Independent Working Class Association) have failed to have any real influence on the British political scene, and are unknown outside a few small areas. To lead AFA into electoralism, in what for some of us was a very undemocratic way, was a tactical mistake. As can be evidenced by the continued rise of the BNP, and the continued existence of other fascist groups, the struggle against organised fascism is far from over, and we still have to be prepared to take on our opponents on the streets as well as ideologically. If members of RA no longer wished to be involved in physical force antifascism they should have retired rather than trying to steal the ball. Some of us in Antifa have been involved in fighting fascism longer than RA was in existence, so it is not a case of “ceasefire soldiers” coming along after the battle is already over. The struggle against fascism is far from won, and there is never a time for complacency nor to rest on one’s laurels, no matter how hard won.

In recent years in the north we have witnessed a rapid rise in the level of racist attacks (clearly a level of organisation), appearance of racist graffiti and intimidation as well as attempts by the BNP/BPP to organise here with limited success which can lead to complacency. What role do you think anarchists and working class people here have in combating racist attacks and fascist groups?

This requires building a revolutionary movement on firm foundations that provides solidarity and support with migrant workers facing racist attacks and intimidation. A movement which is prepared to utilise the weapons of self-defence in terms of militant anti-fascist activity and go on the offensive in terms of agitating and organising on issues which affect our class from housing, unemployment to workplace struggles. We also need to be cautious and strategic in our approach. No amount of pandering to and weasel words from our political masters at Stormont, Westminster and Dublin will solve our problems as they are part of the problem rather than the solution. Finally in the words of Buenaventura Durutti,
"We are not in the least afraid of ruins. We are going to inherit the earth. There is not the slightest doubt about that. The bourgeoisie might blast and ruin its own world before it leaves the stage of history. We carry a new world, here in our hearts. That world is growing this minute."

[Holden Caulfield]

great post,

[thejambo1]

its a good interview. good stuff comrades.

[Espanol Battalion]

Damn good article! One of the best I've read in ages :thumbup1:

[black magick hustla]

even the interviewer is acknowledging that the labor party has done more damage than the BNP. the premise of antifascism today is silly and people are into it because its chic and gives the feeling that you are actually doing something-

[Holden Caulfield]

even the interviewer is acknowledging that the labor party has done more damage than the BNP. the premise of antifascism today is silly and people are into it because its chic and gives the feeling that you are actually doing something-


fascism in the rabid dog of capitalist parties and the ruling class, when it is on its leash it attacks the left wing and divides the working classes, promotes rascism and provides support for right wing measures by the major parties (see NF supporters voting for Thatcher en masse).

on the occasions it breaks off its leash it ruins lives in a grand and calculated way, be that a few exsecuted communists, imprisioned human rights campaigners, or millions of haulocaust victims.

either way fascism is a major obstacle to the class struggle and needs to be adressed in discusion, in party politcs and on the streets

[1968]

orginal article:

http://www.wsm.ie/story/4309

[Sam_b]

and not wasting our time working with manipulative Trots (SWP, SP etc).


Its quotes like these that show Antifa up to be a complete joke.

[nuisance]

Its quotes like these that show Antifa up to be a complete joke.
Why? Because they reject your party politics drama? Trotskyists can be members of antifa, so what's your problem?
Anyway, Trotskyist parties have their own anti-fascist groups/campaigns, which operate in a very different way to antifa, due to ideological reasons.

[Sam_b]

Why? Because they reject your party politics drama? Trotskyists can be members of antifa, so what's your problem?


Because they're completely elitist in their action, for one, and by throwing out ridiculous statements such as the one above and all that 'antifa hooligans' rubbish. I struggle to take them seriously.

[nuisance]

Because they're completely elitist in their action, for one, and by throwing out ridiculous statements such as the one above and all that 'antifa hooligans' rubbish. I struggle to take them seriously.
OK, what 'elitism' has been shown?
It's not really ashame that you don't take them seriously, as I'm sure not many antifa'ers take the SWP seriously, but hey, what does that matter?

[Sam_b]

OK, what 'elitism' has been shown?

Well, where do they ever unite with broad groups? All I ever hear of Antifa are reports focusing on 'nonce nationalists' ,how a BNP councillor has killed himself, and how BPP members are alcoholics.

As holden says, antifascism has to be addressed in discussion and politics, and not heralding some false victory when members attack a fascist with screwdrivers. When antifa get their act together, then i'll start regarding their contributions to the movement as being valuable. In my opinion they're blindly followed and uncriticised unlike no other organisation.

[nuisance]

Well, where do they ever unite with broad groups? All I ever hear of Antifa are reports focusing on 'nonce nationalists' ,how a BNP councillor has killed himself, and how BPP members are alcoholics.

As holden says, antifascism has to be addressed in discussion and politics, and not heralding some false victory when members attack a fascist with screwdrivers. When antifa get their act together, then i'll start regarding their contributions to the movement as being valuable. In my opinion they're blindly followed and uncriticised unlike no other organisation.
That is not elitism, it is simply a form of tactics which seems to be completely alien to you. Antifa is a miltant federal anti-fascist group that are linked together by the founding statements aims and principles, thus they are not a centralised organisation and won't act like one. Also the business that they involved in is often illegal, so it is not a surprise if members don't constantly go parading themselves as being member.

Simply your disagreement is on tactics. Antifa won't stop what they are doing, becasue it was created to provide phyiscal confrontation to fascists after the SWP fronted cross class anti-fascist campaigns fell in the mud.
Also it's funny how you quote Holden, whom has two antifa links in his signature, with the missing out of the "and on the streets" remark he made in the sentence. Antifa provides the phyiscal side of the anti-fascist movement.

[Holden Caulfield]

look at my avatar, look at my sig, Trots can be antifascists too, the majority of antifa UK are anarchists that much is true, but antifa is merely the physical wing of united leftist politics, antifa isn't trying to be a mass party, and is an 'underground' organisation



Anyway, Trotskyist parties have their own anti-fascist groups/campaigns, which operate in a very different way to antifa, due to ideological reasons.


couldnt have said it better myself,

[Sam_b]

Just because an organisation is antifascist does not mean that it is immune to criticism. In fact I would remind some of the Trotskyists on this forum about the widespread ideological and more importantly strategic differences that we have with groups such as this before we start banding around unconditional supports.


a form of tactics which seems to be completely alien to you

Definitely. A form of tactics that I suggest have nothing in common with the working class. It is alien from our concepts of a united front.


thus they are not a centralised organisation and won't act like one

Which in theory makes it no different from the organisation that firebombed a police car in a previous thread, that some members were very quick to condemn. Does this mean there is no accountability in Antifa?


Also the business that they involved in is often illegal, so it is not a surprise if members don't constantly go parading themselves as being member.


I agree. So why don't these members involve themselves in broad united fronts such as UAF as well as their activity here?


becasue it was created to provide phyiscal confrontation to fascists after the SWP fronted cross class anti-fascist campaigns fell in the mud

As usual, there then breaks out ridiculous reasons not to support UAF on sectarian grounds. According to some, all united fronts we are a part of, be that Stop the War, UAF or CACC are 'SWP fronts'. Here's an idea: bring some evidence to support your claims here. The more important point, however, is that UAF is not failing: look at the day of action against the BNP in Stoke for a good example of this.


Also it's funny how you quote Holden, whom has two antifa links in his signature, with the missing out of the "and on the streets" remark he made in the sentence. Antifa provides the phyiscal side of the anti-fascist movement.

I think physical resistance to the BNP should be taken out onto the streets, yes. However, this does not involve tactics which are in my view alien to the working class and only serve to (in some cases) break the movement.

I will not deny that Antifa have accomplished some activities in the past that I will support. However, as Trotsky says "The unprecidented crimes of fascism create a yearning for vengeance that is wholly justifiable. But so monstrous is the scope of their crimes, that this yearning cannot be satisfied by the assassination of isolated fascist bureaucrats. For that is necessary to set in motion millions, tens and hundreds of millions of the oppressed throughout the whole world and lead them in the assault upon the strongholds of the old society".

However, the activities of antifa are not unfallable and free of legitimate criticism. And those of the Marxist and Trotkyist tendencies should remember this in the wider context.

[nuisance]

Just because an organisation is antifascist does not mean that it is immune to criticism. In fact I would remind some of the Trotskyists on this forum about the widespread ideological and more importantly strategic differences that we have with groups such as this before we start banding around unconditional supports.
No one claimed antifa to be immune, and to suggest so is quite ridiculous. Just to clarify, antifa is a group that practices militant antifascism, no other identifiable groups do this.
You can try and rally up support from your fellow Trots, but I don't think that you'll get very far. In that though, what are antifa actually doing that you disagree with? Taking into consideration that antifa was set-up to counter violence from the far right as there was/is no other formal antifascist groups of this sort.




Definitely. A form of tactics that I suggest have nothing in common with the working class. It is alien from our concepts of a united front.
Oh please explain, because this seriously makes no sense.


Which in theory makes it no different from the organisation that firebombed a police car in a previous thread, that some members were very quick to condemn. Does this mean there is no accountability in Antifa?
No, not in theory.
So basically you're criticising an organisation that you know nothing of.
To 'join' antifa, you have to be incontact with other members, so of course there is accountability, but no hierarchal structure.


I agree. So why don't these members involve themselves in broad united fronts such as UAF as well as their activity here?
As Holden commented, most of antifa in the UK are anarchists, and as anarchists we avoid collaborating with cross class organisations. Also you could view the question in the OP, on what they think of organisations like the UAF.



As usual, there then breaks out ridiculous reasons not to support UAF on sectarian grounds. According to some, all united fronts we are a part of, be that Stop the War, UAF or CACC are 'SWP fronts'. Here's an idea: bring some evidence to support your claims here. The more important point, however, is that UAF is not failing: look at the day of action against the BNP in Stoke for a good example of this.
Once again you are so quick to point the finger of being 'sectrian' which is funny as there has been a recent falling out between UAF and Workers Power and Revolution parties.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/08/405512.html
Antifa also see's antifascism as being part of the class struggle, which groups like UAF don't by gaining members of the ruling class to be figures in the movement, this also goes for the other groups you mentioned.



I think physical resistance to the BNP should be taken out onto the streets, yes. However, this does not involve tactics which are in my view alien to the working class and only serve to (in some cases) break the movement.
What are this tactics you speak of?


I will not deny that Antifa have accomplished some activities in the past that I will support. However, as Trotsky says "The unprecidented crimes of fascism create a yearning for vengeance that is wholly justifiable. But so monstrous is the scope of their crimes, that this yearning cannot be satisfied by the assassination of isolated fascist bureaucrats. For that is necessary to set in motion millions, tens and hundreds of millions of the oppressed throughout the whole world and lead them in the assault upon the strongholds of the old society".
So you deem collaborating with the ruling class is the way to do this? Also, antifa is only the phyiscal front of antifascism. With fascism the problem starts at home, therefore it is up to the communities that is rises in, to silence it. This is what antifa preaches and practices.


However, the activities of antifa are not unfallable and free of legitimate criticism. And those of the Marxist and Trotkyist tendencies should remember this in the wider context.
Again, no one has said it was.

[Sam_b]

what are antifa actually doing that you disagree with?

The whole 'antifa hooligans!' schtick annoys me unlike nothing else. All that antifa are doing is committing violences against fascists (note I do not have a problem with this per se) rather than actually attacking the root problem of fascism. I doubt very much that working class people, often a target of BNP recruitment and support, will unite to counter fascism with an organisation that enforces these methods. Of course to this you can reply 'they wouldn't join antifa, but would fight fascism nonetheless' - to which then the question would be that have antifa separated themselves with the working class?


Oh please explain, because this seriously makes no sense.


See above.


As Holden commented, most of antifa in the UK are anarchists, and as anarchists we avoid collaborating with cross class organisations. Also you could view the question in the OP, on what they think of organisations like the UAF.

which groups like UAF don't by gaining members of the ruling class to be figures in the movement, this also goes for the other groups you mentioned.

So you deem collaborating with the ruling class is the way to do this?

These show that you have no concept of what a united front is.


Once again you are so quick to point the finger of being 'sectrian' which is funny as there has been a recent falling out between UAF and Workers Power and Revolution parties.


So you admit you have absolutely no evidence to show that UAF is in any way an SWP front?


What are this tactics you speak of?

See my first comment.


This is what antifa preaches and practices.

Antifa does not preach community organisation to oppose fascism. All that it does is to preach attacking BPP members with screwdrivers.

[nuisance]

The whole 'antifa hooligans!' schtick annoys me unlike nothing else.
I'm pretty sure not everyone in antifa is fond of that title, so what?


All that antifa are doing is committing violences against fascists (note I do not have a problem with this per se) rather than actually attacking the root problem of fascism. I doubt very much that working class people, often a target of BNP recruitment and support, will unite to counter fascism with an organisation that enforces these methods. Of course to this you can reply 'they wouldn't join antifa, but would fight fascism nonetheless' - to which then the question would be that have antifa separated themselves with the working class?
Well the members of antifa, that I know of, are all working class. Again, do your research on the group before bashing it, antifa also provides propaganda and seeks to 'educate' people against fascism, opposed to merely being bully boys.


These show that you have no concept of what a united front is.
I know what a united front is and it by no means implies collaborating with the ruling class but the opposite. You seem to be the one who doesn't, you are speaking of a popular front.


So you admit you have absolutely no evidence to show that UAF is in any way an SWP front?
http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/07/01/anti-fascism-needs-more-politics


Antifa does not preach community organisation to oppose fascism. All that it does is to preach attacking BPP members with screwdrivers.


You haven't even read the founding statement of antifa? Here's a sample:


COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Fascism can be suppressed by the use of street-level tactics against their attempts to publicly organise. The fascists electoral ambitions can be defeated by the use of counter-propaganda. But a meaningful impact on fascism requires far more than this. We believe that involvement in local communities is critical (and this does not mean parachuting in as outsiders, but people taking action in their own communities.) Education and presenting workable solutions to the problems faced by communities are absolutely vital to the struggle. These may be outside the current remit of Antifa, but we will wholeheartedly support these tactics, and while we may not be able to initiate such activities, we strongly encourage our members to involve themselves in this sort of grass-roots work.

[PRC-UTE]

even the interviewer is acknowledging that the labor party has done more damage than the BNP. the premise of antifascism today is silly and people are into it because its chic and gives the feeling that you are actually doing something-

I have to agree. I also find it odd, all the sympathy for antifa. They came onto the scene after the period of massive street confrontations with fascists had ended. It's very different in Russia and other countries, but in Britain antifa are just a footnote to the heroic work by Red Action and AFA in smashing the National Front, before the BNP moved towards a position of electoral respectability.

In Ireland it's a different story, but in the north, fascists are synonymous with Loyalists, and most the Left wont take them on.

[PRC-UTE]

When was this published? I saw no mention of the sectarian attack on a pub in a nationalist area where the victim's throat was slit by Loyalists and neo-nazis acting together. Or did I miss it?

[Sam_b]

Well the members of antifa, that I know of, are all working class. Again, do your research on the group before bashing it, antifa also provides propaganda and seeks to 'educate' people against fascism, opposed to merely being bully boys.

Just because they ar eworking class does not mean that they have not separated themselves from it with their tactics and practice. I have never seen antifa involved in 'educating' the class aside from a couple of website posts.


I know what a united front is and it by no means implies collaborating with the ruling class but the opposite. You seem to be the one who doesn't, you are speaking of a popular front.


You're going to have to do better than that. How does UAF operate with the ruling class?


http://www.workersliberty.org/story/...-more-politics (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/07/01/anti-fascism-needs-more-politics)

Aaaah, the AWL. You're expecting me to take seriously a group that dedicated half of its newspaper to bashing the SWP? And you'll note the article has absolutely no evidence which equates UAF with being an SWP front. Just because the party supports it and gets involved with the activism around it does not make it a frontist organisation. So, again - do you have any evidence that proves the UAF is an SWP front?


You haven't even read the founding statement of antifa? Here's a sample

Its a good statement. Unfortunately it doens't happen enough in practice. Care to give me some examples of united front and community based initiatives that Antifa involve themselves in?


I still persist that the tactics that Antifa use (as an anarchist organisation) do not equate with the Trotskyist understanding (or Leninist in my view) of fighting fascism. I will aknowledge achievements that they may sometimes make, but this in no means equates to my support of the organisation.

[nuisance]

Just because they ar eworking class does not mean that they have not separated themselves from it with their tactics and practice. I have never seen antifa involved in 'educating' the class aside from a couple of website posts.
It means that apeals to working class people.
To be honest mate, it seems like you haven't had any contacted with any members, so that isn't really surpising. Antifa doesn't try to build a massive movement anyway.

You're going to have to do better than that. How does UAF operate with the ruling class?
Here's a whole list from there own website which is entitled Key Signatories and the chairman is also Ken Livingstone and they were/are affiliated to Searchlight.
http://www.uaf.org.uk/aboutUAF.asp?choice=4
So are you insinuating that this group provides anything for the empowerment of the working class by parading members of the ruling class.

Aaaah, the AWL. You're expecting me to take seriously a group that dedicated half of its newspaper to bashing the SWP? And you'll note the article has absolutely no evidence which equates UAF with being an SWP front. Just because the party supports it and gets involved with the activism around it does not make it a frontist organisation. So, again - do you have any evidence that proves the UAF is an SWP front?
Beens I never claimed UAF to be a SWP front, I won't waste my time on such a question, as what matters is that most of the Left deem it to be a front, and if that isn't true then the SWP best try and reconcile the situation.
This is interesting though- http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/656/swp.htm

Its a good statement. Unfortunately it doens't happen enough in practice. Care to give me some examples of united front and community based initiatives that Antifa involve themselves in?
How don't you know it doesn't happen enough in practice? Antifa members take part in community struggles as individuals and not as a 'group', now that would seperate themselves from the working class aswell as being stupid when you take into account the need for a security culture within the group, so it is imposible to tell what all members have been involved in.
Stop bleating on about untied fronts when you know that is not antifas objective.

I still persist that the tactics that Antifa use (as an anarchist organisation) do not equate with the Trotskyist understanding (or Leninist in my view) of fighting fascism. I will aknowledge achievements that they may sometimes make, but this in no means equates to my support of the organisation.
Stop being stupid. Antifa isn't an explictly anarchist organisation, you simply have to agree with the founding statement, it may be a way used by anarchists, but it is wrong to call antifa an anarchist group.
Don't support it, no one is seeking your approval.
Also, you have shown repeatably that you don't know what antifas tactics are or what you disagree with, that isn't based upon your lack of knowledge of antifa.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

You're going to have to do better than that. How does UAF operate with the ruling class?


http://www.uaf.org.uk/aboutUAF.asp?choice=4
Ken Livingstone
Tony Benn
Peter Hain MP
David Hanson MP
Adam Price MP
Barbara Follett MP
Diane Abbott MP
John Cryer MP
John Trickett MP
Keith Vaz MP
Peter Bottomley MP
Alice Mahon MP
Alan Meale MP
Ian Gibson MP
Sir Teddy Taylor MP
Harry Cohen MP
Betty Williams MP
Ken Purchase MP
Alistair Carmichael MP
Laura Moffatt MP
Peter Bradley MP
Vera Baird MP
Bill Etherington MP
Edward Garnier MP
Roger Berry MP
Angela Smith MP
Brian Iddon MP
Anthony Steen MP
Mike Hancock MP
Colin Pickthall MP
Clive Betts MP
Janet Anderson MP
Neil Gerrard MP
Jane Griffiths MP
Brian Donohue MP
Helen Clark MP
Terry Davis MP
Janet Dean MP
Adrian Bailey MP
David Cameron MP
Louise Ellman MP
Eric Illsley MP
Kelvin Hopkins MP
Ernie Ross MP
Rob Marris MP
Martin Caton MP
Jim Sheridan MP
Martin Jones MP
Paul Tyler MP
Colin Challen MP
David Wright MP
Rudi Vis MP
Tony Worthington MP
Derek Watts MP
Julie Morgan MP
Rev W Martin Smyth MP
Diana Organ MP
Doug Henderson MP
Barry Gardiner MP

[Sam_b]

Knockout punch indeed ;)

However, i'll add a few comments here. This is not a united front in the orthodox sense of the definition, but a movement which still largely encompases working class people, organisations and Trade Unions. Like Antifa, this is not immune to criticism. I would reject that this is a popular front. To quote the Comintern congress of 1921:


The united front tactic is simply an initiative whereby the Communists propose to join with all workers belonging to other parties and groups and all unaligned workers in a common struggle to defend the immediate, basic interests of the working class against the bourgeoisie

Fascism is an enemy of the proletariat, and by destroying fascism we serve in the interests of workers. This means we ally ourselves with non-revolutionary workers and make the arguments from inside the organisation and pushing for change, rather than on the outside of it. Thus I would argue inside UAF that we should not be allying ourselves with the likes of Teddy Taylor MP, but since UAF is not under the control of the SWP we cannot immediately remove such elements. The strategy of the united front is to win workers to revolutionary politics, and this is what we persue in UAF alongside others, such as CPB comrades who also are a part of UAF.

[nuisance]

However, i'll add a few comments here. This is not a united front in the orthodox sense of the definition, but a movement which still largely encompases working class people, organisations and Trade Unions. Like Antifa, this is not immune to criticism. I would reject that this is a popular front. To quote the Comintern congress of 1921:
It isn't a united front, it is exactly a what a popular front is.

A popular front is a broad coalition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition) of different political groupings, often made up of leftists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics) and centrists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism) who are united by opposition to another group (most often fascist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism) or far-right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_right) groups). Being very broad, they can sometimes include centrist and liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) (or "bourgeois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois)") forces as well as socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) and communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism) ("working-class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class)") groups. Popular fronts are larger in scope than united fronts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_front), which contain only working-class groups.




Fascism is an enemy of the proletariat, and by destroying fascism we serve in the interests of workers. This means we ally ourselves with non-revolutionary workers and make the arguments from inside the organisation and pushing for change, rather than on the outside of it. Thus I would argue inside UAF that we should not be allying ourselves with the likes of Teddy Taylor MP, but since UAF is not under the control of the SWP we cannot immediately remove such elements. The strategy of the united front is to win workers to revolutionary politics, and this is what we persue in UAF alongside others, such as CPB comrades who also are a part of UAF.
The UAF is not a forum for revolutionary politics as it is based around the ruling class, collaborating with the State. These are the main staples of the UAF and they'd be nothing without it. This is the hinderance of cross class movements and why they do nothing for the class struggle.

[Sam_b]

after the SWP fronted cross class anti-fascist campaigns fell in the mud.


Beens I never claimed UAF to be a SWP front

Oh aye? :rolleyes:


It means that apeals to working class people.
To be honest mate, it seems like you haven't had any contacted with any members, so that isn't really surpising. Antifa doesn't try to build a massive movement anyway.

1. I don't understand your first sentence.
2. You've not shown me anything to say otherwise. And for the record a couple of my friends are involved within the organisation.


So are you insinuating that this group provides anything for the empowerment of the working class by parading members of the ruling class.

I didn't see your post until now, but I feel I have dealt with this in my previous post.


Stop being stupid. Antifa isn't an explictly anarchist organisation, you simply have to agree with the founding statement, it may be a way used by anarchists, but it is wrong to call antifa an anarchist group.

Well its politics certainly don't equate with Trotskyist tactics. Thats all i'm saying.


Don't support it, no one is seeking your approval.


This was aknowledged by yourself in previous posts of yours, so it is funny that you have been debating me and are now saying this.


Also, you have shown repeatably that you don't know what antifas tactics are or what you disagree with, that isn't based upon your lack of knowledge of antifa.

Cop-out. We have both aknowledged what their tactics are: "antifa is only the phyiscal front of antifascism" and I have referenced you on previous activity of the group which I disagree with. Despite what you say you have failed to show me what community projects Antifa is involved in; which is funny since you previously stated that the organisation wouldn't ally itself with anything due to the nature of its activity.

[Sam_b]

It isn't a united front, it is exactly a what a popular front is.

Wikipedia must be right! If you're seriously going into a debate on the nature of the united front then at least use some theory rather than a dodgy referencing source. Do you disagree that UAF is an alliance of revolutionary and non-revolutionary workers and trade unions? If we're going by Wikipedia sources then we reach a stalemate with:


It should be noted that not all coalitions who use the term "popular front" necessarily meet the accepted definition for "popular fronts", and not all popular fronts necessarily use the term "popular front" in their name. The same applies to "united fronts".


The UAF is not a forum for revolutionary politics as it is based around the ruling class, collaborating with the State.

It isn't in the states interests to seriously combat fascism.

The UAF have done more for the class struggle than the tactics of Antifa.

[nuisance]

Oh aye? :rolleyes:
What? AFA/Antifa was built from this, before the UAF was around, for example Rock Against Racism.
So I confirm that I never said UAF was a SWP front.




1. I don't understand your first sentence.
2. You've not shown me anything to say otherwise. And for the record a couple of my friends are involved within the organisation.
1. You say that it alienates the working class, despite working class people forming the groups.
2. I am not a member of antifa so I can not claim to know the inside facts on all antifa actions. Offered you nothing otherwise? Have you not been reading?


1Well its politics certainly don't equate with Trotskyist tactics. Thats all i'm saying.
Unfortunatly for you, that isn't all you said.


1This was aknowledged by yourself in previous posts of yours, so it is funny that you have been debating me and are now saying this.
Yes, I am debating you on a debating website. The majority of important issues on organisations aren't made over the internet, so I don't see what you are getting at. Antifa aren't going to change anything based on you ranting on the internet, but that does not mean that you won't be questioned on your position.




1Cop-out. We have both aknowledged what their tactics are: "antifa is only the phyiscal front of antifascism" and I have referenced you on previous activity of the group which I disagree with. Despite what you say you have failed to show me what community projects Antifa is involved in; which is funny since you previously stated that the organisation wouldn't ally itself with anything due to the nature of its activity.
Please, read the founding statement of antifa.


1Cop-out. We have both aknowledged what their tactics are: "antifa is only the phyiscal front of antifascism"
Yes, antifa provides the phyiscal front of antifascism, but that does not mean that members soley act in this way or that the organisation does.


and I have referenced you on previous activity of the group which I disagree with.
The groups are autonomous. Plus members take part in struggles not portraying themselves as antifa'ers, for security reasons. As I have already said. Also unlike Trot groups, antifa doesn't intend on consuming other movements, so what is the need in advertising local struggles as antifa ones when it invovles the whole community?


which is funny since you previously stated that the organisation wouldn't ally itself with anything due to the nature of its activity
No I didn't say that.
I said it's unlikely to find members of antifa in cross class organisations and that not many members would advertise themelves as being members. No where did I say that individuals wouldn't take part in movements/groups that agree with.

[Sam_b]

What? AFA/Antifa was built from this, before the UAF was around, for example Rock Against Racism.
So I confirm that I never said UAF was a SWP front.

If you didn't have anything to prove, then why did you post a reference suggesting (but failing to prove) that UAF was an SWP front?
Though these are the same arguments levelled at us back in the old ANL days.


1. You say that it alienates the working class, despite working class people forming the groups.

Thats a weak argument. Just because working class people are forming the groups doesn not mean they are operating in the interests of the wider working class. Its just like syaing that the Tories are a working class organisation in some areas because some workers are members of it - ie it doesn't equate.


Offered you nothing otherwise? Have you not been reading?

I've read you stating things without any examples or evidence.


The majority of important issues on organisations aren't made over the internet, so I don't see what you are getting at

This is, of course, completely irrelevant.


Antifa aren't going to change anything based on you ranting on the internet, but that does not mean that you won't be questioned on your position.


I merely stated my position, which you appear to have taken exception to. I'm not posting this to try and make Antifa change, merely outlining why I cannot uncritically support them. I don't see how this is a problem.


Please, read the founding statement of antifa.


I did. I quoted your argument. I haven't seen or heard otherwise for me to suggest that they are organising in coalitions or community projects to combat fascism apart from what I have cited. Statements ring hollow if they are not followed by practice.


Also unlike Trot groups, antifa doesn't intend on consuming other movements

I've already dealt with ridiculous statements like these.


so what is the need in advertising local struggles as antifa ones when it invovles the whole community?

I agree. I'm not saying that Antifa members are not involving themselves in other projects, only that they are not involving themselves in other anti-fascist projects and coalitions.


No I didn't say that

Antifa is a miltant federal anti-fascist group that are linked together by the founding statements aims and principles, thus they are not a centralised organisation and won't act like one. Also the business that they involved in is often illegal, so it is not a surprise if members don't constantly go parading themselves as being member.


Well lets be honest, they don't, do they?


I said it's unlikely to find members of antifa in cross class organisations

You haven't replied to my argument about UAF not being a popular front. I'm going offline and might not be back until Wednesday so I look forward to your reply on this, otherwise I take it that you concede that the UAF is not a 'cross class organisation'.

[nuisance]

Wikipedia must be right! If you're seriously going into a debate on the nature of the united front then at least use some theory rather than a dodgy referencing source. Do you disagree that UAF is an alliance of revolutionary and non-revolutionary workers and trade unions?
OK, then I'll use a quote from an online dictionary-
"a coalition of leftist and liberal groups and political parties, as in France (1936-39) to combat fascism"- Yourdictionary.
Yes the UAF is an alliance of revolutionary and non-revoluntionaries, but it incorperates members of the ruling class, making it a popular front.


If we're going by Wikipedia sources then we reach a stalemate with:
No, afraid not. All that says is that some self-portrayed united fronts aren't. Which is true when try and say that the UAF is a United Front.


It isn't in the states interests to seriously combat fascism.
Another reason why UAF is rubbish.


The UAF have done more for the class struggle than the tactics of Antifa.
The UAF has done nothing to the class struggle but hinder it. UAF is not a working class movement and thus has aided nothing. It is a cross class based group that makes the working class members feel that they have a common interest with the ruling class and that the State can further the struggle against fascism. The way this group works has to do with anything but the class struggle.

[Sam_b]

OK, then I'll use a quote from an online dictionary-


I meant to actually use theory rather than a dictionary source. The Comintern proves my point, as does my response to the wikipedia source you posted, yes by wikipedia itself. The nature of a united front is tangeable, as has been shown.


No, afraid not. All that says is that some self-portrayed united fronts aren't. Which is true when try and say that the UAF is a United Front.

Which I have already dealt with, when I stated that the UAF is not a united front in the orthodox definition of the word.


Another reason why UAF is rubbish.

A powerful insight by someone who knows nothing about the strategy that goes on inside the UAF.


The UAF has done nothing to the class struggle but hinder it. UAF is not a working class movement and thus has aided nothing. It is a cross class based group that makes the working class members feel that they have a common interest with the ruling class and that the State can further the struggle against fascism. The way this group works has to do with anything but the class struggle.

UAF effectively engaged only two weeks ago with working class communities in Stoke. Antifa, well....they attacked BPP members with screwdrivers. The practice proves itself more than any hollow rhetoric backed up with no evidence.

Your statements baselessly attacking UAF show the inability of Antifa and its supporters to engage in the wider working class struggle to oppose fascism.

[nuisance]

If you didn't have anything to prove, then why did you post a reference suggesting (but failing to prove) that UAF was an SWP front?
What?

Thats a weak argument. Just because working class people are forming the groups doesn not mean they are operating in the interests of the wider working class. Its just like syaing that the Tories are a working class organisation in some areas because some workers are members of it - ie it doesn't equate.
So people miltantly opposing fascism in their own communities has nothing to do with working class empowerment?
Oh yeah, some Tories are members of the UAF.

I've read you stating things without any examples or evidence.
Typical Trot answer when faced with a non-centralised organisation!

This is, of course, completely irrelevant.
Not at all.

I merely stated my position, which you appear to have taken exception to. I'm not posting this to try and make Antifa change, merely outlining why I cannot uncritically support them. I don't see how this is a problem.
I know it's not a problem. I just don't think your criticisms justified by what you ar saying.

I did. I quoted your argument. I haven't seen or heard otherwise for me to suggest that they are organising in coalitions or community projects to combat fascism apart from what I have cited. Statements ring hollow if they are not followed by practice.
You'd best ask a member about that but I am aware of antifa members being involved in community projects.

I've already dealt with ridiculous statements like these.
You may think you have.

I agree. I'm not saying that Antifa members are not involving themselves in other projects, only that they are not involving themselves in other anti-fascist projects and coalitions.
Proof?

Well lets be honest, they don't, do they?
Of course members take part in other groups, anti-fascist or not. Don't be ridiculous

You haven't replied to my argument about UAF not being a popular front. I'm going offline and might not be back until Wednesday so I look forward to your reply on this, otherwise I take it that you concede that the UAF is not a 'cross class organisation'.
This has been dealt with and you even acknowledged defeat on it, so yes I have replied to your agruement. Again how isn't it? Seriously, do you know what a cross class organisation is? It's a organisation that isn't made soley of one class. The UAF has members from the ruling class, making it cross class, and acts with the State, cross class again. They even proudly name a list of key signaturtors whom consist of members of the ruling class, that I have previously linked to and Comrade Joe has posted. The UAF is a cross class organisation.
Also "We aim to unite the broadest possible spectrum of society to counter this threat."-UAF.

[nuisance]

I meant to actually use theory rather than a dictionary source. The Comintern proves my point, as does my response to the wikipedia source you posted, yes by wikipedia itself. The nature of a united front is tangeable, as has been shown.
Show me some theory that shows me otherwise then.
No the wiki quote you posted didn't argue your point at all but infact the opposite.

IWhich I have already dealt with, when I stated that the UAF is not a united front in the orthodox definition of the word.
Of course it isn't a united front by the orthodox definition, because it is a popular front.


IA powerful insight by someone who knows nothing about the strategy that goes on inside the UAF.
That's quite an assumption.
Did the UAF not work with the State run Searchlight until being dropped by them?


UAF effectively engaged only two weeks ago with working class communities in Stoke. Antifa, well....they attacked BPP members with screwdrivers. The practice proves itself more than any hollow rhetoric backed up with no evidence.
Who said antifa members didin't dp other things? The thing with antifa is that only the action is published. Also was the action by local antifa members protecting their communities?


Your statements baselessly attacking UAF show the inability of Antifa and its supporters to engage in the wider working class struggle to oppose fascism.
It has been shown that UAF has nothing to do with working class struggle.

[Sam_b]

What?

You posted a Workers Liberty link claiming that UAF is an SWP front. Why post it if you had nothing to prove?


So people miltantly opposing fascism in their own communities has nothing to do with working class empowerment?

The last time I checked working class people weren't flocking to Antifa in their thousands. They are not working with the wider working class in any united fronts to oppose fascists - stabbing a few doesn't kill the root problem.


Oh yeah, some Tories are members of the UAF.

I've gone over the intervention tactics of socialists within UAF.


Typical Trot answer when faced with a non-centralised organisation

Okay, so we've established that you have nothing to back up your claims.


You may think you have.

You've said hee-haw to prove otherwise.


Proof?

Antifa as an organisation does not organise with other antifascist groups to benefit the wider working class. There is nothing on their website to claim otherwise, and my contacts have said nothing to claim otherwise. The onus is on yourself to claim otherwise, since you've been going on about it ever since I first raised my criticisms of the organisation.

And why can they not unitewith other groups? Because the organisations tactics are solely concentrated on physical attacks on fascists. Thus in my mind it is similar to the Red Army Faction in West Germany.


Of course members take part in other groups, anti-fascist or not. Don't be ridiculous

Yes, members. Not the organisation itself.


This has been dealt with and you even acknowledged defeat on it, so yes I have replied to your agruement. Again how isn't it? Seriously, do you know what a cross class organisation is? It's a organisation that isn't made soley of one class. The UAF has members from the ruling class, making it cross class, and acts with the State, cross class again. They even proudly name a list of key signaturtors whom consist of members of the ruling class, that I have previously linked to and Comrade Joe has posted. The UAF is a cross class organisation.
Also "We aim to unite the broadest possible spectrum of society to counter this threat."-UAF.

You're like a broken record. I already demolished your wikipedia argument of the nature of what a united front can look like in the 21st century.


Thus I would argue inside UAF that we should not be allying ourselves with the likes of Teddy Taylor MP, but since UAF is not under the control of the SWP we cannot immediately remove such elements. The strategy of the united front is to win workers to revolutionary politics, and this is what we persue in UAF alongside others, such as CPB comrades who also are a part of UAF.

You've also remained remarkably silent when faced with what the Comintern said in 1921. You can keep going on about how it 'works with the state' as much as you like, yet you seem to have no idea how this has happened in practice, or even given an explaination into how it would even be in the state's interest to focus any energy at all into this. Next you'll be claiming that Stop the War works with the state because some Labour MPs support it!

I have outlined several times my reasons for not supporting Antifa, you can take them or leave them as far as i'm concerned, yet I will persist that their action is incompatible with the Trotskyist movement, which I believe my original criticisms were centred on, and again i'll quote from Trotsky: "The unprecidented crimes of fascism create a yearning for vengeance that is wholly justifiable. But so monstrous is the scope of their crimes, that this yearning cannot be satisfied by the assassination of isolated fascist bureaucrats. For that is necessary to set in motion millions, tens and hundreds of millions of the oppressed throughout the whole world and lead them in the assault upon the strongholds of the old society".

[Sam_b]

Show me some theory that shows me otherwise then.
No the wiki quote you posted didn't argue your point at all but infact the opposite.

I've already quoted from the comintern and argued the nature of UAF countless times - i'm simply not going to repeat it for you at 2.30am just because you're too lazy to go back and read it for yourself.


Of course it isn't a united front by the orthodox definition, because it is a popular front.

Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so. The strategy of socialists in united fronts is vastly different from that of a popular front, as i've spelled out to you about three times now.


Did the UAF not work with the State run Searchlight until being dropped by them?


Thats also quite an assumption. Why do you think Searchlight distanced itself and then broke with UAF? Because the activist activity and socialsit interventions within it gave it a clear contrast of interest. You don't get such actions within a popular front.


Who said antifa members didin't dp other things? The thing with antifa is that only the action is published. Also was the action by local antifa members protecting their communities?


Yet again, i''ve made out a contrast between members and the organisation as a whole. Please start picking up on it.


It has been shown that UAF has nothing to do with working class struggle.

Not by you, I wager. The same old tired arguments cannot be forced through when they've already been dealt with.

[thejambo1]

time to stop the argument. antifa good, uaf shower of wankers:lol:

[nuisance]

You posted a Workers Liberty link claiming that UAF is an SWP front. Why post it if you had nothing to prove?
I was showing the general consenus and perception of UAF outside of the UAF spectrum.




The last time I checked working class people weren't flocking to Antifa in their thousands. They are not working with the wider working class in any united fronts to oppose fascists - stabbing a few doesn't kill the root problem.
For the last fucking time, that is not what antifa aim to do. They even say that they don't want a massive membership.
Confronting fascists on the streets demoralises them and is more likely to keep your area clean than a group of people marching once in awhile.




I've gone over the intervention tactics of socialists within UAF.
Unfortunatly for you, you haen't clarifed anything in this debate and have only made fruitless assertions on what you percieve to be the nature of antifa.




Okay, so we've established that you have nothing to back up your claims.
You claim that, however that is not the case.



You've said hee-haw to prove otherwise.
You haven't though. Also what does that even mean? I haven't need to justify anything on this as I have not been asked anything.




Antifa as an organisation does not organise with other antifascist groups to benefit the wider working class. There is nothing on their website to claim otherwise, and my contacts have said nothing to claim otherwise. The onus is on yourself to claim otherwise, since you've been going on about it ever since I first raised my criticisms of the organisation.
Basically many members of the antifa are also members of the AF and Class War. So no, antifa does not cooperate with other antifascist groups, but to insinuate that the membership doesn't do anything other than beat fascists up is about as ridiculous as this debate.


And why can they not unitewith other groups? Because the organisations tactics are solely concentrated on physical attacks on fascists. Thus in my mind it is similar to the Red Army Faction in West Germany.
Yes antifa is based around phyiscal confrontation and does not want to belong to other cross class groups. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?
Yes, antifa is much like RAF :rolleyes:
They both had different objectives and methods.



Yes, members. Not the organisation itself.
That is the nature of federal groups.


You're like a broken record. I already demolished your wikipedia argument of the nature of what a united front can look like in the 21st century.
You haven't demolished anything though, and merely by saying such does prove so. Infact the case is y far the opposite, yet you carry on!
So in now a united front can be a popular front? united fronts consist of solely working class organisations, the UAF isn't.



You've also remained remarkably silent when faced with what the Comintern said in 1921. You can keep going on about how it 'works with the state' as much as you like, yet you seem to have no idea how this has happened in practice, or even given an explaination into how it would even be in the state's interest to focus any energy at all into this.
:lol: So you are denying that UAF has ever worked with Searclight? Which is a tentacle of the State? Oh this is just getting better.
OK then here's your Trotsky quote- "For that is necessary to set in motion millions, tens and hundreds of millions of the oppressed throughout the whole world and lead them in the assault upon the strongholds of the old society". Please note that Trotsky says "oppressed", thus meaning the oppressed rising together, this says nothing about collaborating with the ruling class.



Next you'll be claiming that Stop the War works with the state because some Labour MPs support it!
No, but it collaborates with the ruling class.


I have outlined several times my reasons for not supporting Antifa, you can take them or leave them as far as i'm concerned, yet I will persist that their action is incompatible with the Trotskyist movement, which I believe my original criticisms were centred on, and again i'll quote from Trotsky: "The unprecidented crimes of fascism create a yearning for vengeance that is wholly justifiable. But so monstrous is the scope of their crimes, that this yearning cannot be satisfied by the assassination of isolated fascist bureaucrats. For that is necessary to set in motion millions, tens and hundreds of millions of the oppressed throughout the whole world and lead them in the assault upon the strongholds of the old society".
No substanial reasons though. But yes antifa isn't based around Trotsky, is that is hardly surprising.

[nuisance]

I've already quoted from the comintern and argued the nature of UAF countless times - i'm simply not going to repeat it for you at 2.30am just because you're too lazy to go back and read it for yourself.
You don't have to, as I've seen to it and it does not complement your stance.

Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so. The strategy of socialists in united fronts is vastly different from that of a popular front, as i've spelled out to you about three times now.
No you haven't though. Trotsky is your quote portrays a untied front as oppressed people rising together, that is not what UAF does with its incoropartion of the ruling class.

Thats also quite an assumption. Why do you think Searchlight distanced itself and then broke with UAF? Because the activist activity and socialsit interventions within it gave it a clear contrast of interest. You don't get such actions within a popular front.
I'm pretty sure a popular front could coordinate a march and a leaflet drop on voting for different parties to keep the BNP out.
This doesn't point out that socialist interventions lead to the resignation of Searchlight from UAF.
http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=135

Yet again, i''ve made out a contrast between members and the organisation as a whole. Please start picking up on it.
But your references aren't correct when addressing an organisational structure of a group like antifa.

Not by you, I wager. The same old tired arguments cannot be forced through when they've already been dealt with.
Yes by me, repeatably, non of which you have managed to refute either!

[nuisance]

I have no interst in continuing this debate. However I do think it would be interesting if you made a UAF thread so that we can get a wider spectrum of views on the board.

[black magick hustla]

fascism in the rabid dog of capitalist parties and the ruling class, when it is on its leash it attacks the left wing and divides the working classes, promotes rascism and provides support for right wing measures by the major parties (see NF supporters voting for Thatcher en masse).

on the occasions it breaks off its leash it ruins lives in a grand and calculated way, be that a few exsecuted communists, imprisioned human rights campaigners, or millions of haulocaust victims.

either way fascism is a major obstacle to the class struggle and needs to be adressed in discusion, in party politcs and on the streets

fascism wont be on its "leash" now. the 20s and the 30s were other conditions. even if a party like the BNP wins the elections, they would have to adapt to international trends. if you are a marxist, you should know that elections dont bring radical change.

i think democracy and the subtle racism of mainstream parties are major obstacles to the working class. they dont have that "boogeyman" quality fascism has. you dont need "fascism" to have holocausts. capitalist decomposition has brought other stellar examples like the whole serbia affair and darfur.

[Sam_b]

They even say that they don't want a massive membership.

Well surely thats the end of the argument. My main criticism was that they are elitist.


I have not been asked anything

I challenged you to name grassroots and community activities that Antifa as an organisation are a part of. You've faile dto mention even one.

I'm fed up with your lack of coherant debate and pedacism. Thus i'll sum up, again with Trotsky:


If it is enough to arm oneself with a pistol in order to achieve one's goal, why the efforts of the class struggle? If a thimbleful of gunpowder and a little chunk of lead is enough to shoot the enemy through the neck, what need is there for class organisation?...In our eyes, individual terror is inadmissable orecisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes towards a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish his mission.
The anarchist prophets of 'propaganda of the deed' can argue all they want about the elevating and stimulating influence of terrorist acts on the masses. Theoretical considerations and political experience prove otherwise.

[Holden Caulfield]

Well surely thats the end of the argument. My main criticism was that they are elitist.


if you try to be you will end up with ranks full of infiltrators, nazis and people trying to rebel and be violent rather than committed antifascists

i could argue that a 'vanguard party is elitist' along the same lines of your 'logic', i wont because it isn't, and neither is antifa

i could quote Trotsky and show that fascism is based on middle class and petty bourgeois support, but i wont because it isn't anymore and facts prove otherwise,

and it is not individual terrorim, it is organised attempts by a group (with understandable issues about new members) based on removing an obstacle to the class struggle, and a group that will not run crying to the opressive state whenever challenged or attacked,

[Sam_b]

and it is not individual terrorim, it is organised attempts by a group

We don't mean individual in this sense. For example, the Bolsheviks opposed the actions of the People's Will group in Russia.


The killing of an employer, a threat to set fire to a factory or a death threat to its owner, an assassination attempt, with revolver in hand, against a government minister - all these are terrorist acts in the full and authentic sense. However, anyone who has an idea of the true nature of international Social Democracy ought to know that it has always opposed this kind of terrorism, and done so in the most irreconcilable way.

[Sasha]

I challenged you to name grassroots and community activities that Antifa as an organisation are a part of.


well here in holland we have close ties with a whole range of groups ranging from migrant labour organisations and black consious movements to neighboorhood activists and god knows what else.
every year we provide security and infrastructure for a "black" memorial march, we lay flowers at the offcial state remembrance days etc etc.
hey, some of our members/supporters are even part of the IS (trotskyst), SAP and CJB (leninist)

but the situation is the same aslike it says in the intervieuw that was the start of this thread:

Whilst antifascist groups should always point out that racism and fascism originate with capitalism and the state (or capitalist and statist ideas), it should not prevent us from using this as a get-out clause for fighting fascists. This is something many far left and anarchist groups do, and it is mistaken at best, naive and cowardly at worst. The threat of fascist organisations is a threat to me and you first; the organised working class are their first target. This has not changed in the least, from the origins of fascism as a distinct ideology in the 1930’s, to its present ‘euro nationalist’ form. In the past it was more of a direct threat, with fascists attacking left wing groups and venues, and being used to break strikes. Because antifascists literally beat them off the streets by the mid 90’s in the UK this is no longer a focus for their activity -though they often can’t help themselves when they come across trade unionists or socialists – just look at the arrest records for even today’s “hands off” BNP. The threat the pose to us now is slightly more subtle but just as dangerous. By breaking communities and workplaces along racial and cultural lines, they destroy our class unity and make it twice as hard for class struggle activists to put our message across – often nicking left wing ideas directly, and putting a nationalist or racist spin on them. Militant antifascism has always been about:
a) Defending the left and
b) creating a ground for the left to organise safely. This hasn’t changed, regardless of whether the left is up to the job; we still need to make sure we lose as little ground to the radical right as possible, as it will be people like us first against the wall. All that said, we totally support people who focus on state racism and immigrant rights, and we have provided security for groups like No Borders. We are nonetheless separate groups for a very important reason: we are antifascists. Fascism uses racism: but racism can come from any source. We oppose fascism because it is fascism, not just because 9 times out of 10 it is racist. Combating every single occurrence of racism is not our goal, and antifascist groups which pretended they did have always ended up looking utterly ridiculous, like the ANL(Anti-Nazi League) picketing the movie Romper Stomper on the grounds it might give people ideas! Antifascism is a cause in and of itself, and should not tag onto other campaigns or left fronts.

[black magick hustla]

I have to agree. I also find it odd, all the sympathy for antifa. They came onto the scene after the period of massive street confrontations with fascists had ended. It's very different in Russia and other countries, but in Britain antifa are just a footnote to the heroic work by Red Action and AFA in smashing the National Front, before the BNP moved towards a position of electoral respectability.

In Ireland it's a different story, but in the north, fascists are synonymous with Loyalists, and most the Left wont take them on.

I don't think the National Front was smashed by AFA and Red Action. I think the demise of the NF had a lot to do with thatcher recuperating fascist slogans.

Anyway, how is the fascist thuggery of a few boneheads different from other types of gang violence? I bet in Britain more people die in skirmished between gangs or other sorts of petty feuds than by the hand of the fascists. Why wont leftists take on the cribs and the bloods in the Us then?

[Holden Caulfield]

I don't think the National Front was smashed by AFA and Red Action. I think the demise of the NF had a lot to do with thatcher recuperating fascist slogans.
fascists suporting the right wing state, and would want it even more right wing.. sounds like a barrier to the class struggle to me

[nuisance]

Well surely thats the end of the argument. My main criticism was that they are elitist.
:laugh:




I challenged you to name grassroots and community activities that Antifa as an organisation are a part of. You've faile dto mention even one.
Time after time I have answered this!


I'm fed up with your lack of coherant debate and pedacism. Thus i'll sum up, again with Trotsky:
:laugh:
And unfortunatly for your quote, the vast majority of anarchists have rejected propaganda by deed quite some time ago.

[black magick hustla]

fascists suporting the right wing state, and would want it even more right wing.. sounds like a barrier to the class struggle to me

honestly caulfield, you are so pedantic.

the left wing of capital is as big of an obstacle as the right wing. Even worse, it uses softer slogans like democracy and some vague references to the "people": it is a sugar coated venom. While fascist slogans are more of a punch in the face, the left wing is a lethal gas.

[Sam_b]

Time after time I have answered this!


I have not heard one name of an organisation coming from yourself. Only "they are involved in projects".

[nuisance]

I have not heard one name of an organisation coming from yourself. Only "they are involved in projects".
This really isn't worth answering. Also it would be nice for you to recongise that not all action taken by activists in communities come under organisations.
Read Psycho's post as he is in antifa, which is the reason I gave for not providing information of what members/the organisation is doing.

[Sam_b]

This really isn't worth answering. Also it would be nice for you to recongise that not all action taken by activists in communities come under organisations.
Read Psycho's post as he is in antifa, which is the reason I gave for not providing information of what members/the organisation is doing.

Brilliant. So a) you aknowledge that you didn't answer it. So you were lying when 'time after time I have answered this'.

and b) You contradict this moments later by saying that Psycho answered it so there was no need to; despite me asking you to name organisations the day before!

You really are beyond belief.

[nuisance]

Brilliant. So a) you aknowledge that you didn't answer it. So you were lying when 'time after time I have answered this'.
:rolleyes:
I did answer it, with what I just said previously. Fucking duh. I answered your question saying it was not my place to answer such questions.


and b) You contradict this moments later by saying that Psycho answered it so there was no need to; despite me asking you to name organisations the day before!
That's not a contradiction at all. Seriously, what are you thinking?


You really are beyond belief.
Straight back at you, bucko.

[Sam_b]

I did answer it, with what I just said previously. Fucking duh. I answered your question saying it was not my place to answer such questions.


And the contradictions keep flowing! From 'time after time' not being able to give a straight answer, to now saying that 'it was not your (sic) place to answer such questions'! :lol:


That's not a contradiction at all. Seriously, what are you thinking?

You said you'd answered my question 'time after time'. Yet w enow aknowledge that you didn't name any specific groups or organisations, except giving a vague nod towards 'community groups'. After Psycho posts some information, you claim that this was your intention all along, not to actually give an answer.

So, it is not your place to show what activities antifa as an actual organisation participates in, yet it is your place to state the strategy and tactics of the organisation? I fail to understand this. Either you answer the questions or you don't. So, yes, you are a complete contradiction: you feel comfortable giving abstract answers, but when it comes to concrete facts then you back away.

[nuisance]

And the contradictions keep flowing! From 'time after time' not being able to give a straight answer, to now saying that 'it was not your (sic) place to answer such questions'! :lol:
No, I have given the same answer you fucking freak. You are so annoying.




You said you'd answered my question 'time after time'. Yet w enow aknowledge that you didn't name any specific groups or organisations, except giving a vague nod towards 'community groups'. After Psycho posts some information, you claim that this was your intention all along, not to actually give an answer.
Yes, I gave a answer time after time. Yes, I know I didn't give names of organisations, for obvious reasons, considering how groups like antifa work with there structure, which you have conclusively shown that you know nothing about.
"Vague nod"? You are really misrepresenting the facts now, aren't you?:laugh:


So, it is not your place to show what activities antifa as an actual organisation participates in, yet it is your place to state the strategy and tactics of the organisation?
Judging by the way antifa acts due to its structure, no I am not going to blurt out stuff that I know people are active in, it is not placed to do so and could potenially have security risks. But hey, this has also been covered already.
The tactics and strategy is shown and known by anyone and doesn't entail any security risks due to speaking of them.


I fail to understand this. Either you answer the questions or you don't. So, yes, you are a complete contradiction: you feel comfortable giving abstract answers, but when it comes to concrete facts then you back away.
No, I have said why. Mate, give it a rest, it's embrassing.

[Sam_b]

No, I have given the same answer you fucking freak. You are so annoying.


Nice flame. Truly the words of a desperate man.


Yes, I know I didn't give names of organisations, for obvious reasons, considering how groups like antifa work with there structure

So why didn't you say this, rather than keep going on and on about supposedly 'answering questions'. This really does prove my point that Antifa as an organisation cannot and does not ally itself with other broad groups - because its tactics render this impossible. Thus going back to my disagreements on the tactics of the group. Your backtracking on the key issues speaks volumes here.


Judging by the way antifa acts due to its structure, no I am not going to blurt out stuff that I know people are active in, it is not placed to do so and could potenially have security risks. But hey, this has also been covered already.
The tactics and strategy is shown and known by anyone and doesn't entail any security risks due to speaking of them.


But, well, lets just cover stuff you can get away with by being vague as possible, eh? This entire conversation has only reaffirmed my belief that Antifa are an organisation that are narrow in cause and practice and unable to unite with groups to effectively target the causes of fascism. We don't really need to continue.

But i'm sure you'll have some witty retort to counter this, probably along the lines of "I answered this! HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF TIMES!"

[nuisance]

Nice flame. Truly the words of a desperate man.
Desperate? No, annoyed? Yes.

So why didn't you say this, rather than keep going on and on about supposedly 'answering questions'. This really does prove my point that Antifa as an organisation cannot and does not ally itself with other broad groups - because its tactics render this impossible. Thus going back to my disagreements on the tactics of the group. Your backtracking on the key issues speaks volumes here.
That is not true and is only a lack of understanding of this type of organisation. Antifa is a organisation of federated autonomous groups. These groups take part in action that is inline with founding statement. There is no centralised governance, therefore groups and individuals take part in local activties, not antifa as awhole. However national mobilisations of antifa do occur.
What do you mean I by ally?

But, well, lets just cover stuff you can get away with by being vague as possible, eh? This entire conversation has only reaffirmed my belief that Antifa are an organisation that are narrow in cause and practice and unable to unite with groups to effectively target the causes of fascism. We don't really need to continue.
I answered this! HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF TIMES!

[Sam_b]

That is not true and is only a lack of understanding of this type of organisation


therefore groups and individuals take part in local activties, not antifa as awhole

This really does prove my point that Antifa as an organisation cannot and does not ally itself with other broad groups

Err........so yes, it is true.

[nuisance]

Err........so yes, it is true.
What, that you can quote out of context?

[Sam_b]

I stated that Antifa as an organisation doesn't participate in any broad social groups. You have affirmed that it does not. Thus....:rolleyes:

[nuisance]

I stated that Antifa as an organisation doesn't participate in any broad social groups. You have affirmed that it does not. Thus....:rolleyes:
I never said it did, so well done in taking so long to deduct that, after claiming that you read the founding statement which says:

"For decades revolutionary left groups such as the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party, have opportunistically used the mobilisation against fascism as a way of trying to swell their membership numbers and the coffers of their party. We are not interested in working with these groups, nor with their front groups, such as the Anti-Nazi League™ or Unite Against Fascism™. Our experience is that these front groups exist merely to try and recruit members on behalf of the controlling party, to peddle their papers, and to manipulate and marginalize genuine anti-fascists. In the past we have seen the leadership of such fronts collaborate not only with the State, but also with the fascists themselves. We will not be fooled again, and advise genuine anti-fascists within these organisations to leave, after which we may be able to work with them."

[Sam_b]

I never said it did, so well done in taking so long to deduct that,

Awesome. So how come this comes out now after i've challenged you about it for a couple of days now? Or are you again trying to worm your way out of giving answers or admitting the shortcomings of Antifa?

And what a delightful founding statement it is, eh? Full of bile and distrust for other working class organisations because of unsubstanciated accusations. If they feel they can destroy fascism by their little clique stabbing BPP members, then so be it. Serious antifascists with a class analysis of the situation should see right through them.

[nuisance]

And what a delightful founding statement it is, eh? Full of bile and distrust for other working class organisations because of unsubstanciated accusations. If they feel they can destroy fascism by their little clique stabbing BPP members, then so be it. Serious antifascists with a class analysis of the situation should see right through them.
Like the UAF?:laugh:

[Sam_b]

" it is enough to arm oneself with a pistol in order to achieve one's goal, why the efforts of the class struggle? If a thimbleful of gunpowder and a little chunk of lead is enough to shoot the enemy through the neck, what need is there for class organisation?...In our eyes, individual terror is inadmissable orecisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes towards a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish his mission."

Quick! You're needed to help blow up BNP HQ.

[nuisance]

" it is enough to arm oneself with a pistol in order to achieve one's goal, why the efforts of the class struggle? If a thimbleful of gunpowder and a little chunk of lead is enough to shoot the enemy through the neck, what need is there for class organisation?...In our eyes, individual terror is inadmissable orecisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes towards a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish his mission."

Quick! You're needed to help blow up BNP HQ.
Trotsky is so untouchable.
Don't you have some papers to be selling?

[Sam_b]

Don't you have some papers to be selling?

Aye I do. Its called 'building class consciousness', which at least some groups still practice.

[nuisance]

Aye I do. Its called 'building class consciousness', which at least some groups still practice.
Wow, the SWP produces it's own publications, that's totally something different to other groups!

[Holden Caulfield]

^ chillax you two or i will start to delete your flame-y posts,

im not having antifa or trotskyist parties be slagged by either of you, it has no purpose, unless you actually have something new to add to the debate,

you don't agree, leave it at that dont get all circular and flame-y