UAF; opinions

[Holden Caulfield]

i have been trying to get round to starting a debate on UAF for a while now but i have been pushed into starting this without any thought of a grand summary of a OP, due to the stupidness of the UAF's members,

when talking at an 'anti-rascsim' meeting the other day (mainly made up of trade-unionists, socialists, and some assorted well wishers) the local UAF member said all people need to be told about the BNP are 3 things

"the BNP is a fascist party, the BNP is a fascist party, the BNP is a fascist party" and then added nothing to the debate about the nature of fascism,

this along with the recent antics at RWB makes me feel the UAF (not all of them but a significant majority) are clueless, and don't even understand rascism in any wider context other than their moral imperitive to be 'liberal'...

if anybody wants to defend them i am all ears, and if anybody wants to stick the boot in i am equally gleeful,

[nuisance]

I'm surprised Sam_B hasn't rushed to the UAF's defence yet.
That said, the UAF is yet another cross-class popular front initative that has been done plently of times before. It bares no vitial signifigance to furthering the class struggle or defeating racism and hides behind slogans without adding any substance to them, "the BNP is a Nazi party" for example.

[icepick]

Class War/Antifa on the UAF:

Think the BNP can be defeated by voting Labour or for some middle-class tourist standing on a left-wing ticket?

Want to waste your time on pointless marches waving a lollipop or standing behind police lines shouting trite slogans at the BNP, instead of going in and dealing with them directly?

Fancy being bossed around by clueless ‘stewards’ who collaborate with the cops?

Want to be recruited into the Socialist Workers Party?

If so, you should contact Unite Against Fascism.

If you want to get on with the job of smashing fascism contact your local Antifa group.

So yeah, total bollocks. Those UAF ****s tried to get me up to Derbyshire to mill around with a bunch of liberals and trots hearing Stalinist scum Bob Crow talk! ffs :D

[Pogue]

The BNP are viewed quite rightly as scum by large sections of British society, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour voting alike, as well as the more radical Socialists, Communists, Anarchists and an assortment of fairly apolitical types. Now, for most of these people, class war is not the main focus of life and fighting is not their favourite pass time. Therefore, rather than join a group such as Antifa focused on physically confronting the BNP and their kind (Nazis), they'll naturally join a more mainstream, less violent group than Antifa, such as UAF.
We cannot beat up every member of the BNP, nor can we think that this alone will stop them gaining power via voting. Therefore, a populist movement ecnouraging alternatives to the people who might vote BNP seems sensible to me. Kicking a Nazi's head in is good but is not an political alternative to many who see the BNP as the only party representing their interests (these people being mainly working class people disillusioned with Labour).

[icepick]

The BNP are viewed quite rightly as scum by large sections of British society, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour voting alike, as well as the more radical Socialists, Communists, Anarchists and an assortment of fairly apolitical types. Now, for most of these people, class war is not the main focus of life and fighting is not their favourite pass time. Therefore, rather than join a group such as Antifa focused on physically confronting the BNP and their kind (Nazis), they'll naturally join a more mainstream, less violent group than Antifa, such as UAF.

Antifa doesn't only beat up nazis, you know. It also works on developing an anti-capitalist, anti-fascist working class social movement.


We cannot beat up every member of the BNP, nor can we think that this alone will stop them gaining power via voting.Antifa doesn't think beating up BNP members is the be all and end all by any means.


Therefore, a populist movement ecnouraging alternatives to the people who might vote BNP seems sensible to me. Kicking a Nazi's head in is good but is not an political alternative to many who see the BNP as the only party representing their interests (these people being mainly working class people disillusioned with Labour).Yes but the UAF urges people to vote for the ****s who created the problems the BNP thrive on in the first place -- Labour, LibDems, even Tories. Respect helped the BNP with their loony pro-Islamicist bullshit.

Antifa was founded by members of the Anarchist Federation and Class War, who present a full alternative to BNP fascist politics. Antifa members are active in the IWW.

Bourgeois parliamentary democracy upholds capitalism, capitalism created the conditions the BNP thrive in. So using bourgeois parliamentary means to achieve revolutionary socialist ends is a bit clueless, no?

You also didn't address the fact that the UAF are opportunistic and a front org for the Student Wankers Party.



Indeed the usual suspects of ‘jump on the bandwagon’ Trotskyite groups, who had not even begun to mobilise until a couple of months prior to the event, ultimately seem to be stuck in the old left madness of negotiating with the police for no other reason than then becoming the ‘legitimate’ state sanctioned protest, guaranteed to do nothing other than portray themselves to be the vanguard in the struggle against British fascism.

This tactic is not missed on the majority of the left in Britain, and has created such apathy that a protest today is lucky to bring out less than a fifth of people it would have done a decade ago.[...]

Where the rest of the British ‘left’ go from here is at present unclear. While the likes of the SWP have already claimed some kind of victory out of actually doing nothing at all, it is of genuine concern that people will still fall for their redundant and impotent style of politics.

One thing is for certain. If the SWP and their front groupings such as the UAF are allowed to continue their nonsense, the genuine fervour of many on the so called ‘left’ will remain untapped.

https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/08/407232.html

[icepick]

Antifa England on the UAF:


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!


http://www.antifa.org.uk/index2.htm

[Pogue]

Don't get me wrong, I like the Antifa approach and sympathise with your views on the UAF being too capitalist and what not, but Antifa is not a serious answer to the BNP for the working class folk who vote for the scum, because Antifa is an Anarchist/Communist activist group, not a party which says "We will implement policy X in order to benefit you, the working man/woman". Due to their small area of influence and lack of a real concrete offer of an alternative, and complete lack of a parliamentary alternative, groups like the UAF will become the natural home for the average joe who is left of centre and despises the BNP but is not an anarchist and wants to build an alternative as the solution, as opposed to just trying to kick them off the streets.

And yes, Antifa might try to appeal tot he working class and are trying to create a working class movement, but the fact remains that they do not have a storng base of support. This is the same with most small (ish) revolutoinary activist groups - they're not that appealling for the average guy at the moment, whose conception of politics is voting for a party which best represents his interests and will take the country where he thinks it should go.

Unless Antifa became a massive radical social and revolutionary movement, we need an electoral alternative/mainstream activist campaign group like UAF so that the less radical/active people can mobilise against the BNP and work to present an alernative, which although not perfect, is better than the filth which is the BNP. And at the moment, Antifa are not looking likely to become a HUGE working class revolutionary movement, the same way the SWP are not, or the CPB, or any other revolutionary far left group. If a revolutionary group got popular support that'd be the solution to the BNP anyway, because that movement could help us smash the fash.

[icepick]

So basically you support the liberal-Parliamentary democratic capitalist system against fascism?


Whether it admits it or not, [liberal] antifascism has become the necessary form of both working class and capitalist reformism. [liberal] Antifascism unites the two by claiming to represent the true ideal of the bourgeois revolution betrayed by Capital. Democracy is conceived as an element of socialism, an element already present in our society. Socialism is envisaged as total democracy. The struggle for socialism would consist of winning more and more democratic rights within the framework of capitalism. With the help of the fascist scapegoat, democratic gradualism is revitalized. Fascism and [liberal] antifascism have the same origin and the same program, but the former claimed to go beyond Capital and classes, while the latter tries to attain the "true" bourgeois democracy which is endlessly perfectible through the addition of stronger and stronger doses of democracy. In reality, bourgeois democracy is a stage in the taking of power by Capital, and its extension into the 20th century has resulted in the increasing isolation of individuals. Born as the illusory solution to the problem of the separation of human activity and society, democracy will never be able to resolve the problem of the most separated society in the whole of history. [liberal] Antifascism will always end in increasing totalitarianism; its fight for a "democratic" State will end in strengthening the State.

http://www.geocities.com/~Johngray/fasant02.htm

I don't like that Barrot bloke but he makes a good point there.

[Pogue]

I support mobalisation against fascism. And I respect that for some people, that opposition might come through campaigning for Hope Not Hate as opposed to physically confronting Nazis out on the streets.
I also note that you need a multi pronged approach - campaigning for a political alternative for the working class, and a physical revolutionary resistance. I think both serve a valid and useful purpose.

[nuisance]

campaigning for a political alternative for the working class, and a physical revolutionary resistance. I think both serve a valid and useful purpose.
Isn't trying to put faith in a electoral party a hinderance to revolutionary self organisation of the working class? I think so.

[Revolutiondownunder]

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!


Very true, asking people to vote fr the party that screwed up their lives is not a great way to make working class people like you.

Its time to copy the BNP. Its time to have a broad based "left" party like Der Linke which doesnt try to make everyone who joins into a marxist and who can be relied upon to stand up for workers rights and build strong communities.

People have done this in the UK before, but I feel it should be the focus.



Antifa is not a serious answer to the BNP for the working class folk who vote for them


True. Beating up fash might be needed but it isnt the best option, the best option would be to stand against the BNP in a council election and steal the working class part of their vote.

ten years ago the BNP was lucky to get 2%, now they usually get over 20%.

It can be done. But the SWP cannot be a part of it, they have screwed up WAY too many groups and cannot be trusted not to use any new group as a way to advance their own pathetic party.

What ever happened to the IWCA? Are they still around? they seemed to have the right idea.

[Sam_b]

You can see my thoughts on UAF in the 'interview Antifa' thread, and as seeing that Fen_Boy has already regurgitated his already discredited line on UAF to impress his anarchist friends, i'm not going to undulge into the circle argument again.

If we said aside the slander against the SWP, and Antifa's untrue (Searchlight, for instance) allegations against the organisation (of course its beyond most people in this forum sub-section to dare raise any criticism about Antifa!). Of course, once we get away from all this there is no actual critical analysis of the UAF, only sectarians having potshots at the class credentials of socialists within UAF.

This is where the left has completely and utterly failed. The BNP have been very effective in getting into working class areas and amassing support, whereas all that the left has done is take a thoroughly sectarian attitude to the question of fascism, and instead of uniting feels the need to spread lies (Icepick with regards to UAF encouraging voting for capitalist parties) and non-political slander ('jump on the bandwagon Trotskyist groups') about one of the most vibrant and active antifascist groups in the UK. Coupled with a complete lack of knowledge about the organisation (I don't see how publishing pamphlets and analysis qualifies as 'hiding behind slogans') is a very dangerous mix indeed.

[Devrim]

ten years ago the BNP was lucky to get 2%, now they usually get over 20%.

Please, at which elections did the BNP get over 20% of the vote?

Devrim

[Devrim]

I don't like that Barrot bloke but he makes a good point there.

He is talking about anti-fascism in general, not as you have added in parenthesis '(liberal) anti fascism'.

Devrim

[nuisance]

You can see my thoughts on UAF in the 'interview Antifa' thread, and as seeing that Fen_Boy has already regurgitated his already discredited line on UAF to impress his anarchist friends, i'm not going to undulge into the circle argument again.
This is a talk on UAF, don't bring Antifa into it.
Also it wasn't discredited at all, :rolleyes:
It appears that you have a bad trait of getting things mixed up.


If we said aside the slander against the SWP, and Antifa's untrue (Searchlight, for instance) allegations against the organisation
What's untrue about the UAF working with Searchlight?


Of course, once we get away from all this there is no actual critical analysis of the UAF, only sectarians having potshots at the class credentials of socialists within UAF.
No sectarianism, as UAF isn't a mode of class struggle, as it is a cross class organisation, as you conceded in the antifa thread.

[ComradeG1967]

We need unity not sectarianism. People have different ideas of which approach to defeat the fascist scum and therefore there will naturally be different organizations. Lets concentrate on fighting scum not arguing with each other.

[Sam_b]

This is a talk on UAF, don't bring Antifa into it.

Icepick raised it in fact, but then you wouldn't get on at him would you?


Also it wasn't discredited at all,

Oh really? I love how you seem to leapfrog from position to position and see absolutely no contradiction.


What's untrue about the UAF working with Searchlight?

UAF broke with Searchlight a while ago, I believe.


No sectarianism, as UAF isn't a mode of class struggle, as it is a cross class organisation, as you conceded in the antifa thread.

Now whose memories on the brink? I never conceded this but instead challenged the definition of a 21st century united front, while you pissed about hunting Wikipedia for fake proofs.

I'd get that broken record player fixed, the tune's getting a bit repetative.

[nuisance]

Icepick raised it in fact, but then you wouldn't get on at him would you?
Icepick posted antifa's view of UAF, not criticising antifa when it isn't relevant to the thread.

Oh really? I love how you seem to leapfrog from position to position and see absolutely no contradiction.
:lol:
Perhaps you should refresh yourself?

UAF broke with Searchlight a while ago, I believe.
Congratulations.
Therefore such things weren't untrue as you claim.

Now whose memories on the brink? I never conceded this but instead challenged the definition of a 21st century united front, while you pissed about hunting Wikipedia for fake proofs.
ooooh touched a nerve? No, it was conceded, your own Trotsky quote was even used to varify my position, after which you left that particular point.

I'd get that broken record player fixed, the tune's getting a bit repetative.
:rolleyes:
Truth though but hey, stick to your contortions.

[Sam_b]

ooooh touched a nerve? No, it was conceded, your own Trotsky quote was even used to varify my position, after which you left that particular point

No, not in the slightest, but that never stops you from trying to twist things into having an entirely different meaning.

Another example shines brilliantly here: I apparently conceeded a point according to you one post ago; yet now it was conceeded because a quote verified (apparently) your point! And then, no doubt the circle of denial will keep on going as you try and as usual ultimately fail to worm your way out of it. And no sharp retort will change this fact.

Troll somewhere else, for crying out loud.

[nuisance]

No, not in the slightest, but that never stops you from trying to twist things into having an entirely different meaning.
No twisting at all. Trotsky spoke of oppressed peoples uniting together to form a United Front, not uniting with the ruling class.


Another example shines brilliantly here: I apparently conceeded a point according to you one post ago; yet now it was conceeded because a quote verified (apparently) your point! And then, no doubt the circle of denial will keep on going as you try and as usual ultimately fail to worm your way out of it. And no sharp retort will change this fact.
Erm, what? You conceded a point that I verified. That draws no contradiction to what was stated previously. You're scraping the bottom now with non-sensical rants like this!
No doubt, as I can easily click on to the over thread to actually see it.:rolleyes:


Troll somewhere else, for crying out loud.
:lol:


What is the point you are trying to make? That the UAF isn't a cross class group, like you did before?

[Sam_b]

Good luck trying to find said quotes then. While you're clicking over there, refresh yourself about your failure to give any examples to prove that Antifa as an organisation take part in community projects (which you were insistant upon) before completely switching your position and become confused that there is a difference between 'individual' and 'organisation'.

Maybe check up on your nonsensicle argument that Stop the War, an anti-war and anti-imperialist organisation is apparently a collaborator with the ruling class. And it just keeps on coming!

Your position is ridiculous (which shows by your refusal to quote, make examples or renegade from simply banding around slander) as is your ability to form a coherant argument.

I again see no point in this circle argument continuing.

[nuisance]

Good luck trying to find said quotes then.
"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".- Trotsky.

While you're clicking over there, refresh yourself about your failure to give any examples to prove that Antifa as an organisation take part in community projects (which you were insistant upon) before completely switching your position and become confused that there is a difference between 'individual' and 'organisation'.
No I didn't, these are private matters for antifa members, however Psycho did give a variety of examples. Also this post, like the others in the WSM thread, shows a complete misunderstand of the sort of organisation the antifa is.
But hey, don't be trying to hijack this thread.


Maybe check up on your nonsensicle argument that Stop the War, an anti-war and anti-imperialist organisation is apparently a collaborator with the ruling class. And it just keeps on coming!
Did I actually say that? Proof please.


Your position is ridiculous (which shows by your refusal to quote, make examples or renegade from simply banding around slander) as is your ability to form a coherant argument.
Nope, I have used quotes.
Also what is ridiculous? The fact that you have been able to refute a thing?


I again see no point in this circle argument continuing.
Then why are you refuelling it after I specifically asked you to leave that of it? Hmm.

However, you still have not said what your point is.

[Sam_b]

"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"- Trotsky.


Fail. I'm not interested in a quote which you haven't used to prove anything (I stick to my position that UAF is a united front). I'm interested in the quote which apparently makes me concede a point. I didn't, thus your point "as you conceded in the antifa thread" is moot.


No I didn't, these are private matters for antifa members, however Psycho did give a variety of examples. Also this post, like the others in the WSM thread, shows a complete misunderstand of the sort of organisation the antifa is.
But hey, don't be trying to hijack this thread.


Well thats rich coming from yourself, seeing as in my first post on this thread I maintained I did not want to get into another circle argument, which you seem to be enjoying. But then you're absolutely faultless, eh?

Your point again about 'private matters' and such just reinforce the points I made in the Antifa thread. You're boring me now, so I don't wish to repeat them.


Did I actually say that? Proof please.
On my point "Next you'll be claiming that Stop The War works with the state..."

No, but it collaborates with the ruling class


Also what is ridiculous? The fact that you have been able to refute a thing?

Your constant denial when faced with facts gets on my nerves.

If you wish to continue your ignorant denial-fest, send me a PM. If not please just shut up.

[nuisance]

Fail. I'm not interested in a quote which you haven't used to prove anything (I stick to my position that UAF is a united front). I'm interested in the quote which apparently makes me concede a point. I didn't, thus your point "as you conceded in the antifa thread" is moot.
He speaks of the oppressed uniting, not with MP's that uphold the "strongholds of the old society". It is pretty straight forward.
Well you ceased from critising this reference I made to the quote the first time around.
The difference between a united and popular front is that a untied front is a explicity working class front, UAF, evidently is not. It is a cross class group.:D



Well thats rich coming from yourself, seeing as in my first post on this thread I maintained I did not want to get into another circle argument, which you seem to be enjoying. But then you're absolutely faultless, eh?

Your point again about 'private matters' and such just reinforce the points I made in the Antifa thread. You're boring me now, so I don't wish to repeat them.
Shut up them.
:thumbup:



On my point "Next you'll be claiming that Stop The War works with the state..."
It has members whom are MP's. So yes they collaborate with the ruling class. Unfortunatly for them, however, they hold a very small position in the States apparatus.


Your constant denial when faced with facts gets on my nerves.
Sorry, but what facts?


If you wish to continue your ignorant denial-fest, send me a PM. If not please just shut up.
Irony, much?

[Holden Caulfield]

if you two kids start playing silly buggers and force me to mod things again i will kill you both (metaphorically)

keep it civil kids:thumbup:

[Sam_b]

Your ignorance is unbelievable. Nice dodge on the first point though, you cannot admit you're wrong at all. Not to mention even the glaringly obvious question of STW - how would it be in the ruling class interests the organise against imperialism?

However, i'll state again, seeing as you've dragged this thread back around yet again - if you want to continue your ignorance, PM me. Otherwise take a hike.

[nuisance]

Your ignorance is unbelievable. Nice dodge on the first point though, you cannot admit you're wrong at all.
It's because I'm not wrong, and you cannot even interpret the words of your mentor.

Not to mention even the glaringly obvious question of STW - how would it be in the ruling class interests the organise against imperialism?
To keep peoples faith in parliamentarianism, by forwarding the lie that things can change depending on whom you vote for.

However, i'll state again, seeing as you've dragged this thread back around yet again - if you want to continue your ignorance, PM me. Otherwise take a hike.
Don't reply then.

[Sam_b]

I feel I was justified in that rep.

So much for Fen_Boy's negativity, giving it due to 'being a trot'. Of course i've refuted countless times Fen_Boy's ridiculous one-line arguments, petty sectarianism and outright confusion about what I have and have not said. In his own little world he is unfallable, however in practice on this forum he has shown himself up to be petty and downright difficult to engage in serious discussion.

[nuisance]

I feel I was justified in that rep.

So much for Fen_Boy's negativity, giving it due to 'being a trot'.
It's called sarcasm.

Of course i've refuted countless times Fen_Boy's ridiculous one-line arguments, petty sectarianism and outright confusion about what I have and have not said.
Then why haven't you replied to the points brought up in this thread? Instead of saying repetitive ridiculous one liners that is-"Nice dodge on the first point though". Then why not debunk it with the "truth"?
No matter how much you try to belittle, you can't, as you haven't given a suffice reply to anything.

In his own little world he is unfallable, however in practice on this forum he has shown himself up to be petty and downright difficult to engage in serious discussion.
Like with you? You must be joking, but I suppose you are a member of the vanguard party....

[Sam_b]

Instead of saying repetitive ridiculous one liners that is-"Nice dodge on the first point though". Then why not debunk it with the "truth"?


I didn't see much need for elaboration. As I have said


I'm interested in the quote which apparently makes me concede a point. I didn't, thus your point "as you conceded in the antifa thread" is moot.


Your quote didn't actually hold any relevance, due to my assertion that UAF is a united front. If it is as I maintain and have consistently argued in the thread, then the quote has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. You called me on conceding a point. I did no such thing, as you have lacked a quote of myself actually doing so. If we're palying that game I can go back and raise everything that you have not mentioned and accuse you of conceding these points. However I do not do so as it is completely illogical.

As has been said about the nature of UAF you have indeed maintained it is "a cross class group :D", a "cross class group :lol:" and even "a cross class group:thumbup:" . However, if you care to look back to the thread I have challenged these head-on and have not compromised from my politics or my view on how to effectively fight fascism in today's Britain.

However, you can PM me if you have any other concerns.

[nuisance]

Your quote didn't actually hold any relevance, due to my assertion that UAF is a united front. If it is as I maintain and have consistently argued in the thread, then the quote has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. You called me on conceding a point. I did no such thing, as you have lacked a quote of myself actually doing so. If we're palying that game I can go back and raise everything that you have not mentioned and accuse you of conceding these points. However I do not do so as it is completely illogical.
You conceded that it was a cross class group, therefore, whether you like it or not, it is not a untied front. So you conceded that aspect.
Also the quote I used, was origionally used by you to verify what a untied front was, which also read accordingly, implies that the UAF isn't a united front.

[Sam_b]

You conceded that it was a cross class group, therefore, whether you like it or not, it is not a untied front. So you conceded that aspect.


As the old saying goes - quote or it didn't happen. You seem to have a great habit of accusing me of anything and everything (two original posts of accusations in this thread alone, before having to be prompted for a quote to back it up!).

Of course, your one-line analysis proves nothing. Apparently working class people in UAF are not 'oppressed people rising together', especially if we ignore the plethora of other quotes given eh? But as usual for yourself, if its on Wikipedia or YourDictionary it is the concrete be-all and end-all of your argument.

To be quite honest i've wasted enough time tonight on yourself "you fucking freak" (to use your quotation). Its concrete you have a disgusting attitude towards UAF, and instead of a structured criticism have rendered yourself down to the level of petty bourgeois politicians and their mudslinging to try and prove points. I have no interest in engaging you any more in this thread and completely derailing the thead (very much like you did in the previous one by trying to switch the attention away from Antifa). No doubt you will cling on here for your last word in this thread, to try to wrap things up; but judging on your past performance I doubt you'll do it well.

As i've said, PM me if you're really interested in the broad working class movement to counter fascism.

[nuisance]

As the old saying goes - quote or it didn't happen. You seem to have a great habit of accusing me of anything and everything (two original posts of accusations in this thread alone, before having to be prompted for a quote to back it up!).
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1226767&postcount=24


Of course, your one-line analysis proves nothing. Apparently working class people in UAF are not 'oppressed people rising together'
That isn't what the UAF does, it attempts to bring all classes together, cross-class. If the UAF was the oppressed rising togehter, that would be soley the working class, not the relics of the "old society", that Trotsky is speaking of removing.


Its concrete you have a disgusting attitude towards UAF, and instead of a structured criticism have rendered yourself down to the level of petty bourgeois politicians and their mudslinging to try and prove points.
Like the ones in the UAF?

Up the one liners:mellow:

[Revolutiondownunder]

Please, at which elections did the BNP get over 20% of the vote?

Devrim

Not a general election.

I was refering to local council elections where smaller parties usually do better anyway.

The BNP from what I can see usually gets between 12% and 20% in most of its targeted areas. It gets higher votes than this in working class areas and lower votes in upper/middle class areas and rural areas.

There is no reason why a locally focused broad based left alliance could not do similar. Sadly everyone just seems to attack each other {well rightfully so in the case of anything SWP related}.

Cut out the SWP and start aiming at getting on the local council like the BNP did.

If a bunch of fascist knuckle draggers can do it surely we can.:thumbup:

[Devrim]

Not a general election.

I was refering to local council elections where smaller parties usually do better anyway.

The BNP from what I can see usually gets between 12% and 20% in most of its targeted areas. It gets higher votes than this in working class areas and lower votes in upper/middle class areas and rural areas.

I can't find a figure for the 2008 local elections, but the big three parties got 93% between them, and BNP was the sixth party, so it would have been impossible for them to get the numbers that you are talking about.

In 2007, the major parties again got 93%, and the BNP came in fifth.

In both of these elections they also got less seats than those of local residents associations.

While the BNP have recorded the occasional high vote, your claim that 'they usually get over 20%' is sheer nonsense, which is unsupported by any facts whatsoever.

Devrim

[Revolutiondownunder]

While the BNP have recorded the occasional high vote, your claim that 'they usually get over 20%' is sheer nonsense, which is unsupported by any facts whatsoever.


Sorry I will expand... its clear that saying "usually gets between 12% and 20%" was open to interpretation.

Look at the BNP results put up by Searchlight. In the working class areas which they stand they usually get 10%+ in the targeted working class areas they usually get over 20%.

Check up the records put out by the BNP, the gummint and Searchlight. They are all pretty close.

The bnp is a long way from being relevent to the political debate, but the fact that they have been able to build up electoral strong areas in working class neighbourhoods is worrying.

10 years ago the BNP barely got 2% in council elections. Now they regularly get over 20% in council elections and have over 100 councillors [many of whom are just parish level but still better than anyone on the rev-left has been able to do].

Why has the BNP been able to do this when working class revolutionary groups have built up no similar strongholds? Unless you count universities as strongholds of course.:rolleyes:

[Devrim]

RDU,

Look at the two statements:


ten years ago the BNP was lucky to get 2%, now they usually get over 20%.

Now they regularly get over 20% in council elections

They are not the same, are they?

The big parties get 93% of the vote in local elections, which means that the BNP, which came in fifth and sixth (sixth, or seventh if you included residents associations as a party) can not get more than 2% of the vote.

The fact that in a few isolated instances they have recorded high votes doesn't change this.

What I am rejecting is the complete over exaggeration of this threat. There was a bloke on here the other day claiming that they 'regularly murder, tortured, and raped' left wing militants. A realistic analysis can't be based on exaggerated fishing stories.

Devrim

[Revolutiondownunder]

They are not the same, are they?


Nope.


What I am rejecting is the complete over exaggeration of this threat. There was a bloke on here the other day claiming that they 'regularly murder, tortured, and raped' left wing militants. A realistic analysis can't be based on exaggerated fishing stories.

yeah, you got that much right, a lot of the "scare" stories are mostly to try and get anti-nazis to show up and protest.

What I was trying to say is that the BNP is moving into areas that the revolutionary-left should be.

The communities they win in are the same communities WE should be in. No bullshit if the thinking in those areas changes from class awareness to race based awareness it makes it all the harder for the left to get in afterwards.

The bnp is not about to take power, probably ever.

But the damage they can do in working class areas to how working people see the world is just as bad as the big tabloids.

[welshboy]

In my (n)ever so humble an opinion SWP/UAF=scum. I've met some lovely folk who are involved in both organisations but the actions of the party and UAF have been despicable. I mean the whole thing with the RWB was absolutely disgusting and showed, yet again, the desperate need for the SWP to attempt to control events and movements and in doing so drive them into the ground.
Central command of UAF even managed to shite all over their local group who had been working on organising against the BNP.
The SWP have been up to this for decades now and have attempted to halt the development of any truly radical movement time and time again. They tried it with the ANL where they expelled any members who it was found were actually hpysically confronting fascists on the streets, they tried it with Globalise Resistance and failed dismally and they succeeded in doing so with the anti-war movement via StWC.
It's the StWC that sicken me more than anything though. Back in '03 there were millions of us out on the streets marching against the war and thanks to the StWC this energy was dissipated on a bunch of pointless and disempowering marches from A to fucking B. We've got no one to blame for it but ourselves however as we let the fuckers do it.
A wee while ago there was a humerous article on Indymedia by a mate of mine that accused the SWP of being a wing of the state as they have been so succesful at stifling revolutionary movements over the years that there can be no other explanation. Whilst the article was satiricle it is, like all good satire, entirely believable.
Groups like the SWP are as much an enemy of the class and the revolution as fascists and capitalists, they only get away with it because we let them.
That and a lot, if not most, of their grass roots activists are actually nice well intentioned activists. I know so many people who started out in the SWP but either left in disgust at the behaviour of the party and moved to a more libertarian perspective or just gave up on politics all together.
Disgusting.

[Revolutiondownunder]

In my (n)ever so humble an opinion SWP/UAF=scum


Im sure there are good people in the organisations.

But cmon! How much failure can you take? The SWP trys to take over any group it joins and ends up splitting them all.

But thats Ok... because the SWP survives.

Left list, Socialist alliance, Stop the War coalition, Respect and UAF.... is there anything they CANT stuff up?:confused:

Seriously wipe them off the map and the whole picture looks a lot better.

[Hit The North]

You conceded that it was a cross class group, therefore, whether you like it or not, it is not a untied front.

Antifa are not even part of the class. You don't hold public meetings; you're not interested in recruiting a mass base; you don't engage with the class on any basis.

It's a pathetic spectacle listening to avowed squadists like Antifa moaning that the SWP sabotage the mass movement which they are incapable of building and which they are not even interested in building.


Originally posted by Revolutiondownunder
Seriously wipe them off the map and the whole picture looks a lot better.

That's laughable. Without the energy of our activists, there would have been no ANL, SA, StW, etc.

[Holden Caulfield]

It's a pathetic spectacle listening to avowed squadists like Antifa moaning that the SWP sabotage the mass movement which they are incapable of building and which they are not even interested in building.


as far as i am aware no members of antifa (uk or otherwise) have moaned about the SWP...

if anarchist anti-fascists complain they are still not part of antifa uk which is a federated group

[nuisance]

Antifa are not even part of the class. You don't hold public meetings; you're not interested in recruiting a mass base; you don't engage with the class on any basis.
Was this even up for contention? No and it doesn't disprove anything said. Well done.

[welshboy]

That's laughable. Without the energy of our activists, there would have been no ANL, SA, StW, etc.
Getting the point. You're doing it wrong.
This would be a good thing. The ANL attempted to suck anti-fascism into a mire of pointless marches and concert throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's. If it wasn't for militant groups including AFA, Red Action and member of the ANL expelled for 'squaddism' we would have much more of a problem with the fash in this country.
The StWC succeeded where the ANL failed and managed to completely neiter the anger expressed by millions of people against the war. The StWC have the blood of Iraqi and Afghan children on their hands.
I admit some culpability lays at the feet of the anarchist and direct action movement in the UK as we allowed the scum to get away with it.

[Hit The North]

Welshboy, laying aside the validity (or otherwise) of your criticisms of the ANL, this:


The StWC have the blood of Iraqi and Afghan children on their hands.is one of the most ludicrous and shameful claims I've ever read on this board.


I admit some culpability lays at the feet of the anarchist and direct action movement in the UK as we allowed the scum to get away with it.To be fair, the anarchists and "direct action movement" are too insignificant to allow anyone to get away with anything. Stop deluding yourself.

[welshboy]

Globalise Resistance

[welshboy]

Actually with the blood quote I should have been a bit more specific.

The steering committee of the StWC has blood on its hands.

[Hit The North]

Actually with the blood quote I should have been a bit more specific.

The steering committee of the StWC has blood on its hands.

Are you taking anything for it?

[welshboy]

It's completely true.
They directed all the anger and passion against the war into pathetic A-B marches that have never achieved anything and never will.
There were millions of us on that big march and if even a fraction of those there had committed to physically preventing the war machine from rolling into motion we could have actually done something.
But no. Police approved marches that end in boring speeches by wankers like Benn soon deflated any passion people previously felt. The bland pandering to 'respectability' made the anti-war movement more ineffective than a fart in a thunderstorm. The blame for the ease with which the British state went to war lays squarely at the feet of the StWC and by default the SWP.
So yeah if it wasn't for the SWP there would have been no StWC, no ANL and no SA. Good. The sooner you lot haemorragh the last of your members and piffle off into non existence the better for the working class.
I say again, the SWP have done such a good job of quashing dissent that the party may as well be in league with the state. (not saying it is, just that it may as well be.)

[Hit The North]

I
There were millions of us on that big march and if even a fraction of those there had committed to physically preventing the war machine from rolling into motion we could have actually done something.


Sonny, there was nothing stopping you. If this "fraction" was so weak and puny that the SWP towered like a colossus above it and constrained it from action, then it was too weak and puny to even dent the British state's war effort.


The blame for the ease with which the British state went to war lays squarely at the feet of the StWC and by default the SWP. If this was the case - that an organisation of a few thousand could influence and throw off track the militant mood of millions - it merely demonstrates the political vacuum which exists on the left. You and your comrades were - and remain - perfectly free to agitate, educate and organize a more effective repsonse. Why didn't you?


So yeah if it wasn't for the SWP there would have been no StWC, no ANL and no SA. Good. The sooner you lot haemorragh the last of your members and piffle off into non existence the better for the working class.
Perhaps. But the evidence is that your non-existent alternative - you know, the one that failed to agitate, educate and organise an alternative - has already piffled.


I say again, the SWP have done such a good job of quashing dissent that the party may as well be in league with the state. (not saying it is, just that it may as well be.) See, you falling short of complete and utter frothing-at-the-mouth ultra-left shrieking paranoia disappoints me. Maybe the tablets are working. :)

[Sam_b]

The StWC succeeded where the ANL failed and managed to completely neiter the anger expressed by millions of people against the war. The StWC have the blood of Iraqi and Afghan children on their hands.

So the hundreds of thousands of STW activists on the Time to Go demo and action which sped up Blair's resignation wasn't a victory?

The fact that STW have effectively won the arguments to the extent that if Iran is attacked the outry will be more so than the war in Iraq isn't a victory?

I think your position of banding around that STW has 'blood on its hands' is petty, sectarian and fundamentally anti-leftist. If STW failed (which it hasn't) in directing the 'anger and passion against the war' then it is the anarchist movement as well which did pretty much nothing either. This is typical of sectarians - the popularity and success of STW was so big that other groups (and like yourself) are effectively removing themselves of any responsibility in organising and participating in anti-war work, thus making it seem that STW has a monopoly over the antiwar and anti-imperialist movement. Its not true. I think you should be fucking ashamed of yourself to make such a serious claim about an organisation having 'blood on its hands' with such flimsy evidence. You have warped logic.

[Holden Caulfield]

to risk being a hate figure im gonna say piss off and debate the SWP where they belong (either chit-chat or politics) coz this is antifascism forum people,

discuss them in regards to UAF by all means and bring in other examples like you have but this isnt a discussion on the SWP!

[Hit The North]

Sorry, Holden, but this will inevitably happen when you call for a debate on the UAF. All the little Lenins and Kropotkins will come out of the woodwork and denounce the SWP for failing to galvinize - or even deliberately squashing - the revolutionary surge of da peeple or whatever.

These people want to take on the capitalist state and they can't even take on the bloody SWP. It would be laughable if their whining wasn't so painful.

[welshboy]

I think your position of banding around that STW has 'blood on its hands' is petty, sectarian and fundamentally anti-leftist.

No it's not anti-leftist. It's anti-SWP. If I wanted to be anti leftist I'd join the SWP.


This is typical of sectarians - the popularity and success of STW was so big that other groups (and like yourself) are effectively removing themselves of any responsibility in organising and participating in anti-war work,

Not at all. I quite readily admit that the response to the war from the anarchist movement was fucking pathetic. I was at the time involved in some action against the war as it goes. As were quite a lot of other anarchos. You lot had access to a larger audience however.


thus making it seem that STW has a monopoly over the antiwar and anti-imperialist movement.

Thought that's what the SWP did. You know taking responsibility for others successes, which (moving back to the topic slowly) they did with the ANL. The reason that we managed to beat the fash into retreat was because those you lot describe as 'squaddist' took them to task.
Note that the ANL expelled any members who it was found were physically confronting the fash, ie being effective.


Its not true. I think you should be fucking ashamed of yourself to make such a serious claim about an organisation having 'blood on its hands' with such flimsy evidence. You have warped logic.

No the SWP were in a position during the run up to war that had they made a call for actual action against the war we could have had an effect. As it goes all you lot did was pal up to religious nutjobs, steer everything into A-B marches that were so stifling any inkling of radicalism fucked off for a pint.

Back to UAF. It was vile what they did, even shafting their own local group. Shows how which they prefer when it comes to choosing whether to collaborate with other left groups or to attempt to divide the initiative in a vain grasp at being able to control the initiative.

Sorry for the derail there folks.

[Revolutiondownunder]

Sorry, Holden, but this will inevitably happen when you call for a debate on the UAF. All the little Lenins and Kropotkins will come out of the woodwork and denounce the SWP for failing to galvinize - or even deliberately squashing - the revolutionary surge of da peeple or whatever.

nothing so dramatic.

If you have a single group constantly trying to use entryism on every other left group for years and all of the campaigns they get control of end up failing then there is serious cause for concern.

[Hit The North]

Firstly, you need to read up on what entryism actually is. Secondly, you need to identify which campaigns would have benefited without the input of thousands of SWP activists. Thirdly, you need to tell us which left-wing campaigns in the UK without the SWP have actually succeeded in order to demonstrate that the SWP's influence is to blame in those campaigns which failed.