BNP

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Red_Hooligan+November 18, 2007 05:42 am--> (Red_Hooligan @ November 18, 2007 05:42 am)

Originally posted by devrim+--> (devrim)I was talking to a railway worker, who I am pretty sure is a member of the CHP (Republican People's Party) the other week, and he told me that 'We are going to cleanse the Kurds'. What are you saying I should do? Never speak to him again, or argue for class politics?[/b]

If someone told me he wanted to "cleanse" any ethnic group, I would say to him,

"What the fuck do you mean? That kind of shit disgusts me. If that's what you're into, you're talking to the wrong guy."
[/b]

OK, so here we are in a war situation. Over 80% of the population supports military intervention, and many of them are saying things like that. What are you going to do refuse to speak to them on moral grounds? It may make you feel personally righteous, but what you are doing is cutting yourself off from the working class. Effectively you are abdicating from even an idea of a struggle of ideas within the working class.

Originally posted by Red_Hooligan
You've fought fascists in the streets...the same ones you're "friends" with? What if you met THEM in a street battle one night? Would you "take it easy" on them, or even run away? Gosh, don't want to alienate the pro-fascist workers. We need to argue with them, right?

Here I am not sure what this mocking tone is for. I think it is to do with the fact that there isn't a political argument here at all. Yes, of course we need to argue with fascist workers. Let's look at why:

Originally posted by Red_Hooligan
Whoops, forgot to address Devrim's ignored-point.

Devrim

@
So let's look at one real practical example, the current national Telekom strike. There are 26,000 strikers. Even if we imagine that only 10% voted fascist, that would still leave over 2,500 of the strikers as fascist voters. What do you suggest that we do, attack them on picket lines? No, that is absurd. We argue for class politics.

Fascist voters are inherently anti-worker. Nazis and KDP members stood side-by-side during strikes in Germany, 1930's.

What they SHOULD have done, is treated molotov cocktails and bricks to the heads of Nazis, as much as they did the police! T

Any breathing room we give them to organize, will come back to bite us in the ass later on. We'll slap our heads, and realize that we should have been BASHING THEM and keeping them from getting strong in the first place.

By the way, if the fascists have safety and freedom to "exist" in a workers' strike, then they ARE organizing, this you can be sure. That isn't "OK" with me.

To sum it up, yes, on the picket line you should identify who is "with you" in the long run, or who is a detriment to your struggle.

Actually, you didn't answer it here either. The question was 'do we attack striking workers on picket lines?'. You skate around it. Never mind. Let's deal with the points you make.

Of course fascists exist in workers' strikes. In our country we have fascist unions. The point about a strike though is that it is workers fighting for their own interests on a class terrain*. Of course revolutionaries should struggle for the unity of the working class, and attempt to introduce class politics into the struggle. Your solution seems to be to attack other workers.

Your analogy with Germany misses the point. The problem wasn't that KPD members, and Nazis were on strike together. This happens it is a workers' struggle on a class terrain, and we welcome it. It gives us a chance to argue with these workers on our terms. The point is that the KPD co-operated with the fascists on their terrain, that of the national question, organising joint demonstrations with them in the name of national independence.

The communist left, absolutely rejects the idea of any cooperation with fascist groups. I would also note here that this is note the case with many leftist organisations, and many of them are dragged into co-operating in the name of 'national liberation'. What we do not reject is the idea of arguing class politics with workers whatever their politics.

Red_Hooligan

Fascists and bourgeois politicians are fundamentally different.

Voting for bourgeois politicians is simply an ignorant act in futility. It won't change anything.

Voting for fascist politicians is an act of aggression. If a fascist party takes control of your government, you can expect quite a few "changes" to come about. The few "freedoms" that the bourgeois governments granted you will be swept away, not to mention whatever campaigns of racial/ethnic killings, as well as a historically-large increase in political imprisonments.

It is funny, because as we remember it in this country the last time we had pogroms, and mass imprisonment, the army was in power not the fascists. And guess who is the main supporter of that very same army today...yes the social democrats.

I remember the fascists being part of a coalition government a few years ago, and nothing really changed.

The point is that the bourgeoisie will use mass repression against the working class, and pogrom against ethnic/and religious minorities. Sometimes the parties doing this will call themselves fascist, and at other times they will call themselves socialist.

Noske opened the road that led to Hitler.

Today all bourgeois parties are equally anti-working class. There is no progressive bourgeoisie. All of these parties will use repression against both the working class, and minorities when they need it.

The leftists fetishism of anti-fascism is looking increasingly irrelevant.

Devrim

*There are exceptions to this. Things like the UWC, or the 'Powell strike' but they are neither relevant to the example that I gave nor to the point.

[Red_Hooligan]

Originally posted by devrim+--> (devrim)OK, so here we are in a war situation. Over 80% of the population supports military intervention, and many of them are saying things like that. What are you going to do refuse to speak to them on moral grounds? It may make you feel personally righteous, but what you are doing is cutting yourself off from the working class. Effectively you are abdicating from even an idea of a struggle of ideas within the working class.[/b]

Devrim, I understand what you keep saying about struggling within the working class. But my concern is, where do you draw the line? You've mentioned that you've fought fascists before (which is commendable), but where do you decide to "argue" and where do you decide to "fight"? Which workers are the ones your argue with, and which are the ones you smash? You can't "argue" with every "fascist" you meet. That will get us no where, and you seem to understand that.

Do you suggest trying to struggle for ideas among workers who are "new" to fascist ideas, and not yet carved in stone with them? Let's say you are arguing on a daily basis with a fascist worker in your workplace. You don't really get anywhere with this, and in fact his prominence in the fascist party or fascist union keeps growing.

So, when you stop arguing? Never? When he becomes such a fascist, that he's handing out propaganda every day after work, going to rallies? How about when he starts attacking us?

I just don't see how you can pick and choose when to struggle ideologically, and when to struggle physically.

Originally posted by devrim@
Actually, you didn't answer it here either. The question was 'do we attack striking workers on picket lines?'. You skate around it. Never mind. Let's deal with the points you make.

I already did answer it. Scroll up; my analogy to the KDP's mistake was what I think about striking with fascist workers.

devrim

Of course fascists exist in workers' strikes. In our country we have fascist unions. The point about a strike though is that it is workers fighting for their own interests on a class terrain*. Of course revolutionaries should struggle for the unity of the working class, and attempt to introduce class politics into the struggle. Your solution seems to be to attack other workers.

I know that, at least where I live, 95% of the organized fascists are what you could consider "working class". They're poor, angry white men. Some of them are rich angry white men or women, but most fit into the first category.

They're class traitors, not to mention explicitly racist and genocidal. Why would we want to give them softer treatment, and try to convince them that they're in a fucked-up direction?

Fascists who flip-flop to our side have historically flip-flopped back, and given out our information to the fascists. It's not worth the risk, and it doesn't seem necessary to me to try to work with them just because they're "working-class".

Coincidentally, I have to get going to MMA training.

I'll talk about the rest of your post much later tonight when I get back.

Later

[Specter]

There is even class struggle within fascism, you have leftwing fascism - mosleyism, national-syndicalism, peronism and such, and than you have rightwing fascism such as Salazars government, the spanish falange and others (Maybe Pinochetism, im not sure if Pinochets government can be defined as fascist). Im not quite sure if Mussolinis fascism was leftwing ore right.

But fascism have almost no followers annymore, at least I am surprised to se so many people here knowing people that they see as "fascists".

I think fascism is irrelevant. racism and nazism is a more important enemy.

Oh, and what is MMA training? Just curious.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Red_Hooligan+November 18, 2007 04:16 pm--> (Red_Hooligan @ November 18, 2007 04:16 pm) Devrim, I understand what you keep saying about struggling within the working class. But my concern is, where do you draw the line? You've mentioned that you've fought fascists before (which is commendable), but where do you decide to "argue" and where do you decide to "fight"? Which workers are the ones your argue with, and which are the ones you smash? You can't "argue" with every "fascist" you meet. That will get us no where, and you seem to understand that.

Do you suggest trying to struggle for ideas among workers who are "new" to fascist ideas, and not yet carved in stone with them? Let's say you are arguing on a daily basis with a fascist worker in your workplace. You don't really get anywhere with this, and in fact his prominence in the fascist party or fascist union keeps growing.

So, when you stop arguing? Never? When he becomes such a fascist, that he's handing out propaganda every day after work, going to rallies? How about when he starts attacking us?

I just don't see how you can pick and choose when to struggle ideologically, and when to struggle physically.
[/b]

So what do you suggest doing to this worker, beating him up? What do you think the response would be?

In my opinion it would polarise political opinion in the workplace. Every worker who didn't support some sort of leftist group would feel sympathy towards the beaten fascist. This is the reality of the situation in Turkey today.

Also things can get a bit more serious here a little more quickly than they can in America. I imagine that beating up a fascist leader would cause you to get shot.

So, when you stop arguing? Never?

The point is that it is not about time it is about the situation. There are times when it is necessary to confront fascists in the streets. The most important one is when workers organisations are being attacked. In these situations there is no option.

I would also argue that their are situations not to fight against fascists:

Devrim

Actually, you didn't answer it here either. The question was 'do we attack striking workers on picket lines?'. You skate around it. Never mind. Let's deal with the points you make.

I already did answer it. Scroll up; my analogy to the KDP's mistake was what I think about striking with fascist workers.

The strike is a weapon of the working class. It is generally not a weapon of the fascists. When the fascist worker is on strike. He is not striking as a member of a fascist party, but as a worker. He is engaging in the class struggle whether he likes it, or not. He is fighting for the interests of the working class. This is exactly the situation where workers are open to socialist ideas.

A few weeks ago we were on a picket line giving out leaflets. One worker asked one of our comrades if it was anything from the left, and refused to take it. I looked back at him, and saw he was wearing a fascist badge. What should I have done, turned around and smacked him one? How do you think his fellow workers would have reacted?

Devrim

[Specter]

A Fascist party in Turky? What the name of the party? Do they have a website ore something?

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Originally posted by Specter@November 21, 2007 08:02 am
A Fascist party in Turky? What the name of the party? Do they have a website ore something?

That's probably the Grey Wolves.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Specter@November 21, 2007 08:02 am
A Fascist party in Turky? What the name of the party? Do they have a website ore something?

I would characterise these parties as fascist:
MHP
BBP
İsci Partisi
Devrim

[freedomofspeech91]

The BNP is indeed a racist group.

They want an England with a purely indiginous group of Brits and the current leader wrote a book where he believe all the BBC are jewish but he can only name around 15 jews who work for the BBC.

Also in the book the leader denies the Holocaust.

[luxemburg89]

Originally posted by freedomofspeech91@December 06, 2007 06:21 pm
The BNP is indeed a racist group.

They want an England with a purely indiginous group of Brits and the current leader wrote a book where he believe all the BBC are jewish but he can only name around 15 jews who work for the BBC.

Also in the book the leader denies the Holocaust.

I think you'll find the BNP are not limited to England, they are the British National Party. Their threat is not limited to England alone. To be honest the belief that British people will become an ethnic minority in 'their own' country can easily be interpreted as extremely Nationalist. For an example they imply that the country belongs to White Anglo-Saxons and not any small ethnic groups, whom they perceive to be robbing the WASP society of the country. They also make the idiotic mistake of thinking that a 'country' belongs to anyone - I do not see Nick Griffin's name written on the South Downs, on the Yorkshire Moors, anywhere in the Lake District, it is not imbedded in the soil of the Brecon Beacons, nor is it on the thousands of fields dotted about the country. Countries are, as far as I'm concerned, a disgusting barrier used by the few to divide the majority and set them in competition with each other. Anyone who sees their country as above another is as good as a fascist in my eyes - I will not oppose anyone calling the BNP fascist; as our friend above clearly demonstrates that they probably are.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by redrogue@October 30, 2007 03:22 pm
I spoke to a BNP supporter who said his party was not about Nazi Fascism, but about democracy. He supports them because he doesn't want "indigenous brits to become an ethnic minority in their own country". But, he said he was not a Nazi, Fascist or Holacaust Denier.

Thoughts Guys?

The grass roots of the BNP are not ideological fascists, but if you look at the leadership it is very easy to see that the party is run by hardened Nazi's who have in the past attempted to blow up a school in South Africa (Lambertus Nieuwhof). Nick Griffin was in the NF and called for race wars and was filmed by the BBC denying the holocaust as "holohoax". Many of its organisers have been to prison for racially violent crimes and one BNP organiser was sent to prison for having loads of weapons in his property ready for when the race wars start.

These people have attempted to brand themselves as "democratic" good honest folk as an attempt to appeal to a wider audience. The fact is, they are professional liars who have been exposed on numerous occasions as being neo-nazis.

Don't be fooled by them.

[Pebblewalker]

How come nobody has noticed the BNP is destroying itself

Lancaster Unite Against Fascism