Hmm. Back to the drawing board

The last temptation is the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong reason. What would the success criteria be for a successful national anti-fascist demonstration? I’ll throw some suggestions into the pot and you can add your own or rubbish mine. It needs to be pretty big. Maybe at least fifteen to…

Liam

June 21, 2008

2–3 minutes

The last temptation is the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong reason.

What would the success criteria be for a successful national anti-fascist demonstration? I’ll throw some suggestions into the pot and you can add your own or rubbish mine.

It needs to be pretty big. Maybe at least fifteen to twenty thousand to show that it has been built by a serious movement.
It needs to have an organising body which covers a wide spectrum of the Labour Movement and which can get its component parts to work to build the demonstration.
It needs to be built in the areas where the fascists are trying to gather strength.
It needs to have large numbers of non-white faces since they are the ones who are in most immediate danger from a combative fascist group.

Most people I spoke to, and they were from a range of political traditions with experience of lots of demonstrations, agreed that there were in the region of 2000 people at today’s Love Music Hate Racism event. The march and concert were announced on the Sunday following the London election results which saw a BNP member elected to the London assembly. The world was informed that it was happening through an article in Socialist Worker in the names of two well known SWP members who seemed determined to convince people that Love Music Hate Racism is a front organisation. Coming a few days after the Left List’s disappointing London election results it could have made a suspicious sort of person conclude that the tonic required after that sort of setback was a burst of activity building for a demonstration.

The political preparation for the event would have done little to eradicate the suspicion. The meetings and leafletting sessions organised to build for the event were arranged on a pretty exclusive basis and there was little obvious interest in reaching out to forces other than those invited to be platform speakers.

Anyone with eyes in their head who was present at today’s event would have to conclude that lessons have to be drawn from what went wrong today. Sometimes it is just not a good idea to organise an event in a rush so that you can be seen to be doing something. Any meaningful attempt to build an anti-fascist united front event requires that potential partners are not presented with an ultimatum but are given a chance to get involved. As an example, whatever our views on the Labour Party, not one Labour banner was carried – and you cannot build a real anti-fascist campaign that does not aim to make some orientation to Labour which is wider than John Mc Donnell and Jeremy Corbyn, excellent as they are.

The methodology behind today’s event produced what was probably the smallest demonstration I have ever seen in Trafalgar Square. It was essentially the far left and its periphery plus a smallish group of people who had been mobilised through their unions. There may have been music but no one with an instrument had taken the stage by 3.15 by which time the lure of a cup of tea had become unsuppressable.

Download the Respect anti-BNP leaflet here

139 responses to “Hmm. Back to the drawing board”

Antonio Labriola

June 21, 2008 at 4:59 pm

This is what Lenin’s Tomb says.

‘Thousands already present at the anti-BNP protest due to kick-off soon. However, the police have been quite aggressive. A number of individuals spotted at the Bush protest have been arrested. More to come later.’

‘Update: It has turned into a really lively event with thousands thronging the streets. The police are taking pictures of the protesters but the DJ simply advised the crowd to “stick your middle figure up to that camera right there”. ‘

This is a truly shocking pravdaesque performance. As V I Lenin said ‘revolutionaries have nothing to fear from the truth’. Clearly the pravdaisation of Lenin’s Tomb shows that the SWP have quite a lot to fear from a proper accounting of events.

Here comes the WRP.

LikeLike

Reply
Philosophy Football

June 21, 2008 at 6:14 pm

Meantime some of us were in Redbridge with Searchlight leafletting door-to-door in one of two wards where the BNP are standing in council by-elections. Wards which if the BNP win they will be building a serious momentum towards winning a parliamentary seat and control of Barking Council. And if they don’t win we begin to reverse the BNP tide.

You can visit both the LMHR and UAF websites and not find one single reference to these by-elections and campaigning there. I’d be interested to know if any effort was made at this ill-conceived and badly attended demo to actually mobilise people to leaflet in these by-elections.

Lets be clear. A party which can stand in 642 wards on 1 May 2008 and win an average of 13.4% of the vote is not going to be defeated by a central London march through empty streets. Still no doubt the sales of various socialist newspapers probably went up. Fat lot of use that will be stopping the BNP mind. Pathetic.

Mark P

LikeLike

Reply
harpymarx

June 21, 2008 at 6:24 pm

I too reckon around 2,000 marchers and have just written up my own account. I found it vibrant and energetic but the numbers were disappointing (though there were a number of trade union banners).

Broadly speaking, I agree with Liam’s analysis.

LikeLike

Reply
UAF demo « Harpymarx

June 21, 2008 at 6:29 pm

[…] demo was vibrant though disappointing with the actual numbers marching while over at Liam’s blog he estimates around 2,000 and he’s […]

LikeLike

Reply
Andy Newman

June 21, 2008 at 7:32 pm

What a fiasco.

Mark P is completely correct here.

The serious anti-fascist activity is the door to door work in Redbridge, and elsewhere around the country arguing with and trying to win over BNP supporters, and also trying to build rooted local progressive campaigns in the working class communities that are giving the BNP a hearing.

LikeLike

Reply
Kevin Ovenden

June 21, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Mark P

I came across no mention at all of moblilisations for leafleting in Chadwell Heath and Hornchurch.

I’m afraid this was a truly awful turnout for a national demonstration against the BNP. In its wake ought to come some serious reflection from all wings of the bitterly divided anti-BNP campaign and from serious people on the left about how to build an effective response to the BNP.

The failure of this demonstration is very damaging because it gives the impression that this is the scale of the anti-fascist sentiment and mobilising capacity in Britain.

Learning from this requires coming to terms with reality – this was a miserable mobilisation.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark P

June 21, 2008 at 7:45 pm

The effective response was the leafletting that is going on in Chadwell Heath and Hornchurch to stop the BNP winning these vital council by-elections.

The ineffective response was a badly attended and ill-conceived march through the empty streets of central London and those who went along with the charade that this might be a good idea. It wasn’t. Still it kept those socialist paper sellers happy.

Mark p

LikeLike

Reply
Kevin Ovenden

June 21, 2008 at 8:31 pm

Mark P

I’m sure that the leafleting achieved more than the demonstration – which was a step backwards.

The issue remains, however, how to construct the kind of coalition of forces that pushed back the NF in the 1970s and the BNP in the early 1990s. With the BNP advancing, I don’t think anyone can claim to have answered that question.

Overall, the movement is not in that good shape.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark P

June 21, 2008 at 8:46 pm

The point is that the BNP organisationally in 2008 is entirely different to the NF of the late 1970s, and the Tyndall’s BNP of the early 1990s.

This is a party that on 1 May contested 642 council wards, winning an average of 13.4% of the vote. The core of that vote is in Labour seats.

The coalition of forces depends on a community-led campaign. Yes eventually that means a political force that can challenge Labour in these areas from the left but Respect and others are a very long way away from even being able to contest 642 wards let alone the prospect of achieving this level of vote.

So in the immediate future with the Stoke Mayoral and Euro elections in 2009 and a General Election in 2010 with a real chance of a BNP breakthrough it means supporting these community-led localised campaigns to stop the BNP. Anything else is a leftist indulgence of satisfying our anti-fascist conscience with the odd march through the empty streets of Central London, in ever-decreasing numbers.

If the Far Left and others had more of a sense of its own glaring inabilty to develop an effective strategy to stop the BNP it would have the humility to appreciate it doesn’t have much to offer right now and instead recognise the importance of the analysis mapped out by Nick Lowles in the current issue of Searchlight >

http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=233

Mark P

LikeLike

Reply
Kevin Ovenden

June 21, 2008 at 9:27 pm

Mark P

I agree with much of what you’re saying, as you know. But there remains the issue of how few people are pursuing an effective strategy and the failure, thus far, to throw the BNP back.

The tone of Nick’s article was very helpful – one could imagine it helping people, such as the national officers and local officials of the FBU I met today, develop powerful local coalitions of forces.

It might be difficult to patiently explain in the face of sectarian idiocy and provocation; but it makes it all the more necessary.

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

June 21, 2008 at 10:17 pm

I’d anticipated a torrent of ad hominen abuse for this account.

LikeLike

Reply
Kevin Ovenden

June 21, 2008 at 10:52 pm

Liam

A good number of SWP members on the demonstration today acknowledged that the turnout was terrible and that there was a major problem with the process that led up to the march.

Those who are often wound up to go on the attack were today at bay, indeed subdued.

It would be wishful thinking, I fear, to mistake the absence of abuse directed at you for the kind of systematic rethinking that ought to follow a debacle like this. But one can hope.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 21, 2008 at 11:39 pm

Having just been on the demo I’m happy to report there were many more than the 2,000 people certain members of Renewal claim were on the demo. I think these cynics are treading a dangerous path because in an attempt to score points against the SWP they are rubbishing any activity that Renewal doesn’t sanction. This can only play into the BNP’s hands and demoralise the left even further.

The BNP thrive on the failure of the left and the continued sectarian attacks on any initiative that these members of Renewal don’t support is encouraging this. They claim it is constructive criticism but they have nothing positive to say and instead heap denigration on the activity of others.

The cynicism that is expressed by certain members of Renewal is not an answer to fighting the BNP and even if they had another strategy (which they don’t) they behave like cheerleaders for demoralisation. Lecturing anti-nazi’s that they should be in Dagenham when in fact they have already been campaigning in these areas is going to alienate people on the left instead of win them to this opportunistic arguement.

These Renewal cynics pose an either/or arguement in an attempt to accuse the rest of the left that they are against campaigning in Dagenham. This counterposition of activity is dishonest and destructive because no one on the left is argueing against a varied approach to fighting the BNP. It’s just another attempt by these cynics to drive a wedge between the left for their own opportunistic ends. Counterposing Dagenham to the LMHR demo is akin to the tactic they used when they counterposed the Livingstone meeting to the LMHR carnival.

These Renewal members claim that Searchlight shows the way forward for the left in the fight against the BNP yet the Islamophobic and homophobic campaign strategy used by Searchlight may have helped a local BNP councillor onto the GLA. It certainly didn’t hamper the BNP’s vote in the areas they claim to have campaigned in.

The problem is that the mobilisation of people opposed to the war and the nazi’s is not possible on the scale that it was in the past. The demo didn’t attract huge numbers but why is that controversial or a surprise when, apart from the LMHR carnival, all demo’s and protest have been much smaller in recent years. Blaming the SWP is a convenient excuse for not acknowledging the demoralisation among workers that the left is facing. A demoralisation that has been brought about by the willingness of the reformist left such as Livingstone to adopt the policies of New Labour.

It is the rubbishing of attempts by the left to engage workers in these struggles that will demoralise workers even further and not the actual size of this activity. This cynicism will help promote the agenda of the centre left who want to exclude anyone who doesn’t follow their bureaucratic and stifling approach. Who needs the neo-liberals when certain members of Renewal are willing to scupper any initiative that doesn’t promote themselves.

It’s sad that there are members of Renewal who are still attempting to promote demoralisation among the left with their cynicism in order to perpetuate a fued. Yet it demonstates that the split wasn’t about accountability in Respect but about political differences. And once again, this is evident in the differences in our attitude to organising againt the BNP. On the one hand there is the vibrant can do approach of those who remained in Respect and, on the other, the moribund cynicism of certain leading figures in Renewal who rubbish every initiative that they do not lead.

It appears that certain members of Renewal are willing to court the pro-war left and the Brownite left in an unholy alliance to promote demoralisation around any activity they do not control and split the left still further. The left needs to resist this attack on its independence and motivation.

LikeLike

Reply
Kevin Ovenden

June 22, 2008 at 12:03 am

Ray

What a sorry mess. It’s clear from your post that this was an enervating experience for all those who had been told this marked a breakthrough/landmark/marker/beginning in the fight against the BNP.

I must tell you this in all honesty – I’ve actually recently heard a saner narrative than yours from a Newsline journalist.

Go back and think again. If you haven’t got it by now your comment has managed to blame everyone in the movement from George Galloway to Jon Cruddas (I presume he’s the “pro-war left “you are referring to) and Nick Brown/Dave Prentis for the parlous state of your mobilisation.

SWP members who are reading this really need to ask themselves if this is where they thought they’d end up.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 22, 2008 at 12:47 am

Kevin, your incessant rubbishing of every initiative Renewal doesn’t control is quite perverse. Even those on the left who are antagonistic to the SWP realise that we have to work together if the left is going to grow. Yet you are determined to pour scorn on everything. As you did with the LMHR carnival.

You cynically twist my post by claiming that I believe the demo is a landmark for anti-nazi’s. It was a demo against the BNP and, I hope, one of many. Yet your short-termist and all or nothing attitude is evident in your scorn for this mobilisation.

As I stated in my post the size of the demo is a product of the conditions in which the left is organising. I blame demoralisation among workers on New Labour and the Labour left/TU bureaucracy’s capitulation to New Labour over the last 15 years. There was a time when you agreed with this but now you appear to believe that following people like Cruddas is the way forward for the left.

If Prentis had promoted the demo then perhaps this may have made a difference but as a Unison member who has watched the Unison bureacracy attack Unison activists I believe the support of NuLab supporters like Prentis does not necessarily confer support from rank and file members.

What you are advocating, Kevin, is a top down approach where we wait for the leadership of the Labour Left and the TU bureaucracy to sanction activity. Prefereably without the SWP and with Renewal at the helm. It will be a long wait because they have no intention of rocking the New Labour boat. They know full well that a mass mobilisation against anything will encourage workers to take their own initiative against other injustices.

Cruddas and Prentis will swing behind the election campaign of New Labour and not the creation of an independent left. Meanwhile, your call to wait for them to mobilise the rest of us will result in further demoralisation. Is this where you thought you’d end up?

LikeLike

Reply
brian mac

June 22, 2008 at 1:22 am

Murder in the caterdal – I “love” old TS Elliot

And its critical that anti racists – have to expore range of strageties – none ruled out : from discusssion to appropirate “physical defence”.
No lets not shit on daft nonscence —–

And get THINKIN< FIGHING, shit we fucked up and I believe friends and conrades up for it,
Toicfaidh Ar La – one world

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

June 22, 2008 at 6:51 am

I think there does need to be a serious assessment of how we can build a big movement against the BNP.

It should include local activity rooted in the communities. For example, kickstarting campaigns against e.g. school closures, housing campaigns – e.g. for cheaper rents and essential repairs, local issues working class residents tell us they need. This to be combined with anti-BNP leaflets supported by local trade unions when possible giving socialist answers to the problems of society, defence of asylum seekers and migrants and monitoring and physical confrontation/organised self-defence to stop the BNP from organising winnign working class people in the areas to the idea that the BNP is the enemy of the working class.

It should include building large demonstrations and music festivals against the BNP using a longer and more inclusive plannign process. It should not include cheap point scoring by rvial sections of Respect.

To be honest, I suspect though that Kevin, Liam and others here are very genuine about the need to build it better and make some good points- but they should really be aware of how such remarks as “I must tell you this in all honesty – I’ve actually recently heard a saner narrative than yours from a Newsline journalist. ” are not pedagogic even if inteded as such but risk coming across as sniping. Anyway back to bed to recover after a day long music festival in Liverpool- sorry couldn’t be in London but my last weekend with my partner this summer and sometimes local and even personal events have to take priority.

LikeLike

Reply
Halshall

June 22, 2008 at 8:29 am

I was there at the beggining and later in Traf sq.
I’d say that 2000 was a generous estimate. (I thought about 1500.)
This is really a very dismal turnout and a distraction against the real activity of campaining locally. Why was a march organised to go through deserted streets 20 miles away from the local by-elections where the BNP are standing?
However I feel it isn’t a reflection of what’s possible in antifa mobilisation at present.
In my view the momentum was lost after the successful counter demo in Dagenham in Dec 2006.
A Respect mtg was held soon after to build locally in B & D and was well attended.
It had the prospect of making a successful Respect branch the basis of a fightback in Barking & Dagenham (apparently about half those present sighed up for further activity). But it was dropped somewhat mysteriously right afterwards.
Why? Can someone tell?
Since then there seems to have been a vacuam until the knee-jerk reaction of the organisers of yesterday’s flop; which seems to be more of a response to regain the intiative after the Left-lists dismal showing in the GLA elections

Now the that demo had to cold-start without any local (or national build-up).
No momentum, plus no continued antifa activity = dismal turnout !
( And marching 15-20 miles away from where the real action was and in the opposite direction; I thought this was something the old CP used to do ! )
It is also pertinent that at the time of the local counter-demo in B & D, in Dec 2006, there had been a united front approach between Respect, UAF and Searchlight.
Now that seems to have evaporated.
In Traf Sq I waited until I heard just one mention of any activity by UAF in B & D (there was no mention of Searchlight).
It was given out (once) vocally quite late around 4pm.
I saw no leaflet giving out details. ( except one for Searchlight in Tooley Street).
Is this the way to carry on. Quite obviously not.

So where now, can the BNP be stopped ?

Yes, but by rebuilding the links that were discarded in early 2007 and putting the antifa activity at the forefront locally in a united front, and not putting the interests of building for any faction ahead of it.

LikeLike

Reply
Ger Francis

June 22, 2008 at 9:32 am

Ray bounces all the over the place. On the one hand he proclaims the need for anti-fascist unity. On the other, he blames the ‘Labour left/TU bureaucracy’ for the failure of the demo and dismisses them as constructive actors. I can’t believe he seriously thinks we can build an anti-fascist movement without these forces but in his defensiveness to criticism of the SWP he becomes incoherent.

Contrary to his claims, we have no desire to try and control or dictate the anti-fascist struggle. With our limited resources the best contribution Respect can make is to ensure that in the areas where we have a base, we make them anti-fascist fortresses. Engagement with local white working class communities, ensuring that those communities do not feel alienated from the political process such that they become prey to the BNP arguments, is pivotal. And our record on this is very good. In inner city Birmingham the BNP poll poorly. One factor for that is the contribution Respect makes to creating an anti-racist culture. Another is our sensitivity to challenging a perception among white working class communities that nobody cares about them. The symbolism of Salma says in this regard as a high profile Muslim politician is important and it is something she is highly aware of.

We can also contribute by sharing our experience with the wider movement and partaking in discussions about strategy as to how best this new threat is rolled back. That will entail debates on tactics, and at times disagreements and criticism. The reality behind this demo is simple: the imperative for calling it was driven first and foremost by the internal dynamic of the SWP post the debacle of the Left List election results. They then attempted to bounce everybody else into supporting it. It is bad enough that their actions resulted in a poor and demoralizing demonstration. Much more serious is that their actions has undermined the creditability of UAF and undermined their own reputation in an area of work where they have a proud record. What is needed now is more clarity on the strategy required to undermine the BNP. To that end the SWP would by better served by critical self-reflection, not paranoia.

LikeLike

Reply
PhilW

June 22, 2008 at 11:41 am

The Searchlight article mentions that it feels using “Don’t vote Nazi” is now inappropriate, on the grounds that very few people see the BNP as a Nazi party. In fact, that would not be sufficient reason for dropping the slogan in my view.

The problem isn’t quite that one: it is that there are very different interpretations of what a Nazi party is. For those who decided to use the label, (as far as my generation was concerned) when the ANL was formed, it was synonymous with fascism, which for the socialist left was a useful scientific term. (Why was it is used: was it to distinguish the ANL from the myriad anti-fascist committees up and down the country, who, as far as I recall, were not consulted at all about the setting up of the former?)

I have always been uncomfortable with the use of the term Nazi in this way, as I feel it tapped into British Anti-German nationalism. All you have to do to see this is look at some of the attitudes of British TV comedy to Germans. Another useful thing to do, is to put yourself in the place of a potential BNP supporter and imagine what they would view a “Nazi” to be.

The searchlight article and the many of comments above miss out a big area of activity that needs to complement local anti-fascist activity and judiciously chosen mass action organised on a genuinely united front basis (was there any consultation and exchange of views with other organisations on the best tactics to use, before the latest demo was announced?)

That area of activity is, of course elections. For most people, that is what presentation of an alternative means. We have countless examples to show that such an alternative needs to be credible. One part of this is a steadily building up of electoral success. For its part, the BNP clearly understands that (luckily, its performance in office is another matter). No need to elaborate on the lessons of the past 9 months, as far as the left is concerned.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark P

June 22, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Phil W you are of course correct and the Searchlight aricle specifically addresses the collapse of Labour’s vote in working-class constituencies, South Yorkshire for goodness sake, as a key issue.

But it doesn’t offer an alternative as Searchlight, quite rightlly, is non party-political.

In an ideal world I’d like to see an outside Labour contesting Labour on the same scale as the BNP. 642 candidates on 1 May, average 13.4% of the vote. How many combined Respect, Left List, SP, IWCA candidates, 50?

Next year the BNP will contest the European Elections and the Stoke Mayoral elections with a serious chance of winning the latter plus a couple of MEPs. Long term we need a left-of-Labour party with these kinds of targets too, but right now we’re not there. Stopping the BNP with local community-led campaigns are not just a stop–gap towards that end they create its conditions. And in a much more meaningful sense with rooted localised community campaigning at its core rather than the central London demos and carnivals UAF /LMHR currenty favour.

Mark P

LikeLike

Reply
PhilW

June 22, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Response to Mark P

I’m not trying to suggest that Searchlight is involved or endorse any particular electoral challenge to the BNP

There could be a credible left-of-labour elecotoral callenge. Credibility involves having one or more well-known figureheads or spokespeople, preferably holding electoral office, plus some national organisational capacity, plus some basic class (socialist), anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobic politics.

I think most people can see the problem. In the face of the challenge of the BNP, to say nothing of the attacks on civil liberties, islamohpobia, climate change, peak oil and the impending food crisis, it is utterly irresponsible to ignore the solution.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 22, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Ger, quite simply the demo wasn’t a failure. Over 5,000 people turned up with their TU banners. I presume you were at the demo so you would be aware of this. If you want to write all these people off to score points against the SWP then don’t pretend that you are doing so because of a concern about the state of the anti-nazi movement.

The continuous anti-UAF/LMHR attacks that Renewal engage in aren’t about building a wider movement. If they were then instead of vehemently attacking every LMHR/UAF activity they would have a more balanced critical approach and get involved regardless of their disagreements.

Let’s look at Renewal’s record with regard to organising against the nazi’s. It becomes clear that they are not interested in working with the UAF and LMHR. Renewal tried to split the LMHR festival with their Livingstone rally. When 60,000 turned up for the festival they declared it a failure. Galloway wouldn’t speak at the festival because he claimed it clashed with his work commitments. Leading members of Renewal were opposed to the LMHR demo from day one. When the Dagenham leafleting was announced two weeks before the demo they tried to use this to rubbish the efforts of those organising the demo. Now they are underestimating the numbers on the demo and continueing the snide attacks on UAF/LMHR.

These are the tactics of people who have no interest in building a wider movement.

What is quite worrying is that Renewal seems to have absolutely no critique of the Searchlight tactic of using Islamophobic and homophobic leafleting against the BNP. They also fail to consider that Searchlight broke with UAF and have now teamed up with New Labour rather than the Labour left. Yet the politics of Seachlight are of little interest to Renewal because their tactic of counterposing Searchlight to UAF is another way to attack the SWP.

It’s a sad state of affairs that the political orientation of Renewal revolves around attacking the SWP. Thankfully that’s not the case for the rest of the left. On both the anti-Bush and LMHR the representation from Renewal was tiny. I think we are dealing here with a mouse that thinks it’s an elephant. In light of this perhaps I should take their sniping with a pinch of salt.

LikeLike

Reply
Matthew

June 22, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Could I get Ray to elaborate on the criticisms of Searchlight he is making – what precisely are they guilty of and what is the evidence?

LikeLike

Reply
Ger Francis

June 22, 2008 at 3:05 pm

Sorry Ray, but it is just the worst kind of moralism to say that anybody who criticizes the SWP is playing into the hands of the BNP. There is a serious discussion to be had about anti-fascist strategy and I don’t see how it benefits the movement if it has the same kind of self censorship and deference towards leadership decisions that is now the norm inside the SWP.

Kevin posted else where that you were ‘articulating, albeit badly, some internal line…that the SWP is talking about a united front from below, bypassing “traitors” like Cruddas, Prentice, the centre left like Compass’. Apparently Respect, the left wing organization most deeply embedded in those communities bearing the brunt of BNP hate, is now added to that list. I sincerely hope you, like jj and some other SWP’ers who post on these sites, represent the ultra sectarian wing of the SWP, and are not reflective of its general line.

LikeLike

Reply
Antonio Labriola

June 22, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Lord, I hope so.

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

June 22, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Ray – look at the photos. They are 2 of a 3 shot panorama and show how many people were in the square. It was nowhere near 5000. The “up to 10 000” claim on the SW website is just dishonest. It took precisely 7 minutes for the march to enter the square. I know because I timed it.

As for the union banners – let’s be blunt. Yes there was a fair few but I recognised a lot of the lefties carrying them.

Yesterday was a textbook example of how not to build a united front and we all paid a price for it. I genuinely hope that some lessons are learned from it. That requires an honest assessment of the day.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark P

June 22, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Ray. Grow up.

Get hold of the leaflets the local campaign against the BNP in Chadwell Heath is distributing against the BNP. There is nothing remotely Islamophobic or homophobic in them.

If you’re going to claim UAF/LMHR have the finest strategy around to stop the BNP fine, but don’t wrap this up in unfounded slurs about others.

If you bothered to read Nick Lowle’s article in Searchlight on developing a strategy to defeat the BNP you will find he singles out both the threat of Islamophobia and the collapse of Labour’s working class vote in the face of an alternative to new Labour’s march to the ‘centre’. See http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=233

Again your slurs are entirely unfounded.

UAF/LMHR are supposedly more left-wing than Searchlight because both are dominated by the SWP. I have no idea what that means in practical ways of stopping the BNP but many would find UAf/LMHR’s total lack of analysis of the BNP vote and its total ignoring of the current by-elections in Redbridge and Barking for the sake of a ‘parade’ around the empty streets of central London tactically ill-conceived. In the same way that the April ‘Carnival’ entirely failed to mobilise those present for the vital 4 days remaining to campaign against the BNP. Theres just a suspicion you forgot in the frenzy of dishing out those ‘the only way to stop the BNP is to vote Left List’ leaflets.

There is an entirely legitimate debate on the role of popular culture in developing a campaign to stop the BNP. Likewise we cannot ignore the fact that many vote BNP in the absence of a left-of-labour party to vote for. But to seek to close down any debate with ill-founded slurs on Searchlight does you no favours. It remains the means by which many committed, independent anti-fascists campaign against the BNP. UAF/LMHR could have a useful role to play in that campaign, the question is what role? Your and other SWP ( I would genuinely like to know from other SWP members, how representative of the SWP is ‘Ray’?) contributions would appear to suggest its UAF/LMHR or nothing. That is the depth of your juvenile sectarianism. Grow up

Mark P

LikeLike

Reply
Kevin Ovenden

June 22, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Ray

You’ve spelt it out even more clearly now. The united front must be with the Labour left (read John McDonnell – a very fine socialist and MP, before anyone starts wilfully to misrepresent my point) not with the Labour centre or right.

Do you not recognise what is wrong with this? It is the total abandonment of the very positive strand of political work over this question which the SWP has been responsible for for 30 years. In any case, your point is vitiated by the claim from SWP members that Derek Simpson (who’s not exactly a member of John Mc’s fan club) had thrown Unite’s weight behind yesterday’s demonstration.

A “left united front” or a “united front from below” is exactly the formulation used by those who proceed from their differences with others in the movement rather than the interests of the movement as a whole.

Like Ger, I genuinely hope that you’re just an untypical exemplar of current thinking within the SWP.

I have to admit, however, that there are a number of other parallel developments which suggest otherwise. And there are no counterveiling examples of current SWP practice I can point to on any scale.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 22, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Mark, Searchlight used Islamophobia and homophobia to campaign against the BNP. It’s a shame that despite your claim that you want dialogue and unity you can’t even acknowledge this fact.

Kevin, you are a past master at twisting the words of others while remaining obscure about your own. Rather than criticising what I didn’t say why don’t you spell out who you want to involve in New Labour and how the anti-nazi movement should achieve this.

My point (to reiterate it so you can understand this time) is to involve anyone in Labour who wants to fight the nazi’s but not wait for the centre or right in Labour to lead the movement.

But you know this and your continuous misrepresentation of the SWP is just another tactic to create division. It’s getting tedious Kevin and is the antithesis of your claim that you want unity.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark P

June 22, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Absolute rubbish. Read the anti-BNP leaflets distributed in Chadwell Heath and Hornchurch. Read Nick Lowles’ article in Searchlight on the need for a strategy to stop the BNP in which he singles out the need to counter their Islamophobia. See http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=233

Slurs are what you indulge in. Now give us an inkling on how calling a Central London ‘parade’ while consciously ignoring the fact that the BNP are standing in two crucial by-elections in what it would like to make its Barking and Redbridge stronghold. Perhaps you could point out a single mention of this fact, let alone appeal to mobilise, on the UAF or LMHR websites. Thats not a slur, thats a fact.

Mark P

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 22, 2008 at 4:36 pm

“Could I get Ray to elaborate on the criticisms of Searchlight he is making – what precisely are they guilty of and what is the evidence?”

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Politics/UAF.html

“Yesterday was a textbook example of how not to build a united front and we all paid a price for it. I genuinely hope that some lessons are learned from it. That requires an honest assessment of the day.”

Firstly, there were more than 5,000 on the demo but you can insist otherwise if you wish. Secondly, a united front doesn’t materialise out of thin air it needs to be built and this demo was part of that process. The lesson I’ve learnt today is that I’m wasting my time argueing with those who will disparage anything the UAF/LMHR organises. It’s the politics of defeatism and that will not inspire anyone.

LikeLike

Reply
Kevin Ovenden

June 22, 2008 at 4:42 pm

Raya

UAF has been in existence for some years. We were told by the SWP there was serious trade union support for yesterday’s march. Moreover, those of us who doubted the wisdom of holding this march were told we were pessimistic, sectarian and out of touch with those who were desperate to take the streets against the BNP.

The SWP leadership needs to take responsibility for this. You really must reflect on where this has ended up.

LikeLike

Reply
Birmingham Respect Member

June 22, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Ray

I posted something similar on socialistunity.com, but you just cannot cover up for this fiasco by blaming those who “disparage anything UAF/LMHR organises”. A friend who is central to UAF activity in the Midlands counted 1,000 on the demonstration, laughed at the idea that there was 2,000 and was incredulous that anyone could claim “up to 10,000”. This level of self-delusion just won’t wash with people who have given years of support to UAF.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 22, 2008 at 5:04 pm

What I’m reflecting on at the moment is that it’s a shame that when the left is at its weakest for many years the inevitable ideological disagreements over how to organise against the nazi’s are taking a greater toll on the anti-nazi movement than ordinarily.

I’m surprised that Kevin is in the Compass/Searchlight camp because he has always resisted their politics in the past. I suggest you join us and follow your own advice and, “take to the streets against the BNP”, in the future Kevin.

We live in difficult times but rubbishing ALL of the UAF/LMHR activities (not just the demo, eh Kevin?) isn’t an antidote to this.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 22, 2008 at 5:11 pm

Birmingham Respect Member you need to go lower than 1,000. Come on, there must be someone some where who will give you a figure of 500. Self-delusion is what makes you believe that the first demo against the BNP was going to bring tens of thousands onto the streets. Rubbishing UAF/LMHR won’t strengthen the movement.

LikeLike

Reply
tonyc

June 22, 2008 at 5:11 pm

Ray, don’t you think that this week’s Socialist Worker should at least have given some mention to the anti-facsist activity in east London today (Sunday)? Even if we assume that yesterday was sacred, why not mention that there was leafleting today? Why isn’t UAF involved in the leafleting today?

If the SWP was at all interested in serious, broad anti-fascist campaigning, wouldn’t it do well to at least acknowledge that there is other campaigning going on as well as a demo?

There is absolutely no mention that there’s even a by-election. There are glib sentiments about how we need to build local groups – but it doesn’t even mention the most urgent tasks ahead of us.

See, you expect people to take your initiatives seriously, and Respect certainly did. But you can’t expect to be above criticism when you won’t even mention other serious bits of campaigning that are going on in real life elections.

And you also claim that UAF is campaigning in east London. Well, where is this campaigning? My union hasn’t received one single bit of communication from UAF in east London, there’s been nothing from their mailing list and there is precisely zero on their website.

How can you claim that there’s any kind of campaigning going on?

The most that’s happened is that the Left List booked the Theatre in Oxford House, which holds 350 people, for a meeting called “After the elections: Stop the BNP”, but it then cancelled the room, re-booked one that held only 60 people and changed the meeting to “The BNP, Labour’s Crisis and The Left”, a title guaranteed not to lift anyone’s spirits and certainly guaranteed not to build for the demo of for activity in east London.

The real job of serious anti-fascists is to be honest about where we start from and about our tactical strengths and weaknesses, not to just lie about “10,000 people” marching when it was nowhere near that amount and to condemn those who want some honesty abut where we actually are in the fight against the nazis.

LikeLike

Reply
Doug

June 22, 2008 at 5:22 pm

The calling of yesterday’s demo was a mistake, almost wholy attributable to the SWP’s ‘give the members something to do or they might start exercising their brains about what’s happened in the last 9 months’. Either that or a laughable level of political nouse about how to combat the BNP. The marches against the NF in the 1970s/1980s were invariably ones where they had deliberately targetted/upped their activity in certain areas of particular towns/cities. The response was usually generated locally with requests for national support – usually responded to. The issue was often related to self-defence/no platform. In contrast yesterday was a pointless march around central London, largely ignored by activists like me because it was a shameless and pointless SWP stunt completely unconnected to the hard, week in week out ,long-term slog needed locally, around the issues Jason referred to, that directly relate to the things that matter most to working class people, issues that because the BNP address them, gain them an audience. The point is putting out anti-fascist propaganda to counter the BNP is pretty much a waste of time – the BNP’s election material isn’t fascist and wouldn’t come across as fascist – it’s a mixture of Old Labour, right wing populism and racism.

And calling for a vague anti-BNP vote makes no sense if it means voting for a New Labourite, the party responsible for the cuts in services, housing problems and low pay etc that makes people turn to the BNP in the first place!

LikeLike

Reply
Birmingham Respect Member

June 22, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Ray

This is idiotic. I support UAF. I do not support Searchlight (for many of the reasons that you have pointed to). I have no interest whatsoever in rubbishing UAF. But the pitiful size of the demonstration is a blow to UAF. Socialist Worker says “up to 10,000 people” demonstrated. No-one believes this, not even you.

LikeLike

Reply
Kevin Ovenden

June 22, 2008 at 5:25 pm

Ray

You are not serious. Yours is playground politics: “You’ve run off with Searchlight, so there!”

The fact that other SWP members have not appeared here or anywhere else to echo you inanities is at least some comfort.

There seem to be more people than previously who are trying to engage with where the movement is and what role the SWP ought constructively to play. The sooner those people assert themselves against those who have brought one fiasco after another, the better.

Unfortunately, I genuinely don’t think that’s going to happen. You and people like you Ray – along with a paper which has now demonstrated even to its allies that it cannot be believed – are going to remain the public face of the SWP.

In the meantime: could you tell me if this united front from below or united front of the left line is truly current SWP thinking? Also, if you were there till the end, did John McDonnell or any other MP or Labour Party figure speak? I genuinely would like to know.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

June 22, 2008 at 5:45 pm

Speaking as someone outside the Respect family, I do have to remark – the venomous tone of the discussion makes me glad I never come round either of yours for tea.

LikeLike

Reply
Kevin Ovenden

June 22, 2008 at 7:12 pm

bill j

Fine. Bye. Meanwhile there’s a strategic discussion taking place.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

June 22, 2008 at 7:31 pm

Is that what you call it.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 22, 2008 at 8:27 pm

Bill’s right, this isn’t a strategic discussion just more vitriolic denunciation perpetuated by the split and I’ve sadly bitten again. I’m sure there are more fraternal arenas for discussion. Perhaps at the Convention of the Left. Until then I’m sure this debate will continue at Marxism 2008. Hope to see your there.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

June 22, 2008 at 8:31 pm

Quite a good comment Halsall- I certainly agree with this
“So where now, can the BNP be stopped ?

Yes, but by rebuilding the links that were discarded in early 2007 and putting the antifa activity at the forefront locally in a united front, and not putting the interests of building for any faction ahead of it.”

The solutions aren’t really so hard I feel though to implement them will certainly take a lot of hard work. There does however seem to be something bordering on some kind of factional irritability in the tone of some of the contributions. That aside I think everyone on here would agree with the following:

work rooted in working class communitires where some are tempted to vote BNP to have serious united front campaigns on local issues whether housing, privatisation, school closures (issues arising from those communities not imposed from outside)

alongside antiracist campaigns, defending migrants and working with Black and Asian workers to defend against racist and fascist attacks, including not allowing fascists to march, meet, organise or attack people on our streets or workplaces

united front demonstrations, antiracist festivals and other events built by Black community organisations and workers, trade unions and where possible Labour party including MPs

LikeLike

Reply
Ger Francis

June 22, 2008 at 9:18 pm

Devoid of a political response to his critics, Ray reduces their motives to psychological reasons. Apparently all those critical of the demo are simply motivated by blind SWP hatred. It’s a lame way of doing politics.

As for his statement that ‘this debate will continue at Marxism 2008.’ I don’t think so. Taking a page out of a Stalinist handbook for dealing with dissenting voices, the SWP in recent years have taken to ‘banning’ expelled members from attending. Even if myself, Rob, Nick, Kev, and many others wanted to attend, we couldn’t. It is one way of preventing SWP members from hearing dissenting voices, I suppose. But it stinks and is symptomatic of their rotten internal regime.

LikeLike

Reply
Kevin Ovenden

June 22, 2008 at 9:37 pm

There is a strategic discussion. The fact that Bill J, Ray et al are not engaging in it is probably to its credit. They’ve shown they have nothing to contribute.

An issue remains, however: the SWP us a concentration of Marxists and it is of concern whether it degenerates into a sectarian caricature or whether its cadres confront contemporary reality and contribute to renewing the movement.

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

June 22, 2008 at 9:56 pm

I disagree Kevin. Much of what Ray had to say was unconvincing but at least he had the gumption to argue his case and while I often differ from Bill too his contributions are usually thought out and stimulating.

What has been absent from both this site and SUN has been a meaningful attempt, other than Ray’s, to justify the method behind yesterday’s event.

LikeLike

Reply
Kevin Ovenden

June 22, 2008 at 10:37 pm

Liam

It’s not just been missing from your site and Andy Newman’s, it’s entirely missing. My guess is it will be come the next issue of Socialist Worker too. By then we may well be presented with another take it or leave it initiative and priority.

As for the rest – it’s our site and you, of course, are entitled to entertain whoever you choose 🙂

LikeLike

Reply
redbedhead

June 23, 2008 at 3:01 am

Liam – sadly, what the 49 comments on this topic demonstrate is just the hard-on people get attacking the SWP. And Ger may think that’s lame politics but then he spends most of his post engaging in the same thing himself (and perhaps he’d care to explain his comrade tonyc whose contribution to the discussion is to demonstrate that he’s stalking the Left List, finding out which rooms they’re booking[?!] then using that in his argument about the UAF mobilization).

It may be more polite here, perhaps, than over on SUN but like there it is the case that where the opportunity arises to dig through the trash to find, or invent, opportunities to attack the SWP certain types throw in with it with great relish – sadly kevin, tonyc, and ger are the most venomous.

Let’s put things in perspective: when LMHR had a Carnival prior to the election that drew somewhere in the range of 60,000 people RR was promoting an anti-racist event organized by the campaign to elect Livingstone that drew 150-200 people. It was a mistaken attempt to piggyback onto a larger initiative and it failed. Was there any attempt by RR people, for instance Andy N, to reckon with this rather large miscalculation? Nope. It disappeared down the memory hole and was never heard from again. Was this mistake a front page story in Socialist Worker or on Lenin’s Tomb? Nope. Luckily, the SW isn’t the Weekly Worker and doesn’t obsess about the failings of the rest of the Left, preferring rather to focus on bigger issues in the world that actually effect working class people.

Now, the SWP took a lead in arguing for the mobilization this weekend and trying to build it. It’d be nice if it were 60,000, like Welling – though I don’t think anyone was predicting that and anyone who was would have been a bit foolish (Kevin’s comparisons to the contrary). Welling came after a period of sustained campaigning, an intense media focus and the big political shock caused by the election of Derek Beacon. Those conditions do not prevail at the present and cannot be invented by UAF, Searchlight, the SWP, RR, or anyone else.
There is a debate about strategy – do you try to launch a locally built, national anti-fascist campaign with a national protest or do you focus on local campaigning? Are these things counterposed? What is a reasonable turnout for a kick-off mobilization in the present period? And if you meet it what is the proper thing to follow-up on it? If you don’t meet it what is the correct thing to do?
Unfortunately that debate isn’t happening here and it certainly isn’t happening on SUN. All that is happening is that the anti-swoppies are circling like mad buzzards over what they perceive to be an SWP defeat. The glee is palpable and rather pathetic. The assignment of motives to the timing of the protest is without a stitch of evidence and not illuminating at all. All it reveals is the atavism of the writers and has nothing to say to the strategic discussion. Such approaches carry no weight with anyone serious.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 23, 2008 at 5:27 am

The Socialist Party saw fit to support the demo so perhaps they’re deluded as well. In fact most of the left supported it and went along so all this talk of it being unrepresentative and unaccountable are just sour grapes from a faction who hate the SWP. When they blame us for failing to mobilise tens of thousands onto the streets they’re attacking everyone who tried their best to get people on the demo.

The demo was not huge but of course compared to the tiny group who leafleted Dagenham on the same day it was massive. So trying to disparage the demo by using the analogy of ARA and Welling backfires completely.

The only strategy that will stop the BNP is to develop a realistic opposition to them. Parachuting into Dagenham on the eve of an election won’t win over BNP voters unless we build roots in the area first. Romanticising the Isle of Dogs campaign is equally unhelpful when we are now faced with campaigning in Dagenham after 11 years of New Labour in an era where the left has never been weaker. Rubbishing demo’s against the BNP won’t help the movement either. Nor will counterposing different types of activity in order to score points in a fued.

It’s easy for Kevin and Ger to argue among the converted over here and on SU but it’s a different ball game when it comes to having debates with the rest of the left. If you’re serious about having a debate then that is the arena you need to be debating in.

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

June 23, 2008 at 7:05 am

The SP were at the demo. Had they been consulted on the timing, the organisation or the strategy behind it?

If two well known SP fulltimers had announced the demo in the name of a front organisation would that be ok too? That’s the problem that you get with organising things in this manner.

LikeLike

Reply
tonyc

June 23, 2008 at 8:01 am

“whose contribution to the discussion is to demonstrate that he’s stalking the Left List, finding out which rooms they’re booking[?!]”

Don’t you ever get embarrassed by this nonsense?

They sent me a leaflet. It had the meeting title on it. It said “The Theatre, Oxford House”. They then sent an email out cancelling the meeting. They then sent me a new leaflet, with the venue “The Scott Room, Oxford House”, and a new meeting title.

You remind me of Richard Seymour who, when I said I couldn’t quote his reasons for kicking me off Lenin’s Tomb cos I had told him I wouldn’t publish our private correspondence so he would have to tell people himself (this was when your comrade Ray, posting as “Unity Is Strength”, was lying about me, like you did, and I decided to defend myself), took that as a threat by me to reveal our private correspondence.

Really, it’s just embarrassing for you to turn “Tony comments on 2 different leaflets he’s received” into “Tony stalks the Left List”.

By the way, do you remember Chris Harman’s article in the ISJ about our conference?

He said that they had actually counted the number of people in photographs of our conference.

Which sounds more like stalking to you – me quoting from leaflets or your spiritual leader counting people in photographs?

I would ask for an apology for your allegation, but it comes on top of so much distortion from you, you’re beyond even seeing that you did anything wrong.

LikeLike

Reply
tonyc

June 23, 2008 at 8:04 am

“Let’s put things in perspective: when LMHR had a Carnival prior to the election that drew somewhere in the range of 60,000 people RR was promoting an anti-racist event organized by the campaign to elect Livingstone that drew 150-200 people.”

No, let’s put things in actual perspective:

Respect was promoting both events. You know this. They were both displayed as events on our front page, emails went out about them.

Like I said, you know this. But you’ve now chosen to lie about it.

Why?

LikeLike

Reply
Mark P

June 23, 2008 at 8:13 am

“The demo was not huge but of course compared to the tiny group who leafleted Dagenham on the same day it was massive.” – Ray

This is getting silly. The ‘tiny group’ were those who’d responded to a Searchlight appeal to help local campaigners. There was around 30 of us, no socialist paper sellers just those who want to do something practical to stop the BNP. We covered one of the main estates in the ward, door-to-door where the BNP are standing in a council by-election. That seems more useful than pouring a huge effort and resources into turning out for a small demo through the empty streets of Central London. Still, the tourists would have had something to wave at and bookings for Marxism 2008 went up, so not all lost, eh?

“Parachuting into Dagenham on the eve of an election won’t win over BNP voters unless we build roots in the area first.” – Ray

Classic! Who ever mentioned ‘parachuting into’. A couple of hundred activists SUPPORTING the excellent local campaign, using their locally-produced leaflets, helping out not taking over. Now that could make a real difference.

Meanwhile neither UAF nor LMHR have seen fit to even mention theres crucial by-elections in Barking and Redbridge so there’s not much likelihood of you lot ‘parachuting in’ in any case tho’ if thats your approach to campaigning I’m not sure how helpful you’d be in any case.

Mark P

LikeLike

Reply
margo

June 23, 2008 at 8:14 am

Just a point that came to mind after reading Redbedhead. I did not go to the demo as I had other things to do. However, my mate, did. I trust this person to be critical of political events.

His take on the demo was this – heartened by who was there. He spoke to young activists who were planning to go back to their areas and start the process of building local groups.

He met numbers of people who came to London on transport paid by their union, and took that as a sign that as the campaign against BNP grows, the formal backing of the large unions will pay off.

It’s always best to have the backing, even if at the official level it amounts to passive support. When you can push harder as a result of building on the ground you can move this into something less passive.

A starting point.

LikeLike

Reply
JimPage

June 23, 2008 at 10:21 am

Barnet Unison site reporting that 10-15,000 were in attendance, and SW “up to 10,000”

LikeLike

Reply
JimPage

June 23, 2008 at 11:18 am

I am saddened to see people here still advocating collaburation with Searchlight and their grasses. Do we really need to go over the same explanations as to why Searchlight are a proscribed organisation to groups liek Antifa?

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 23, 2008 at 11:29 am

“The SP were at the demo. Had they been consulted on the timing, the organisation or the strategy behind it?

If two well known SP fulltimers had announced the demo in the name of a front organisation would that be ok too? That’s the problem that you get with organising things in this manner.”

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/4796

Liam, the Socialist Party don’t waste their time fueding with the SWP. They see the march as a chance to demonstrate against the BNP and build an opposition to them. As Margo states, “A starting point.”

How can this sort of unity (albeit on a small scale at the moment) not be a good thing? How does it prevent other initiatives? I think those in Renewal who are criticising it have been too hasty in their judgement.

In reply to Mark P concerning the ARA/Welling analogy it wasn’t me who brought that into the discussion. I was pointing out how silly this analogy is and how unhelpful it is to moralistically counterpose leafleting in Dagenham with the demo.

LikeLike

Reply
martin ohr

June 23, 2008 at 11:33 am

Jason,

I think the course of action is the best suggestion on offer so far, I don’t think it is a million miles from what we are proposing as the AWL below. It’s certainly much more refreshing that using anti-fascism as a big stick for both sides of the swp-galloway split to attempt to destroy each other.

The fact the both sides manage to get the politics and the tactics required so wrong must be partly down to the energy that they are both devoting to simply slagging each other off. (Kev, Liam, Tonyc, Ger whatever differences you might have with Jason and me, surely you must concede that your constant battering of the swp is making them more insular and less likely to work with the rest of the left- I’m sure this is not what you intend- now would be a good time to stop and take stock so that the whole left can regroup around discussing the necessary anti-fascist work that it ahead of us)

draft awl plan (from http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/06/20/where-now-anti-fascism-response-isearchlighti ) is to co-ordinate local activity based uniting exist local groups or founding them where they don’t exist based on this statement:

Anti-Fascist Action Group
We are a labour movement and community-based campaign against the BNP and other fascist, racist and far-right parties.
We oppose the BNP and parties like them because they stand against the interests and traditions of the labour movement. They are fundamentally anti-working class, racist, sexist and homophobic.
Fascists are different from other far-right groups because instead of relying on ‘official’ political mechanisms, they mobilise people on the streets to attack minorities and the labour movement. The BNP today poses as a ‘legal’ political group but its history, ideas and actions suggest otherwise.
The BNP has grown in the recent past. At the last elections they won a further ten council seats (in areas within the lowest 10% for all socio-economic indicators) and Richard Barnbrook was elected to the Greater London Assembly. They have grown by relating to the very real crises facing working class communities: the problems in housing, hospitals, education and public services. The BNP also exploits the attacks on immigrants and asylum-seekers from all sides of the political spectrum and the press.
We seek to build links between the labour movement and community groups in order to:
1.Mobilise the labour movement and communities to campaign against local fascist activity;
2.Support direct action against the fascists and the defence of communities targeted by fascists eg. postal workers who refuse to deliver BNP election material and demonstrations to stop BNP activity;
3.Expose the bigoted lies of groups like the BNP for what they are and work to extend anti-racism and other liberation campaigns within our movement;
4.Educate the community, and in particular young people, about the nature of groups like the BNP;
5.Oppose all forms of racism, including the demonisation of immigrants;
6.Develop materials and campaigns that contest the political terrain adopted by the far right – counterposing working-class solidarity to their politics of race hate;
7.Organise workers and communities, black and white, British-born and migrant, to fight back against cuts and privatisation – for decent jobs, homes, education, services and democratic rights for all

LikeLike

Reply
Kevin Ovenden

June 23, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Ray and Redbedhean

1) Respect supported this demonstration, emailing around our membership, advertising it prominently on our website, and phoning people encouraging them to come.
2) We attended the demonstration and produced a leaflet for it, which offered our constructive contribution to the creation of an effective anti-BNP campaign.
3) The turnout at the demonstration was very poor and reflected the narrowed organisational and political basis on which the SWP leadership called it.
4) The more the methods behind Saturday’s march are repeated the more the potential movement against the BNP will suffer.
5) Saying this about the march is not equivalent to attacking the SWP or “stalking”, etc: it is simply stating the facts as significant figures in the movement see them.

LikeLike

Reply
Joseph Kisolo

June 23, 2008 at 12:20 pm

I agree with Kevins 5 points above but I think that there are two strands of posible disagrement with the demo that took place.

One argument is that holding national anti-BNP demo’s is old hat and doesn’t fit with organising against the ‘new’ BNP. On this argument national demo’s are conter-posed with local organisation and the later is said to be what we should focus on.

The other (serperate) argument critises the way in which Saterdays demonstration was called and built for.

I support the second argument, the demonstration should have been organised after a prosess of local events and in consultation with other groups rather then at (relativly) short notice and primarly at the comand of the ‘leaders’ of one group.

However I disagree with the first.

As well as discrediting the BNP localy we need to discredit them in popular culture – this culture is not nessarly shiftable from a local level, we need to engage with it nationaly. When they are done right, national demonstrations can play an important part in this – and also the LMHR music events.

This is especialy true when we think about combating the BNP in the Euro elections where puting leflets through doors just won’t make any differnce, we will nedd to mount a campaign that gets propaganda out at a much broader level.

LikeLike

Reply
andyinswindon

June 23, 2008 at 1:03 pm

The AWL statement quoted by Martin Ohr does have the merit of acknowledging that there are actually existsing local anti-fascist campaigns already in existence.

I don’t know whether the AWL delibertaley included the following, knowing that it would be unacceptable to the UAF.

“Support direct action against the fascists and the defence of communities targeted by fascists eg. postal workers who refuse to deliver BNP election material and demonstrations to stop BNP activity;”

When postal workers in the West Country in 2004 exercised their right to a conscientious objection to delivering facsist BNP literature, national treasuer of the UAF, Billy Hayes backed Royal Mail management and ensured that all BNP literature was delivered.

This isn’t point scoring against hayes or the UAF – it is actually difficult to put together an anti-facsist coalition around a set of pre-conditions.

Should Billy hayes be involved in anti-fascist work? Absolutley!
Should UAF have broken from him after he undermined trade union action against the BNP? No!!

But it shows that if you make support fro a particular tactic a pre-condition, then you immediately limit the scope for a campaign.

For historical reasons, there is bad blood between three strands of anti-fascism – Searchlight, UAF and AFA.

Most of these reasons have grown up into literally incredible atrocity strories, not helped by the fact that there are individuals in all the camps who are challenging to work with.

What we should recognise is that any effective anti-fascist activity needs to engage with the political mainstream, as well as with the far left. Searchlight has uild a network of local activists arounf it, and developed a really good relationship with the Daily Mirror, and some trade unions.

Personally I simply don’t accept the accustaions of islamophobia against Searchlight. And if your want violent right wing facists locked up then you have to have a relationship with the police.

What is constructive at the moment is that Searchlight are having a self-critical reflection and debate about what is the best way forward.

This is something that supporters of the UAF should take as an example.

LikeLike

Reply
Phil

June 23, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Ray: Self-delusion is what makes you believe that the first demo against the BNP was going to bring tens of thousands onto the streets.

Ray on Socialist Unity: The ANL didn’t have TUC backing from day one. It had to argue for demo’s and other activity in the face of stiff opposition from the TU bureaucracy. Eventually large demo’s were built on the back of much smaller ones.

Emphasis added.

Yes, the SWP has changed direction since May. No, this isn’t the dawn of militant anti-fascism in Britain, or even the beginning of campaigning against the BNP.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 23, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Phil, nice to know you are a follower of my posts on various blogs. I’m gaining some kind of fan club. Have you read my posts on Lenin’s blog yet?

Shame that you feel the need to write off the 5,000 people who turned up with their union banners and very enthusiastically demonstrated against the BNP. I would call that a start especially considering the Socialist Party and other left organisations were behind it.

The message I’m getting on this blog from Renewal die hards is that anything they haven’t legitamised is not worth a damn. Despite Kevin’s assurances to the contrary, the leaderhip of Renewal have spent the past months attacking every initiative of the UAF/LMHR. Of course it would’ve looked incredibly sectarian not to put an ad for the demo on their website but the true attitude of Renewal’s leadership to UAF/LMHR has been displayed on this blog and SU.

The sad aspect of all this is that I doubt whether there is much difference among the left about how to tackle the BNP. Yet the very damaging tactic of counterposing one sort of activity against another and the demands for consultation before any activity is allowed to be organised are really the product of the split and not a difference about strategy. It’s time to drop this tactic and get involved in organising against the BNP together.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 23, 2008 at 3:10 pm

I’m also wondering why no one who is critical of LMHR has any problems with Searchlight going ahead with their activities without any consultation with the rest of the left. It just highlights the double standards applied to the UAF/LMHR and exposes the sectarian basis for rubbishing the demo.

I have no problem with Searchlight doing as they wish and hope they are successful. Any success against the BNP is welcome. If there is the possibility of all of us working together in the future the more the better but I won’t be making any demands on them (unless they resort to the tactics they used in Keighley – which I’m sure they won’t now that’s been addressed.)

If the left is to work as a united front then we need to refrain from denigrating the efforts of others. There’s a difference between constructive criticism and outright attacks. Concerning the demo, certain leading members of Renewal have crossed that line. This behaviour won’t contribute to unity against the BNP.

LikeLike

Reply
JimPage

June 23, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Andy

you cant portray the disputes between UAF/ Searchlight and AFA as historical matters. They are fundamental diagreements, around the core issue, as you realise, of collaburation with the state (i.e Searchlight) in antifascist work. UAF and Militants will work together – and do so at a local level- while disagreeing about tactics, but I cant see any justifcation for working with the State/Searchlight

LikeLike

Reply
JimPage

June 23, 2008 at 3:22 pm

As to Searchlight`s attitude to unity- look at the latest articles on their Norfolk Unity satellite site “The great rock and roll swindle”.

LikeLike

Reply
Kevin Ovenden

June 23, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Ray

Your moralism is not going to motivate anyone or answer the questioin of how we build an effective response to the BNP.

Respect did more than its fair share to build the demonstration pushed for by the SWP leadership against the advice of others in UAF and the wider movement.

You can convince yourself of what you think the “true” attitude of those of us who advertised, phoned round and attended this demonstration is. But this retreat into cod-psychologism will also get nowhere.

Where’s this going to end up? Are John McDonnell, Jon Cruddas, Billy Hayes, Ken Linvingston, BMI, MCB and everyone else going to be blamed for the failure of this demonstration? This way lies destruction.

Incidentally, could you tell me whether there was a speaker or representative from east London who has a base of support. In relation to London, east and south east London are critical battlegrounds.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

June 23, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Andy on the UAF, Billy Hayes and refusing to deliver fascist literature;

I think we should definitely support all postal workers who refuse to deliver and criticise any deals by the union with management- including criticise Hayes on specific points. This doesn’t preclude working with him.

I agree with this
“Should Billy hayes be involved in anti-fascist work? Absolutley!
Should UAF have broken from him after he undermined trade union action against the BNP? No!!

But it shows that if you make support fro a particular tactic a pre-condition, then you immediately limit the scope for a campaign.”

I have my differences with the AWL of course but the statement put out is good: I don’t think it is a set of pre-conditions.

You though seem to suggest that raising wider points such as support for organised self-defence or workers organising against the BNP including to deliver literature is a pre-condition. But it isn’t surely.

We can recognise united fronts around limited objectives and statements and actions that union leaders can sign up to;

We can also- in addition- propose further actions even if some of our allies in the united front don’t agree to them.

LikeLike

Reply
tonyc

June 23, 2008 at 4:10 pm

“I’m also wondering why no one who is critical of LMHR has any problems with Searchlight going ahead with their activities without any consultation with the rest of the left. It just highlights the double standards applied to the UAF/LMHR and exposes the sectarian basis for rubbishing the demo.”

Searchlight didn’t claim that their activity was the nationwide mobilisation against the BNP which had the backing of most of the trade union movement, with support from everywhere.

Searchlight people didn’t go on blogs, as SWP did, claiming that failure to support the demo was tantamount to wrecking it.

And Searchlight people have been going round union meetings and taking part in discussions about how to mobilise against the BNP. Not widely enough, of course, but much wider than anything LMHR did before calling this demonstration on the front page of Socialist Worker.

Oh yeah, and there’s a debate going on within Searchlight and other arenas about how to deal with the rise of the BNP. There is no debate going on inside LMHR about it.

Ray, I noticed that you’re saying 5,000 people went to the demo. In the spirit of open debate inside your organisation, will you be asking Socialist Worker to not lie to the class and claim it was 10,000?

I notiecd that the Left List website is also claiming 10,000 people. Why do this? It just undermines your credibility.

“the leaderhip of Renewal have spent the past months attacking every initiative of the UAF/LMHR”

No. People have tried to debate this with you, but from the very start, you’ve done your usual thing of distorting people’s points, refusing to engage on issues, and then deciding that any criticism is tantamount to an attack.

In other words, what you’ve done in every thread from the first time you posted.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 23, 2008 at 5:07 pm

“Your moralism is not going to motivate anyone or answer the questioin of how we build an effective response to the BNP. ”

You’re a fine one to talk!

“Respect did more than its fair share to build the demonstration pushed for by the SWP leadership against the advice of others in UAF and the wider movement. ”

Maybe some in Renewal did but, unless you’ve had a change of heart, don’t try to talk yourself up after spending months rubbishing UAF/LMHR.

“You can convince yourself of what you think the “true” attitude of those of us who advertised, phoned round and attended this demonstration is. But this retreat into cod-psychologism will also get nowhere.”

I don’t need to analyse you – your own words convey your attitude towards UAF/LMHR.

Where’s this going to end up? Are John McDonnell, Jon Cruddas, Billy Hayes, Ken Linvingston, BMI, MCB and everyone else going to be blamed for the failure of this demonstration? This way lies destruction.

I don’t think it was a failure. You’re the one intent on perpetuating a destructive wrecking course.

“Incidentally, could you tell me whether there was a speaker or representative from east London who has a base of support. In relation to London, east and south east London are critical battlegrounds.”

It’s saddening that your questions come across as sneering accusations. If you need information about those who spoke at the demo all you have to do is contact LMHR. Perhaps you could try reaching out further than the safety of your usual haunts and ask on Lenin’s blog. You keep complaining that there aren’t enough SWP comrades to argue with yet you seem very reluctant to stand your ground in places where you might have to actually have a political discussion instead of throwing insults about.

LikeLike

Reply
redbedhead

June 23, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Kevin wrote: “Saying this about the march is not equivalent to attacking the SWP or “stalking”, etc: it is simply stating the facts as significant figures in the movement see them.”

I don’t know who these “significant figures” are but it is about attacking the SWP and not about engaging with a serious strategic and tactical discussion. Why? Because the whole premise of this discussion is based upon the evidence-less claim that this protest was called entirely unilaterally for purposes internal to the SWP (basically to maintain the integrity of the current regime). Once you start from that premise all other conclusions are subordinated to that and the priority becomes to attack the integrity of the SWP. That is the point of raising tonyc’s crazy insertion of Left List meeting location details – this whole debate is a subordinate to a larger argument about the supposed degeneration of the SWP; ie. it is about the split over and over again. Look at the posts? Look at the frenzy when a group of you decided that the demonstration was a failure.
The funny thing is most people in the SWP would probably be open to an argument that said – this demonstration was called prematurely and therefore there wasn’t yet the sentiment or organizational basis to draw out the kind of numbers needed to really use it as a kick-off to a wider, locally rooted campaign. They probably wouldn’t agree but would be open to an actual discussion as opposed to the present modus operandi which can be summarized as: “The SWP are degenerates and they’re ruining the movement and their own credibility built when I was a member.” response: “That’s a lie. You lot are sectarians only interested in bashing the SWP.”

tonyc wrote: “bark bark bark liar bark bark shame bark embarrassment bark distortions lies bark bark!”

Absolutely. I totally agree. You are right.

LikeLike

Reply
Kevin Ovenden

June 23, 2008 at 5:32 pm

Ray

It seems there was not speaker from East London and no MP from any party addressing the demonstration.

Redbedhead

I’m very well aware of just how many people in the SWP are privately deeply critical of the method that led to Saturday’s protest.

Naturally you don’t know the leading figures in the labour movement who are very unhappy about the way things went in the run up to Saturday’s march. But I assure you that’s what they are saying, and you might like to accept that people such as me have a bit more locus on that than you do.

They are deadly serious about building an effective response to the BNP. But they won’t be moralised at and bounced into events they don’t think are a good idea.

LikeLike

Reply
Andy BH

June 23, 2008 at 5:36 pm

“The funny thing is most people in the SWP would probably be open to an argument that said – this demonstration was called prematurely and therefore there wasn’t yet the sentiment or organizational basis to draw out the kind of numbers needed to really use it as a kick-off to a wider, locally rooted campaign.”

Absolutely, gobsmackingly amazing…………

This precise point has been put to you repeatedly and consistently rubbished as “sectarian” and “attacking the SWP”!

LikeLike

Reply
redbedhead

June 23, 2008 at 6:06 pm

Andy BH – If you can’t tell the difference between what I wrote and what most people are arguing on here and at SUN (ie. comradely vs sectarian arguments) then there’s no point in having a discussion.

Kevin – You are, obviously, in a better position than me to know the ins and outs in detail. However, it’s not convincing when you base your arguments upon he said/she said without proof. If leading figures in the labour movement agree with you then they ought to say so. If people in the SWP disagree with the method, then they too ought to say so. But if it’s just you saying these things without proof in the context of your very public, very bitter attacks upon the SWP leadership you will understand if people are skeptical.

LikeLike

Reply
Geoffrey

June 23, 2008 at 7:28 pm

Andy: “When postal workers in the West Country in 2004 exercised their right to a conscientious objection to delivering facsist BNP literature, national treasurer of the UAF, Billy Hayes backed Royal Mail management and ensured that all BNP literature was delivered.”

What the CWU leadership has done is negotiate the insertion of a “conscience clause” in postal workers’ contracts which allows individual workers to decline to deliver BNP election literature.

I understand that UNISON at City Hall tried to negotiate a similar agreement with the Greater London Authority in relation to staff who were required to work with Barnbrook.

In neither case was there an attempt by the unions concerned to impose a blanket ban. A moment’s thought would indicate the reason for this.

Royal Mail has a legal obligation to deliver election literature; the GLA has a legal obligation to provide resources to elected members of the London Assembly. If the CWU and UNISON had instructed their members to impose a collective ban and prevented the Royal Mail and GLA from fulfilling their duties, the BNP would have taken legal action against the unions and would undoubtedly have won.

When Dave Chapple got his CWU branch to boycott the delivery of BNP election material, what was the CWU leadership supposed to do? Give the boycott official support and hand the BNP a legal victory on a plate?

Andy is evidently more interested in having a pop at UAF than trying to understand the tactical issues involved here.

LikeLike

Reply
Geoffrey

June 23, 2008 at 7:35 pm

Andy: “Personally I simply don’t accept the accusations of islamophobia against Searchlight.”

That’s hardly surprising because Andy has never to my knowledge accepted the validity of any criticism of Searchlight.

In the past Searchlight has published articles and distributed leaflets which equate “Islamism” with fascism. From that standpoint, the British Muslim Initiative, for example, represents the same threat as the BNP. The fact that there are tendencies within Islamism that are prepared to ally with the left against racism and fascism is ignored.

(Admittedly, Searchlight’s leaflets for the May elections were mercifully free of this sort of stuff, but my information is that the TUC insisted that they wouldn’t tolerate it if they were to give their support. After all, the TUC has an alliance with the Muslim Council of Britain, leading figures in which are members of organisations like the Islamic Forum Europe and the Islamic Society of Britain – in other words the same Islamists that Searchlight thinks are no different from the BNP.)

It was Steve Silver of Searchlight who fed the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism the cock-and-bull story about the threat posed by “a ’symbiotic relationship’ between far right and Islamist extremists who, although ideologically opposed on practically every other issue, are united in their hatred of Jews, Zionism and Israel”

The example that Silver gave of “Islamist extremists” who were allying with fascism was the Muslim Public Affairs Committee!

In fact the main far-right organisation, the BNP, was at that time in the process of executing a turn towards the Jewish community, hoping to attract a right-wing minority on the basis of anti-Muslim bigotry. When I wrote an article for the Morning Star in Septmber 2006 pointing this out, Searchlight supporters denounced it as antisemitic.

Muslims are of course the main enemy identified by the BNP these days. They declared the London elections to be “a referendum on Islam” and their initial election leaflet counterposed a picture of veiled Muslim women to a picture of an all-white 1950s street party.

Any anti-facist movement worth the name would prioritise building an alliance with Muslim communities and their representative organisations. UAF has issued joint statements with the Muslim Council of Britain to be distributed at mosques, urging Muslims to turn out and vote to defeat the BNP.

What joint activities has Searchlight conducted with the community who are the main victims of the BNP’s racist propaganda?

Absolutely zero.

And there is a very obvious reason for this – the Zionist politics of Searchlight’s leadership and of Gerry Gable in particular. When Gable left the CP in the 1960s it wasn’t due to differences over domestic politics but over the party’s support for the Arab side in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Muslims of course almost unanimously support the Palestinians in their resistance to Israeli oppression. So Gable, once again allowing his position on Middle East politics to take precedence over domestic issues, refuses to build alliances with them and smears their representative political oganisations as equivalent to fascism.

LikeLike

Reply
Geoffrey

June 23, 2008 at 8:23 pm

Having slagged off Searchlight, I would add that I agree with much of the criticism of Saturday’s demonstration and the damaging effect that the SWP’s lurch into sectarianism is having on UAF.

Although I’m a UAF supporter, I didn’t go on the demonstration – because it was quite obvious that an event which lacked any clear political objectives or focus, and was initiated by LMHR without consultation with anyone and presented as an ultimatum to the rest of the left, the unions and minority communities, was going to be an embarrassment. In fact I’m surprised that as many as 2000 turned up. It’s a depressing situation for those of us who’ve supported the UAF approach to fighting fascism.

However, to be fair, I think the very limited anti-BNP leafleting done by UAF in London during the May elections (in comparison with Searchlight’s much more effective campaign) was due to the fact that UAF is basically an alliance between the ANL and NAAR. The former were occupied campaigning for Lindsey German and the Left List and the latter for Livingstone. It wasn’t because UAF has decided that concerts and marches are a substitute for leafleting.

I’ve certainly been emailed by UAF with details of anti-BNP leafleting in Havering, Barking and Bexley over the next week. If anyone’s interested they can contact UAF for details.

LikeLike

Reply
Andy Newman

June 23, 2008 at 8:26 pm

Geoffrey.

But I wasn’t criticising the UAF was I?

I said quite accurately as you confirm, that Billy Hayes undermined the action of postal workers who voted not to deliver BNP election material, and that therefore the AWL’s suggestion that postal workers should refuse to deliver BNP material would be opposed by the UAF’s national treasurer.

We are actually on agreement on that, are we not?

If we are talking about tactics, then action within the context of the Europeans elections would be over a short period of a couple of weeks, and would have been an electrifying example of how to isolate the BNP – whatever later happened in court. A court decision for the BNP, but after their electoral literature had not been delivered in time for the election, would that have been a disaster for the CWU? I think not.

LikeLike

Reply
martin ohr

June 23, 2008 at 8:37 pm

Andy,

There is no part of the awl statement that is intended to be a pre-condition, and yes deliberately the statement is also aimed get co-ordinating pre-existing local groups around a basic -but political- set of demands.

In Leeds we have a problem, the SWP have relaunched UAF without the existing broad leading committees and with just SWP in control, although they continue to collect the money, affiliated unions are not informed of times and dates for meetings, workers power people are banned from attending, it’s not possible to submit motions etc. In reaction WP have set up a rival anti-fascist group. Part of what AWL are trying to do is to get both groups talking to each other and to be an actual anti-fascist campaign rather than the personal property of one or other group.

On CWU specifically the statement is not intended as a critcism -coded or otherwise- of Billy Hayes. As my general secretary I want him more involved in anti-fascist work not less, that part of the statement is intended to suggest possible sets of action that confident organised workers could take, it’s the sort of local action than could quickly spread nationally and starts to ask questions about workers control of industry etc.

I’d like to think that the AWL plan could form part of the anti-fascist discussion at the convention of the left. The bickering UAF vs searchlight, SWP vs Gallowayites is getting us nowhere, what we need is a written down set of positions that we can ague over, ammend, refine and unite to action, if we all have to make huge concessions and compromises in order to get agreement, then so be it if it means we can build a set of genuinely united, democratic and active anti-fascist groups.

LikeLike

Reply
martin ohr

June 23, 2008 at 8:44 pm

Andy, how about opening a thread on SUN specifically to thrash out a limited (say maximum 10 point) action plan taking the AWL one as a starting point, moderate out any off topic contributions or slagging off of groups involved?

On CWU I agree with, I think that point in our plan is not to make this a pre-condition but to say this and similar actions should be valid tactics and used where possible/sensible/appropriate. (I don’t think the BNP could sue CWU, Royal Mail has a duty to deliver not the CWU, in any case our legal fund is bigger than the BNPs so we could argue it through the courts for years to come, right up to the european court of human rights if necessary)

LikeLike

Reply
Andy Newman

June 23, 2008 at 8:49 pm

Martin:

Andy, how about opening a thread on SUN specifically to thrash out a limited (say maximum 10 point) action plan taking the AWL one as a starting point, moderate out any off topic contributions or slagging off of groups involved?

OK – alongside the very useful contribution to the debate from Nick Lowles.

I think my point about raising the issue of postal workers blacking mail may have been misunderstood.

The urgency is to build coalitions with people who we disagree with about some things. I would say that the historical disputes about Searchlight and Zionism certainly fall into the cetegory of irrelevent diversions from the tasks at hand.

LikeLike

Reply
Phil

June 23, 2008 at 10:20 pm

Shame that you feel the need to write off the 5,000 people who turned up with their union banners and very enthusiastically demonstrated against the BNP.

When did I do this?

I would call that a start

Yes, I know you would. That’s what I was drawing attention to. What’s this the start of, Ray? It’s not the start of UAF or LMHR, let alone anti-BNP campaigning.

LikeLike

Reply
Phil

June 23, 2008 at 10:25 pm

If you can’t tell the difference between what I wrote and what most people are arguing on here and at SUN (ie. comradely vs sectarian arguments) then there’s no point in having a discussion.

I’m as baffled as my namesake, RBH. Perhaps you could show us an example of where a comradely criticism of SWP tactics has been received in an equally comradely spirit?

LikeLike

Reply
redbedhead

June 23, 2008 at 10:58 pm

Phil – the whole basis of the discussion, the whole focus on it over the weeks leading up to the demo, was to attack it, primarily on the basis of imputed motives. That doesn’t exactly set the groundwork in place for comradely discussions. As it happens Liam’s article is primarily free of the kind of rancid nastiness that’s characterized most of the responses.
I don’t fully agree with his points, for instance:
1) I think that setting the figure of 15,000-20,000 is a bit arbitrary. But, I’d agree that you don’t want a demonstration that demoralizes people and makes them feel less powerful than the movement ought. I also agree that when to call a demonstration is itself a tactical question based upon a number of factors.
2) broad organizing committee – this is preferred but isn’t always possible and it’s a tactical decision when it is correct to go forward if this doesn’t exist or only exists in partial form. Sometimes the action itself can create the momentum to pull broader forces on board.
3) As for the location where it should be built, this is also a tactical question. I’ve seen “local demonstrations” that were really just squadist nonsense, where demonstrators were dragged to the home of a local nazi (in an area where no organizing had taken place) and then the mass of demonstrators were used as cover for masked idiots to throw shit through the nazi’s windows (probably a rental by some working class person who didn’t realize their tenant was a nazi). And I’ve seen other forms of general protest that were effective in terms of raising the profile of the issue.
4) the involvement of effected communities. Of course it is the most desirable situation and the ultimate goal to mobilize those who are targeted by the nazis. But there is no recipe for how mobilizing starts and amongst whom. In the early 90s in Toronto the initial mobilizations were primarily white. After the nazis attacked several Tamil men, we were able to build links with organizations in the Tamil community and mobilized a demonstration of several thousand Tamils and others that was very effective. I wasn’t on Saturday’s demonstration in London so I can’t speak to the demographics and this – and the numbers – seems to be the source of some dispute.

So, yes, I disagree with the specifics of Liam’s formulations but notice I haven’t imputed to him diabolical motives (that I can’t, in any case, know anything about). It’s about starting from the perspective that we’re all on the same side and that disagreements aren’t about opportunities to put the boots in and to try, through loud assertion, to discredit the person you’re arguing with. For one, all you’ll manage to do is ensure that people will not listen to you.

LikeLike

Reply
Bob

June 23, 2008 at 10:59 pm

“It needs to have large numbers of non-white faces since they are the ones who are in most immediate danger from a combative fascist group.”

Is this really right? Yes, people at the sharp end of fascism have both the need and right to self-organise and defend themselves, and to get together and celebrate themselves/each other. There’s nothing wrong with that, but is it the best way to defeat fascism?

But to make an intervention that stops fascism, isn’t it better to get as many potential fascists there than anything else, regardless of how many non-white faces there are among them? Surely an orientation to white working class people remains the correct strategy for defeating fascism.

LikeLike

Reply
Nas

June 23, 2008 at 11:08 pm

Redbedhead: 15,000-20,000 might be arbitrary in your view but it is closer to the mark – if out by a factor of 10 – than SWP CC member Martin Smith’s call for tens of thousands to demonstrate. The other questions are tactical. The SWP got the tactics wrong. Were there any speakers at the demonstration who have a base in the ethnic minorties which make up about a third of London?

UAF enjoys broad support and can recover from the fiasco the SWP organised on Saturday. But if the SWP keep pushing their irresponsible line, then I’m afraid they will bust up UAF. After all, the visceral hatred SWP members have for Socialist Action, which is heavily involved in UAF, has been amply demonstrated by their actions and postings over the London Assembly elections. As for the numbers, there’s no dispute (if you except the SWP’s ludicrous claims). The Morning Star today reported 2,000 on the demonstration. The paper backs UAF, so there’s no point claiming it is trying to undermine that part of the movement.

LikeLike

Reply
tonyc

June 24, 2008 at 12:40 am

I hope everyone has noticed that when “redbedhead” was caught out looking like a total fool – he accused me of “stalking” the SWP and monitoring what rooms they had booked, when the truth was, they sent me a leaflet that told me the location of the venue – he had absolutely zero political response, and resulted to pure insults (which Liam has been kind enough not to delete, despite them being nothing more than a gratutious attack on me).

That, redbedhead, is why you are treated like a joke around here.

Try actually stopping for a moment and saying “shit, it was a stupid thing to say, and Tony has shown that he was simply using information that the Left List had sent him – in future, I’ll deal with the politics”.

Given your history of deciding that the worst case must be true – in your “canadien” guise as well as this one (for example, declaring on this site that Respect had removed an article from its website, as proof that we were trying to bury something, when the truth was that, in true blog style, the blog had just slipped down the list of stories – you had to admit you’d got that one wrong too), you might perhaps reflect that maybe I do actually have a serious political argument.

And to rehash it, I was questioning “Ray”, who claimed that there was active campaigning going on against the BNP from his side, in east London. My point, so far not responded to, was that a meeting was called, cancelled, then called again with a much smaller venue, involving no forces outside the Left List (and, for additional clarity, was a total failure precisely because there was no attempt to even involve local trade unionists, Muslim groups etc).

Stop making a fool of yourself, and try answering the points people make. Every time you lie about me, I’ll point out the truth. If you like, you can make a fool out of yourself in return.

It sort of doesn’t really help you, as I’m sure any sensible comrade would tell you.

LikeLike

Reply
modernityblog

June 24, 2008 at 12:41 am

Andy Newman is correct in his comments above, attacking Searchlight achieves nothing and only enhances the reputation of the Left for disunity and sectarianism.

Political point scoring may be satisfying to some but it’s ultimately destructive as the recent history of the Left in Britain shows.

Whilst some are castigating Searchlight for alleged offences, the only people taking pleasure at this will be on the Far Right, it is pointless, petty and ultimately destructive.

LikeLike

Reply
tonyc

June 24, 2008 at 12:56 am

1) I think that setting the figure of 15,000-20,000 is a bit arbitrary. But, I’d agree that you don’t want a demonstration that demoralizes people and makes them feel less powerful than the movement ought.

The SWP was saying it wanted tens of thousands of people on the demo. I’m sure you don’t believe that these figures are plucked out of thin air. The best of the Stop The War organisers, inside the SWP, were always brilliant at predicting turnout at various demos. The SWP expected tens of thousands of people. Despite me disagreeing with the demo, the fact that it turned into a demonstration of weakness instead of strength means I have to care about the consequences – don’t you think there should be some honest analysis?

2) broad organizing committee – this is preferred but isn’t always possible and it’s a tactical decision when it is correct to go forward if this doesn’t exist or only exists in partial form.

Not a single attempt was made at contacting people or getting together any kind of committee. The first anyone in the movement knew about the demo was when it was announced on the front page of Socialist Worker a month ago. No union was consulted. No other left group was contacted. No religious group was contacted.

Yes, it’s tactical. But for absolutely no attempt to be made to contact anyone in the labour movement at all… well, isn’t that a bit careless?

3) As for the location where it should be built, this is also a tactical question.

Absolutely right. And with proper consultation within the movement, I’m sure I’d have been persuaded to support the choice of venue. Where was the tactics, though? No one was told, asked or consulted. There was no discussion about the day, time or location.

It was just announced on the front page of Socialist Worker. Where was the tactics in that? No one in UAF even knew.

4) the involvement of effected communities. Of course it is the most desirable situation and the ultimate goal to mobilize those who are targeted by the nazis. But there is no recipe for how mobilizing starts and amongst whom.

Again, absolutely right. All these things can be written up as check lists and we can all aspire to them, and we shouldn’t attack people who fuck up a bit.

But… no Muslim groups were contacted. None at all in east London. And whether you like it or not, Respect has a big base in east London – don’t you think that a true broad front would’ve involved contacting people who have a big Muslim base?

They do have our phone numbers, y’know.

But let’s say they couldn’t bring themselves to do that – and it’d be good if you could provide a decent political argument why not – they still didn’t contact a single Muslim group around here.

It’s pretty similar to the LMHR march before the carnival. This march went through one of the most densely populated Muslim areas of the country. Yet no local Muslim groups were contacted about the march, and there were almost no Muslims on the march.

Now, you can say that whoops, mistakes were made – and I’ll forgive all sorts of mistakes, cos I accept that we’re all amateurs here. Except that the SWP claims to have the deepest understanding and the clearest perspective.

You guys think us guys are on the right of this argument. We’re out of your equation. This was yours to get right.

And yet in all your points, your guys fundamentally screwed up. Zero consultation. Zero broad organisation. Zero discussion about the location. Zero involvement of the affected communities.

I don’t think this means the SWP is racist or anything – I think it means they called this demo (and it was “they” – Socialist Worker announced it as an LMHR demo, with UAF only joining in later) for the wrong reasons and the wrong politics, which meant that all your very valid points went right out of the window.

You need to ask yourself why all the most militant tube workers I know didn’t go on the demo. The RMT people who did have been scathing about the dismal turnout and organisation, and feel they were duped (as well as bounced). Other union officials are equally dismayed about the logic, politics and organisation.

Of course, you can just come back with one of your hilarious lies, or maybe even claim that I stalked the RMT or something.

Or, you can finally accept that I, and Respect, are just as serious about anti-fascist activity as you, with the difference being, we’re willing to honestly discuss tactics, instead of claiming that any disagreement must be an attack.

It’s only axiomatic from inside the SWP bubble. The rest of the movement didn’t turn up on Saturday, and you need to ask why.

Or you could join in with the lies – the SWP and Left List both say “10,000 people” on their website.

Who do you believe – them or Kevin?

LikeLike

Reply
tonyc

June 24, 2008 at 12:58 am

“to try, through loud assertion, to discredit the person you’re arguing with. For one, all you’ll manage to do is ensure that people will not listen to you.”

Could you bear that in mind next time you accuse me of “stalking” a political group? Especially when you get a clear answer to your accusations.

Otherwise, y’know, all you’ll manage to do is…

LikeLike

Reply
redbedhead

June 24, 2008 at 2:54 am

tonyc – “Given your history of deciding that the worst case must be true – in your “canadien” guise as well as this one (for example, declaring on this site that Respect had removed an article from its website, as proof that we were trying to bury something, when the truth was that, in true blog style, the blog had just slipped down the list of stories – you had to admit you’d got that one wrong too), you might perhaps reflect that maybe I do actually have a serious political argument.”

This would be an example of your method of personal attack and it is a lie. First of all my “Canadien guise” makes it sound like I sneakily created multiple identities when, in fact, I publicly changed my “handle” to have it coincide with my website and blog title – which has my real name and a valid e-mail address.
As for the point you are referring to: 1) My argument was a response to an argument about the SWP supposedly hiding initiatives that hadn’t met success or some such thing – it was to point out that RR were pots calling kettles since you had announced a London-wide progressive list for the May elections with much fanfare only to have it disappear off the radar with no discussion as to what happened to it. That was true, there never was a follow-up as to what happened – there was no discussion of its disappearance. However, I was wrong that RR had deleted the original announcement as it was still available halfway down a secondary page amidst two dozen other articles. As soon as I found it I wrote a correction at SUN. However, you beat me to the punch here at Liam’s. The fact that you use this as an example of my horrible dishonesty is frankly bizarre.

OK, you’re not “stalking” the SWP, you got a leaflet and knew the seating capacity for the room change. Whip me. But the point remains that you inserted a completely unrelated jab at the Left List into a discussion about strategy and tactics in the anti-nazi movement. And don’t give me “the meeting was about the BNP” because the point of your jab and the reason for my pointing it out was your dig about them changing to a smaller venue. That sort of point scoring is silly and counter-productive – that was the reason I pointed it out.

And these are the reasons I read your postings and all I see is “bark bark bark”. I tune you out.

As for your points about anti-nazi organizing – they are more useful (if your tone is still the usual snide condescension). If everything you said were true, I wouldn’t argue that errors were made. If the SWP didn’t talk to anyone before announcing the demo on the front page of SW, that would be very careless. If no outreach was done. That too would be a big problem. And there certainly needs to be some sort of reckoning with the fact that the original announcement said tens of thousands and less than ten showed up – which could mean any number of things not necessarily the fault of the organizers, but, yes, it should be analyzed. You see, I actually believe in the method of the united front and I have been around long enough to have some ideas about how to apply it. So, sure, if everything you say is true there’s a problem in how this demo was organized – the trouble is, I don’t trust you.

LikeLike

Reply
Geoffrey

June 24, 2008 at 7:49 am

Andy Newman: “I would say that the historical disputes about Searchlight and Zionism certainly fall into the category of irrelevant diversions from the tasks at hand.”

There is nothing “historical” about this issue. Gable remains a committed Zionist to this day, stating his pride in the fact that his son served in the IDF.

This has a direct practical impact on the positions adopted by Searchlight towards the Muslim communities, who are the main victims of the BNP’s racist propaganda. As I have shown, this has involved deploying Islamism=fascism rhetoric of the sort you find at Harry’s Place or in Melanie Phillips’ writings; it has involved smearing Muslim organisations as being in a bloc with the far right; and it has resulted in Searchlight failing to build an alliance with the Muslim communities.

The fact is that Andy’s commitment to a discussion about anti-fascist tactics is entirely one-sided. He points to the very real (SWP-associated) problems with UAF’s current political practice, but he refuses to admit to any failings on the part of his preferred organisation, Searchlight. This doesn’t encourage a serious debate about the way forward for the anti-fascist movement but amounts to little more than a point-scoring exercise on behalf of Searchlight.

There are other serious problems with Searchlight’s methods which I haven’t touched upon, notably their emphasis on pursuing the anti-fascist struggle through the Labour Party, via campaigns entitled “Labour Stop the BNP”. Searchlight’s main organising conference in the run-up to this year’s elections was held under the auspices of Labour Friends of Searchlight.

This approach was criticised on the Socialist Unity blog at the time [ http://tinyurl.com/4xdlpt ] but Andy refused to accept that there was a problem.

Even Searchlight itself appears to have recognised the flaws in the “Labour Stop the BNP” approach. In the current issue of Searchlight, Nick Lowles proposes instead the formation of local Hope not Hate groups as a means of “involving trade unionists, many of whom refuse to do any direct work for the Labour Party any more”.

(Of course, Lowles attaches no importance to the fact that the “Labour Stop the BNP” tactic also excluded large sections of the Muslim communities who have been alienated from Labour because of the government’s record on foreign policy and civil liberties.)

Quite aside from these more strategic issues, when it comes to tactics Searchlight is capable of behaving almost as stupidly as the SWP.

Recent examples were Gerry Gable’s decision to provide the Jewish Chronicle with information about Nick Eriksen and his justification of rape as soon as it was announced that Eriksen was No.2 on the BNP’s list for the London Assembly, allowing the BNP time to withdraw him from the list and avoid most of the political damage that could otherwise have been inflicted on them.

And I’m told that the final leaflet that Searchlight produced for the London elections was so badly designed that many people thought it was actually produced by the BNP, leading to a number of Searchlight campaigners being threatened with violence.

So, the moral is this – if we’re going to discuss strategy and tactics for the anti-fascist movement, it means that all sections of that movement need to reassess their political practice and learn the lessons from their mistakes.

LikeLike

Reply
prianikoff

June 24, 2008 at 7:55 am

A few tips for the SWP on how to make some more friends

See here

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

June 24, 2008 at 8:35 am

Priankoff – funny but not helpful. Let’s not develop this strand of the discussion.

LikeLike

Reply
JimPage

June 24, 2008 at 8:50 am

http://libcom.org/library/searchlight-for-beginners-larry-o-hara

A fairly detailed list of Searchlights historical mid-deeds

LikeLike

Reply
andyinswindon

June 24, 2008 at 10:36 am

Geoffrey.

Political differences over the Middle East, and attitude to working with Muslim groups, and the relative weight to be given to working with the labour party are important strategic differences that lead to different tactical approaches – i agree.

However, these are the type of differences of opinion that we need to be able to tolerate and embrace in a united anti-fascist movement.

My own experience of collaborating with Searchlight in outrcampaigns against the BNP in Wiltshire has been positive, and obvious political differnces I have with Gerry about the type of issues you mention have been irrelevent.

What seems to have hapened to me is that a necessary debate that takes in the positive insights and acheivements of all those involved in anti-facsist activity has become subordinated to a turf war between different left anti-fascist organisations.

LikeLike

Reply
Geoffrey

June 24, 2008 at 11:37 am

Andy Newman: “Political differences over the Middle East, and attitude to working with Muslim groups, and the relative weight to be given to working with the labour party are important strategic differences that lead to different tactical approaches – i agree. However, these are the type of differences of opinion that we need to be able to tolerate and embrace in a united anti-fascist movement.”

Of course, an effective anti-fascist movement would include both Zionists who support the Israeli state and Islamists who are for its overthrow. The problem is that Searchlight is run by the former and excludes the latter – and indeed refuses to build an alliance with any representative Muslim organisation.

I don’t think that this comes into the category of “differences of opinion that we need to be able to tolerate and embrace in a united anti-fascist movement”.

The fact that Searchlight adopts this position is precisely one of the things that undermines the building of a united movement against the BNP. How can we possibly have a united anti-fascist movement one of the central components of which refuses to engage with and involve representative organisations from the very community who today are the main victims of the BNP?

This is a real problem that supporters of Searchlight need to recognise and address, rather than evade the issue with platitudes about tolerating and embracing political differences.

Unfortunately, what we’ve seen on this thread is a Searchlight supporter like Mark Perryman pouring scorn on UAF because of the recent stupidities of the SWP and loudly proclaiming the superiority of Searchlight’s methods, and Andy himself as usual refusing point blank to admit that Searchlight has got anything wrong. (SENTENCE DELETED – LIAM)

Similarly, SWP supporters need to recognise that we can’t build a united anti-fascist movement on the basis of LMHR initiating demonstrations without consulting anyone and without a discussion about its political methods and objectives among the forces who are asked to support such a demonstration.

Of course, we may be in for a pleasant surprise. Perhaps the next Searchlight weekend school will include a speaker from the MCB addressing the role of Muslim communities in the fight against fascism, while the SWP leadership will admit to a major cock-up over Saturday’s demonstration and recognise that they can only engage in effective anti-fascist work as one part of a much broader alliance.

But I wouldn’t hold your breath.

LikeLike

Reply
Nas

June 24, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Ray: which Muslim groups sponsored Saturday’s march? Did any of them provide a speaker? No one is fabricating evidence against the SWP. A lot of people are taking the line that Geoffrey puts so well

“Of course, we may be in for a pleasant surprise. Perhaps the next Searchlight weekend school will include a speaker from the MCB addressing the role of Muslim communities in the fight against fascism, while the SWP leadership will admit to a major cock-up over Saturday’s demonstration and recognise that they can only engage in effective anti-fascist work as one part of a much broader alliance.

“But I wouldn’t hold your breath.”

Now is it too much to ask the SWP leadership to act collaboratively – especially as they are already meant to be in a united front against fascism and not out on a limb.

LikeLike

Reply
modernity

June 24, 2008 at 12:38 pm

this thread is depressing

the cheap pot shots taken at Searchlight are yet another indicator of why parts of the British left are so small and so inconsequential, and seemingly destined to remain that way

ask yourself this simple question:

would the fight against fascism in Britain (and internationally) be better off with or without the existence of Searchlight, as a magazine?

then consider that, the only people who benefit from attacks on Searchlight are the Extreme Right

LikeLike

Reply
Geoffrey

June 24, 2008 at 1:23 pm

modernity: “the only people who benefit from attacks on Searchlight are the Extreme Right”.

In fact both Searchlight and UAF have come in for some quite harsh criticism on this thread – UAF from Searchlight supporters in particular.

Would modernity hold that the only people who benefit from attacks on UAF (or the SWP) are the Extreme Right? I suspect not.
(SENTENCES DELETED – NO MORE CRITICISM OF INDIVIDUALS OR SPECULATION ABOUT THEIR MOTIVES – LIAM)

LikeLike

Reply
martin ohr

June 24, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Mod,

you are right, this thread is very depressing, sadly much of what is going on is simply a coded form of Gallowayites vs SWP.

There’s no problem with a political criticism of either Searchlight or UAF- in fact both have very similar but appalling politics and tactics regarding fighting fascism- but all of the above is just mud-slinging. point-scoring irrelevant cack.

The article on the wl website that I linked to yesterday has unmoderated comments enabled, please feel free to go there and indulge in some constructive debate.

LikeLike

Reply
modernity

June 24, 2008 at 1:38 pm

(MOD I’VE REMOVED THE OFFENDING REMARK)

that’s the problem:

there may be many valid criticisms of Searchlight, but unless they are done in a comradely and fraternal way then nothing is achieved, that’s my point

it is a shame that no one yet has addressed the question of:

would the fight against fascism in Britain (and internationally) be better off with or without the existence of Searchlight, as a magazine?

LikeLike

Reply
martin ohr

June 24, 2008 at 1:50 pm

mod: “would the fight against fascism in Britain (and internationally) be better off with or without the existence of Searchlight, as a magazine? ” it’s not a simple question to answer, it’s the sort of provocative title I would have used for a public meeting when I was a student.

What we have to accept as marxists is reality as it is, searchlight exists, performs a particular role and the question is how to relate to that to win people from simplistic, minimal explanations of fascism and how to fight it, onto a completely different level that can defeat fascism for ever.

LikeLike

Reply
Nas

June 24, 2008 at 1:50 pm

modernity: it is better off with the existence of Searchlight. It is better off with the existence of UAF. It is not better off if those two organisations do things which don’t make things better off. When they do, they should respond to criticism so that things are done to make things better off.

Now, I doubt many people would disagree with that – so can be get back to the issue of how an anti-fasist movement can be built and whether we are to see an end to antics which destroy effective collaboration.

LikeLike

Reply
Geoffrey

June 24, 2008 at 1:59 pm

modernity: “would the fight against fascism in Britain (and internationally) be better off with or without the existence of Searchlight, as a magazine?”

Searchlight magazine is a useful resource in terms of providing empirical evidence about the far right in the UK and elsewhere in Europe and we’d all be worse off without it. I’m a reader myself. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t serious flaws in the anti-fascist practice of Searchlight as an organisation.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark P

June 24, 2008 at 2:12 pm

“Perryman pouring scorn on UAF because of the recent stupidities of the SWP and loudly proclaiming the superiority of Searchlight’s methods.”

Well the former isn’t exactly diificult, the party of 0.68% and ill-attended marches through the empty streets of central London to stop the BNP when its standing in council by-elections 7 miles away. (Quite astonishingly neither the UAF nor LMHR websites STILL have any mention of these by-elections or mobilisation of supporters to leaflet the wards. Must be too busy flogging the last few tickets to Marxism 08 eh?)

As to the latter. There is no ‘method’ to UAF/LMHR in terms of a strategy to turn the tide of the BNP. Searchlight on the other hand have published a detailed and self-critical strategy. When will we read something similar from UAF/LMHR , I won;t hold my breath.

See >

http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=233

Mark P

LikeLike

Reply
modernity

June 24, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Nas wrote:

“so can be get back to the issue of how an anti-fasist movement can be built and whether we are to see an end to antics which destroy effective collaboration.”

surely how you build things depends on how you relate to others?

and if some people on the Left want to constantly attack Searchlight then all of the talks of “unity” “joint action against fascists” is just so much waffle, because it won’t happen when you’re attacking people (other antifascists)

Nas, you’ll notice that I don’t counterpoise the existence of Searchlight or UAF?

I am happy to support anyone doing constructive work against the fascists, and as far as I can tell the UAF does some fine work

I would happily support their activities and any others as long as they are productive engaged against the Extreme Right

it’s not an either/or situation and fighting out turf wars only benefits the Extreme Right

and you won’t convince anyone to work with you as long as you are screaming “dirty Zionist”, “agent of the state” etc in their face

so I think people on the Left have to decide:

do they work with others, who they might have disagreements on nearly everything, but are doing something against the Extreme Right?

or do they exacerbate differences, attack others and play straight into the Extreme Right’s hands?

those are the choices, make your own minds up which you prefer

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

June 24, 2008 at 2:27 pm

I was thinking this morning how free of personal attacks this strand has been and how little chopping I’ve had to do recently. Then it all went wrong.

Anyone who feels that a necessary part of criticising someone else’s ideas is to have a swipe at the person and their motives is welcome to visit a vast range of other sites.

I will delete any personal remarks about other contributors and will bar repeat offenders.

LikeLike

Reply
Geoffrey

June 24, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Well, it’s your blog Liam and you can do as you like with it, but I think this is over the top.

A personal attack in my book is when you criticise someone in a non-political way, for example by accusing them of being an alcoholic or of having had mental problems, or by relaying malicious gossip about their private life. (Or, to take an extreme example, by posting appeals for their employer to discipline or sack them, as has been done recently over at Harry’s Place.)

But drawing people’s attention to someone’s wider politics, particularly when this is all in the public domain anyway, is hardly a personal attack. It’s a political attack.

But, as I say, it’s your blog.

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

June 24, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Geoffrey – my experience has been that a small number of people take advantage of the grey area between political and personal criticisms so making the discussion heated and unpleasant. It’s true that the policy is a bit inflexible but it serves to keep things fairly comradely. It’s especially useful when I’m not able to monitor what’s being said.

LikeLike

Reply
modernity

June 24, 2008 at 3:06 pm

that is an interesting point:

does “someone’s wider politics” debar them from fighting fascism?

do we have a checklist of approved politics, before we’ll work with people against the BNP?

is that really sensible?

if so, it will be a very small (self selecting grouping) that does it, which given the importance of the fight against fascism probably isn’t such a good idea, is it?

PS: if anyone has a problem with anything on my blog, please leave a message I will respond 🙂

LikeLike

Reply
andyinswindon

June 24, 2008 at 3:20 pm

I am off to do some leafleting against the BNP now in Corsham Wilts, where they are standing in a by-election.

I don’t knwo whether the leafleting was organised by Searchlight or UAF, and it doesn’t matter.

LikeLike

Reply
Geoffrey

June 24, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Mark P: “(Quite astonishingly neither the UAF nor LMHR websites STILL have any mention of these by-elections or mobilisation of supporters to leaflet the wards. Must be too busy flogging the last few tickets to Marxism 08 eh?)”

As I mentioned in an earlier post, UAF have in fact emailed their supporters with details of anti-BNP leafleting in Havering, Barking and Bexley over the next week. The fact that they haven’t put those details on their website is probably for reasons of security. That’s also the reason why I’m not posting them here.

Mark P: “There is no ‘method’ to UAF/LMHR in terms of a strategy to turn the tide of the BNP.”

Well, traditionally, UAF’s strategy has differed from Searchlight’s in a number of respects and I think UAF has been correct against Searchlight.

One difference has been over the need to mobilise and actively involve in anti-fascist campaigns the minority communities who are the actual victims of the BNP’s racism. At the present time, this means centrally the Muslim community.

However, while Searchlight is (quite rightly) happy to work closely with Jewish organisations such as the BoD, it is clearly unwilling to engage with Muslim organisations.

By contrast, as I’ve previously pointed out, UAF has in the past organised joint initiatives with the MCB in an effort to mobilise the Muslim vote against the BNP and has regularly featured MCB speakers on UAF platforms. I think their approach is superior to Searchlight’s and it would be a shame if the SWP’s present sectarian turn squandered those gains.

There’s also the fact that Searchlight has pursued its anti-fascist campaigning largely through the structures of the Labour Party. Obviously this has tended to exclude potential anti-fascist activists who are hostile to Labour.

UAF has worked closely with local Labour Parties in fighting the BNP but has operated as a broad alliance between members and non-members of the Labour Party. This has allowed a flexible approach which has been more effective than Searchlight’s in my opinion.

Judging by Nick Lowles’ discussion piece in this month’s Searchlight, they are now reassessing their methods, and he writes about the necessity of “involving trade unionists, many of whom refuse to do any direct work for the Labour Party any more”. It’s good that Searchlight appear to be changing their line on that, but it’s an implicit admission that their previous pro-Labour strategy was mistaken.

And, as I’ve pointed out earlier, Lowles doesn’t seem to regard it as a matter of importance that the pro-Labour approach also excluded signficant sections of the Muslim community who are hostile to Labour on the basis of the government’s foreign policy and attacks on civil liberties.

Mark P: “Searchlight … have published a detailed and self-critical strategy. When will we read something similar from UAF/LMHR? I won’t hold my breath.”

Well Nick Lowles’ piece is certainly a useful basis for discussion, even if it fails to properly address Searchlight’s past and present weaknesses in relation to the mobilisation of minority communities. But it’s hardly typical of the material that appears in Searchlight, which is generally of a pretty basic empirical sort – election results, internal disputes in the BNP etc.

Of course, that is very useful so far as it goes, but the strategy that Nick Griffin has so successfully adopted – changing the public image of the BNP while retaining a fascist core cadre, abandoning public promotion of antisemitism in favour of stoking up Islamophobia, and even executing a turn to the Jewish community – has all taken place without any serious analysis in Searchlight. (Almost all the stuff they publish on Islamophobia, for example – and there have been a number of excellent reports from foreign correspondents – is in relation to the far right elsewhere in Europe, hardly ever in Britain.)

My view is that both Searchlight and UAF are both pretty duff when it comes to a serious analysis of recent developments in British fascism and the implications this has for anti-fascist strategy. Perhaps UAF could get Dave Renton to write a discussion document on that?

LikeLike

Reply
modernityblog

June 24, 2008 at 4:30 pm

a problem for Searchlight is no matter what they’ll do there will always be some snide comment, sectarian remark or point scoring to detract from a wider issue of fighting the Extreme Right

there are any number of people on the Left (for their own reasons) who would disagree with Searchlight, and that factional mentality pervades much of the Left and is a very key source of weakness, which plays straight into the Extreme Right’s hands, something like the 1930s ?

but instead of ultra-Left KPDers shouting “social-fascist” we’ve got the 21st century equivalent mouthing on about “Zionists!” (as the source of ultimate evil) which leads to the same result:

a broken and divided Left

LikeLike

Reply
Geoffrey

June 24, 2008 at 4:46 pm

modernity: “does ‘someone’s wider politics’ debar them from fighting fascism? do we have a checklist of approved politics, before we’ll work with people against the BNP?”

I think modernity misunderstands my point. Personally I’m prepared to work with pretty well anyone in anti-fascist campaigns, including Zionists who regard Hamas as fascists (not that I’m for one moment suggesting that this is modernity’s view, lest I be accused of engaging in personal attacks).

But I do think an individual’s wider politics may well be relevant to understanding why they might object to harsh criticism of Searchlight.

But that’s all I’m going to say on this subject in case Liam bans me!

LikeLike

Reply
modernityblog

June 24, 2008 at 5:05 pm

“I think modernity misunderstands my point.”

I drew out the most obvious inference from it, but let’s be honest it cuts both ways doesn’t it?

conceivably people might have questions about your politics as well?? how was Cairo?

“But I do think an individual’s wider politics… “

but as my blog doesn’t represent my political views (just a few rantings at three o’clock in the morning), how would you know either way?

are you a mind reader? do you know what I did in the Seventies? or the 80s? or how I’ve voted?

no, of course, not.

so for the sake of all these arguments, please, let’s cut out the sectarian bullshit, it is very boring and petty, and rather middle-class

PS: if you want to take up these issues, please feel free to post any comments on my blog, I have a fairly wide “libertarian” approach to moderation and don’t delete offensive comments

LikeLike

Reply
Open Thread On How To Defeat The Fascists. « ModernityBlog

June 24, 2008 at 5:31 pm

[…] in Britain and Jim makes some very good suggestions in the comments box at Stroppy’s. Over at Liam’s there is a sectarian fit going on (interspersed with some rather lucid and intelligent […]

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 25, 2008 at 12:32 am

The SWP isn’t LMHR nor does it control UAF. The demo was called in an effort to actually develop a visible opposition to the BNP. Despite its size, it did this.

The accusations that LMHR didn’t consult other organisations about the demo is unfair. So far no one has produced evidence to the contrary. LMHR are accused of not contacting trade unions or muslim groups but no one has produced evidence of this because this accusation is untrue.

Geoffery you accuse the SWP of being sectarian without producing any evidence. It does not follow that because the demo was smaller than anticipated that the LMHR did not consult or involve other organisations.

As far as the timing and place of the demo are concerned there is no evidence that a demo in Dagenham would have been better attended or even appropriate at the moment. Nor does a central London demo preclude demo’s in other areas. Even if, we had spent another month or so organising the demo there is no guarantee the outcome would have been better. The claim that the demo was called to sell more Marxism tickets is incredibly cynical and unjust.

The question to ask is not, “Why did LMHR call a demo when it did but why hasn’t there been more visible opposition to the BNP?” I think this question applies not only to the anti-nazi struggle but to the other struggles workers are involved in.

When we question why workers aren’t attending demo’s or striking over pay and food prices we need to remember that Unison and other unions are actively witchhunting activists. Despite 11 years of neo-liberal New Labour policies only a few unions have broken with New Labour. We should be addressing in this debate why much of the TU leadership are sitting on their hands over pay and other issues not least of all the campaign against the BNP.

It’s all very well blaming the SWP or Searchlight but I’m not hearing criticisms of leading people in the Labour movement who we actually pay to give a lead in fighting over pay and other issues.

Neither the UAF, LMHR, the SWP nor any other organisation on the left can force the TU leadership to use its resources to build an effective campaign unless they are willing to do so. Yes, we can get them to tokenistically support demo’s and leafleting etc. but unless we have the financial and organisational input of the labour movement behind these campaigns then contacting TU members, setting up events, publicising them and organising transport to the events will be on a much more limited scale.

What I would like to see is people who went on the demo going back into their workplaces and argueing for these things. Putting motions through their branch to support anti-nazi activities. Putting pressure on their TU leadership to do more than tokenistically support these activities. That is the only way we will encourage our unions to commit substantially to this campaign. It’s the best strategy in building the anti-nazi campaign because we will be able to use funding and organisational clout to work more effectively in the community. Community work is important but all this campaigning costs money and the only definite source for it is from our trade unions.

Where I think we get bogged down is discussing leadership issues among small groups on the left who have very limited resources and very little clout while ignoring or excusing real barriers to developing a substantial anti-nazi campaign.

There has not really been a discussion about how we campaign in areas where the BNP are standing against New Labour candidates. When I was involved in the campaign against Beacon on the Isle of Dogs New Labour didn’t exist and it was much easier to argue that Labour could make a difference.
Now we are faced with voters across the country who are completely disillusioned with New Labour. This means that we are argueing with people to vote for a party that has shown itself to be corrupt and dishonest. It has slashed wages, dessimated whole communities and priced people out of their homes. Unless there is a left alternative standing in opposition to the BNP we are asking voters to support New Labour.

In light of this I think it’s even more important to expose the BNP as nazi’s. When New Labour are so bad we need to highlight just how bad the alternative is. It’s important to build a highly visible campaign that is not dependent on New Labour but does not exclude anti-nazi activists in New Labour. We need to involve Muslim organisations but more specifically Muslim workers through our trade unions. We definitely need to make sure that New Labour candidates are not let off the hook if they are using anti-refugee, racist or islamophobic rhetoric in their campaigns against the BNP or the Tories.

My point is that building an anti-nazi campaign cannot remain restricted to infighting among small groups on the left. We need a unity of purpose in which we campaign inside the labour movement in order to build the campaign against the nazi’s. This is already happening but it needs to develop on a greater scale. It’s all part of reviving rank and file activity and confidence among workers.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 25, 2008 at 3:17 am

P.S. Just found out about both Renewal and LL councilors in TH defecting to Labour.

If there’s ever been a better time to seriously reflect about the consequences of perpetuating this damaging fued I think it’s right about now.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

June 25, 2008 at 5:26 am

“. When New Labour are so bad we need to highlight just how bad the alternative is”

Whilst I agree that we should argue that the BNP is fascist I don’t think this is the only opr even main strand of the campaign- it must be about building up local campaigns as an alternative.

Of course in some cases this may be consistent with electoral challenges from candidates of struggle but is much broader and not dependent on having an elctoral challenge. It’s about building vibrant community campaigns drawing in trade unionists, tenants and others.

LikeLike

Reply
Ger Francis

June 25, 2008 at 8:41 am

Coming from somebody who enthustically repeated the Rees line about ‘witchhunt’s’, ‘left/right divide’ and ‘communalism’ that were used by the SWP to justify their political vandalism, Ray would do himself a favour with a period of ‘serious reflection’ on his own contribution to all of this. Preferably in silence.

LikeLike

Reply
martin ohr

June 25, 2008 at 10:06 am

Liam,

I think you need to enact this against Grr Francis as promised: “Anyone who feels that a necessary part of criticising someone else’s ideas is to have a swipe at the person and their motives is welcome to visit a vast range of other sites.

I will delete any personal remarks about other contributors and will bar repeat offenders.”

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 25, 2008 at 11:55 am

Well, after the news of the defections I posted two very anodine comments on SU where I stated that both Respects (LL and Renewals) vote had slumped since the split. That we should still try to work with the councilors who defected. And that we need to rethink how we build a left alternative if it is to be viable.

While some agreed with me, sadly, I received a torrent of abuse from most of the regulars on SU. And now Ger’s unhelpful personal attack here. I know Renewal are upset about losing their deputy leader just as we are sad that our councilors have left but there’s a need to drop the point scoring and face reality.

If we’re going to move forward and build (among other things) the anti-BNP campaign then an obsession with point scoring is counterproductive.

LikeLike

Reply
modernityblog

June 25, 2008 at 1:29 pm

“I think you need to enact this against Grr Francis as promised:”

surely, that is the problem nowadays with much of the Left?

when someone else makes a point that we disagree with or misunderstand then the first response is often to attack that person, cast aspersions on them or ignore the point completely?

essentially, it is arguing in bad faith

so, if someone (from outside of the Left) were to look at these dialogue then they’d see bickering Lefties, happy to attack each other personally, push party lines in a sectarian fashion but strenuously avoided dealing with the issue of how to stop fascists in Britain, jointly

a bit less sectarianism would be better? it won’t serve very much if the BNP quadruple in size, will it?

and perhaps less slogans of “unity is strength” and more treating each other as human being?

remember if the BNP largely take control of the streets they won’t differentiate between SWPer, non-SWPer, LPers, Non-LPers Trots, Non-Trots, Antizionist or Zionists, will they?

PS: Geoffrey, my blog is all yours http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/open-thread-on-how-to-defeat-the-fascists/of

LikeLike

Reply
Ger Francis

June 25, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Ray asks for people to face reality. Well, one reality is that most SWP members who loyally echoed their leadership’s line did so based on trust. The vast majority were not centrally or directly involved and relied on guidance from their leadership to understand what the crisis was all about. The collapse of the so-called left group of councillors in Tower Hamlets confirms that this trust was betrayed. This split was never about ideology. It was about control. The SWP split Respect solely out of fear that they were losing control of it. It is par for the course in any organisation contesting elections that tensions will arise over candidate selection, and what tensions existed could have been overcome with responsible leadership. (I believe if the SWP members were left to themselves in Birmingham we would still be in the same organisations. Whatever criticisms and frustrations they had, those centrally involved did not think they warranted splitting. It was fundamentally orders from London the drove the split dynamic.) The SWP abdicated their political responsibility in the pursuit of the narrowest sectarian goals. In the process their leadership lied and manipulated their own members. Some reflection from SWP members on what recent events says about Rees and German, and the state of their own organisation, might be in order.

Respect has been damaged by this. But most of the damage was inflicted quite a while ago and as the recent London results highlight, our vote in East London is still very healthy. Our vote in Birmingham has not been affected at all. We have ridden a crisis that could have destroyed us. Instead we have emerged bruised in some places, but not beaten. The challenge now is to learn from the past, reconstitute ourselves and go forward to the 2110 elections. As regards better relations with the SWP, finalising the divorce would certainly help. The SWP should formally abandoned any association with Respect and let us both get on with our respective work.

Finaly, in light of the fact that Ray was vociferous in pushing the SWP line about a so-called left/right split inside Respect, it is only fitting he be reminded of the fallacy of that argument as he calls for ‘reflection’ on recent events. The charges about my being ‘personal’ are funny coming from Martin Orr, as he deliberately misspells my surname to infer some psycho personality trait! I could jump on the censorship bandwagon too, but it is all a bit student union, so no thanks.

LikeLike

Reply
tonyc

June 25, 2008 at 2:43 pm

“The challenge now is to learn from the past, reconstitute ourselves and go forward to the 2110 elections.”

I’m not sure that that’ll be enough time to resolve our differences.

LikeLike

Reply
martin ohr

June 25, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Ger, I can’t apologise enough for misspelling your name which was a genuine typo. Since you accuse my of doing it deliberately supposedly to infer something

(SENTENCE DELETED – MARTIN IF YOU EVER USE THAT TYPE OF LANGUAGE AGAIN ABOUT ANOTHER CONTRIBUTOR YOU’LL BE BANNED)

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 25, 2008 at 3:34 pm

I could respond to Ger’s accusations that the split was just a bust up about control but we’ve been over this before and nothing in any of his posts persuades me of this. Why can’t we agree to disagree instead of repeatedly attempting to hammer home points that either side will refute? Discussions like that usually descend into a Pavlovian cul-de-sac.

I’m sure I could spend hours disagreeing with Socialist Party members perspective on certain issues. We could resuscitate the arguments over the poll tax campaign for example but at what cost and to what end?

The most important lesson from all this is that if there is going to be unity on the left then we need to develop something beyond Respect. We need to work out how we can work together in a form that is acceptable to everyone and that will hold the alliance (call it what you will) despite political differences.

If some people in Renewal believe the SWP is too controlling and ultra-left then maybe forming a federal type alliance where we can still act autonomously as well as together is more appropriate. This may also work for those of us who believe Renewal is unaccountable and to the right of the rest of the left outside Labour.

My point is that we can either perpetuate the feud and further damage any chance of working together in the future, ignore each other and carry on our own strategies or start debating how a left alliance might work in the future with the hindsight of Respect to guide us.

I also agree that waiting for the 2110 elections for some form of left unity may be a tad too pessimistic. 🙂

LikeLike

Reply
Ger Francis

June 25, 2008 at 3:39 pm

I could not care less what way you spell my name!!! Lets just say it was genuine typo’s all round and leave it at that before this gets too silly.

LikeLike

Reply
Ger Francis

June 25, 2008 at 3:47 pm

I am not surprised Ray does not want to go over arguments he used just a few months ago. They have been totally discredited.

I don’t see any reason why we can’t work fraternally with the SWP. But not in Respect. That relationship is destroyed. The SWP have left the Respect building, but not before smashing up some rooms along the way. The best thing they could now do is to formally announce their departure and finalise the divorce.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 25, 2008 at 4:12 pm

Ger, you haven’t quite got the agree to disagree or the fraternal bit right yet.

LikeLike

Reply
Nas

June 25, 2008 at 4:18 pm

It certainly is time for the SWP to accept that they have nothing to do with Respect. It would be nice if the SWP were to deal with Rees/German and their antics – but no one imagines that’s going to happen.

Who’s going to be the leader of the Left List now? I presume it will have to be someone not in the SWP in order to pretend that it is not simply a front for the party. Michael Gavan is a possibility I suppose – but he got so badly burned by the OffU fiasco, which hasn’t yet gone away.

Perhaps they could just this entire area of work to bed and get on with other things. After a decent period, who knows, they might even restore some levels of trust with others in the movement.

LikeLike

Reply
Joseph Kisolo

June 25, 2008 at 4:40 pm

While personally I think that arguing in attack dog style doesn’t get one far, Ger isn’t just arbitrarily harking back to the old arguments, he is pointing to the obvious point that the defection of the 3 Left-Lister’s further makes the “left-right split” stuff seem implausible. Ray, can’t you see (even a little bit) where we might be coming from over this?

I’m not sure there was much enthusiasm for keeping left-list going by SWP members before these defections so I am very doubtful that it will last long now. The ‘political justification’ line that is put out to cover this looks certain to be “the political climate is changing, we don’t need to focus on electoral alliances any more now we need to focus on trade union struggle” . A false argument as the two could be (if we built a real activist party) fundamentally linked.

As for Respect (renewal), hmmm…. I am hopeful, but the betrayal by the tower hamlets councillor seems to me to be a big blow. I honestly don’t know what things are like on the ground in tower hamlets but I am imagining the remaining councillors are pretty demoralised. I hear things are stronger in Birmingham, which is great but truth be told, Respect retains only one major strength, an MP and he is somewhat of a wild card. (Salma and her standing in Birmingham is also a not insignificant strength no doubt).

Will this be enough for Respect to start to be a national organisation? We’ll see. The Respect conference in the autumn will be make or break.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 25, 2008 at 5:42 pm

Once again, I don’t see how 3 councilors defecting alters the accusation that the wasn’t a left/right split. The Renewal election campaign and various other political tactics and strategies used by Renewal vindicate our arguement as far as I’m concerned.

What you aren’t addressing is that a leading member of Renewal defected in unison with 3 of our councilors. I don’t believe they did this because of a huge political disagreement with Respect but because they are aware that the feud has fatally wounded Respect and are sick of it. Unlike the LL who were in talks with the 3, Renewal was apparently unaware their deputy leader was so demoralised and arranging his defection to Labour with our three councilors. That does call into question just who is in touch with reality.

If anything, this is an example of how the left can shoot itself in the foot. And on this count trying to aportion blame is irrelevant now. The important thing, in light of what has happened, is finding a way to work together fraternally in future if this is at all possible.

LikeLike

Reply
Joseph Kisolo

June 26, 2008 at 7:26 am

The claim of the “left-right split ” argument was that those on the Renewal side were pulled by electoralism, while those on the Left-list side remained faithful to “Respects original vision”.

To me it seems clear that the 3 left-list councillors joining Labour (a move to the right) shows that they were no more immune from the “pull of electoralism” then those who went with Renewal. At the very least this stuff shows that things are a lot more complicated then the “left-right” split stuff suggests.

Still we probably won’t get much further with that one. I agree with you that its a crying shame that we have fucked up so much potential.

LikeLike

Reply
modernityblog

June 26, 2008 at 12:26 pm

the Left should be a little less concerned with recent splits and more on the real danger of BNP growth

please, try to put aside the sectarian stuff, it counts for nought when seen in light of the threat of the BNP

after all slagging each other off is not much good if the BNP got around to controlling the streets, is it?

LikeLike

Reply
Geoffrey

June 26, 2008 at 4:01 pm

FROM THE UAF WEBSITE

Join the UAF by-election leafleting against the BNP this week

The fascist BNP are standing candidates in several by-elections taking place on 3rd July 2008. Unite Against Fascism has organised the following activities to oppose the BNP. It is crucial that we leaflet to urge people to use their votes to stop them and raise awareness of the BNP’s fascist nature.

Please join the following Anti-BNP ward leafleting this Thursday and Sunday.

Details for East London:
Havering (South Hornchurch ward) Thur 26 June,
Barking (Chadwell Heath ward) Sun 29 June,

Details for South East London:
Bexley ( Christchurch ward) Sun 29 June,

Contact UAF
email: unite@ucu.org.uk
tel: 020 7833 4916 / 020 7837 4522

LikeLike

Reply