Alf Filer sent me this. It contains some ideas about broadening and making more transparent the democratic functioning of Unite Against Fascism.

image Following the defeat of the BNP electorally in Barking, Stoke and in many other areas across Britain at the General Election, we note that the vote for the far right has now reached half a million. In many areas they received 7% of the vote, (approx), with the NF also emerging as a challenge to the BNP.

The EDL continues to organise provocative demos and acting in a more aggressive and threatening manner, in spite of their set backs in Tower Hamlets and failure to appear in Wembley last month.

Islamophobia, homophobia and racism remains a serious issue and the deepening of the economic crises is seeing scapegoating on the increase. Immigration controls, deportations and further attacks on the rights of asylum seekers is being encouraged by the media and politicians alike.

The successes of the anti-fascist and anti-racist movement in many areas is something we can all be proud of, with the work carried out by the UAF, Hope Not Hate, Love Music Hate Racism and many local based committees .

The challenges we face over the next period, both here and internationally require a sustained response. Now is the time to convene the AGM of the UAF to bring together all the anti-fascist movements that have emerged and learn from these experiences.

A resolution was passed by Brent Trades Council, the Jewish Socialist Group, Cambridge Teachers Association, Southwark Respect and others last year and presented to the UAF. It was indicated that this would be discussed and agreed in principle by the organisers of the UAF. We understand that due to all the activity taking place, such an AGM would be convened in the near future.

We feel that now is the time to arrange such an AGM and bring together the widest possible forces to democratically discuss, plan and agree the next stages of the campaign. It was further included in the resolution a need for an international anti-fascist conference. Given the developments on the rise of the far right in Europe, the bans on mosques, minarets and the wearing of the veil, it is even more urgent.

We look forward to your response.

In solidarity

Alf Filer

This resolution for the Unite Against Fascism national conference offers proposals for discussion by the anti-fascist movement as a whole.

‘We note that the rise of various fascist and racist groups in the UK over the past few years has become an increasingly growing concern, especially given the electoral wins of the BNP in the Euro and council elections.

The increase in racist, Islamophobic and homophobic attacks, along with the attempts by groups such as the EDL, SIOE and others to demonstrate on the streets has raised new challenges to the anti-fascist movement.

The impact of the worsening economic crises, rising unemployment and cuts in public services has provided a breeding ground for the racists and fascists to use scapegoats to blame the crises on. We put the blame squarely on those who pursue profits at the expense of working people.

We further note that over the past year, thousands of anti-fascists have been mobilised across the country to successfully oppose the BNP and their allies. The support of the organised labour movement, trade union branches, student organisations, women’s organisations, faith based organisations, ethnic based groups, gay groups and many others have come together to say, “they shall not pass”. We remember Cable Street and Lewisham, where the fascists were sent packing. There is no place for these Nazis.

The UAF has played a key role in providing support, resources and leadership in the various anti-fascist campaigns. In ensuring that the BNP and others are defeated in the General Election and challenged effectively where ever they raise their message of hatred, we call on the UAF to:

a. To continue to mobilise mass action on the streets and elsewhere in denying the fascists and racists any opportunity to spread their message of hatred and division.

b. b Organise a representative delegate based conference open to all who are actively supporting the struggle against fascism and racism.

c. Adopt a democratic national and regional structure which is made up of elected delegates and representatives from the whole of the movement.

d. Encourage UAF groups to be established within unions, workplaces, campuses and community groups.

e. To arrange regional and national conferences with workshops to discuss wider issues related to the fight against fascism and racism.

f. To jointly sponsor an international conference uniting the wider international struggles against fascism both in the UK and elsewhere.

78 responses to “Letter to Unite Against Fascism”

  1. I understand the criticisms but I don’t see the point. The UAF is funded by the trade union bureaucracy and staffed by the SWP.
    As a result it is inherently, indeeed, necessarily conservative, legalist and undemocratic. It can no more be reformed than you can overthrow capitalism through parliament. I’ve seen with my own eyes the baleful results of this method in Manchester, Leeds and Bolton in the last few months.
    It is telling that the only time the EDL have been run off the streets was at the second Birmingham demo, when UAF – in conjunction with Respect/Salma Yaqoob – boycotted the protest.
    My view is that the only way forward for anti-fascists is to build independent initially local alternatives to it. As indeed we’re doing in Manchester, where we have launched the Manchester Anti-Fascist Alliance, which had a very good launch meeting attended by 40 the other week and is holding a social in Rusholme this Saturday.
    If you’re around pop in!

    Like

  2. Lol, how many letters like this have been sent now?

    Pointless political posturing.

    Like

  3. Democratic discussion and calls for a united front following the events in Dudley are neither pointless or posturing. They are essential if we are to establish the type of unity required.

    The alternative is to moan .

    Like

  4. Ok, that sounds great. Let me know how you get on.

    I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that nothing at all will change in the way UAF operates and someone will write an almost identical letter in a few months time.

    Like

  5. Duncan you may be right and I may be over optimistic but the point is that either we allow things to carry on the way they are or we campaign for a different approach.

    Yes local based, democratic campaigns, are the only way to effectively organise counter demos to the EDL, as we have pointed out and as shown in places such as Tower Hamlets and Harrow.

    The need for a review of the work of the UAF is essential and lessons must be learnt by the anti-fascist movement. Just pretending all is fine and going from one static demo to another as some type of response unit is not the solution.

    The anti-fascist movement must link up with the various campaigns and initiatives locally against the cuts to provide real answers and to show a class based response to these developments which also challenges the Condems.

    Like

  6. An account of yesterday’s events in Dudley is below. The UAF rally was between about 150 and 200, there was a limited range of local people and later on a couple of dozen men from the Muslim community joined the rally.

    http://fitwatch.org.uk/2010/07/edl-trash-houses-and-asian-businesses.html

    Like

  7. All abstract stuff Alf. The first lesson that needs to be learnt is that there is no reforming the UAF. Ask yourself how that could happen? Not through local groups, not through national groups, not through self reform. There is no mechanism.
    The union bureaucracy will not allow it. The SWP bureaucracy will not allow it. The UAF bureaucracy will not allow it.
    It is literally impossible. But worse its a diversion from the real task, that is to build an anti-fascist movement from the bottom up, separate from the UAF. It needs to be democratic, run by its supporters from the bottom up, based on the principle of self organisation, with a working class strategy, not popular frontist, not controlled by its full time officers in the pay of the union officials, not the play thing of one monolithic organisation (the SWP), which does not appeal to the police to do its work, which actually builds no platform, which is in short completely different to the UAF.
    And even better there are plenty of people out there who want to do just that.

    Like

  8. Billj is spot on see youse at manc social. no pasaran

    Like

  9. Bill j “The union bureaucrats will not allow it” you say, but is that an arguement for not asserting and fighting for a principled position in the labour movement. There is much they do not allow but do we give up or walk away? No.
    Yes we need to build from the bottom up and no we dont need top down campaigns. Yes we need to break down sectarianism and bad practices which hold the labour movement back.
    Yes we need to campaign for what is right and yes there are many who are prepared to take up a principled stand. But why not do both. Campaign within the UAF and support/ build local democratic campaigns.

    Like

  10. The UAF are not the trade unions.
    The trade unions organise the mass of the working class in their struggle to defend their terms and conditions.
    The UAF are a tiny unrepresentative and unaccountable organisation run by their full time staff with effectively no membership. This means it is practically impossible to organise within the UAF, not only do they have no local organisations for people to organise in, their relationship with the police means that practical anti-fascist activity is ruled out.
    What it boils down to is a question of trust.
    Personally I do not trust them and would not recommend any else does either.

    Like

  11. Hywel Nostrodamus Avatar
    Hywel Nostrodamus

    How many supporters does the Jewish Socialist Group have?

    Is this like the Jewish Bakers’ Union, with a total membership able to squeeze into a Mini?

    Like

  12. The comment by Hywel is a sectarian response which is of the type that has no place in our movement. He/ she should withdraw it.

    Today, in response to the crises, their are many groups emerging, as well as already existing. The function of Socialists is to recognise this and work towards maximising unity and building a united front that respects all, based on unity in action.

    Many of their comrades have played a key role in the anti-fascist and socialist movement and I for one welcome them, along with many others.

    Like

  13. `The function of Socialists is to recognise this and work towards maximising unity and building a united front that respects all, based on unity in action.’

    To what end and what purpose? The purpose of a united front is not to inculcate respect all round but 1) to initiate joint action to specific practical ends and 2) to politically expose in action the opportunists, the sectarians, the misleaders of the class. The moment you start respecting a reformist policy is the moment you become one. What should mark out the revolutionists in a united front is not their respect for others per se but their ability to perform exemplary work in pursuit of the front’s aims as opposed to acting through fiat, inconsistency, unpredictability, opportunism, sectarianism and so on and so forth.

    It is right to try to hold the UAF to practical tasks like organising democratic open conferences but as billj says it is also necessary to draw some conclusions for your followers and theirs about the true nature of this outfit. In actual fact, if you really do want them to hold the kind of conference you call for then the more excoriating and incisive your criticisms the more likely you are to get it or the more likely you are to be able to to summon the forces necessary to hold your own. The trouble with billj however is that he is happy exposing misleaders in words and considers all real attempts to hold non-pure organisations to practical agreements to be opportunism.

    The sectarians sat on the sidelines viciously carping and obstructing whilst Respect busted a gut attempting to get principled anti-war MPs elected and that is not the way to win friends and influence people. The only people who got exposed by their inability to work in exemplary fashion in a united front was the SWP. Now that wasn’t supposed to happen but how brilliant that it did.

    Revolutionaries should be making united fronts with all and sundry in schools and hopsitals today in the pursuit of the practical end of building `all staff’ committees that will fight cuts and oppose the introduction of private management companies and the destruction of union pay and conditions. Now that is a united front. Most instead are going around creating illusions in the trade union bureaucrats who will not act to prevent the coalition plans unless they are forced to and then only to head off that action. We must put ourselves in a position to be able to hold these misleaders to account or to demand of them united action to practical ends.

    Like

  14. Moan, moan, moan.

    Like

  15. `Moan, moan, moan.’

    Ummm, yeah…right, ok.

    Like

  16. Alf.

    “Yes we need to campaign for what is right and yes there are many who are prepared to take up a principled stand. But why not do both. Campaign within the UAF and support/ build local democratic campaigns.”

    I agree in principle but tend to agree that on past experience and practice it does appear very unlikely if not impossible to bring about, for the reasons others have already clearly outined ie the entrenched and bureaucratic top down controlling ways of operating of the trade unions and the SWP hierachies.

    However, what we cant continue with is further sectarianism,internal division and separation within the anti facist anti racist movement.

    Fine ,create and develop local democratic grassroots anti fascist anti racist organisations but they still have to work with other organisations out of necessity and reality , preferably on a basis of trust, organisation and corrdination, otherwise we are completely lost given the Left’s present weak and fractured state and the fact that we cannot presently in any way match the one million votes so far gained by the facist racist BNP

    At times, WE are stretched by forever having to react to the seemingly neverending marches, violent incursions, flase calls and threats of the thuggish racist EDL mobs and others.

    Perhaps, instead of continuing to bang our, by now well bruised heads against well used immovable brick walls of old, a more constructive initiative might be to build a critical mass around the idea of convening a grassroots UNITY conference of like minded anti racist ,anti fascist , anti homphobic individuals and organisations, on a democratically agreed basis, to outline a strategy for building trust and creatively dealing with the outstanding frustrations present within the movement.

    By working towards building the necessary trust and cohesion that is needed and by working towards building solid bridges in solidarity work that is so often lacking within the wider and foolishly divided movement (UAF and Hope not Hate both funded by the same trade unions) we can show that there is a positive possible and popular way forward.

    These vitally important issues of lack of trust and the lack of joined up thinking, good and effective support,coordination and organisation within the anti fascist anti racist movement also have to be taken up and discussed within trade unions branches, on the shop floor, in the work place and need to form the basis of motions be brought up and fully discussed at trade union conferences and fringe meetings by activists as a matter of urgency.

    A divided anti racist anti fascist movement is NOT an option.

    NO PASARAN !

    Like

  17. We should / must all agree that a ” A divided anti racist anti fascist movement is NOT an option”.

    I too am fed up with promises of the need for an AGM but postponed time and time again on the grounds that the priority is this town or that town to march against the EDL.

    Yes we must organise counter marches but the best way is through building local democratic cttees within a national network, respecting the autonomy and rights of local groups.

    I agree that the splits between UAF and Hope Not Hate are to say the least stupid and uneccessary. I also agree that we do not need top down cttees imposing themselves on local groups either.

    Then we are told the UAF lacks money, there is too much to do etc etc. Well the anti-fascist movement is stronger when it organises in a way that more are involved and allowed to take ownership of their activities.

    We are also told there is a steering cttee, but it is not elected as such and how one gets co-opted on to it who knows? Not that I am for co-opting but for an open cttee which allows reps from all anti-fascist cttees to attend. Where is the transparency of the steering cttee and who is on it? Any clues? This is partly a rhetorical question.

    It may be that at the end of the day, if the UAF fails to call an AGM and fails to be seen to act in such a democratic manner, then there may be no alternative to what you suggest.

    The anti-fascist and anti-racist movement must be rooted in the labour movement and acknowledge the autonomy of groups in combatting and counter mobilising against the rise of the far right.

    Yet we also need to win people over to the need for such a type of approach and hopefully more will support the call for an AGM and democratic accountability and debate on the issues facing the movement.

    Like

  18. I would ask why there is a need for an AGM when there’s been a national conference, or if the UAF has effectively no membership there is really going to spring up a mass membership organisation in its place, but I really can’t be bothered.
    Nice to see David Ellis showing us all how to win friends and influence people.

    johng – am I right in thinking that denigrating Yunus was part of Alex Snowden’s shtick, are am I unfairly tarnishing the gentleman?

    Like

  19. The national conference was not an AGM, nor did it take resolutions and there was more discussions at the workshops with activists debating than there was in the plenary sessions. Nor did the conference elect or take nominations for an open steering cttee, as one would have expected to have occurred.

    The issue is the need to bring together all the anti-fascist/ anti-racist groups and to set up a democratic network. Also the obvious point is the need to have an open and frank discussion on tactics and policies. Or do we just chase around the country with no agreed strategy?

    Enough of top down undemocratic campaigns. Can the UAF reform itself or be reformed is the question being raised. By holding an AGM and electing an open and democratic steering cttee then it can answer that question.

    Like

  20. A divided anti-fascist movement is better than a monolithic anti-fascist movement run by the UAF/SWP.
    That doesn’t mean that we cannot work with them where possible – not that often in practice in my experience – but it does mean that we need to recognise there is no reforming either them or Hope not Hate.
    OK so lets accept for a moment that Alf’s conditions for the reform of UAF are not fulfilled – what then?
    The only serious option is to build an alternative like I said at the beginning.

    Like

  21. Skidmarx: I think you are looking for Match.com you cult donkey. It has the level of politics you aspire to. CC would like to meet unthinking useful idiot to spend two and a half years on a wrecking operation. All arguments supplied so no need for engagement.

    Like

  22. I am not arguing for yet another cttee to be set up competing with each other. I am arguing for a principlked approach both within and outside of the UAF.
    1. The UAF should hold an AGM.
    2. The UAF should elect a steering cttee which is also open to other campaign groups involved in this field.
    3. The UAF should build a bridge with Hope Not Hate and attempt to unite the 2.
    4. There should be a recognition of the role of local based autonomous groups involved in the struggle against fascism and racism.
    5. The movement needs to have a wide debate on tactics, approach and policies.
    6. There is a need for an international link up and conference to discuss the growing international issues developing re the far right, Islamaphobia, racism and fascism.

    This I would have thought is normal practice and quite reasonable but there are some who are more concerned about their own hegemony than open discussion .

    Like

  23. I think the point billj is making alf is that though points 1 to 6 are very worthy they have not, are not and will never be realised by the UAF/SWP – bureaucracy sponsored front. WHy would they be?

    The rev left needs to build up forces on the basis of an attractive, objectively in tune transitional programme and perspectives making small scale united fronts at local level in order to eventually be able to forge united fronts at national level i.e. practical agreements that we can force the labour bureaucrats to sign up to so that they can be exposed in practice.

    Sorry to harp on about this but building staff committees in hospitals and schools where we have influence to fight the privatisation process would be a good start. Self defence committees in communities encompassing all stakeholders facing fascist threat could be another where the political situation is right.

    The problem with the propaganda sect left (esp the bureaucratised examples) is that it has no programmatic demands which it can use to forge united fronts around. Develop the action programme for the masses rather than endless vacuuous calls for unity and more committees and they will come. Has anybody ever read any kind of programmatic demand in any of the SWPs propaganda from their paper to the aptly named Lenin’s Tomb? It is all just propaganda (and not even good propaganda and certainly not analysis) ending in the most fatuous `calls’ if any stolen from the reformists.

    Like

  24. The UAF should do a lot of things. But that’s a bit like saying it should be sunny in the Summer. It has not a jot of influence on whether it is or not.
    Why is that?
    Because the UAF is a bureaucratic organisation entirely controlled by an apparatus that is paid for by the trade unions and run by the SWP. Neither of those organisations has either the intention or the ability to run it in any other way than that of a top down, bureaucratically degenerate, undemocratic fashion. They are monolithic, intolerant of opposition and incapable of reform. And unlike the trade unions which include millions of workers, the UAF has no mass base either, indeed it has no real base at all, no local organisations, no autonomous groups, no internal democracy whatsoever. And indeed it cannot.
    Neither of its founding organisations could tolerate it to any extent at all.
    To demand the reform of the UAF is to demand that it does not rain a lot in Manchester. It will not happen now matter how urgently or frequently you call for it.
    So what’s the alternative?
    To build something else.

    Like

  25. A bit of supporting evidence for Bill’s point.

    There was a follow up meeting earlier this week to review the anti-EDL demonstration and decide what to do next with United East End.

    Some, myself included, felt it should move to take up the issue of resistance to cuts. Others felt that it should retain more of a focus on anti-racism. There was merit on both sides of the debate and it should have been thrashed out by activists in the area.

    What happened instead was that the entire UAF staff and the local SWP had a large contingent which allowed the resemblance of a discussion but felt for all the world like a takeover. Whether that was the intention is pretty irrelevant. It’s a standard procedure.

    It would have been more logical and transparent to simply propose launching a local UAF branch with elections and officers. I very nearly proposed this but the weird thing was, despite the presence of the entire UAF staff none of them did and if I had it would have been seen as a wrecking manoeuvre. Isn’t that a paradox?

    Like

  26. I can’t speak for anywhere else, but in the town in Wales where I live UAF was first more of a banner that was just wheeled out occasionally to do anti-fascist activity under, for example, some leafleting of a ward where the BNP might be standing, or to call a demonstration at the studios of the BBC and so on, it was mainly kept afloat by some local trades council activists.

    In the last year or so, a decision was made that this ad hoc on-off nature was not good enough and to set up a Wales UAF structure with local branches and a membership structure & affiliated organisations and groups. UAF Wales has an elected steering committee, my local branch has an elected convenor and open organising meetings. It’s not perfect yet, but the view of anti-racists was that some lose ad hoc thing switched on and off was not good enough & there was a need to build a group with democratic structures, elected officers that will have consistent activity throughout the year.

    How UAF here develops is up for grabs & what happens over the next year will be decisive in defining the nature of the organisation. It has been very succesful in getting institutional backing, but obviously many of the new forces that attended anti-EDL demonstrations need to be setting the tempo.

    One quite important initiative has been the various subdivisions where people organise – for example, in Cardiff, football fans set up a ‘Bluebirds vs. the Nazis’ group that distributed around 5000 anti-fascist leaflets to fans, one of the city’s largest reggae nights and local artists provided soundsystem to UAF and banner making facilities & music venues, pubs and clubs were leafleted. People from the local arts scene are working on a manifesto to launch a new organisation with a Declaration of W.A.R (Writers against Racism), someone who works in the media wanted to set up an anti-fascist group among media workers and so on

    Like

  27. Clearly there is a problem with the UAF and clearly, irrespective of whether it can / will be reformed, at present it has serious issues.

    The need for the rest of us to discuss is obvious and we probably are coming to some agreement or understanding.

    However I never give up until it is a dead end wall. So worth a try. Who knows? As to asking it to stop raining in Manchester, we dont control the weather but we can influence events. How though is another matter. At least I have started a debate on how to best build the campaign. Now to get out of the rain!!!!!!

    Like

  28. Irrespective of whether it can/ will be reformed it has issues?
    I should say so.
    I think Adamski’s idea of building local groups is excellent, but what you’ll find is that when anything happens the UAF/SWP bureaucracy will turn up and start ordering you around.
    That’s just what happened in Bolton.
    More proof needed?

    Like

  29. There will an independent mobilisation for Bradford;

    http://srfnetwork.org/2010/07/24/action-bradford-28th-august

    Like

  30. So we need to organise in such a way, by involving many and linking up with the various local anti-cuts campaigns etc so no one can order anyone around.

    We also need to ensure the movement we build can relate to others by discussing the issues of autonomy, black self defence and self organisation, immigration controls, Islamaphobia, Homophobia and racism etc etc.

    This means both inside and outside of the UAF at local levels, subject to local conditions.

    Like

  31. I wouldn’t put much faith in the “independent” mobilisation either, its run by the AWL.
    Over 100 people attended the MAFA launch benefit yesterday!
    Woo hoo!!

    Like

  32. if I had it would have been seen as a wrecking manoeuvre.
    If that’s a testable hypothesis perhaps you should have tested it.

    Good luck to billj in doing what he wants to do, but I do suspect that if there were a large group of anti-fascists in the country opposed to the UAF way of doing things, that would show more reflection in an opposition within UAF, and all he and his comrades are likely to end up with is a small organisation than mobilises few outside their own numbers.

    Like

  33. billj – if you don’t want the independent mobilisation to be dominated by any one group, it’s down to groups like MAFA to mobilise for the 28th.

    Like

  34. We’ll mobilise but not under the “leadership” of groups like the AWL (or yours for that matter).

    Like

  35. We ll be in bradford and not with UAF.

    Like

  36. billj
    fyi the independent mobilisation in Leeds/Bradford was initiated more by Leeds Afed than AWL. Since then it has pulled in SP and a number of other elements. To be frank I though Workers Power had got off their high horse and joined in, realising that talking about militant campaigns against fascism whilst doing f* all to oppose the EDL in Bradford would just made them look stupid. You clearly don’t want to be involved in a campaign your organisation, WP, doesn’t control. Hopefully your Leeds comrades will feel different.

    Like

  37. It appears that the UAF has now called for a national demo in Nov against fascism and racism. I welcome it and will support it, helping to build it. Yet we must ask questions.
    1. Why then?
    2. Has there been discussions with other forces?
    3. How will it link to the various anti-cuts initiatives at that time?
    4. Does it link in to building local based cttees which are open to thers?
    5. Who will be the key speakers?

    These are not small points but issues to consider in planning and building such a demo.

    Like

  38. MAFA is not an anti fash outfit. It is an organisation designed to inject pro zionism and pro loyalism into the anti fascist movement. No doubt it will punch above its social weight in the movement due to the funding it receives from the AWL and god knows where they get their money.

    Like

  39. I’m not in Workers Power, in fact they expelled me.
    And no member of the AWL is in MAFA.
    But ignorance is indeed bliss.

    Like

  40. I should add, my view of the Stop Fascism network, originating from the Notts anti Red White and Blue campaign, is that it is basically an AWL front.
    I know that because I inadvertently attended one of its steering groups where there were at least two AWL former general election candidates in attendance plus a number of other AWL full time apparatus officials.
    Therefore I do not support participating in it.
    There is little point if criticising UAF for being a front of a monolithic organisation, to support the creation of another one, albeit smaller.

    Like

  41. DELETED -SEE COMMENTS POLICY – LIAM.
    Next use of abusive language means that your comments are held for moderation before release. My house, my rules.

    Like

  42. Look its obvious that when you decide to do anything independent of the SWP/UAF then they reach for the insults, Zionist, funded by the AWL, pro-Loyalist, “arse” and so on.
    Its absolutely what you would except from a bureaucratically group like yours. Fortunately, more and more people are waking up to the facts.

    Like

  43. At the SRF Steering group that bill j was at. There were 3 AWL people, 3 or 4 people, I believe, from the SP in about the 15 or so there. Many of those were long standing anti-fascist activists. Bill j obviously can’t tell the difference between hard-working anti-fascists, who have built up serious campaigns, and AWL members. I suppose that is a complement to the AWL. Thanks.
    Btw MAFA is a supporter of the SRF network, the campaign bill seems to claim for his own. In fact the meeting Bill was at was organised by MAFA!
    And I am pleased that Bill, having been expelled from WP, is not representative of them. There may be a chance of widening unity of the genuine anti-fascist left (with the sad exception of sad bill)

    Like

  44. Of course you’re free to tell me all about meetings that I attended and you did not and organisations that I am a part of and you are not.
    Its true that a supporter of MAFA did book the room, he’s a generous kind of a person, personally I don’t hold that against him.
    And of course you’re welcome to unite the AWL with Workers Power all you want, birds of a feather, do after all, flock together.

    Like

  45. billj
    I was there

    Like

  46. So there were 3 AWL people – of which 2 were electoral candidates – one of whom happens to be the secretary of Stop Racism and one other who was a full timer of the AWL. In addition there were at least two others who were AWL sympathisers or working under their direction.
    So the AWL ran the meeting.
    And indeed the AWL run the campaign, that is after all why you’re pushing it.

    We discussed it at the MAFA meeting afterwards, where we agreed we were very sceptical about working in an AWL front, but would keep a watching brief.
    I repeat there are no members of the AWL or Workers Power in MAFA.
    Workers Power have a history of providing left cover for various AWL fronts over the years, I’m thinking of No Sweat, the present student anti-cuts campaign and of course the Stop Racism Network.
    I think its a result of your shared bureaucratic method. And let’s face it, it suits your common goal of recruiting members.
    Keep it up.

    Like

  47. Wrong, wrong, wrong again! Workers Power – left cover for the AWL? Love it.

    Like

  48. Hey and you are happy about being in a campaign that is part of an AWL front (with a watching brief). Love it even more!

    Like

  49. Bill j
    So what is this ‘We’ll mobilise but not under the “leadership” of groups like the AWL (or yours for that matter).’ but then you admit to be part of an ‘AWL front’. How can anyone take you seriously?

    Like

  50. Look I’m getting shot from both sides here – the AWL object because I don’t support them – the SWP object because I support the AWL.
    Blimey even I’m feeling unloved!
    I’ve been around for a long time and I know how these things work. The AWL are a particularly bad example of a bureaucratic sect building organisation, it establishes these nominally independent fronts to build itself – so far so uninteresting – that’s what the SWP, SP and WP do too – but if that wasn’t bad enough, it also has to have racist politics on Palestine, to supports the bombing of Iran by Israel and the US occupation of Iraq.
    Excuse me for thinking that’s a toxic combination that I don’t want to have any part of and I don’t recommend anything that I’m involved in has a part of either.
    I don’t “admit” to being part of an AWL front. Hopefully when people in MAFA see this they’ll be even less inclined to participate either.
    As I’ve explained once I reported back to people in MAFA that SRF was a front for the AWL the general consensus was that we did not want to be run by it, that we would retain our independence, but that we would see if it ever did anything useful.
    What has it ever done that is useful?
    Of course it hasn’t. It can’t because its an AWL front.
    So you don’t take me seriously – I’ve had worse – ask PUnk.

    Like

  51. MAFA has one of the 2 co-convenors of the SRF campaign. He isn’t AWL. He is in fact a member of another left group.
    Most of the people who bill j claims were AWL at the SRF meeting that he was at, in fact weren’t!
    The campaign that was begun and is still supported by anarchists in Leeds/ Bradford had a meeting only last Saturday. Well attended meeting. Only 1 AWL member there.
    But according to bill j that, as well, is an AWL front.
    His is an outrageous attempt to sabotage a campaign actually trying to do something on the ground against the EDL. Has he justified his accusation against Leeds Anti-fascist network? No! Could he? No, unless he lies as he seems quite happy to do about the SRF meeting he was at. If anyone takes him seriously in MAFA I suppose they may be confused about the SRF. But I doubt that he is taken seriously.
    And what is bill j doing or supporting being done in Bradford? I suspect nothing. I think people can draw their own conclusions about his credibility as a serious anti-fascist.

    Like

  52. Yeah! That’s right!

    He’s objectively a pro-fascist element.

    Like

  53. Look its standard AWL practice when setting these things up to inveigle a few naive innocents onto the “leadership”, to provide cover for your domination. I’ve been around long enough to know how you work.
    The SRF is an AWL front. And that is denounced as a lie by an AWL member.
    Need I say more?
    As for the rest – its typical smear politics. I’m not interested. You do what you like, I’ll do what I like.
    No thanks to you, your front, or the AWL.

    Like

  54. Just to add I cross posted with Liam, my remarks were obviously not directed at him.
    My irony metre is set pretty low these days, but more or less still works.
    (Actually there’s a simple rule – always take postings by AWL or SWP or Workers Power members at face value…
    ;-} or in other words when they’re being rude they mean it, even if it makes you laugh!)

    Like

  55. Charlie Salmon Avatar
    Charlie Salmon

    bill j – read what you have written, think about it for a moment and then ask yourself what the people the AWL has apparently inveigled would make of it. You yourself make repeated complaints about rudeness but then indulge in slightly more subtle abuse yourself. Far from being the “naive innocents” you arrogantly claim them to be the people at the meeting and those actively involved with the associated campaigns are all members of socialist organisations and/or experienced trade union activists … either way, they’ve all heard your kind of pompous nay saying before.

    As for the actual political issues: in the face of a rigidly-controlled and politically abstentious UAF, what should anti-fascists do? Bill gives one good example: build independent local campaigns. Good! Then what? Shouldn’t these groups link up, provide support and solidarity, mobilise for national events and, well – brace yourselves … – work together democratically? I think they should, which is why I’m involved with the SRF network.

    Controversial suggestion? Apparently so. Why? Well, I think we all know what Bill’s problem is.

    Like

  56. Meaning what? I refer you to my last sentence above.

    The SRF network has been set up by the AWL as another front campaign. It shares what is in common with all their other front campaigns.
    It has some laudable aims, includes some more activists than themselves – that is after all the whole point – but is totally under their control and will then be shut down at some as yet unspecified moment that suits them.
    My suggestion is that building this front is a waste of time for anyone not in the AWL. In fact its fair to say in my opinion that doing anything is better than supporting that toxic group.
    You object to being called a “naive innocent”. My assumption was that only such people would join such fronts, after all surely once bitten twice, three or four times shy?
    I hope so.
    Unless of course you’re a member of the AWL, in which case its the usual flim flam.
    Most of what SRF “does” is the bureaucracy of a not really existing national organisation. At the meeting I inadvertently attended, it was worried about making sure that local groups could not post their material to the website. Ensuring that local groups could not oppose “national” decisions – that is decisions taken by the AWL – and generally with the bureaucratic niceties of running a top down campaign.
    This is after all the raison d’etre of their bureaucratic -apparatus lead left wing groups.
    So my suggestion is to build real independent groups of local activists, independent of both UAF and SRF.
    That doesn’t mean of course refusing to ever work with these groups – the truth is on a daily basis they don’t really exist anyway.
    These local groups need to establish a real local profile and undertake active campaigning work.
    The can establish their own democracy in practice.
    Being people of initiative they are also perfectly capable of co-ordinating their activity when necessary nationally.
    What they don’t need is to be ordered around by a load of arrogant left bureaucrats building a single sect like organisation – whether that be the SWP or AWL.

    Like

  57. Charlie Salmon Avatar
    Charlie Salmon

    Bill – you came to a meeting by mistake, drew some conclusions and are now banging the same old drum. If an AWL comrade set up a ‘Jazz and Real Ale’ society in Manchester, you’d claim that any ‘innocent’ who likes John Coltrane and Harvest Pale was being drawn into a Zionist plot. It’s all a bit much really. Safer to keep to yourself, I would think.

    Like

  58. Come off it. You’re an AWL hack. Enough said.

    Like

  59. Charlie Salmon Avatar
    Charlie Salmon

    Well that settles it then.

    Like

  60. the truth is on a daily basis they don’t really exist anyway.
    Does this tell us where you stand on quantum probability theory?
    Alternatively if the UAF doesn’t really exist, do you think that an alternative only drawing on those dissatisfied with it will be any more corporeal?

    Like

  61. I must admit I’ve never really understood quantum theory, I’m a sceptic like Einstein.
    What that means for UAF is however, anyone’s guess. Maybe you can explain?

    Like

  62. bill j
    You say about the SRF meeting you attended a part of ‘it was worried about making sure that local groups could not post their material to the website. Ensuring that local groups could not oppose “national” decisions’
    Absolute crap! It was never agreed or even proposed. The website was set up and every local campaign has an editor who can submit articles. That decision was made on the proposal of an AWLer.
    I have been in contact with MAFA organisers today. They are not in the AWL and say they don’t think the AWL is popular in MAFA – not surprising with a professional liar like you furnishing MAFA with untrue stories about the AWL. However they are active supporters of MAFA’s relations with the SRF and say you don’t speak for MAFA on this matter.
    Furthermore your own comrades (Permanent Revolution?) in London have voted in support of supporting the SRF. You are increasingly on your own, bill j. A national active working class anti-fascism movement is growing (without you).

    Like

  63. And you’re a very rude and angry man.

    Like

  64. It seems to me the debate is about whether the UAF is reformable.

    It should be a democratic organisation, member led, with discussions about decisions before going to a vote over disagreements. It doesn’t function like that and all the evidence suggests that rather than trying to force it to we should concentrate on building vibrant democratic antifascist campaigns controlled by activists’ democracy.

    Of course we should support antifascist demos including those called by the UAF but it is essential that we build meetings based on democracy, drawing in activists, trade unionists, antiracists etc. This is what MAFA intends to do. Other regional and city groups likewise either are doing this.

    NottsStopBNP why would you disagree with this?

    PS Quantum theory whilst undoubtedly largely irrelevant to antifascism is not something Einstein was sceptical on- indeed he was a pioneer of the quantum theory of light- he was I believe sceptical about indeterminacy and proposed hidden variables that would furnish a deeper deterministic explanation- who knows?

    Time, experiment and experience will tell. The only tangential relation to antifascism and politics I can surmise is that in both cases theory must proceed from events and experience.

    Like

  65. Jason
    “it is essential that we build meetings based on democracy, drawing in activists, trade unionists, antiracists etc. This is what MAFA intends to do. Other regional and city groups likewise either are doing this.”
    Agree absolutely, the SRF and the Notts campaign I am involved in has never said anything to dispute this.
    “Of course we should support antifascist demos including those called by the UAF” – as long as they don’t compromise what we need to say and do. Giving applause to Tory councillors (or any councillor) speaking from its rallies who are involved in attacks on trade unionists, as happened at the last UAF rally in Leeds compromises people taking part – it allows the BNP and EDL to portray anti-fascists as part of the establishment that attacks them.
    Avoiding direct action against fascists, as the UAF seem to be planning in Bradford, because it might damage the broad cross-class coalition that UAF wants, also compromises us.
    That is why the SRF advocates a working-class anti-fascist campaign welcoming the plurality and independence of approaches that fall under that banner.

    Like

  66. Yes but you are descriing having different tactics from the UAF. It doesn’t mean opposing an antifascist mobilisation in Bradford it means building for it and making sure that the fascists are stopped.

    Obviously that is best built for by involving working class activists and antiracists through meetings and taking democratic decisions. If that’s what you support then good – but then so does MAFA

    As for supporting a network to oppose racism and fascism well of course what’s the problem- but the crucial point is organising in communities and workplacrs not some long and frankly hard to unravel dispute about who saiud what at what meeting that most readers here haven’t been to.
    On Tories and LibDems agree of course.

    Like

  67. Should also add that key to defeating fascism will be not only directly confronting them but also crucially fighting against the cuts, the privatisations, the crap services, the oppressive policing meted out to working class communities

    Like

  68. Jason
    This confusing thread began when bill j denounced what Leeds Anti-Fascist network were doing in organising in Bradford, preposterously arguing that it was an AWL front. This could only have the effect of discouraging people mobilising to go to Bradford. That is why I felt it necessary to use time that I would spend doing other things rebutting his nonsense.
    Of course, everything possible should be done to mobilise for Bradford. Making sure that we are seen and active where the EDL hope to march, defending the communities there from intimidation and attack.
    I believe that the Leeds and Bradford supporters of the Leeds network are appealing to the UAF to do this with them but currently the UAF plan is to vacate those streets to the EDL and congregate a long way away.
    I hope that the example of Leeds Anti-Fascist Network will make some in the UAF realise that they should join together with Leeds AFN and others whether their right wing sponsors like it or not. UAF’s track record is however poor and we should entertain no illusions.
    btw I have absolutely no opposition to MAFA, they are one of the supporters of the SRF. I do have a problem with bill j who acts destructively in attempting to damage the building of mutual trust amongst the various campaigns that exist within the SRF.

    Like

  69. You get a sense of the pluralistic attitude of the SRF from its AWL organiser posting above.
    Everything’s fine until you point out that the leadership, control and organisation of the campaign by the AWL is a problem.
    Then you get a load of AWL members telling you what an insult it is to claim that the SRF is controlled by the AWL.
    Now of course at one level its possible to have sympathy. I’d be insulted to be an organisation lead by the AWL as I’m sure most people would.
    But that’s not really the point.
    The real point of the swearing and abuse is to use the tried and tested method of bullying to assert control and try to silence dissent.
    Its basically an impossibility of an anti-racist and anti fascist campaign to be lead by a bureaucratically degenerate pro war and Zionist organisation like the AWL, that’s clearly a contradiction in terms.
    And that fundamental truth isn’t going to change no matter how many times whatever his name is swears the opposite.

    Like

  70. I disagree with this approach, Bill.

    In terms of the Stop Racism Fascism (SRF) network the main questions are about how useful it will be, how genuinely independent, democratic, whether it can serve as a means to co-ordinate working class action against fascism. If the organisation has been set up by AWL activists this may make us cautious (for reasons I’ll elaborate) but shouldn’t in and of itself condemn it in advance.

    Where we are at suggests to me that the main focus should be on building local- regional, city or other locality based- antifascist groups like MAFA concentrating both on organised self-defence and stopping the BNP/EDL and co-ordinating defence of services, jobs and housing as part of wider anti-cuts and united front work.

    So rather than immediately joining or not joining SRF our question is would it be useful to have meeting with activists in Bradford (yes) of a practical nature and perhaps in the longer term a regional or national meeting on tactics, strategy, ways forward.

    If AWL members are involved I think we should work with them. We can continue our sharp disagreements on Israel/Palestine, on their refusal to call for Troops Out Now in Iraq and Afghanistan but not at the expense of derailing a meeting. In reality, their policies on these areas are quite rightly deeply unpopular and in practice they will expose themselves in practice.

    It is also true that some members of the AWL (not all) can be extremely rude in their public exchanges- for example calling people ‘professional liars’ and heaping abuse on those they disagree with. It is unpleasant but we should not rise to the bait.

    Instead show in practice that a non-sectarian united front approach working across the left and with antiracist and working class militants can stop fascism both physically and by winning workers and youth away from its empty policies of hatred, racism, homophobia and hatred towards united working class action which alone has the answers on fighting the cuts, capitalism and oppression.

    Like

  71. I don’t agree Jason.
    The extremely rude people of the AWL are the ones who lead it.
    This extremely rude person is the AWL organiser of the SRF.
    My view of the SRF is its unfortunately a typical alternative to actually doing anything, combined with the abusive intolerance of an apparatus lead group.
    What’s more I would add, as it is run by the AWL, we know that it will doomed in advance no matter what happens.
    It will only be “built” insofar, and as long as, it coincides with the narrow interests of that organisation.
    I think the emphasis should be to build local groups, that is to establish real activity on the ground, organised from the bottom up, and run independently of any of these other organisation, the UAF, SRF etc.
    And then insofar as that is necessary or possible to co-ordinate action at a regional or national level.
    I have to say though my experience of that is that it is extremely difficult to do so, in large part because of the absolutely typical response of the AWL and SRF leader on here, which is mirrored if not identical to that demonstrated by the very rude SWP/UAF person as well.
    For all their alleged difference their conduct of “debate” is identical.

    Like

  72. We do agree on the emphasis to build local groups and co-ordinate action from the bottom up. I’m just saying let the AWL or whoever expose themselves in practice arther than refuse to work with them.

    On the SRF I know little about it but am not for rushing in but neither would I oppose working with them on a particular demo e.g. the one in Bradford though I’m sure others have organised it as well as mya be some of the SRF

    Like

  73. In which case we agree Jason. Like I said at the beginning I don’t think we should rule out working with anyone, UAF, HnH, SRF or whoever.
    The point is whether we should build one of them. Personally I don’t think we should.

    Like

  74. Ive noticed all over the socialist blogs,that when it comes to discrimanation,regarding religion,the bigots appear.All cry socialist,yet unknowing in soacialism.

    Like

Leave a reply to Liam Cancel reply

Trending