Anti BNP March/low demo turnouts
Jun 24 2008 15:10
The anti BNP march in London was pants. A few thousand people and the SWP are claiming 10,000. At the start of the march you could barely hear people chanting but although things got louder the slogans themselves were shite as was the music on the float.
However, this is exactly why we need to mobilise for these events. At the anti-war demo and now this one there has been virtually no anarchist presence, there should have been a national mobilisation. One of my comrades suggested we all wear black, have big anarchist flags and make ourselves heard and I think he's right. It's important to let people know we're there and that they can come and join us and that our message and our propaganda gets across instead of giving the impression that we don't give a shit about the war in Iraq or the threat of the far-right or that left-wing politics is percieved as moribund. We need to turnout in force and change all this.
Jun 24 2008 16:29
#2
While I'm so against turning up as a 'block', the people on the demo aren't irrelevant. Many of them are militant working class people looking for answers - and many of them will be just as dissilusioned with the politics of the march as yer average anarchist.
That is why, rather than having big black flags, we (whoever that is - I'm not an anarchist) need to get our shit together and produce some decent materials. I would be up for going and handing things out with good politics - but really the first priority is to sort out what "our message" would be. What, politically, do you want to argue for RABR?
Jun 25 2008 01:13
#3
A big group of people all in black and waving flags about ain't the most approachable group of people in the world.
Jun 25 2008 01:13
#4
A big group of people all in black and waving flags about ain't the most approachable group of people in the world.
Jun 25 2008 08:11
#5
Quote:
One of my comrades suggested we all wear black, have big anarchist flags and make ourselves heard and I think he's right.
Aside from the all wearing black bit I agree. Folk will be intrigued by Black and Red flags and what not but a block of folk all in black would probably look too aggro.
Jun 25 2008 11:06
#6
Quote:
One of my comrades suggested we all wear black, have big anarchist flags and make ourselves heard and I think he's right.
This is obviously the most pressing issue for the UK anarchist movement.
Jul 29 2008 22:44
#7
All this talk about what to wear what to carry is irrelevant. You need to look at the reasons not many people turn up to these things. And that's because they don't achieve much. Not only that, but not many people see the BNP as much a threat. Apart from the fact that we live on a two-party state, and the first past the post system means minor parties always stay relevant - the BNP is not a party which is attacking working people or people from ethnic minorities, the Labour Party is the party doing that.
Of course the BNP would too if it was in power, but it's not and nor is it going to be.
Jul 30 2008 11:32
#8
I think that's a bit crude Steven. Thoguh I agree with the thrust of your argument, if someone lived in Dagenham or Oldham would you say the same? Is there no decent organising to be done against fascism before it reaches state power?
Jul 30 2008 12:26
#9
Basically, I think that Steven is right. I don't think that the BNP is fascist in the traditional sense of the word. It is a nationalist populist party. I don't think that fascism exists in the traditional sense of the word anymore.
What are they doing in Oldham, and Dagenham apart from the BNP winning the odd council seat?
As for them coming to state power, and it is very clear that in the UK they are not, we had the fascists* in Government in the Government before last. I didn't notice much difference. They behaved like any other bourgeois party.
As Steven says 'The Labour Party is the party that is attacking working people and ethnic minorities'. The Conservative party does it too. The BNP can't even begin to fantasise about what they do.
Devrim
*Remember the the 'Grey Wolves' were a bit more hardcore thirty years ago than the NF were.
Jul 30 2008 13:00
#10
Same old anti-fascist argument: the bogeymen are coming.
When it comes to racism, the "institutionally racist" Labour Party has nothing to learn from the BNP. "British jobs for British people" was the war cry of P.M. Brown. Labour Party local machineries and electioneering campaigns are riven by racism. Racism is a constact weapon of the ruling class and the Labour Party is a faction of the ruling class.
Add to that the points made above about the attacks the Labour Party (and its trade unions) are unleashing on the working class and we can see why an insignificant, but well publicised, group of pantomine nasties is not the major problem facing the working class.
Jul 30 2008 16:54
#11
The white nationalist/nationalist populist movements, what I call the gutter right, present the working class, anarchist and communist organizations in particular, with tactical problems. They need to be paid some attention to and dealt with when and where they manage to become a threat, and i can see the need to form "specialty" campaigning groups in some situations. However they're not a strategic obstacle to our projects on the level of say the police.
I'd say traditional fascism does still exist, however to the extend that it's a serious danger to the working class it's as a developing or minority tendency in the mass parties of the bourgeois right, which is a good bit more complicated an issue than chasing bonehead street crews out of a community or disrupting a grouplet (eg: BNP) organizing drive.
Jul 30 2008 16:55
#12
Ed wrote:
I think that's a bit crude Steven. Thoguh I agree with the thrust of your argument, if someone lived in Dagenham or Oldham would you say the same? Is there no decent organising to be done against fascism before it reaches state power?
well, yes. There's no danger of the BNP getting state power in this country. They're not a fascist movement - an authoritarian movement based in the working class - they're a populist anti-immigration party with some left-wing economic policies, who are even less likely to ever get elected than the Lib Dems due to the first past the post system.
They do have a secret fascist core, but without the ability to mobilise masses like successful fascist movements they're pretty irrelevant.
Where they have a few council seats, like those areas or say Stoke, they just act like another crappy bourgeois party.
I think they can be propagandised against, in a similar way to the other parties but beyond that they're a bit of a sideshow - it's the Labour Party attacking workers now.
Jul 30 2008 21:16
#13
David in Atlanta wrote:
I'd say traditional fascism does still exist, however to the extend that it's a serious danger to the working class it's as a developing or minority tendency in the mass parties of the bourgeois right, which is a good bit more complicated an issue than chasing bonehead street crews out of a community or disrupting a grouplet (eg: BNP) organizing drive.
But I think that we have already established that they are not as serious an anti-working class, anti-minority threat as the Labour Party (in the UK for example). So are these people advocating disrupting a Labour Party 'organising drive', or Chasing Labour canversers out of a community? No, of course they are not.
Devrim
Jul 31 2008 07:43
#14
red and black riot wrote:
It's important to let people know we're there [the anti-war demo and anti-BNP march] and that they can come and join us and that our message and our propaganda gets across instead of giving the impression that we don't give a shit about the war in Iraq or the threat of the far-right or that left-wing politics is percieved as moribund. We need to turnout in force and change all this.
Why is it important to let people know you're there? Why are you so sure that those people (all? most? some?) think that your being there is so important? Are not these events organized and controlled by pro-capitalist leftist organizations such as the SWP? Many people assume that if you attend any such event and don't disrupt it (or split off from it) that you support whichever group organized it; as opposed to your suggestion of people thinking that if you don't attend such events that you aren't against the war or the far-right. You seem quite convinced that there are hordes of people just waiting to "come and join" you and devour your propaganda? Why? And if they really are, why can't they find and join you outside of these marches and demos? Are they really that out of touch? Finally, there are very good reasons why most people today perceive left-wing politics as moribund. If you don't share that perception, but on the contrary see yourself (group, milieu, movement, whatever) as a part of left-wing politics -- as opposed to revolutionary anti-capitalism, which is also anti-left-wing politics -- then I would suggest that that itself is a large part of your problem.
Jul 31 2008 11:51
#15
Steven. wrote:
Ed wrote:
I think that's a bit crude Steven. Thoguh I agree with the thrust of your argument, if someone lived in Dagenham or Oldham would you say the same? Is there no decent organising to be done against fascism before it reaches state power?well, yes. There's no danger of the BNP getting state power in this country. They're not a fascist movement - an authoritarian movement based in the working class - they're a populist anti-immigration party with some left-wing economic policies, who are even less likely to ever get elected than the Lib Dems due to the first past the post system.
They do have a secret fascist core, but without the ability to mobilise masses like successful fascist movements they're pretty irrelevant.
Where they have a few council seats, like those areas or say Stoke, they just act like another crappy bourgeois party.
I think they can be propagandised against, in a similar way to the other parties but beyond that they're a bit of a sideshow - it's the Labour Party attacking workers now.
To be honest, I don't have the statistics to hand on this so not sure how far I can push this argument.. but I'd say that the whole thing hinges on whether or not a BNP presence in an area has the effect of increasing racist violence/tension in it. Sure, they're definitely not fascism as we've known it (no big boys in black marching through streets etc) but I'd hazard a guess that their effect on the communities they organise in is another sort of attack on our class. One which might only be relevent to specific sections i.e. people living in Dagenham, Oldham etc but not an attack I would ask those people to ignore..
Jul 31 2008 12:07
#16
Ed wrote:
To be honest, I don't have the statistics to hand on this so not sure how far I can push this argument.. but I'd say that the whole thing hinges on whether or not a BNP presence in an area has the effect of increasing racist violence/tension in it. Sure, they're definitely not fascism as we've known it (no big boys in black marching through streets etc) but I'd hazard a guess that their effect on the communities they organise in is another sort of attack on our class. One which might only be relevent to specific sections i.e. people living in Dagenham, Oldham etc but not an attack I would ask those people to ignore..
Mmm, while the BNP has no prospect of gaining real political power in the near future, they do provide a focal point for racists and fascists in the areas that they become strong in, this helps to divide the working class and deepen racial and sectarian division, which is a barrier to sucessful working class self-organisation. As such, it's perfectly sensible for anarchists to try to disrupt their organising whereever possible.
Jul 31 2008 12:36
#17
Ed wrote:
To be honest, I don't have the statistics to hand on this so not sure how far I can push this argument.. but I'd say that the whole thing hinges on whether or not a BNP presence in an area has the effect of increasing racist violence/tension in it. Sure, they're definitely not fascism as we've known it (no big boys in black marching through streets etc) but I'd hazard a guess that their effect on the communities they organise in is another sort of attack on our class. One which might only be relevent to specific sections i.e. people living in Dagenham, Oldham etc but not an attack I would ask those people to ignore..
I don't think anyones against the idea of a defence mechanism against fascist attacks, but it has to be as neighbourhood defence against anti-social behaviour (with a twist), and it must be a facet/tactic of our overall defence/attack/solidarity against capital.
Jul 31 2008 12:46
#18
BB wrote:
I don't think anyones against the idea of a defence mechanism against fascist attacks, but it has to be as neighbourhood defence against anti-social behaviour (with a twist), and it must be a facet/tactic of our overall defence/attack/solidarity against capital.
I find the idea of a 'neighbourhood defence against anti-social behaviour' rather frightening. Who defines 'anti-social behaviour'? Is my wife not wearing a headscarf 'anti-social behaviour' for example (I think my next door neighbour would hold that view). I think that setting up these sort of things at the present moment is more likely to lead to a sort of right wing vigilantism than anything else.
Devrim
Jul 31 2008 12:59
#19
Devrim, stop being obtuse, he obviously meant fascism as anti-social behaviour.. considering you actually have a half decent point to make, i'm surprised you didn't make it...
Jul 31 2008 13:06
#20
Yes, I know what he meant. My point here is the whole idea of 'community organisations' in the present period policing 'anti-social behaviour'. It has been advocated by some anarchists before, but I think that it is a really dangerous idea.
Imagine you live on a housing estate where the BNP are active, and have elected councillors. Would you really want to set up some community organisation to police 'anti-social behaviour'?
Devrim
Jul 31 2008 14:00
#21
Devrim wrote:
Imagine you live on a housing estate where the BNP are active, and have elected councillors. Would you really want to set up some community organisation to police 'anti-social behaviour'?
It depends what sort of organisation, surely? If there were a group of concerned residents who believed in agitating against the BNP on the estate and they held a meeting about it, I'd turn up. I might even help organise it. Wouldn't you?
Obviously we're both leaving out huge amounts of details which could swing it one way or the other i.e. the 'concerned residents' are all Labour Party activists etc etc. But speaking hypothetically, are you against the idea of organising against the BNP? That's the impression I get anyway, and I'd be interested to hear your reasoning..
Jul 31 2008 14:27
#22
My point there ED was that on an estate that had elected BNP councillors what sort of views do you think that you would hear coming out at your community meetings? Remember who these people have elected.
Quote:
I might even help organise it. Wouldn't you?
No.
Quote:
But speaking hypothetically, are you against the idea of organising against the BNP?
Yes, I think it is a leftist game that has nothing to offer the working class.
I think that workers, and communists should defend their meetings, and activities from fascists, but I don't believe in running round playing at gang fighters. I think it was a disaster for the left in Turkey.
When was the last time the BNP attacked an anarchist meeting anyway?
Devrim
Jul 31 2008 15:19
#23
Devrim wrote:
When was the last time the BNP attacked an anarchist meeting anyway?
It doesn't matter (though I would point out that the AF have had threats from fascists that have led to meetings being shut down by the police on the grounds of "public safety").
The BNP and other fascist groups can act as a focal point for racism and ethnic division, just as workers' organisations can act as a focal point for working class action. Quite simply, they're a tendancy that we need to stamp out of existence whereever they start to become strong, because they can jeopardise our efforts to organise on a class basis. That doesn't mean going around beating up anybody who has ever voted BNP/NF/EFP/BPP/whatever, it means trying to disrupt attempts by fascists to organise, while providing a class based alternative.
Jul 31 2008 15:32
#24
Sure the left communists wouldnt take a stand on anything for fear of lining up with something else. Their crude outlook gets completely exposed on threads with day to day realities like fascists organising in our communities or women fighting for abortion rights.
The fact that the Labour government is the biggest enemy to the british working class doesnt change the reality that about 20 anarchists have been killed by fascists groups across europe in the last year.
There is a problem with pathological antifascism, which seems to create more problems than it solves, and of course with asking people to vote for the lesser of two evils, but antifascism doesnt have to be about either. The left communist position of 'oh there are worse things' is idiotic and dangerous.
Jul 31 2008 17:27
#25
Devrim wrote:
My point there ED was that on an estate that had elected BNP councillors what sort of views do you think that you would hear coming out at your community meetings? Remember who these people have elected.
Last council election in where I live the turn out was 32% and the proportion of the votes that went to the winners (not BNP) was 30%-50% (rough guess)
So my point is it is vary likely that the majority of people on an estate with a BNP councillor didn't vote for them, or in fact at all.
I remember a news story a couple of years ago about how the bnp had increased there share of the vote, so i looked up the statistics and found that the number of people who voted bnp was almost exactly the same but that the total number of people who voted had gone down. But it was presented in the news that the bnp had gained support.
Jul 31 2008 17:40
#26
yeah you're showing an uncharacteristic faith in bourgeois democracy to represent workers' views here Dev... 
Jul 31 2008 18:23
#27
Weeler wrote:
The fact that the Labour government is the biggest enemy to the british working class doesnt change the reality that about 20 anarchists have been killed by fascists groups across europe in the last year.
In İstanbul in the period leading up to the 1980 coup there was an average of thirty deaths per day due to political murders. So what do you want to do Weeler? Up the ante to that point. The really interesting thing about it was that it was done in completely isolation from the rest of the working class. Basically, leftists and fascists killed each other in gang fights whilst the working class either looked on passively or looked the other way. That's pretty much my impression of how it is in Eastern Europe where I believe that most of these murders occur.
I think that it has the tendency to become something like the Crips, and the Bloods with a political veneer. I don't get the feeling that it has anything positive to offer, and I think it has a lot of negative effects.
Devrim
Jul 31 2008 18:25
#28
radicalgraffiti wrote:
Devrim wrote:
My point there ED was that on an estate that had elected BNP councillors what sort of views do you think that you would hear coming out at your community meetings? Remember who these people have elected.Last council election in where I live the turn out was 32% and the proportion of the votes that went to the winners (not BNP) was 30%-50% (rough guess)
So my point is it is vary likely that the majority of people on an estate with a BNP councillor didn't vote for them, or in fact at all.
I remember a news story a couple of years ago about how the bnp had increased there share of the vote, so i looked up the statistics and found that the number of people who voted bnp was almost exactly the same but that the total number of people who voted had gone down. But it was presented in the news that the bnp had gained support.
Well yes this is true. You would get the feeling though that their activists would be more likely to go to community meetings.
I don't think that this is that relevant to the main point. I was just commenting that I found the idea of 'community groups' setting up some sort of 'anti-anti-social crime' beatings quite frightening.
Devrim
Jul 31 2008 19:36
#29
Quote:
I don't think that this is that relevant to the main point. I was just commenting that I found the idea of 'community groups' setting up some sort of 'anti-anti-social crime' beatings quite frightening.
No one said this Devrim. What was said was this:
BB wrote:
I don't think anyones against the idea of a defence mechanism against fascist attacks, but it has to be as neighbourhood defence against anti-social behaviour (with a twist), and it must be a facet/tactic of our overall defence/attack/solidarity against capital.
You infered the rest. Also, you mentioned a few things regarding anti-fascism beforehand so it wasn't just about this 'community defence' stuff (which I agree with you can be awful, but knowing BB I doubt very much it was meant in that way). Given that 'community defence' is very vague, are you saying that there can be no place for solid class struggle organising in the community (geographically speaking)?
That said, I do find your analysis of anti-fascism in Turkey interesting as I get a similar feeling as you about Eastern Europe and also see the seeds of it in antifa UK (to a much lesser extent, mostly because of the general political climate here). But given the situation I'm not sure what else I would do if I found myself as an organiser in Russia, as it doesn't seem that ignoring the fascists will do much good: what would your suggestion be?
As an aside: is there anything written about anti-fascism in Turkey in the period you're talking about?
Jul 31 2008 20:37
#30
Ed wrote:
To be honest, I don't have the statistics to hand on this so not sure how far I can push this argument.. but I'd say that the whole thing hinges on whether or not a BNP presence in an area has the effect of increasing racist violence/tension in it. Sure, they're definitely not fascism as we've known it (no big boys in black marching through streets etc) but I'd hazard a guess that their effect on the communities they organise in is another sort of attack on our class. One which might only be relevent to specific sections i.e. people living in Dagenham, Oldham etc but not an attack I would ask those people to ignore..
I know that the trots always bandy about the statistic of a 300% increase in racial attacks following the election of some BNP guy in Southwark maybe in the Nineties, but I've never seen actual evidence of that, and I'm quite doubtful of it. Even if it were true it is irrelevant now has the BNP is a very different party now. It doesn't have boot boys to go around attacking ethnic minorities and "Reds", nor does it have any interest in that now.
And on the subject of racist attacks, are they that big an issue now? Who were the perpetrators of most physical attacks or murders of people from ethnic minorities? Not white fascists that's for sure. Of course racist attacks are bad, and still too many happen, but it's not our job to try to stop this, and nor does it make sense for us to prioritise this.
madashell wrote:
[Mmm, while the BNP has no prospect of gaining real political power in the near future, they do provide a focal point for racists and fascists in the areas that they become strong in, this helps to divide the working class and deepen racial and sectarian division, which is a barrier to sucessful working class self-organisation. As such, it's perfectly sensible for anarchists to try to disrupt their organising whereever possible.
I think this is a chicken and egg situation. Does their strength increase racial division, or do racial tensions in an area mean more people vote BNP? Of course it's probably a bit of both, but far more the latter than the former. If you think about it, what is the best way of combating racism? Is it doing over a couple of BNP election canvassers, or is it trying to organise as a class in our own interests, showing that we have one interest as a class, united rather than divided along ethnic lines?
As to them being a barrier to workers organisation, what recent workers struggles do you think they have disrupted? I personally can't think of any, nor do I think they have the influence to be able to. The unions on the other hand helped break the postal worker strikes last year, and are helping to divide and defeat hundreds of thousands of workers fighting against pay cuts right now.
Let which people know? People already turning up on the demo?