DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

24th bnp scab union launch demo?

65 posts / 0 new
Last post
madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Feb 16 2007 12:08

This comment has been moved here.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Feb 16 2007 12:18

whilst futuretech's ranting about 'bringing fire and flames - fire and flames!' to the launch is pretty pointless, and also pretty obviously all talk, i don't know if we can assume this will be stillborn.

i mean in certain ways it will be straightjacketed by legislation, both on strike procedures and non-descrimination etc. that's not to say they won't seek to create/aggravate racial tensions by unofficial means. i mean the TUC unions may well defend their territory with non-descrimination/harrasment suits and the like and bankrupt them out of existence, i dunno. i also don't see them as likely to gain much foothold, but then again a lot of white working class people vote for them, and may well be attracted to a 'union' that talks the talk and plays on fears of 'all the jobs going to china' or 'the immigrants undercutting our wages' etc.

But the thing is, militant opposition to this AFA-style is a completely irrelevant and potentially counter-productive response. if the BNP can grow a workplace presence from nothing, what are we playing at? they've outmanoeuvred the liberal left by adopting the language of multiculturalism and 'indigenous people's rights', it's not impossible they'll steal a march on us in terms of a workplace presence with broader political intentions. but what can we do about that, save for successfully organising ourselves?

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Feb 16 2007 12:27

*deleted*

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Feb 16 2007 12:28

Admin - discussion on scabbing on racist strikes moved here

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Feb 16 2007 13:02
revol68 wrote:
raw wrote:
Hence my B) argument.

And the BNP is not the biggest enemy I agree BUT like the Islamic mentals they are appealing to people who are disaffected with the establishment, if anything these are the people we would want to come nearer to us NOT these reaction elements. Therefore the BNP/Islamic nuts (most of which are organised as hierarchical political parties) are occupying a space where alienated, angry people are gravitating towards. I will argue that anarchists and libertarians should muscle into that space and offer something completely different. I'm not saying that we share any sort of similar politics but at the end of the day what drives people to these anti-establishment political parties is the conditions of living under capitalism.

Raw

and we muscle into their spaces, right. I'd have thought we'd be looking to open up and expand opposition centred on class struggle not fighting with islamists and bnp wing over the same ground, rather making new ground. Of coruse none of this can be kicked off with some volunterist shite or meeting about a meeting about a loose network of meetings in a social centre so maybe we just stick to talking macho bollox about muscling in on the BNP and Islamists territory. roll eyes

Your missing my point. The way I see things is that we need to incorporate a series of strategies against the BNP/Islamic nuts which is within the context of our/the struggle against capitalism. The reason the BNP/Islamics are a threat is that they seek to exploit the existing disillusionment with establishment politcs, the isolation, alienation and repression of life under capitalism - they do this by presenting people with simplistic, reactionary bollocks. And to some extent people are gravitating towards them. I know that the Labour Party is perhaps more of a danger to us than the BNP as they hold "official" power, however, I feel that the BNP are developing to an extent where they become representative of a new undertone/trend of a movement which places itself as opposed to the existing establishment but also with a plan to radically change society albeit making the UK a fascist dictatorship!.

Also one over looked area is the Islamic nut jobs. The stuff they are handing out are quasi-fascist - attacking women, gays..etc. They are doing this unchallenged in whitechapel. If anything these people should be treated as fascists and dealt with a "no platform" attitude.

raw

p.s. notice how I ignored revols piss-poor attempts to attack me. he he :-0)

ftony
Offline
Joined: 26-05-04
Feb 16 2007 13:19
Quote:
Also one over looked area is the Islamic nut jobs. The stuff they are handing out are quasi-fascist - attacking women, gays..etc. They are doing this unchallenged in whitechapel.

yeah. but the problem here is the liberal hysteria over islamophobia - if we leave them to it, we're not standing up for class interests. but if we try and stop them then we are called racists/islamophobes and there's another notch on their belt.

of course the 'moderate' muslims are trying to deal with things their way, but in an insular, inward-looking fashion that is like social democrats telling anarchists to 'chill out a bit' because we are scaring people away from their party.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Feb 16 2007 14:02
revol68 wrote:
raw wrote:
Also one over looked area is the Islamic nut jobs. The stuff they are handing out are quasi-fascist - attacking women, gays..etc. They are doing this unchallenged in whitechapel. If anything these people should be treated as fascists and dealt with a "no platform" attitude.

And yes those Islamist fucks need doing over but I would suggest that getting a mob of 40 white kids together and doing it might not be best strategy in the world.

Exactly, attacking them physically would do the same as the current police attacks on Muslims. It would cause racial polarisation. Random Asian/Arab people walking past and hearing/reading about the events afterwards would just hear of a bunch of white people attacking Muslims. And of course there would obviously be inevitable "collateral damage" - completely innocent asians beaten up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But I suspect this is a moot point because I don't think you are stupid enough to even attempt this. Which is why you haven't done it. Well that and obvious fact that Muslims are a small minority of society and so there's no risk of them setting up a fascistic dictatorship in the slightest.

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Feb 16 2007 16:24

No Platform isn't just about fighting its about opposing them on an idealogical level as well. And there have been alot of incidence in brick lane area of "queer bashing". So I think it effects more than muslims.

I also think fascists should be hunted down no matter what colour or faith. I'm not saying that people should neccesarily physically attack anybody (disclaimer) but I would rate some islamic political parties on the level of BNP or even worst in some cases therefore they should be opposed equally.

And why does everyone assume that whenever I express my opinion that I somehow want to take the most extreme action.

Raw

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Feb 16 2007 16:24

No Platform isn't just about fighting its about opposing them on an idealogical level as well. And there have been alot of incidence in brick lane area of "queer bashing". So I think it effects more than muslims.

I also think fascists should be hunted down no matter what colour or faith. I'm not saying that people should neccesarily physically attack anybody (disclaimer) but I would rate some islamic political parties on the level of BNP or even worst in some cases therefore they should be opposed equally.

And why does everyone assume that whenever I express my opinion that I somehow want to take the most extreme action?

Raw

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Feb 16 2007 16:49

Generally, when people say "No platform", it entails a certain level of physical confrontation.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Feb 16 2007 17:49
ftony wrote:
if the new union wants to have some sort of street presence (say, on mayday marches), then surely physically sending them running would be a part of a strategy against them

I agree. It also discredits the attempted legitimacy of the BNP if they get headlines for brawling in the streets, and it intimidates some more casual hangers on, mates, family etc from getting involved. There'll be bad column inches all round (for anti-fascists too) but to a certain extent, that's gonna happen whatever anyone does.

For what it's worth, I think that you can only meaningfully oppose Solidarity as and when they turn up in your workplace or neighbourhood (if that's what they're planning). Of course, that isn't really much of a solution in the current state of affairs. I guess that although I wouldn't immediately dismiss some parachuting tactics, I think they're intensely problematic.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Feb 16 2007 17:57
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
I agree. It also discredits the attempted legitimacy of the BNP if they get headlines for brawling in the streets

Unless it's spun as an unprovoked attack on a group of peaceful trade unionists.

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Feb 18 2007 14:06
madashell wrote:
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
I agree. It also discredits the attempted legitimacy of the BNP if they get headlines for brawling in the streets

Unless it's spun as an unprovoked attack on a group of peaceful trade unionists.

yeah but thay can't play it ike that cos they aren't peaceful trade unionists are they? Thats the point of a lot of antifa mobilisations; the BNP aren't a mainstream political force - in the papers OR in certain communities - for the impression to be that they were just innoccent chaps being persecuted for a legitimate political persuasion YET. I think to a certain extent its about keeping them down, in the fringes.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Feb 18 2007 17:33
Tacks wrote:
yeah but thay can't play it ike that cos they aren't peaceful trade unionists are they? Thats the point of a lot of antifa mobilisations; the BNP aren't a mainstream political force - in the papers OR in certain communities - for the impression to be that they were just innoccent chaps being persecuted for a legitimate political persuasion YET. I think to a certain extent its about keeping them down, in the fringes.

I'm talking about how the press would spin it, rather than the BNP themselves. If the BNP start to make signifigant gains in working class communities (and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they do), they could suddenly become very popular with certain sections of the press.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Feb 18 2007 18:13
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
ftony wrote:
if the new union wants to have some sort of street presence (say, on mayday marches), then surely physically sending them running would be a part of a strategy against them

I agree. It also discredits the attempted legitimacy of the BNP if they get headlines for brawling in the streets, and it intimidates some more casual hangers on, mates, family etc from getting involved. There'll be bad column inches all round (for anti-fascists too) but to a certain extent, that's gonna happen whatever anyone does.

This is all true, so I disagree with Joseph above. madashell i also disagree they'll be popular in the press. particularly from the trade union/anti-immigration aspect of it which does counter the interests of capital.

But regardless they're not going to get anywhere.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Feb 18 2007 18:46

you mean there's a place for violent tactics in opposing the fash? agreed ... but in terms of this 'union' i don't see where? i mean if someone started agitating in your workplace you could let a couple of mates with balaclavas know i suppose.

on immigration and the interests of capital, immigration is pretty much necessary for capital, but racist divisions in the working class are very useful too - hence you get policies which allow immigration coupled with tough-on-immigration rhetoric, a contradiction the BNP exploit by pointing out how 'all the other' politicians are all talk. so i don't think you can simply say that anti-immigration is counter to the interests of capital, as capital's interest is contradictory. that said i don't see anything a far-right union can offer capital that the TUC ones can't.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Feb 18 2007 19:00
Joseph K. wrote:
so i don't think you can simply say that anti-immigration is counter to the interests of capital, as capital's interest is contradictory.

No, but what I was thinking was that a union which would do things like strike against use of migrant labour would be. But then that could even be useful, cos for workers that would not be a progressive gain in the way that say a straight-up wage demand would be...

magnifico
Offline
Joined: 29-11-05
Feb 18 2007 19:07

Shouldn't we be opposing organisations/people/things which are harming/enslaving the working class now, rather than organisations such as this one which may or may not become a threat at some point in the future?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Feb 18 2007 19:12

John.: yeah, i mean it would be against the immediate interests of the specific boss, but as we all recognise such a racist 'victory' divides and weakens the class and thus strengthens capital as a whole. so there may be factions of capital that would back such a union - but not at the moment, since there's no militant workers' movement which needs scabbing on and the TUC unions are generally doing a fine job of containing workers' struggle where it does erupt (and where they have been encouraging wildcats it seems only to prove to the bosses how the union can offer a disciplined labour force ... Gate Gourmet for example).

edit: magnifico; yeah, though not without keeping an eye out for potential threats.