ANTI RACISTS CLASH WITH SDL FASCISTS IN GLASGOW
BBC NEWS
Two rival marches in Glasgow have led to a number of skirmishes in the city.
About 1,500 anti-racism protesters marched through the city under the banner Scotland United, in opposition to the Scottish Defence League (SDL).
The SDL - an offshoot of the English Defence League - had been attempting to hold an “anti-Islamic” demonstration.
There were clashes outside Central Station and at several points around the city centre. Police said they had made three arrests.
The Scotland United rally, backed by trade unions, politicians and faith groups, gathered at Glasgow Green and marched to George Square.
Boarded buses
Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was among those attending the rally, organised to oppose the views of those involved with the SDL.
Police said about 70 SDL protesters gathered in Cambridge Street, north of the city centre, and there were clashes.
The SDL protesters, some with their faces partly covered with scarves, sang songs and chanted “SDL” as they held their demonstration.
Supporters of the controversial group, some waving flags or holding SDL banners, were surrounded by police officers who kept them apart from a group of counter-protesters who had congregated in the area.
Shouts of “scum” were hurled in the direction of the SDL by some onlookers, while the group responded by clapping and waving at those who objected to their presence.
Hundreds of police officers had gathered in Cambridge Street in a bid to prevent disruption during the static protest.
Dozens of police cars and vans lined the streets in the Cowcaddens area and police motorcyclists circled around the area while a police helicopter kept watch from above.
About 1,500 anti-fascist protesters marched to George Square
The SDL demonstration ended when its protesters boarded buses to take them away from the area.
The SDL were dispersed to other parts of the city, police said. There was later a heavy police presence in the Paisley Road area to the south of the city centre.
A spokeswoman for Strathclyde Police estimated about 70 people took part in the SDL protest and said some 1,500 attended the Scotland United rally at George Square.
The spokeswoman said that three men had been arrested - one in connection with an alleged racial breach of the peace in the Ibrox area.
The other two were arrested in connection with alleged breaches of the peace in the city centre and in the Central Station area, she said.
Sounds like a typical prelude to a Glasgow Saturday night.
Comment by Frank — 14 November, 2009 @ 4:44 pm
good to see so many people mobilising against the SDL, good news after the splintered left and green vote in the Glasgow by-election.
Comment by Derek Wall — 14 November, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
A bit wordy for you that, Frank.
Comment by Armchair — 14 November, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
ps
Meanwhile, over in today Edinburgh -
Anit-war protestors gather in capital (sic)
Anti-war protesters took their message to the doorstep of Nato chiefs today.
Herald Scotland
14 Nov 2009
Comment by joe90 kane — 14 November, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
Any news from Wigan anyone?
Comment by Armchair — 14 November, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
This was a victory. The EDL has had an embarrassing turnout in Glasgow and could only “protest” in a remote corner of the city centre under heavy police protection, where hardly anyone could have seen them. By contrast, thousands marched through the city streets of the city centre to oppose them.
Unfortunately it’s not all positive. Unite Against Fascism sabotaged the counter-demonstration from the beginning. They argued from the beginning against confronting the fascists and refused to mobilise for it, instead advertising a rally elsewhere in the city. This is despite three of the meetings they called themselves voting heavily to confront the fascists.
Despite the dire warnings that we’d be outnumbered and get hospitalised by hundreds of football hooligans, 400 counter-demonstrators turned out and besieged the SDL where they had gathered in a grotty pub. If we had stayed there, there would have been no SDL protest of any kind. The police would have had a word and they’d have been put straight back on the buses they came off.
Unfortunately UAFers with megaphones, who had turned up on the demo they’d tried to prevent, then succeeded in leading the crowd away from the area, to join up with the rally on the other side of town. They had already tried this at one previous junction, but had failed then.
Comment by Tim Vanhoof — 14 November, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
That’s excellent Tim Vanhoof.
Unlike Frank’s comment at #1,
Glasgowegians, and the rest of us Scottish west coast folk, are terribly civilised, don’t you know old bean.
Hence the reason for the lack of enthusiasm over confronting Griffin’s latter-day Biff-Boys, what.
Pip pip!
Comment by joe90 kane — 14 November, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
Hot off the press -
Thousands march for a multicultural Scotland
Latest News
Scottish Islamic Foundation
14 Nov 2009
I can’t get these images to appear or the slideshow to work, but here is the link anyway -
Scotland United, 14 November 2009
SIF
14 Nov 2009
SIF puts the rally number at 3,000 which is double the BBC figure.
Comment by joe90 kane — 14 November, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
Pre-rally Polis news -
Glasgow Preparing For Far-Right Rally
Polis Oracle
14 Nov 2009
By the way
does anybody know if the BNP scummo Baillie, who stood in yesterday’s by-election, is related to this Scottish Nazi collaborator -
Norman Baillie-Stewart
wikipedia
Comment by joe90 kane — 14 November, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
#6 TIM Vanhoof
This account sounds like a suspiciously anti-UAF sectarian version, which may or may not be accurate.*
Can we have a UAF version in answer so that we can compare.
*[ Like maybe those with megaphones were ‘Scotland United’ who were the main organisers of the counter demo and NOT UAF ???? ]
Comment by Halshall — 14 November, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
There was easily 3000+ on the demo.
Comment by Phil Taylor — 14 November, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
#9. Couldn’t tell you. It’s possible but it isn’t a particularly uncommon name.
Baillie-Stewart apparently spied for Germany before the Nazis came to power, was caught and was imprisoned in the Tower of London, one of the last people to be. After release he moved to Germany and broadcast propaganda - some think he was the original “Lord Haw Haw”. William Joyce looked down on him, and another collaborator described Baillie-Stewart as being outwardly an officer and a gentleman but in reality was the “weakest moral specimen” the other man had ever encountered.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 14 November, 2009 @ 6:41 pm
Phil is right, I think 3000 is about correct.
Halshall, there were two demos. There was the counter-demo which went to the pub where the SDL were, and there was the big celebration of multiculturalism in the park and march with the SNP and the unions. UAF argued against a counter-demo and only mobilised for the rally in the park.
Judging by @uaf’s last tweet on Twitter, UAF is now claiming credit for the counter-demo, which it opposed: ‘”Scottish Defence League” shipped out on buses to avoid confrontation with anti-fascists: http://bit.ly/2xMUB0 ‘
Despite the relatively small numbers of the counter-demo, it worked. Both demos humiliated them. Look at the comments on the SDL’s Facebook page:
“i cannie believe how few people were there and how fucking little we done. they had 3000 marching through glasgow against us and made us look like fucking clowns. its a joke so it is.”
“it was a fucking shambles. the other mob were laughing at us as if we were toos scared to have a demo. there was no fucking demo. they have a group of us in a pub as if we were too scared to go outside and they outnumbered us by aboot 300-1.”
Comment by Tim Vanhoof — 14 November, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=19564
‘Anti-fascists halt Scottish Defence League in Glasgow
by Eileen Boyle
A threatened racist protest today outside Glasgow’s central mosque was blocked as the city centre was firmly in the hands of around 3,000 anti-racists and anti-fascists.
A group styling themselves the Scottish Defence League – after the English Defence League, which has attempted a series of racist protests in England – first threatened a protest outside the mosque then a march and rally in the city centre.
In response we saw one of the biggest anti-racist demonstrations anywhere in Britain for some time – despite the appalling weather.
In the event some 70 racists eventually gathered enough bravado to leave the pub where they had gathered to stand outside on the street for five minutes before being ushered onto buses by police and driven out of the city centre.
Meanwhile 3,000 people marched to protest against racism and fascism to warm support from shoppers. Trade unionists, students, members of the Muslim community and others joined together to ensure Glasgow gave zero tolerance to racist thugs whose stated aim was to intimidate the Muslim population of our city.’
Comment by Solidarity — 14 November, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
Excellent turnout! I’m really pleased that this demo was so well attended and the anti-war demo in Edinburgh wasn’t bad either.
I can’t get despondent nor antagonistic towards others on the left when everyone appears to be trying so hard to build unity around these issues. It’s a shame that the doom and gloom merchants hark on about alleged differences between the left when it’s obvious from these results that we’re working together where it counts.
Comment by Ray — 14 November, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
Scotland United today
IndyGal Goes To Holyrood!
14 Nov 2009
Comment by joe90 kane — 14 November, 2009 @ 6:58 pm
Forget the rubbish turn-out in yesterday’s Glasgow East by-election.
What about Edinburgh’s Anti-War, Anti-NATO demo and Glasgow’s magnificent anti-racism rally today?
Scotland United Anti-Racist Rally on Facebook
No Place for Racism and Islamophobia - One Scotland, Many ultures
Comment by joe90 kane — 14 November, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
Is anyone interested in what really happened today? I was in Glasgow together with anti-fascist comrdades.
We didn’t go on the Scotland United/UAF march because we didn’t fancy listening to the leader of the Scottish Tories lecturing us about racism.
Far from being in an obscure corner of the city, the police allowed the SDL to rally just off Sauchiehall Street.
I estimate about 100 SDL, the majority of them football thug types.
After their (very heavily policed) demo they disappeared off to the District Bar on Paisley Road West. Our info is that they are still there, together with local loyalists.
We tried to follow them there but Kinning Park station is blocked by Strathclyde’s finest.
It is sadly typical of too much of the left that people seem satisfied to (a) allow fascists to hold a rally in the centre of Glasgow and (b) hold a social/knees up in a well-known Rangers pub afterwards.
If you want to console yourself with vainglorious despatches from Socialist Worker and the Scottish Islamic Foundation and a couple of comments (probably SWP trolls) on a Facebook site, shame on you.
Some of tried to oppose the fascists physically today - and it felt like we got precious little support from the smug, complacent majority.
Comment by Dan — 14 November, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
#6 thank you for a fair and balanced report.
Comment by Larry N — 14 November, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
#18
Well said.
Comment by John Wight — 14 November, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
#18
And the reason you only had c.100 racist morons to deal with in the first place was because of what exactly?
Deary me, it couldn’t have been because of the sterling, on-going efforts of the likes of the Scottish Islamic Foundation, SNP, UAF, Scottish Trade Unions, Scottish socialist parties etc, could it?
Numpties like you only turn up on the day looking for trouble.
Comment by joe90 kane — 14 November, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
#21
How disgraceful to talk about anti-fascists with such disrespect. The idea that the struggle against fascists will succeed only with polite demonstrations and rhetoric constitutes a negation of the entire history of anti- fascism.
Shame on you.
Comment by John Wight — 14 November, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
Joe90Kane - there was a time when the fascists wouldn’t have got anything like a hundred to a rally in Glasgow and, if they had, they would have been swept off the street, polis or no polis.
Oh yes - and there was a time when fascists coming within an inch of saving their depost and beating Sheridan and the Lib Dems would have been seen as terrible.
Comment by Dan — 14 November, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
I don’t understand the animosity towards Unite Against Fascism. At Socialism this year, in the anti-fascist seminars there was considerable hostility to UAF and calls for a new body to mobilise work against the far right.
Anyone care to explain where this mindset comes from?
Comment by Manzil — 14 November, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
#18
We didn’t go on the Scotland United/UAF march because we didn’t fancy listening to the leader of the Scottish Tories lecturing us about racism.
If you want to console yourself with vainglorious despatches from Socialist Worker and the Scottish Islamic Foundation and a couple of comments (probably SWP trolls) on a Facebook site, shame on you.
- I have to say,
it’s a wonderful image of the great and the good of Scotland’s decent civilised community running around after 100 racist bimbos.
I can’t help thinking though, that that’s exactly what fascists and neo-nazis would love to see most of all happen. After all, this is the kind communal, political situation Hitler did his best to engineer, wasn’t it?
Comment by joe90 kane — 14 November, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
At Socialism this year, in the anti-fascist seminars there was considerable hostility to UAF and calls for a new body to mobilise work against the far right.
No there wasn’t. I was in the session on the far right and one person raised it from the floor as a discussion point, though no-one else discussed it.
Anyone care to explain where this mindset comes from?
To put it politely, many anti-fascists (including me) have strong disagreements over strategy and think the general approach of UAF is outdated and even counter-productive.
I personally think their strategy of seeking to build ‘anti-fascist’ majorities at election time, regardless of the salience of other issues, to keep the BNP out (and this is largely what their strategy boils down to) is totally ineffective and even dangerous at a time when the BNP pose as a radical alternative to the political mainstream.
Then there is the reaction to this criticism. For raising points such as the above I’ve been told I’m ‘objectively’ pro-Nazi.
Comment by Duncan — 14 November, 2009 @ 8:14 pm
#23
There was a time when the fascists wouldn’t have got anything like a hundred to a rally in Glasgow and, if they had, they would have been swept off the street, polis or no polis.
- Call me thick but when was that?
100 racist morons - what are they compared to every decent persons and organisation in Scotland?
Oh yes - and there was a time when fascists coming within an inch of saving their depost and beating Sheridan and the Lib Dems would have been seen as terrible.
- So what’s changed?
Comment by joe90 kane — 14 November, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
The fascists are now actually beating Sheridan and the Lib Dems joe90…
This would have unthinkable in Scotland a few years ago.
Comment by Duncan — 14 November, 2009 @ 8:21 pm
#28
Oh yes - and there was a time when fascists coming within an inch of saving their depost and beating Sheridan and the Lib Dems would have been seen as terrible.
- Same with Woolies going bankrupt.
Comment by joe90 kane — 14 November, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
“After all, this is the kind communal, political situation Hitler did his best to engineer, wasn’t it?”
Up to a point, but Weimar politics were like that anyway. Most German parties had some kind of paramilitary wing, because opponents would try to break up their meetings. Even in the relatively stable mid-1920s, fights broke out, especially at election time, and after the Depression hit, violence became ever more frequent. By the summer 1932 elections, even hand grenades were being used against opponents’ pubs or meeting halls. There was not always a clear separation between elections and street fighting.
But British politics were also pretty violent at the time, to a degree that has been forgotten. William Joyce was left scarred after a meeting in the 1920s when his face was slashed with a razor, and it was not unusual for political activists to carry open razors and brass knuckles.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 14 November, 2009 @ 8:34 pm
Joe 90
“Call me thick ….”
OK. Joe. ….. You’re thick.
Comment by Boab — 14 November, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
#30
Up to a point, but Weimar politics were like that anyway.
- I know what you’re saying Mark V.
This isn’t Wiemar Germany or Inter-War Britian, despite the BBC’s appeasement of neo-nazis on its flgaship programe ‘Hitler Time’ -
Question Time shock
Private Eye
The Nazis - A Warning from History indeed.
Comment by joe90 kane — 14 November, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
on another matter, son of NO2EU motion defeated at Resect conference today http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/2009/11/respect-conference-in-birmingham-today.html
Comment by Derek Wall — 14 November, 2009 @ 10:02 pm
OK- a bit of a scuffle with a miniscule group, SDL.
But we have to face reality and deal with a lot of issues that working people have with Islam.
I don’t know how many people who read this blog work in offices and factories, but I can tell you from my personal experience of working in East London, that a demo and counterdemo doesn’t mean much.
Firstly, they don’t think the BNP are nazis. They think they are more concerned with britishness. This is a problem for the Left, because of our international perspective and dislike of national allegiance.
This is going to be made more difficult for us when the BNP starts to accept black membership and expels more of its unsavoury characters.
Secondly, many voters don’t think suspicion of islamists is racism (i.e. Islam is a religion not a race). Nor do they think islamaphobia is wrong, when they keep getting reports of imams justifying ‘terrorism’ with quotes from the Quran.(Daily Mail etc.)
Thirdly, the Islamic model throughout the world is affecting the more politically sophisticated. Iran’s treatment of dissidents; Hamas introducing crucifixion; execution of gays; Taliban killing teachers in girls’ schools. A member of the Labour Party actually said to me “What would happen if there was an Islamic world, a caliphate - it would be the end of the human species”
We have to face the fact that many devout muslims do not see themselves as members of the working class, but as members of a religious community.
That is why the BNP are winning are we are losing the argument.
And worse of all, what happens if the Glagow BNP turn a lot of those 1000 voters into activists.
Comment by Martin Kelly — 14 November, 2009 @ 10:06 pm
Dan, comrade - I was not there, but I think it might be unfair to call the thousands who marched against fascism today “the smug, complacent majority”. Its also unwise, as it acts as a barrier to you winning them over to better tactics. An unhappy polarisation in this situation would be one between a “smug, complacent majority” versus “the shrill self-righteous minority”.
And thats the problem in anti-fascism today. On the one hand their are those organised along the lines of Antifa - who often have trouble mobilising numbers beyond their own fairly small ranks. And groups like UAF, which are the result of alliance building, and can often attract thousands beyond their ranks. Sometimes, however, this alliance building can be at the expense of militancy and direct action.
However, generally, our problem is the other way. The main threat, the BNP has moved forward by avoiding the classic fascist tactic of attempting to control the streets, so they are not marching their mobs of street thugs around like the 70’s NF or todays EDL.
Instead of skins, boots and fists, the BNP try to look like the Women’s Institute or the Village Rotary club as they quietly and persistently canvass housing estates for votes. In many ways, groups like the UAF have not been able to adapt and respond to this changed terrain. Therefore the coalition around the tactics of ‘hope not hate’ are probably better around elections while the UAF are best at assembling a few thousand to wave placards (which is not a bad thing, and has its place). And lets not forget that there are many local groups of activists who put in the good work who have affiliations with both HnH and UAF as well as others. And of course, there are other strategies beyond these two.
Hower I have another issue, of which I’m not sure quite what I think yet, so have some questions. In 2001, the Nazis managed to succeed to a limited extent in their strategy of kicking of riots, hoping it would provoke what they call in their fantasies, a ‘race war’. In Oldham and Bradford in 2001, Nazis staged provocations, racist attacks, working with football hoologans and especially some tiny National Front marches. Griffin, the BNP and remants of C18 were also involved in various ways, perhaps working around some notions of a ’strategy of tension’. What role did the ANL’s counter demo against the NF in Bradford play? Was it all positive? What relationship did it have with the Bradford riots? I want to be careful here, as I have not got full information about these crucial and tragic events in recent history. Furthermore, I also want to defend the principle of the rights of oppressed people to defend themselves, affirm the validaity of the slogan ’self-defence is no offense’, and also declare that anti-fascists should stand with oppressed ethnic and racial minorities when they are under attack. However, our actions can have many effects beyond our foresight and control, and no social force can escape from the law of unintended consequences. But in hindsight? And now?
The riots of 2001 were the turning point for the BNP, escalating the polarisation within the working class between Asian and white. And this was just before Sept 11 2001, and the subsequent effects of the long and poisonous “war on terror”! Now, in 2009, the situation is indeed worse, and now we have the addition of the recession and the prospect of mass unemployment. Its clear some want to kick of a civil war against Britains minority Muslim population - a civil war which such a minority can only loose, suffering terribly. So Britains Muslim populations have no interest in kicking off such a terrible conflict, (no matter how much the media exaggerates and foregrounds isolated and marginal fanatics like Anjem Choudary).
It is always the violent bigots and chauvanists from majority populations with the most to gain from provocations. This memory of 2001 is probably why there is a new found enthusiasm by some for ‘mass non-confrontational and celebratory anti-racist protests’. This is of course the opposite of the 1970’s ANL, which condemned the ‘official’ movement (Communist Party and Trade Union leadership) gatherings which avoided the NF marches by assembling 2 miles away and two hours later. Instead the ANL proclaimed it was about assembling before the Nazis, and occupying the space, thus confronting the NF with mass protest. But the NF were different to Todays BNP - and the EDL is something else again.
The NF were a relatively hardcore organised racist and fascist street movement in the 1970’s, which wanted to kick things off by staging violent and intimidatory marches of thousands of young white racist hooligans into mixed areas that included Britains black and ethnic minority peoples. We have dealt with the BNP’s strategic retreat from the streets under Griffin.
The EDL are an attempt by the far right to reclaim the streets. But they are different to the old NF. They are less idiologically homogenised, and might instead represent a softer ‘united front’ of bigots and fascists, attempting to restrict its focus to the single issue politics of ’saying no to Islamic extremism’ (an enemy epitomised by Anjem Choudary, who is their Orwellian Emmanuel Goldstein figure, coming ready packaged by the Daily Express for regular “two minutes hate” exercises for angry and desperate white people on a low income). This “united Front” is an alliance between fascists, football casuals, and single issue anti-Islam campaigners. The alliance is maintained by ostensibly avoiding wider issues of immigration and race. there have already been reports of violent confrontations between football firms and neo-nazis within the EDL. It publicly proclaims (pretends?) that it is anti-racist and anti-fascist, uniting ‘black and white against militant islam’. EDL demo’s are 99.9% young, white and male, with the EDL mobilising beyond its hardcore primarily through networks around football ‘firms’ and their supporters. For the Manchester and Leeds EDL mobilisations, they reportedly achieved a mob of over 500 - perhaps sometimes double this. In some situations, such a groups activities could mark the start of anti-Muslim pogroms. At its worse, the ‘respectable’ BNP and the EDL street army could act in a pincer movement. However, the BNP and the EDL are publicly opposed (the BNP proscibing the EDL from its members) and the EDL itself is riven with contradictions, which a combination of circumstances and correct tactics from the left could shatter.
What should we do? Primarily, we need to help bring about a working class fightback against capitalism’s coming attacks (of course), organising in the electoral sphere, in the communities, on the streets and in especially the workplaces. But again (of course) we also need to organise specifically to unite the working class against divisions around race and religion - i.e anti-fascism.
The tactics of the 1970’s ANL, of reclaiming the streets and spaces before the fascists have a lot to commend them. And anti-fascists are not wrong to want to take the street space from the fascists and their assorted fellow bigots. Furthermore, if this ‘united front of fascists and bigots’ move beyond the cirty centres and try to march on Muslim communities, or on Mosques, we cannot just stand back and let them start their pogrom, with only Muslim youth left to defend their communities. But can we also find ways of doing this which work against, and not with, the fascist ’strategy of tension’? A big part of this is to have mass numbers, rather than left street squads. Large numbers of all ages, races, genders, religions. But also beyond numbers, we have the celebratory, the carnivalesque, and the deep resources of a contemporary British multiculture. But the police have also developed their now familiar new tactics which sometimes can make mass action harder - thus penning in mass assemblies, leaving only small, covert groups free on the streets to attempt to harry the fascists and their allies. Thus the police themselves enforce a division between ‘antifa tactics’ and ‘UAF tactics’, confining the mass mobilsation to passivity, reinforcing the isolation of practitioners of more direct froms of protest.
Anyway,today looked fairly good, in that the anti-muslim bigots were vastly outnumbered. We always need to mobilise those odds and more. And we need to deploy these odds in a way that both blocks space from the fascists; and in a way that also diffuses the fascists ’strategy of tension’ and instead unites the working class of all races and religions, so it can actually defend itself from capital and make progress.
Comment by Barry Kade — 14 November, 2009 @ 10:34 pm
I think it was good the Annabel Goldie of the Tories was on the march.
We can’t keep tolerance to ourselves on the left. If others show it, then we should welcome it.
We’ve got to be reasonable and fair. There is much to legitimately attack the Tories for, but Annabel Goldie’s decision to take part in this event with people from across the political spectrum is not one of them.
Comment by Davie — 14 November, 2009 @ 10:56 pm
Martin Kelly
-where does being a working person come into anything, the majority or people in a Britain work, I just don’t see why that is even relevant.
Yes it is true that many devout muslims do not see themselves as part of the “the working class” (what you mean is, a british person) but they are the minority the same way that BNP supporters are a minority.
“And worse of all, what happens if the Glagow BNP turn a lot of those 1000 voters into activists.”
and what happens if the labour, SNP etc. turn a lot of their voters into activists?
probably something very similar to what we saw today.
Comment by tom — 14 November, 2009 @ 10:57 pm
I meant to say, I like the idea of an event where the platform of speakers can include Grahame Smith, Aamer Anwar, and Annabel Goldie.
We need to get our ideas into the mainstream - otherwise we’re just playing at it.
Comment by Davie — 14 November, 2009 @ 10:59 pm
as someone who was involved in organising the 10am convergence - while being written off by UAF as an extremist, a splitter and a squaddist - i’d like to say that what #6 says is largely true.
UAF tried to hijack a demo that until days before they had actively been speaking out against, and ultimately turned it away from confronting the fascists.
nevertheless, it was a victory and the SDL could only have a very limited protest while kettled by police on a side street.
Comment by liam — 15 November, 2009 @ 12:07 am
Can someone explain to me how holding a rally of 3000 people (in a city of a million people) in order to LISTEN TO A SPEECH BY THE LEADER OF THE SCOTTISH CONSERVATIVES constitutes a cause for celebration?
Is the fascist threat really so massive that we have been forced to junk principle and ideology in order to build a popular front with the Tories? I thought inviting the strike-breaking Lib Dems to speak in Leeds was bad enough but this is surreal.
The EDL/SDL will only be defeated, physically and politically, by mobilising class-conscious militants. Allowing fascists to rally by Sauchiehall Street while the left prefers prancing around George Square with Tories is a new low in class politics.
Comment by Connor — 15 November, 2009 @ 12:47 am
we were looking in the town center looking for these scum. did we see any NO they knew better to even show their faces never mind marchin near the mosque
Comment by mutty — 15 November, 2009 @ 12:53 am
I agree almost entirely with Barry Kade. The EDL/SDL is still, politically, all over the place. It is important to identify the fault lines and exploit them. Some of the EDL may be basically decent people led astray by the anti-Muslim nonsense that’s in the Daily Mail and Daily Express and unchallenged elsewhere. There are all sorts of confused ideas. The fact that the EDL feels compelled to announce “We are not racist” is actually positive. And yet read the EDL website and you find a hard-right, very nationalist ideology, with a glorification of the military typical of the American right combined with the potential for street violence. The language used is BNP language, to be frank … all the stuff about “indigenous population” etc.
It is not enough to say “EDL = BNP” like the UAF does.
Comment by Tim Vanhoof — 15 November, 2009 @ 1:20 am
Connor, #38: It is much better to have the Lib Dems and Tories on board, formally denouncing Islamophobia, that to have them stirring it up themselves. The problem arises when you place unity with the Tories and Lib Dems above actually stopping the fascists, as the SWP now does.
Comment by Tim Vanhoof — 15 November, 2009 @ 1:35 am
The Lib Dems and the Tories DO stir up Islamophobia - but it’s harder for the left to call them on it when we invitee them to join bland marches against the SDL.
It seems the fascists were able to successfully rally because the SWP led people away from the SDL at the crucial moment.
Scottish Indymedia has more details.
Comment by Connor — 15 November, 2009 @ 2:04 am
The fascists weren’t able to successfully rally, their facebook group comments shows that a lot of them are pissed off at being kettled in a bar behind hundreds of police - http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&ref=search&gid=227558430152
“Jarvis Cocker we didn’t even make it into the city centre. sitting in a pub up at cowcaddens. what a joke. at cambridge street? what was the point ah going tae glasgow?”
“Jarvis Cocker im no against it but we got kicked in the baws the day bigtime. they were laughing at us hiding in a pub protected by the polis. it wis a shambles”
They would have been able to march imo if the demo had just stayed at Glasgow Green, but as soon as any movement from the SDL was noticed folk marched back from the Green to the City Centre.
In retrospect it would have been better to have the rally somewhere more central, like George Sq but all in all the SDL were ridiculously outnumbered and weren’t able to advertise themselves to Glaswegians at all. In contrast anti-SDL demonstrators were free to march (illegally) across the city with the police being unable to stop us due to numbers.
Comment by AndyB — 15 November, 2009 @ 2:14 am
Re comment 18:
I live in Cambridge St, and had a birds eye view of the whole event. For the SDL & there BNP mates it was truly embarassing. 50 - 60 of them snivelled inside the doors of what must be one of the grottiest pubs in Glasgow for 45 - 60 mins - entirely hemmed in by the cops and going nowhere.
Their “rally” consisted of a 60 PACE walk to the end of the street, and back again, surrounded entirely and outnumbered by at least three to one by police - before being corralled into 3 double decker buses - two of which were half full, whilst the other was empty. So much for marching on the Mosque!!!
Whilst the fact that they were there at all made me sick to my stomach, the reaction of the onlookers and my fellow “windae hingers” to their presence was more than heartening - it was very plain that their presence was far from appreciated, and their stragglers who hung around the outside fringes of the police line were told this directly, by more than one person, in no uncertain terms.
As for the argument about whether the anti-facist demonstration should have conrfonted them more directly than they did, all I can say is PLEASE !! From where I was, I counted 25 mini buses full of cops - and that was on top of the 200 or so plods who were already on the street. Any attempt to fight thro’ these lines to get at the Nazi’s would have been both suicidal and counterproductive.
To all you who organised and attended today’s demo I say thanks - having these neandrethal scum on my doorstep was frightening and depressing - seeing our side out number and outclass them reminded me that they are in the minority and can - and will be stopped.
Comment by Riaz22 — 15 November, 2009 @ 3:02 am
(off topic but of some interest:
I was expelled from the Socialist Workers Party today, following my disputes committee hearing in Newcastle this afternoon. I joined the SWP in October 1992, shortly after my 14th birthday, and have been a member without interruption since then.
I have been suspended from the SWP for the last few weeks. The basis of the expulsion is, incredibly, ‘factionalising’. The Central Committee’s case that I was guilty of ‘factional behaviour’ rested on two private emails between members…
Comment by hacnkeybound — 15 November, 2009 @ 5:11 am
A grotty pub?
In Scotland?
Never!
Does it serve intoxicating beverages like Guinness and Bell’s ?
That’ll do!
Comment by Betsy — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:00 am
It seems the British Left needs a flexible but well coordinated and united approach but there is no room for complacency whatsoever whether in Scotland, England, Wales or Wigan or anywhere else for that matter whenever the nazi BNP and their so called ” defence leagues” raise their ugly heads.
Whats more, it is not sufficent simply to build a broad and strong movement to challenge and oppose racism,fascism and homophobia, to rally and march.
A united fighting left has to come together and URGENTLY deal with the roots of racism and fascism within the deep and ever deepening crisis of British capitalism within the rapidly fragmenting and decaying imperialist state and needs to be involved, democratically involved at a grassroots level in predominatly working class communities or helping rebuild shattered and alienated , deeply disillusioned working class communities, listenning and learning from peoples festering grievances,appaling realities,social problems, political issues and questions and work with them to provide a clear credible and coherent political analysis and understanding, political answers and relevant socialist solutions and organisation.
For someone to actually say as they earlier said on this post that it is somehow ‘positive’ that the SDL is saying that they are not racist is complete and utter bollocks….. this is the line from Nazi Dick Nick Shitarse down to the streets……oh I’m not a Nazi Nazi or oh I’m not racist racist.Wake up!
There is no room, no room whatsoever for any complacency in tolerating the existence of the racist fascist BNP and it’s various defence league fronts.
In answer to an earlier question regarding opposition to the BNP so called ‘conference’ to cosmetically sort out their racist ‘constitution’ in Wigan…according to the not so impartial BBC there were up to 50 anti fascist protestors but then I wouldnt believe everything you read or hear from the BBC. Check your sources and check them well.
No pasaran !
Comment by Fleabite — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:26 am
Great to hear people standing up to rightwing thugs. But Scotland United? Having been away from Britain for a while, it strikes me even more that standing up to right wing nationalists using a nationalist framework is pretty self defeating. Why Scotland United? That and Scottish Defence League sound pretty indistinguishable.
Comment by Marcus — 15 November, 2009 @ 10:05 am
Post 33 “on another matter, son of NO2EU motion defeated at Respect conference today”
Derek it was worse than that for many of us on the left as Respect has clearly moved to the right in a big way led by George, Salma and friends - but you will be happy to know that an electorial agreements with the Greens (not on policy but a trade off for votes) was seen as the the way forward rather than any alliance with others on the left or the trade union movement (Geoege flatly refused to have anything to do with this).
Key speakers ont the whole opposed any attempt to stop the BNP/SDL/EDL by mobilsation and confrontation should this be required - it was not ruled out but they saw an appeal to the “police” as just as important if not more important.
I wont go on too much as this is not the right thred but it would be nice to have one on the Respect Conference (please).
It looks to me like the SWP were right, and have been right all along that Respect was going to, and has moved, clearly to the right - community politics and opportunist alliances are in, while Soialism is out for good! (I am sure I will get a reply to this very quickly from the “conference majority” but be it known that at least a third of the Respect conference supported a more socialist /trade union orientated perpective).
Those of us on the left in Respect have a great deal to think about in the next few months - can we continue in Respect? It felt at times that George/ Salma and others were only too happy to see socialists like myself leave Respect - but just what will they be left with?
Comment by Neil Williams — 15 November, 2009 @ 10:32 am
Why are one or two posters here attempting to play down the SDL/EDL? Is it part of some kind of misguided attempt to boost our morale? It seems that after every event the boilerplate line is “EDL humiliated” regardless of what actually happened on the ground. I fear this reflects the preference of some on the left for comforting fairy tales over serious analysis.
While it’s plainly wrong to overhype the fascists, we do need a clear understanding of facts. In Glasgow yesterday, the police controlled the streets, not the left. Because the authorities in Scotland are nominally ‘anti-racist’ (in a ‘popular front with the Tories’ kind of way) they hemmed in the SDL/EDL even more than usual. I cannot emphasise this point enough: it was the police and Glasgow City Council who stopped the SDL marching to the mosque, not the left. When Irish republicans tried to protest an army parade in the city, the police simply arrested them all. Some democracy.
The fact remains, fascists held a rally in the centre of Glasgow and the left didn’t stop them - in fact most comrades kept well clear of the SDL, preferring to listen to Annabel Goldie, the leader of the Conservatives. As Dan said earlier, quoting from a couple of comments on the SDL Facebook site which could come from trolls trying to drive down morale, is stupid. By all means let’s screw with the fascists’ heads but not our own!
The final EDL event of the year is in Nottingham on December 5th. Is it too much to ask every comrade on here to come along and make the counter-demo a massive - and truly militant - rejection of fascism? One that doesn’t get diverted off into a meaningless rally a quarter of a mile away where we all stand around applauding Lib Dems and Tories while the EDL chants its vile slogans in the centre of yet another British city.
Comment by Connor — 15 November, 2009 @ 10:41 am
Thanks Connor for trying to wake up the complacent.
Why were there only about 50 of us willing to confront the nazis yesterday?
Why was the District Bar, where the SDL held its post-rally piss up, left entirely alone, even though comrades knew the location?
Why do most anti-fascists prefer to leave it entirely to the discretion of the police how much leeway the fascists get?
Come on - I want answers.
Comment by Dan — 15 November, 2009 @ 10:49 am
Sorry, but:
#51 “Those of us on the left in Respect”, can we stay on? This is complete nonsense. Those on the ULTRA-left may well be considering their position. That’s because the infantiles wasted a great deal of conference time repeatedly pushing this idea of a far-left coalition.
Here was the choice. Should Respect orientate towards the left of the Labour Party and labour movement, which are to the right of us but in which are genuine mass forces, i.e. millions of people who can be pulled into more progressive politics? Or should it orientate itself to a few politically irrelevant and very narrow currents to its left which represent hardly anybody, in a coalition that hasn’t any confirmed trade union support and doesn’t even exist yet?
I repeat, this is NOT a question of “the socialists” being forced out. It is a question of the infantile left being defeated for making a fantastical proposal. Whether they leave in a fit of “principled” pique or not is up to them. I know they earnestly believe they are good Marxists fighting for the working class, but they are not good Marxists because their strategy would hamstring the only party with a mass basis to the left of Labour. That does not serve the interests of the working class - on the contrary.
Apologies, but now that the other viewpoint has been expressed perhaps we can save this debate for its own thread.
Comment by little black sister — 15 November, 2009 @ 11:01 am
#52. This is a comment from afar, as I was nowhere near Glasgow. “In Glasgow yesterday, the police controlled the streets, not the left.” My take on the left (a self-criticism in part, since I belong to it) is that the left can’t control the streets and is certainly not capable of contesting the authority of the police.
#53. Perhaps only 50 or so are militant enough to try and confront the SDL/EDL directly. Thousands can demonstrate against racism in a safe location. Even Tories will do it, or at least address the rally (rather hypocritically, in my view). Risking physical harm or arrest is not something thousands are prepared to do, it seems to me, at least at present.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 15 November, 2009 @ 11:12 am
“Why were there only about 50 of us willing to confront the nazis yesterday?…
Come on - I want answers.”
Who are you asking those questions Dan?
Comment by Armchair — 15 November, 2009 @ 11:22 am
I’m asking anyone who went on the Tory-aligned Scotland United march.
I’m asking anyone who joined the direct action mobilisation - and then left with the SWP as soon as we reached the Cambridge Bar, where the SDL thugs were.
I’m asking anyone who has an insight into the failure of the contemporary British left to produce mobilisations such as Lewisham in 1977 or Germany today.
Comment by Dan — 15 November, 2009 @ 11:31 am
Comment 54 by litle black sister “It is a question of the infantile left being defeated for making a fantastical proposal”.
Well its nice to know I and about 1/3 of the Respect conference represent the “infantile left” because we want a “fantastical proposal” to link up with trade unions and other socialists to create a left alternative to New Labour. You at lest give a flavour of the debate at conference which I thank you for even if we disagree. George and others used almost the same language at conference.
Up to now I thought Respect was a Coalition that would tolerate different views within its leadership - I was wrong. The verbal attacks on Nick Wrack at conference and others who want a “Socialist Respect” was unforgivable and uncomradley to say the least. The right now how full control, over the Respect National Council and party machine.
If its “infantile” to want to buld a clear SOCIALIST alternative (a word many in Respect dare not utter)then I stand for square with comrades in the Socialst Party, Communist Party, Socialist Workers Party [wether in or out of the coalition], Alliance for Green Socialism and the many trade unionists who also support an attempt to build a Socialsit Aleternative to New Labour.
And why do you wrongly presume they will not address themselves to the many Socialist inside the Labour Party as well as the millions who have already left? (at the Respect conference this attempt to set up “false alterantives” was used throughout the day to mislead members). It will be a lot easier for an organisation that proudly uses the word “socialism” than one who at times appears embarressed by the use of this word.
If you read anything about the new election coalition you will see that everything you suggest about it it complete rubbish - they have no intention at all just talking to the untra left or those to the left of them - far from it they will be helping the many independent Socialists(and Respect) and many Labour MP who are anti war, anti privatisation while trying to stand against and expose a few who represnt neo liberalism and war mongering at its worst.
Apologises for using this thred again - can we have a Respect Conference thred?
Comment by Neil Williams — 15 November, 2009 @ 11:32 am
#54;58 Crikey! This is a bit of a volte-face. Hasn’t Neil Williams been slagging off the SWP for months?
I agree with what he’s saying about the move away from a labour movement orientation by the Galloway, Yaqoub, Francis pop-frontist triumvirate.
Comment by Anonymous — 15 November, 2009 @ 11:40 am
As you’ll see, Andy’s not well, so I think a “Respect conference” thread might have to wait.
Comment by KrisS — 15 November, 2009 @ 11:40 am
#57. My first thought is that the UK left is less militant than it was at Lewisham in 1977. This isn’t a universal phenomenon on the left - as you note, anti-fascist mobilisations in Germany are both large and militant (and often accompanied by mass arrests by the police, as at Hamburg in September).
On another thread, Sheridan is quoted as expressing relief that a TORY came third in the by-election, not the BNP, although the latter didn’t miss it by much. If accurate, it explains how large numbers of people will stand around to be addressed by Annabel Goldie, and see that as an anti-fascist mobilisation.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 15 November, 2009 @ 11:43 am
BTW, Nick Wrack was definitely at the No2EU conference last week and spoke to his brother at one point. Wooo Wooo…..
Comment by Anonymous — 15 November, 2009 @ 11:44 am
I was on the counter demo that tried to confront the SDL at Cambridge St and I agree, largely, with #51. It has to be said though, that from the comments on the SDL facebook page, part of the demoralisation came from the fact that they knew that they were being spotted by their opposition every time they tried to move. There are still enough people around Glasgow with the experience to know how this sort of work should be done.
bad joke of the day was when some clown in a unite stewards outfit started screaming at a Celtic football crew who had come up from the east end to confront the SDL thinking that they were the SDL. Whats wrong with some of these people ?. does it never occur to them that young working class blokes with short hair might just not be fash ?. The same idiot turned around to some kid of about 14 and asked him if he wasnt a bit young to be at this sort of thing’.
And why did some of the SWP who actually on the demo that marched to join the main demo think it was a good idea to start chanting ‘viva palestina’, to the great confusion of onlookers in Buchanan St.
Good to see so many from the republican organisations turning out to oppose the SDL despite getting more attention from the police then the organised left.
Comment by Jim Carroll — 15 November, 2009 @ 11:52 am
We shouldn’t be surprised by these comments from Tommy Sheridan, a politician who is off the scale on Peter Snow’s swingometer.
Comment by Connor — 15 November, 2009 @ 11:54 am
“(I am sure I will get a reply to this very quickly from the “conference majority””
Well, if you argue honestly you might get a comradely debate. But judging by your childish tantrum in this thread (recycling the same old SWP rhetoric about “the right” and “the left”, just cos you lost an argument), you don’t want a genuine debate, you want to stake a claim for the high ground.
Try arguing honestly, without the “we’re the left, you’re the right” rhetoric.
We’re seeing the same shit happening again in the SWP, with good people being thrown out amid claims that they’re not pure enough and are working with the right (eg mass forces). Shame to see you joining in with it.
Comment by external bulletin — 15 November, 2009 @ 11:57 am
You’ve got your own thread to throw insults around on now, eb.
Comment by KrisS — 15 November, 2009 @ 11:59 am
#54, Thanks for your post. It is clear the ultra left in Respect are an unhappy lot within the project and are gearing up to to move on. This is according to Neil Williamson’s post when he utters the words ” it felt at times that Salma/ George and others were only too happy to see socialists like myself leave Respect”
You paid the conference fee Neil, took part in the decisions and you should leave the CC to carry out the work needed to implementing those decisions You should stop griping with weasel words
Comment by Larry N — 15 November, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
You never did lose that smugness, did you Kris. Note, you didn’t say anything in response to Neil insulting 2/3 of the Respect conference.
Comment by external bulletin — 15 November, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
From my cold, dead hands, eb.
The other thread wasn’t there when Neil posted.
Comment by KrisS — 15 November, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
Have a look at the photo of the SDL demo on here and work out for yourself how relevant it is to draw comparisons with Lewisham.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/not-here-1.932520
Comment by anon — 15 November, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
Looks like a swiss roll with a police outside and a fascist centre.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 15 November, 2009 @ 12:20 pm
Dan, why do YOU think so few people are prepared to mobilise on the basis you argue for? (50 did you say?)
Comment by Armchair — 15 November, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
There are photos from Glasgow on Saturday here, including the magnificent SSP No Paseran banner.
Also photos from the Edinburgh demo for troops out of Afghanistan demo here
Comment by Eddie Truman — 15 November, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
Why did Aamer Anwar yesterday at Glasgow Green keep on about Glasgow labour council using the public order act against the SDL as if it was some sort of victory ?.
Who does he think they will be using it against when the cuts come down after the general election.
A long way from when he stood for the SWP at elections at Glasgow uni as ‘The Workers Aamer’.
Comment by Jim Carroll — 15 November, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
It’s funny that on a website called “Socialist Unity” the discussion is so sectarian and personal.
Please remember when discussing tactics that you broadly share the same goals. If you feel youself getting angry, step back, take a breath and try to re-engage with a bit of respect for each other.
Comment by Liam — 15 November, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
#74-
Public Order Act used against fascist hooligans- good.
Public Order Act used against people fighting cuts in public services- bad.
Simples.
Comment by Armchair — 15 November, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
Dan asks why people went to the main demo rather than directly confront the fash. I cannot speak for anyone else but the reason I did is because I suffer from early onset arthritis. Despite only being in my mid forties I walk with a stick most of the time and am on very bad days confined to a wheelchair.
As Dan may be aware the state provides little more than a pittance to folk who are unable to work so in order to provide for myself and my family I need to keep myself as fit as is possible and cannot take risks with my health. As standing at the rally on the green for an hour left my in a degree of physical pain so severe that I had to go home and could not go on the march. I am at a loss as to what use I would have been in a physical confrontation with a fascist.
My sister came along with me because she helps out with my physical care. Also attending with me was my downstairs neighbour. She is currently in the UK on a discretionary basis having been raped and brutalised in her own country. Immigration rules being what the are she cannot risk any trouble with the police as this will almost certainly result in her repatriation. I saw many other folk on the demo who frankly wouldn’t have been much good if it all kicked off. Is Dan suggesting we should just have stayed at home and done nothing?
Personally I was glad that those of us who’s situations make us vulnerable were able to show our disgust at the SDL thugs coming to our city and trying to stir up trouble. I’m sorry to learn that my disabilities render me worthless but I didn’t choose to end up in bad health. A movement against fascism that seeks to exclude and despises those without the ability or stomach for anything other than non-violent protest is little better than what it claims to protest against.
I fully support anyone who is willing to go head to head with the fash and drive them off the streets but beieve that every tactic from mainstream opposition, to negative media exposure to direct action should be used against them.
Thinking of the NF/BNP it is notable that when they were driven off the streets the started worming their way into the mainstream. IMO had driving them off the streets been done in conjunction with serious effort to freeze them out the mainstream we might not have been faced with the spectacle of Nick Griffin on Question Time.
Comment by Anna — 15 November, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
Can I just stress that the comment at number one isn’t me?
Not that it isn’t almost humourous.
Haven’t had the chance to read all the comments yet.
There was some strange organizing going on at the first protest.
At one people we were holding up traffic for no reason. I think some were trying to take the crowd away from the SDL. Some credit should be given to the anarchists who were try to push things on towards the SDL location.
There were also some claims that the police were trying to kettle us on Cambridge Street. They really, really weren’t.
Comment by Frank Martin — 15 November, 2009 @ 3:16 pm
Regarding post 24:
Manzil, one of the reasons many have such animosity towards the UAF might be because of incidents like this one:
http://afed.org.uk/blog/state/146-unite-against-fascism-uaf-stewards-collaborate-with-police-on-anti-edl-mobilisation.html
How can the SWP (for which the UAF is, at best, largely a front group), given that they claim to be ‘revolutionaries’, can justify deliberately handing over other activists to the police, especially when they haven’t even broken any laws, is simply beyond me.
The fct that they’ll sell out supposed comrades doesn’t surprise me, but the fact that they claim to be ‘revolutionaries’ while also acting hand in glove with the State is beyond me.
Comment by Robert Walsh — 15 November, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
Comment deleted. Said before that the REAL NGE stood up n were (hopefully not) counted, against the nazis. Count:- 2 stabbed, a couple kicked near to kill. NGE=Fuck Section B, ICF, ASC right wing scumbags. Try your SDL fannine nonsence anywhere near Firhill an the boys will be out. There’s only 1 team in Glasgow and we don’t hid3e behind scarfers! PTFC!
Comment by Mark — 15 November, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
There’s a lot of talk here about who was more committed on the left and attacks on Annabel Goldie for taking part.
I think - just as with the fantastic anti-war march in Glasgow in 2005 - if you are with us on this issue, you are welcome.
Yesterday’s march was not so much about ideological politics as it was about a common humanity.
Well done, Aamer. Well done, Nicola. Well done, Annabel. And well done everyone who spoke for Scotland yesterday.
Comment by Colin — 15 November, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
It seems to me Goldie was there for the same reason Straw was on “Question Time” opposite Griffin - to engage in anti-fascist posturing and cover up the fact that their parties/governments have both contributed mightily to the xenophobic-Islamophobic mood that is aiding the BNP.
And a Tory speaking at such a gathering seems to me to be taking the Popular Front approach just a bit too far.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 15 November, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
Well, you’re entitled to your view, but I think it’s a short-sighted one.
By all means organise your own united against fascim march and exclude willing would-be supporters.
Comment by Colin — 15 November, 2009 @ 5:46 pm
“…a Tory speaking at such a gathering seems to me to be taking the Popular Front approach just a bit too far”.
“We will fight them on the beaches and landing grounds, we will fight them in the streets…We will never surrender”.
Now Mark:
1) Whose was the second quote?
2) Which party did he lead?
3) Which big country did his country form an alliance with in June 1941?
4) Who was he talking about fighting (albeit a year previously)?
Comment by Armchair — 15 November, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
#84. 1) Which leading British politician presided over the murder of miners at Tonypandy before WW1?
2) Which political party waged war on the miners during the Great Strike?
3) Which political party is the classic expression of monopoly capital’s interests in the UK?
4) Why has the British left recently become addicted to the sort of Popular Front politics it would, generally, have criticised 20 or 30 years ago?
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 15 November, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
And,
5)
Why can the UK left present three rival candidates in a by-election, the latest stage in debilitating conflict, yet it has no qualms at all about being addressed by a Tory a couple of days later in the same city?
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:10 pm
Mark,
Annabel Goldie speaks for a sizeable Scottish constituency. Sadly, it’s a larger constituency than the one currently backing the socialist left. I would prefer that Annabel Goldie sent an anti-racism message to her supporters. Sure, many of them will not listen, but if one does…
And I think it’s important not to see the anti-racism march yesterday in purely ideological terms.
I will challenge - even deplore - 99 per cent of Ms Goldie’s policies. But when she stands shoulder to shoulder with Aamer Anwar and Nicola Sturgeon, in front of people of many parties and none, to denounce racism, then - for that moment - she has my support.
The fight against racism must not simply be a catalyst for interminable arguments about moral superiority.
We want to create a society free from racism. It’s a no brainer that we’d want even the Tories to participate.
Or would you rather we waited until we had converted every Conservative to radical socialism before allowing them to condemn racism?
It’s a big world, full of different people. Can you see the irony of your position?
I hope you’ll consider my points.
best wishes
Colin
Comment by Colin — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
#87 - I had the same problem with Straw on “Question Time”, so it isn’t a purely anti-Tory thing. He was denouncing a BNP which is making headway because his government has been treating Muslims as the enemy within and the BNP has hitched a ride. I don’t know what Goldie said, but her party has a track record of xenophobia and its right wing has historically overlapped with the far right - the Monday Club and so on. So when Straw and Goldie denounce the BNP, I wonder if it is because of what it stands for or merely because they want their own parties to profit from xenophobia and the BNP is a rival.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
As to the size of constituency - the far right is bigger than the Marxist left. Do we let a fascist address us without protest, then, because of that?
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:27 pm
Mark,
But Annabel Goldie stood up and said there was no place for racism in society. I’m not sure how that would help her win xenophobic voters from the BNP.
There are plenty of tangible things for which to attack the Tories without throwing (and I don’t mean to be confrontational) illogical suppositions into the mix.
Like I said, while Annabel Goldie stands with Aamer Anwar in denunciation of racism, she has my support.
Best wishes
Colin
Comment by Colin — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
89.
No, Mark, we don’t. But, much as I despise them, I don’t equate the Tories with the fascists.
Some of my friends are Tories - makes for interesting nights in the pub - and they’re not racists (especially Sudip).
Best wishes
Colin
Comment by Colin — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:32 pm
“So when Straw and Goldie denounce the BNP, I wonder if it is because of what it stands for”
You seriously think Straw and Goldie are sympathetic to fascism?
Comment by lone nut — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
#89 ‘Mark Victorystooge’; “As to the size of constituency - the far right is bigger than the Marxist left.”
Only if you are an electoral cretin.
This weekends events have shown that the ‘Marxist left’, in this case the Scottish Socialist Party and the SWP, along with large numbers of Anarchists, SNP supporters and other lefts, out number the forces boot boy fascism can put on the ground in Glasgow by about 1,000 to 1.
The events in Glasgow on Saturday speak for themselves, medal of honour to everyone involved.
While the left parties such as the SSP and SWP put resources in, 99% of the credit has to go to the vibrant and militant socialist students and their societies, alomgside the anarchists from across Scotland.
A really important day for building confidence in all the progressive left forces in Scotland, well done all.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
Eddie, I think Mark is talking about electoral size, rather than activist base.
The left has more activists than the far right, for sure. Except that the far right is more dogged - they work in their local areas for years, in a way that the left doesn’t. The left holds fortnightly meetings on “the return of marx”, while the far right leaflets every house twice, three times, four times. I’ve had more BNP literature through my door than left wing literature.
In terms of who votes for who, the euro elections prove who has the bigger voting base.
The reasons why are for debate. But the fact can’t be denied - they can get more people voting for them than we can get voting for us.
Comment by external bulletin — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:47 pm
I was more than happy with the Scotland United march, there was far more than 1,500 in attendance and we truly made our presence felt. To be honest, smashing fuck out of a couple of Rangers hooligans would have been a waste of time in terms of the message that we were trying to get across. These SDL dickheads are pretty much just a rag-tag bunch of knuckle draggers and I have faith in my fellow Glaswegians to realise this fact.
God bless
Comment by Ciaran — 15 November, 2009 @ 7:59 pm
Electorally, the far right certainly outpoints the left, if we take that to be the left outside the Labour Party.
I don’t know about activists, but some fash do seem to possess better local roots than many of the left do. A lot of left energy at activist level seems to be expended in fighting each other, or wasted in rather abstract matters, so any numerical advantage over the fash there may be is wasted.
As to whether I think Straw or Goldie are fascists - no. But they, and or the parties/governments they belong to, have created favourable conditions for them.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 15 November, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
Mark,
So would you accept that Ms Goldie’s participation yesterday is to be welcomed?
Best Wishes
Colin
Comment by Colin — 15 November, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
Since when have fascist marches in Glasgow been news? The Orange Order still march there, don’t they? No UAF mobilisation against the OO though, their old Grand Master is in the UAF!
Sad, but true.
Comment by Stuart — 15 November, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
I do not actually have a problem with Tories or Liberals supporting UAF. To me this shows that anti-racism has achieved ideological hegemony in society so that all serious political organisations profess their opposition to racism. This is a good thing, even if some organisations’ theory and practice are in fact racist - they can be challenged on that at every opportunity.
What I am against is when unity with the Tories is given priority above actually stopping the fascists, which is what the UAF did on Saturday.
Comment by Tim Vanhoof — 15 November, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
“Since when have fascist marches in Glasgow been news? The Orange Order still march there, don’t they”
In what meaningful sense would you characterise the Orange Order as fascist?
Comment by lone nut — 16 November, 2009 @ 6:20 am
To lone nut,
I’d say that the interlinking relationships between the Orange Order, the RUC (especially the B specials), the UDR, the UUP and the state in general in Northern Ireland was the closest to fascism we’ve seen in these islands. That the sole reason for this relationship was to ensure the continuation of a one-party ruling order who were racially supremacist surely means that the participants in this (which most definitely included the Orange Order) were fascistic. That this ruling order were then joined by loyalist paramilitaries prepared to fight against democratic reforms by terrorising a clearly defined ethnic minority from the late 1960s onwards backs up my point.
A question for you. In what meaningful sense would you characterise 50 pissed-up football hooligans holed up in a pub in Glasgow looking for a ruck as fascist? I’m not saying they’re not, but the argument needs to be made before the lollipops come out.
Stuart
Comment by Stuart — 16 November, 2009 @ 10:01 am
No, it’s not to be welcomed. If she or her party wants to hypocritically deplore the BNP, I really don’t think the left should be “welcoming” it. It should be asking her the hard questions it doesn’t seem to mind asking rival lefties, sometimes ad nauseam.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 16 November, 2009 @ 10:05 am
Mark,
Thanks for your reply. It’s disappointing you feel like that because I believe fighting racism is something which needs as a broad a support as possible.
Again, good on Annabel Goldie for joining this march.
Best Wishes
Colin
Comment by Colin — 16 November, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
“I’d say that the interlinking relationships between the Orange Order, the RUC (especially the B specials), the UDR, the UUP and the state in general in Northern Ireland was the closest to fascism we’ve seen in these islands.”
So presumably they abolished trades unions and independent civil associations, abolished parliamentary democracty and all independent political parties and organisations and systematically established a totaltarian state? That is what fascism means, and no we didn’t come close to it in Northern Ireland.
“a one-party ruling order who were racially supremacist”
Well the UUP was the ruling party because it won elections, not because it abolished elections or other political parties. And religious sectarianism is not remotely equivalent to racial supremacism. You will find more evidence of a flirtation with fascism and biological racism in the history of Irish Republicanism, unfortunately (ie not very much at the end of the day, but certainly more).
“In what meaningful sense would you characterise 50 pissed-up football hooligans holed up in a pub in Glasgow looking for a ruck as fascist”
Indeed. I wouldn’t. I don’t even care how they should be characterised, so irrelevant are they. And I wish the left would devote a fraction of the energy and passion it devotes to hunting down 70 numpties in a pub to developing an economic and social programme that might have some mass appeal in the context of a raging crisis.
Comment by lone nut — 16 November, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
So I take it that Tory politicians’ (or New Labour’s for that matter) motives are not to be subjected to any scrutiny? The left must be in even worse condition than I thought.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 16 November, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
Mark,
That’s not what I said. In fact, if you choose to read what I said, you’ll see that that I deplore the majority of what Annabel Goldie stands for. Let’s keep a little intellectual integrity to this discussion, rather than falling into the online trap of attributing to me things I did not say.
Anyway, you’re not subjecting her motives to scrutiny: you are pronouncing upon them. And not sensibly, at that. Your suggestion that Ms Goldie attended an anti-racism march to woo voters from the BNP is simply illogical.
I won’t attack her for standing beside Aamer Anwar and denouncing racism. I’ll applaud her.
best wishes
Colin
Comment by Colin — 16 November, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
I think the BNP’s growth has something to do with the attitudes struck by mainstream parties and newspapers backing mainstream parties, like the Tories. Nor do I see it as absurd that the Tories might see the BNP as an electoral threat, esp. since we now know the BNP plan to stand in 200 seats.
And you haven’t taken up my point about the possibility that Goldie, Tories and New Labour might be hypocritical in their anti-fascism. Straw, for example, went for Griffin on QT, yet prior to that, he famously objected to a Muslim woman wearing a burqa or some similar garment at his surgery. You appear to take Tory/Labour pronouncements as good coin. Why is that?
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 16 November, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
#93 A really important day for building confidence in all the progressive left forces in Scotland, well done all.
Yes. Plus at the same time a turnout of around 1000 on the Stop The War Demo in Edinburgh.
Comment by Anonymous — 16 November, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
Mark,
I have campaigned against “New” Labour for some 14 years. Against the Tories for much longer.
There is a difference between your new assertion that the Tories may see the BNP as an electoral threat and your previous assertion that Annabel Goldie attended the anti-racism march in order to woo BNP voters.
And again, can we exercise a little intellectual rigour. I do not blindly take tory/Labour pronouncements as “good coin”, as you suggest. I do, however, think it is short sighted and reckless not to welcome as broad a coalition as possible into the battle against racism.
It is perfectly conceivable to me that I could disagree entirely with a Tory on matters of the economy, jobs…whatever, and still agree with that person that racism is a disgrace.
Annabel Goldie is to be commended for standing alongside Aamer Anwar and Nicola Sturgeon and stating that she rejects racism.
I will do all I can to ensure the election of socialists diametrically opposed to Ms Goldie’s party and policies, but I think her appearance at Saturday’s march was an excellent thing (given, as I said previously, that she speaks to a large constituency).
I’m not sure I can see the hypocrisy of Annabel Goldie speaking out against fascism. She is not, as far as I know, a fascist.
Best wishes
Colin
Comment by Colin — 16 November, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
Hindenburg wasn’t a fascist either, but he helped the Nazi takeover in Germany, as did people like him.
The states of mind the BNP and similar organisations use - xenophobia and Islamophobia - are not of the BNP’s making. They just profit from it. I don’t need to read a BNP publication to read stories about “bogus asylum seekers”, “Muslim terrorists” “East Europeans coming over here and taking our jobs” etc. Any tabloid will do. The people writing this kind of thing would probably never dream of joining the BNP, yet they create and at the same time reflect a certain environment which is not absent from the mainstream parties either, and influences them.
The problem for me is that you, and many others, focus narrowly on the BNP, so when a Tory deplores the BNP, you are naively impressed. Yet it is government policy, Labour government policy not dissented from by the official opposition like Goldie, to say immigration is a problem, to treat asylum seekers as suspect at best and even as near-sub-human, and to wage wars of aggression, esp. in Muslim countries.
Thatcher signalled in 1979 that she thought immigration was a problem, and this probably cut into NF support. If you focus narrowly on the far right, this was a triumph, but perceptive commentators at the time noted that it meant far right concerns were entering mainstream politics, a process that has simply grown apace. What if your beloved Goldie, or some other Tory, starts using BNP dog whistle language just before polling day, perhaps to stop Tory voters drifting to the far right?
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 16 November, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
Okay, Mark, I’ve been polite.
I am not “naively impressed” by Annabel Goldie denouncing the BNP. In fact, the march on Saturday was not about denouncing the BNP, but about denouncing racism.
And don’t start that “your beloved Goldie” crap, son. Witless, sectarian, smart arse wee pricks like you are the reason the left is so fucked.
Join us in the real world when you grow up, you patronising, intellectually dishonest, blockheaded little tosser.
Colin
Comment by Colin — 16 November, 2009 @ 6:02 pm
You started off more polite than Armchair, who basically just patronised me. However, persistent questioning of your stance re Goldie has caused the filth to drool from your mouth. I’ll be kind and attribute the mood change to a drinking session.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 16 November, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
Persistent questioning? No, intellectually dishonest squirming.
Attribute my change in tone to your comment about my “beloved Goldie”. You’re an arsehole, son.
Comment by Colin — 16 November, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
Say hi to Annabel from me.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 16 November, 2009 @ 6:21 pm
I will if I see her on another anti-racism march. What’ll you be doing? Flaming on messageboards.
Perhaps you’ll actually turn out on a march. I’d love to meet you and discuss this issue in more detail.
Comment by Colin — 16 November, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
Since I am not a Tory, you wouldn’t enjoy meeting me at all.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 16 November, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
Pathetic. Arrogant and pathetic, Mark.
You’re more interested in digs at me than whether we should be looking for a broad coalition against racism.
I assume you hold Aamer Anwar in the same contempt as you hold me?
After all, he was seen - GASP - shaking Annabel Goldie’s hand and later applauding when she spoke.
I assume you hold Tommy Sheridan in the same contempt for applauding her?
Comment by Colin — 16 November, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
I find the “Scottish play” generally quite wearisome. Three rival left candidates in a by-election where the fascists are smart enough to have just one, but two days later everyone kneels down to be blessed by St. Annabel.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 16 November, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
Oh, it’s a “scottish” issue?
What a racist thing to say.
Mark, while I was out demonstrating against fascism on Saturday, where were you?
Comment by Colin — 16 November, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
On Saturday, I was explaining to asylum seekers and refugees what the English-language correspondence they received meant. Letters from the Home Office, bills, things like that.
The “Scottish play” is actually a traditional euphemism for Shakespeare’s play “Macbeth”, since naming it is supposed to bring bad luck. It is also my term for everything that has happened on the Scottish left since the 2006 court case, the after-effects of which contributed to there being three left candidates in Glasgow.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 16 November, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
And you would have excluded Annabel Goldie and Nicola Sturgeon from Saturday’s march, would you?
Comment by Colin — 16 November, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
Does anyone think that the type of people that the SDL were trying to mobilize on saturday give a flying fuck about Goldie, Anwar, Sheridan and the rest of the line up of the political establishment who spoke at Glasgow green ?. Their constituency, such as it is, alienated white working class and predominantly male, would probably have taken more notice if a couple of the Rangers first team had spoken then the combined total of those who did. These people will only be won away from the likes of the SDL and the BNP by the slow and patient application of class politics combined with a determination to show that groups like the SDL cannot control the streets rather than lineups of so called political heavyweights.Whats new about the lineup we had on saturday ?. beyond Goldie this is pretty much the same lineup that has been appearing at the annual STUC St Andrews Day march and rally in Glasgow for the past twenty years attracting a turnout of usually about 1,000.
And those who want to have cracks about 70 pissed up skinheads in a pub want to remember that there were considerably more then 70 in Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham and elsewhere. Unlike some, I dont consider that the EDL and offshoots are currently the fighting wing of the BNP but a more amorphous collection of extreme racists, bigots and reactionaries mobilised manly by the ceaseless racist propaganda pumped out by the same rightwing press that will be cheerleading Cameron and Goldie at the next general election. I wonder if Annabel Goldie will be parading her anti racist credentials quite so boldly when Cameron has his ’swamped’ moment in order to win votes off the BNP.
Comment by Jim Carroll — 16 November, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
“#6 TIM Vanhoof
This account sounds like a suspiciously anti-UAF sectarian version, which may or may not be accurate.*
Can we have a UAF version in answer so that we can compare.
*[ Like maybe those with megaphones were ‘Scotland United’ who were the main organisers of the counter demo and NOT UAF ???? ]”
Gladly,
I was on the early morning demo. UAF had resolved to confront the sdl, but said they wanted to bring people from the broad scot united demo into that confrontation. to that end they joined the early demo at the underground station. A member of UAF - simpy - the hansome guy holding the megaphone in the picture - proposed a march toward the group of some 20 sdl in a pub. The 400 set of. what followed was the most sectarian and uggly shit ive ever seen. About a 200 foot up the road the march slowed down as people were uncertain where we were headed - we stopped very briefly so the UAF guy who initiaeted the march could explain where we were going. Some anarchist types then began to verbaly abuse the demonstration, some chanting UAF SCUM. There were alot of young people on the march who were clearly upset. Every time the march slowed down to discuss its next move (remember that the march was spontaeneous and launched by UAF on a tip off) more autonomist types would start abusing demonstrators as ‘collaborators’’sellouts’and’scum’ - sometimes total randoms who were not even UAF. Amidst the confusion one pub was demonised then another. When the actual pub was reached the demo split in two - with one section attemting to go round the back of it to get in and another going round the front. The anarchist types then split and some were shouting ’sell-out’ at the protestors going one way and the others shouting the same thing at the protestors going the other. After the police kettled the anarchists the demo headed toward the big rally at the request not just of UAF but also the SSP who had at first been shouting ‘collaborators’ etc at the demo. What a debacle.
Having said all that the big demo was a huge success despite its popular front style and small groups of the fash were confronted. I was just outraged by the ultra left types. I’ve never seen such pointless agression agianst other progressives - it was verging on the violent. And I have to say as a whole I was impressed by the UAF organisers. At one point an anarchist or maybe an SSP guy came up and just screamed ‘collaborator’ in a young Asian guys face who was involved with UAF and he looked really pissed but just kept his cool. I’m not sure i could have done the same.
Comment by Anonymous — 17 November, 2009 @ 2:17 am
-123.
I was the guy abused and accused of being a “collaborator”. My accuser was a Solidarity member.
Comment by Asif — 17 November, 2009 @ 8:44 am
I rarely post but feel obligated cos of the load of pish Anonymous is talking - provocative, misleading and inaccurate.
The day was a huge success with thousands participating against the far right from all walks of life. Glaswegians should be proud of what was achieved and will be travelling to Edinburgh for round two in Edinburgh in February, if you believe the SDL propaganda.
Glasgow Anti Fascist Alliance developed in the weeks running up to the planned S.D.L march in Glasgow. Their aim was to prevent the S.D.L marching in Glasgow and physically prevent them doing so if necessary. GAFA was made up of socialists (SSP,Socialist Appeal,Scottish Socialist Youth) Glasgow Uni students, RDG, anarchists and individuals and all discussion and decisions on tactics etc were made democratically.
One of the major reasons for GAFA coming into being was the decision of Scotland United to have a rally at Glasgow Green over two hours after the SDL had announced their planned assembly at ten A.M. The obvious concern and fear was Scotland United would be rallying hours after the SDL and the SDL march would go ahead unchallenged. Approximately 400 militant anti-fascists turned up at ST Enochs underground at ten am, hours before the Scotland United event, aiming to stop the SDL marching once information on where they were assembling came through. Anonymous is just making things up when he says that the ten a.m meet up was a spontaneous initiative by UAF based on a tip off, far from it.
The SWP in the run up to Saturday were in a quandry - on the one hand they put a majority of their resources into building the Scotland United event via their UAF hat but more militant SWP members realised that GAFA was both correct (stop the SDL marching) and was gaining an echo amongst young people, hence individual members of the SWP were at St Enoch’s as well as leading lights of UAF (Weyman Bennet).
GAFA did eventually march to Glasgow Green, but left shortly afterwards as the SDL had been spotted. Hundreds left Glasgow Green following GAFA’s lead and for a number of hours afterwards SDL members were harassed and prevented from marching. Confrontations occurred in Cambridge Street and Buchanan Street amongst other city centre locations. One of the dispiriting statements from the platform of Scotland United came from Amer, who announced that texts and phone calls were being received from the city centre concerning the SDL but assurances had been given by the Police that they wouldn’t be allowing the SDL to march! That’s ok then ain’t it!
The militant anti-fascists then went to George Square and waited for the large Scotland United march to arrive.
I firmly believe that the SDL woul have marched if GAFA had not have come into being.
Thanks, Steve
- by the way Anonymous I saw nobody from UAF being abused by socialists, there were disagreements with W.Bennett who tried to assume leadership of the GAFA march but that is fair enough as he wasn’t involved with GAFA. I saw a young Scottish Socialist Youth and one of the GAFA organisers being abused by two drunken anarchists but overall tempers remained reasonably level considering what was, at times, quite a stressful day.
Comment by Selkirk Steve — 17 November, 2009 @ 9:31 am
#123 (anonymous) is deluded if they really believe it was UAF who initiated, built for and led the 10am mobilisation - the one that confronted the SDL.
UAF decided to back it only on Wednesday evening, after weeks of writing it off and accusing those involved of splitting the movement.
in fact, UAF members were screaming that we should not march to the pub where the SDL were and rather head down to Glasgow Green for 12 noon - partly through misinformation over how many SDL were in the pub, we did so, and not to mention Weymann Bennett’s various attempts to hijack the march and redirect it.
it did happen to be a UAF “member” (aka an SWP student) who announced over the megaphone that we were making a move from St Enochs - partly because he was holding it at the time. I was the person who requested he do it after receiving confirmed intelligence that the SDL were in the bar on Cambridge St - not, in fact, UAF intelligence, but from spotters GAFA had around the city and those at St Enochs making phone calls.
A few anarchists maybe did get a bit antagonistic towards UAF - and it did seem at points that they too were trying to hijack the march and push it towards confrontation with the police.
Nonetheless, to state that UAF were behind the 10am march is a gross exaggeration of the facts,
Comment by liam — 17 November, 2009 @ 10:11 am
#122. “I wonder if Annabel Goldie will be parading her anti racist credentials quite so boldly when Cameron has his ’swamped’ moment in order to win votes off the BNP.”
Exactly.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 17 November, 2009 @ 3:36 pm
A serious and I hope non-patronising question to Mark VS- Are the BNP and other such groups qualitatively different to the Tories and New Labour, or are they merely just more reactionary and more racist?
Comment by Armchair — 17 November, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
Is someone saying the the UAF/SWP organised the 10am demo?
They must be misinformed.
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=185689754084&index=1
8th of November
http://socialistleftfield.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/lets-all-stop-the-fascists/
Comment by Frank Martin — 17 November, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
No I never said that UAF organised or built the 10am demo. You can read what I said above. I’m well aware that most of the organising and building was done by SSP/anarchists/frfi etc. UAF did however launch the stationary demo as a march. Thats just a fact - I was standing right there when it happened. However as soon as the march was under way UAF were constantly being told they were trying to hold it back. And please don’t try and deny that there was alot of abusive language and agressive behaviour. I saw it with my own eyes. A lanky anarchist type called me a ’scum bag’ and a ‘f@cking idiot’ - simply because I was unwilling to charge down his particular alley of doom. Ultimaetly the SSP/gara/frfi etc lost control of the rally not to UAF but to a tiny group of some ten or so of the most agressive anarchists who at one point (having already berated others for stopping) stoped the march in the middle of the road to go into a scrum and decide what the whole demo would do next. They only ceased this when waymann bennet took the microphone to suggest that we wait to find out which pub the SDL were in before making our next move - at which point they jumped out of their scrum to start abusing Waymann bennet, before demanding the whole march charge off up another street. Eventually, a guy who I think is in the SSP - a young balding guy - mannaged to argue that the march should head through the city centre to the green. then their were more howls of ’sell out’ etc but by this point most of the demonstrators had had enough of being shouted at for not wanting the armed struggle or some shit, and decided to march to the green.
But lets get something clear hear - i’m not saying the day wasn’t great. It was a roaring success - with thousands marching through the city centre with an anti-racist anti-fascist message. Even though the demo in the morning was a bit shambolic it was important too and a good initiative.
My only complaint was the behaviour of some of the groups their. Stop trying to paint UAF as the only people who can make mistakes or misjudgements. And don’t try and tell me that the behaviour of some people wasn’t hideous. I’ve never seen anything like it. I hope i won’t have to again. I don’t know why some people with marginalised politics think that their frustration gives them the right to insult people they’re working with. And by the way, I’m not really talking about the SSP - they were alright apart from one of them who just went crazy.
Comment by Anonymous — 17 November, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
Fascism is the product of capitalism in crisis. Accordingly, all bourgeois parties and institutions have the potential to evolve towards fascist positions, if the crisis is severe enough. The BNP won’t form the next government, but it can influence it in a fascist direction, if the Tory/Labour parties think that adopting chunks of fascist programme will stand them in good stead. Current Immigration Minister Phil Woolas isn’t a BNP member, for example, but he sings to the BNP hymn sheet on immigration, and has a degree of executive power, which Griffin does not have and may never have. I expect no better of the Tories, and perhaps even worse.
I can offer a historical parallel of how fascism need not come from the constituted fascist party. Romania entered WW2 on the German side, officially royal but really a military dictatorship under Antonescu. The Romanian fascist party the Iron Guard enjoyed no power, though it had helped push Romanian politics to the far right, and conservative forces had actually murdered its leader Codreanu. Romania’s alliance with Nazi Germany and its deep involvement in the holocaust was the product of conservative generals and similar forces - the overtly fascist movement was marginalised. Yet if Romania wasn’t a directly fascist state, the practical effects were much the same.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 17 November, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
re 123, 130
you are mistaken weyman bennet was shouting through the megaphone that “we know the sdl are going to st georges square”
the video is you tube.
also where exactly in glasgow is st georges square?
Comment by Andi Rossetter — 17 November, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
#131- I’m more interested in Germany, where fascism triumphed partly because the parties of the traditional right were prepared to work with Hitler, and where the Comunists failed to understand the qualitative difference between the Nazis and the conservatives (or the social democrats for that matter).
Although I would concede that the erosion of civil liberties in the early 30s played no small role in paving the way for what became the norm under the Nazis.
There is no contradiction between being resolutely opposed to the tories on the one hand, and welcoming them if they make anti-fascist/ anti- racist statements. I’d rather that than the opposite.
Comment by Armchair — 17 November, 2009 @ 6:02 pm
also i got the distinct impression that the swp were doing thier best to stop confrontation happening, several times as we marched up buchanan street the swp/uaf stopped the march when we had reliable information as to where the sdl were.
first in the iron horse pub then in the cambridge bar.
Comment by Andi Rossetter — 17 November, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
130: “Stop trying to paint UAF as the only people who can make mistakes or misjudgements.”
Aye… there was plenty of misjudgement going about.
The UAF/SWP has to take responsibility however for being against the 10am demo right up until the last minute, even though at meetings people were mostly in favour of it (that’s what I heard anyway - I couldn’t make any of the meetings).
You say they started the march off. From what I saw it was the Anarchists who were repeatedly trying to get it started. Maybe later… when I was in the loo, the UAF then agreed to move off. The purpose of moving off was to go to where the EDL were. Not to go to the Green, as the UAF seemed to want to.
They didn’t want the 10am demo to go ahead, then when they did, they tried to move it towards the Green as soon as was possible (from what I can pick up anyway).
It’s IMPORTANT to remember that the 10am demo was mainly organised so that people could disrupt/confront the EDL demo. Then join up with the demo in the Green if needs be. It’s not too difficult to see that a prime source of confusion could be the UAF/SWP turning up with a different agenda to the rest of the people there.
In general the day was a success. But it could have been an even greater success, had the UAF not been going against the grain of what the people 10am demo had indented. The only thing that people seem to be complaining about is the confusion, and tensions caused by it. Like I said, the UAF seemed to be the source of this.
Myself and other SSP members made mistakes in moving off from the Cambridge pub.
BUT IF PEOPLE HAD NOT SHOWN UP WITH THE INTENTION OF MOVING AWAY FROM THE EDL IN THE FIRST PLACE, MAYBE…JUST MAYBE, SOME WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LEFT BEHIND AT SIGNIFICANT RISK!!!
We live and learn… I hope.
Comment by Frank Martin — 17 November, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
Frank - thats pretty lame.
‘Yes the SSP argued for a march back to the green, but we were somehow under the sub-conscious influence of the SWP’ come on. Again, I’m not here to stand up for everything UAF did - sure they made mistakes. I’m complaining about the sectarianism on the march. Alot of people new to politics were put off by the elitism and agression mostly of the autonomist types. A friend who had never been on a march before was badly disilussioned by it.
No matter how much you disagree with UAF’s tactics, there’s no excuse for it. Lets just get that point agreed on.
As for UAF, it seems to me that there general strategy - of combining the millitancy of the morn demo with the bigger but more flacid and broad one in the green was the right general approach, whether it was well implemented or not. When people who had come to the green left early to confront the sdl they didn’t even tell anyone to come with them. they just wandered off. More sectarian eliteism.
But my question is this - what is the point of some 200 odd antifascists booting the sdl off the streets(assuming they can achieve that, which in practice they couldn’t)? Objectively its the same as the police moving them back onto their coaches. Who gets radicalised by an action which involved only people commited to the cause already?
There’s a debate above concerning the rise of fascism in Germany above and I want to make this point - how do you defeat a reactionary political force whose modus operandi is to violently take to the streets? To simply mirror the fascist strategy undermines the weapons given to anti-fascists by their class position - mass mobilisation, strikes etc. Besides the fasc will undoubtably have the state on their side in any given confrontation.
Comment by Anonymous — 17 November, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
There was no risk significant or otherwise at the Cambridge. I was there all the time. Lets not exaggerate what happened. The SDL were stuck in the pub until 12.25, and until then no one knew what was going to happen. We didn’t know how many there were going to be. Certainly no one knew where or even, if, they were going to march. In fact it wasn’t certain if they were going to show in Glasgow at all. So all this ‘we knew where they were all the time’ is just being wise after the fact.
When they did march 70 of them managed to shuffle 100 yards up and down the street while three and a half thousand people marched in Glasgow against the racism and fascism of the SDL. This was the biggest demo of its kind in Scotland. The racists, outnumbered fifty to one, were humiliated.
I’m not sure what the other posters on this oxymoronic named website would call this. But I would call it a success.
You can see my pics of the demo here:http://www.flickr.com/photos/duncanbrown/sets/72157622683112109/
Comment by Anonymous — 17 November, 2009 @ 8:40 pm
I don’t think there is a Chinese Wall separating fascist parties off from mainstream bourgeois ones. To take the German example, few people would describe the German National People’s Party (DNVP) as fascist, though it went into coalition with the Nazis. It was more conservative nationalist than anything else. It was however anti-Semitic, a state of mind not limited to Nazis, and the conservative diarist Viktor Klemperer, who was a Jew, wrote that this deterred him from voting DNVP, whose positions he otherwise shared.
Hindenburg wasn’t a fascist either, but he proved easily manipulated by them. He, and monarchist conservatives like him, feared a brewing scandal about misappropriation of funds from Prussian rural estates, which were a key source of this class’s financial power. Their willingness to see Weimar destroyed may in part have arisen from a desire to stop this scandal coming to light or being seriously investigated. The right railed at Weimar corruption, but this was a scandal that touched them and couldn’t be blamed on Weimar. And indeed the Nazis didn’t push the matter of the estates on coming to power.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 17 November, 2009 @ 8:44 pm
#130 “Eventually, a guy who I think is in the SSP - a young balding guy - mannaged to argue that the march should head through the city centre to the green.”
Ha, ha, he’ll be delighted to be described as ‘young’ I would have thought, given that the mass of the protesters GAFA had mobilised were at least half his age !
Thanks so much for comrades discussing this without resorting to personalised abuse, it makes all the difference.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 17 November, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
and people were going to be RADICALISED through a rally with Annabelle Goldie, Nicola Sturgeon and Mohammed Sarwar? Oh no sorry, I take it by ‘radicalised’, you mean ‘recruited into the SWP’. My mistake.
300 anti-fascists left Glasgow Green ‘without telling anyone’? LOL! sectarian elitism? LOL! dont make silly accusations you cant back up.
I’ve got it on good authority that the reason most (though some did) of the SWP students didn’t leave is because they were busy trying to get Aamer Anwar to announce over the stage and take the entire march away on an effectively illegal procession. As if he ever would have.. not to mention the fact that Scotland United stated its aim was NOT to confront the fascists, something UAF seem to have contiually overlooked.
If UAF had a strategy of a ‘militant’ morning demo they sure as hell kept it quiet.. I believe they decided to back this late on Wednesday evening, and did little to nothing in the way of publicising it. It certainly wasnt on their website (and definitely doesn’t feature in the report in this week’s Socialist Worker) and they then did everything they could to redirect it (Saint Georges Square anyone?) before it got anywhere near the fash.
Comment by antifarrgh — 17 November, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
136: Anonymous
Lame? Aye OK then *sigh*.
I take it you’re in the SWP then?
The SSP members who decided to march off were wrong. Myself included.
_____________________________________________________________________________
“”Anti-fascist protests set for Glasgow and Wigan this Saturday 14 November”"
http://www.uaf.org.uk/news.asp?choice=91113
“Unite Against Fascism is supporting two anti-fascist counter demonstrations taking place this Saturday 14 November.”
It supports both of them, but yet gives absolutely no details of the other one it was against.
Then it turns up and tries to feed everyone away from this demo to the one it was in favour of.
But no…. I’m the one being lame here apparently. ;o)
Like, ye know… there’s not enough confusion already when a couple of hundred people meet up in the street?????
Comment by Frank Martin — 17 November, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
The fash might indeed have the state on their side. In Germany, SA were enrolled as “auxiliary police” after the Nazi takeover, and raids on KPD buildings or working class neighbourhoods were often joint police-SA operations.
In late Weimar clashes, the left, especially the KPD’s paramilitary Red Front Fighters’ League, pretty much fought the SA to a standstill. But when the state and the fascists acted together after Jan. 30, 1933, this meant little.
In fact, Weimar had seen mass strike action defeat one far right putsch, the “Kapp Putsch” of 1920. By 1933, however, mass unemployment had reduced the power of strike action quite dramatically.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 17 November, 2009 @ 10:14 pm
140: Mine
oops!
Just noticed that I’ve read that wrong. I missed the Wigan part in the title of the link I gave.
So no mention of the 10am demo at all then.
Sorry!
Comment by Frank Martin — 17 November, 2009 @ 10:15 pm
For those of those posters on this thread who are sniping at Aamer you should take a right good look at yourselves. When you have done a fraction of the amount of the effective anti-racist campaigning that he has then maybe you have earned the right to criticise. Until then do us a favour and shut the fuck up.
Comment by Insider — 17 November, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
well done to all the comrades who were out on the streets to confront the fasists on saturday. There is good tradition in glasgow of socialist direct action against any attempt by the fascists to hold pubic activities in the city. I can remember the kingston halls anti fascist action which stopped the NF in its tracts in glasgow in 1975. Those who tried to contront the fascists in cambridge street and give them reason to think twice or three times before showing their faces again should be applauded and supported. Direct mass working class action against the facists is an example of working class people taking control of the streets and potentially of society. That is why the establishment, both left and right, oppose and fear such action. The meeting in glasgow green was an example of the opposite- a controlled show. A platform for the political establishment to spout the usual lies and hypocracy. They launch imperialist wars and stoke up reactionary nationalist sentiments on immigration etc and then feign surprise when the BNP grows in influence and support. Goldie etc should be booed off the stage at the very least. Thankfully a section of the left understand this and stuck to its guns re direct action to drive the fascists from our streets.
sandy
Comment by Anonymous — 17 November, 2009 @ 10:19 pm
yeah thats right anyone who disagrees with you is in the swp. Its quite simple - the idea of mass movements is that they should bring in people with less political consciousness. I don’t think the SSP was wrong to argue for linking up with the broader rally - even if i think that the politics of that rally were terrible - and they were vomit worthy. But think of the more radical anti-fascist tradition that those on the early demo could have brought to the scotland united rally. Instead too many were just sectarian towards it. I’m not saying that the scotland united demo was superior - it clearly wasn’t. How do you build an anti-fascist movement with less politicised but still passionate elements in a park at one end of the town and all the hard left taking on the fash at the other. If you just think that the most radical action alone will bring new forces around us then what difference is there between that and the failed ‘propoganda of the deed’ theory?
Comment by Anonymous — 17 November, 2009 @ 10:59 pm
145*
the idea of mass movements is that they seek to achieve a positive outcome for the working class- in this case drive the fascists off our streets and thereby demonstrate working class unity and working class power in action. They should not seek to provide a platform for the establishment to, in effect and in reality, oppose the goals of the mass movment- ie to drive the fascist from our streets. How many demonstates were attracted to the event by Tory leader Goldie. Zilch I would supect.
She was there not to help build a mass movement against fascism but to try to ensure one does not arrise. She was invited to send out a message that the organisers were not in any way anti establishment but rather “safe hands”. That and the usual career building of course
sandy
Comment by Anonymous — 18 November, 2009 @ 12:11 am
145:
Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favour of broad support against the fascists. And I support going to the rally or joining up with the later march no matter who was there - if it was practical.
I didn’t think much of the confusion during the day, I just assumed that things had been a bit too ‘ad hoc’, but after hearing a few varied reports from different groups it seems the UAF/SWP were out of tune with the majority of people there.
I went to the pub during the speeches, by the way. When I came back I was greeted by the sight of people starting to march off, while a speaker was still addressing the crowd in the background. Quite bizarre!
I heard one woman say, “Will they ever shut the fuck up?” lol
Comment by Frank Martin — 18 November, 2009 @ 12:17 am
Just saw sandy’s comment.
Aye. Ah dare say the politicians there were a little preoccupied with garnering votes.
Comment by Frank Martin — 18 November, 2009 @ 12:22 am
Mark, do you really think that Weimar Germany or pre WW2 Rumania has a lot in common with the contemporary British state? Or that anti-semitic, anti-bourgeois democratic monarchist parties in pre WW2 Germany or Rumania provide us with close parallels to the modern British Conservative Party? Fascism is not some kind of default outcome of “capitalism in crisis”. It is one possible outcome of specific conjunctures within a shattering crisis of capitalism, specific conjunctures that in all known cases have involved, for example, a key role for a decaying aristocratic class within a context of heightened rural class struggle, the threat of proletarian revolution led by mass organisations, and a host of other factors not remotely present in contemporary Britain or indeed western Europe. So get real about this and stop seeing everything through the prism of the 1930s. More authoritarian right wing policies are indeed on the agenda, but opposition to them is actually blunted and disoriented by all this bluster about fascism, quite frankly, although doubtless it helps the far left recruit in a way that spelling out a sober and credible programme to deal with the economic crisis might not
And immigration controls do not represent “chunks of the fascist programme” - they have been part of the programme of every party of government in Europe for the past 40 years at least. Perhaps Hitler, who organised massive immigration into Germany during the war, was not being faithful to the fascist programme? I hate to be tiresome about this, but the fascist programme involves the annihilation of trade unions and all independent political parties and civil associations, the suppression of bourgeois democracy and the creation of a totalitarian state (and in all known cases of successful fascism, the explicit statement of such a programme), not merely sins against political correctness or deviations from the programme of the far left.
Comment by lone nut — 18 November, 2009 @ 2:42 am
Sorry to have come to this discussion a bit late.
First of all I want to say well done to all of those on Saturday who turned out to either try and stop the SDL marching or who attended the bigger anti-racism event on Glasgow Green.
I do however think it’s important to raise a couple of points.
The SDL “march” was tiny on Saturday and therefore it meant that it was easier to marshal much larger forces of either socialist youth, anarchists and anti-fascist activists to counter their attempt. (Even if the organisation of this opposition was confused to say the least.) A problem would emerge however if the SDL manages at a future event to assemble in much larger numbers. If the police (or whatever local council) give permission for the march to take place then you would need a huge turnout of those trying to physically stop it. In order to do that then there has to be a concerted effort to build a much bigger and broader campaign against the SDL.
There also has to be a mature debate about what it actually means to physically confront the SDL. I can see throughout this thread a worrying tendency that reminds me of reading some of the right wing or football casual blogs. A kind of macho swaggering – a kind of “we were there to kick their ass – where were you ya cowards” type thing. I don’t doubt either the courage or the conviction of many of the posters on here and their determination to stop the SDL or the BNP…but I also can’t help feeling that it’s easy to come out with this rhetoric when there are hundreds of you, hundreds of police and hardly any SDL. If the forces were more evenly balanced then we have a problem.
There is a danger that simply having a strategy of physical confrontation that relies of us being “tougher” than them has the potential to backfire. If at a future demo, the SDL in much larger numbers than on Saturday, either win, or are perceived to have physically defeated the opposition to them then they will take huge confidence from that. In order to counter that we need at lot less macho heroes and their rhetoric and many - many more numbers. There is a fantastic tradition of opposition to the right wing in this country wherever it raises its head, but the best examples are of community action rather than small gangs of the left substituting themselves for that community resistance.
My final point would be about the way we characterise the SDL. We need to understand what we are dealing with if we hope to build opposition to them. They might be a disgusting bunch of Islamophobic right wing loonies - but they are not Nazi’s. (Certainly no in the sense the BNP and Combat 18 are.) Indeed, blogs attributed to them take great pleasure in discussing the various “rucks” they’ve had with Combat 18. Their twisted logic looks to unite black and white against Islam. This logic is derived from a basic kind of nationalism expressed most often at some football matches. “No Surrender to the IRA” has no been replaced to “No Surrender to Al Quaeda”. They want to assert what they consider British National pride against a new enemy. They seem to draw support from organised football hooligan groups many of whom have both black and white members. (There is an irony for the EDL/SDL however, in that the type most likely to be attracted to any anti-Islamic protest are also likely to be dyed in the wool racist as well!)
So lets learn lessons from Saturday. Lets learn that it is important to confront them wherever they try and spread their poison. But lets be sure that we build a genuine mass opposition to the EDL/SDL and lets make sure that we get the politics right when we seek to expose them.
Comment by Ghost of Cable Street — 18 November, 2009 @ 11:23 am
#150. I don’t think the BNP is as clearly separated off from
what passes for mainstream politics as you seem to think. A concrete example this year, is the BBC refusing to carry a charity appeal for Gaza but working hell for leather to get Griffin on QT.
Actually, I don’t see everything through the prism of the 1930s, though perhaps others do. It seems that according to your definition, fascism can hardly be on the agenda because classically it was the response to bourgeois crisis and a strong labour/left movement, and today we may have the first but we don’t have the second. But why should fascism, in this century, endlessly replicate the pattern of the last? And the current atmosphere is rather more than “sins against political correctness”. Moreover, we may be at the start of a process, not its end. There is a recession now. What other economic roller coasters await us in the 21st century? And what will the ruling class do?
The Nazis were actually confused and contradictory on immigration, as they combined intense xenophobia and racism with having to face a severe labour shortage that grew worse after WW2 broke out. For example, they deported Poles from Silesia to the German-occupied General Government. Then a little later, they imported other Poles into Silesia as labourers to replace Germans who had been called up into the armed forces. At the same time, they hated and feared Poles and foreign workers, esp. those from Eastern Europe. For example, a mobile gallows was used in parts of Germany for public executions of Polish farm workers who got out of line.
Mind you, the “democratic bourgeoisie” is confused and contradictory too in Western Europe, sometimes encouraging immigration, sometimes discouraging it, but always keeping xenophobia at least in reserve, if not actually in use.
Finally, to come back to my Romanian example - a conservative monarchist regime was the No.2 participant in the Holocaust after Nazi Germany, not the classically fascist movement in that country. An example that in my view blows overly schematic interpreations of fascism out of the water.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 18 November, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
the uaf were a disgrace on saturday. GAFA put in so much work for the demo at st enochs, we had orgainsed well and i would say we were prepared. however what we wern’t prepared for was the uaf to hijack the demo.
for them to even turn up at this demo was crass seen as they hadnt put any effort into it and had drawn people away from it by telling everyone to go to glasgow green. but what made it worse was the fact that they then tried to control it!
to clarify something. members of GAFA were out spotting and confirmed that there were at least 40 fash in the cambridge bar, this information was then given to members of GAFA who were at st enochs.
when the march headed towards st enochs it was halted several times by weymen bennett, wanting photo opts i can only assume. but thankfully the march continued. a few anarchists shouting at everyone else to hurry up was justified in my opinion. we knew for a fact where the fash were, our objective was to confront them. but the uaf had other ideas.
when we got to cambridge street i was quite pleased and was looking forward to a couple of hours of shouting at fash and police. but couldnt believe it when most of the marchers turned right and left cambridge st. leaving me and about 50 others open mouthed and dangerously exposed. remember there were still a lot of fash in the area who hadnt made it to cambridge bar.
EVERYONE WHO LEFT CAMBRIDGE ST AT THAT TIME PUT THOSE OF US WHO STAYED BEHIND TO CONFRONT THE FASH IN SERIOUS DANGER.
the uaf walked away down to glasgow green and most people followed them. i think the people who did generally accept that this was a mistake. but well done to everyone from GAFA who helped organise this march.
Comment by colin — 18 November, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
Colin,
I’m disgusted by your suggestion that everyone who continued on the march - and did not decide to seek a violent confrontation with fascists - put you in serious danger.
If you chose to pick a fight at that point, you put yourself in danger.
The march on Saturday was a great example of a broad coalition of people - of differing ideologies and of none - came together in a show of human solidarity. I want these marches to be the sort of things I can take my kids on, or my elderly mum.
You sound like a thug. If you weren’t fighting over ideology, it’d be football.
Archie
Comment by Archie — 18 November, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
I tend to agree with Archie in that nothing is agined by us - and everything by the fascists if it is seen that all the anti-fascists are interested in is a punch-up.
Earlier in the summer, the political spectrum were saying the EDL weren’t really racists, they were just concerned about muslim extremeists. Now because of hard politcal work which has been led, as I see it by UAF, the whole spectrum - Scottish Tories included are stating loud and clear that the EDL are obnoxious fascists.
That was not achieved by street fighting, but by excellent political work.
Comment by Howard T — 18 November, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
155.
Spot on. I can engage with Tories on an intellectual level when I argue against them, but I can join with them on an issue like this.
The more anti-racists the better, says I!
Comment by Archie — 18 November, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
“i was quite pleased and was looking forward to a couple of hours of shouting at fash and police”
Perhaps you could have stood in the supermarket car park shouting at nobody in particular instead? I am sure it would have been equally useful and equally relevant to the lives of ordinary Scots.
Comment by lone nut — 18 November, 2009 @ 8:52 pm
“when we got to cambridge street i was quite pleased and was looking forward to a couple of hours of shouting at fash and police” - that comment just beggers belief
Comment by ben — 18 November, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
Mark
“But why should fascism, in this century, endlessly replicate the pattern of the last?”
Yes, but more to the point, why should fascism be on the agenda at all as a viable political option for the dominant classes in such very different historical circumstances? The point I was making was that fascism has nothing intrinsically to do with Protestant sectarianism, immigration controls, dislike of gays, BBC timorousness over Palestine or all the other myriad issues people here seem to associate it with. It is about the destruction of bourgeois democracy and its replacement by a one party state. There are lots of unpleasant things short of that but they are not fascism.
a conservative monarchist regime was the No.2 participant “in the Holocaust after Nazi Germany, not the classically fascist movement in that country.”
Which shows that in situations of war and occupation conservative anti-democratic forces can collaborate with the radical fascist right. I repeat, what does the Romanian monarchist movement of WW2 have in common with the Conservative Party or the CDU? And as any half witted US blogger can tell you, Pierre Laval and Benito Mussolini started out and indeed lived much of their political lives on the radical socialist left. So maybe you should keep socialists off anti-fascist platforms as well, just to be safe.
Comment by lone nut — 18 November, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
Re the shouting at police line, remember that GAFA is largely made up of glasgow and strathclyde uni students.
I don’t mean to be patronising…I was young once myself.
Comment by Archie — 18 November, 2009 @ 9:28 pm
Mussolini, it recently emerged, was in the pay of the British intelligence services when he came out as a supporter of Italy entering WW1 on the side of the Entente (breaking with the Italian Socialist Party, who regarded him as a traitor). So he started on the left. So? Ronald Reagan was a liberal, at first. Max Shachtman was a Communist, then a Trotskyist, then he wanted North Vietnam to be bombed.
“As any half-witted US blogger” - indeed. These people elected Dubya. Twice. Squashing together the left and the right is par for the course in a place where something like the NHS is considered godless Communism.
The Romanian monarchist movement shared monarchism in common with the British Conservative Party, though with a preference in both cases for the monarch to let them do the work (because the UK is a constitutional monarchy, while Romania was a military dictatorship with royalty as a figurehead). And the Tories, the CDU and the Romanian monarchists share anti-Communism in common. In the case of the last, it partly inspired their participation in the invasion of the USSR. The desire to get back Bessarabia and fear that Germany would invade them if they didn’t join the “anti-Bolshevik crusade” were additional motivations.
Fascism is a complex phenomenon. The Wikipedia entry on Antonescu includes a rather involved discussion whether his regime was fascist, old-style conservative or some mixture of the two.
Why should fascism be on the agenda at all in very different historical circumstances? But really, how different are they, and how different will they be in the future? Fascism, especially in Germany, arose in a West European society not all that different from our own, in the age of mass communication and propaganda. Will there never again be a Great Depression or something like it? Will scapegoats for social shortcomings never again come in useful for ruling classes who might otherwise find their own position shaky? I wouldn’t be so sure.
I was studying German history in the 1980s, and one day the lecturer brought in a facsimile of an issue of the Nazi daily “Voelkischer Beobachter” to the seminar, passing it around so we could examine it. I remember finding it surprisingly similar to the “Daily Mail”. The same windy chauvinism, the same hatred of minority groups and the political left. “Although the world rose up and stopped the bastard, the bitch that bore him is in heat again.”
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 18 November, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
Mark,
Yes, if appearing on Mastermind I would recommend that you don’t choose getting hold of the right end of the stick as your specialist subject. You chose to generalise about the possible behaviour of right of centre parties within the European Union in this century on the basis of anti-Semitic monarchist parties who rejected parliamentary democracy in Germany and Romania in the 1930s. So bringing Laval, Mussolini and Shachtman into the argument as possible referents for assessing the trajectory of revolutionary socialists would hardly be outrageous, since actually the psychology of the individual revolutionary braggart has not really changed that much. Your general approach to history seems to be that anything might happen, therefore it probably will. Not really much of a science though, is it? And yes, Weimar Germany is a very different society from our own, as indeed is contemporary Germany. Although if you wanted to find people who shared your belief that we live in similar times, I recommend Normblog and Harry’s Place.
Comment by lone nut — 18 November, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
So if fascists try to march through Glasgow we should not try to physically stop them but instead have a rally somewhere else miles away addressed by a bunch of ruling class politicians mouthing off about how Scotland is united. Sounds like a green light for the fascists to get on the streets and recruit
sandy
Comment by sandy — 18 November, 2009 @ 10:58 pm
archie
i can asure you im not a thug. i wasn’t seeking a violent confrontation. what i did want was the group to stay at that point so that
a) the fascists inside the pub would not have been allowed outside to demonstrate
b) that the anti-fascists were not attacked by and fascists who were still making their way to the pub.
i not a fighter and i was well aware that we were up against a group of football hooligans. all we had was our safety in numbers. but once the group walked away we didnt have that anymore.
if we had stayed at cambridge st it would have been a major victory instead of the half victory that it was.
ben
i was been slightly faceicious, but only slightly. from my experience protests of this kind boil down to opposing sides shouting at each other with maybe a few chants thrown in for good measure.
Comment by colin — 18 November, 2009 @ 11:02 pm
Colin,
It’s not about what you wanted, though, is it?
Congratulations to all who displayed unity against racism without attempting to hijack this event for their narrow self interests.
Archie
Comment by Archie — 18 November, 2009 @ 11:16 pm
It seems to me that the problem for GAFA who organised the St Enoch’s demo was that ‘other people’ turned up and these ‘other people’ had different ideas as to how to fight the fascists, bastards. Don’t these ‘other people’ have the humility to recognise that the Antifa are one and only organisation (if that’s not to strong a word) that can defeat fascism?
Pictures of the fantastic demo here http://www.flickr.com/photos/duncanbrown/sets/72157622683112109/
Comment by DuncanB — 19 November, 2009 @ 12:25 am
Typical SWP disingenuousness from #166. As has been explained dozens of times already, the problem was that the SWP appeared out of nowhere to sabotage a demo that they opposed in the first place.
Comment by Tim Vanhoof — 19 November, 2009 @ 12:40 am
It wasn’t just the SWP you poured vile abuse on all the way to and from the pub. Anyone who wasn’t part of the select few got accused of being scum, collaborators, sell outs, etc At one point the entire march was abused because we weren’t walking fast enough.
Comment by DuncanB — 19 November, 2009 @ 12:49 am
That’s not the issue. You are trying to derail the argument yet again.
The 10am demonstration successfully located the SDL gathering and if we had stayed there, the SDL would not even have been allowed their 15 minutes of sieg-heiling.
Has the SWP abandoned its historic position that fascists must be confronted?
Was Chris Harman wrong to argue “Peaceful picket, pious resolutions, rational arguments alone, will not prevent fascist movements from dominating the street and growing. Equally dangerous is any reliance on the state machine to deal with fascists.” ?
If not, why did the SWP deliberately sabotage a successful counter-demo to lead it off to Glasgow Green?
Comment by Tim Vanhoof — 19 November, 2009 @ 1:24 am
So how many would have marched to confront the SDL if the UAF/SWP (you choose) hadn’t turned up?
Looking at the photos, UAF made up around a third (?) of the 300/400 and poor old Colin and the 50 others were left exposed.
There is a problem with the maths here.
Comment by aarghh — 19 November, 2009 @ 1:45 am
Harry’s Place? Perish the thought.
On Mastermind my specialist subject would probably be “Was Antonescu a Nazi or just a Tory bastard?” or “The unconscious Trotskyism of Annabel Goldie”.
Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 19 November, 2009 @ 10:18 am
archie
no it wasn’t about what i wanted. but im making the assumption that everyone else wanted the exact same thing as me ie to stop the sdl demonstrating in glasgow city centre and to make sure that all anti-fascist protesters were safe.
if these two things were not what you wanted then theres no point arguing about it. if they are then what im saying is that if we had stayed at cambridge street we would have achieved that.
#166 duncanB
your use of scare quotes ie ‘other people’ is dishonest. if you can read my post again i was clear that the reason i was upset was that the uaf hijacked the march. i have no problem if ‘other people’ come along and have different ideas on how to fight fascism. but it was the guys from the student left society who done all the work arranging it and the uaf should have respected that.
Comment by colin — 19 November, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
Using quotes is exactly how you and your pals saw anyone who wasn’t in the chosen few. It wasn’t that we were wrong or misguided, open to be convinced to do something else, but that we were ‘police collaborators’, ’scum’, ’sell outs’ and all sort of things simply because we didn’t agree with sprinting up Sauchiehall St.
Comment by DuncanB — 19 November, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
i didnt see any organisers of the event shout anything like that. but like it or not a lot of people on the left dont like the uaf/swp and for good reason. so when the uaf do what they did on sat people are going to get angry.
and by the way the uaf ARE police collaborators so that comment was entirely justified.
Comment by colin — 19 November, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
What a load of dishonest shite and derailing is coming from the UAF faction here. I see it’s taken you the best part of a week to agree on a “line”, though.
Archie says:
A glorious reversal of the truth. Ignoring the demo as long as possible, stopping for photo ops, sowing confusion over where the fash were, then duping a large chunk of the crowd into going somewhere else. What better display of narrow self-interest and hijacking could you find?
Do you think that you are convincing anyone?
Comment by milgram — 19 November, 2009 @ 10:42 pm
Just to clarify.
I was one of two spotters who went and took an edgy at Cambridge Street and saw the SDL assembling outside. At that stage, there were only two polis on motorbikes sitting there. I phoned other folk in GAFA and told them that we had definitely spotted the SDL.
The march then came up and we met them at the top of Buchanan Street, and then as folk were making to turn on to Sauchiehall Street, someone from UAF (or the SWP, I didn’t know his face but he was hanging around with UAF and SWP folk) took the megaphone and started arguing that we were wasting our time and should stop moving, and that it wasn’t confirmed that they were in the Cambridge Bar and that they would be all spread out and we should just head to the Green. I went up to confront them and was met by Ian Ferguson, former SSP member and current SWP member, who greeted my personal confirmation of the SDL’s location with a sneer and said “Oh, but there’s going to be like a hundred of them in George Square later!”
Where Ian got HIS info from, I don’t know, but mine was gathered prior to the demonstration and then, you know, with my own eyes. At the time, I decided not to get into a megaphone argument, told a few anarchists where the SDL were and as they headed off other folk (many of them young, who seemed just as pissed off at the lecture they were receiving as me) followed.
Comment by Lynsey — 23 November, 2009 @ 8:39 pm
yes more attacks on the SWP great, brilliant. oh ………..they are the main enemy…
Comment by arch — 23 November, 2009 @ 9:15 pm
Mate, I am giving a truthful account of the day. I’m not out to SWP-bash for the hell of it, I think that reviewing tactics and decisions made on the day is a valuable exercise given that groups like this are trying to get out to march on the streets.
I found Ian’s attitude extremely dismissive and patronising, and I’m not going to dilute that criticism because he’s in the SWP. I do not think that marching halfway to the meeting place of the SDL and then getting on the megaphone to try and deter the predominantly young crowd from actually stopping the SDL marching and to go the demo on the green instead was disrespectful of the organisation that had gone into the 10AM event, seemed like sabotage and was just plain tactically unsound.
Comment by Lynsey — 24 November, 2009 @ 12:33 am
no one has answered my question on where in Glasgow St Georges square is?
Comment by Andi Rossetter — 27 November, 2009 @ 6:57 am
Each and every character should be interesting and good picture .Give more explanation about . The hospice house is a gentle, loving and absolutely appropriate blog.
Comment by Jimmy Connors Trivia — 1 February, 2010 @ 10:58 am