A polite message to the Communication Workers Union.

[articul8]

Belboid
If your union doesnt like privatisation, dont support or facilitate support for a government that privatises things.

Full - 100% - privatisation is Tory policy, and a Tory-led government is the only conceivable alternative after the next election to a Labour-led one. Therefore, there is a real quandry - trying to utilise what little influence you can to wrench some concessions and accept a lesser evil, or split from Labour and shout powerlessly about the evils of privatisation whilst the Tories flog the lot.

Especially in the lack of viable left alternative, the logic of splitting off is very far from blindingly obvious. I'm not saying that, ultimately, they won't or shouldn't but simply saying "are you lot thick or wot?" isn't very constructive.

 

[belboid]

Have you thought of a career in establishment politics?

I'll leave that to you.

 

[In Bloom]

Does it fuck. It shows that the working class is its own worst enemy. Sophistication!

Wait, what? Aren't you in the AF?

 

[In Bloom]

yup, tho the levy doesn't only go to labour of course, it goes to any kind of 'party political' activity, which includes all anti-bnp campaigns, for instance.

So-called "anti-BNP" campaigns by trade unions are basically campaigns to drum up support for Labour using the scary fascist boogeyman. This reinforces the power of the mainstream parties, who are far more of a danger at present to the workers' movement, immigrants and ethnic minorities that the unions claim to represent/protect through their campaigns. Basically, they're worse than useless.

Or as SolFed put it in one article:

http://www.libcom.org/library/stop-bnp-stop-real-bigots
The BNP believe in much of the worst in society. Thugs in uniform kicking down immigrants doors at dawn and forcing them into detention camps without trial. Attacks on the organised working class. Playing one racial community against the other. Christian fundamentalist bigots in charge of communities. Destroying social institutions such as the NHS. These are some of the dreams of the BNP. They are also new Labour policy, and currently ongoing before our eyes.

 

[articul8]

"social fascists" ring any bells?

 

[butchersapron]

Eh?

 

[In Bloom]

"social fascists" ring any bells?

Yes, a phrase employed by Stalin, to describe people who didn't let the Nazis frighten them into supporting politicians who were actively fucking them over, IIRC.

 

[butchersapron]

Again, eh? The 'social fascists' were the SPD (so the opposite of that). I don't see what relation there is to the situation under discussion though ans what point A8 was making.

 

[belboid]

So-called "anti-BNP" campaigns by trade unions are basically campaigns to drum up support for Labour using the scary fascist boogeyman. This reinforces the power of the mainstream parties, who are far more of a danger at present to the workers' movement, immigrants and ethnic minorities that the unions claim to represent/protect through their campaigns. Basically, they're worse than useless.

Or as SolFed put it in one article:

WORSE than useless? oh dear, oh dear.

Even if that were true (and I've already pointed out i dont think much of them) that wouldnt stop you from trying to make them better. Nor would it stop branches and regions from supporting other anti-fash campaigns that even you might not think worthless. But if there is no political fund, they cant do that.

You just want apolitical unions, it would seem.

 

[belboid]

Yes, a phrase employed by Stalin, to describe people who didn't let the Nazis frighten them into supporting politicians who were actively fucking them over, IIRC.

uhh, so you're agreeing with stalin now?

 

[articul8]

Again, eh? The 'social fascists' were the SPD (so the opposite of that). I don't see what relation there is to the situation under discussion though ans what point A8 was making.

The Solfed link posted above directly equates the BNP's beliefs and the policy of New Labour. That kind of crude attack is reminiscent of bad third period Stalinist bollocks.

 

[In Bloom]

Again, eh? The 'social fascists' were the SPD (so the opposite of that). I don't see what relation there is to the situation under discussion though ans what point A8 was making.

Ah, misremembered. German history isn't my strong point.

 

[In Bloom]

The Solfed link posted above directly equates the BNP's beliefs and the policy of New Labour. That kind of crude attack is reminiscent of bad third period Stalinist bollocks.

It's a simple matter of reality, the Labour party, as the ruling party, engages in exactly the sort of shit that many anti-BNP campaigners claim to want to prevent by keeping the BNP out, while persuing a divisive, officially sponsored "multiculturalism" that fosters racial division to the benefit of the BNP. That's not to say that Labour and the BNP are "the same", because the two are completely different in the sense that one is the most powerful political party in the UK and the other is a group of incompetent mentals who couldn't organise a genocide in a labour camp.

 

[butchersapron]

The Solfed link posted above directly equates the BNP's beliefs and the policy of New Labour. That kind of crude attack is reminiscent of bad third period Stalinist bollocks.

That's not very much like the claims of social fascism at all - never mind the fact that the situations aren't comparable at all (the SPD having a mass working class membership in time of potential civil war with an even larger membership of the extreme far-right). Anyway. i know what you're getting at now.

 

[In Bloom]

WORSE than useless? oh dear, oh dear.

Even if that were true (and I've already pointed out i dont think much of them) that wouldnt stop you from trying to make them better. Nor would it stop branches and regions from supporting other anti-fash campaigns that even you might not think worthless. But if there is no political fund, they cant do that.

You just want apolitical unions, it would seem.

Not engaging in bolstering the vote of the ruling party while it continues to fuck over the working class is not necessarily being "apolitical". If people refusing to pay the political levy forces the unions to stop handing over money to political parties, then there would no longer be any need for people to refuse to pay it, no?

 

[articul8]

It's a simple matter of reality, the Labour party, as the ruling party, engages in exactly the sort of shit that many anti-BNP campaigners claim to want to prevent by keeping the BNP out, while persuing a divisive, officially sponsored "multiculturalism" that fosters racial division to the benefit of the BNP. That's not to say that Labour and the BNP are "the same", because the two are completely different in the sense that one is the most powerful political party in the UK and the other is a group of incompetent mentals who couldn't organise a genocide in a labour camp.

So by your logic it makes not a jot of difference if the BNP continue to grow as long as you can undermine support for the Labour party?

The SPD thought that the Nazis were "incompetent mentals" who who never come to anything. And look what happened there...

 

[In Bloom]

So by your logic it makes not a jot of difference if the BNP continue to grow as long as you can undermine support for the Labour party?

Of course it matters if the BNP continues to grow, despite the fact that they are never going to get into power, even small they present a real threat to black people, Asian people, queers, women and the organised working class itself. That is something we have to challenge, in all it's manifestations, including the Labour party's policies on immigration and multiculturalism.

The SPD thought that the Nazis were "incompetent mentals" who who never come to anything. And look what happened there...

This is not 1936.

 

[belboid]

Not engaging in bolstering the vote of the ruling party while it continues to fuck over the working class is not necessarily being "apolitical". If people refusing to pay the political levy forces the unions to stop handing over money to political parties, then there would no longer be any need for people to refuse to pay it, no?

No.

And that doesn't actually deal with any of the points I made, surprise surprise.

 

[belboid]

Of course it matters if the BNP continues to grow, despite the fact that they are never going to get into power,

jeepers, your crystal ball is impressive.

Unlike your political nous

 

[In Bloom]

No.

And that doesn't actually deal with any of the points I made, surprise surprise.

You said that I "just want apolitical unions", I explained why I don't think this is the case, since I am not opposed in principle to the existence of a political fund, I just don't think that it should go to political parties or be spent on electioneering by proxy for the Labour party dressed up as "anti-fascism".

 

[In Bloom]

jeepers, your crystal ball is impressive.

Unlike your political nous

The conditions that made fascism necessary to the further development of capitalism in Germany in the 1930s do not exist in 21st century Britain. The rich and powerful would simply not allow it to happen, because it would not be in their interests.

 

[belboid]

Glad to hear it, tho your argument was idiotic. You want people to stop paying now, but maybe later they can start up again?

naah, thats bollocks that is. If you approve of things, you fight to make it better, you dont drop out, which is what y6ou are advocating in his instance.

 

[articul8]

Challenge the Labour party by all means, but to see government policy as somehow conforming to the real intentions of the BNP is to miss the target by a very large distance.

No, I'm aware we're not living in the 30s thankyou. But as George W. said. "fool me once...shame on me...err" .

Anti-BNP activists need also to be actively building an alternative, or else just slamming the government paves the way for governments that will make New Labour look like a walk in the park (not necessarily fascist in the classic sense, but nastiest forms of right-wing populism).

 

[belboid]

The conditions that made fascism necessary to the further development of capitalism in Germany in the 1930s do not exist in 21st century Britain. The rich and powerful would simply not allow it to happen, because it would not be in their interests.

yeah, cos nothing ever changes, does it?

dear god, what drivel

 

[In Bloom]

Glad to hear it, tho your argument was idiotic. You want people to stop paying now, but maybe later they can start up again?

naah, thats bollocks that is. If you approve of things, you fight to make it better, you dont drop out, which is what y6ou are advocating in his instance.

Sometimes refusing to engage in something can force thsoe who run it to improve it. I'm not calling for the *abolition* of political funds, I just refuse to contribute money towards them as long as they're acting as a de facto fundraising tool for the fucking Labour party, if enough people take the same action, union leaders might be forced to stop giving the cunts money. That's not dropping out, it's taking political action the only way that I can in this situation.

 

[belboid]

it would have bugger all effect. All you do is remove yourself from the argument. If you dont pay the PF, you can't have any say in where it goes. yee ha!

 

[In Bloom]

Challenge the Labour party by all means, but to see government policy as somehow conforming to the real intentions of the BNP is to miss the target by a very large distance.

That's not what I've argued, nor is it what's in the article I linked to.

No, I'm aware we're not living in the 30s thankyou. But as George W. said. "fool me once...shame on me...err" .

I can't really be arsed getting into this argument about the BNP's potential electoral successes here, TBH, my point is that electoral campaigns basically calling on people to vote Labour to keep the BNP out are not the way to go if you want to counter the growth of the BNP.

Anti-BNP activists need also to be actively building an alternative, or else just slamming the government paves the way for governments that will make New Labour look like a walk in the park (not necessarily fascist in the classic sense, but nastiest forms of right-wing populism).

Which has what to do with what I've argued?

 

[In Bloom]

it would have bugger all effect. All you do is remove yourself from the argument. If you dont pay the PF, you can't have any say in where it goes. yee ha!

I wouldn't have any real say in where it went even if I did pay it.

 

[subversplat]

As an extension, could u75ers please list those unions which do not facilitate money going to said reactionary authoritarian party?

http://www.iww.org/

 

[articul8]

That's not what I've argued, nor is it what's in the article I linked to.

what other interpretation can you give this:?

These are some of the dreams of the BNP. They are also new Labour policy, and currently ongoing before our eyes.

TBH, my point is that electoral campaigns basically calling on people to vote Labour to keep the BNP out are not the way to go if you want to counter the growth of the BNP.

if that's all people are saying I'd agree

Which has what to do with what I've argued?

it means that calling for the CWU political fund to be scrapped without at least the embryo of a viable alternative being in place is not a good idea.