I’ve no time for the SWP but whom members chose to represent them is up to the members themselves, not their leadership. If their cultish – and often anti-democratic – beliefs don’t get in the way of representing the people who voted for them they should stay.

The charges of ‘racism’ look deeply suspicious to me, and like all false accusations, cheepen the cause; that said, there is a delicious irony in seeing the ‘no-platformers’ squirm.

While it is evident that a clearing of the ranks is occurring here, you can’t defend a ban on people based on holding political views while also demanding that people are not banned for holding political views.

If you support the principle that an organisation can ban members of the BNP from joining it, then you absolutely must accept the now legitimate rights of an organisation to ban members of far-left learning cabals.

Both are extreme political views. Either you ban both – or you permit both.

Personally, I am against bans of any sort. We live in a democracy, not a communist state, and I believe in freedom of speech, even when I disagree with the views expressed.

After all, without the freedoms you seem to be trying to curtail, your views could have been deemed unacceptable in some situations. How would you feel to be banned from speaking?

Well said Dave, I completely agree.

Unison’s barrister at the tribunal has reportedly accused Debus, Kasab, Kelly and Muna of ‘infiltrating’ the organisation

Did s/he also accuse all those members who continually voted for Kelly in particular as their Local Government Service Group rep of being fcuking stupid then? None of these activists have ever hidden their political affiliations, and yet they’ve all been voted by the membership into senior positions both in their branches and nationally. What, have all those voters had the wool pulled over their eyes all this time?

This is just insulting nonsense. These activists have made clear their views on NuLabour and Unison’s continued support for it all along, they haven’t infiltrated anything.

Anyway, maybe if the Unison barrister wants to talk about infiltration s/he needs to look a bit further up the Unison hierarchy before s/he starts throwing those accusations around….

Unison’s barrister at the tribunal has reportedly accused Debus, Kasab, Kelly and Muna of ‘infiltrating’ the organisation

Aye, and what about the god-awful infiltration by New Labour quislings, obedient to the neo-con, uber-Thatcherite agenda of New Lab. The bastards who have bank-rolled the whole disastrous, treacherous project to the detriment of grass-roots union members.

“Unison’s barrister at the tribunal has reportedly accused Debus, Kasab, Kelly and Muna of ‘infiltrating’ the organisation.”

Oh yeah…

“The real reason for the proscriptions and expulsions is that Unison believes it can best advance its members’ interests through dialogue with the government, and is consequently embarrassed by the strong criticism of New Labour emanating from far left quarters.”

Well fuck me..

Simple. These four simply cite historical precedent. Unison’s leadership are equally if not far more liable to accusations of infiltration. Just as NuLabour effectively infiltrated the Labour Party, they have also infiltrated the labour movement. Could Unison’s bosses give any examples of previous leaders supporting a party of authoritarian free marketeers and war mongers. They’re the anomaly here, the foreign body that’s invaded the movement.

Personally, I am against bans of any sort. We live in a democracy, not a communist state, and I believe in freedom of speech, even when I disagree with the views expressed.

In a totalitarian state don’t you mean? In a communist state you would be, by sheer rights of the person, allowed freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and disagreement is welcomed at all levels. Even views that are at the ultra-far-right would be acceptable and the BNP would not be banned.

Can we begin to accept that Communism isn’t what we saw, or see, in China and the former CCCP? They were, and are, totalitarian states.

Thanks!

Will Rhodes,

Whilst I accept that true communism had never had a chance, it probably never will. Because one set of greedy bastards is simply going to be replaced by another set of greedy bastards. You sound like an Islamist – there has never been a true Islamic state – but we have it in our heads, just you wait and see..

Or you may have been being satirical.

It is so hard to tell…….

OP:

On grounds of basic civil liberties alone, Debus, Kasab, Kelly and Muna have every right to push for and publicise their opinions inside labour movement structures.

This is where freedom of speech and freedom of association collide. You can freely speak but you may say things that make me unwilling to associate you.

If you support the principle that an organisation can ban members of the BNP from joining it, then you absolutely must accept the now legitimate rights of an organisation to ban members of far-left learning cabals.

No, because my gang doesn’t want to associate with people who say particular things, but is satisfied to associate with people who don’t say those things.

My last paragraph didn’t make any sense. Withdrawn.

I guess membership of the BNP is just used as a proxy of “being a racist.” I can understand the Union movement wanting to keep out racists. And I think it’s pretty easy to see the moral difference between racists and those wit ha penchant for “permanent revolution.”

Not so much with voters but I’d be willing to argue that there’s a 1:1 ratio of BNP member to racist. Whereas your position on the dialectics probably says nothing about your moral fibre.

This post is a joke, right? Trotskyism a religion? I’ve been arguing that for years.

If you support the principle that an organisation can ban members of the BNP from joining it, then you absolutely must accept the now legitimate rights of an organisation to ban members of far-left learning cabals.

Even if you accept that spurious equivalence, that isn’t what Unison are doing: they’re trying to ban them on the basis of made-up racism for circulating a Three WIse Monkeys cartoon.

“If you support the principle that an organisation can ban members of the BNP from joining it, then you absolutely must accept the now legitimate rights of an organisation to ban members of far-left learning cabals.”

Oh FFS

Not when it’s an organisation whose purpose is to stand up for the interests and rights of its members. Now there’s a whole spectrum of political groups on the left whose aims and opinions might not always coincide but at least they share the common goal of justice and equality for the working class. So far so good …no contradiction or conflict with the avowed aims of the union. (clearly the leadership’s cosying up to Nulabour is problematic in this respect and raises a fuckin big question of its own, but I’ll let that pass for now)

Now we come on to the BNP. In terms of the members’ interests, we hit a brick wall. Why the fuck am I having to spell this out? The racist aspect speaks for itself, as does the well attested fascist attitude to organised labour. Why exactly should any union feel obliged to accept anybody who, through their political affiliation, has indicated a desire to either do away with the union or co-opt it to its pernicious, disgusting and immoral ends? Try telling a shepherd who’s let a few goats into the sheep fold that he’s now obliged to let in the wolves through some degenerate notion of fairness and natural justice. That’s just plain bollox. (relativists take note)

By all means, make a case that a BNP member should be allowed equal access to the media, the local swimming pool or housing benefit, but a union is not (or should not be) an apolitical organisation. This brings me on to the leadership. I can’t personally see why the same argument doesn’t apply to anybody sympathetic to Nulabour. We’ve only maybe 15 years evidence, as opposed to 80 odd in the fascist case, but there’s little doubt that this particular shower of shit (overt racism aside) have aims no less inimical to the working class. Kick em both out.

Monkeyfish – Nicely put!

You sound like an Islamist – there has never been a true Islamic state – but we have it in our heads, just you wait and see..

Well I must admit, I never saw that coming. How the fuck you can make that leap I have no idea – but leaping as such would make you a gold medallist.

“Both are extreme political views. Either you ban both – or you permit both.”

Another joker that thinks the “far left” are the same as the “far right”. (I am surprised that you didn’t even go so far as to label the BNP as a “far left” organisation). It seems to me that the main similarity between the “far left” and the “far right” is that you don’t really understand either! Still, in your defence, your not as bad as Douglas Clark…

Monkeyfish has hit the nail on the head, in that this represents the Unison leadership, collaborating with the New Labour leadership, to stifle debate around breaking the Labour Link. But it also goes deeper that that.

The coming months and years are going to see huge cuts in public services, directly affecting the membership of Unison. Of course the right-wing (of both Unison and New Labour) would like to see any voices of opposition snuffed out when the membership start demanding action to protect jobs.

The difference between the far left and the far right is that the far right are far more efficient at mass murder; they kill more people per year, using more advanced technology. The far left beat people to death or allow them to starve to death, Cambodia, Communist China , Ethiopa under Mengistu and the Soviet Union 1918-1989.

hmm – double post…

Organisations ought to be able to exclude whoever they want on whatever grounds. And while I doubt these activists would be genuine supporters of Trotsky’s more violent policies, I would say wearing a hammer & sickle in a non-ironic fashion is about as offensive as wearing a swastika.

I am sure Unison are doing this for all the wrong reasons, but if they treat their activists as they are now, they will wither and die without legal intervention. At least they certainly would if there was a genuine free market in union representation.

Absurd charges of racism are common currency by the left so there is an exquisite irony in their being deployed against your own.

BNP – regularly considered to be a party of the right, but on what grounds exactly? Their world view tends to that of Adolf Hitler who as any fule kno’ was in charge of the national SOCIALIST party of Germany, and who was ideologically and in practical terms more closely alighned with cuddly uncle joe stalin than to, say Lady Margaret Thatcher, who although she talked a but funny, was the only PM with Balls since Churchill.

In a communist state you would be, by sheer rights of the person, allowed freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and disagreement is welcomed at all levels. Even views that are at the ultra-far-right would be acceptable and the BNP would not be banned.

Fuck me, Will.

You’re a libertarian!!!!

Or I’m a Communist……..

I’m so happy I don’t even care.

“Their world view tends to that of Adolf Hitler who as any fule kno’ was in charge of the national SOCIALIST party of Germany”

Oh Jesus Christ…how many times…?

Putting an awful lot of trust in a name there cuffleyburger. I’ll give you a tip on that score…next time you get a letter from “Honest Dave’s Safe as Houses with Huge Returns Investment Group” asking for start up funds, send them all your money. Sell your home if you have to. How can you lose? Look at the name.

Anyhow, I’m sick of this left/right were as bad as each other trope. What about the German Democratic Republic? That place can’t have been too bad…can’t have been a dictatorship like the others. Any fule kno’ that.

Maybe even pick up a ‘Fule’s guide to Basic Epistemology” and take a look at what it says about the fallacy of conflating meaning and naming. Interesting stuff..turns out they aren’t remotely related, Cuffleyburger, any more than I’d naturally assume that you walk around everywhere surrounded by fries and a milkshake.

Will Rhodes and Gary,

From the point of view of ordinary people what’s to chose between being executed by a fascist or executed by a communist? It is these extreme extremes I was talking about. Ideology blurs into a killing frenzy no matter which direction you travel in.

And the fact that Will Rhodes was not being satirical says it all.

I believe in Utopias too Will, yes I do….

Monkeyfish, I think I love you.

The original article is dead-on, too. Very worrying developments.

Unless these individuals are advocating the collectivisation of grain by force, causing the farmers of the country to starve to supply the city, or the imposition of a Khmer Rouge Year Zero, by killing all the intellectuals, I don’t see that they can be called as ‘Far Left’ as the BNP are otherwise. Similarly, it’s not my understanding that the Trots restrict membership or support on the innate grounds of race, but only attitude and belief, in the same way as religions do.

I knew you would descend to that rubbish, Douglas Clark.

Point 1 – We are arguing that the Stalinist states were NOT socialism, not that they were hunky-dory dreamlands where everything was perfect. So, yes, I am opposed to the Soviet gulags and death squads. Think about this, as well – who made up these death camps? Was it not the Trotskyists and socialists who fought for the revolution, then questioned the direction that Stalin was taking the USSR?

Point 2 – You have descended to intellectual bankruptcy. Yes, both regimes killed large numbers of people. This does not make them the same! Pretty much every state in the world has at some time or another killed people, and yet this is not enough to classify every state in the world as the same thing (libertarians and anarchists aside). To get a proper analysis of a state or a system, it needs to be looked at in its entirety, in a scientific manner. Not just a body count in an emotional “think of the children” sort of manner.

Both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany emerged from quite extreme economic and social conditions, personally I consider Imperialist Russia to have been in a worse state. The difference between Lenin and co and Hitler was that the former were aware that Marxist socialism could not be acheived immediately, therefore, the system they implemented was termed ‘war communism’ to donate its’ temporary status. Nazi Germany had reached its’ terminal goal, it was what it was always going to be.
Although Stalin was a vile dictator, I think we often forget that without his cruel drive, Russia would not have been in any position to become the Wests’ greatest ally in WW2

Saint Leon Davidovitch Bronstein-Trotsky of Kronstadt, pray for us now and at the hour of our deaths !

=============================================

The rights of Trots and those of BNP Nationalists are the same and must be defended equally!

Your liberty and mine are one and the same !

NOSOTROS LOS GRINGOS UNIDOS JAMAS SERAMOS VENCIDOS !

[ADAPT ACCORDING TO POLITICAL ORIENTATION AND TASTE]

Gary,

I know exactly what you are arguing. It doesn’t wash. From a popular revolution the USSR descended into a killing field. Because some people were viewed as ‘the enemy’. 20 million or so? It is the nature of totalitarian states of the left or of the right. What about the wonderful Mr Pot?

To get a proper analysis of a state or a system, it needs to be looked at in its entirety, in a scientific manner. Not just a body count in an emotional “think of the children” sort of manner.

Get a grip.

The intellectual bankruptcy is yours.

Lefties using “three wise monkeys” metaphor accused of racism.

Hoist with own petard springs to mind…

This seems like a waste of time… all you have done is, again, quote what happened in an appeal to emotion, rather than any argument.

“B..b..b..but loads of people died *sob* they are all n..n..nasty”.

Yes, nobody is disputing that.

What I am saying is that just because both regimes killed millions of people and, yes, both regimes were particularly nasty DOES NOT mean we can just disregard any form of serious political enquiry into their nature.

Gary,

OK.

Case opens.

Nazis killed lots of people – verdict. Unsupportable authoritarians. Provide Health warning to the general public.

Communists killed lots of people – verdict. Unsupportable authoritarians. Provide Health warning to the general public.

Case closed.

That serious enough for you?

Do you think either philosophy justifies mass murder? I certainly don’t. And sidelining the dead is pretty, well, iffy, really.

Only speculation I know, but what kind of killing field would have emerged if Hitler had managed to conquer Russia? Russia became our greatest ally simply because they evolved. c/o Stalin’s cruelty, from peasants with pop-pop guns’ who were easily conquered by Germany’s industrially equiped army, into a more modern army.
This may sound Machiavellian but. IMO, it was a smaller evil to prevent a greater one.
Nazism and communism are ideologically quite different, one is race based the other is class based. Either regime can utilize fascist-style rule but Marxism (which has never existed) is anti-state. Fascism is not inherently racist, Mussolini considered that Jewishness was a religious and cultural preference which could be changed.

Well shall we try applying the same critical view to political ideologies that we quite rightly extend to religions. Lets take a religion that claims to preach peace for all mankind and the desire to save everyone’s soul. But in actual fact, it supports the abuse and subordination of women, covers up the abuse of children and has frequently, in history, been used to justify all sorts of imperialist wars. I am not thinking of any particular one here, certainly all monotheistic religions could answer to some extent to that description. When comparing this religion to another, do we want to get all nuanced about the logic behind the theology and ethical belefs around it, or are we better off asking how its adherents behave/ have behaved in practice? Or even say it isn’t really down to the religion or ideology and people are always grasping around for poor excuses to be really shitty to each other.

Hi douglas,

British Empire killed lots of people (similar numbers to the USSR). Is that because it was run by totalitarians?

All this shows , is how corrupt Unison is , leave it and join another , less corrupt union.

35
I know very little about most religions but I am quite sure that Waco, for example, is not representative of Christian ideology. In the same way, the Soviet system was not representative of Marxist socialism..
Sometimes harsh reality has to be dealth-with and relative to the alternative, the Soviet System was the lesser of two evils. Let us not forget the terrible conditions imposed upon its’ subjects by the Czar, who was ultimately responsible for the situation.by his attempt to hoild on to absolute monarchy, coincidently, he too utilized religious belief to legitimize his position.

Douglas Clark you are a complete fucking idiot. I will bang my head against the wall one more time, and that’s it.

“Do you think either philosophy justifies mass murder?”

I have quite explicitly, numerous times, said that it doesn’t. I am just as, probably more, opposed to mass murder than you. I say ‘probably more’ because I attempt to understand how and why these mass murders took place, in order to fight them more effectively in the future. You just ‘provide health warnings’ like an inept muppet.

“And sidelining the dead is pretty, well, iffy, really.”

No, no, no. You sideline the dead by using them as an excuse not to think. You really think all the heroic people that died fighting Stalinism and Fascism would happy for cretins like you to cite them as a block to any discussion or analysis?

“That serious enough for you?”

A whole sentence? Wow, I’m expecting a book deal and radio show. I think you would struggle with GCSE History – please stop trying to grapple with anything more advanced.

Interesting point Nick. I think religions, certainly the ‘religions of the book’ are similar enough to, in some cases, generalise them – they arose in similar historical circumstances to fulfil similar social needs etc.

But even then, that has to be taken with a pinch of salt. I have been reading some interesting stuff recently, regarding the interaction between Sunni and Shia Muslim, which shows that not even the same religion can be generalised as the same thing!

But no doubt, because over the centuries religion has killed millions, Douglas Clark thinks we can class all religions as Communazi’s.

Gary,

The feelings are mutual.

Contrary to your views I see them as two sides of the same coin. The only worthwhile question to ask is ‘cui bono?’ And in both cases the answer is the elite. Which is why neither philosophy offered anything more than pain to it’s citizens. It is that corruption that makes them indistinguishable. Whether they start with different shills to get themselves into power or not.

donpaskini,

I haven’t got a lot of time for the British Empire either. It’s main dominance was during the 19th C, and whilst we happily talk about universal suffrage and the like, that only applied later and locally. So, it’s growth was indeed under a period when the elite benefitted and neither the citizens of the colonies nor the working class in this country did. Basically, what was the point? Had it been a true commonwealth rather than a resource exploitative machine it might have been a different story.

Final point. It was Will Rhodes post that set this up. If that is supposed to be serious, scientific analysis, god help us all!

Dear Monkeyfish

Amidst the ad hominem personal abuse you have of course, being a lefty, totally missed the point, the point being that to some unfortunate bastard trying to live in communist russia or nazi germany, both regimes set up ostensibly to benefit the working classes (an entirely laudable aim, but I would argue that margaret thatcher did more for the working classes of this country via deregulation and by disarming the unions that either uncle joe or hitler did for theirs) the difference would have been imperceptible.

Armies of secret police, grossly restricted freedoms of travel speech or religion, zero chance of personal betterment except by sucking up to the regime, dissent crushed with an iron fist…And of course millions upon millions of dead and displaced, minority cultures decimated, untold environmental damage (especially by the sainted joe)

You can argue that of course stalin was a lefty therefore he meant well, bless him, whereas hitler was right wing and was therefore inherently evil, (as you apparently do) but you are making a fool of yourself.

It is axiomatic that socialism is rooted in authoritarianism, and therefore is opposed to the freedom of the individual. So was Uncle cuddly, and so was Hitler.

As for you, well, it’s hard to tell, and frankly I couldn’t care less.

cuffleyburger

OK now I know what your point was…

So why assume that anybody could read that into your ingenious piece of captitalisation (“national SOCIALIST party of Germany”)?

You’ve now made the case that both regimes were oppressive and a nightmare for most people who lived under them. No argument there. You have still come nowhere near convincing me that Hitler was a socialist…and I doubt you will.

However that point now becomes moot, given the emergence of…

“but I would argue that margaret thatcher did more for the working classes of this country via deregulation and by disarming the unions”

Doctor…quick…I’ve hurt my toe…chop off my leg at the knee!

“It is axiomatic that socialism is rooted in authoritarianism”

Where to start???

Gary @40:

Interesting point Nick. I think religions, certainly the ‘religions of the book’ are similar enough to, in some cases, generalise them – they arose in similar historical circumstances to fulfil similar social needs etc.

But even then, that has to be taken with a pinch of salt. I have been reading some interesting stuff recently, regarding the interaction between Sunni and Shia Muslim, which shows that not even the same religion can be generalised as the same thing!

I’m way the hell off topic, but: there are 38,000 denominations of Christianity. There are over a a thousand denominations of Islam that I know of. In each case there is a majority/dominant split in the religion; for Christianity it is Roman/Protestant and for Islam it is Sunni/Shi’a. In each case there are large minority factions that are of similar antiquity but have been persecuted by both of the majors: for Christianity, the Coptic and the Orthodox traditions, and for Islam the Sufi and Ismaili sects.None of this is terribly surprising, and all of it bears allegory with both right-wing totalitarianism and left-wing totalitarianism.

There are also the Ba’hai. They are syncretic, taking the prophets of Judaism, Islam and Christianity at their word that they all spoke for the God of Abraham. They are consciously epochal, seeing each prophet as for their own time, not for all time. They are accepting of external views: Zoroaster and the Bodhisatvas are also in their list of prophets. They look to the future, learning from everyone.

In politics, where is the organised, effective fellowship of progressive thought which could serve as an allegory for the Ba’hai among the Religions of the Book? Where are the people that consider learning more important than tribal victories and grudges, that see history as a source-book rather than a structural or economic imperative? The short answer is that the religions are further ahead on the curve of rationalism than the political factions are. And I’m fairly certain I have never said that before, even in such an allegorical context.