No Platform Policies in Universities

[nuisance]

Does instutionalised No Platform policies create apathy towards fascist groups?
My question is if parties like the BNP are not allowed on campuses and to set up groups in universities, does this prevent potenial militancy in antifascist organisation. If such actions were taking place in univerisities, participants could bring in more self-organisation against fascists outside of the campus as well through first hand experience of the problem posed. However, if the No Platform policy is being enacted for them by the student union, students and workers there won't need to be as active in their area or will remain obvlivious to the threats posed as it is dealt with by other bodies.
However, it obviously is counterproductive to give fascists any ground to manourve and if the councils of the universities vote in the policy, then is it a good thing?
So, I ask what do people think of voted in No Platform policies at universities?

[Melbourne Lefty]

Does instutionalised No Platform policies create apathy towards fascist groups?


Not really.

I dont think they would have much luck on universities anyhow.

I dont think the official no-platform is needed, an unofficial no platform which requires students to actually stand up and oppose the fash is a much better policy.

[genstrike]

I think that such an institutionalized policy by a student union (NOT university admin because they WILL use it to attack the left, especially on anti-war and Palestinian solidarity issues) would be a good thing.

Yeah, it means that we won't need to be as active in that area and probably won't be, but that means we can focus on other issues. In my experience, it's very hard to organize students on my campus to do anything, and I would rather spend my time organizing for and against so many other worthy causes (fighting military recruiters, pro-life assholes, rising tuition, and the conservative barbarians at the gates of the student union) than having to worry about fighting off a gaggle of violent social rejects. There's only so much organizational capacity on my campus and if we don't have to worry about his, we can focus on so many other issues that affect students.

As a student activist, I would much rather win one and move on than be faced with yet another constant struggle. We have more than enough on our plate already.

[Vanguard1917]

I think that universities should be places where free thinking is promoted and all forms of censorship opposed.

Censoring the BNP will not undermine its views, but will likely stregnthen their appeal. Firstly, it will allow the BNP to portray itself as a victim of repression, whose ideas are supposedly so dangerously powerful that people are trying to supress them through gag orders. Secondly, censorship allows wrong ideas to go unchallenged, since they're merely swept under the rug in the hope that they'll somehow disappear. In reality, however, wrong ideas are confronted most effectively through open and free debate.

To quote Marx: 'censorship makes every forbidden work, whether good or bad, into an extraordinary document, whereas freedom of the press deprives every written work of an externally imposing effect.' (On Freedom of the Press (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1842/free-press/ch05.htm)).

[Dr Mindbender]

Pretty much what Melbourne Lefty says.

Universities are by their nature multi-cultural places so i dont think they're fertile ground for fascist ideas. Thats before you take into consideration that you'd expect students to be bright enough not to fall for such nonsense. That said, i think no-platformism is still needed because by removing it it sets a dangerous precedence by allowing those to speak that may encourage violence, intimidation and other non-democratic means.

[Vanguard1917]

I think these two sentences contradict one another somewhat:



you'd expect students to be bright enough not to fall for such nonsense.




i think no-platformism is still needed because by removing it it sets a dangerous precedence by allowing those to speak that may encourage violence, intimidation and other non-democratic means.


Then the reason that you support censorship in universities is because you don't trust students to make their own minds up, and you feel that, without no platform, students are liable to take up 'violence, intimidation and other non-democratic means' due to the influence of the BNP. Therefore, students should be prevented from being allowed to hear the views of reactionaries.

[Holden Caulfield]

^ VG1917 seems to have gotten US wrong. He is not saying students need shielded from these kind of words to stop them being brain-washed, he is saying the entire student body should not tolerate racist/homophobic/whatever speech on campus due to the fact this is abusive, division creating, stereotype perpetuating, and could make people feel unsafe or uncomfortable.

I would be punished if i walked up to a ethnic minority and told them to go home, blaming the problems of the UK on the fact they are here, so why would it be acceptable if i said this while standing behind a table with a union jack draped over it.

Here is a personal example: after coming out of occupation and demanding freedom of political organisation or expression, the powers that be used the argument "what if a nazi party wanted to organizse on campus". To which i answered with these points, A) if they want to use a room, we are well practiced in keeping people out of places if needs be, B) if they want a table, we are organised and can deal with our own pressure and counter propaganda, C) if they put up posters some find abusive, we will remove them, D) if they shout their program from a soapbox, we will drown them out, E) if still the problem continues, we will work with other societies and force the union to adopt a no-platform policy.

We do not need the university to act for us, we are more than capable of organising ourselves.

That said if students wish to push the union to support a 'no-platform' policy then all support to them, whenever and whyever they decide to do this.

Pressure from below is perfectly acceptable.

[Hit The North]

I would be punished if i walked up to a ethnic minority and told them to go home, blaming the problems of the UK on the fact they are here, so why would it be acceptable if i said this while standing behind a table with a union jack draped over it.I'm going to hazard a guess that V1917's reply to this is that, on the basis of freedom of speech it is iniquitous for you to be punished for expressing your opinion. He is, after all, a liberal.

[Holden Caulfield]

I'm going to hazard a guess that V1917's reply to this is that, on the basis of freedom of speech it is iniquitous for you to be punished for expressing your opinion. He is, after all, a liberal.

ive just done a (pretty shit) essay on Mill's harm principle, with a section in regards to freedom of speech, which concluded with it all petit/bourgeois shite with a class bias the size of a planet.

VG can say what he wants, but defence of the working class/student body, and the various cultural/social groups included in it, is so high up on my list of things that matter that i'll still have the highground even though he is in an ivory tower.

[Vanguard1917]

^ VG1917 seems to have gotten US wrong. He is not saying students need shielded from these kind of words to stop them being brain-washed, he is saying the entire student body should not tolerate racist/homophobic/whatever speech on campus due to the fact this is abusive, division creating, stereotype perpetuating, and could make people feel unsafe or uncomfortable.

So we should support censorship against points of view which make people feel uncomfortable? Are university students so vulnerable and weak-minded that they can't cope with -- and confront -- the silly, pathetic views of the BNP?

And any point of view worth expressing will often make some people feel uncomfortable, will create division, and can even come across as abusive. That's no basis for opposing free speech. We don't need the establishment or 'no platform' officials to regulate what can and cannot be said in public places; we need more open and free discussion.



I would be punished if i walked up to a ethnic minority and told them to go home, blaming the problems of the UK on the fact they are here


Punished by who?



I'm going to hazard a guess that V1917's reply to this is that, on the basis of freedom of speech it is iniquitous for you to be punished for expressing your opinion. He is, after all, a liberal.


That's not liberalism; modern liberals are often found at the forefront of campaigns against free speech.

In reality, it's Marxism that's always consistently opposed censorship in capitalist society.

[Hit The North]

So you think Marxists should go around defending the right of individuals to insult and intimidate and spread hate about ethnic minorities?

[Vanguard1917]

So you think Marxists should go around defending the right of individuals to insult and intimidate spread hate about ethnic minorities?

I think that Marxists should oppose the censorship that you support.

[Hit The North]

I think that Marxists should oppose the censorship that you support.

This is where we differ then. I think the job of Marxists is to confront those ideas which divide us; to combat those organizations which seek to oppress us by mobilizing the widest base of our force as possible; and not to defend abstract bourgeois values.

[ZeroNowhere]

He is, after all, a liberal.
Oh, come on. Woodrow Wilson was a liberal. Al Gore is a liberal. VG1917 is not a liberal.

[Melbourne Lefty]

So we should support censorship against points of view which make people feel uncomfortable?


No the best way to meet bad speech is with free speech.

Its sadly not always possible.

I would love it if the BNP were freely allowed to speak at every university in the UK but were too scared to do so because of the reaction of student groups that would make any attempt they made to speak a living hell by "free speaking" as loud as they could through megaphones.

Hit the BNP in the head or ban them and it confirms in their minds that they must be right.

Organise half the student body to non-violently blockade any place they try to speak on campus and the seeds of doubt will get put in their minds.

[Vanguard1917]

This is where we differ then. I think the job of Marxists is to confront those ideas which divide us; to combat those organizations which seek to oppress us by mobilizing the widest base of our force as possible; and not to defend abstract bourgeois values.

As i pointed out in my first post, censoring the BNP will do very little to confront its ideas. It will -- it does -- increase their appeal.

[Hit The North]

As i pointed out in my first post, censoring the BNP will do very little to confront its ideas. It will -- it does -- increase their appeal.

Do you have any figures to back this up or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

[Patchd]

I guess the point is that these No Platform policies were achieved due to militant Anti-fascism, and/or with mass opposition to fascism. Should we care much for the lack of militancy within the student movement directed towards fascism? Nah, most realise that it is a problem, and most are willing to oppose it when the fascist movement does grow.

When it does, I would suspect the No Platform policies to be waning and allowing extreme right wing and fascist societies and organisations to organise on campus. Its when the No Platform begins to be eroded away in universities, that activists would have to be concerned about militancy against Fascism.

What does censoring the BNP do? It shuts them up, in a quite authoritarian manner I must say, but its one way I'm willing to take with them. Why does the BNP seem to be gaining support, well if we take the amount of coverage and the amount of times the BNP have had a platform from which to speak on the news and in other media sources, compare that to the left, and we will see a trend of the bourgeoisie to be more willing to cover fascism than Communism.

In addition, lets not forget that the BNP, like any fascist organisation, have sympathies within the ruling class which is able to fund it, Stagecoach is one example. The reason the BNP continue to grow are not because of the No Platform strategy, but moreso because people do not keep to the No Platform, ranging from whiny liberals to conservatives who would like to keep the left on the underfooting.

[Vanguard1917]

Do you have any figures to back this up or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

You're supposed to use your head to think, instead of trying to mindlessly defend bourgeois censorship.

[Elucidate]

In denying a platform for fascist groups there is indeed a danger of making them appealing to many who oppose what is happening in the world. For too long the so-called Revolutionary Left has been led by liberals who seek to win positions on committee's as opposed to building on the ground and truly organising. For in this organisation which is build upon real activity, the real arguments can be had, and it indeed enables the left to show their true strength and organisation!

The alternative is built upon passivity, and indeed when out of sight there is the very real danger that the threat of groups such as the BNP is underestimated!

Many students are so fed-up with the whole "Politically Correct" agenda that is imposed from above, and this leads banned groups to seem appealing. Also when promoting censorship this always enables the ruling class to use the same against the left!. Where does it end? No speech for Islamacists? it would seem to be that promotion of stifling of free speech will ultimately come back to bite us in the arse!
It also loses the opportunity to win new comrades through debate, and ultimately show our willingness and ability to organise on the ground!.

[Hit The North]

You're supposed to use your head to think, instead of trying to mindlessly defend bourgeois censorship.
:lol::lol::lol::rolleyes:

You mean you don't have any evidence that shutting up the BNP increases their appeal you just "think" it does?

Not a very persuasive argument, is it?

[Hit The North]

In denying a platform for fascist groups there is indeed a danger of making them appealing to many who oppose what is happening in the world. For too long the so-called Revolutionary Left has been led by liberals who seek to win positions on committee's as opposed to building on the ground and truly organising. For in this organisation which is build upon real activity, the real arguments can be had, and it indeed enables the left to show their true strength and organisation!



This is exactly what no-platform is about: organising on the ground and having the argument with the people around us - not the people around the BNP. See Palachinov's post above.

Vanguard1917's position of either allowing the BNP to propagate their ideas unopposed or sharing a platform with them in order to have some "guest speaker" (from Spiked?) counter their argument, is the strategy which leads to passivity.

[Vanguard1917]

Actually, in practice, 'no platform' entails calling on the state and other establishment institutions to ban and censor. Look at, for instance, the demands of 'no platform' campaign groups like the SWP and UAF, who openly call for state legislation against far-right groups and support book bans in public libraries.

Of course, from a Marxist perspective, such a confused pro-state, pro-censorship position is totally counter-productive. Marxist radicals like Leon Trotsky even called people who uphold such positions 'traitors' who should 'leave the ranks of the working class'. He insisted that 'it is only the greatest freedom of expression that can create favorable conditions for the advance of the revolutionary movement in the working class.' (link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/08/press.htm))

Let's make no mistake about it: demaning bourgeois censorship -- which groups like Bob The Builder's one openly do -- was always considered totally alien to Marxism.

[Patchd]

Actually, in practice, 'no platform' entails calling on the state and other establishment institutions to ban and censor. Look at, for instance, the demands of 'no platform' campaign groups like the SWP and UAF, who openly call for state legislation against far-right groups and support book bans in public libraries.

Well instead of getting into a polemic with UAF people on here, we have to remember that the UAF isn't the only group that operates a No Platform policy against fascist groups. Antifa is the obvious one, although I think it promotes squaddism to an extent (due to the repressive nature of the state against anti-fascist militants, as well as to fascist pressure), it still promotes the idea of working class, grassroots and militant No Platform against fascism.

Instead of combatting it in Parliament, an institution we know would happily serve a fascist government, we combat it in the streets and on our estates.

I didn't know about the book bans part, but even with that, I see no reason why reactionary reading material should be banned. The idea won't be smashed through the burning of books.

[Hit The North]

Actually, in practice, 'no platform' entails calling on the state and other establishment institutions to ban and censor.Quite often, in practice, the focus of the campaign is to mobilize protests and opinion to have certain institutions, such as colleges and universities, to withdraw permission to fascist and racist organizations and individuals to hold meetings or pass out leaflets. Sometimes, if there is an active fascist amongst the student body, protests are organised to have them expelled.

But your position of freedom of speech and entering into dialogue with the fascists always results in passivity, as the inability of this strategy to raise any concrete demands leaves you with nothing but abstract propaganda.

What's more, you end up legitimating the right of often dangerous and violent fascists to exercise their free speech amongst us, as if their speech is unconnected with their ability to organize. Also, your doctrinaire approach to this will result in you arguing against the left whenever there is such a problem with these enemies of ours. So even if the UAF hold the positions you claim and even if it is politically soft on particular issues, it has done more to promote and organize anti-fascist activity than you, who only ever intervenes in this debate to support the right of the fascists!

But you argue against practically every other left wing opinion, so there's no surprise there.

Meanwhile, please provide the requested evidence to back up your assertion that shutting up the BNP only increases its appeal.

[Vanguard1917]

Quite often, in practice, the focus of the campaign is to mobilize protests and opinion to have certain institutions, such as colleges and universities, to withdraw permission to fascist and racist organizations and individuals to hold meetings or pass out leaflets. Sometimes, if there is an active fascist amongst the student body, protests are organised to have them expelled.

Demands on universities to ban certain books from their libraries, calls on universities to expel students for their political views, demands on university authorities to police political activity on campus...

Do you not see such positions as fundamentally incorrect?



But you argue against practically every other left wing opinion, so there's no surprise there.



But it's not a 'leftwing' opinion, is it? At least not a 'leftwing' opinion of people like Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky.

As i explained in my previous post, the policy of your party was vehemently opposed by leftwing radicals in the past.


than you, who only ever intervenes in this debate to support the right of the fascists!


Along with radical leftists like Leon Trotsky, i see conditions of free and open debate as preconditions for defeating incorrect ideas (such as those on which the BNP's support rests) and for the victory of correct, progressive ideas.

That you see it as merely 'supporting the right of fascists' reveals your simple-minded approach to the problem.



Meanwhile, please provide the requested evidence to back up your assertion that shutting up the BNP only increases its appeal.


I said that censorship will increase the appeal of the views of the BNP. The core view on which the BNP's support rests is anti-immigration; mainstream anti-immigration prejudices fuel support for the BNP among some (albeit very small) sections of the public. Not taking on these prejudices out in the open, and attempting instead to shut down debate through bans and censorship, can only encourage the perception that such ideas are too dangerous to be discussed openly -- which provides such ideas the aura of, to quote Marx, 'an extraordinary document'. In shutting down debate through top-down, authoritarian dictate, all we will do is a create greater sympathy for suppressed views, and disable those of us who wish to challenge those views.

[Hit The North]

Demands on universities to ban certain books from their libraries, calls on universities to expel students for their political views, demands on university authorities to police political activity on campus...

Do you not see such positions as fundamentally incorrect?


You apply this so abstractly. We need to know which specific books you're referring to; and, anyway, a university library, or any other library, for that matter, must be held accountable for the academic rigor of the books it provides. Racist literature obviously does not meet the standard. As for policing students political opinion, this is a straw man. Fascist activists are targeted for expulsion, not the ideas in ordinary students heads. But thanks for the Big Brother scare tactic!


That you see it as merely 'supporting the right of fascists' reveals your simple-minded approach to the problem.
Possibly. But it also reveals your abstract approach; trumpeting freedom of speech as some golden rule of democracy which transcends the class struggle; which is cut off from practice. You make too much of it and turn it into an issue which over-rides the material safety and security of those who the fascists target both with their propaganda and with their thuggery.


I said that censorship will increase the appeal of the views of the BNP. Yes, you said that, and you've still not backed it up with any evidence. Besides, by that logic, you should be arguing for the suppression of the left - maybe that would boost our popularity :lol:.


Not taking on these prejudices out in the open, and attempting instead to shut down debate through bans and censorship, can only encourage the perception that such ideas are too dangerous to be discussed openly -- which provides such ideas the aura of, to quote Marx, 'an extraordinary document'.You need to think more dialectically, comrade. By mobilizing protest every time the BNP raise their heads, we are taking on these prejudices in the open: raising the questions and having the discussion - not with the BNP, what would be the point? - but with the circles we move in. We raise the questions of what the BNP actually represent and why there is a need to confront it. We'll pass out leaflets; hold political meetings; organise demonstrations. Get people thinking; get people moving.

That's if we do it right.

[Patchd]

As i explained in my previous post, the policy of your party was vehemently opposed by leftwing radicals in the past.

Just a quick point on this, but I hope you're not suggesting that No Platform was opposed by every left revolutionary, except those in Bob's party.

In addition, we shouldn't adopt a policy, or drop one simply because "those in the past would have objected to it". 1917 was a long while away. In addition, if you are correct about most left wing radicals having opposed the No Platform strategy in the past, then it is obvious that we must adopt it now.

At least we haven't seen the rise of fascism to the extent it had been in the past, you know, the same past where most left wing radicals supposedly opposed it. Perhaps there was a flaw in their tactics, such as allowing open debate with fascists.


Along with radical leftists like Leon Trotsky, i see conditions of free and open debate as preconditions for defeating incorrect ideas (such as those on which the BNP's support rests) and for the victory of correct, progressive ideas.The BNP are given free debate in many circumstances, and that's exactly the environment which they foster in. They don't need to use logical and reasoned arguments, simply have a good orator or a public figure, we saw that with the election of Boris Johnson to the London mayoral position, intellectually, he's a bit of a dumbass, but publicly, he's a popular figure, and despite allowing Barnbrook to claim that rape was fine because women supposedly liked sex, he still didn't do too badly in the elections.

Free speech and open debate was given to those candidates, and all it produced was a PR win for the BNP.

[Sam_b]

I think you're wasting your time, Bob. V1917 likes to crow about every common-held leftist position on here being against Marxism, but is never able to back it up.

When he does, he cites a magazine thats supported by the likes of Cadbury-Schweppes and ExxonMobil :lol:

[Vanguard1917]

We need to know which specific books you're referring to


I was referring to the SWP's demand that David Irving's books be banned from every school, university and public library.



anyway, a university library, or any other library, for that matter, must be held accountable for the academic rigor of the books it provides. Racist literature obviously does not meet the standard.


So how do you reconcile your 'radical leftism', your Marxism, with this philistine pro-book-burning, pro-bourgeois censorship position?

And whether a book meets the standard of 'academic rigor' is surely decided through free engagement with it, as opposed to appealing to university authorities to censor? For you, however, students need to be protected from certain ideas through top-down dictate.



As for policing students political opinion, this is a straw man. Fascist activists are targeted for expulsion, not the ideas in ordinary students heads.


Well, your organisation calls on universities to police political activity on campus: ban political groups and books and expel students for their political beliefs.

Again, how is that compatible with the Marxist opposition to bourgeois censorship?



By mobilizing protest every time the BNP raise their heads, we are taking on these prejudices in the open


Demonstrating against the BNP is one thing. Appealing to establishment institutions to censor and ban the BNP is something altogether different.

[Vanguard1917]

I think you're wasting your time, Bob. V1917 likes to crow about every common-held leftist position on here being against Marxism, but is never able to back it up.

As i said, your position is not a radical leftwing position at all. Radical leftists like Leon Trotsky and Karl Marx categorically rejected such positions as reactionary.

[Sam_b]

Thanks for proving my point.

[Patchd]

Sorry, I forgot about this thread


I was referring to the SWP's demand that David Irving's books be banned from every school, university and public library.

I think I'm sitting on the fence with this one even, on the one hand I view book burning/destroying as a ridiculous idea, and one which I don't see as being particularly helpful in a post-revolutionary situation.

Yet, on the other hand, we know the holocaust existed, there is substantial evidence as to it happening, holocaust denial, rather than providing an alternative theory (usually based on historical events with less evidence surrounding it), was done in an attempt to purposefully further the cause of fascism and to provide a blatantly inaccurate and anti-semitic view on the holocaust, an event which is extremely sensitive to the Jewish community. I can only see holocaust denial as a means to raise anti-semitism within society, and it is something which must be opposed.

Should we remove it from universities or schools? I don't know, I haven't thought about this properly yet, my gut reaction would be yes, as this is not a historical book as it is portrayed as at all, but a subjective, racist and provocative one. Perhaps it should begin to be classed as that, as opposed to "history". There are afterall, plenty of reactionary books from the past, which are no longer classed as books providing a historical perspective on something, but rather a source of different historical perspectives, which are wrong.

[Vanguard1917]

Should we remove it from universities or schools? I don't know, I haven't thought about this properly yet, my gut reaction would be yes, as this is not a historical book as it is portrayed as at all, but a subjective, racist and provocative one. Perhaps it should begin to be classed as that, as opposed to "history". There are afterall, plenty of reactionary books from the past, which are no longer classed as books providing a historical perspective on something, but rather a source of different historical perspectives, which are wrong.

The bulk of the books in my university library are 'subjective', and several are what i would consider 'racist'.

The question is, why should i be forbidden from having access to those books? Why should those books be subject to censorship?

[h0m0revolutionary]

The bulk of the books in my university library are 'subjective', and several are what i would consider 'racist'.

The question is, why should i be forbidden from having access to those books? Why should those books be subject to censorship?


No-one here advocates the complete ban of fascist literature nor do we wish to see their right to free speech completely removed.

But we do withold the right of our educational establishments to decide that within the confines of their establishment they do not want to give a platform to fascists or their views, this is pretty simple reasoning:

Leftists are vocal in their support for no platform because we recognise what fascism is; the last weapon in the hands of the ruling class - its explicit purpose is to crush the workers' movement wherever it grows strong enough to become a threat. (Hence, fascism arose in Nazi Germany as a direct response to the revolutionary situation in that country, a revolutionary situation that lasted from 1918 up unti the early '30s. Or the recent attempted fascist coup in Bolivia- this occurred to crush Bolivian worker and peasant organisation.)

There is no argument for freedom of speech to be had.
- The fascists already have their platform, anyone can for example type 'I hate immigrants' into google and see the filth that it comes up with. What we oppose is making our universities, colleges etc complicit in the spreading of that racist message.

Furthermore, by giving them a platform in our universities we legitimise their views, university platforms should be given to academics, even if we disagree with them, but fascism is based on xenophobia and more often than not illogical racism, this then isn't a rational ideology and dosn't deserve to be given the same platform as you or I.

When you invite a BNP member or any other fascist to speak on any issue or publicise their material, you don't merely legitimise their views and accept that they can deal in rationality, you also put at risk just about every other person in the union at that time. Because where fascism is accepted, violent and often racially-motivated attacks increase by huge amounts (and homophobic hate crime).

Our educational estsbliahments should withold their right be intolerent of fascists and their messages of hatred. Why would people who advocate violent attacks on ethnic minorities, Jews and Muslims, LGBT people, disabled people, anti fascists and leftists (amongst others) be accepted at a priveleged platform somewhere where all members are supposed to feel safe?

[Vanguard1917]

No-one here advocates the complete ban of fascist literature nor do we wish to see their right to free speech completely removed.


Well, few seem to object to the idea that universities should ban books from their libraries.


Why would people who advocate violent attacks on ethnic minorities, Jews and Muslims, LGBT people, disabled people, anti fascists and leftists (amongst others) be accepted at a priveleged platform somewhere where all members are supposed to feel safe?

So opinions which make people feel 'unsafe' should be censored. What about, say, Islamic fundamentalist groups? If their ideas of holy war and punishing infidels make me feel unsafe, should i support university authorities censoring them?


Furthermore, by giving them a platform in our universities we legitimise their views


Why is free speech going to 'legitimise' those views? Surely it's through free debate that we decide which ideas are and aren't legitimate?



but fascism is based on xenophobia and more often than not illogical racism, this then isn't a rational ideology and dosn't deserve to be given the same platform as you or I.



If such views are so irrational and 'illogical' to begin with, why are you so worried about people being free to hear them? Wouldn't censorship actually benefit irrational and illogical ideas, by allowing them the privilege of going unchallenged in the open?

[h0m0revolutionary]

So opinions which make people feel 'unsafe' should be censored. What about, say, Islamic fundamentalist groups?

Why is free speech going to 'legitimise' those views? Surely it's through free debate that we decide which ideas are and aren't legitimate?

If such views are so irrational and 'illogical' to begin with, why are you so worried about people being free to hear them? Wouldn't censorship actually benefit irrational and illogical ideas, by allowing them the privilege of going unchallenged in the open?

Comrade it isn't simply a case of people 'feeling' unsafe. No Platform is important in student unions and wherever we can win such a policy because the entry of fascist groups onto campuses and neighbourhoods causes attacks on minorities to increase dramatically.

As for fascism with an Islamic tinge then the same applies absolutly, if they advocate violence against leftists, immigrants, jews or whatever and the inhabitents of the educational establishment in question will suffer, then I would absolutly advocate their removal from campus. Their freedom to speech dosn't impede my freedom to feel safe and free from victimisation within my union.

Let me offer another perspective on why we shouldn't allow the fascists into our unions and give them an opportunity to organise and spread roots:

Fascism is the political embodiment of counter-revolution; its reaction, ultra-nationalism and hatred of miinorities stems from what it is, and that is the last resort tool of the bouegiose to surpress workers militantcy. History shows us this..
When the revolutionary crisis cannot be resolved positively in the interests of the working class and the bourgeoisie cannot restore stability it has been the role of the fascists to ride over class differences and restore stability in the interests of capital, through Bonapartist and militarist means. The oxygen for fascism is ironically the march of the revolutionary proletariat towards communism.

In such a period then we do all we can to stangle fascism at birth and impede their ability to organise all we can, because if we don't do so now, we'll pay with our blood (and our revolution!) in the future.

[Patchd]

The bulk of the books in my university library are 'subjective', and several are what i would consider 'racist'.

The question is, why should i be forbidden from having access to those books? Why should those books be subject to censorship?

Oh you're right, I didn't advocate book burning or censorship, and my gut reaction to burn those books is simply that, a gut reaction, I was toying with the idea and attempting to make a case for both. Again, I'll reiterate what I said on the subject:


... but a subjective, racist and provocative one. Perhaps it should begin to be classed as that, as opposed to "history". There are afterall, plenty of reactionary books from the past, which are no longer classed as books providing a historical perspective on something, but rather a source of different historical perspectives, which are wrong.

Now keep in mind I was using Irving's holocaust denial as an example, but it can apply to all factually incorrect, harmful sources. Don't give it the credence of being a "historical" book, it's not, it wasn't written with the intention of providing a separate historical position on a subject matter, but to provoke, intimidate and harm. So say, rather than going to a library and looking under "History" for Irving's book, it should be under another category, one which doesn't give illusions that it is actually a viable historical perspective, say, put it under: "Idiotic", or "Racist", or I guess under "Fascist history" ... if you get what I mean that is.

[Vanguard1917]

Comrade it isn't simply a case of people 'feeling' unsafe. No Platform is important in student unions and wherever we can win such a policy because the entry of fascist groups onto campuses and neighbourhoods causes attacks on minorities to increase dramatically.

As for fascism with an Islamic tinge then the same applies absolutly, if they advocate violence against leftists, immigrants, jews or whatever and the inhabitents of the educational establishment in question will suffer, then I would absolutly advocate their removal from campus. Their freedom to speech dosn't impede my freedom to feel safe and free from victimisation within my union.

But the problem is, anyone can say that any idea makes them feel 'unsafe' -- including socialist or anarchist ideas. We can't ban ideas just because they may make some people feel uncomfortable.

Also, your position seems to have a very strong paternalistic aspect to it: the idea that 'vulnerable' groups like blacks and immigrants need to be protected from hearing bad points of view. In reality, those people need freedom of speech as much as -- if not more than -- everyone else, so that they can challenge reactionary ideas in order to eradicate them.

[h0m0revolutionary]

But the problem is, anyone can say that any idea makes them feel 'unsafe' -- including socialist or anarchist ideas. We can't ban ideas just because they may make some people feel uncomfortable.

Also, your position seems to have a very strong paternalistic aspect to it: the idea that 'vulnerable' groups like blacks and immigrants need to be protected from hearing bad points of view. In reality, those people need freedom of speech as much as -- if not more than -- everyone else, so that they can challenge reactionary ideas in order to eradicate them.


Comrade like I said, this isn't about 'hearing' anything, when fascists take root they don't just speak nasty things, but homosexuals, jews, leftists and a whole array of other groups get attacked!

That is why we don't let them into our educational establishments to spread their message, why give them the platform, why help them?

This isn't about censorship, the fascists have the right to spread their hatred, they can leaflet along my steet if they want and I have the right to organise against them if they do. But that dosn't mean I repspect their freedom to leftlet inside of my house! And the point is this:

Our educational institutions are (purportedly anyways) democratically controlled by the students who attend them - so they have the democratic right to decide that protecting their members from violence and racist attacks from fascists takes presidence over the freedom of speech of the very people who would be the first to wipe out all forms of free speech!

[Patchd]

They don't play fair, neither do we. It's not about morals here. ^ Well said :)

[Hit The North]

The question is, why should i be forbidden from having access to those books?

Why is your right of access to these books more important than my right to ensure that my public libraries don't stock racist literature? There is no way of determining this in the abstract. Unless you want to empower the state to prioritize your freedom over mine then it will come down to who exercises the most power in the argument.

So when my local library attempts to stock books by Irvin, those of us who support no-platform will organize to have them removed and those who prioritize the right of racists to free speech will have to organize their forces. See you on the other side of the barricades.

[Vanguard1917]

Our educational institutions are (purportedly anyways) democratically controlled by the students who attend them - so they have the democratic right to decide that protecting their members from violence and racist attacks from fascists takes presidence over the freedom of speech of the very people who would be the first to wipe out all forms of free speech!

Educational institutions are not controlled by students, but by establishment authorities. Is it correct to appeal to those authorities to censor books and police political activity on campus?


So when my local library attempts to stock books by Irvin, those of us who support no-platform will organize to have them removed and those who prioritize the right of racists to free speech will have to organize their forces. See you on the other side of the barricades.


But why would we support banning books in the first place, if we uphold the Marxist position that censorship actually benefits incorrect ideas by turning forbidden books into extraordinary documents (to paraphrase Marx)?

Again, how do you reconcile your supposed Marxism with your philistine, pro-book burning attitudes?



Why is your right of access to these books more important than my right to ensure that my public libraries don't stock racist literature? There is no way of determining this in the abstract. Unless you want to empower the state to prioritize your freedom over mine then it will come down to who exercises the most power in the argument.



'Empower the state'? I want the bourgeois state to have as few powers to police political and intellectual life as possible.

By calling on the state to police libraries and universities, i'm sure you can see that it is you who is in fact empowering the state.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Educational institutions are not controlled by students, but by establishment authorities. Is it correct to appeal to those authorities to censor books and police political activity on campus?

But why would we support banning books in the first place, if we uphold the Marxist position that censorship actually benefits incorrect ideas by turning forbidden books into extraordinary documents (to paraphrase Marx)?

Again, how do you reconcile your supposed Marxism with your philistine, pro-book burning attitudes?

By calling on the state to police libraries and universities, i'm sure you can see that it is you who is in fact empowering the state.

We don't call ont the state to ban facist orginisations, no-one here is advocating that, we're just saying that they already have their platforms we shouldn't be giving them more.

Our education insitutions are for reasoned debate, by allowing fascists to speak on that same platform as you or I may take, you not only legitimise their views but suggest their rationalisty is of similar worth to your own. And as i've said repeatedly, they don't just come talking about free speech and immigration controls, they bring with them their boot-boy thugs - the consequence of which is bore by jews, leftists, homosexuals etc.

The only effective way to combat these knuckle-dragging boot-boys is to impede their ability to organise - that means disrupting them when they march, refusing them a platform and doing everything you can to smash their ideas.

If you allow them a platform in a university you endanger the students within that university and are complicit in aiding them spread their message. Why would any leftist want to do this?

[Vanguard1917]

We don't call ont the state to ban facist orginisations, no-one here is advocating that


That's not really true, though, is it, when there are those calling for books to be banned from libraries?



Our education insitutions are for reasoned debate, by allowing fascists to speak on that same platform as you or I may take, you not only legitimise their views but suggest their rationalisty is of similar worth to your own.


How can you have 'reasoned debate' when you call for debate to be policed? And why do views have to be 'rational' for us to confront them through debate?

I should point out that i'm not necessarily saying that we should want to enter into public debates with David Irving or a BNP member. To be frank, i find Irving's views as irrelevent and not worthy of much focus, if any. The same goes to a large extent for the views of the BNP.

But what you're saying is something different, and in some ways the opposite of my reasoning. What you're saying is that the views of Irving and the BNP are so dangerous and so powerful that the public need to be prevented from being exposed to them. What i'm saying is that if their ideas are indeed so powerful, that's more reason for them to be confronted, as opposed to swept under the rug through censorship.


And as i've said repeatedly, they don't just come talking about free speech and immigration controls, they bring with them their boot-boy thugs - the consequence of which is bore by jews, leftists, homosexuals etc.


So, upon listening the pathetic views of Irving and Nick Griffin, students inevitably turn into gay/jew/black-bashing pogrom-mongerers? Do you have any evidence of that happening?



If you allow them a platform in a university you endanger the students within that university and are complicit in aiding them spread their message.


I think universities should be places where all ideas are expressed freely and where there is an unrestricted battle of ideas and viewpoints. That is especially true for those ideas and viewpoints that may be perceived as 'dangerous'.

And i find the idea that black, Jewish, gay or another 'minority' students need to protected by university authorities and 'no platform' officials from the pathetic views of the likes of Irving and Griffin as quite insulting to those groups.

[Hit The North]

And i find the idea that black, Jewish, gay or another 'minority' students need to protected by university authorities and 'no platform' officials from the pathetic views of the likes of Irving and Griffin as quite insulting to those groups.

Black, Jewish, gay or other minority students (including communist and anarchist students) are at the forefront of organising their own defence by supporting no-platform. Quit trying to cast the action as bureaucratic.

[Vanguard1917]

Black, Jewish, gay or other minority students (including communist and anarchist students) are at the forefront of organising their own defence by supporting no-platform. Quit trying to cast the action as bureaucratic.

Of course it's bureaucratic. It's a call for greater top-down regulation.

And you still haven't addressed the points that i made as to the flaws in your position.

[Hit The North]

Of course it's bureaucratic. It's a call for greater top-down regulation.



It's a call for organising the grassroots. You'll discover this when we bar your attempt to take a platform with the fascists.


And you still haven't addressed the points that i made as to the flaws in your position.


You mean your fictitious claim that a Marxist position is to elevate abstract demands for freedom of speech above the class struggle? Don't make me laugh!

[Melbourne Lefty]

So...

In short my view is "no Platform" enforced from above doesnt really do much aside from making sure that the few neo-fash on campus keep their heads down, which they would have done anyway.

"no platform" enforced by bodies and direct action on the part of students is a different matter.

[Zurdito]

It is true that Leon Trotsky opposed supporting state powers to censore fascism, because these would in time be used predominantly against the left.

It is also true that he argued for the working class to mobilise to crush fascism and to drive it out of the workplaces and working class areas.

No Platform in universities is not state censorship, it is a historic gain by students in struggle. If V1917's workplace invited a fascist to speak, wouldn't he oppose this? Despite the fact that they would be promoting an ideology which wants to crush workers and student organization, send his fellow women workers to be housewives, and put non-white workers into concentration camps? He wouldn't oppose his employer promoting this ideology in his workplace?

If so, then why should students have to accept this at their universities?

And, this has nothing to do with state power, as nobody is asking the state to close down fascist rallies.

Though we are saying we want to see them violently crushed byt he working class. Or maybe V1917 thinks that the Cable Street riot which chased Oswald Mosely and his blackshirts out of the East End and ruined their planned rally, was an act of anti-marxist, philistine censorhsip, on a par with medieval book-burning?

The fundamental point here is that revolutionaries do not defend abstract orinciples, but look for the class nature of the two sides. Calling on the state to strengthen its censorship empowers the bourgeosie, true. But workers and students organizing to drive fascism out of their workplaces, universities and neighbourhoods, is progressive, as it is an example of the working class defending its unity from petit-bourgeois demagogues who want to divide us along national and race lines. To call on workers and students to show restraint and not shred to peices such scum, is indeed to hold to an abstract liberal principle, which no progressive worker with a basic instinct of their own class interest, will take seriously.

[Vanguard1917]

It's a call for organising the grassroots. You'll discover this when we bar your attempt to take a platform with the fascists.

It's a call on the state to ban books and police political activity. That the call comes from leftist activists does not make it OK.

If you remember, Marxist radicals like Leon Trotsky called such people on the left 'traitors' and demanded that they 'leave the ranks of the working class'.

And, while you dismiss free speech demands as 'abstract', the Bolshevik leader insisted that 'it is only the greatest freedom of expression that can create favorable conditions for the advance of the revolutionary movement in the working class.'



You mean your fictitious claim that a Marxist position is to elevate abstract demands for freedom of speech above the class struggle? Don't make me laugh!


See above.



Though we are saying we want to see them violently crushed byt he working class. Or maybe V1917 thinks that the Cable Street riot which chased Oswald Mosely and his blackshirts out of the East End and ruined their planned rally, was an act of anti-marxist, philistine censorhsip, on a par with medieval book-burning?



No. In what sense is anti-fascists holding a counter-demonstration the same as people calling on the bourgeois state to ban books and police political activity on campuses?



No Platform in universities is not state censorship


As i've pointed out, calling on the bourgeois state to censor and police political life -- something which Marxists categorically oppose -- is part and parcel of 'no platform' demands today.

[Hoxhaist]

what are no platform policies?

[h0m0revolutionary]

"
No Platform is a political position that actively opposes allowing alleged fascists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism) to express their views in public. It was also the name of a British (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) militant anti-fascist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_anti-fascism) group formed in 2001. This group appears to be defunct, with some anarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism) former members helping to form a similar group, Antifa.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Platform#cite_note-0)
A No Platform order is an instrument used by groups such as trade unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union) and students' unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students%27_unions) to refuse a platform of any kind to certain groups or particular ideas. No Platform orders are most often used against ideas deemed to be racist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism), anti-Semitic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism), homophobic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia) or fascist. Such an order means that certain groups or individuals are prevented from addressing trade union or student union events. The British National Union of Students (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Union_of_Students_%28United_Kingdom%29) has applied the no-platform policy to fascist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist) organisations such as the National Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front) and Combat 18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_18) and has, in the past, also applied this policy to Islamist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism) extremists such as Hizb ut-Tahrir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizb_ut-Tahrir), the Al-Muhajiroun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Muhajiroun) and the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Public_Affairs_Committee_UK)."


From wiki :)

[Zurdito]

It's No. In what sense is anti-fascists holding a counter-demonstration the same as people calling on the bourgeois state to ban books and police political activity on campuses?

It is not the same as asking to empower the bourgeois state. It can be compared to banning fascists from campus, because the Cable Street protesters did not hold a "counter-demonstration", they physically prevented the fascists from rallying, driving them out of their community with force. As revolutionaries we do not respect fascists right to free speech, as they represent a section of the propertied class waging the highest form of propagandistic and physical war on the working class. Rather we simply do not trust the state with powers of censorship, only working class and academic communities themselves.



As i've pointed out, calling on the bourgeois state to censor and police political life -- something which Marxists categorically oppose -- is part and parcel of 'no platform' demands today

There is no reason that revolutionaries cannot fight for a position of No Platform alongside a "no faith in the state" stance. Just because a certain attitude is predominant today doesn't mean we can conflate different issues, that is a lazy style of poltiical analysis which bases itself primarily on observing attitudes of the middle class rather than setting out the actual class interest of workers based on their own struggles - which, in reality, are both against state censorship and against the operation of fascism int heir communities. In fact the only reason I can think of someone basing their political analysis primarily on opposing middle class fads ("I put a cross where you put a tick"), is that they spend too much time among these people rather than among the working class.

BTW V1917 I am not joining in an all-out condemnation of you becaus eI do not think you are anti-working class, it is just that the questions recently raised about your positions caused me to think about them from my own perspective.

[Hoxhaist]

I definitely support No Platform then. We should oppose every expression of hate, fascism, racism, sexism, or religious chauvinism because they are counterproductive to a healthy and united community

[Hoxhaist]

"
No Platform is a political position that actively opposes allowing alleged fascists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism) to express their views in public. It was also the name of a British (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) militant anti-fascist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_anti-fascism) group formed in 2001. This group appears to be defunct, with some anarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism) former members helping to form a similar group, Antifa.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Platform#cite_note-0)
A No Platform order is an instrument used by groups such as trade unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union) and students' unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students%27_unions) to refuse a platform of any kind to certain groups or particular ideas. No Platform orders are most often used against ideas deemed to be racist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism), anti-Semitic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism), homophobic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia) or fascist. Such an order means that certain groups or individuals are prevented from addressing trade union or student union events. The British National Union of Students (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Union_of_Students_%28United_Kingdom%29) has applied the no-platform policy to fascist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist) organisations such as the National Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front) and Combat 18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_18) and has, in the past, also applied this policy to Islamist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism) extremists such as Hizb ut-Tahrir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizb_ut-Tahrir), the Al-Muhajiroun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Muhajiroun) and the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Public_Affairs_Committee_UK)."


From wiki :)

thanks for the definition!

[genstrike]

A No Platform order is an instrument used by groups such as trade unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union) and students' unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students%27_unions) to refuse a platform of any kind to certain groups or particular ideas. No Platform orders are most often used against ideas deemed to be racist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism), anti-Semitic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism), homophobic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia) or fascist. Such an order means that certain groups or individuals are prevented from addressing trade union or student union events. The British National Union of Students (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Union_of_Students_%28United_Kingdom%29) has applied the no-platform policy to fascist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist) organisations such as the National Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front) and Combat 18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_18) and has, in the past, also applied this policy to Islamist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism) extremists such as Hizb ut-Tahrir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizb_ut-Tahrir), the Al-Muhajiroun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Muhajiroun) and the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Public_Affairs_Committee_UK)."


As i've pointed out, calling on the bourgeois state to censor and police political life -- something which Marxists categorically oppose -- is part and parcel of 'no platform' demands today.

So, when did trade unions and student unions become the bourgeois state?

I would fully support my student union denying student group funding and the ability to book space or stamp posters and all the benefits associated with student group status to any racist student group on campus. In fact, I'm pretty sure they have such a policy and have applied it in the past.




If you remember, Marxist radicals like Leon Trotsky called such people on the left 'traitors' and demanded that they 'leave the ranks of the working class'.

The butcher of Kronstadt is calling other people traitors and demanding they leave the ranks of the working class? You realize what Trotsky did to the last people he saw demanding "Freedom of speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech) and of the press for workers and peasants, for the Anarchists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism), and for the Left Socialist parties" and "The right of assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly), and freedom for trade union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union) and peasant organisations."

[Holden Caulfield]

Just to make a note: please dont start banging on about Kronstadt in this thread, make a new one if you want to debate that.

Your comment was in context, but i fear thr reply may start a fresh issue for debate.

[Vanguard1917]

It is not the same as asking to empower the bourgeois state. It can be compared to banning fascists from campus, because the Cable Street protesters did not hold a "counter-demonstration", they physically prevented the fascists from rallying, driving them out of their community with force.

Yes, but in what way is that similar to empowering the state and other establishment institutions to police debate, which is what 'no platform' means today?



There is no reason that revolutionaries cannot fight for a position of No Platform alongside a "no faith in the state" stance.

In practice and in the real world, however, 'no platform' means demanding state censorship and bans. You are, of course, free to form another conception of it in your own imagination. What i prefer to deal with, though, is what exists in reality. The 'no platform' position that i criticise is the one which actually exists.

[Pogue]

Well, to build upon the argument that seems to be going on here, I don't see how we can be opposed ot no-platform if it comes from the working class itself. I don't want to rely on the state for anything, because it takes away the active role ordinary people have to take in a revolutionary movement.

It also ignores the fact that in a heightened period of class struggle, building up to a revolutionary period, the state will be more than happy to try to silence us through physically enforced censorship.

The fight against fascism is part of the fight against reaction and oppresion which must be led by the ordinary people themselves. People learn and develop through struggle. Its very empowering and enccesary, more so than quietly asking the state to do it for us.

The people who criticise no platform from the 'liberal' perspective seem to suggest that all ideologies can be judged in worth as equal, but some are simply undesirable. Fascism is not just an ideolgoy the same as how one might be into liberlism or conservatism or social democracy. I'd say the same about 'capitalism' as a whole. Its dangerous, anti-working class movement that is contrary to democracy and freedom as a whole and so has to be dealt with as such. So we're justified, as a class, to attack it physically and also obviously ideologically because its counter to our interests as people who may be black, gay, libertarian etc, as well as working class people, because the working class always suffers under fascism (shit living standards, pointless wars, bans on unions, etc).

[Zurdito]

In practice and in the real world, however, 'no platform' means demanding state censorship and bans. You are, of course, free to form another conception of it in your own imagination. What i prefer to deal with, though, is what exists in reality. The 'no platform' position that i criticise is the one which actually exists.

Criticising it is only half the task. No revolutionary expects progressive movements to start out without contradictions, but we do not for that reason reject them flat out.