Pro-platform FAQ

[The Idler]

In response to "Free Speech FAQ"

1. What's wrong with bans on fascists/racists imposed by legitimate political parties? Everyone agrees racism and homophobia is wrong.

On 26 August 2011, possibly the largest antifascist organisation, Unite Against Fascism stated "We ... welcome the banning of the racist English Defence League’s march through Tower Hamlets.". In general, calling for authorities to ban fascists tends to lead to greater restrictions being imposed on the left such as the Public Order Act 1936 and Theresa May's ban in 2011. It also begs the question who decides what ideas constitute legitimate ideas.

Principles
2. Okay but isn't it in the interests of a free society to militantly deny fascists a platform?

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent (1992)

Tactics
3. But as leftists we should actively oppose fascism. Isn't the only alternative to no-platform then to ignore them? Fascist ideas pose the principal threat to our class and it would be foolish to simply ignore them.

No-platform has certainly dominated the left as the main tactic since World War II. No-platform is by no means the only tactic of opposing fascism. A wide variety of tactics have been tried including squaddism, working-class no-platform. Especially in the early 20th Century, the left would debate fascists on the same platform but with no less hostility to fascist ideas.
Debate with the British Union of Fascists 1935 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/hardcastle/debate_fascist.htm)

18th/19th November 2006 Weyman Bennett (UAF and SWP) shared a platform with Nick Griffin (BNP) BBC Radio 4.

17 February 2009 Weyman Bennett (UAF and SWP) shared a platform with Simon Darby (BNP) Play Radio.

This also carries the assumptions about what constitutes fascism, the level of the threat of fascist ideas, when capitalist ideas are the overwhelming ideas that are used to attack the working-class.

Safety
4. Can't no-platform only be used to stop violent thugs or hateful violent speech?

Violent thugs don't always seek a platform to organise. In fact, openly and publicly discussing ideas is at best embarrassing (see Nick Griffins appearance on BBC Question Time in 2009) for fascist mobs (see Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's appearance on BBC Asian Radio Network) and generally loses them support. Violence is much easier to justify with no discussion. Can we prevent the actions of the likes of Timothy McVeigh, C18, Tony Lecomber, David Copeland and Anders Brievik? If so, what is the best way to do it?

In any case, no-platform has been used against various debating society events with fascists and television appearances on debating panels. Workers aren't stupid, and when presented with the socialist case, they're capable of judging what is in their interests and what is not. The best conditions for the emergence of socialist consciousness and the withering of nationalist ideas is free and frank discussion not force.

Growth
5. Isn't no-platform (like Cable Street) proven to be effective at weakening fascist support? We should do anything to stop them growing and giving them a platform gives them a foothold and this is how they grow.

In the early 1920s, the Communist Party of Germany actively sought debate with NSDAP (Nazi Party) and Ruth Fischer and Hermann Remmele was among those who debated with them. It was not until 1923 when NSDAP stopped these debates (blaming them for lost members and waning influence), that NSDAP really experienced growth in support.

As Daniel Tilles observed in History Today, October 2011 "Seventy-five years on, the Battle of Cable Street [1936] still holds a proud place in anti-fascist memory, considered a decisive victory against the far right. In fact, the event boosted domestic fascism and antisemitism and made life far more unpleasant for its Jewish victims".

It was the rough-handling by fascist stewards at the BUF Olympia Rally in 1934 that the BUF lost the support of Lord Rothmere/Daily Mail and about 9 out of every 10 members left the organisation. At the world's biggest indoor meeting, having a platform diminished fascist support. Even the Communist Party stopped fighting them after Olympia.
In contrast to platforms, no-platforming has had thousands of supporters since the 1970s and fascism has as many supporters now as it did 70 years ago.
Some fascists do change and few such as Alex Miles (ex-BUF) and Ricky Tomlinson (ex-NF) even come over to the left.

Fascist supporters hovers around 0.01% of the general population under capitalism. It grows beyond this by a combination of economic conditions, ideas unchallenged by socialism (lack of class consciousness) and street mobilisations where they can legitimise force to resolve political differences and pose as persecuted victims of the establishment.

6. People don't care about free speech anyway. Its bourgeois.

Not only do the general public favour freedom of speech, fascists use freedom of speech to both bolster themselves and attack those arguing for no-platform. This fascist claim is a deception, fascists favour force over rational thinking and freedom of speech would be one of the first things to go under a fascist society.

7. Okay so where can I read/find more about this attitude to antifascism on the left?

The Socialist Standard and the Weekly Worker.
Who’s afraid of the BNP? (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2009/no-1259-july-2009/who%E2%80%99s-afraid-bnp)
How not to stop the BNP - Communist Party of Great Britain (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/779/hownotto.php)

[MarxSchmarx]

Interesting, on the whole I agree with the arguments.

But I also think they are of quite limited use, as the author establishes a strawman. There is a very real difference between a complete silencing of fascist voices (presumably the only "true" no-platform position) and leftist organizations not willing to waste finite resources on pretty much unilaterally giving these clowns yet another space to divide the working class. I highly doubt, for example, that a neo-nazi concert would be willing to feature an opening act by these guys (http://www.starbacks.ca/MadisonAvenue/1667/shp2.html)

The latter is the case with RevLeft. We don't let fascists come here and whine because we have bandwidth and stuff to worry about. There are plenty of other places in the whole wide web that they can spew their nonsense, so why should we subsidize them?

In short, I don't think the article adequately distinguishes between "pragmatic" non-platformism like the kind revleft engages in, and "theoretical" non-platformism which presumably would entail burning every copy of mein kampf and actively erasing any "fascist" email ever sent by anybody.

[Sasha]

It's all one huge strawman, in fact, this is beyond strawmans, this is plainly untruthfull
The only "leftists" in the buisness of demanding state interference and media (self) censorship are in fact the swp and their uaf front.
For militant antifascists no platform is way more literal, it means no platforms (no demonstrations, no meetings, no concerts, no organised presence what so ever) in working-class places like our neighborhoods, music scenes, football stadiums etc etc.
Again, we would never ask for bourgeois state bans so that chomsky quote is a big strawman, goebels and stalin deployed state terror, we are involved in community empowerment.
and if we say no platform in the media we are talking about ourselfs, not the media. We refuse to legitimise the fash by engaging in direct debate but that we dont talk with them that doesn't mean we wont talk about them nor engage and counter their lies and propaganda.
Militant anti-fascism might not be for everyone but stop spreading lies about those for who it is and stop masking cowardice with the presumption of a principled political position.

[Kamos]

1. What's wrong with bans on fascists/racists imposed by legitimate political parties? Everyone agrees racism and homophobia is wrong.

In general, calling for authorities to ban fascists tends to lead to greater restrictions being imposed on the left such as the Public Order Act 1936. It also begs the question who decides what ideas constitute legitimate ideas.

But this is the reformist way, so it is irrelevant.


Principles
2. Okay but isn't it in the interests of a free society to militantly deny fascists a platform?

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent (1992)

The bourgeois ideal of "free speech" doesn't apply to socialism. What good is free speech if exercising it means stepping on the rights of others?


Tactics
3. But as leftists we should actively oppose fascism. Isn't the only alternative to no-platform then to ignore them? Fascist ideas pose the principal threat to our class and it would be foolish to simply ignore them.

No-platform has certainly dominated the left as the main tactic since World War II. No-platform is by no means the only tactic of opposing fascism. A wide variety of tactics have been tried including squaddism, working-class no-platform. Especially in the early 20th Century, the left would debate fascists on the same platform but with no less hostility to fascist ideas.

This also carries the assumptions about what constitutes fascism, the level of the threat of fascist ideas, when capitalist ideas are the overwhelming ideas that are used to attack the working-class.

Fascist ideas don't pose the principal threat to our class; therefore, this paragraph doesn't apply to me.


Safety
4. Can't no-platform only be used to stop violent thugs or hateful violent speech?

Violent thugs don't always seek a platform to organise. In fact, openly and publicly discussing ideas is at best embarrassing for fascist mobs and generally loses them support. Violence is much easier to justify with no discussion. Can we prevent the actions of the likes of Timothy McVeigh, C18, Tony Lecomber, David Copeland and Anders Brievik? If so, what is the best way to do it?

In any case, no-platform has been used against various debating society events with fascists and television appearances on debating panels. Workers aren't stupid, and when presented with the socialist case, they're capable of judging what is in their interests and what is not. The best conditions for the emergence of socialist consciousness and the withering of nationalist ideas is free and frank discussion not force.

So what's the advantage of discussing stuff with fascists? Because the way you're presenting it, apparently we're supposed to chat with the fash on TV. What good would that be?
It was the rough-handling by fascist stewards at the BUF Olympia Rally in 1934 that the BUF lost the support of Lord Rothmere/Daily Mail and about 9 out of every 10 members left the organisation. At the world's biggest indoor meeting, having a platform did nothing and in fact literally decimated fascist support.

Actually, not literally. That would mean "1 out of every 10". The old Roman practice of "decimating" their own armies after losing meant that every 10th soldier gets executed.

[The Idler]

Okay have added some references in the OP and removed reference to "decimation".

1. You might think there's a difference between "revleft wasting bandwidth" (pragmatic no-platform) and "silencing all fascist voices" (theoretical no-platform). But then, just because you agree with pragmatic no-platform, doesn't mean you agree with theoretical no-platform. The OP doesn't address pragmatic no-platform since you can't force people to debate against fascists, its up to you.
2. Neo-nazis often refuse a platform for socialists, since they oppose freedom of speech and support force over rational thought ie. "might is right". Its not good enough to adopt the same tactics against them.
3. As for state bans being a strawman argument, and "The only "leftists" in the buisness of demanding state interference and media (self) censorship are in fact the swp and their uaf front." Aren't the UAF the biggest and the main antifascist organisation around?
4. The Chomsky quote applies to all censorship as much as it does state censorship, since it quite clearly compares "you" to the state censors. Censorship is disempowering.
5. If no-platform only applies to socialists not the media, then feel free to no-platform yourself.
6. Its not lies/cowardice/chat, since it involves defending against thugs, yes, but also making the case for socialism on platforms already hosting fascists and elsewhere. Community empowerment (thought I would prefer working-class empowerment), involves trusting us to understand and judge ideas for ourselves. Censorship is cowardice.

[Sasha]

@ 4, no not over here they are, in fact uaf doesnt exist and the IS jumped of that particular bandwagon ages ago.
@ 6, we dont do censorship, far from it in fact, we egage the fash on every level, even a physical one. call it an non-verbal political debate if you want.
@ the rest, wut? Strawman, wut?? whatever.

[fionntan]

"Non verbal political debate" class coining of a phrase im going use that one..:lol:

[The Idler]

Going around physically attacking fascists sounds impressive to macho hotheads but it fuels the fascist fire and keeps the spiral of violence going.

[Sasha]

Going around physically attacking fascists sounds impressive to macho hotheads but it fuels the fascist fire and keeps the spiral of violence going.

My 15 years in militant antifascism begs to differ, "the fascist fire" and "spiral of violence" always only ever became dangerous if we dropped our vigilance and didn't keep the pressure on (new) fash groups.
Also, in those 15 years if I had an actual physical altercation with the fash more than once a year it would be much, and 8 out of 10 would be in Germany anyway...
99% of our work is Intel, meetings, demo (organizing), education, writing articles, organizing benefits, running info stands at festivals etc etc etc.
If I was in it it for the macho violence I would have become a football hooligan.

Oh, and maybe you should come and look how well that "give them every platform they want" is working out in real life, geert wilders should be an excellent case study.

[The Douche]

Going around physically attacking fascists sounds impressive to macho hotheads but it fuels the fascist fire and keeps the spiral of violence going.

One time some friends and I stumbled across two members of a nazi crew and a probate. We set out after them and the two full members ran away, but the probate held his ground. He ended up unconscious on the ground with a broken knee and his patch cut off his jacket.

That kid dropped out of his crew and ended his involvement in the WP movement.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Workers aren't stupid, and when presented with the socialist case, they're capable of judging what is in their interests and what is not.

Honestly the talking points that are considered to be "mainstream political discourse" here in the states are not much more sensible than fascist rhetoric. A lot of empty god-and-country nonsense, and people (including those who are directly hurt economically by the policies of the political candidates they support) eat it right up.

But I appreciate a POV that's different from the mainstream left (or at least "clobber 'em over the head with a blunt object" seemed to me to be the left's answer to fascism, judging by this forum. There aren't many anti-fascists where I live, lol) so thanks for posting this.

[PhoenixAsh]

There is no legitimacy with neonazi's and fascists...these people are out to get us. Period. They are our enemy. Period. There is NO negotiation with that. Period.

What the hell do you think? Nazi's and Fascists suddenly going to be all lovy dovy because we give them a platform and argue with them?

That all of the sudden we give them free speech, their television shows, their own media, that this movement will become LESS dangerous?

What the fuck, dude?

Look at Russia. Look at the rightwing crypto-nationalist fascist scum all over fucking Europe. Look at fucking history. Apparantly liberals have learned NOTHING...are incapable of learning and do not understand fascism at all. Bourgeois laws to protect bourgeois democracy is to be rejected at all times.

BUT GIVING THEM A PLATFORM MAKES THEIR VIEWS LEGITIMATE AND ACCEPTABLE.

There is only one answer to fascism and that is fighting it tooth and nail with all means necessary.

[The Idler]

1. We should look at history. Roughly a century of fascism, antifascism and the fortunes of NSDAP and BUF begs to differ with the no-platform idea and anecdotes about kids dropping out of WP. How do you know he dropped out as a result of antifascism? Even the BNP has been losing members since BBC Question Time.
2. How many ideas have you been convinced of by use of force?
3. Geert Wilders who tries to distance himself from fascism (and particular European Fascists), calls his party, the party of freedom of democracy. Plenty of workers do hold nationalist and racist ideas. If you can address them, why not address fascists, why the fear of demolishing fascist ideas to fascists themselves.

That vulgar right-populist Thatcherites (such as Wilders) should be able to claim the mantle of free speech, tolerance and democracy would and should be challenged! But any challenge has to carry the bar on directly and publicly addressing them with how ludicrous their ideas are. If this were ever seriously tried, it could be more effective than all intel, meetings, demos, education, articles, benefits and festival stands put together!
4. The argument of legitimacy and acceptability is particularly dubious. Who decides legitimacy and acceptability? The main class enemy is capitalism, do we no-platform capitalists? Or are the likes of the Tea Party legitimate and acceptable?
5. If you fight fascism with "all means necessary" then by definition you don't exclude publicly expressing opposing ideas and directly addressing them when they express their ideas on platforms.

[PhoenixAsh]

1. We should look at history. Roughly a century of fascism, antifascism and the fortunes of NSDAP and BUF begs to differ with the no-platform idea and anecdotes about kids dropping out of WP. How do you know he dropped out as a result of antifascism? Even the BNP has been losing members since BBC Question Time.

Fascism in Germany and Italy grew because they had a platform. Because they had gotten political legitimacy and because people thought their ideas were valid positions to take as a result of that.



2. How many ideas have you been convinced of by use of force?

I do not need to convince people of ideas by use of force. I need them to get the fuck of my streets...I need them to be unable to organise and get their position across. I need to deter others from joining their ranks.



3. Geert Wilders who tries to distance himself from fascism (and particular European Fascists), calls his party, the party of freedom of democracy. Plenty of workers do hold nationalist and racist ideas. If you can address them, why not address fascists, why the fear of demolishing fascist ideas to fascists themselves.

Geert Wilders SAYS he wants to distance himself from fascism. He doesn't actually DO it.

So how would you go about demolishing fascist ideas? Please, pray...do tell...there are decades of evidence which proof you wrong. Yet you seem to be somehow under the mistaken impression that after the no platform policies of the mainstream political spectrum were lifted and relaxed and the far right actually managed to grow rapidly under these platform conditions....that MORE platform will actually make them grow less rapidly.


That vulgar right-populist Thatcherites (such as Wilders) should be able to claim the mantle of free speech, tolerance and democracy would and should be challenged! But any challenge has to carry the bar on directly and publicly addressing them with how ludicrous their ideas are. If this were ever seriously tried, it could be more effective than all intel, meetings, demos, education, articles, benefits and festival stands put together!

so...yeah...did you read what you wrote here?

If you do not think education works to convince people not to become fascist or prevent their organisations from growing then you may make a very educated guess at what confronting them after giving them a platform does.

All your ideas amount to is giving fascists more time and means to spread their ideology. And that will make their ideas and ideology not only reach a larger target audience...it will also mean a larger target audience will be exposed to those ideas more often and on a regular basis. Which means that they will become used to the idea as VALID idea to have and that it is valid to express and act on those ideas.

And THAT is the lesson you should learn from the far crypto fascist rights rise in Europe.

You don't think that Wilders ideas were confronted? Ridiculed and attacked on a argumentative basis? See what has happened?

THAT is exactly what is going to happen when you do the same with actual proper fascists.

It means their ideas become valid, that their ideas and the right to speak them will be protected and in a bourgeois society that means that you can no longer fight them NOR does it mean you can defend yourself against them effectively when (and not if) they grow larger and larger. Fascism then simply becomes a valid argument you can agree or disagree with.

It will however no longer be seen as a threat, something which needs to be countered and a position which you simply can not take.



4. The argument of legitimacy and acceptability is particularly dubious. Who decides legitimacy and acceptability? The main class enemy is capitalism, do we no-platform capitalists? Or are the likes of the Tea Party legitimate and acceptable?

Actually we do no-platform capitalism. But we simply do not have the power to no-platform capitalism because we operate currently in a society that platforms capitalism because it is dominated by capitalism as the ruling system. But the whole idea is that we no-platform capitalism as soon as we are able to do so. Hence the whole revolution thingy. Maybe you missed that.



5. If you fight fascism with "all means necessary" then by definition you don't exclude publicly expressing opposing ideas and directly addressing them when they express their ideas on platforms.

Except for the fact that I am not going to give them a platform....I will smash their meetings before they can happen, I will fight them from the streets. I will prevent their message from getting out there.

THAT is what no platform means. We can adress the ideas of fascism from a position of no-platform. We simply disallow them to argue or debate....or put in their two cents.

Your poposal comes down to legitimising fascism by giving them a platform. It is sickening and worrying that the far-left has become so infused with liberal ideas and ideology of actually aiding enemies dead set on killing us in getting their message across.

[robbo203]

Going around physically attacking fascists sounds impressive to macho hotheads but it fuels the fascist fire and keeps the spiral of violence going.


Absolutely spot on. Ask yourself a simple question - what attracts a young fascist thug to the cause? Among other things the thrill, the notoriety, the escape from the humdrum, and the attention. Physical confrontation by "macho hotheads" as The Idler so aptly puts it provides the very ingredients that make joining a fascist group seem all worthwhile . Generally speaking, your young fascist thug has a pretty low opinion of his or herself. This way they can gain a sense of esteem and purpose in life in an otherwise grim and alienated existence , utilising the supposed threat of outsiders to reinforce the bonding of insiders. Its what capitalist states do on a larger scale.


Ive always been opposed to this nonsensical approach to fascism of fighting fire with fire. It doesnt work and it has been proven not to work - the myth of "Cable street" notwithstanding. The best way to fight fire is to pour bucketloads of cold water on it. Actually, to be quite frank if you really want to quench the fascist fire then there's nothing like a rational argument levelled against them. It demoralises and disorientates them which is why they will tend to resist it and why "debating with fascists" is probably a bit of a non starter. All the same, if you catch the odd individual and try reasoning with them it can sometimes work. I personally know of one or two cases where it has worked and where the individual concerned has radically and remarkably enough shifted to a socialist perspective

The basic principle is sound - treat people like shits and they will remain shits, their prejudices entrenched and reinforced. And in case someone starts spouting on about this being a bunch of wishy-washy touchy-feely liberal hogwash I would say just one word: Bollocks! It is a clear case of scientific observation and empirical evidence. You cant change people by depersonalising them, by not separating the opinion they hold from the person who articulates it. And without any prospect of changing the person what hope is there for changing society itself?

[The Idler]

Fascism in Germany was stymied until they stopped debating communists and started breaking up each others meetings, after which NSDAP experienced growth. Likewise the BUF in Britain lost most of his support following Olympia.

Fascists love a good punch-up to legitimise their ideas (hey punching is better than reason) but they need someone to join in with the punch-up. Often they resort to punching other fascists unless there's someone else around.

If Tea Party ideas are illegitimate, why don't you no-platform them in the same way? Is Nationalism a "valid" idea when its Tea Party expressing it, but not when a fascist says it?

How do the streets belong to you? Are they your private property or only to be used by people who don't hold nationalist or racist ideas from expressing those ideas?

i would demolish fascist ideas by looking at all tactics used in history. Then look at the tactics that history shows as successful and what history shows as unsuccessful then applying those tactics.
Education is one tactic (which I did not say was unsuccessful).

I am not giving fascists time and means. Are you saying in a choice between Fascism and Socialism, that workers will choose Fascism unless they're forced off your streets?

Is the revolution you describe no-platforming capitalist ideas aswell? Who's going to be leading this revolution, the FCC?

Smashing meetings is the only sickening idea and if you'd read Weimar history, you'd know that among those who regularly smashed meetings (of any political persusasion other than themselves) were the Rollkommando unit of the SA (NSDAP).

[PhoenixAsh]

Fascism in Germany was stymied until they stopped debating communists and started breaking up each others meetings, after which NSDAP experienced growth. Likewise the BUF in Britain lost most of his support following Olympia.



Right. Reread your history. The DAP and subsequently the NSDAP rose in size and power because they had a platform. They were actually quite big....and they were continuously increasing in size because they were allowed to hold rallies, hold meetings, hold propaganda events and marches. Etc.

THAT is what gave the party its stable base. Had they been confronted in their first decades they would not have been able to secure a stable base.

Confrontations with the KPD and IF came later...in the late twenties....when the NSDAP had already managed to gain a large following....and large popular support/sympathy.


Fascists love a good punch-up to legitimise their ideas (hey punching is better than reason) but they need someone to join in with the punch-up. Often they resort to punching other fascists unless there's someone else around.

...


If Tea Party ideas are illegitimate, why don't you no-platform them in the same way? Is Nationalism a "valid" idea when its Tea Party expressing it, but not when a fascist says it?

I can not find a facepalm picure big enough here.

But yeah...lets use your Tea Party explamle. Giving them a platform has managed to marginalise that group splendidly :rolleyes:


How do the streets belong to you? Are they your private property or only to be used by people who don't hold nationalist or racist ideas from expressing those ideas?

Are you really suggesting that fascism is merely a set of racist and nationalist ideas?


i would demolish fascist ideas by looking at all tactics used in history. Then look at the tactics that history shows as successful and what history shows as unsuccessful then applying those tactics.
Education is one tactic (which I did not say was unsuccessful).

A well then you should know why you do NOT give fascists a platform....because what absolutely DID NOT work in curbing fascism is giving them a platform.

This however is also basic Marxist and Anarchist theory...capitalism will evolve into bonapartism and subsequently fascism....it is already inside the system...hence you do not give it a platform.




I am not giving fascists time and means. Are you saying in a choice between Fascism and Socialism, that workers will choose Fascism unless they're forced off your streets?

Yes...you actually are giving them time and means. You are giving them a platform by saying that they are allowed to express their views like a legitimate position to take and have the right to have this message broadcasted by any means to the general population. Your pro-platform policy means exactly that: giving them time and means to express their views in the mainstream.

I am saying that both will draw very popular support amongst workers and that they will have to clash....so why wait untill they are strong enough? You on the other hand seem to have the silly notion that arguing with fascists is something that will persuade fascists to deviate from their ways and will somehow be turned into good guys. This never happened in the past and it will never happen in the future because the nature of fascism does not allow it.



Is the revolution you describe no-platforming capitalist ideas aswell? Who's going to be leading this revolution, the FCC?

You have trouble understanding the concept of revolution? It quite literally means a rapid fundamental change in power....and in our context this is a complete change from one system to the next. And yes..that system defends itself by not allowing capitalism a platform in order to prevent the change to be undone an o****er revolutionary ideas and reactionary ideas to take hold. This is a very simple concept. Out whole goal is to disallow capitalists any form of power or platform.

I do not understand what your point is here.



Smashing meetings is the only sickening idea and if you'd read Weimar history, you'd know that among those who regularly smashed meetings (of any political persusasion other than themselves) were the Rollkommando unit of the SA (NSDAP).

Yeah...and HOW exactly were those fascists you are trying to "persuade" in becomming decent human beings allowed to manage to recruit enough strength to be able to do so....

OOOO...yeah thats right...by giving them a platform in the first place. :rolleyes:

hence...you just provided THE argument why to not allow the fascists and neo-nazi''s any form of platform.

[PhoenixAsh]

Absolutely spot on. Ask yourself a simple question - what attracts a young fascist thug to the cause? Among other things the thrill, the notoriety, the escape from the humdrum, and the attention. Physical confrontation by "macho hotheads" as The Idler so aptly puts it provides the very ingredients that make joining a fascist group seem all worthwhile . Generally speaking, your young fascist thug has a pretty low opinion of his or herself. This way they can gain a sense of esteem and purpose in life in an otherwise grim and alienated existence , utilising the supposed threat of outsiders to reinforce the bonding of insiders. Its what capitalist states do on a larger scale.


Ive always been opposed to this nonsensical approach to fascism of fighting fire with fire. It doesnt work and it has been proven not to work - the myth of "Cable street" notwithstanding. The best way to fight fire is to pour bucketloads of cold water on it. Actually, to be quite frank if you really want to quench the fascist fire then there's nothing like a rational argument levelled against them. It demoralises and disorientates them which is why they will tend to resist it and why "debating with fascists" is probably a bit of a non starter. All the same, if you catch the odd individual and try reasoning with them it can sometimes work. I personally know of one or two cases where it has worked and where the individual concerned has radically and remarkably enough shifted to a socialist perspective

Wauw....and I bet that really offset the thousands and thousands or far right extremists that join their ranks each day the world over. Yeah...your argument of changing the mind of the rare fascist induvidual has really persuaded me that your method will work...contrary to all historic evidence, all contemporary evidence and all logic. :rolleyes:



The basic principle is sound - treat people like shits and they will remain shits, their prejudices entrenched and reinforced. And in case someone starts spouting on about this being a bunch of wishy-washy touchy-feely liberal hogwash I would say just one word: Bollocks! It is a clear case of scientific observation and empirical evidence. You cant change people by depersonalising them, by not separating the opinion they hold from the person who articulates it. And without any prospect of changing the person what hope is there for changing society itself?

Yeah because rational arguments have worked so well in the past :laugh::laugh:


But lets put it in siple terms...where fascism is given a platform they have grown rapidly. Where they are denied a platform and confronted with DA and active and more often than not violent resistance or the threat thereof they have not and have actually deminished.

You two are spouting the most insane ideas and show complete ignorance of what fascism actually is....trying to portray it as some hothead riot magnet for youth trying to look for some rebellious action...instead of a very intelligent political movement with intelligent and cunning strategies which has managed to maitain its foothold contrary to all historic evidence of what happens and has managed to grow when given a porper platform.

I have only to point to Italy...where fascists are actualy a powerfull movement in the government...to point out the fallacy of your ideas.

Sjeesus christ...

[bricolage]

17 February 2009 Weyman Bennett (UAF and SWP) shared a platform with Simon Darby (BNP) Play Radio.
This isn't actually true, he refused to talk directly to him because that was constitute sharing a 'platform'.

Even the BNP has been losing members since BBC Question Time.
Also not really true, they had a 30% increase in membership applications following the show.

[fionntan]

I will use this example of DA against dialoge. A few friends in Dublin got wind of a few bone heads holding a meeting in a bar in Dublin they stalked about outside when the fash came out they pulled the ring leader to the side and told him to desist from these activitys. He reluctantly agreed. They left a month later the same filth had another meeting along with a band playing at it . It was attacked the occupants beaten the band beaten pub wrecked. The "Irish wolves" now dont excist except online. Now i know which action worked DO YOU???

[robbo203]

Wauw....and I bet that really offset the thousands and thousands or far right extremists that join their ranks each day the world over. Yeah...your argument of changing the mind of the rare fascist induvidual has really persuaded me that your method will work...contrary to all historic evidence, all contemporary evidence and all logic. :rolleyes:

Exactly the oppposite is the case. And, no, I am not suggesting that "debating with fascists" is neccessarily going to be immensely productive and, in fact specifically said this was most unlikely. By and large your avarage fascist will tend to shy away from rational debate because he or she probably intutively knows he or she will be on a hiding to nothing. That in itself is revealing. But neverthless in the case of the rare individual debate has worked



But lets put it in siple terms...where fascism is given a platform they have grown rapidly. Where they are denied a platform and confronted with DA and active and more often than not violent resistance or the threat thereof they have not and have actually deminished.

Actually, no, attempts to violently and proactively smash the fascists is actually giving them the publicity platform you claim to want to deny them. You are actually giving the kind of attention-seeking psychologically insecure, individuals predisposed to joining a fascist group, an added incentive for joining



You two are spouting the most insane ideas and show complete ignorance of what fascism actually is....trying to portray it as some hothead riot magnet for youth trying to look for some rebellious action...instead of a very intelligent political movement with intelligent and cunning strategies which has managed to maitain its foothold contrary to all historic evidence of what happens and has managed to grow when given a porper platform.


Really? You think I am the one spouting the insane ideas? Have a look at what you yourself wrote. On the one hand you scorn the idea that a fascist is amenable to rational argument; on the other; you portray fascism as "a very intelligent political movement" able to employ "intelligent and cunning strategies" to maintain its foothold. :rolleyes: So which is it then? It certainly can't be both!

I think you have an utterly naive and simplistic view of what motivates an individual to become a fascist. Ignore the points I made if you really insist on bury your head in the sand like an ostrich. I would contend with The Idler that a lot of what is called anti-fascist activism has only played into the hansds of the fascists and has proved to be worse than useless. It has actually been counterproductve. It has given fascism the oxegyn of publicity it so desparately needs.

Whats more - by promoting the idea that the way to deal with people who hold views that you despise is to violently suppress them it actually helps to create an environment in which fascist ideas can more easily spread. Not only that - and this is what really pisses me off about some anti-fascists - it is to take an elitist and somewhat arrogant view that ordinary workers need to shielded and protected from fascist ideas by not being exposed to them just in case they miught succumb to lure of its irrational message. That such an argument should be articulated by someone who calls himself an anarchist is all the more shocking in my view

[Sasha]

Absolutely spot on. Ask yourself a simple question - what attracts a young fascist thug to the cause? Among other things the thrill, the notoriety, the escape from the humdrum, and the attention. Physical confrontation by "macho hotheads" as The Idler so aptly puts it provides the very ingredients that make joining a fascist group seem all worthwhile . Generally speaking, your young fascist thug has a pretty low opinion of his or herself. This way they can gain a sense of esteem and purpose in life in an otherwise grim and alienated existence , utilising the supposed threat of outsiders to reinforce the bonding of insiders. Its what capitalist states do on a larger scale.


Ive always been opposed to this nonsensical approach to fascism of fighting fire with fire. It doesnt work and it has been proven not to work - the myth of "Cable street" notwithstanding. The best way to fight fire is to pour bucketloads of cold water on it. Actually, to be quite frank if you really want to quench the fascist fire then there's nothing like a rational argument levelled against them. It demoralises and disorientates them which is why they will tend to resist it and why "debating with fascists" is probably a bit of a non starter. All the same, if you catch the odd individual and try reasoning with them it can sometimes work. I personally know of one or two cases where it has worked and where the individual concerned has radically and remarkably enough shifted to a socialist perspective

The basic principle is sound - treat people like shits and they will remain shits, their prejudices entrenched and reinforced. And in case someone starts spouting on about this being a bunch of wishy-washy touchy-feely liberal hogwash I would say just one word: Bollocks! It is a clear case of scientific observation and empirical evidence. You cant change people by depersonalising them, by not separating the opinion they hold from the person who articulates it. And without any prospect of changing the person what hope is there for changing society itself?

Your initial isn't really that much off, but its the conclusion that is wrong, yes where ever the fash are the topboys having the run of the town, swagger around without impunity etcetc yes this attracts lots of recruits.. we know this, that's why we are in no way in to giving them a fair evensided fight; we harras them, we name and shame them, we get them while they are still small and unorganized, we target the promising natural leaders and leave the paranoid petty infighters alone etc etc.
We in no way believe that hitting some fash over the head will stop fascist ideas, but if the right people are targeted it will stop them organizing which in turn prevents their growth.
I have seen ample of fash dropping out or even switching sides, not because they had an sudden epiphany but they either where leaders and they relentlessly got targeted themselves and gave up, its not worth it to loose your job etc just so you can parade around once I a while under a hail of abuse. Or they where hangarounds who left because it became clear that the "glorious aryan soldier" was a big fat myth as their leaders couldn't even handle some scruffy pinko commie bastards picking on them

[fionntan]

Whats a pinko? Gay.. excuse my ignorance...

[PhoenixAsh]

Exactly the oppposite is the case. And, no, I am not suggesting that "debating with fascists" is neccessarily going to be immensely productive and, in fact specifically said this was most unlikely. By and large your avarage fascist will tend to shy away from rational debate because he or she probably intutively knows he or she will be on a hiding to nothing. That in itself is revealing. But neverthless in the case of the rare individual debate has worked

Actually, no, attempts to violently and proactively smash the fascists is actually giving them the publicity platform you claim to want to deny them. You are actually giving the kind of attention-seeking psychologically insecure, individuals predisposed to joining a fascist group, an added incentive for joining

No actually. Not one instance of violent action against fascist led to giving them a platform in the media. The event, the action, was televised and it, without fail, showed the incapability, incompetence and complete and utter defeat of the fascists being confronted and outnumbered. Nowheere has this led to air time of fascists to spout their ideology like you are suggesting.

And the facts show clearly that in areas where this happens there is a decrease of fascist activity and a decrease of membership of such organisations. As opposed to areas where they are allowed to have a platform...where they are actually growing in spite of often very lively and very intelligent counter arguments and debates.

So, no. Sorry. Your arguments simply do not hold up with reality.




Really? You think I am the one spouting the insane ideas? Have a look at what you yourself wrote. On the one hand you scorn the idea that a fascist is amenable to rational argument; on the other; you portray fascism as "a very intelligent political movement" able to employ "intelligent and cunning strategies" to maintain its foothold. :rolleyes: So which is it then? It certainly can't be both!

Yes it can be both....that is the whole fucking point. Because being amendable to rational arguments or not does not equal unintelligence in strategy and policy. :rolleyes: NOR does it mean that your own arguments are not rational.


I think you have an utterly naive and simplistic view of what motivates an individual to become a fascist.

Yes...I know you think that. And as I have pointed out...what you think about this subject simply does not correlate with fact. As I have also pointed out repeatedly you have already been proven wrong throughout history. Wherever your strategy has been implemented and tried...it utterly failed to reach the desired result.

Your idea that fascism draws only disenfranchised youth who are looking for rebllious ideology out of stupidity completely underestimates fascism as a political movement and instead focusses on a small subcultural segment of neo-nazi fringe groups to take that as a blueprint for everything in the far-right.


Ignore the points I made if you really insist on bury your head in the sand like an ostrich.

I am not ignoring your points. I am actually telling you that they do not work. I think your ideas are dangerous...I have indicated why I think they are dangerous...refering to historical precedence and facts and contemporary facts. They simply prove your theory wrong.

You on the other hand seem to be totally beholden to some idealistic liberal pipedream that freedom of speech means that you should give these people means and opportunity and the legal protection that comes with it to broadcast their ideology and that a nice debate will deter people from actually supporting fascism. This however has never ever worked...at all. In fact...it had quite the opposite effect.


I would contend with The Idler that a lot of what is called anti-fascist activism has only played into the hansds of the fascists and has proved to be worse than useless. It has actually been counterproductve. It has given fascism the oxegyn of publicity it so desparately needs.

hahaha...no actually.

The ONLY time that happend is when people actually stood behind lines and waved some flags and shouted slogans and cooperated nicely with the police to leave a march unopposed. You know...the very same liberals who are continuously going on about giving those fascists and neo-nazi's free speech.

When however they were actively confronted and driven away...THAT did not give fascism any form of publicity other than showing the ineffectiveness and consequence of being in such a parade.



Whats more - by promoting the idea that the way to deal with people who hold views that you despise is to violently suppress them it actually helps to create an environment in which fascist ideas can more easily spread.

blablabla. This is utter nonsense. This is not simply a group we despise. This is a group who ideologically is out to kill us. This is not some Í don't like him" phat. This is a struggle between mortal enemies....because when push comes to shove...it is either them or us....drawing from the very same pool as we do. And it shocks me to learn that you simply have no fucking clue about this...thinking fascism to be some harmless form of idiocy which we oppose out of some strange violent tendency we have and advocate a nice friendly debate to settle the issue.

Again: where fascism is confronted with DA...it decreases. WHere it is not...it increases.


Not only that - and this is what really pisses me off about some anti-fascists - it is to take an elitist and somewhat arrogant view that ordinary workers need to shielded and protected from fascist ideas by not being exposed to them just in case they miught succumb to lure of its irrational message. That such an argument should be articulated by someone who calls himself an anarchist is all the more shocking in my view

Yeah....because that has ALWAYS been the freaking case. The NSDAPs major support base was the working class. At a time when the KPD and SDP were major factions with real, active and open propaganda activities against fascism. The same in Italy, the same in Spain. The same in Greece. Why? Because it is an easy message that nicely fits in with what people know and are accustomed too...because your little pro-platform argument does not allow for the fact that there are many, many
influences on peoples motivations outside of rationality. Not to mention the fact that you seem to forget what we all know by now as fact...that fascism is much, much more acceptale for the ruling elite than communism and socialism. THOSE two forces combined means that giving fascism a platform means we are digging our own graves.

An eventually...no matter how much yuou jiggle your way around liberal arguments....eventually when fascism and socialism are the only two factions influencing the working class...they will collide. They will fight. Because we are not in anyway matcheable....and both ideologies are diamterically opposed.

And THAT is where the ruling elite will step in and legitimise and merge with fascism.

Yeah what is shocking to me is that you as a self proclaimed leftist are actually giving into liberal nonsense and have no clue as to what fascism actually is and what the dangers of it are.

:rolleyes:

[fionntan]

A big scotch mate of mine called into my house there this fella is a bit older than me around 40 odds AFA glasgow from no age been in jail over his actions he is talked about in Paul Birchhalls book Beating the facists. So needless to say a dedicated anti fascist. I asked him to do me a favor and read this thread needless to say he wasnt a happy camper with the liberals views and expressed solidarity with what he termed his comrades. And said let one of them liberals to of tryed to live in Glasgow when the fash were organising and beating us. Then we organised ourselves and more or less wiped them out.Fuck talking Fionntan as well you know they only understand one thing. I agreed:lol: