SPGB vs UKIP, 26 March 2014 - London

[The Idler]

'An Independent UK or a Socialist World?: (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/debate-ukip-south-london-700pm)

A debate between UKIP and the Socialist Party' (South London - 7.00pm) (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/debate-ukip-south-london-700pm)

Date:
Wednesday, 26 March 2014 - 7:00pm


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Yxi6eL62IJk/Uw7SYd12PyI/AAAAAAAALTo/QcTQiQ1bzWk/s1600/download.png

Venue: The Socialist Party's premises, 52 Clapham High Street, London SW4 7UN

Directions: About four minutes walk from Clapham North tube on the Northern line and three minutes walk from Clapham High Street station on the Circular Overground line.

Debate between Elizabeth Jones (No.3 on the UKIP list standing for the London region in the Euroelections in May)
and
Bill Martin (representing The Socialist Party, Merton & Wandsworth, London Assembly candidate in 2012)


Free admission and refreshments
Audience participation

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/debate-ukip-south-london-700pm

[Remus Bleys]

I am certain this will convince many people that were once reactionary and for the ukip are now going to be revolutionary Thanks to this debate!
Keep up the good work comrade!

[The Feral Underclass]

Why the fuck are you sharing a platform with these people?

[Thirsty Crow]

I am certain this will convince many people that were once reactionary and for the ukip are now going to be revolutionary Thanks to this debate!
Keep up the good work comrade!
It's debatable just how many people will see the debate either in person or filmed/transcribed.

I don't think that it's reasonable to assume SPGB holds that such debates are aimed at transforming organizations such as UKIP though.

[Remus Bleys]

It's debatable just how many people will see the debate either in person or filmed/transcribed.

I don't think that it's reasonable to assume SPGB holds that such debates are aimed at transforming organizations such as UKIP though.
What then is the justification of this debate if not to win the hearts of people? Anyone who will listen won't be swayed as their hardcore enough to be "immune" to debating. Anyone who could change their mind probably won't be interested in the debate.

[radiocaroline]

I predict a riot..

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Why the fuck are you sharing a platform with these people?

^^This. This is a fucking abomination.

[RedAnarchist]

Whatever happened to "no platform"? Fuck UKIP and fuck their nationalistic bullshit.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

this does seem a bit confusing tbh, aside from the fact that i can't see very much point in bothering to debate with Ukippers since they're usually utterly entrenched in a very parochial worldview is there really any need whatsoever tyo share a platform with them given that they literally haven't been out of the media for more than about twelve seconds in the last two years - among other things?

[Sea]

Why the fuck are you sharing a platform with these people?There better be trap doors under the platform.

[robbo203]

What then is the justification of this debate if not to win the hearts of people? Anyone who will listen won't be swayed as their hardcore enough to be "immune" to debating. Anyone who could change their mind probably won't be interested in the debate.

I think you are assuming there will be only SPGBers and UKIPers at the debate which is almost certainly an unwarranted assumption. It is probably towards the "undecided" that the debate will be mainly pitched

That aside, do not assume anyone is hardcore enough as not to be swayed. I personally know of a case of someone who was once a member of the National Front, becoming a revolutionary socialist through exposure to socialist ideas. It happens . Not often I grant, but it does happen.

To be honest, I consider a "no platform" approach to be utterly ridiculous anyway and not a little arrogantly elitist and patronising. Its like us ordinary workers have to be shielded by the glorious vanguard from exposure to the nationalisitic claptrap that UKIP peddle lest we succumb to it. Our feeble minds are incapable of withstanding the persuasive logic of the nationalists, see, so we must be prevented from hearing those arguments.

Bullshit. People get to hear those arguments anyway everyday on the TV and in the newpapers and its brilliant that, for once, we have a revolutionary socialist organisation standing up to those arguments and exposing them for the claptrap that they are. And yet here we have people calling themselves revolutionary socialists actually moaning about this. 'Feckin unbelievable.

[Remus Bleys]

Well Robbo, I seriously doubt any "undecided" will go to the debate.
And the no platform, ie the refusal to legitmize these ideologies, is elitist to you? Really? Ordinary workers have shit like hating gays or immigrants or women. Do we seriously need to have a polite little discussion about that or do we need to demand that unacceptable? Jesus, have a backbone.

[robbo203]

Well Robbo, I seriously doubt any "undecided" will go to the debate.
And the no platform, ie the refusal to legitmize these ideologies, is elitist to you? Really? Ordinary workers have shit like hating gays or immigrants or women. Do we seriously need to have a polite little discussion about that or do we need to demand that unacceptable? Jesus, have a backbone.

Whaaat? How in hell's name are you "legitimising" these ideologies by publicly attacking them? Thats absurd. I mean c'mon. Your postion is akin to that of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand and hoping it will all go away. The point you fail to see is that such ideologies are already legitimised in the eyes of many workers - one recent poll apparently put UKIP ahead of both Labour and the Conservatives - and you dont deprive them of credibility by ignoring them - you attack them. Talk about "having a backbone" - why would you wish to pass up the opportunity to show up UKIP for what it is. You are effectively allowing them to have a free run by your refusal to engage with them or at the very least, providing them with a convenient pretext for saying that their political opponents have no answer to the arguments they make and this is demonstrated by their spineless refusal to debate.

Though Im not a member of the SPGB , knowing the SPGB as I do, I have no doubt that UKIP will walk away from this debate, thoroughly humiliated and trounced. The seeds of doubt will have been sown in those that might otherwise have been inclined to support some aspects of the UKIP case. You say you " seriously doubt any "undecided" will go to the debate" . I dont know on what grounds you say that. Have you been to an SPGB debate before? Ive been to a few when I lived in the the UK and I certainly did not get that impression .

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

So when did the tactic of "no platform" become a holy principle?
Seeing how the right has grown (substantially more than the left) despite this "no platform" tactic, it might be time to reconsider strategy and see "no platform" as nothing more than just a tactic appropriate for some situation but by no means for all.

[#FF0000]

Errrr since when is UKIP a fascist party? What does "No Platform" have to do with this? They're nationalists? Isn't every bourgeois party?

[#FF0000]

gonna cite "No Platform" when my friends wanna hang out but i don't want to

[bricolage]

I would love to see the list after the event of how many 'undecideds' turn up.
I really don't think it will be any at all. This thread is probably the most interest the event will get.

[bricolage]

but #FF0000 is right, UKIP aren't fascists.
they're far more dangerous.

[robbo203]

I would love to see the list after the event of how many 'undecideds' turn up.
I really don't think it will be any at all. This thread is probably the most interest the event will get.


Well, we will all have to wait and see. I suspect you will be proved wrong. But, that apart, I imagine the debate will be videoed and seen by many more people than attend it. I presume there will be reports in the local press and elsewhere too



but #FF0000 is right, UKIP aren't fascists.
they're far more dangerous.

All the more reason, then, to publicly attack them and shred their arguments to bits. How often does such an opportunity come the way of a revolutionary socialist organisation and yet we have here revolutionary socialists actually wanting to pass up on that opportunity and let UKIP carry on as usual unimpeded and unhindered by any opposition to the nationalist nonsense it peddles. Nationalist nonsense which, I may add, the so called "Labour" Party and the Tories equally endorse. Incredible. Absolutely incredible Sometimes I despair of the revolutionary Left with its head in the sand attitude towards politics

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

All the more reason, then, to publicly attack them and shred their arguments to bits. How often does such an opportunity come the way of a revolutionary socialist organisation and yet we have here revolutionary socialists actually wanting to pass up on that opportunity and let UKIP carry on as usual unimpeded and unhindered by any opposition to the nationalist nonsense it peddles. Nationalist nonsense which, I may add, the so called "Labour" Party and the Tories equally endorse. Incredible. Absolutely incredible Sometimes I despair of the revolutionary Left with its head in the sand attitude towards politics

This.
It's really ridiculous to have "no platform for fascists" and "no platform for the extreme-right" (one can argue whether or not UKIP is that) when all the other bourgeois parties are just as big proponents of nationalism, chauvinism etc. Not only that, with the ridiculous No2EU nonsense the left has put forward in recent years it has granted just as much legitimacy to Farage and the like's nationalist claims. "Bash the fash" or "no platform" can be a perfectly sensible tactic in certain cases. When a working class immigrant neighbourhood gets threatened to smashed up by, actual, fascists, or when trade-unionists or leftists get attacked by, actual, fascists it makes perfect sense to organise for working class self-defence and "bash the fash". But to see the existing ruling bourgeois parties as somehow less dangerous than UKIP when it comes to a nationalist message is ridiculous and practically a support for bourgeois rule of law constitutionalism.

[The Feral Underclass]

All the more reason, then, to publicly attack them and shred their arguments to bits.

But for what purpose? What is the objective of "shredding their arguments to bits"? Who is that going to affect? For whose benefit are you shredding their believes?

I mean the liberal democrats are very keen to follow this strategy, but that's because the liberal democrats have electoral ambitions; it's being televised and they will be able to appeal to voters.

That's not the case for the SPGB. And let's be clear here: you are essentially legitimising the views of the far-right by giving them a platform -- and by giving them the courtesy of listening to their beliefs -- in order to do something that will achieve nothing of any substance, other than to show that you are right and they are wrong. And I am farily certain there are better methods of achieving that objective without undermining a long-standing principle of not sharing platforms with and engaging the far-right.


How often does such an opportunity come the way of a revolutionary socialist organisation and yet we have here revolutionary socialists actually wanting to pass up on that opportunity and let UKIP carry on as usual unimpeded and unhindered by any opposition to the nationalist nonsense it peddles

An opportunity for what, exactly? To "shred their views"? Well, that doesn't seem to be to be a very useful allocation of your time considering a) you don't have any electoral ambitions, b) no one of any relevance is going to actually see this debate and c) it does nothing to actually mobilise against them.


Nationalist nonsense which, I may add, the so called "Labour" Party and the Tories equally endorse. Incredible. Absolutely incredible Sometimes I despair of the revolutionary Left with its head in the sand attitude towards politics

Such outrage and for what? If you seriously think people criticising the pointless vanity exercises of the SPGB is the difference between good socialist practice and bad, then you have woefully misjudged the necessary priorities of revolutionaries.

[Q]

In addition to what Robbo and Creep have already said, I'd like to point out that the 'no platform' dogma often means that we're isolating ourselves. UKIP et al will keep public debates regardless and large audiences will turn up at these debates. By walking away and refusing to engage with these very real influences, it just means we're 'no platforming' ourselves.

[The Feral Underclass]

In addition to what Robbo and Creep have already said, I'd like to point out that the 'no platform' dogma often means that we're isolating ourselves.

Only if you misunderstand the nature of a no-platform policy. It's not isolating to argue that the far-right shouldn't be given a right to free speech. It is an anti-liberal position, sure, but it's not isolating. It is the truth and the basis for rank-and-file organising.


UKIP et al will keep public debates regardless and large audiences will turn up at these debates. By walking away and refusing to engage with these very real influences, it just means we're 'no platforming' ourselves.

They are not a "very real influence," unless you are firmly seated on sensationalist BBC bandwagon. They have the potential to be, but that's why rank-and-file mobilisation is fundamentally key and why sharing platforms that legitimise the existence of their beliefs is not.

Of course it is no surprise that CWI members are jumping to this tune. After all, you are electioneers and you view political organising as a means to build the form, not as one that is about genuinely empowering working class people. Giving the far-right a platform to free speech is just par for the course of your incoherent pragmatism and instrumentalist worldview.

[Q]

Of course it is no surprise that CWI members are jumping to this tune. After all, you are electioneers and you view political organising as a means to build the form, not as one that is about genuinely empowering working class people. Giving the far-right a platform to free speech is just par for the course of your incoherent pragmatism and instrumentalist worldview.
Sorry to pop your balloon, but the CWI majority is pretty hardline no-platform.

[The Feral Underclass]

Sorry to pop your balloon, but the CWI majority is pretty hardline no-platform.

Then what's your excuse?

[Q]

Then what's your excuse?
I have to explain to an anarchist the concept of personal political positions and not simply blindly following majority positions?

[The Feral Underclass]

I have to explain to an anarchist the concept of personal political positions and not simply blindly following majority positions?


Well firstly I wouldn't really call myself am anarchist, but whatever and secondly yes, you have to explain yourself when your opinions give the far-right a platform to free speech.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Q]

Well firstly I wouldn't really call myself am anarchist, but whatever and secondly yes, you have to explain yourself when your opinions give the far-right a platform to free speech.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The far left is not in any position to give or deny a platform to the far right. That is my point: The racist right will have a platform regardless of us. Most of the times, we'll simply deny ourselves a platform of free speech.

[The Feral Underclass]

The far left is not in any position to give or deny a platform to the far right.

Erm, the far left have been doing it for years. Of course we're in such a position. Could that position be stronger? Yes it can, but it isn't going to be strengthened by abandoning it as a principle for organising.


That is my point: The racist right will have a platform regardless of us. Most of the times, we'll simply deny ourselves a platform of free speech.

Your point would be valid if being on the platform with them was the only option. It isn't a choice between be on a platform with them or silence ourselves. That view simply highlights your lack of ambition and analysis.

[Remus Bleys]

gonna cite "No Platform" when my friends wanna hang out but i don't want to

Its not mine or anyone elses fault but your own that you can't distinguish between the life of the party and the life of the individual.

[Krasnyy]

Whatever happened to "no platform"? Fuck UKIP and fuck their nationalistic bullshit.

Umm isn't the UKIP just a Civic nationalist party?

[ed miliband]

Only if you misunderstand the nature of a no-platform policy. It's not isolating to argue that the far-right shouldn't be given a right to free speech. It is an anti-liberal position, sure, but it's not isolating. It is the truth and the basis for rank-and-file organising.


i thought the nature of no-platform policy, back when it was formulated as a tactic rather than a principle, was that fascists are a street force already, so doing anything to engage with them on a political level will - obviously - only serve to give them the legitimacy they desire. the far-right already have that legitimacy (in some senses), they're no longer really a street force (certainly not as they were in the 70s/80s), ukip certainly have that legitimacy and they never were a street force. i don't see how no platform really applies here, and in general think taking it up as a principle rather than a tactic is a moral choice rather than anything else. also, anything beloved of nus / labour hacks is probably isn't that "anti-liberal", really.

i mean, the spgb have a long history of debating political opponents from across the spectrum, inc. much further right than ukip, and this isnt the first time they've debated them. i can't say i really see the point, tbh. i just don't see where the grounds for discussion is... like, the spgb, their history, their idea of socialism, etc. must seem so alien and weird the most of their opponents that they probably think they're loons. i certainly don't think any "undecided" people will turn up, so it just seems incredibly pointless to me. but whatever, it gives the spgb a reason to exist.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

In addition to what Robbo and Creep have already said, I'd like to point out that the 'no platform' dogma often means that we're isolating ourselves.

I think you're burying your head in the sand if you think that the reason the left in Britain is isolated is that it doesn't debate with the far-right.

[Q]

I think you're burying your head in the sand if you think that the reason the left in Britain is isolated is that it doesn't debate with the far-right.
I'm not sure where I said that or how you can conclude that from what I said.

[Hit The North]

I think it would be inappropriate to no-platform UKIP.

Having said that, the SPGB's position on no-platform has always been consistently based on a misunderstanding of what no-platform is. This is because as a strictly propagandist organisation they see political meetings as merely the exchange of ideas and don't locate them within the wider strategic context of politically organising. This is because they don't organise politically as a party outside of having meetings and publishing literature.

I would love to see this meeting, though, between the SPGB and UKIP. It should be hilarious. Complete bafflement on both sides with a yawning chasm of political indifference in between.

[Sentinel]

It is absolute nonsense that denying the far right a platform means 'burying ones head in the sand'. Just because we mobilise workers to disturb and stop far right meetings and rallies instead of taking part in them to 'debate', it doesn't mean we can't debunk their arguments.

It's perfectly possible to do that without engaging in discourse and debate with them directly and thus legitimising them. Now I don't know ebough about the character to of UKIP to debate that perhaps, but they certainly fall in the far right category although populist rather than fascist.

But it is a fact that the spreading of especially fascist, but far right in general, views have been delayed and hindered, and in certain areas completely stopped by mass mobilisation of workers on the basis of no platform. It is not always successful but it is the way to go if we want to hinder their views of spreading and becoming accepted and mainstream.

That happening anyway is despite it, due to the present powerful political, social and economic circumstances, not because of it.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It is absolute nonsense that denying the far right a platform means 'burying ones head in the sand'.


I don't know if this was a response to me, but I was saying the opposite - that attributing the left's isolation to a no-platform policy is burying one's head in the sand, not that no-platform itself is burying one's head in the sand.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

It is absolute nonsense that denying the far right a platform means 'burying ones head in the sand'. Just because we mobilise workers to disturb and stop far right meetings and rallies instead of taking part in them to 'debate', it doesn't mean we can't debunk their arguments.

It's perfectly possible to do that without engaging in discourse and debate with them directly and thus legitimising them. Now I don't know ebough about the character to of UKIP to debate that perhaps, but they certainly fall in the far right category although populist rather than fascist.

But it is a fact that the spreading of especially fascist, but far right in general, views have been delayed and hindered, and in certain areas completely stopped by mass mobilisation of workers on the basis of no platform. It is not always successful but it is the way to go if we want to hinder their views of spreading and becoming accepted and mainstream.

That happening anyway is despite it, due to the present powerful political, social and economic circumstances, not because of it.

UKIP is mainstream so "no platform" is rubbish in this case. UKIP would probably get a majority or at least win a lot in a European election. As for being accepted by the mainstream, the mainstream already accepts bourgeois nationalist chauvinist ideology. So you are basically legitimising bourgeois rule of law constitutionalism here because you see fascists as somehow more of a danger in that regards than the accepted bourgeois parties. Now it is kinda funny how a trot would basically accept Dimitrov's anti-fascism.

I agree that organising working-class self-defence against fascists is justified but to raise "no platform" to something more than a tactic in certain cases you completely miss the point.

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

Isn't the whole point of UKIP just to leave the EU? Isn't that the main thing they care about?
What makes them far-right and so horrible? (I'm not defending them, just curious)

[Sentinel]

I don't know if this was a response to me, but I was saying the opposite - that attributing the left's isolation to a no-platform policy is burying one's head in the sand, not that no-platform itself is burying one's head in the sand.

Yeah we agree with each other, it wasn't in response to you, I guess I forgot in which post I saw the expression.

***

Creep, as said above I will leave debating the nature of UKIP to those more familiar with it. But I will say that the Sweden democrats - who are ex-fascist, very racist and still definitely more than just right wing populist - are also mainstream now. And should definitely not have a platform.

And I definitely disagree that mainstream, established bourgeois parties in the western context and fascism should be regarded as equally dangerous to workers organising in the current context. Obviously I do reject cooperation or popular fronts with any bourgeois party, but we have to have a more nuanced view than equating them with the fascists.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Creep, as said above I will leave debating the nature of UKIP to those more familiar with it. But I will say that the Sweden democrats - who are ex-fascist and still definitely more than just right wing populist - are also mainstream now. And should definitely not have a platform.

And I definitely disagree that mainstream, established bourgeois parties in the western context and fascism should be regarded as equally dangerous to workers organising in the current context. That is an ultra left/left communist view, not a trotskyist one, so you shouldn't be all surprised I disagree with it.

No platform is the negation of marxism. You are de facto saying that the bourgeois state are lesser proponents of bourgeois nationalism. You are basically undermining every kind of marxist lesson on the state. Insofar as fascism is a threat we organise in united fronts for working-class self-defence but any kind of apologism for bourgeois rule of law constitutionalism is rubbish and leaves all of your politics to be a bunch of crap.


Obviously I do reject cooperation or popular fronts with any bourgeois party, but equating them with fascism is simply ridiculous. Yes, they are dangerous as well, ultimately quite dangerous in a revolutionary situation. But still not the same thing at all.

They are just as big proponents of bourgeois nationalism. Fascists will attack us, sure. So we organise for working class self-defence against fascism. Why, however, do you draw the line when it comes to a platform to fascists? The ideas of fascists are just as much about order, national-chauvinism etc. as the 'mainstream' bourgeois parties. Either you think the bourgeois state and the established parties are less big proponents of it and thus you are undermining any kind of marxist analysis of the state or you are just being inconsistent. Both cases are laughable at best, dangerous at worst.

[ed miliband]

They are just as big proponents of bourgeois nationalism. Fascists will attack us, sure. So we organise for working class self-defence against fascism. Why, however, do you draw the line when it comes to a platform to fascists? The ideas of fascists are just as much about order, national-chauvinism etc. as the 'mainstream' bourgeois parties. Either you think the bourgeois state and the established parties are less big proponents of it and thus you are undermining any kind of marxist analysis of the state or you are just being inconsistent. Both cases are laughable at best, dangerous at worst.

yeah, that's the other thing about no platforming. obviously it makes sense not to invite some fascist thugs to "debate" because there's no doubt it'll cause the potential of violence to arise, put people's safety at risk, etc. i don't quite think that risk lies with inviting ukip to debate.

so jumping on ukip as a particularly bad group to share a platform with, against others who do a far better job of defending the state and capital, spreading bigotry, etc. seems to imply to me there is something "worse" about ukip than the rest. which i don't think is the case, really.

[ed miliband]

for anybody interested - and it is quite interesting given how bizarre some of it is - here's a list of people the spgb have debated over the last century or so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_Great_Britain_debates

some very famous names on there, actually.

[Sentinel]

But no platform precisely makes sense for self defense reasons. Giving fascists a platform to speak, hold rallies etc will increase their confidence, make them grow, and thus increase their violence as well. Violent nazi groups are the tail of the far right populists, they also increase when the other does, hence no platform for them either.

Of course now, far rightism is a consequence of capitalism (in decay) in general, so in theory one could draw the conclusion no platform for right wingers' then. But in practice it wouldn't work; so we do oppose capitalism, but no platform for any right wingers would simply not be tenable. That would be isolationism from mainstream debate, and making our case impossible to put forward in practice.

The bolsheviks banned the proto-fascist black hundreds immediately after the revolution, but no other parties, and I think that was a sensible approach for tactical reasons. I think that is how we should operate around this question.

[The Feral Underclass]

i thought the nature of no-platform policy, back when it was formulated as a tactic rather than a principle, was that fascists are a street force already, so doing anything to engage with them on a political level will - obviously - only serve to give them the legitimacy they desire. the far-right already have that legitimacy (in some senses), they're no longer really a street force (certainly not as they were in the 70s/80s), ukip certainly have that legitimacy and they never were a street force. i don't see how no platform really applies here and in general think taking it up as a principle rather than a tactic is a moral choice rather than anything else

They may have legitimacy in the eyes of certain people, but they should not have legitimacy in the eyes of the far-left. Just because some people listen to them, doesn't mean we should give them an opportunity to speak.

I can understand the temptation to view UKIP, or similar far-right groups that are not specifically fascist, in this way. There is an ease to dismissing the no-platform principle with groups that don't fit into traditional extreme-right political demographics, but I think ultimately the reasons for that position are based on a superficial reading of the terrains in which these groups exist.

UKIP et cetera don't exist in a vacuum; they haven't just randomly sprung out of no where, there is a growing discontent amongst certain sections of white working class communities (expressed in many ways by the chap on Question Time last Thursday who stormed out), and UKIP offer an understanding and ultimately solutions, no matter how inaccurate or ill-conceived they are, which appear mainstream and accessible to more apathetic and/or moderate people from those communities.

But what happens when those ideas start to get traction? What happens when UKIP gain more and more power and bigger swings to the right happen? Do you think the extreme fringes of the far-right are going to disappear? Perhaps become redundant? Of course they aren't. They will become emboldened and consolidated in ways that strengthen their resolve and their strategies. The further far-right society becomes, the easier it is for actual fascists to create momentum.

Our strategy against the far-right cannot be so myopic as to focus solely on those organisations that fulfil the traditional criteria you talk about. The situation is far more complex than it was forty years ago.

When I talk about no-platform as a principle, I do so in the context of it being used as a tactic. It is not enough to simply say that no-platform is a tactic that must be used only when certain prescriptions are satisfied, it has to be the fundamental principle -- the bedrock -- of how we engage the far-right. No-platform applies in this situation not because it is traditional or familiar, but because it is not those things -- because the extreme far-right poses unforeseen threats that are expedited by the successes of their more moderate counterparts.

In summary, no-platform policies against groups like UKIP should be seen as part of a wider strategy against fascists. We cannot be complacent. Even if my analysis is incorrect, are you willing to take the risk?


also, anything beloved of nus / labour hacks is probably isn't that "anti-liberal", really.

I'm not really sure how that makes sense.

[The Idler]

I would respond to the critics here but I'm no platforming them.

No wait, of course I'm not, I'm actually going to try and address their points.


'Legitimacy' (political) is not a notion I recognise nor should Anarchists especially.
Pragmatically, Ukip are putting their political perspective on mainstream TV, Radio and press regularly. The SPGB are not even invited to do so. This debate raises the profile of socialism more than the opponent.
No platform FAILS in the present. The most spectacular recent example is in 2009 when Nick Griffin appeared on BBC Question Time and since then the BNP support has tumbled.
No platform FAILS historically. Whether its 1920s Germany and Europe or 1970s Britain, wherever it has been applied, its record has largely been failure and growth in fascist support.
By the nature of their relationship to the means of production, all workers, however currently hostile, are capable of changing their minds and coming to socialist conclusions.
How are Ukip so dangerous that verbal opposition makes them more dangerous than vain attempts at censoring them? Ukip has actually pulled the rug out of the violent far right.
Clearly some of those insisting Ukip should be no platformed have listened to the politics of Ukip and not been convinced. Why shouldn't workers have the same opportunity to listen to the arguments as the would-be censors? As previously stated, it's elitist.
The SPGB have never signed up to 'no platform' invention and always argued against it, publicly roasting fascists over the years. No platform comes from groups who can only motivate members on hysterical grounds of some unspeakable (because they no platform it) danger that grows every time it is voiced.
Various spurious comments including some worse than even the Trots (arguing 'weird', 'loons', 'reason to exist', 'strictly propagandist', 'bafflement' etc.) such as from The Anarchist Tension 'there are better methods of achieving that objective without undermining a long-standing principle of not sharing platforms with and engaging the far-right.' and ' a) you don't have any electoral ambitions, b) no one of any relevance is going to actually see this debate and c) it does nothing to actually mobilise against them.'
The alternatives FAIL to address the politics and pragmatically FAIL too. Among the alternatives are ignoring them, shouting at them, following them, marching against them, persecuting them, beating them up, censoring them ourselves, getting someone else to censor them. Debating is not a magic wand but it is more effective than the others.

[Sea]

Whaaat? How in hell's name are you "legitimising" these ideologies by publicly attacking them? Thats absurd. I mean c'mon. Your postion is akin to that of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand and hoping it will all go away. The point you fail to see is that such ideologies are already legitimised in the eyes of many workers - one recent poll apparently put UKIP ahead of both Labour and the Conservatives - and you dont deprive them of credibility by ignoring them - you attack them. Talk about "having a backbone" - why would you wish to pass up the opportunity to show up UKIP for what it is. You are effectively allowing them to have a free run by your refusal to engage with them or at the very least, providing them with a convenient pretext for saying that their political opponents have no answer to the arguments they make and this is demonstrated by their spineless refusal to debate.

Though Im not a member of the SPGB , knowing the SPGB as I do, I have no doubt that UKIP will walk away from this debate, thoroughly humiliated and trounced. The seeds of doubt will have been sown in those that might otherwise have been inclined to support some aspects of the UKIP case. You say you " seriously doubt any "undecided" will go to the debate" . I dont know on what grounds you say that. Have you been to an SPGB debate before? Ive been to a few when I lived in the the UK and I certainly did not get that impression .Remember that we're talking about the SPGB here. IF they were publicly attacking the fash, that's one thing, but chances are they'll be shaking each other's hands and thanking each other for the wonderful debate.

[The Idler]

Remember that we're talking about the SPGB here. IF they were publicly attacking the fash, that's one thing, but chances are they'll be shaking each other's hands and thanking each other for the wonderful debate.
Do you know anything about the SPGB or are you just making it up as you go along?

[robbo203]

But for what purpose? What is the objective of "shredding their arguments to bits"? Who is that going to affect? For whose benefit are you shredding their believes?

That has been answered already. It is for primarily for the benefit of the undecided, I would imagine. Its unlikely that any hardline UKIPers would be swayed by SPGB eloquence though I dont rule that out completely. Over and above that I presume the debate would be publicised locally and at the very least might prompt curiousity locally - not to mention such things as feedback from youtube presentations and the like



I mean the liberal democrats are very keen to follow this strategy, but that's because the liberal democrats have electoral ambitions; it's being televised and they will be able to appeal to voters.

And your point is?



That's not the case for the SPGB. And let's be clear here: you are essentially legitimising the views of the far-right by giving them a platform -- and by giving them the courtesy of listening to their beliefs -- in order to do something that will achieve nothing of any substance, other than to show that you are right and they are wrong. And I am farily certain there are better methods of achieving that objective without undermining a long-standing principle of not sharing platforms with and engaging the far-right.

Weve been here before havent we? You are NOT - repeat "not" - legitimising the views of the "far right" by debating with them and attacking them publicly. This is absurd. It is an abuse of the english language to call it "legitimisation". You might just as well argue that no revolutionary socialist should ever mention the words "racism" or "nationalism" because by acknowleging such things exists you are "legitimising" them. Well Ive got news for you. They are going to continue existing notwithstanding your "long-standing principle of not sharing platforms with and engaging the far-right". Most workers are nationalists and probably even racist to a degree, unfortunately. So what you gonna do , huh? Ignore fellow members of our class rather than engage with them and try to persuade them against that way of thinking?. Oh its very fine and dandy to intone your internationalism in little obscure publications which hardly any worker reads but when it comes to a flesh-and-blood workers talking to you face to face you gonna ignore them when when they spout their nationalism out of fear that by taking them on you might just be legitimising those views? Pull another one.

The elephant in the room which many on the left simply refuse to face up to is that overwhelmingly the working class support, or at the very least acquiesece in, capitalism . Unless this is directly addressed as opposed to issuing pious proclamations essentially to each other rather than the working class as a whole , you aint gonna go anywhere

Its holier-than-though attitudes like this, this narrow minded cretinous tendency of the Left to stick its head in the sand which explains why it is more or less a laughing stock for most workers , an irrelevance - a kind of "Popular Front of Tooting" object of satirical mirth. To a great extent the Left has been its own gravedigger, never mind capitalism. Ultimately your long standing so-called "principle" will produce an outcome of tiny little and steadily shrinking coteries of like minded sectariains speaking to no one else but themsleves. This is the logic of what you arguing for




An opportunity for what, exactly? To "shred their views"? Well, that doesn't seem to be to be a very useful allocation of your time considering a) you don't have any electoral ambitions, b) no one of any relevance is going to actually see this debate and c) it does nothing to actually mobilise against them.

Im not a member of the SPGB so I cannot speak for them but everything you say here is incredibly presumptuous, is it not? What makes you so certain that this is not a very useful allocation of time and wtf do you mean by "no one of any relevance is going to actually see this debate". You have to start from somewhere if revolutionary ideas are ever to gain influence. Every worker is relevant and if even just one worker eventually comes to be a socialist as a result of this encounter with UKIP then the exercise would have been well worth it. I know from my own experience that it was by pure accident that I came across revolutionary socialism . Events such as these increase the probability of individuals like me stumbling upon such ideas




Such outrage and for what? If you seriously think people criticising the pointless vanity exercises of the SPGB is the difference between good socialist practice and bad, then you have woefully misjudged the necessary priorities of revolutionaries.

Sorry but this is dire. Absolutely dire. What the fuck is the " difference between good socialist practice and bad" What does that even mean in real down-to-earth terms? The priority of revolutionaries is surely to spread revolutionary ideas among our class - what else? - not to adopt a smug self satisfied posture of adherence to some woolly abstract "principle".

To its credit the SPGB is at least getting off its backside and doing something about spreading revolutionary ideass. Most of the left, when it is not busily burrowing into overtly capitalist parties like Nu Labour or touting its ridiculously reformist "transitional demands" (which most workers can already see are completely unrealistic under capitalism) or indeed when it is not dragging the good name of socialism through the mud by identitying it with the politics of state capitalism, is actually doing precious little if anything about promoting revolutionary ideas among our class.

Mock the SPGB if you will, if it makes you a little happier, but show me how you have done any better. I doubt if any of you can

[Derendscools]

huh

[Q]

No platform FAILS historically. Whether its 1920s Germany...
As a point of fact: The KPD did debate the nazis in the 1920's. This did not mean they 'shook hands' or any of that nonsense, quite on the contrary. In fact, this thread convinces me that most 'no platformers' have a rather disdainful view of the working class, as if it ought to be 'shielded' from 'wrong' views or something.

[The Feral Underclass]

That has been answered already.

Not really. My question was designed to understand the importance of the reasons given. I wasn't looking for you to restate the reasons.


It is for primarily for the benefit of the undecided, I would imagine.

For what purpose? To convince them? To mobilise them? What is the purpose of benefiting the undecided? It seems to me that you think the answer to that question is perfectly obvious, but I don't think it is that obvious. I think it is very unclear why and how this particular exercise will form some particular purpose.


Its unlikely that any hardline UKIPers would be swayed by SPGB eloquence though I dont rule that out completely. Over and above that I presume the debate would be publicised locally and at the very least might prompt curiousity locally - not to mention such things as feedback from youtube presentations and the like

This paragraph just strikes me as being nothing more than hopeful. It seems that you don't really know how it will be useful, you just hope that it will be.


And your point is?

My point is that debates for bourgeois parties are for electoral purposes, which makes debating them seem all the more pointless.


Weve been here before havent we? You are NOT - repeat "not" - legitimising the views of the "far right" by debating with them and attacking them publicly. This is absurd. It is an abuse of the english language to call it "legitimisation". You might just as well argue that no revolutionary socialist should ever mention the words "racism" or "nationalism" because by acknowleging such things exists you are "legitimising" them. Well Ive got news for you. They are going to continue existing notwithstanding your "long-standing principle of not sharing platforms with and engaging the far-right".

One of the fundamental problems with combating the far-right is the hegemony of the liberal concept that everyone is entitled to free speech. This point-of-view, pervasive in its nature, mystifies the revolutionary argument that the far-right should not and can not have a right to free speech, which is an important argument to make in the fight against them.

It is a fact that, in the long term, we are in battle with the far-right, and the terrain in which we are fighting is reality itself. By not fighting the liberal concept of free speech, we deliberately cripple our efforts to fight effectively.

The word 'legitimisation' means 'to legitimate', which means, in this context, to demonstrate to be valid. By sharing a platform with them, by giving them the opportunity to speak and by providing them the courtesy of listening -- within the confines of an organised public event -- you are literally demonstrating them and their views to be valid in the eyes of those people whose attention you apparently crave. It is literally the definition of 'legitimisation', whether you intend it to be or not.


Most workers are nationalists and probably even racist to a degree, unfortunately. So what you gonna do , huh? Ignore fellow members of our class rather than engage with them and try to persuade them against that way of thinking?

But as has already been highlighted, you are setting up a false-dichotomy. It isn't a question of debating the far-right or ignoring the class. That is simply not the choice that has to be made.

The question that you and the SPGB should be asking yourselves is, 'how do we effectively engage with the class and defend our interests?' Providing the far-right with a platform and engaging their views as if they were a legitimate entity only hinders our interests and in actual fact does very little to engage the class; it is basically a conversation between two political parties. Providing that opportunity isn't a particularly engaging activity -- it provides no mobilising, empowering or practical benefit to the proletariat.


Oh its very fine and dandy to intone your internationalism in little obscure publications which hardly any worker reads but when it comes to a flesh-and-blood workers talking to you face to face you gonna ignore them when when they spout their nationalism out of fear that by taking them on you might just be legitimising those views? Pull another one.

But they're not actually talking to any workers, they're talking to Ukip, so what exactly are you talking about?

What is being described here -- this debate -- is not one between workers. It is not the SPGB talking about nationalism and racism with a community of workers, it is a public debate in which you talk to members of Ukip.


The elephant in the room which many on the left simply refuse to face up to is that overwhelmingly the working class support, or at the very least acquiesece in, capitalism . Unless this is directly addressed as opposed to issuing pious proclamations essentially to each other rather than the working class as a whole , you aint gonna go anywhere

The statement: 'the working class...acquiesce in capitalism' is axiomatic. It is such a redundant statement it is practically meaningless. Obviously that is true...The issue here is not that the 'left' are refusing to face up to these issues, it's that they are facing up to these issues in ways that reject your tactics. That is something you simply have to accept.

In any case, addressing the issue of capitalist ideological hegemony can only come through building institutions of proletarian power. It is through action that working class acquiescence is addressed, not through the debate of ideas by two political parties.


Its holier-than-though attitudes like this, this narrow minded cretinous tendency of the Left to stick its head in the sand which explains why it is more or less a laughing stock for most workers , an irrelevance - a kind of "Popular Front of Tooting" object of satirical mirth. To a great extent the Left has been its own gravedigger, never mind capitalism. Ultimately your long standing so-called "principle" will produce an outcome of tiny little and steadily shrinking coteries of like minded sectariains speaking to no one else but themsleves. This is the logic of what you arguing for

It is interesting that you have managed to develop your analysis of my views based entirely on the phrase 'long standing principle of no-platforming'. Since no actual details in regards to what is meant by that phrase have been given, I am confused at what it is you're actually arguing against...

What do you imagine 'no-platform' means? What do you imagine this alternative proposal to debating the Ukip is, exactly? I am genuinely baffled by your intransigence, because it seemingly comes from no where.

Once again we are presented with this false-dichotomy. Either we debate Ukip or we put our head in the sands -- these are apparently they only two options to you. Well of course in that case you debate Ukip, because putting our head in the sand is just a silly idea. But of course, 'putting our head in the sand' isn't actually the alternative, is it?


Im not a member of the SPGB so I cannot speak for them but everything you say here is incredibly presumptuous, is it not? What makes you so certain that this is not a very useful allocation of time

Well, I answered that question in the quote you made...


a) you don't have any electoral ambitions, b) no one of any relevance is going to actually see this debate and c) it does nothing to actually mobilise against them.


wtf do you mean by "no one of any relevance is going to actually see this debate". You have to start from somewhere if revolutionary ideas are ever to gain influence. Every worker is relevant and if even just one worker eventually comes to be a socialist as a result of this encounter with UKIP then the exercise would have been well worth it.

I am only guessing, but I assume these meetings aren't very well attended. That is true in my experience.

But revolutionary ideas don't gain influence through being talked about, they gain influence through action. Ultimately what is this worker going to take away from seeing this debate? What practical difference is it going to make to their lives?

These debates exist outside of the worker. They are an external thing that is presented to them for consumption as a spectator. The come, they watch, they leave. Watching SPGB and Ukip members discuss ideas in the abstract don't actually provide anything useful. What is a worker going to take away from seeing this debate?


I know from my own experience that it was by pure accident that I came across revolutionary socialism . Events such as these increase the probability of individuals like me stumbling upon such ideas

But stumbling across ideas isn't really useful to a worker unless they have practical benefits. The ideas of revolutionary socialism have to have practical relevance, otherwise why would they be interesting to someone who has no job or can't claim benefits et cetera.

You are approaching the building of a counter-power in the incorrect way. In essence, it is an idealist attitude to think that someone just has to 'stumble' across revolutionary socialism, and that this is somehow a benefit. Well, what is it benefiting? So someone stumbles across revolutionary socialism...Now what?

The ideas of revolutionary socialism should not be seen as something to strive to believe, they should be seen as tools to achieve objectives. It is a methodology by which we organise the material nature of reality. These debates do nothing to advance that objective.


Sorry but this is dire. Absolutely dire. What the fuck is the " difference between good socialist practice and bad" What does that even mean in real down-to-earth terms?

You presented the objection to this debate as being the same as 'putting your head in the sand', which I assumed related to the use of good tactics vs bad tactics. That is what I meant.


The priority of revolutionaries is surely to spread revolutionary ideas among our class - what else? - not to adopt a smug self satisfied posture of adherence to some woolly abstract "principle".

No, it should not be the priority. The priority of revolutionaries should be finding ways to build proletarian power by practical application of socialist methodologies.


To its credit the SPGB is at least getting off its backside and doing something about spreading revolutionary ideass. Most of the left, when it is not busily burrowing into overtly capitalist parties like Nu Labour or touting its ridiculously reformist "transitional demands" (which most workers can already see are completely unrealistic under capitalism) or indeed when it is not dragging the good name of socialism through the mud by identitying it with the politics of state capitalism, is actually doing precious little if anything about promoting revolutionary ideas among our class.

Either this is just hyperbole or you really have a myopic view on what the left does. Perhaps you are just not aware of the activities of the left, but it is most definitely not as limited as you seem to think. The activities are not always very good, but they certainly exist.


Mock the SPGB if you will, if it makes you a little happier, but show me how you have done any better. I doubt if any of you can

It is interesting that someone who is defending 'debate' as a necessary tool for building revolutionary consciousness, would have such contempt towards those who wish to engage in it with them.

I am sorry that we do not agree with your point of view, but that is the nature of debate, I'm afraid.

[The Idler]

Surely on your terms, by discussing 'the liberal concept of free speech' here (including for the far right) you are 'legitimising it'.
Or by not calling for revleft to censor the SPGB posts you are 'legitimising it'.
Or by posting in Opposing Ideologies (or facebook, twitter or youtube) where UKIP members might post you are 'legitimising it'.

By not talking to opponents you create an echo chamber and a recipe for another sect, the opposite of proletarian power.

Saying the working-class support capitalism is not redundant, it suggests the working-class reject the left tactic of no platform. In 2009 when BBC Question Time had Nick Griffin on, ' The programme was watched by over 8 million people, the highest in the 30-year history of Question Time, and nearly triple the programme's normal audience of two to three million.' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_Time_British_National_Party_controversy#c ite_note-Guardian23Oct09Anxiety-35)

Fetishing action is meaningless since 'action' falsely excludes 'talking' and sets up a false dichotomy.

If you (or anyone) came along to any SPGB debate you would not find yourself censored unlike 'left actions' which I am very familiar with.

[Hit The North]

Given that UKIP is not a fascist party and does not have racist policies (but many racist members, no doubt), the point is not the SPGB's attitude to no platform (as liberal and clueless as it is), the point is what the SPGB hope to achieve from debating with this bunch of mickey-mouse Tories. It cannot be to attend to the political needs of workers who are close to socialism or are already reformist socialists but not yet won to revolution because, plainly, no one like that, except for the odd terminally confused punter, would contemplate voting for UKIP or be close to them politically.

In other words, there is no audience for a debate on "Little Englander nationalism or revolutionary international socialism?" The idea that there would be is absolutely ludicrous and speaks to the utter absense of any strategic approach by the SPGB - a group so isolated that they'll talk to anyone.

The wonder is why UKIP can be bothered to waste everybody's time with this debate.

I'm looking forward to the SPGB's imminent debate with Combat 88: "Abolition of the wage system or setting fire to immigrants?" :rolleyes:

[The Feral Underclass]

Surely on your terms, by discussing 'the liberal concept of free speech' here (including for the far right) you are 'legitimising it'.
Or by not calling for revleft to censor the SPGB posts you are 'legitimising it'.
Or by posting in Opposing Ideologies (or facebook, twitter or youtube) where UKIP members might post you are 'legitimising it'.

I am not opposed to the idea of discussing far-right views. I am opposed to giving political organisations who have far-right political objectives a public forum in which to promote those objectives and attempt to win people's votes.

Aside from it being completely unprincipled, it is tactically incompetent to provide mortal enemies (and I mean that literally) the potential to promote their views and objectives.

Now I understand that people are using this argument that Ukip aren't fascists, and that is true, but I have addressed that argument here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2728660&postcount=45).


By not talking to opponents you create an echo chamber and a recipe for another sect, the opposite of proletarian power.

But the far-right are not simply opponents, they pose a direct threat to the establishment of proletarian power in ways that liberal democracy do not. This liberal, universalist attitude you have is part of the problem too. It's not a question of applying the same principle to everything.

Debate opponents is all fine and well, but we also have to understand the terrain in which we are fighting. Some debate is necessary and justified and should happen, and then there is some debate that serves only to hinder our political objectives or put us in danger.


Saying the working-class support capitalism is not redundant, it suggests the working-class reject the left tactic of no platform.

I never it said it was. There is difference between 'support' and 'acquiesce'. But I reject the notion that working class people 'support' capitalism.


In 2009 when BBC Question Time had Nick Griffin on, ' The programme was watched by over 8 million people, the highest in the 30-year history of Question Time, and nearly triple the programme's normal audience of two to three million.' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_Time_British_National_Party_controversy#c ite_note-Guardian23Oct09Anxiety-35)

I don't understand what is significant about 8 million people watching a television programme...


Fetishing action is meaningless since 'action' falsely excludes 'talking' and sets up a false dichotomy.

I am not making a rejection of 'talking'.

The nature of robbo's point was that debates such as these create revolutionary consciousness. My point is that it isn't debate that creates revolutionary consciousness, it is struggle that creates it.


If you (or anyone) came along to any SPGB debate you would not find yourself censored unlike 'left actions' which I am very familiar with.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

[PhoenixAsh]

The fact that UKIP has "pulled the rug" from under the militant right...as somebody stated in the thread...is exactly the reason why everybody should be worried as hell about this party.

As the SPGB arguments go...the UKIP is already legitimized by national media and other parties. So in other words this is a lazy, unprincipled publicity stunt in order to tail gate on the UKIP popularity/attention. Rather than organizing against UKIP and arguing against them from a public forum...we are now actually using the right wing to get attention. :mad: And nobody in the SPGB sees the huge gaping cognitive dissonance and unprincipled opportunism here?

This off course goes hand in hand withe the traditional position of the SPGB on fascism and anti-fascism....which is basically ameliorating fascist expansion among the working class because they refuse to adequately oppose it.

Why the UKIP even bothers to debate with this fringe hobby club is beyond me. The question really is why would UKIP give legitimacy to the ~500 sectarians??

[blake 3:17]

In fact, this thread convinces me that most 'no platformers' have a rather disdainful view of the working class, as if it ought to be 'shielded' from 'wrong' views or something.

Thank you for summing up my position so eloquently!

[The Feral Underclass]

Thank you for summing up my position so eloquently!

Except that Q doesn't understand what 'no-platform' means. You might think it's eloquent, but it's also misguided.

[PhoenixAsh]

No platform not only means we do not allow fascists to take a podium with us. It also means we do not take a podium with them. It also means we do not give them the possibility of claiming a podium anywhere else.

The failure to grasp the necessity of this tactic astounds me. I especially loved the argument that NPP is anti-Marxists...I would retort that anti-NPP is liberal.

The argument the UKIP already has a platform is a knee-jerk reaction.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

i reiterate that the only reason i think that this debate isn't a good idea is because as popular as UKIP may seem they actually have a fairly narrow mandate among the population drawn predominantly from people who do not make a habit of changing their minds. Statisticly speaking, the party's main supporters are white men over the age of 50 who with overwhelming predominance were previously long-term tory voters. Argue as you might that it could increase awareness for a socialist worldview, but I really don't see how it could be any different to talking at a brick wall.

I'm sympathetic to the SPGB in many respects but all things considered I really don't see the utility in this, I don't see how it will turn out as anything but a slanging match between two utterly opposed sides.


although on a side-note - UKIP, fascists - really? They're utter shitheels and hardcore nationalist-lite neoliberals with members espousing a wide variety of wacko reactionary beliefs and certainly UKIP espouse ideas counter to the interests of the working class - but they aren't fascists.

[PhoenixAsh]

UKIP isn't fascist. It is a more extreme variant of the Canadian reform party...which incidentally completely looks down on UKIP. The danger of UKIP however is that its open racism in the 2012-2013 program attracted an amount of racists, far right and even neo-fascist supporters. Its members have individual ties to far right and ultra nationalist parties and, in fact, so does the UKIP as a party.

As such it functions as a bridge party between "mainstream bourgeois" parties and the far right. It functions as a legitimizer of increasingly more extreme views.

[robbo203]

Not really. My question was designed to understand the importance of the reasons given. I wasn't looking for you to restate the reasons.
For what purpose? To convince them? To mobilise them? What is the purpose of benefiting the undecided? It seems to me that you think the answer to that question is perfectly obvious, but I don't think it is that obvious. I think it is very unclear why and how this particular exercise will form some particular purpose.

Surely this isnt that difficult to work out? Why do you think two different points of view are debated? Obviously , it is because the protagonists on both sides wish to persuade or convince the other or, more particularly, some third party that their point of view is the right one.

I would argue that the fundamental task of revolutionaries is to spread revolutionary ideas. It may not be the only thing that revolutiuonaries do but it lies at the very heart of what revolutionaries do. To quote Willaim Morris socialists are basically involved in the business of "making socialists" You can't have a revolution without revolutionaries and you certainly cannot have a socialist revolution without a majority of the working class embracing revolutionary ideas beforehand. How do workers come to embrace revolutionary ideas? Through class struggle. But class struggle itself is amongst other things, a battle of ideas. Workers dont just mechanically react to their material conditions of employment and - hey presto - become revolutionaries That is just a crass a mechanistic view of materialism. They become revolutionaries by engaging with the ideas they encounter which means amongst other thing breaking free of stanglehold of ruling class ideas.

So the propagation and dissemination of ideas matters vitally and anyone who denies this is either, in my view a complete fool or a fraud. It is interesting that you should see some on this forum who take up a "no platform" postion vis a vis the far right - our would-be public censors and pettifogging people' commisssars - see fit to sneer at what they call "abstract propagandism", namely the idea that socialist revolutionareis need to engage in disseminating socialist ideas. Its strike me that there is something of contradiction here: why try to suppress the ideas of the far right if you dont think the dissemination of ideas has any real impact? You have to wonder what these same individuals are doing on this forum obsessively promoting their "big idea" that promoting ideas doesn't matter

One final point - I have encountered on this forum, more than once, the stupid (and I would say hypocritical) argument that trying to persuade fellow workers to become socialists by advancing the case for socialism - whether in a public debate or any other format - is "vanguardist" and "elitist", that it assumes "you know best" and the workers are only a dumb mass that needs to be led. That doesnt stop those making this idiotic claim from advancing their own ideas in debates with others and therefore by implication assuming they are right and those they debate with, are wrong. But the truly nonsensical aspect of all this lies in what it seems to imply. So several million members of the British working class vote for UKIP. According to our hypocrites, on the face of it what this means is that we should refrain from being judgemental. We should not consider or opine that the ideas that lead a worker to vote UKIP are wrong and ill founded because, well, that would be "elitist" and "vanguardist". You can see how this kind of wonky logic can help to support the batty idea that socialists should not debate against UKIP. Actually, if those individuals who advance this argument were honest with themselves what this would literally mean is extending a no platform approach to literally everyone who disagrees with them. So you dont debate with others or question their ideas if you dont like those ideas. All you do is deny them the right to express those ideas! Great way to settle an argument and change people's minds

I take the opposite approach. It is those who sneer at the disemmeniation of socialist ideas, who seek to apply a "no platform" to the far right and make matryrs of the latter, on the grounds that the pernicious ideas of the far right might contaminate the supposedly weak willed members of the working class - it is they who are the real elitists and vanguardists in all this. Their attitude reminds me of the 9 o clock television schedule designed to protect little children from televison programmes of an adult nature. After 9pm the kiddies are whisked off to bed so mum and dad can watch a bit of naked flesh. So it is with our puritans on the revolutiuonary left. They dont trust in the ability of workers to make up their own minds. They need guidance from above and that means closing down certain political channels to the working class completely. Oh to be sure, our leftist puritans with their superior intellects can withstand the threat of nationalist contamination but not the childlike workers they patronisingly look down upon and claim to "represent".




My point is that debates for bourgeois parties are for electoral purposes, which makes debating them seem all the more pointless.


The thing about political debates is that they concentrate or condense the aforementioned battle of ideas that is going on in the wider society. They are actually are rather good learning experience for that reason. I couldnt care a toss what bourgeois parties use debates for. The point is that in this case, they pit the idea of revolutionary socialism against that of bourgeois nationalism and force individuals to think about it . Socialists dont often get this opportunity and yet incredibly there are so called socialists here who see fit to question this. What planet are these people living in?



One of the fundamental problems with combating the far-right is the hegemony of the liberal concept that everyone is entitled to free speech. This point-of-view, pervasive in its nature, mystifies the revolutionary argument that the far-right should not and can not have a right to free speech, which is an important argument to make in the fight against them.
It is a fact that, in the long term, we are in battle with the far-right, and the terrain in which we are fighting is reality itself. By not fighting the liberal concept of free speech, we deliberately cripple our efforts to fight effectively.


Sorry but this incoherent drivel. I mean what the fuck is the all this about - "the terrain in which we are fighting is reality itself". Pretentious codswallop more like. What you dont seem to see is that by arguing that the far right should not have any right to free speech, that this makes you unwittingly a de facto lackey and bootlicker of the capitalist state. The irony of you calling yourself an "anarchist" is all the more striking for that. How else are you going to ensure that the far right is denied the right to free speech except by calling upon the state to effect such an outcome? That is what it will come down to in the end once you start talking about who can and who cannot have the right to free speech. You are effectively inviting the state to step in and adjudicate on the matter of free speech, thereby reinforcing and extending the repressive power of the state. But be aware - there is no guarantee that the state once its starts repressing the far right and denying its fredom of speech won't start to do the same thing to you


Saying the far right does not, and cannot, have a right to free speech hardly constitutes "an important argument to make in the fight against them". Actually all it does is make you look pathetically weak . It suggests you have dont have any sound arguments to make against them and that you are fearful that their arguments might carry some weight among the working class. Which is why you have to resort to banning them and proscribing them and preventing them for having their say instead of taking on their arguments in a public debate and refuting them.

I think your position is ridiculous. I say let the far right have their say. Lets see them wriggle and squirm as they try to justify the unjustifiable. Rational argument is by far the most potent weapon that can be used against them. It is the one thing capable of defusing all the bravura and the mish mash of emotional ill thought sentiments that inspire (mainly young and male) disempowered members of the working class to flock to the banner of ultra nationalism. The testosterone-charged atmosphere they revel in , the tribalistic gang culture they glory in which sees people of other cultures and nations as the alien enemy against which they can unite, cannot withstand the rational case for socialism. It is akin to pouring water on a blazing fire whereas what you are doing is pouring a can of gasoline on the latter. And worse still you are enabling them to pass themselves of as the defenders of free speech

So, yes, I am fully confident, even if you are not, that the nationalists dont have a leg to stand on . And I am fully confident in my fellow workers being able to see this even if you are not




The word 'legitimisation' means 'to legitimate', which means, in this context, to demonstrate to be valid. By sharing a platform with them, by giving them the opportunity to speak and by providing them the courtesy of listening -- within the confines of an organised public event -- you are literally demonstrating them and their views to be valid in the eyes of those people whose attention you apparently crave. It is literally the definition of 'legitimisation', whether you intend it to be or not.


Once again, this is nonsesne. You are confusing the ideas people hold with the people who espouse those ideas. You dont "legitimate" the ideas by attacking these ideas in a debate. That doesnt make any sense, does it? You might have a pioint in saying that you legitimise or validate the individuals with whom you are engaging ain a public debate but what of it? Why is that such a bad thing? Even a fascist is a human being who posesses a brain and is capable of rethinking and reassessing his or her position. Appealing to that capacity for rational thinking is the achillies heel of fascism. I make no apolofgy ofr the fact that I have myself engaged in political argument with oand out and out fascists and a couldnt care a monkeys what the politically correct puritans on the revolutionary left might think of that. Like it or not it or not it is precisely these kinds of people and the millions more in the maintread who endorse nationalistic sentiments who will have to be persiaded to see through the claptrap that is nationalism if we are going to make progress to a socialist world. Is such a world what the revolionaary left aspires to? I sometimes wonder myself Strikes me that not a few on the Left are more concerned with adopting a moral posture - rrrrrrrevolutonary poseurs - than with a pragmatic goal of changing society




But as has already been highlighted, you are setting up a false-dichotomy. It isn't a question of debating the far-right or ignoring the class. That is simply not the choice that has to be made.

The question that you and the SPGB should be asking yourselves is, 'how do we effectively engage with the class and defend our interests?' Providing the far-right with a platform and engaging their views as if they were a legitimate entity only hinders our interests and in actual fact does very little to engage the class; it is basically a conversation between two political parties. Providing that opportunity isn't a particularly engaging activity -- it provides no mobilising, empowering or practical benefit to the proletariat.

But they're not actually talking to any workers, they're talking to Ukip, so what exactly are you talking about?
What is being described here -- this debate -- is not one between workers. It is not the SPGB talking about nationalism and racism with a community of workers, it is a public debate in which you talk to members of Ukip.


It is amusing that having accused me of making a false dichotomy you go on to make one yourself. This debate is not one between workers you claim. Really? The SPGB is a party of workers. UKIP is no doubt also overwhelmingly a party of workers. And people attending the debate who belong to neither SPGB or UKIP will no doubt also be overwhelmingly workers. I hate to have to break this to you gently but political parties are made up of INDIVIDUALS. Thats right - individuals like you and me, who are most members of the working class (which constitutes over 95% of the population), Individuals who are fully capable of reflecting on matters, changing their minds and switching from one political party to another. It has happened before, you know, unless you have led such a sheltered political life as not to have been aware of this


But the larger point you completely overlook is this - thats UKIP´s nationalism merely articulates ideas that are widely held within the British working class. You find UKIP´s nationalism objectionable . So do I. But your argument seems to be that because its views are objectionable therefore we should not debate with organisations like UKIP. But hold on here. The overwhelming workers ALSO hold views that are objectionable. Most are nationalistic and even probably racists to a degree.

So what you are gfoing to do about the overwhelming majority of your - our - class who hold such objectionable views, Are you going to wag your finger at them like the nanny state and say "I will not allow you to express such views. You dont have any right to express such views" Get real. All you will get out of that is well deserved ridicule and the perhaps even the odd head butt. You have to learn to engage with fellow workers as they are and not as you want them to be. Unfortunately most on the Left don't know how to do that. Most on the left seem intent upon imposing a thoroughly romanticised idea of what the working class ought to be on the working class itself and mistaking the reality for the ideal. The idea of debating with rabid working class nationalists offends the Left's precious sensibilities of the what the working cclass ought to be so they block it out by counterposing one thing against the other - "the workers" on the one hand and the nationalist groups on the other. As if workers can't be nationalists. This is very clearly demonstrated by your own inept and nonsensical assertion that the SPGB is "not talking to workers" but only to UKIP. So for you it is not workers who are nationalists but organisations like UKIP that somehow exist as disembodied free-floating abstract entities that hover over the working class, not entities that in real life are comprised of real workers

And therein lies the fundamental inconsistency in your whole approach. So you happily propose that organisations like UKIP should be denied the right to free speech but overlook that such organisations consist of individuals who hold the very ideas you regard as repugnant. If it is indeed the ideas that you regard as repugnant what are you going to do about the individuals who hold them? To be consistent you would have to advocate denying individuals who comprise such organisations the right to express their views wther inside or outside such organisations. In fact the logical outcome of that is the fully fledged police state patrolled by squadrons of thought police. So much for your "anarchism"

There is a final twist to this whole argument which is as follows. It is no coincidence that those who sneer at abstract propagandism , the dissemination and debating of ideas, are very often the same individuals who argue that something called "material reality" mechanistcally produces or throws up ideas. Yet if the ideas they want to suppress (by denying those who want to express those views the right to do so) are indeed the "product" of this "material reality" then there is little they can do to prevent them from cropping up, is there? So why in that case attempt to do something that your own theory leads you to believe cannot be done? If capitalism produces nationalist or racist ideas what is the point in trying to suppress them inside a capitalist society? On the face of it what they are arguing for is predicated on a perspective of pure idealism in which sheer political will prevails over material condistions. The irony of so called materialists taking up such a position all could not be keener



The statement: 'the working class...acquiesce in capitalism' is axiomatic. It is such a redundant statement it is practically meaningless. Obviously that is true...The issue here is not that the 'left' are refusing to face up to these issues, it's that they are facing up to these issues in ways that reject your tactics. That is something you simply have to accept.
In any case, addressing the issue of capitalist ideological hegemony can only come through building institutions of proletarian power. It is through action that working class acquiescence is addressed, not through the debate of ideas by two political parties.


You say the fact that working class acquiesce in capitalism is axiomatic yet you fail competely to understand what follows on from that. How are you going to deal with widespread ideas among the working class that hegemonically sustain capitalsm by preventing organisations that articulate these ideas from freely expressing them? If you are not willing to confront dissect and demolish these ideas that masses of workers hold by such means as political debates then all your doing is simply brushing them under the carpet where they will only fester and growb. You dont want to debate organisations holding such views and by extension you dont want to engage with individuals holding such ideas either. All you want to do with your no platfrom approach is clamp down on the free expression and exchange of ideas both at an organisation level and logically too at an indivifual level . Your attitude along with your fellow "no platformers" is akin the typical puritan bourgeois Victorian attitude towards the question of sex


There can be no such thing as "building institutions of proletarian power" without an ideology to match. I mean what on earth are you warbling about? This is the fetsishised abstract language of the bourgeois academic. Even the very idea of "proletarian power" presupposes some conception of what the proletariat is and what its relationship is to the ruling capitalist class. Otherwise you might just as well say that the Tory party is an "institution of proletarian power" since the membership of Tory Party overwhelmingly consists of proletarians as is the case with every other political party in modern Britain

What that boils down to is that you cannot possibly avoid or circumsvent the the business of disseminating ideas and and therefore of doing battle against countervailing ideas . Public debates is actually a very useful way of doing that which for reasons i find utterly perplexing, you spurn in the case if UKIP



It is interesting that you have managed to develop your analysis of my views based entirely on the phrase 'long standing principle of no-platforming'. Since no actual details in regards to what is meant by that phrase have been given, I am confused at what it is you're actually arguing against...
What do you imagine 'no-platform' means? What do you imagine this alternative proposal to debating the Ukip is, exactly? I am genuinely baffled by your intransigence, because it seemingly comes from no where.
Once again we are presented with this false-dichotomy. Either we debate Ukip or we put our head in the sands -- these are apparently they only two options to you. Well of course in that case you debate Ukip, because putting our head in the sand is just a silly idea. But of course, 'putting our head in the sand' isn't actually the alternative, is it?

I am merely point out to you the logical inconsistency of your whole approach. Millions upon millions of workers support the kind of ideas that UKIP peddles (including millions who dont actually vote for UKIP). So what are you going to do - extend your "no platform" policy to these millions upon millions of workers in our class? Dont argue with them, dont try to engage with them and change their minds through reasoning with them. Just stamp down on them and do whatever you can to restrict the expression of their views. Daft? But that is precisely where your kind of thinking takes you. The ideas that workers hold tend to be reflected in the organisations to which they lend support. That is actually a very strong argument in favour of publicly debating such organisations. It is (one of) the means by which you can directly access and confront workers who hold such ideas. It is a kind self selecting process




But revolutionary ideas don't gain influence through being talked about, they gain influence through action. Ultimately what is this worker going to take away from seeing this debate? What practical difference is it going to make to their lives?

Once again you dredge up the same old false dichotomy which you accused me of raising. There is no such thing as effective action without ideas, practice without theory, material reality without consciousness. Again and again and again this same stupid argument crops up, testimony to the stultifying - nay, crippling - blight of mechanical materialism that seems to have gripped the minds of not a few individuals on this forum. This fetishisation of "action" for the sake the sake of action is frankly pathetic. You need to understand where you action is going to take you. That means talking about it and exchanging ideas, developing an informed long term perspective. No wonder the so called revoltuonary left is in such a dismal state. Its thoughtless knee jerkism such as your sentiment above that is largely responsible for its decline into political irrelevance

In any case what a dumb comment to make: "What practical difference is it going to make to their lives" attending this debate. I mean, what exactly did you have in mind? In no way does this alter the fact the fact for revoltuonary ideas to gain influence they HAVE to be talked about - not as something separate from what is vaguely called "action" but part of it. A socialist revolution has to be a conscious revolution or there will be no revolution at all



These debates exist outside of the worker. They are an external thing that is presented to them for consumption as a spectator. The come, they watch, they leave. Watching SPGB and Ukip members discuss ideas in the abstract don't actually provide anything useful. What is a worker going to take away from seeing this debate?

More sociological naivete. You clearly dont have a clue about what the point of political debate is if you think this. And you clearly have a very shallow understanding of the dynamics of "changing hearts and minds". What attracts a worker to a debate is not something that exists outside of the worker but rather within - in the values and ways of looking at the world that he or she holds. Debates provide the means by which such things can be reinforced or alternatively, challenged



But stumbling across ideas isn't really useful to a worker unless they have practical benefits. The ideas of revolutionary socialism have to have practical relevance, otherwise why would they be interesting to someone who has no job or can't claim benefits et cetera.
You are approaching the building of a counter-power in the incorrect way. In essence, it is an idealist attitude to think that someone just has to 'stumble' across revolutionary socialism, and that this is somehow a benefit. Well, what is it benefiting? So someone stumbles across revolutionary socialism...Now what?
The ideas of revolutionary socialism should not be seen as something to strive to believe, they should be seen as tools to achieve objectives. It is a methodology by which we organise the material nature of reality. These debates do nothing to advance that objective.

If you cannot see how the ideas of revolutionary socialism could be of interest as to someone without a job or unable to claim benefits then I suggest that says more about you and your understanding of revolutionary socialism than it does anything else. You might as well abandon any pretensions to being a revolutionary and resign yourself
too running a job centre or joining a citizens advice bureau. Good luck with that in the present economic climate. Dont misunderstand me. I am not knocking "practical" efforts of this nature but the utter absurdty of your position is to suppose that this is some kind of black-or-white choice to be made - either you advocate the revolutionary overthrow of capitalist society or you work within the eisting constraints of capitalist society in your effort to be more "practical". I dont see it like that at all - as a socialist I too have to scrape a living in a capitaist world - but you evidently do. The message that is coming across loud and clear from you is that there is no point is working for the fundamental overthow of capitalist society since it is not immediately "practicable". We both know what that makes you



It is interesting that someone who is defending 'debate' as a necessary tool for building revolutionary consciousness, would have such contempt towards those who wish to engage in it with them.

I am sorry that we do not agree with your point of view, but that is the nature of debate, I'm afraid.


You misunderstand. It is not you personbally for whom i have contempt - I dont know you from Adam (or Eve) and no doubt we would get on just fine if we were ever to meet outside of cyberspace. So there is nothinbg personal about this. It is rathewr the views you express for which I feel contempt. Q hit the nail on the head and summed up my sentiments exactly


It is not as if we dont already have the boss class and the capitalist state on our backs telling us what to think or say and what not to think or say. You want to join in as well

Do not misinterpret my contempt for your views as a reluctance on my part to debate with you. I will debate any and every view I consider contemptible. Because debating, discussing, arguing and exchanging ideas is an absolutely indispensable aspect of the whole process of changing society . That in itself is a reason enough to fully justifiy the SPGB's decision to debate with UKIP

[robbo203]

Not really. My question was designed to understand the importance of the reasons given. I wasn't looking for you to restate the reasons.
For what purpose? To convince them? To mobilise them? What is the purpose of benefiting the undecided? It seems to me that you think the answer to that question is perfectly obvious, but I don't think it is that obvious. I think it is very unclear why and how this particular exercise will form some particular purpose.

Surely this isnt that difficult to work out? Why do you think two different points of view are debated? Obviously , it is because the protagonists on both sides wish to persuade or convince the other or, more particularly, some third party that their point of view is the right one.

I would argue that the fundamental task of revolutionaries is to spread revolutionary ideas. It may not be the only thing that revolutiuonaries do but it lies at the very heart of what revolutionaries do. To quote Willaim Morris socialists are basically involved in the business of "making socialists" You can't have a revolution without revolutionaries and you certainly cannot have a socialist revolution without a majority of the working class embracing revolutionary ideas beforehand. How do workers come to embrace revolutionary ideas? Through class struggle. But class struggle itself is amongst other things, a battle of ideas. Workers dont just mechanically react to their material conditions of employment and - hey presto - become revolutionaries That is just a crass a mechanistic view of materialism. They become revolutionaries by engaging with the ideas they encounter which means amongst other thing breaking free of stanglehold of ruling class ideas.

So the propagation and dissemination of ideas matters vitally and anyone who denies this is either, in my view a complete fool or a fraud. It is interesting that you should see some on this forum who take up a "no platform" postion vis a vis the far right - our would-be public censors and pettifogging people' commisssars - see fit to sneer at what they call "abstract propagandism", namely the idea that socialist revolutionareis need to engage in disseminating socialist ideas. Its strike me that there is something of contradiction here: why try to suppress the ideas of the far right if you dont think the dissemination of ideas has any real impact? You have to wonder what these same individuals are doing on this forum obsessively promoting their "big idea" that promoting ideas doesn't matter

One final point - I have encountered on this forum, more than once, the stupid (and I would say hypocritical) argument that trying to persuade fellow workers to become socialists by advancing the case for socialism - whether in a public debate or any other format - is "vanguardist" and "elitist", that it assumes "you know best" and the workers are only a dumb mass that needs to be led. That doesnt stop those making this idiotic claim from advancing their own ideas in debates with others and therefore by implication assuming they are right and those they debate with, are wrong. But the truly nonsensical aspect of all this lies in what it seems to imply. So several million members of the British working class vote for UKIP. According to our hypocrites, on the face of it what this means is that we should refrain from being judgemental. We should not consider or opine that the ideas that lead a worker to vote UKIP are wrong and ill founded because, well, that would be "elitist" and "vanguardist". You can see how this kind of wonky logic can help to support the batty idea that socialists should not debate against UKIP. Actually, if those individuals who advance this argument were honest with themselves what this would literally mean is extending a no platform approach to literally everyone who disagrees with them. So you dont debate with others or question their ideas if you dont like those ideas. All you do is deny them the right to express those ideas! Great way to settle an argument and change people's minds

I take the opposite approach. It is those who sneer at the disemmeniation of socialist ideas, who seek to apply a "no platform" to the far right and make matryrs of the latter, on the grounds that the pernicious ideas of the far right might contaminate the supposedly weak willed members of the working class - it is they who are the real elitists and vanguardists in all this. Their attitude reminds me of the 9 o clock television schedule designed to protect little children from televison programmes of an adult nature. After 9pm the kiddies are whisked off to bed so mum and dad can watch a bit of naked flesh. So it is with our puritans on the revolutiuonary left. They dont trust in the ability of workers to make up their own minds. They need guidance from above and that means closing down certain political channels to the working class completely. Oh to be sure, our leftist puritans with their superior intellects can withstand the threat of nationalist contamination but not the childlike workers they patronisingly look down upon and claim to "represent".




My point is that debates for bourgeois parties are for electoral purposes, which makes debating them seem all the more pointless.


The thing about political debates is that they concentrate or condense the aforementioned battle of ideas that is going on in the wider society. They are actually are rather good learning experience for that reason. I couldnt care a toss what bourgeois parties use debates for. The point is that in this case, they pit the idea of revolutionary socialism against that of bourgeois nationalism and force individuals to think about it . Socialists dont often get this opportunity and yet incredibly there are so called socialists here who see fit to question this. What planet are these people living in?



One of the fundamental problems with combating the far-right is the hegemony of the liberal concept that everyone is entitled to free speech. This point-of-view, pervasive in its nature, mystifies the revolutionary argument that the far-right should not and can not have a right to free speech, which is an important argument to make in the fight against them.
It is a fact that, in the long term, we are in battle with the far-right, and the terrain in which we are fighting is reality itself. By not fighting the liberal concept of free speech, we deliberately cripple our efforts to fight effectively.


Sorry but this incoherent drivel. I mean what the fuck is the all this about - "the terrain in which we are fighting is reality itself". Pretentious codswallop, more like. What you dont seem to see is that by arguing that the far right should not have any right to free speech, that this makes you unwittingly a de facto lackey and bootlicker of the capitalist state. The irony of you calling yourself an "anarchist" is all the more striking for that. How else are you going to ensure that the far right is denied the right to free speech except by calling upon the state to effect such an outcome? That is what it will come down to in the end once you start talking about who can and who cannot have the right to free speech. You are effectively inviting the state to step in and adjudicate on the matter of free speech, thereby reinforcing and extending the repressive power of the state. But be aware - there is no guarantee that the state once its starts repressing the far right and denying its fredom of speech won't start to do the same thing to you


Saying the far right does not, and cannot, have a right to free speech hardly constitutes "an important argument to make in the fight against them". Actually all it does is make you look pathetically weak . It suggests you have dont have any sound arguments to make against them and that you are fearful that their arguments might carry some weight among the working class. Which is why you have to resort to banning them and proscribing them and preventing them for having their say instead of taking on their arguments in a public debate and refuting them.

I think your position is ridiculous. I say let the far right have their say. Lets see them wriggle and squirm as they try to justify the unjustifiable. Rational argument is by far the most potent weapon that can be used against them. It is the one thing capable of defusing all the bravura and the mish mash of emotional ill-thought out sentiments that inspire (mainly young and male) disempowered members of the working class to flock to the banner of ultra nationalism. The testosterone-charged atmosphere they revel in , the tribalistic gang culture they glory in which sees people of other cultures and nations as the alien enemy against which they can unite, cannot withstand the rational case for socialism. It is akin to pouring water on a blazing fire whereas what you are doing is pouring a can of gasoline on the latter. And worse still you are enabling them to pass themselves of as the defenders of free speech

So, yes, I am fully confident, even if you are not, that the nationalists dont have a leg to stand on . And I am fully confident in my fellow workers being able to see this even if you are not




The word 'legitimisation' means 'to legitimate', which means, in this context, to demonstrate to be valid. By sharing a platform with them, by giving them the opportunity to speak and by providing them the courtesy of listening -- within the confines of an organised public event -- you are literally demonstrating them and their views to be valid in the eyes of those people whose attention you apparently crave. It is literally the definition of 'legitimisation', whether you intend it to be or not.


Once again, this is nonsesne. You are confusing the ideas people hold with the people who espouse those ideas. You dont "legitimate" the ideas by attacking these ideas in a debate. That doesnt make any sense, does it? You might have a point in saying that you legitimise or validate the individuals with whom you are engaging ain a public debate but what of it? Why is that such a bad thing? Even a fascist is a human being who posesses a brain and is capable of rethinking and reassessing his or her position. Appealing to that capacity for rational thinking is the Achillies heel of fascism. I make no apology for the fact that I have myself engaged in political argument with out and out fascists and frankly I couldnt care a monkeys what the politically correct puritans on the revolutionary left might think of that. Like it or not it or not it is precisely these kinds of people and the millions more in the maintream who endorse nationalistic sentiments who will have to be persuaded to see through the claptrap that is nationalism if we are going to make progress to a socialist world. Is such a world what the revolutionary left aspires to? I sometimes wonder myself. Strikes me that not a few on the Left are more concerned with adopting the moral posture of a rrrrrrrevolutonary poseur than with pursuing the pragmatic goal of changing society




But as has already been highlighted, you are setting up a false-dichotomy. It isn't a question of debating the far-right or ignoring the class. That is simply not the choice that has to be made.

The question that you and the SPGB should be asking yourselves is, 'how do we effectively engage with the class and defend our interests?' Providing the far-right with a platform and engaging their views as if they were a legitimate entity only hinders our interests and in actual fact does very little to engage the class; it is basically a conversation between two political parties. Providing that opportunity isn't a particularly engaging activity -- it provides no mobilising, empowering or practical benefit to the proletariat.

But they're not actually talking to any workers, they're talking to Ukip, so what exactly are you talking about?
What is being described here -- this debate -- is not one between workers. It is not the SPGB talking about nationalism and racism with a community of workers, it is a public debate in which you talk to members of Ukip.


It is amusing that having accused me of making a false dichotomy you go on to make one yourself. This debate is not one between workers you claim. Really? The SPGB is a party of workers. UKIP is no doubt also overwhelmingly a party of workers. And people attending the debate who belong to neither SPGB or UKIP will no doubt also be overwhelmingly workers. I hate to have to break this to you gently but political parties are made up of INDIVIDUALS. Thats right - individuals like you and me, who are mostly members of the working class (which constitutes over 95% of the population). Individuals who are fully capable of reflecting on matters, changing their minds and switching from one political party to another. It has happened before, you know, unless you have led such a sheltered political life as not to have been aware of this


But the larger point you completely overlook is this - thats UKIP´s nationalism merely articulates ideas that are widely held within the British working class. You find UKIP´s nationalism objectionable . So do I. But your argument seems to be that because its views are objectionable therefore we should not debate with organisations like UKIP. But hold on here. The overwhelming workers ALSO hold views that are objectionable. Most are nationalistic and even probably racist to a degree.

So what you are going to do about the overwhelming majority of your - our - class who hold such objectionable views? Are you going to wag your finger at them like the nanny state and say "I will not allow you to express such views. You dont have any right to express such views" Get real. All you will get out of that is well deserved ridicule and perhaps even the odd head butt. You have to learn to engage with fellow workers as they are and not as you want them to be. Unfortunately most on the Left don't know how to do that. Most on the left seem intent upon imposing a thoroughly romanticised idea of what the working class ought to be on the working class itself and mistaking the reality for the ideal. The idea of debating with rabid working class nationalists offends the Left's precious sensibilities of the what the working class ought to be so they block it out by counterposing one thing against the other - "the workers" on the one hand and the nationalist groups on the other. As if workers can't be nationalists. This is very clearly demonstrated by your own inept and nonsensical assertion that the SPGB is "not talking to workers" but only to UKIP. So for you it is not workers who are nationalists but organisations like UKIP that somehow exist as disembodied free-floating abstract entities that hover over the working class, not entities that in real life are comprised of real workers

And therein lies the fundamental inconsistency in your whole approach. So you happily propose that organisations like UKIP should be denied the right to free speech but overlook that such organisations consist of individuals who hold the very ideas you regard as repugnant. If it is indeed the ideas that you regard as repugnant what are you going to do about the individuals who hold them? To be consistent you would have to advocate denying individuals who comprise such organisations the right to express their views whether inside or outside such organisations. In fact the logical outcome of that is the fully fledged police state patrolled by squadrons of thought police. So much for your "anarchism"

There is a final twist to this whole argument which is as follows. It is no coincidence that those who sneer at abstract propagandism , the dissemination and debating of ideas, are very often the same individuals who argue that something called "material reality" mechanistcally produces or throws up ideas. Yet if the ideas they want to suppress (by denying those who want to express those views the right to do so) are indeed the "product" of this "material reality" then there is little they can do to prevent them from cropping up, is there? So why in that case attempt to do something that your own theory leads you to believe cannot be done? If capitalism produces nationalist or racist ideas then what is the point in trying to suppress them inside a capitalist society? On the face of it what they are arguing for is predicated on a perspective of pure idealism in which sheer political will prevails over material condistions. The irony of so called materialists taking up such a position all could not be keener



The statement: 'the working class...acquiesce in capitalism' is axiomatic. It is such a redundant statement it is practically meaningless. Obviously that is true...The issue here is not that the 'left' are refusing to face up to these issues, it's that they are facing up to these issues in ways that reject your tactics. That is something you simply have to accept.
In any case, addressing the issue of capitalist ideological hegemony can only come through building institutions of proletarian power. It is through action that working class acquiescence is addressed, not through the debate of ideas by two political parties.


You say the fact that working class acquiesce in capitalism is axiomatic yet you fail competely to understand what follows on from that. How are you going to deal with widespread ideas among the working class that hegemonically sustain capitalism by preventing organisations that articulate these ideas from freely expressing them? If you are not willing to confront dissect and demolish these ideas that masses of workers hold by such means as political debates then all your doing is simply brushing them under the carpet where they will only fester and grow. You dont want to debate organisations holding such views and by extension you dont want to engage with individuals holding such ideas either. All you want to do with your absurd "no platform" approach is clamp down on the free expression and exchange of ideas both at an organisation level and logically too at an individual level . Your attitude along with your fellow "no platformers" is akin to the typical puritan bourgeois Victorian attitude towards the question of sex


There can be no such thing as "building institutions of proletarian power" without an ideology to match. I mean what on earth are you warbling about? This is the fetishised abstract language of the bourgeois academic. Even the very idea of "proletarian power" presupposes some conception of what the proletariat is and what its relationship is to the ruling capitalist class. Otherwise you might just as well say that the Tory party is an "institution of proletarian power" since the membership of Tory Party overwhelmingly consists of proletarians as is the case with every other political party in modern Britain

What that boils down to is that you cannot possibly avoid or circumvent the the business of disseminating ideas and and therefore of doing battle against countervailing ideas . Public debates is actually a very useful and convenient way of doing that which for reasons i find utterly perplexing, you spurn in the case if UKIP



It is interesting that you have managed to develop your analysis of my views based entirely on the phrase 'long standing principle of no-platforming'. Since no actual details in regards to what is meant by that phrase have been given, I am confused at what it is you're actually arguing against...
What do you imagine 'no-platform' means? What do you imagine this alternative proposal to debating the Ukip is, exactly? I am genuinely baffled by your intransigence, because it seemingly comes from no where.
Once again we are presented with this false-dichotomy. Either we debate Ukip or we put our head in the sands -- these are apparently they only two options to you. Well of course in that case you debate Ukip, because putting our head in the sand is just a silly idea. But of course, 'putting our head in the sand' isn't actually the alternative, is it?

I am merely pointing out to you the logical inconsistency of your whole approach. Millions upon millions of workers support the kind of ideas that UKIP peddles (including millions who dont actually vote for UKIP). So what are you going to do - extend your "no platform" policy to these millions upon millions of workers in our class? Dont argue with them, dont try to engage with them and change their minds through reasoning with them. Just stamp down on them and do whatever you can to restrict the expression of their views. Daft? But that is precisely where your kind of thinking takes you. The ideas that workers hold tend to be reflected in the organisations to which they lend support. That is actually a very strong argument in favour of publicly debating such organisations. It is (one of) the means by which you can directly access and confront those workers themselves who hold such ideas. It is a kind self selecting process, if you like




But revolutionary ideas don't gain influence through being talked about, they gain influence through action. Ultimately what is this worker going to take away from seeing this debate? What practical difference is it going to make to their lives?

Once again you dredge up the same old false dichotomy which you accused me of raising. There is no such thing as effective action without ideas, practice without theory, material reality without consciousness. Again and again and again this same stupid argument crops up, testimony to the stultifying - nay, crippling - blight of mechanical materialism that seems to have gripped the minds of not a few individuals on this forum. This fetishisation of "action" for the sake the sake of action is frankly pathetic. You need to understand where you action is going to take you. That means talking about it and exchanging ideas, developing an informed long term perspective. No wonder the so called revoltuonary left is in such a dismal state. Its thoughtless knee jerkism such as your sentiment above that is largely responsible for its decline into political irrelevance

In any case what a dumb comment to make: "What practical difference is it going to make to their lives" attending this debate. I mean, what exactly did you have in mind? In no way does this alter the fact the fact for revolutionary ideas to "gain influence" they HAVE to be talked about - not as something separate from what is vaguely called "action" but part of it. A socialist revolution has to be a conscious revolution or there will be no revolution at all



These debates exist outside of the worker. They are an external thing that is presented to them for consumption as a spectator. The come, they watch, they leave. Watching SPGB and Ukip members discuss ideas in the abstract don't actually provide anything useful. What is a worker going to take away from seeing this debate?

More sociological naivete. You clearly dont have a clue about what the point of political debate is if you think this. And you clearly have a very shallow understanding of the dynamics of "changing hearts and minds". What attracts a worker to a debate is not something that exists outside of the worker but rather within - in the values and ways of looking at the world that he or she holds. Debates provide the means by which such things can be reinforced or alternatively, challenged



But stumbling across ideas isn't really useful to a worker unless they have practical benefits. The ideas of revolutionary socialism have to have practical relevance, otherwise why would they be interesting to someone who has no job or can't claim benefits et cetera.
You are approaching the building of a counter-power in the incorrect way. In essence, it is an idealist attitude to think that someone just has to 'stumble' across revolutionary socialism, and that this is somehow a benefit. Well, what is it benefiting? So someone stumbles across revolutionary socialism...Now what?
The ideas of revolutionary socialism should not be seen as something to strive to believe, they should be seen as tools to achieve objectives. It is a methodology by which we organise the material nature of reality. These debates do nothing to advance that objective.

If you cannot see how the ideas of revolutionary socialism could be of interest as to someone without a job or unable to claim benefits then I suggest that says more about you and your understanding of revolutionary socialism than it does anything else. You might as well abandon any pretensions to being a revolutionary and resign yourself to running a job centre or joining a citizens advice bureau. Good luck with that in the present economic climate. Dont misunderstand me. I am not knocking "practical" efforts of this nature but the utter absurdty of your position is to suppose that this is some kind of black-or-white choice to be made - either you advocate the revolutionary overthrow of capitalist society or you work within the eisting constraints of capitalist society in your effort to be more "practical". I dont see it like that at all - as a socialist I too have to scrape a living in a capitalist world - but you evidently do. The message that is coming across loud and clear from you is that there is no point is working for the fundamental overthow of capitalist society since it is not immediately "practicable". We both know what that makes you



It is interesting that someone who is defending 'debate' as a necessary tool for building revolutionary consciousness, would have such contempt towards those who wish to engage in it with them.

I am sorry that we do not agree with your point of view, but that is the nature of debate, I'm afraid.


You misunderstand. It is not you personbally for whom i have contempt - I dont know you from Adam (or Eve) and no doubt we would get on just fine if we were ever to meet outside of cyberspace. So there is nothinbg personal about this. It is rathewr the views you express for which I feel contempt. Q hit the nail on the head and summed up my sentiments exactly

"this thread convinces me that most 'no platformers' have a rather disdainful view of the working class, as if it ought to be 'shielded' from 'wrong' views or something"

It is not as if we dont already have the boss class and the capitalist state on our backs telling us what to think or say and what not to think or say. You want to join in as well!

Do not misinterpret my contempt for your views as a reluctance on my part to debate with you. I will debate any and every view I consider contemptible. Because debating, discussing, arguing and exchanging ideas is an absolutely indispensable aspect of the whole process of changing society . That in itself is a reason enough to fully justifiy the SPGB's decision to debate with UKIP

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I hate to have to break this to you gently but political parties are made up of INDIVIDUALS. Thats right - individuals like you and me, who are most members of the working class (which constitutes over 95% of the population), Individuals who are fully capable of reflecting on matters, changing their minds and switching from one political party to another.

Really? So, according to you, in Britain the bourgeoisie, petite bourgeoisie, including urban elements and peasants, "foremen and overseers", as Marx puts it, the intelligentsia, landowners, managers and executives that do not own capital, cops, the declassed elements, the labor aristocracy and bureaucracy, and so on, all of them make up less than five percent of the population? Truly a green and pleasant land. One can only wonder why the socialist revolution has not yet happened.

Of course, if we abandon the pious social-democratic notion that the proletariat is an overwhelming majority of the population, the nature of the people who vote for UKIP becomes problematic. Are they proletarian, or are they, as I would suppose, petit-bourgeois, members of the intelligentsia, and so on?


I think your position is ridiculous. I say let the far right have their say. Lets see them wriggle and squirm as they try to justify the unjustifiable. Rational argument is by far the most potent weapon that can be used against them.

The thing is, most ideologies are at the very least logically consistent; you won't catch members of the UKIP in any sort of contradiction. It's just that their starting point - the notions from which they proceed - are completely alien to the notions from which the SPGB proceeds (or at least they should be), as they are expressions of alien social interests. In such circumstances, no debate is possible. You can't have a debate unless you and your opponent agree on some bare minimum, allowing for rational discussion instead of shouting at each other. And the UKIP won't accept your starting position. If they did, they wouldn't be the UKIP, now would they? So all that's left is for the SPGB to tacitly accept some of the UKIP's assumptions, or simply for the two parties to shout at each other, which is alright as far as lung exercise goes, I guess, but it won't convince anyone who would be attracted to the UKIP type of politics.

For example, simply by debating whether immigrant workers need to be deported or whatever euphemism UKIP uses nowadays, the SPGB has tacitly accepted the notion that immigrant workers are problematic.

[The Jay]

Jesus holy fucking text wall Robo. Did that take you less than an hour? Jeeze.

About the debate, I don't see why everyone is getting so upset about it. It is not like they're giving money to UKIP.

[The Feral Underclass]

The first thing I would like to say is that I have taken a substantial amount of time out of my working day to respond to your post. I hope you will afford me the courtesy of applying some thoughtfulness to what I am saying, instead of maintaining this inexplicable intransigence.

Secondly, on reflection, I think there is some confusion between what we both mean by the term ‘far-right.’ When I say far-right, I mean the institutions of the far-right, i.e., political organisations and militants. I am not suggesting that we stop working class people from having far-right views by attacking them or denying them a right to express themselves. I hope this can make what I am saying clearer to you.


Surely this isnt that difficult to work out? Why do you think two different points of view are debated? Obviously , it is because the protagonists on both sides wish to persuade or convince the other or, more particularly, some third party that their point of view is the right one.

What I am trying to ascertain is the purpose of something happening. I understand the point of a debate. I accept your point that [part of] a debate is to persuade. The nature of my question is to understand why it is important to persuade, not in a universal sense (because I accept that persuasion is an important process), but in this particular instance.

The way that I think revolutionaries should approach their activity is through rigorous inquiry and evaluation of that approach as a competent, viable and ultimately successful endeavour. Why are we doing? Is it useful? Is it going to achieve anything? Is it going to forward our objectives?

Simply saying 'it is to persuade people' or 'we need to spread revolutionary ideas' isn't a satisfactory response, because those responses are abstract notions. I want to understand the nuts-and-bolts of the reasoning behind these tactics.

And generally speaking, I think, actually, that these questions are not addressed clearly enough by the left as a whole. Political organisations just do activity without really thinking about why they're doing it and I think that's a problem.


I would argue that the fundamental task of revolutionaries is to spread revolutionary ideas.

This is a point you've already made. I understand that you think this, but what does it mean? What is a the 'revolutionary idea'?


It may not be the only thing that revolutiuonaries do but it lies at the very heart of what revolutionaries do. To quote Willaim Morris socialists are basically involved in the business of "making socialists" You can't have a revolution without revolutionaries and you certainly cannot have a socialist revolution without a majority of the working class embracing revolutionary ideas beforehand. How do workers come to embrace revolutionary ideas? Through class struggle. But class struggle itself is amongst other things, a battle of ideas. Workers dont just mechanically react to their material conditions of employment and - hey presto - become revolutionaries That is just a crass a mechanistic view of materialism. They become revolutionaries by engaging with the ideas they encounter which means amongst other thing breaking free of stanglehold of ruling class ideas.

So the propagation and dissemination of ideas matters vitally and anyone who denies this is either, in my view a complete fool or a fraud. It is interesting that you should see some on this forum who take up a "no platform" postion vis a vis the far right - our would-be public censors and pettifogging people' commisssars - see fit to sneer at what they call "abstract propagandism", namely the idea that socialist revolutionareis need to engage in disseminating socialist ideas. Its strike me that there is something of contradiction here: why try to suppress the ideas of the far right if you dont think the dissemination of ideas has any real impact? You have to wonder what these same individuals are doing on this forum obsessively promoting their "big idea" that promoting ideas doesn't matter

The problem I have with your conceptualisation of the 'socialist' as a subject is it detaches the working class from itself as a revolutionary force. By creating these concepts of 'socialist ideas' and the 'socialist worker' as distinct from the proletariat, you alienate the subject of the proletariat as a social relationship from itself as an agent for social change.

I understand that you have a problem with this way of expressing ideas, but simply put, what I am trying to get across is the idea that individual working class people don't need to 'become socialists' in order to have 'revolutionary ideas,' as they already live their lives within the social relationship that determines them as the revolutionary subject and agents for social change. They are the social change, they don't need to become something else in order to fulfil their historic role.

Another way of expressing this thought would be to ask what the essential difference between a 'socialist worker' and a member of the 'proletariat' actually is? The answer would most likely be that one has the ideas of a socialist and the other does not, but even though that's true, it does not alter the fact that they are both historically positioned in exactly the same way. In essence, on the question of the revolutionary subject, there is absolutely no difference.

So we come back to my earlier question: what is the 'revolutionary idea'? For me, if I was to try and pinpoint some concept of the ‘revolutionary idea’ it would be the understanding of what ‘reality’ is. But those ‘ideas’ aren't actually ideas at all, they are just ‘real life’. The question then is how do we expose that 'real life' to those people whom are living it. And the answer is that you cannot expose that 'real life' without it being tangible and sensory; without it being something people can observe and interact with.

The role of revolutionaries, therefore, has to be to create, expedite and facilitate those tangible struggles that expose that reality, and to ensure that principles of unity, solidarity, mutual aid, compassion, defiance and a rejection of capitalist social relations are imbibed within them.

To pull this back into what we’re talking about, how does debating with UKIP have any effect on that? Well, it doesn’t.


One final point - I have encountered on this forum, more than once, the stupid (and I would say hypocritical) argument that trying to persuade fellow workers to become socialists by advancing the case for socialism - whether in a public debate or any other format - is "vanguardist" and "elitist", that it assumes "you know best" and the workers are only a dumb mass that needs to be led. That doesnt stop those making this idiotic claim from advancing their own ideas in debates with others and therefore by implication assuming they are right and those they debate with, are wrong. But the truly nonsensical aspect of all this lies in what it seems to imply. So several million members of the British working class vote for UKIP. According to our hypocrites, on the face of it what this means is that we should refrain from being judgemental. We should not consider or opine that the ideas that lead a worker to vote UKIP are wrong and ill founded because, well, that would be "elitist" and "vanguardist". You can see how this kind of wonky logic can help to support the batty idea that socialists should not debate against UKIP. Actually, if those individuals who advance this argument were honest with themselves what this would literally mean is extending a no platform approach to literally everyone who disagrees with them. So you dont debate with others or question their ideas if you dont like those ideas. All you do is deny them the right to express those ideas! Great way to settle an argument and change people's minds

Having read and re-read this paragraph, I’m not really sure what you’re trying to get at. I don’t know who this people are whom say ‘vanguardist’ and ‘elitist,’ and I don’t know what their reasoning is for doing so.

I am also confused on how you are making a link between the things you are talking about. I don’t think it’s incorrect to attack right-wing views. As I’ve said in this thread, it is important to discuss with people why they have reached the views they have; to challenge individual workers who have racist and nationalistic ideas. I am totally fine with that approach.

But there is a difference between criticising the views of workers and providing institutions of the far-right platforms to espouse their views. These institutions, such as UKIP, have political ambitions and objectives – they are our political enemies.


I take the opposite approach. It is those who sneer at the disemmeniation of socialist ideas, who seek to apply a "no platform" to the far right and make matryrs of the latter, on the grounds that the pernicious ideas of the far right might contaminate the supposedly weak willed members of the working class - it is they who are the real elitists and vanguardists in all this. Their attitude reminds me of the 9 o clock television schedule designed to protect little children from televison programmes of an adult nature. After 9pm the kiddies are whisked off to bed so mum and dad can watch a bit of naked flesh. So it is with our puritans on the revolutiuonary left. They dont trust in the ability of workers to make up their own minds. They need guidance from above and that means closing down certain political channels to the working class completely. Oh to be sure, our leftist puritans with their superior intellects can withstand the threat of nationalist contamination but not the childlike workers they patronisingly look down upon and claim to "represent".

None of this applies to anything I am saying, so I don’t feel that I can really respond to it.


Sorry but this incoherent drivel. I mean what the fuck is the all this about - "the terrain in which we are fighting is reality itself". Pretentious codswallop, more like.

Something is not incoherent or drivel or pretentious simply because you do not understand it.

The word ‘terrain’ here means ‘the arena in which something is happening’ and reality here means ‘all that exists.’ When I said ‘terrain in which we are fighting is reality itself’ I mean the arena in which we struggle is in all that exists. In other words, our fight with the far-right is for control of everything; it is a war of attrition. It is therefore foolish to give them opportunities to advance.


What you dont seem to see is that by arguing that the far right should not have any right to free speech, that this makes you unwittingly a de facto lackey and bootlicker of the capitalist state. The irony of you calling yourself an "anarchist" is all the more striking for that. How else are you going to ensure that the far right is denied the right to free speech except by calling upon the state to effect such an outcome? That is what it will come down to in the end once you start talking about who can and who cannot have the right to free speech. You are effectively inviting the state to step in and adjudicate on the matter of free speech, thereby reinforcing and extending the repressive power of the state. But be aware - there is no guarantee that the state once its starts repressing the far right and denying its fredom of speech won't start to do the same thing to you

Firstly, I don’t call myself an anarchist. Secondly, it does not follow that arguing against the right of the far-right to have free speech means an ultimate dependence on the state.

I think it is necessary to get some perspective. I am not advocating the state legislates against the far-right, I am arguing against the far-left engaging with the far-right in intellectual discussion and/or providing them with the space in which to promote their ideas and political ambitions.

Moreover, I am calling for the mobilisation of militants and the class against the far-right within the confines of a strategy to build proletarian institutions of power. That is fundamentally the opposite of inviting the state to ‘adjudicate on the matter of free speech.’


Saying the far right does not, and cannot, have a right to free speech hardly constitutes "an important argument to make in the fight against them". Actually all it does is make you look pathetically weak . It suggests you have dont have any sound arguments to make against them and that you are fearful that their arguments might carry some weight among the working class. Which is why you have to resort to banning them and proscribing them and preventing them for having their say instead of taking on their arguments in a public debate and refuting them.

I am not opposed to taking on their arguments in a public debate and refuting them. I am opposed to engaging with the far-right and providing them a platform in which to promote their ideas and political ambitions, which demonstrates an intellectual space in which their views should be heard as valid.

There are many opportunities available to the far-left for ‘taking their ideas and refuting them’ that does not involve simultaneously providing them a platform and demonstrating their existence to be so valid that they can share such intellectual spaces.


I think your position is ridiculous. I say let the far right have their say. Lets see them wriggle and squirm as they try to justify the unjustifiable. Rational argument is by far the most potent weapon that can be used against them. It is the one thing capable of defusing all the bravura and the mish mash of emotional ill-thought out sentiments that inspire (mainly young and male) disempowered members of the working class to flock to the banner of ultra nationalism. The testosterone-charged atmosphere they revel in , the tribalistic gang culture they glory in which sees people of other cultures and nations as the alien enemy against which they can unite, cannot withstand the rational case for socialism. It is akin to pouring water on a blazing fire whereas what you are doing is pouring a can of gasoline on the latter. And worse still you are enabling them to pass themselves of as the defenders of free speech

The far-right already have their say without the far-left validating the existence of their ideas in public forums. And you validate them by engaging with them.

Ultimately it seems that you cannot be dissuaded from your views, and that is unfortunate. Nevertheless, I think history demonstrates quite clearly that the only potent weapon against the far-right is mass mobilisation and brute force. You may think this view is ridiculous, but it will be people who have these views you will depend upon if the far-right ever end up marching down Whitehall.


Once again, this is nonsesne. You are confusing the ideas people hold with the people who espouse those ideas. You dont "legitimate" the ideas by attacking these ideas in a debate. That doesnt make any sense, does it?

No, but you do ‘legitimate’ those ideas by acknowledging they have a) a right to exist and b) a space in which to exist.


It is amusing that having accused me of making a false dichotomy you go on to make one yourself. This debate is not one between workers you claim. Really? The SPGB is a party of workers. UKIP is no doubt also overwhelmingly a party of workers. And people attending the debate who belong to neither SPGB or UKIP will no doubt also be overwhelmingly workers. I hate to have to break this to you gently but political parties are made up of INDIVIDUALS. Thats right - individuals like you and me, who are mostly members of the working class (which constitutes over 95% of the population). Individuals who are fully capable of reflecting on matters, changing their minds and switching from one political party to another. It has happened before, you know, unless you have led such a sheltered political life as not to have been aware of this

I don’t really see the false dichotomy you are referring to.

Your condescension notwithstanding, are we to understand that your answer to the question of ‘how do we effectively engage with the class and defend our interests’ is for political operatives to talk to each other? Aside from the fact you are most likely wildly over-estimating the amount of people who will actually be attending this meeting, trying to make the argument that such debates are effective because those people who are having them are workers is a very feeble one.

You have made the argument throughout this exchange that the promotion of ‘revolutionary ideas’ is the priority of revolutionaries. You said it should be at ‘the very heart’ of what revolutionaries do. Yet your vision for this is fundamentally parochial and unambitious, and relies upon some very tired, traditional ‘leftist’ tactics. I am having difficulty understanding why that is the case. Perhaps you can explain?


But the larger point you completely overlook is this - thats UKIP´s nationalism merely articulates ideas that are widely held within the British working class. You find UKIP´s nationalism objectionable . So do I. But your argument seems to be that because its views are objectionable therefore we should not debate with organisations like UKIP. But hold on here. The overwhelming workers ALSO hold views that are objectionable. Most are nationalistic and even probably racist to a degree.

I can only repeat what I have already said in response to this view. It is not that I am ‘overlooking’ the point, it is that I do not see it as denying my approach. I am not disagreeing that UKIP’s nationalism articulates ideas that are held within the British working class, I am rejecting the approach you are taking in dealing with it.

I cannot say that any simpler than I have already.


So what you are going to do about the overwhelming majority of your - our - class who hold such objectionable views? Are you going to wag your finger at them like the nanny state and say "I will not allow you to express such views. You dont have any right to express such views" Get real. All you will get out of that is well deserved ridicule and perhaps even the odd head butt. You have to learn to engage with fellow workers as they are and not as you want them to be. Unfortunately most on the Left don't know how to do that. Most on the left seem intent upon imposing a thoroughly romanticised idea of what the working class ought to be on the working class itself and mistaking the reality for the ideal. The idea of debating with rabid working class nationalists offends the Left's precious sensibilities of the what the working class ought to be so they block it out by counterposing one thing against the other - "the workers" on the one hand and the nationalist groups on the other. As if workers can't be nationalists. This is very clearly demonstrated by your own inept and nonsensical assertion that the SPGB is "not talking to workers" but only to UKIP. So for you it is not workers who are nationalists but organisations like UKIP that somehow exist as disembodied free-floating abstract entities that hover over the working class, not entities that in real life are comprised of real workers

And therein lies the fundamental inconsistency in your whole approach. So you happily propose that organisations like UKIP should be denied the right to free speech but overlook that such organisations consist of individuals who hold the very ideas you regard as repugnant. If it is indeed the ideas that you regard as repugnant what are you going to do about the individuals who hold them? To be consistent you would have to advocate denying individuals who comprise such organisations the right to express their views whether inside or outside such organisations. In fact the logical outcome of that is the fully fledged police state patrolled by squadrons of thought police. So much for your "anarchism"

The best approach to combating the ideas of the far-right, and the one I have been promoting, is to build solidarity and unity amongst the class and disparate ‘immigrant’ communities, and work to build institutions of proletarian power that address the material conditions that give rise to the fear and resentment that far-right ideas feed upon.

Further to that, you confront nationalistic and racist views in the workplace and community, and you actively organise to prevent the far-right from having any presence within the political spectrum, whether that’s in organised public events or on the streets.


There is a final twist to this whole argument which is as follows. It is no coincidence that those who sneer at abstract propagandism , the dissemination and debating of ideas, are very often the same individuals who argue that something called "material reality" mechanistcally produces or throws up ideas. Yet if the ideas they want to suppress (by denying those who want to express those views the right to do so) are indeed the "product" of this "material reality" then there is little they can do to prevent them from cropping up, is there? So why in that case attempt to do something that your own theory leads you to believe cannot be done? If capitalism produces nationalist or racist ideas then what is the point in trying to suppress them inside a capitalist society? On the face of it what they are arguing for is predicated on a perspective of pure idealism in which sheer political will prevails over material condistions. The irony of so called materialists taking up such a position all could not be keener

I do not sneer at abstract propagandism if it has a clear purpose and feeds into an overall strategy. Just doing it for doing its sake is what I am criticising. I am also not sneering at the ‘dissemination and debating of ideas,’ I am against providing the far-right with a space to promote their views and political objectives and reject the idea that we should allow them the right to free speech.

Our ‘suppression’ of the far right, as you call it, should come through the self-activity of the class. The objective of far-left militants, therefore, is to embolden and facilitate that.


You say the fact that working class acquiesce in capitalism is axiomatic yet you fail competely to understand what follows on from that. How are you going to deal with widespread ideas among the working class that hegemonically sustain capitalism by preventing organisations that articulate these ideas from freely expressing them? If you are not willing to confront dissect and demolish these ideas that masses of workers hold by such means as political debates then all your doing is simply brushing them under the carpet where they will only fester and grow...All you want to do with your absurd "no platform" approach is clamp down on the free expression and exchange of ideas both at an organisation level and logically too at an individual level . Your attitude along with your fellow "no platformers" is akin to the typical puritan bourgeois Victorian attitude towards the question of sex

I don’t think it’s the job of far-left militants to ‘deal with’ the ideas of the working class in so far as we have to find strategies to make people think differently. Ultimately racist and nationalist views within the class are ephemeral. You yourself have said that the ideas of the far-right cannot stand up to scrutiny and that is true; those material facts these ideas claim to correspond to won’t stand up when the class are engaged in struggle, because it will become obvious that those ideas are de facto lies – they do not correspond to facts.

Far-left militants therefore build struggle and within it solidarity and unity. That is how you combat the ideas of the far-right – in practice.


...You dont want to debate organisations holding such views and by extension you dont want to engage with individuals holding such ideas either...

I took this quote out in isolation because it does not follow and I think gets to the heart of your confusion with my position. I think it is necessary and right to engage with individuals who hold such ideas, but that doesn’t mean to do that we have to - or should - engage the organised expression of those ideas. They are our enemy.


There can be no such thing as "building institutions of proletarian power" without an ideology to match. I mean what on earth are you warbling about? This is the fetishised abstract language of the bourgeois academic. Even the very idea of "proletarian power" presupposes some conception of what the proletariat is and what its relationship is to the ruling capitalist class. Otherwise you might just as well say that the Tory party is an "institution of proletarian power" since the membership of Tory Party overwhelmingly consists of proletarians as is the case with every other political party in modern Britain

The bourgeois academic would never talk about building institutions of proletarian power. Bourgeois academics don’t speak in those terms.

This conceptualisation of practice as being dependent on ideology is actually the problem itself. What ideology are you referring to? If we are talking about communist ideology, then that exists to help us understand the nature of reality, the social relationships and the antagonisms that exist. As far as ideology goes, what more do we need? And is it important for the class to grasp this ‘ideology’ as such outside of the understandings that relate directly to them? Trying to superimpose ideology onto the agency of the class alienates the class from itself, and is ultimately superfluous.

Institutions of proletarian power are simply permanent, institutionalised expressions of the working class acting in its own interest that compete with capitalist hegemony. For example, building permanent groups that can respond to the needs of ‘immigrants’ (such as defence groups) or address the material concerns of white working class communities (food appropriation, rent strike councils).


More sociological naivete. You clearly dont have a clue about what the point of political debate is if you think this. And you clearly have a very shallow understanding of the dynamics of "changing hearts and minds". What attracts a worker to a debate is not something that exists outside of the worker but rather within - in the values and ways of looking at the world that he or she holds. Debates provide the means by which such things can be reinforced or alternatively, challenged

You haven’t addressed the core of what I was saying. How do you address the issue of ‘the worker’ simply acting as a spectator?


If you cannot see how the ideas of revolutionary socialism could be of interest as to someone without a job or unable to claim benefits then I suggest that says more about you and your understanding of revolutionary socialism than it does anything else.

You cannot eat an ‘idea’ nor can you pay your rent with it, and as facetious as that comment might be, it gets to the heart of my criticism of your tactics.


You might as well abandon any pretensions to being a revolutionary and resign yourself to running a job centre or joining a citizens advice bureau. Good luck with that in the present economic climate. Dont misunderstand me. I am not knocking "practical" efforts of this nature but the utter absurdty of your position is to suppose that this is some kind of black-or-white choice to be made - either you advocate the revolutionary overthrow of capitalist society or you work within the eisting constraints of capitalist society in your effort to be more "practical". I dont see it like that at all - as a socialist I too have to scrape a living in a capitalist world - but you evidently do. The message that is coming across loud and clear from you is that there is no point is working for the fundamental overthow of capitalist society since it is not immediately "practicable". We both know what that makes you

You misunderstand. It is not you personbally for whom i have contempt - I dont know you from Adam (or Eve) and no doubt we would get on just fine if we were ever to meet outside of cyberspace. So there is nothinbg personal about this. It is rathewr the views you express for which I feel contempt

I’m afraid I don’t believe you. Your attitude towards me has been incredibly rude and condescending. If it is not contempt for me that you have, then you have a very strange way of showing that. It’s not that I particularly care, I just think it is disingenuous for you to propose debate as a revolutionary tactic, talk about ‘changing hearts and minds’ and then be so rude.


Q hit the nail on the head and summed up my sentiments exactly "this thread convinces me that most 'no platformers' have a rather disdainful view of the working class, as if it ought to be 'shielded' from 'wrong' views or something"

And as I said to Q, this view is based entirely on an incorrect understanding of what no-platform is.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

This is a very interesting thread - probably a more interesting debate than between the SPB and UKIP, in my opinion (not a dig at the SPB). That said, there remain some questions in my mind, about the nature of "No Platform", the "Far Right", and "spreading revolutionary ideas". You'll have to excuse me if this is a bit scattered, since four pages - much of it grappling with things in a complexity that sometimes escapes RevLeft - is a lot to take on at once.

1. What is the "Far Right"? Is it a question of practice (e.g. street thuggery), theory (e.g. nationalism), or a particular combination thereof? Is it connection to a historical tradition (e.g. the links of the UKIP to the NF to the BUF?)? Does it concern individuals or organizations?

2. Is the implicit implication of "No Platform" violent confrontation? Alternatively, is it a matter of ignoring the far-right, and/or refusing to engage with the far right? What implications do the first question ("What is the 'Far Right'?") have for this, in terms of who should be violently confronted or not?

3. How does the relationship between the far left and far right relate to the project of the far left? What role do these political (or physical) antagonisms play vis-a-vis class consciousness, and communism/communization? Does shitkicking or debating the far right serve a specific purpose? Do they serve different purposes?

[robbo203]

Really? So, according to you, in Britain the bourgeoisie, petite bourgeoisie, including urban elements and peasants, "foremen and overseers", as Marx puts it, the intelligentsia, landowners, managers and executives that do not own capital, cops, the declassed elements, the labor aristocracy and bureaucracy, and so on, all of them make up less than five percent of the population? Truly a green and pleasant land. One can only wonder why the socialist revolution has not yet happened.

Of course, if we abandon the pious social-democratic notion that the proletariat is an overwhelming majority of the population, the nature of the people who vote for UKIP becomes problematic. Are they proletarian, or are they, as I would suppose, petit-bourgeois, members of the intelligentsia, and so on?

I think what is problematic is your definition of the proletariat. To me, and I think this is consistent with Marxian usage, the proletariat is that class in society consisting of individuals who lack any or sufficient capital to live upon to prevent them from having to sell their labour power on the market. Engels certainly seemed to have defined the proletariat in this way - as "that class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live (Note to the 1888 English Edition of Manifesto of the Communist Party).

What that means is that most of the occupational categories you list above are very clearly proletarian in character. Almost all cops for example, are workers, the labour aristocracy (by definition) are workers, most managers particularly in lower and milddle level management are workers. almost all in the so called intelligentsia are workers even if some might be appalled at the very thought of it

So, yes, by this standard the vast majority of the population ARE indeed proletarian or working class. That is, they conform to the broad definition outlined above. The converse of this is that the capitalist class - the other main class in capitalist society - is a tiny section of the population in whose hands capital is overwhelmingly concentrated - something that is amply born out by the official statistics concerning the distribution of wealth and income which I can happily point you to if you are not already aware of this data

Needless to say, it follows from this that every political party (or at least every one I know of ) consists overwhelmingly of workers - including, incidentally, the Tory Party




The thing is, most ideologies are at the very least logically consistent; you won't catch members of the UKIP in any sort of contradiction. It's just that their starting point - the notions from which they proceed - are completely alien to the notions from which the SPGB proceeds (or at least they should be), as they are expressions of alien social interests. In such circumstances, no debate is possible. You can't have a debate unless you and your opponent agree on some bare minimum, allowing for rational discussion instead of shouting at each other. And the UKIP won't accept your starting position. If they did, they wouldn't be the UKIP, now would they? So all that's left is for the SPGB to tacitly accept some of the UKIP's assumptions, or simply for the two parties to shout at each other, which is alright as far as lung exercise goes, I guess, but it won't convince anyone who would be attracted to the UKIP type of politics.

For example, simply by debating whether immigrant workers need to be deported or whatever euphemism UKIP uses nowadays, the SPGB has tacitly accepted the notion that immigrant workers are problematic.

This is the flimisest excuse Ive heard yet for arguing against the SPGB debating against UKIP - that "you can't have a debate unless you and your opponent agree on some bare minimum ". Who says you can't? In what tablet of stone is this inscribed? Of course you can debate against someone with whom you radically disagree. The evidence presented may perhaps then compel one or other party to radically reassess their own views. This has happened and I even know of a case of fascist sympathiser who was persuaded to become a revolutionary socialist

Alternatively, I suppose I can play silly buggers with you and devise a form of words upon which common agreement can be based such as something as vague as - that the SPGB and UKIP both want to see a better world for working people. There now - is that not suitably vague enough to permit a debate to commence on your equally vague and questionable terms?


I dont think you know much about the SPGB if you imagine for one moment that it would tactly accept notion that immigrant workers are problematic buts that another matter!

[Hit The North]

It is easy to demolish the central propositions of UKIP. A reasonably educated school kid could do it. How would the SPGB's critique of UKIP be any different to, say, the Liberal-Democrats, apart from having the add-on desire for a socialist revolution (a nice one, natch)?

[PhoenixAsh]

Surely this isnt that difficult to work out? Why do you think two different points of view are debated? Obviously , it is because the protagonists on both sides wish to persuade or convince the other or, more particularly, some third party that their point of view is the right one.


The fact that you are reducing the huge ideological gap and polar opposites of socialism and fascism to mere "different points of view"...is exactly what gives fascism and ultra nationalism its legitimacy. It is a very good example of what I meant when I said that giving further legitimacy to the UKIP position (and the reality of indirect and direct ties to the radical far right, neo-fascists and fascists) pushes the legitimacy of ever more extreme view points into the light of what is acceptable.


I would argue that the fundamental task of revolutionaries is to spread revolutionary ideas. It may not be the only thing that revolutiuonaries do but it lies at the very heart of what revolutionaries do. To quote Willaim Morris socialists are basically involved in the business of "making socialists" You can't have a revolution without revolutionaries and you certainly cannot have a socialist revolution without a majority of the working class embracing revolutionary ideas beforehand. How do workers come to embrace revolutionary ideas? Through class struggle. But class struggle itself is amongst other things, a battle of ideas. Workers dont just mechanically react to their material conditions of employment and - hey presto - become revolutionaries That is just a crass a mechanistic view of materialism. They become revolutionaries by engaging with the ideas they encounter which means amongst other thing breaking free of stanglehold of ruling class ideas.

This debate is not about countering positions and opinions held by the working class.

The SPGB is not debating workers. It is debating the UKIP.

So the reality of this debate is not to get workers to participate in class struggle but to have them watch the SPGB make counter arguments against UKIP and spoon feed them arguments for them to process rather than to participate in the debate and work out the logic for themselves. They actually do not get to think and work it out for themselves...they get to watch life tele.

All the while legitimizing the UKIP itself as a viable conversation partner with legitimate views which, in a very bourgeoise notion, need to be civilly countered with arguments, counter arguments and a nice big debate.


So the propagation and dissemination of ideas matters vitally and anyone who denies this is either, in my view a complete fool or a fraud. It is interesting that you should see some on this forum who take up a "no platform" postion vis a vis the far right - our would-be public censors and pettifogging people' commisssars - see fit to sneer at what they call "abstract propagandism", namely the idea that socialist revolutionareis need to engage in disseminating socialist ideas. Its strike me that there is something of contradiction here: why try to suppress the ideas of the far right if you dont think the dissemination of ideas has any real impact? You have to wonder what these same individuals are doing on this forum obsessively promoting their "big idea" that promoting ideas doesn't matter

You seem to be under the impression that this debate is the only way you can disseminate ideas. And that debating "everybody" is in fact a socialist notion. I would like you to provide some basis for this assertion. More specifically...how is debating parties like UKIP or Fascists and Nazi's particularly socialist?

In fact...socialism is the notion that the working class engages its own misconceptions among themselves. Debate positions among themselves. Create class consciousness themselves. UKIP however is in no way shape or form working class and in no way shape or form are the party officials a proponent of the working class.



One final point - I have encountered on this forum, more than once, the stupid (and I would say hypocritical) argument that trying to persuade fellow workers to become socialists by advancing the case for socialism - whether in a public debate or any other format - is "vanguardist" and "elitist", that it assumes "you know best" and the workers are only a dumb mass that needs to be led.

Since I haven't read that in this thread...your point is mere sentiment. You are not advancing the case for socialism by getting your legitimacy from fascists.


That doesnt stop those making this idiotic claim from advancing their own ideas in debates with others and therefore by implication assuming they are right and those they debate with, are wrong. But the truly nonsensical aspect of all this lies in what it seems to imply. So several million members of the British working class vote for UKIP. According to our hypocrites, on the face of it what this means is that we should refrain from being judgemental. We should not consider or opine that the ideas that lead a worker to vote UKIP are wrong and ill founded because, well, that would be "elitist" and "vanguardist". You can see how this kind of wonky logic can help to support the batty idea that socialists should not debate against UKIP. Actually, if those individuals who advance this argument were honest with themselves what this would literally mean is extending a no platform approach to literally everyone who disagrees with them. So you dont debate with others or question their ideas if you dont like those ideas. All you do is deny them the right to express those ideas! Great way to settle an argument and change people's minds

I am very amused by your red herring falacy here. Utterly contemptible to equate the no-platform policy with a complete and utter absence of countering and disseminating ideas and opinions in other ways.

In fact your logic here hold that the ONLY way to counter UKIP ideas and opinions is by confronting UKIP itself and that debate is the only method to do so....which is ludicrous and in fact is (ironically) highly contemptible of the working class. So you do not confront THEIR ideas. You confront the party they follow or are misled by in order to make them change their minds.

You are talking about the right to express any position. I think this is an incredibly liberal notion. In doing so you are saying these ideas itself are legitimate positions to have which need to be, and can be, countered by civil arguments. This countering of course works both ways... something which you seem to forget.


I take the opposite approach. It is those who sneer at the disemmeniation of socialist ideas, who seek to apply a "no platform" to the far right and make matryrs of the latter, on the grounds that the pernicious ideas of the far right might contaminate the supposedly weak willed members of the working class

The SPGB historically sees fascism as another working class movement and a legitimate working class ideology. Which is a fun fact in this debate.

Another fun fact is that you have no freaking clue what no platform actually entails and why it is an effective strategy.


- it is they who are the real elitists and vanguardists in all this. Their attitude reminds me of the 9 o clock television schedule designed to protect little children from televison programmes of an adult nature. After 9pm the kiddies are whisked off to bed so mum and dad can watch a bit of naked flesh. So it is with our puritans on the revolutiuonary left. They dont trust in the ability of workers to make up their own minds. They need guidance from above and that means closing down certain political channels to the working class completely. Oh to be sure, our leftist puritans with their superior intellects can withstand the threat of nationalist contamination but not the childlike workers they patronisingly look down upon and claim to "represent".


Well...your attitude reminds me of fascism enabling. So I think we are on equal par here when it comes to contempt for each others positions and arguments.

All the while arguing to engage workers in debate and triggering to participate in the class struggle while arguing in favor of NOT debating workers NOT triggering them. NOT making them think.

You are arguing for being able to debate with a party. Representatives of a specific ideology.

Rather than the ones who actually matter: the working class supporters of these...the ones you should actually engage with.

So your entire line of reasoning is based on the hypocritical notion that debating UKIP equals debating the working class. Which is both preposterous and extremely hautain



The thing about political debates is that they concentrate or condense the aforementioned battle of ideas that is going on in the wider society. They are actually are rather good learning experience for that reason. I couldnt care a toss what bourgeois parties use debates for. The point is that in this case, they pit the idea of revolutionary socialism against that of bourgeois nationalism and force individuals to think about it . Socialists dont often get this opportunity and yet incredibly there are so called socialists here who see fit to question this. What planet are these people living in?


The planet where the SPGB had 400 members a century ago...and managed to gain 100 in the next 100 years.

So here is a reality check....the tactic you are arguing for ISN'T WORKING ;)

But the fact that you claim that socialists rarely get the chance (given the debate history of the SPGB this is a false notion)...proves the point of this entire debate being a publicity stunt. I am all for those...but NOT if they legitimize fascism, ultra-nationalism etc.



odswallop more like. What you dont seem to see is that by arguing that the far right should not have any right to free speech, that this makes you unwittingly a de facto lackey and bootlicker of the capitalist state.

This is awesome. You need to explain this because this argument is hillarious.



The irony of you calling yourself an "anarchist" is all the more striking for that. How else are you going to ensure that the far right is denied the right to free speech except by calling upon the state to effect such an outcome?

Again....a complete lack of understanding of the no-platform. Which doesn't need the state and even opposes the state protected freedom of oppression. Hence the fact why cops are so often called to protect the fascists from DA of anti-fascists.

your arguments needly walk hand in hand with the state and plays by their rules and the liberal reactionary notion of "everybody gets their say"


That is what it will come down to in the end once you start talking about who can and who cannot have the right to free speech. You are effectively inviting the state to step in and adjudicate on the matter of free speech, thereby reinforcing and extending the repressive power of the state. But be aware - there is no guarantee that the state once its starts repressing the far right and denying its fredom of speech won't start to do the same thing to you

O...well....so you live in the fantasy world where this isn't already happening? :)


Saying the far right does not, and cannot, have a right to free speech hardly constitutes "an important argument to make in the fight against them". Actually all it does is make you look pathetically weak . It suggests you have dont have any sound arguments to make against them and that you are fearful that their arguments might carry some weight among the working class. Which is why you have to resort to banning them and proscribing them and preventing them for having their say instead of taking on their arguments in a public debate and refuting them.

Their position is that the socialist movement needs to be destroyed. SO I am wondering what kind of argument you would use to counter that?

I am in fact wondering what argument you would use with the predator which is intend on eating you. You don't argue...you fight it.

You argue and debate with its supporters. Something you don't advocate doing.





I think your position is ridiculous. I say let the far right have their say. Lets see them wriggle and squirm as they try to justify the unjustifiable.

You mean the SPGB's 500 members to the 4500-12.000 members of the BNP and the 34000 members of UKIP...which holds parliamentary seats...I'd think the notion of you having them "wiggle and squirm" is rather comical and underestimates the logic and force of their arguments.


Rational argument is by far the most potent weapon that can be used against them.

Yes...with their support base. Not with the party and their representatives itself.


It is the one thing capable of defusing all the bravura and the mish mash of emotional ill thought sentiments that inspire (mainly young and male) disempowered members of the working class to flock to the banner of ultra nationalism. The testosterone-charged atmosphere they revel in , the tribalistic gang culture they glory in which sees people of other cultures and nations as the alien enemy against which they can unite, cannot withstand the rational case for socialism.

Who is contemptuous of the working class now.


It is akin to pouring water on a blazing fire whereas what you are doing is pouring a can of gasoline on the latter. And worse still you are enabling them to pass themselves of as the defenders of free speech. So, yes, I am fully confident, even if you are not, that the nationalists dont have a leg to stand on . And I am fully confident in my fellow workers being able to see this even if you are not

So far ~100 years prove you wrong.

[PhoenixAsh]

I got extremely tired of answering Robbo's wall of debate fallacies and red herrings.


So here is what it comes down to:


No platform is not akin to censorship. It is a refusal to let fascist, radical nationalists recruit and enacting their ideology.

No platform is not opposed to confronting ideology but it only does so with their support base, the working class, and not with parties and representatives of parties.

No platform is engaging in the class struggle by organizing and participating workers against fascism. Which is in fact the fundamental element of socialism rather than debating with anti-worker parties and their representatives which seek to corrupt class consciousness and counter it.

No platform opposes a state involvement in anti-fascist struggle and it opposes laws to forbid fascism. It refuses to acknowledge the state as a viable anti-fascist partner and in case of revolutionary no platform...it refuses to see any bourgeoisie representation as a viable anti-fascist partner. This power, according to no platform, only lies with the workers.

No platform sees the debate between parties and the reducing of the ideological incompatibility and polar opposite as fascist enabling. Enabling the fascist to exploit disenfrachisment of the working class through capitalism. Not because the working class can't think. Not because the working class is unable to decide....but the working class is disenfranchised and not class conscious. This class consciousness can NOT be raised by debating parties and representatives but by organizing the working class and arguing against prevailing notions of false class consciousness among them.

No platform holds that anti fascism is not merely an intellectual exercise (based on some misguided and false notion that logic will always prevail) but is actually a struggle....class struggle.

So there you go....

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I think what is problematic is your definition of the proletariat. To me, and I think this is consistent with Marxian usage, the proletariat is that class in society consisting of individuals who lack any or sufficient capital to live upon to prevent them from having to sell their labour power on the market. Engels certainly seemed to have defined the proletariat in this way - as "that class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live (Note to the 1888 English Edition of Manifesto of the Communist Party).

It probably is consistent with Marxian usage, since all sort of academic, reformist nonsense is called "Marxian", but it certainly isn't consistent with Marxist usage. Engels is overgeneralizing in the quote you cite (which is to be expected, since he did not intend to provide a comprehensive account of the class division of society, and particularly of the middle strata, in that offhand remark). And besides, when he was writing, these middle strata appeared insignificant in comparison to the proletariat on one hand, and the bourgeoisie and landowners, the Junkertum and so on, on the other.

Anyway, concerning managers, for example, this is how Marx puts it in Capital:

"If, then, the control of the capitalist is in substance two-fold by reason of the two-fold nature of the process of production itself, which, on the one hand, is a social process for producing use-values, on the other, a process for creating surplus value in form that control is despotic. As co-operation extends its scale, this despotism takes forms peculiar to itself. Just as at first the capitalist is relieved from actual labour so soon as his capital has reached that minimum amount with which capitalist production, as such, begins, so now, he hands over the work of direct and constant supervision of the individual workmen, and groups of workmen, to a special kind of wage-labourer. An industrial army of workmen, under the command of a capitalist, requires, like a real army, officers (managers), and sergeants (foremen, overlookers), who, while the work is being done, command in the name of the capitalist. The work of supervision becomes their established and exclusive function. When comparing the mode of production of isolated peasants and artisans with production by slave-labour, the political economist counts this labour of superintendence among the faux frais of production. But, when considering the capitalist mode of production, he, on the contrary, treats the work of control made necessary by the co-operative character of the labour-process as identical with the different work of control, necessitated by the capitalist character of that process and the antagonism of interests between capitalist and labourer. It is not because he is a leader of industry that a man is a capitalist; on the contrary, he is a leader of industry because he is a capitalist. The leadership of industry is an attribute of capital, just as in feudal times the functions of general and judge, were attributes of landed property."

And it is obvious that Marx distinguishes three broad groups in the above account: the bourgeoisie, the proletarians, and the "officers and sergeants", in other words the managers and foremen.

What sets these groups apart from the proletariat is, first of all, their function in the process of production, and second their remuneration, which is above the socially necessary labor time they had expended in preforming their duties; these groups receive a small share of the profit extracted from the proletarians. Likewise the labor bureaucracy and aristocracy, which are foremen at the level of entire industries, unions and regions.

As for cops and the intelligentsia, these are special groups that do not directly participate in the process of production, or their participation is negligible, but which provide the framework - being the direct arm of the bourgeois state - in which this process takes place.

That the petite bourgeoisie is not proletarian is such an elementary postulate of Marxist thought I feel embarrassed pointing it out. Nonetheless, the existence of this class alone belies your notion that "more than 95%" (!) of Britons are proletarian, since as I recall it in 2012 the percentage of the self-employed in the UK was something like 10%.


So, yes, by this standard the vast majority of the population ARE indeed proletarian or working class. That is, they conform to the broad definition outlined above. The converse of this is that the capitalist class - the other main class in capitalist society - is a tiny section of the population in whose hands capital is overwhelmingly concentrated - something that is amply born out by the official statistics concerning the distribution of wealth and income which I can happily point you to if you are not already aware of this data

I very much doubt official statistics track the relation of people to the means of production.


Needless to say, it follows from this that every political party (or at least every one I know of ) consists overwhelmingly of workers - including, incidentally, the Tory Party

Well, yes, that would follow, if your notion of the proletariat wasn't so broad as to be meaningless.


This is the flimisest excuse Ive heard yet for arguing against the SPGB debating against UKIP - that "you can't have a debate unless you and your opponent agree on some bare minimum ". Who says you can't? In what tablet of stone is this inscribed? Of course you can debate against someone with whom you radically disagree.

How? You can shout at them, of course, but in order to convince them you have to appeal to either some shared proposition, value or goal, a tautology, or some sort of empirical fact (and I am being extremely generous by ignoring that empirical facts can be disputed extensively). But the UKIP ideology is not based on a misunderstanding of mathematics or logic, so the second option is irrelevant, and there is no empirical fact that could disprove it, among other things because material nature doesn't provide any sort of normativity. So you have to appeal to some shared norms, if you want to carry out a rational discussion.

And if you have shared norms with UKIP, that's a bit worrying.


The evidence presented may perhaps then compel one or other party to radically reassess their own views. This has happened and I even know of a case of fascist sympathiser who was persuaded to become a revolutionary socialist

Obviously I don't know anything about the case - since you haven't given us any details - but I would guess that either the person in question was a poor fascist, is a poor socialist now, or most likely their material circumstances had changed - something hit their wallet so hard their ideology felt it.


Alternatively, I suppose I can play silly buggers with you and devise a form of words upon which common agreement can be based such as something as vague as - that the SPGB and UKIP both want to see a better world for working people. There now - is that not suitably vague enough to permit a debate to commence on your equally vague and questionable terms?

It's so vague it doesn't mean anything. It's a fetish-word. When I say "a better world", I mean something quite different from what you mean when you say "a better world", and both of us, I would hope, would not consider a youkipper's "better world" a better world.


I dont think you know much about the SPGB if you imagine for one moment that it would tactly accept notion that immigrant workers are problematic buts that another matter!

Well, effectively you're debating whether the bourgeois state ought to persecute them, so yes, you are tacitly accepting that they are problematic.

[robbo203]

The fact that you are reducing the huge ideological gap and polar opposites of socialism and fascism to mere "different points of view"...is exactly what gives fascism and ultra nationalism its legitimacy. It is a very good example of what I meant when I said that giving further legitimacy to the UKIP position (and the reality of indirect and direct ties to the radical far right, neo-fascists and fascists) pushes the legitimacy of ever more extreme view points into the light of what is acceptable.



I repeat again - you dont give legitimacy to a set of ideas by publicly criticising and attacking those ideas




This debate is not about countering positions and opinions held by the working class.

The SPGB is not debating workers. It is debating the UKIP.


I repeat again. It is from the working class that UKIP overwhelmingly draws it support and its is workers that overwhelming comprise its membership. The same is true of every other political party I can think of for the simple reason that the working class comprise the vast majority of contemporary capitalist society. There is no such an entity called UKIP that hovers abstractly above its membership and somehow exists independently of its members who , as i said, are overwhelmingly workers



So the reality of this debate is not to get workers to participate in class struggle but to have them watch the SPGB make counter arguments against UKIP and spoon feed them arguments for them to process rather than to participate in the debate and work out the logic for themselves. They actually do not get to think and work it out for themselves...they get to watch life tele.

Neither the SPGB nor anyone else needs to get workers to "participate in the class struggle"; they do that every day simply by virture of the fact of being workers. Part of the processing of arguments that you refer to involves exchanging ideas, listening to what other people have to say and engaging in debate that helps to refine your own ideas. We are social animals after all. "No man is an island" and all that. It is presumptuous to claim that you or me as individuals come to certain conclusions all by ourselves without any input from others. Ideas are social. That means they are the product of collective imaginings.

That aside, if as you seem to be suggesting, workers can and should be able to "work it out for themselves" why then are you and your fellow would be censors-cum-thought police so intent upon denying them the opportunity to do so by insisting that the far right should not be allowed to express its views, contemptible though they may be. Evidently and contrary to what you claim, you have no confidence in the ability of workers to see through the bullshit propagated by the far right and for which reason, like the elitist vanguardist you are, you arrogate to yourself the right to shield such workers from the potentially contaminating effect of far right ideas to which you naturally (being intelllectually superior) are completely immune



All the while legitimizing the UKIP itself as a viable conversation partner with legitimate views which, in a very bourgeoise notion, need to be civilly countered with arguments, counter arguments and a nice big debate.



I repeat again - you dont give legitimacy to a set of ideas by publicly criticising and attacking those ideas



You seem to be under the impression that this debate is the only way you can disseminate ideas. And that debating "everybody" is in fact a socialist notion. I would like you to provide some basis for this assertion. More specifically...how is debating parties like UKIP or Fascists and Nazi's particularly socialist?

I didnt say anything of the sort. You are inventing things as you go along to give the impression of substance to your own woolly headed and wishy washy arguments. Of course there are many different ways to disseminate socialist ideas. Did I ever suggest anything different? Nor did I suggest debates are specifally socialist - thats just a silly remark. Debates I said are useful as a way of concentrating or condensing the larger battle of ideas going on in society.




In fact...socialism is the notion that the working class engages its own misconceptions among themselves. Debate positions among themselves. Create class consciousness themselves. UKIP however is in no way shape or form working class and in no way shape or form are the party officials a proponent of the working class.

I think you will find you are talking out of your backside here. You have clearly done next to no research on the matter at all. For starters have a look at this http://mancunion.com/2014/03/10/interview-rob-ford/





I am very amused by your red herring falacy here. Utterly contemptible to equate the no-platform policy with a complete and utter absence of countering and disseminating ideas and opinions in other ways.


I cant make head or tails of this gibberish. What are you trying to say here? How do you "counter" the ideas of the far right via a no platform policy except in the sense of preventing those ideas from being heard? But that is precisely what I am criticising. You cant remove an idea from the minds of people by banning it. Thats just bourgeois legalism




In fact your logic here hold that the ONLY way to counter UKIP ideas and opinions is by confronting UKIP itself and that debate is the only method to do so....which is ludicrous and in fact is (ironically) highly contemptible of the working class. So you do not confront THEIR ideas. You confront the party they follow or are misled by in order to make them change their minds.


I repeat again. There is no such as entity called UKIP that hovers abstractly over its membership and exists independently of its members who are overwhelmingly workers



You are talking about the right to express any position. I think this is an incredibly liberal notion. In doing so you are saying these ideas itself are legitimate positions to have which need to be, and can be, countered by civil arguments. This countering of course works both ways... something which you seem to forget.


I repeat again. You dont give legitimacy to a set of ideas by publicly criticising and attacking those ideas



The SPGB historically sees fascism as another working class movement and a legitimate working class ideology. Which is a fun fact in this debate.


I repeat again. You dont give legitimacy to a set of ideas by publicly criticising and attacking those ideas



Another fun fact is that you have no freaking clue what no platform actually entails and why it is an effective strategy.


Hmm. Now, let me see. Could a "no platform" policy entail denying to others whose views you find objectionable a platform to express those viuews. Is that a "freaking clue" or do you even have a freaking clue what a freaking clue is?




All the while arguing to engage workers in debate and triggering to participate in the class struggle while arguing in favor of NOT debating workers NOT triggering them. NOT making them think.

I would respond to this but I dont have a freaking clue what you are on about




You are arguing for being able to debate with a party. Representatives of a specific ideology.

Rather than the ones who actually matter: the working class supporters of these...the ones you should actually engage with.

Which working class supporters of UKIP will be precisely those turning up at the debate with whom one would then actually engage with!




So your entire line of reasoning is based on the hypocritical notion that debating UKIP equals debating the working class. Which is both preposterous and extremely hautain

"Hautain". Thats a new one for me . What does it mean? But that aside how is my entire line of reasoning " based on the hypocritical notion that debating UKIP equals debating the working class". It must be some strong stuff you are on if can come to such a dotty conclusiuon as this. I mean come on - its not even remotely logical. The SPGB consists of members of the working class as well. So is the SPGB debating against its own membership by debating against UKIP. Surreal




But the fact that you claim that socialists rarely get the chance (given the debate history of the SPGB this is a false notion)...proves the point of this entire debate being a publicity stunt. I am all for those...but NOT if they legitimize fascism, ultra-nationalism etc.


I repeat again. You dont give legitimacy to a set of ideas by publicly criticising and attacking those ideas





Again....a complete lack of understanding of the no-platform. Which doesn't need the state and even opposes the state protected freedom of oppression. Hence the fact why cops are so often called to protect the fascists from DA of anti-fascists.

A misinderstanbding on your part then. I was not suggesting that the advocates of a no platform policy consciously desire for the state to intervene. What I was saying was the logic of what they are arguing will inadvertenbtly invite the state to intervene. You have duly confirmed the correctness of my view by admitting that "cops are so often called to protect the fascists from DA".




Their position is that the socialist movement needs to be destroyed. SO I am wondering what kind of argument you would use to counter that?

I am in fact wondering what argument you would use with the predator which is intend on eating you. You don't argue...you fight it.

You argue and debate with its supporters. Something you don't advocate doing.

You know, if you are going to argue against someone please at at least try to be honest. Since when do I not advocate arguing and debating with the supporters of the far right. I actually made my position quite clear. Im quite happy for any such debate to be in the organised format of a public debate or informal setting of a face to face encounter






You mean the SPGB's 500 members to the 4500-12.000 members of the BNP and the 34000 members of UKIP...which holds parliamentary seats...I'd think the notion of you having them "wiggle and squirm" is rather comical and underestimates the logic and force of their arguments.


Oh so now you think the idea of the far right contains "logic and force" do you ? What next I wonder? Can we expect an announcement from ypou that you decided to recant and move oiver to the forces of the far right whose logical and forceful argumnents quite overwhelmed.

Obviously you put your foot in it with this blunder of yours and I dont like to kick a guy when he is down. Buit next time choose your words a little more carefully. Just a friendly word of advice..:rolleyes:

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Oh so now you think the idea of the far right contains "logic and force" do you ? What next I wonder? Can we expect an announcement from ypou that you decided to recant and move oiver to the forces of the far right whose logical and forceful argumnents quite overwhelmed.

Obviously you put your foot in it with this blunder of yours and I dont like to kick a guy when he is down. Buit next time choose your words a little more carefully. Just a friendly word of advice..:rolleyes:

The sheer amount of misrepresentation in the above two paragraphs would be tragic if it weren't absolutely hilarious. PA said that you underestimate the logic and force of far-right arguments. Well, that seems to be true. You seem to believe fascists and other reactionaries are all imbecilic boneheads. If only life were so simple! In fact, I would go further than PA: there is more sense in a clever reactionaries like Schmitt or Cortez than in SPGB's "impossibilism". Of course, that doesn't make Schmitt or Cortez right, from our perspective. But not being right doesn't mean being stupid.

Quite frankly, if the SPGB representative is as well-informed as you are, and if UKIP bring someone halfway clever, the SPGB will get trounced.

Fascists aren't idiots, and fascism is immediately appealing to a certain social group - the petite bourgeoisie and the labor aristocracy of the dominant nationality, sex, religion, gender expression and sexuality. To them it might even be the most rational choice - it saves them from the symmetric blows of the more traditional right and the socialist left, enables them to rise above other groups as they are pushed down by state repression, and if the solution isn't viable in the long term - since all fascist states go through a phase of liberal restoration - in the long term they're all dead and won't care anyway.

So, great debater, how would you actually convince a fascist that they should be a socialist instead? I'm dying to see this magic incantation that can produce proletarian class consciousness out of thin air and good wishes.

[Kurdish-PKK-Communist]

I'll be there along with my friends, hopefully some beef will start out :grin:

[Hit The North]

Fascists aren't idiots,

I have to say that every fascist I've met, although this is not many, have been idiots.

[robbo203]

Anarchist Tension

Apologies if I havent responded sooner to all the points in your long post in response to my equally long one earlier. I have been busy with one or two other things. The comments in that post of mine were not all specifically directed at you and so may not all have been relevant to you even if you might have taken them to be as such.

I think the case against a "no platform" position is pretty much overwhelming and none of its exponents here have addressed the central point that it doesnt work - if anything, it is counterproductive - and has consequences that are fundamentally at odds with democratic socialist values. That is to say, it presumes a vanguard that arrogates to itself the right to shield what it conceives to be a weak-willed working class from the contamination of far right ideas, which class will not be able to withstand the "force and logic" of such ideas (as one contributer here put it) and so needs protecting from above.

That is what I and others here object to most of all about the "no platform" policy - its implicit arrogance and elitism. I won't rehearse the arguments here which have been amply covered elsewhere but I will deal with an interesting point you raise below. It is somewhat off topic but in a background sort of way is relevant to the theme of this thread





The problem I have with your conceptualisation of the 'socialist' as a subject is it detaches the working class from itself as a revolutionary force. By creating this concept of 'socialist ideas' and the 'socialist worker' as distinct from the proletariat, you alienate the subject of the proletariat as a social relationship from itself as an agent for social change.

I understand that you have a problem with this way of expressing ideas, but simply put, what I am trying to get across is the idea that individual working class people don't need to 'become socialists' in order to have 'revolutionary ideas,' as they already live their lives within the social relationship that determines them as the revolutionary subject and agents for social change. They are the social change, they don't need to become something else in order to fulfil their historic role.
.


I think you are expressing a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of socialist consciousness and its relation to socialist revolution. Your perspective seems to be based on what I call a crass mechanical materialism - the notion that material conditions mechanically or automatically "produce" ideas which overlooks the reciprocal influence of ideas on material conditions themselves

You say the working class are the revolutionary subject and dont need to become something else in order to fulfil their historic role: "They are the social change". On the face of it, this is nonsense. Even you would surely agree that at the present juncture the working class overwhelmingly supports capitalism and are not opting to change the state of affairs under which we currently live. I dont like it any more than you do but it is a plain fact that cannot be ignored.

The social relationships in which the working class is implicated have not hitherto produced any significant move to effect a fundamental change in the basis of society - from capitalism to socialism. Certainly workers have been involved in huge numbers in contemporary developments which the mainstream commentators see fit to dub "revolutionary" - from the "Velvet revolution" to the "Arab Spring". But these developments are not at all revolutionary in the fundamental Marxian sense; they merely signify a change in the management team running capitalism and in no sense do they transcend capitalism



Clearly, then, something has to change if the working class is to fulfil its historic role as the revolutionary subject. We have had several hundred years, at least in the case of the advanced capitalist countries, of the working class being enmeshed in set of social relationships, which is supposed to have propelled this class towards the revolutionary overthrow of society. Well, it hasnt happened yet and no shows no sign at the moment of happening. In their millions upon millions workers continue to support capitalism and vote for capitalist parties. So the argument that capiotalism will somehow mechanically bring about a revolutionary change in workers simply does not fit the facts.


That said , it is quite true that the working class is indeed the "revolutionary subject" in capitalism but you completely misunderstand what is meant by this. It means simply that the revolutionary class is the only class in the modern world capable of effecting a revolution. As Marx pointed out, capitalism is more and more simplifying the class structure of contemporary society leaving only two classes confronting each - a working class which is economically obliged to work for a living and comprises over 95% of the population and a tiny capitalist class in whose hands the means of production in the form of capital is progressively concentrating

To assert that the working class is the "revolutionary subject" in capitalism is an expression of potentiality not contemporary empirical fact. In no way is the wroking class actually revolutionary at the moment in the sense of wanting to bring about a fundamental transformation in society and it is delusional to think otherwise. The history of the Leftist thought is rife with such delusional thinking. One only has to go back to the time when the Bolsheviks effected their own bourgeois revolution that effectively established state capitalism as the dominant mode of prpduction. Large swathes of the Left got carried away the ephemeral rhetoric, completely misread the situation and deluded themselves into thinking that a socialist revolution was imminent in Europe (and in particular, Germany) which would somehow enable Russia to move on and effect a socialist revolution itself. This just after a devastating world war in which millions of workers had taken the sides of their respective masters to slaughter each other. This showed just how far Leftist thinking was out of kilter with existing social reality. Any socialist with his or her feet on the ground at the time (and there were some around) could have pointed out that there was absolutely no evidence that significant numbers of workers anywhere, let alone a majority, were intent upon overthowing their status as wage slaves and establishing a society of free associated labour - socialism


To establish such a society you absolutely have to have a majority of workers wanting it and understanding what it means . There is absolutely no getting around this. You cannot operate such a society without this fundamental shift in consciousness. How is this consciousness going to come about?

In the German Ideology Marx and Engels put it thyus

"Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01d.htm#d4

Note the phrase "and for the success of the cause itself" . What is clearly being spelt out here is that for communism (aka socialism) to be established presupposes the alteration of consciousness on a mass scale through the agency of a practical movement. Marx and Engels were very clear about what the work of such a practical movement would involve. So for example Engels writing in the 1895 Introduction to Karl Marx’s The Class Struggles in France 1848 to 1850 had this to say:

In France, where for more than a hundred years the ground has been undermined by one revolution after another, where there is not a single party which has not done its share in conspiracies, insurrections and all other revolutionary actions; in France, where, as a result, the government is by no means sure of the army and where the conditions for an insurrectionary coup de main are altogether far more favourable than in Germany — even in France the Socialists are realising more and more that no lasting victory is possible for them unless they first win over the great mass of the people, i.e. the peasants in this instance. Slow propaganda work and parliamentary activity are recognised here, too, as the immediate tasks of the party. ....
The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work which we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1895/03/06.htm

This emphasis on slow propaganda work and socialist education has been grossly misinterpteted by many leftists and particularly here on Revleft where I have encountered the most appalling and ignorant crap being peddled by so called revolutionaries. The suggestion has even been made that to engage in spreading revolutionary socialist ideas - the fundamental task of revolutionaries - is somehow "elitist" and "vanguardist" whereas in fact the very opposite is true. It is those who renounce the need to spread socialist ideas who think that socialism can be brought about from above by an enlightened elite and imposed on a non socialist working class who are actually the "elitists".

These people misunderstand completely what is meant by socialist education. Education is related to the word "educe" which comes from the Latin "educere" which means to "draw out". In this instance what is being "drawn out" and made manifest is precisely the revolutionary potential of workers as the revolutionary subject in capitalism. Your mistake, Anarchist Tension, is to assume that this makes the "conceptualisation of a socialist as a subject" one that " detaches the working class from itself as a revolutionary force". Thats simply not true. On the contrary becoming a socialist IS the realisation of the worker's revolutionary potential. It is making manifest what is latent in the working class as a revolutionary subject

But for that to happen requires a process of "educing" or "education" - something to "draw out" that revolutionary potential. The need for a revolutionary transformation of society is not something that you can just objectively read off from existing society; it not self evident or "obvious". It is a conclusion or inference that derives from conscious deliberation , the exchange of ideas and the interactions of workers themselves as they struggle to make sense of the world around them. Some for whatever reason become socialists before others but in no sense does that make them superior to, or intellectually more gifted, those who are not yet socialists. It is just in the nature of things that ideas spread from small beginnings

Neverthless, for the latter to become socialists needs the input and influence of an already existing "practical movement", the likelihood of any one individual coming to a socialist view of the world thorugh isolated contemplation of the state of the world is slim to say the least. Ideas are social by their very nature which means that for them to be developed and embraced by growing numbers of people, they have to be propagated. Our isolated socialist hermit would not get very far with his or her conceptual discovery that socialism was the answer, if he or she did not share with or help spread that idea amongst other workers. Unity is strength and you need strengtth based on the awareness that millions of workers share the worldview to affect a revolution

Which brings us back to the debate betwqeen the SPGB and UKIP. If, for no other reason than that we have to engage with ideas that stand in the way of socialism if we are to transcend those ideas, I would say that the pricnipole of debating with pro-capitalist organisations is fully justified. The problem is not so much the far right as capitalism itself and the obsessive preoccupation of some on left with the far right is, at best, diversionary and counterproductive.

What has to remembered is individuals who comprise the far right will themsleves have to be drawn away from an ideology that is in fact rampanat and mainstream in contemporary capitalism, if we are to make progress. Put yourself in the shoes of a young fascist thug from an inner city sink council state who has been shat upon by the authorities all his life and has been spoonfed lies about immigrant taking away jobs and so on. To be told by what he perceives, rightly or wrongly, to be a relatively privileged middlle class left wing student that he is the problem and he is the one to be denied a platfrom when he has been socially excluded all his life, is like offering a red rag to a bull.

What you are doing is shutting down all possibility for such a workjer to realise his socialist potential, forcing him to seek the support and solidarity of like minded individuals and thereby inadvertently strengthening the forces of the far right. That is why, on principle, I oppose the policy of no platfrom as should every socialist. It serves no purpose but to weaken the socialist cause.

[PhoenixAsh]

Before I get to Robbo's textual wall of liberal bourgeois arguments thinly veiled with a sauce of "socialism" by adding some Marx and Engels quotes I need to address some of his many many misconceptions and red herrings.

The first is the most obvious; his liking of no-platform to censorship. This equation stems from his liberal bourgeois notion of anti-fascism (which I will address a little further on) and a complete lack of understanding what no platform policy actually is.

No platform doesn't aim to censor far right and fascist ideas but it aims to prevent these ideas being put into practice. As fascism depends on working class and middle class support to implement its ideology it needs a public platform to voice their ideas in our communities. No platform policy prevents them from taking these platforms within our communities. Any representation of no platform to equate it with censorship is not only false but disingenuous and, ironically, predominantly and most vehemently argued by liberal bourgeois organisations and liberal anti-fascists.

In order to facilitate this argument, liberal anti-fascists like Robbo, use a complete misrepresentation of the concept of freedom of speech in connection to no-platform policy. Freedom of speech, however much they like to pretend it to be, is not an absolute. Freedom of speech does not entail the right to be heard by anybody at any given time or place nor does it entail the free access of anybody to hear you speak at any given time or place. As such a no-platform policy does not violate any sort of freedom of speech for fascists as there are plenty of venues for them to express their opinions.

The notion that no platform policy infringes on some conceptual Utopian idealization of freedom of speech is thoroughly rooted in the liberal anti-fascist tradition which mainly sees fascism as a moral wrong and a threat to democratic rights and principles rather than a threat to the working class and an ideology aimed at the destruction of the working class. Liberal anti-fascism sees fascism as something to be opposed through peaceful means like debate while maintaining the liberal rights of freedom of speech and gathering for fascist organisations and movements. It argues against the use of violence and most of all it is the main opponent of a no-platform policy. Liberal anti-fascism is therefore a protection of the status quo. It is this position Robbo is actually arguing. Ironically it is the liberal anti-fascist movement that argues most often for a state repression of fascism through laws while at the same time arguing for protection of the fundamental liberal rights of fascists, granting them police protection through the same interference of the state.

And this is where Robbo confuses his own position with that of the militant anti-fascists. Who, as opposed to their liberal counter parts, reject any and all notions of state interference and argues against the use of the state to repress freedom of speech for fascists. Repression of fascism according to the militant anti-fascist no-platform policy can only be done through organizing the working class against fascism. Rather than being some arrogant vanguard movement militant anti-fascism mobilizes the working class on regional and national levels more than any other form of anti-fascism and has paved the way for increasing self radicalization without being condescending towards the working class. Rather than ignoring far-right arguments, as Robbo suggests, militant anti-fascism and the no platform policy debate and counter these arguments. They however do so on a class level with the working class, among the working class and through the working class. The very people that make up the far right support base. At the same time no platform prevents the parties and organisations to get a foothold. And it worked...and works.

Just as much as the no platform policy has destroyed many fascist movements including the FN and (as was seen after the SWP rejected and expelled squadism) lifting the no platform policy has without fail bolstered fascist movements and recruitment and led to an increase in membership. Where a no-platform policy was failed to be implemented or was actively lifted the far right benefited by gaining footholds in communities, a rise in far right violence and growth of its membership and support base. But in contrast the activities of anti-fascist movements and implementing the no platform policy has led to shifts towards the left and radicalization and empowerment of the working class in every region they were active or implemented. But I suppose a backroom debate frequented by a handful of people between the SPGB and UKIP will undoubtedly have the same effect...because every party or group that actively debated fascists has grown in size and reduced support for fascists...o...wait...that never ever happened.

Where Robbo again gets it entirely wrong is his knee-jerk reaction to an unfunded fear that no-platform policies will lead to the repression of the radical left because it is supposed to argue against freedom of speech. This fear again stems from a liberal notion of the defense of democracy and the status quo in which the radical left is grouped together with fascism as another form of anti-democratic extremism. Robbo makes the false equation that the suppression of the left is because of a no-platform policy rather than through inherent limitations to the concept of free speech itself. It stems from his failure to understand the concepts of democracy and free speech in current society...which neither are as idealistic as he likes to portray them to be.

The repression of the radical left is however a fact. One that has no bearing on tactics but on its nature which unlike fascism can not be exploited by the bourgeois to bolster and secure their position. It is undeniably the case that incidents will be used to increase repression or take away previously granted privileges, but these are mere excuses with a legalized framework for appearance sake. Robo seems to be arguing that in order to be allowed to operate with the limited freedom the bourgeois state grants parties and movements we should submit to the rules of their game and put our heads down and chose forms of action and praxis which keeps us within their legal framework. Fuck that notion.

Liberal anti-fascism is a huge proponent of debating the ultra right parties and movements because of the misguided notion that a debate is won through giving the most logical and rational answers and outwitting the opponent and therefore opposes anything that they think comes even close to censorship. Weighing everything based on their merits and everything that is illogical or without factual basis will be rejected by the rational functioning human mind.

This Enlightenment idealization to how the human mind functions and how humans make decisions has been disproved time and time again by tons of research. Humans aren't logical beings. In fact, only a minority of humans operate on; and a minority of all human decisions are made through; logical deduction. Most decisions are made through emotions and through the "unconscious brain" which is then rationalized by our "conscious minds". This does not discredit logical arguments or debates, but it does mean that the notion that humans are logical and therefore logic will win every time is untrue and logical and rational debates are an effective way to bring about socialism...are false and in fact entirely dismissive of human nature and the value of emotions.

From his failure to understand how humans and human decision making work and works comes the failure to understand why fascism is such a dangerous force and why fascist parties and bridge-parties pose a huge threat that bring them well beyond the notion of being debatable. It is an utter underestimation of fascism, its appeal and force of arguments. And an utter ignorance of their leaderships intelligence.

That said; I am not arguing that Robbo is a liberal. Arguing this would be dishonest because it is obviously not true. Yet his in this case his arguments are, through misconception, misunderstanding and being thoroughly misguided indeed very much liberal and bourgeois in both nature and effect. Robbo, and some other users here may not notice it because his posts are usually well formulated and, in this case, littered with terminology and quotes.

I have another quote...or rather a paraphrase:

The fight against fascism is a civil war and should be conducted as such, without the niceties of civil liberties for fascism. The militia detachments for defense against fascism are the first step on the road to the arming of the proletariat, not the last. Only political invalids(...) can speak of a peaceful, (...) road to socialism. The (...) road is cut by trenches held by the fascist bands. There are not a few trenches before us. The bourgeoisie will not hesitate to resort to a dozen coups d'etat. aided by the police and the army, to prevent proletariat from coming to power.

Which is by far one of the imo most useful texts by Trotsky. I see no reason not to mention it often regardless of my opinions on him.

[PhoenixAsh]

I repeat again - you dont give legitimacy to a set of ideas by publicly criticising and attacking those ideas. I repeat again - you dont give legitimacy to a set of ideas by publicly criticising and attacking those ideas. I repeat again. You dont give legitimacy to a set of ideas by publicly criticising and attacking those ideas. I repeat again. You dont give legitimacy to a set of ideas by publicly criticising and attacking those ideas. I repeat again. You dont give legitimacy to a set of ideas by publicly criticising and attacking those ideas

You can repeat it but it doesn't make it less true.

You conveniently forget you are not advocating the debate against an idea or concept. You are advocating the debate of the ideologies main proponent...a party and party official as a representative of the formalization of the ideology. In doing to you are equating them equal value. This is something entirely different from debating an idea.

The mere fact that you find something debatable with its main proponents gives credence and legitimacy to the main proponent of the idea itself no matter how much you oppose it because you are granting it a normative status by consenting the position deserves a counter argument.

And if it is eligible for debate it can and should be tolerated.



There is no such an entity called UKIP that hovers abstractly above its membership and somehow exists independently of its members who , as i said, are overwhelmingly workers.

I haven't argued that.

Actually a party us an institution that does not depend on its members and supporters for anything else than the right to exist. A party is the formalization of an ideology. It exists within the frame work of this ideology and not within the frame work of its members opinions and ideas. Members have very little to no actual influence over party politics outside of that frame work. Any influence they have is limited and/or incredibly slow in changing the party from the bottom up. This is especially true when moving to the right of the political spectrum where you can and will encounter parties without actual members or where all decisions are made by the party leadership or scrutinized
for adhering to and compatibility with the parties ideology.


I repeat again. It is from the working class that UKIP overwhelmingly draws it support and its is workers that overwhelming comprise its membership. The same is true of every other political party I can think of for the simple reason that the working class comprise the vast majority of contemporary capitalist society.

I haven't actually argued anything to the contrary.

However UKIP and fascist groups are not working class parties regardless if it overwhelmingly supported by the working class.



Neither the SPGB nor anyone else needs to get workers to "participate in the class struggle"; they do that every day simply by virture of the fact of being workers.

Most workers do not participate in the class struggle because participation suggests imo active and conscious involvement. Most workers do not even realize there is a class war being waged and see their situation as a mere factor of waxing and waning economic and social fortunes and not as a factor of their class. Hell most workers do not even consider themselves belonging to the working class at all. But I will nuance my position to "participate consciously" to concede the point so we can move on.



Part of the processing of arguments that you refer to involves exchanging ideas, listening to what other people have to say and engaging in debate that helps to refine your own ideas. We are social animals after all. "No man is an island" and all that. It is presumptuous to claim that you or me as individuals come to certain conclusions all by ourselves without any input from others. Ideas are social. That means they are the product of collective imaginings.

I like you ramblings about something I never claimed. What I am claiming however is that debating a fascist organisation grants legitimacy to that organization and that it is much more effective and strategically sound to debate positions with workers rather than the formalized structured of ideology.


That aside, if as you seem to be suggesting, workers can and should be able to "work it out for themselves" why then are you and your fellow would be censors-cum-thought police so intent upon denying them the opportunity to do so by insisting that the far right should not be allowed to express its views, contemptible though they may be. Evidently and contrary to what you claim, you have no confidence in the ability of workers to see through the bullshit propagated by the far right and for which reason, like the elitist vanguardist you are, you arrogate to yourself the right to shield such workers from the potentially contaminating effect of far right ideas to which you naturally (being intelllectually superior) are completely immune

No platform militant anti-fascism has consistently argued against, opposed and fought state legislation to ban fascism. Your diatribe here is completely misplaced and stems from your own liberal notion of anti-fascism and its own direct consequences.

But I love your contradiction of fact. The overwhelming support for the far right comes from the working class. Your argument...with which I happen to completely agree. Yet you at the same time argue that it is elitist vanguardist arrogance to acknowledge this fact because, you argue, those very same workers have the ability to see through the bullshit of the far right.

I guess somehow these working class supporters failed to see through their bullshit and realized the error of their ways because you haven't yet destroyed the party's argument in a nice civil debate for them yet. How very non arrogant of you :rolleyes:

Let me explain a very simple real world fact: fascism is not some foolish notion. It is a very dangerous ideology which in fact has real emotional and logical appeal to consciously thinking working class members.

This is the reason why you do not debate fascist parties and let them gain foothold in our communities to implement their strategies and let them root themselves as respectable members of the community. This is why you actually help organize the working class to oppose these parties to speak in and gain entrance to their communities.

Your narrow minded liberal anti-fascism seems to be unable to fathom that this is not censorship. This is not mistrust in the working class but it is the acknowledgement that debating means: two sides of the story. This means your side will always be limited in who is persuades by the arguments you make and by the arguments brought to bare against you. So at the same time you are persuading some to become anti-fascist THEY WILL EQUALLY PERSUADE OTHERS TO BECOME FASCISTS....this is how debates actually work.

Anti-fascism is not an intellectual exercise and no place for intellectual mosquito's like you who completely and utterly fail to realize this. Anti fascism is helping to and organize the working class to oppose groups out for their destruction.

Wherever no-platform was lifted the far right, ironically, gained footholds among the working class, managed to root itself in communities, increased racial violence and extended its membership and support base. Yet you at the same time argue that it is elitist vanguardist arrogance to acknowledge this fact because, you argue, those very same workers have the ability to see through the bullshit of the far right.

You argue with the support base but you isolate their formal structures. Arguing with the formal structures gives them legitimacy, respectability, credence and a platform to actively recruit...no matter how much logic you think your arguments have.

Sjeez...this is kindergarten stuff Robbo.




I didnt say anything of the sort. You are inventing things as you go along to give the impression of substance to your own woolly headed and wishy washy arguments. Of course there are many different ways to disseminate socialist ideas. Did I ever suggest anything different? Nor did I suggest debates are specifally socialist - thats just a silly remark. Debates I said are useful as a way of concentrating or condensing the larger battle of ideas going on in society.

Then use those and isolate the formal structures of ideologies set out on the destruction of the working class. Yet you seem to be hell bend on arguing that debate with these parties should be a valid option out of some deranged liberal notion of freedom of speech...and "omg maybe they are going to ban revolutionary left wing parties".

Fascism is not merely an idea. Your reductionism is appalling and liberal anti-fascism. Your entire line of reasoning reduces fascism to a mere moral evil rather than the extremely dangerous ideology it is. An ideology against which the working class should organize.



I think you will find you are talking out of your backside here. You have clearly done next to no research on the matter at all. For starters have a look at this http://mancunion.com/2014/03/10/interview-rob-ford/

I think you again completely fail to understand. UKIP is not a working class party or are proponents of the working class. The only thing your nice little linky has shown is that this is utterly true. So what were you arguing? That UKIP is supported by the working class? Omy...I never would have thunk. Sjeez...well..this completely discredits my entire argument that the fact that far right parties recruit among the working class and therefore should be fought is void....sjeez.

Idiot.



I cant make head or tails of this gibberish. What are you trying to say here? How do you "counter" the ideas of the far right via a no platform policy except in the sense of preventing those ideas from being heard? But that is precisely what I am criticising. You cant remove an idea from the minds of people by banning it. Thats just bourgeois legalism

No platform isn't banning it. No platform is denying platform outside the scope of legality through working class organization and engagement....you know....actually radicalizing the working class.

Something which a top down debate completely and utterly fails to do.

No platform is the policy to deny parties and official representatives of parties (which are the actualization of ideology) a platform to root themselves and implement their ideology. It is NOT a tactic which does not allow room for debate on a class level with the actual support base of these parties.

But you are to stubborn and obstinate to actually acknowledge the difference.


I repeat again. There is no such as entity called UKIP that hovers abstractly over its membership and exists independently of its members who are overwhelmingly workers

Yes...and again you are wrong except for the part where their support base is overwhelmingly workers.



Hmm. Now, let me see. Could a "no platform" policy entail denying to others whose views you find objectionable a platform to express those viuews. Is that a "freaking clue" or do you even have a freaking clue what a freaking clue is?

Actually I was trying to say you are arguing on a false and utterly liberal notion of no platform policy. But I guess I need to spell it out for you. Maybe I should bold caption and large lettering next time? Maybe that will make it easier to comprehend?



I would respond to this but I dont have a freaking clue what you are on about


You don't have a freaking clue regardless. But in this instance I meant you are arguing in favor of a strategy which completely opposes your entire line of reasoning. Debating a party is not the same as debating its support base.


Which working class supporters of UKIP will be precisely those turning up at the debate with whom one would then actually engage with!

And they will be very inclined to listen to your words of eternal and absolute wisdom....rather than being there to support their party. See my arguments above on how a debate works in the real world....rather than your LSD infused idealization of completely winning them over.


"Hautain". Thats a new one for me . What does it mean?

It means supercilious



But that aside how is my entire line of reasoning " based on the hypocritical notion that debating UKIP equals debating the working class". It must be some strong stuff you are on if can come to such a dotty conclusiuon as this. I mean come on - its not even remotely logical. The SPGB consists of members of the working class as well. So is the SPGB debating against its own membership by debating against UKIP. Surreal

Sigh.




A misinderstanbding on your part then. I was not suggesting that the advocates of a no platform policy consciously desire for the state to intervene. What I was saying was the logic of what they are arguing will inadvertenbtly invite the state to intervene. You have duly confirmed the correctness of my view by admitting that "cops are so often called to protect the fascists from DA".

In fact the cops protecting the fascists is because of the fact that fascism actually has a function for the bourgeoisie. Other than that it is a direct result of the prevalence of the liberal notion of freedom of speech and the validation of all opinions within the legal frame work of democracy.

But we don't just not consciously desire the state to keep the hell out of it. We actively argue against and oppose any state legislation to that effect.


You know, if you are going to argue against someone please at at least try to be honest. Since when do I not advocate arguing and debating with the supporters of the far right. I actually made my position quite clear. Im quite happy for any such debate to be in the organised format of a public debate or informal setting of a face to face encounter

This entirely ignores what I said and doesn't even remotely address it. I know you are a liberal fascist. I was in fact asking what you would say to a predator intend on eating you to dissuade it to do so.

Other than that I concluded you have a preference to argue parties (formalized structures of ideology and their practical application) giving them legitimacy and a foothold in communities and surrendering these communities to a lasting presence of fascism.....rather than the workers that support it.



Oh so now you think the idea of the far right contains "logic and force" do you ? What next I wonder? Can we expect an announcement from ypou that you decided to recant and move oiver to the forces of the far right whose logical and forceful argumnents quite overwhelmed.

Obviously you put your foot in it with this blunder of yours and I dont like to kick a guy when he is down. Buit next time choose your words a little more carefully. Just a friendly word of advice..:rolleyes:

This was neither a blunder nor a wrong choice of words. This statement was in fact quite deliberate and it concerns me to no end that you seem to be so dismissive of fascism that you arrogantly think their presence in our communities is merely an obstacle and a result of not debating them enough on the same platform.

But this issue has already been adequately and eloquently addressed by CA or Vincent West...or whoever he was...

It quite astounds me that you are so freaking arrogant that you think that working class supporters of fascism and overwhelmingly form their support base are mere misguided fools who just haven't see the light yet....so all they need is a strong back room debate to be brought to different views.

It also amazes me that you think a debate is all that is needed to fight fascism. So....you have persuaded a few of the handful of workers that bothered to show up. You haven't reached the thousands of others that stayed at home. But lets conveniently forget that...so now what? These people go home...no longer fascist. What are you advising them to do next? Join the SPGB??? :D

[robbo203]

No platform doesn't aim to censor far right and fascist ideas but it aims to prevent these ideas being put into practice. As fascism depends on working class and middle class support to implement its ideology it needs a public platform to voice their ideas in our communities. No platform policy prevents them from taking these platforms within our communities. Any representation of no platform to equate it with censorship is not only false but disingenuous and, ironically, predominantly and most vehemently argued by liberal bourgeois organisations and liberal anti-fascists.

You are being disingenuous here yourself, making a distinction without a difference. How does denying the far right access to public platforms through which they can voice their ideas in our communities NOT amount to censorship? Please. Dont try to use weasel words and specious arguments to conceal the obvious facts. Why are you so afraid to just honestly come out with it and simply admit that what you are advocating is a form of censorship? Could it be that if you scratch a militant anti-fascist you find an ashamed liberal inside?



Freedom of speech, however much they like to pretend it to be, is not an absolute. Freedom of speech does not entail the right to be heard by anybody at any given time or place nor does it entail the free access of anybody to hear you speak at any given time or place. As such a no-platform policy does not violate any sort of freedom of speech for fascists as there are plenty of venues for them to express their opinions.

Oh I agree that freedom of speech can be relative rather absoute but then lets call a spade a spade . What we would then be talking about is a limited or impoverished form of free speech. You cannot pretend that a no platform policy does not "violate any sort of freedom of speech for fascists" when you yourself have openly advocated denying the far right access to public platforms through which they can voice their ideas. The point is that you have set yourself up as the arbiter of what the working class should or should not have access to by way of political ideas rather than let workers evaluate the ideas themselves and reach their own conclusions. That makes you an elitist. Your concept of freedom of speech is a highly selective one.




Liberal anti-fascism sees fascism as something to be opposed through peaceful means like debate while maintaining the liberal rights of freedom of speech and gathering for fascist organisations and movements. It argues against the use of violence and most of all it is the main opponent of a no-platform policy. Liberal anti-fascism is therefore a protection of the status quo. It is this position Robbo is actually arguing. Ironically it is the liberal anti-fascist movement that argues most often for a state repression of fascism through laws while at the same time arguing for protection of the fundamental liberal rights of fascists, granting them police protection through the same interference of the state.


I do not argue for the "protection of the status quo" whatever that means - I'm a revolutionary socialist not a liberal, for fucks sake. Nor do I argue for "state repression of fascism through laws". Just to make that absolutely clear




And this is where Robbo confuses his own position with that of the militant anti-fascists. Who, as opposed to their liberal counter parts, reject any and all notions of state interference and argues against the use of the state to repress freedom of speech for fascists. .



Yes I am aware of the fact that militant anti-fascists reject the use of the state to repress freedom of speech for fascists. But that is not the point is it? The point is that by their actions they make state interference INEVITABLE even if unintended. It is naive in the extreme to imagine that you can mobilise against fascists with force and not expect the state to intervene on the pretext of maintaining law and order. You must surely be aware of this when you engage in this form of mobilisation




Repression of fascism according to the militant anti-fascist no-platform policy can only be done through organizing the working class against fascismRather than being some arrogant vanguard movement militant anti-fascism mobilizes the working class on regional and national levels more than any other form of anti-fascism and has paved the way for increasing self radicalization without being condescending towards the working class.


Your very words belies belie your claims. You want to "organise" the working class and "mobilise" them rather than let workers organise and mobilise themselves. You want to forcibly deny workers access to far right ideas by depriving the far right of public platforms through which they can voice their ideas. You said that yourself. Im not putting words in your mouth. Now how does that NOT possibly denote a position of arrogant vanguardism vis a vis the far right ideas?



Rather than ignoring far-right arguments, as Robbo suggests, militant anti-fascism and the no platform policy debate and counter these arguments. They however do so on a class level with the working class, among the working class and through the working class. The very people that make up the far right support base.


I never said or suggested you ignore far right arguments did I? But this is not what this debate is about. Of course militant anti fascists do things like leafletting working class neighbourhoods putting forward arguments that counter the nationalistic and racist claptrap spewed out by the fascists. I have absolutely no problem with that whaoteover. What I do have a serious problem with is the no platform approach adopted by some anti fascists. My argument is that such an approach is vanguardist and counterproductive. And above all it does not get to the root of the problem - how do you wean away people (and there are lots of them) who are already sympathetic to the some or all of ideas of the far right, from those ideas . What your approach does is the exact opposite. It is to CLOSE DOWN any option for such people to reconsider and move away from these ideas of their own accord. You are positing them personally as " the problem" and detracting incidentally from the socialist postion that the problem is not really fascism but capitalism, fascism being an outgrowth or response to the material conditions that the system visits upon workers. Naturally under these circumstances people sympathetic to far right ideas will close ranks will begin to look upon you as the enemy and will seek out the solidarity and support of like minded individuals that reinforces their view of the world . Thats view of the world protrays you sterotypically as little more than a bunch of relatively privileged "middle class" student types from the leafy suburbs intent upon lecturing to the workers what they should think out of dogmatic attachment to some abstract theory you learnt in college. That is why I say what you are arguing is counterproductive



At the same time no platform prevents the parties and organisations to get a foothold. And it worked...and works.
Just as much as the no platform policy has destroyed many fascist movements including the FN and (as was seen after the SWP rejected and expelled squadism) lifting the no platform policy has without fail bolstered fascist movements and recruitment and led to an increase in membership. Where a no-platform policy was failed to be implemented or was actively lifted the far right benefited by gaining footholds in communities, a rise in far right violence and growth of its membership and support base. But in contrast the activities of anti-fascist movements and implementing the no platform policy has led to shifts towards the left and radicalization and empowerment of the working class in every region they were active or implemented.


I seriously doubt what you are claiming here. Where is the evidence to back up these claims? The left is very much prone to mythologising and fantasising about its role in history and you exhibit this tendency in abundance. The big daddy of all such myths in this context was the so called "Battle of Cable Street" in 1936 in which 100,000 anti fascists repulsed a march by 5000 supporters of Mosley's British Union of Fascists through a district in the East End of London. This was supposed to have marked a turning point in support for fascism. It did not. In fact support for fascism grew directly as a result of this incident. As Daniel Tilles points out

Far from signalling the demise of fascism in the East End, or bringing respite to its Jewish victims, Cable Street had quite the opposite effect. Over the following months the BUF was able to convert defeat on the day into longer-term success and to justify a further radicalisation of its anti-Jewish campaign.
(http://www.historytoday.com/daniel-tilles/myth-cable-street)

In any case, I would argue that far more important than any impact the Left might have had is the reaction of the mainstream capitalist parties. In Britain, both the Labour and Tory parties have cynically moved in the direction of accommodating anti-immigrant sentiments expressed by the far right, thus stealing the thunder of the far right. To put it differently, the net effect of militant anti-facsism, even where it "succeeds" on its own terms, amounts to driving individuals sympathetic to far right ideas into the welcoming arms of the big capitalist parties




Where Robbo again gets it entirely wrong is his knee-jerk reaction to an unfunded fear that no-platform policies will lead to the repression of the radical left because it is supposed to argue against freedom of speech. This fear again stems from a liberal notion of the defense of democracy and the status quo in which the radical left is grouped together with fascism as another form of anti-democratic extremism.


But hold on here. You yourself have admitted that the state has often intervened on the pretext of maintaining law and order and in a manner that works against what the miltant antifascists are hoping to achieve. I refer to your comment that "cops are so often called to protect the fascists from DA". To put it bluntly, if push comes to shove, and the state perceives that there is a serious threat to law and order it will not hesitate to clamp down in a way that threatens the democratic rights of EVERYONE - not just the far right. Naturally the state will justify this denial of democracy to everyone on the grounds that it is being "impartial" and "even handed". You will have given it the pretext for doing that



Robbo makes the false equation that the suppression of the left is because of a no-platform policy rather than through inherent limitations to the concept of free speech itself. It stems from his failure to understand the concepts of democracy and free speech in current society...which neither are as idealistic as he likes to portray them to be.

This is a confusing mish mash. What are these "inherent limitations to the concept of free speech". The limitations on free speech are not "inherent" to the concept itself but rather are imposed on the practice of free speech from without . By the state, by the militant anti-fascists and indeed by the fascists themselves. You can make free speech as wide or as limited as you like. It is a matter of political choice and I choose to opt for the widest possible expression of free speech because that is fundamentaly beneficial to the socialist cause



The repression of the radical left is however a fact. One that has no bearing on tactics but on its nature which unlike fascism can not be exploited by the bourgeois to bolster and secure their position. It is undeniably the case that incidents will be used to increase repression or take away previously granted privileges, but these are mere excuses with a legalized framework for appearance sake. Robo seems to be arguing that in order to be allowed to operate with the limited freedom the bourgeois state grants parties and movements we should submit to the rules of their game and put our heads down and chose forms of action and praxis which keeps us within their legal framework. Fuck that notion.

So you admit that the state will repress the radical left when it suits the interests of the state to do so and the pretext for doing so will be the breakdown in law and order consequent upon the forcible attempts by militant anti-fascists to deny the far right a public platform to voice its ideas. You say these are "mere excuses with a legalized framework for appearance sake". Thats not the point, though. The point is that you by your actions are providing the state with a pretext to take such repressive measures. Admit it.

You also expose your own top-down version of history in which democratic rights are something that are consdescendingly handed down or granted from above to the populace out of expediency rather than something that are fought for and struggled for from the bottom up. What you are propogating is a quite false elitist version of history. I suggest you get hold of a little book called Stilled Tongues: From Soapbox to Soundbite by Stephen Coleman (Porcupine Press, 1997) which completely refutes this version of history. Coleman incidentally was a member of the SPGB so you might find his arguments quite pertinent



Liberal anti-fascism is a huge proponent of debating the ultra right parties and movements because of the misguided notion that a debate is won through giving the most logical and rational answers and outwitting the opponent and therefore opposes anything that they think comes even close to censorship. Weighing everything based on their merits and everything that is illogical or without factual basis will be rejected by the rational functioning human mind.

This Enlightenment idealization to how the human mind functions and how humans make decisions has been disproved time and time again by tons of research. Humans aren't logical beings. In fact, only a minority of humans operate on; and a minority of all human decisions are made through; logical deduction. Most decisions are made through emotions and through the "unconscious brain" which is then rationalized by our "conscious minds". This does not discredit logical arguments or debates, but it does mean that the notion that humans are logical and therefore logic will win every time is untrue and logical and rational debates are an effective way to bring about socialism...are false and in fact entirely dismissive of human nature and the value of emotions.

From his failure to understand how humans and human decision making work and works comes the failure to understand why fascism is such a dangerous force and why fascist parties and bridge-parties pose a huge threat that bring them well beyond the notion of being debatable. It is an utter underestimation of fascism, its appeal and force of arguments. And an utter ignorance of their leaderships intelligence.


Actually everything you say here reinforces my argument and refutes yours - as I have been trying to tell you several times now. It is precisely because of the irrational nature of far right ideas that it needs to be combatted with rational argument. It is you, not me, who underestimates the power of irrationality and human emotions. You dont consider the effect of your own actions on those sympathertic to far right ideas because you fail to grasp that their attachment to those ideas is essentially emotional and irrational. So when you posit them as the problem to be forcibly eliminated how do you expect them to react? You are playing with fire, dousing it with gasoline whereas I am advocating instead a good dousing of cold water and rational argument.

At the end of the day the difference between us is that you are not really interested in changing a fascist into a non fascist. You objectify fascists as the problem to be smashed and eliminated forcibly from outside. It wont work that way and can never work and ironically in the end it is you who exhibits "failure to understand how humans and human decision making work".

Incidentally it is not my position to think "a debate is all that is needed to fight fascism" to quote from your other post. This is a ridiculous and dishonest caricature. All I am saying is that the attempt to censor the far right and deny it a platform is not condusive to the fight against fascism .

This argument is not limited BTW to the phenomenon of a small core of hardline fascists. Many of the ideas that fascists promote are mainstream and widely held within the working class; ideas such as nationalism and racism. I am arguing that you have to engage with the individuals holding such views on the basis of what they are and ensure that you offer them an exit route from the pernicious ideology they currently hold that allows them to do so with at least a sense of dignity for want of a better word. In other words separate the ideas from the individuals holding those ideas - or the crime from the criminal as the old chinese proverb puts it - which in no way means compromising your hostility to such ideas.

If you personalise things, treat those who hold such ideas as scum of the earth to be crushed obliterated and wiped off the earth, then dont be surprised that they will not thank you for it. They will organise to crush and obliterate you in direct retaliation. Thats only "human nature". However, the unfortunate consequence of that is that the struggle to overthrow capitalism will have once again been sidelined by a struggle against certain political groupings whose outlook is purported to be based on a fundamental and irremediable essentialism that can only be eliminated by the elimination of the political groups themselves holding such an outlook.

As if ideas like racism and nationalism cannot exist outside of political organisations propagating and so provide a fertile soil for the reemergence of such organisations, again and again, even if, hypojetically, you were to suceed in crushing them. Therein lies the esssnetial naivete of your whole position. You fail to get to the root of the problem and can never therefore succeed in preventing its recurrence.

[robbo203]

No platform doesn't aim to censor far right and fascist ideas but it aims to prevent these ideas being put into practice. As fascism depends on working class and middle class support to implement its ideology it needs a public platform to voice their ideas in our communities. No platform policy prevents them from taking these platforms within our communities. Any representation of no platform to equate it with censorship is not only false but disingenuous and, ironically, predominantly and most vehemently argued by liberal bourgeois organisations and liberal anti-fascists.

You are being disingenuous here yourself, making a distinction without a difference. How does denying the far right access to public platforms through which they can voice their ideas in our communities NOT amount to censorship? Please. Dont try to use weasel words and specious arguments to conceal the obvious facts. Why are you so afraid to just honestly come out with it and simply admit that what you are advocating is a form of censorship? Could it be that if you scratch a militant anti-fascist you find an ashamed liberal inside?



Freedom of speech, however much they like to pretend it to be, is not an absolute. Freedom of speech does not entail the right to be heard by anybody at any given time or place nor does it entail the free access of anybody to hear you speak at any given time or place. As such a no-platform policy does not violate any sort of freedom of speech for fascists as there are plenty of venues for them to express their opinions.

Oh I agree that freedom of speech can be relative rather than absolute but then lets call a spade a spade . What we would then be talking about is a limited or impoverished form of free speech. You cannot pretend that a no platform policy does not "violate any sort of freedom of speech for fascists" when you yourself have openly advocated denying the far right access to public platforms through which they can voice their ideas. The point is that you have set yourself up as the arbiter of what the working class should or should not have access to by way of political ideas rather than let workers evaluate the ideas themselves and reach their own conclusions. That makes you an elitist. Your concept of freedom of speech is a highly selective one.




Liberal anti-fascism sees fascism as something to be opposed through peaceful means like debate while maintaining the liberal rights of freedom of speech and gathering for fascist organisations and movements. It argues against the use of violence and most of all it is the main opponent of a no-platform policy. Liberal anti-fascism is therefore a protection of the status quo. It is this position Robbo is actually arguing. Ironically it is the liberal anti-fascist movement that argues most often for a state repression of fascism through laws while at the same time arguing for protection of the fundamental liberal rights of fascists, granting them police protection through the same interference of the state.


I do not argue for the "protection of the status quo" whatever that means - I'm a revolutionary socialist not a liberal, for fucks sake. Nor do I argue for "state repression of fascism through laws". Just to make that absolutely clear




And this is where Robbo confuses his own position with that of the militant anti-fascists. Who, as opposed to their liberal counter parts, reject any and all notions of state interference and argues against the use of the state to repress freedom of speech for fascists. .



Yes I am aware of the fact that militant anti-fascists reject the use of the state to repress freedom of speech for fascists. But that is not the point is it? The point is that by their actions they make state interference INEVITABLE even if unintended. It is naive in the extreme to imagine that you can mobilise against fascists with force and not expect the state to intervene on the pretext of maintaining law and order. You must surely be aware of this when you engage in this form of mobilisation




Repression of fascism according to the militant anti-fascist no-platform policy can only be done through organizing the working class against fascismRather than being some arrogant vanguard movement militant anti-fascism mobilizes the working class on regional and national levels more than any other form of anti-fascism and has paved the way for increasing self radicalization without being condescending towards the working class.


Your very words belies belie your claims. You want to "organise" the working class and "mobilise" them rather than let workers organise and mobilise themselves. You want to forcibly deny workers access to far right ideas by depriving the far right of public platforms through which they can voice their ideas. You said that yourself. Im not putting words in your mouth. Now how does that NOT possibly denote a position of arrogant vanguardism vis a vis the far right ideas?



Rather than ignoring far-right arguments, as Robbo suggests, militant anti-fascism and the no platform policy debate and counter these arguments. They however do so on a class level with the working class, among the working class and through the working class. The very people that make up the far right support base.


I never said or suggested you ignore far right arguments did I? But this is not what this debate is about. Of course militant anti fascists do things like leafletting working class neighbourhoods putting forward arguments that counter the nationalistic and racist claptrap spewed out by the fascists. I have absolutely no problem with that whaoteover. What I do have a serious problem with is the no platform approach adopted by some anti fascists. My argument is that such an approach is vanguardist and counterproductive. And above all it does not get to the root of the problem - how do you wean away people (and there are lots of them) who are already sympathetic to some or all of the ideas of the far right, from those ideas ? What your approach does is the exact opposite. It is to CLOSE DOWN any option for such people to reconsider and move away from these ideas of their own accord. You are positing them personally as " the problem" and detracting incidentally from the socialist postion that the problem is not really fascism but capitalism, fascism being an outgrowth or response to the material conditions that the system visits upon workers. Naturally under these circumstances people sympathetic to far right ideas will close ranks will begin to look upon you as the enemy and will seek out the solidarity and support of like minded individuals that reinforces their view of the world. That view of the world protrays you sterotypically as little more than a bunch of relatively privileged "middle class" student types from the leafy suburbs intent upon lecturing to the workers what they should, or should not, think out of dogmatic attachment to some abstract theory you learnt in college. Harsh but true - not the stereotype but the fact that many hold that stereotype. That is why I say what you are arguing is counterproductive



At the same time no platform prevents the parties and organisations to get a foothold. And it worked...and works.
Just as much as the no platform policy has destroyed many fascist movements including the FN and (as was seen after the SWP rejected and expelled squadism) lifting the no platform policy has without fail bolstered fascist movements and recruitment and led to an increase in membership. Where a no-platform policy was failed to be implemented or was actively lifted the far right benefited by gaining footholds in communities, a rise in far right violence and growth of its membership and support base. But in contrast the activities of anti-fascist movements and implementing the no platform policy has led to shifts towards the left and radicalization and empowerment of the working class in every region they were active or implemented.


I seriously doubt what you are claiming here. Where is the evidence to back up these claims? The left is very much prone to mythologising and fantasising about its role in history and you exhibit this tendency in abundance. The big daddy of all such myths in this context was the so called "Battle of Cable Street" in 1936 in which 100,000 anti fascists repulsed a march by 5000 supporters of Mosley's British Union of Fascists through a district in the East End of London. This was supposed to have marked a turning point in support for fascism. It did not. In fact support for fascism grew directly as a result of this incident. As Daniel Tilles points out

Far from signalling the demise of fascism in the East End, or bringing respite to its Jewish victims, Cable Street had quite the opposite effect. Over the following months the BUF was able to convert defeat on the day into longer-term success and to justify a further radicalisation of its anti-Jewish campaign.
(http://www.historytoday.com/daniel-tilles/myth-cable-street)

In any case, I would argue that far more important than any impact the Left might have had is the reaction of the mainstream capitalist parties. In Britain, both the Labour and Tory parties have cynically moved in the direction of accommodating anti-immigrant sentiments expressed by the far right, thus stealing the thunder of the far right. To put it differently, the net effect of militant anti-facsism, even where it "succeeds" on its own terms, amounts to driving individuals sympathetic to far right ideas into the welcoming arms of the big capitalist parties




Where Robbo again gets it entirely wrong is his knee-jerk reaction to an unfunded fear that no-platform policies will lead to the repression of the radical left because it is supposed to argue against freedom of speech. This fear again stems from a liberal notion of the defense of democracy and the status quo in which the radical left is grouped together with fascism as another form of anti-democratic extremism.


But hold on here. You yourself have admitted that the state has often intervened on the pretext of maintaining law and order and in a manner that works against what the miltant antifascists are hoping to achieve. I refer to your comment that "cops are so often called to protect the fascists from DA". To put it bluntly, if push comes to shove, and the state perceives that there is a serious threat to law and order it will not hesitate to clamp down in a way that threatens the democratic rights of EVERYONE - not just the far right. Naturally the state will justify this denial of democracy to everyone on the grounds that it is being "impartial" and "even handed". You will have given it the pretext for doing that



Robbo makes the false equation that the suppression of the left is because of a no-platform policy rather than through inherent limitations to the concept of free speech itself. It stems from his failure to understand the concepts of democracy and free speech in current society...which neither are as idealistic as he likes to portray them to be.

This is a confusing mish mash. What are these "inherent limitations to the concept of free speech". The limitations on free speech are not "inherent" to the concept itself but rather are imposed on the practice of free speech from without . By the state, by the militant anti-fascists and indeed by the fascists themselves. You can make free speech as wide or as limited as you like. It is a matter of political choice and I choose to opt for the widest possible expression of free speech because that is fundamentaly beneficial to the socialist cause



The repression of the radical left is however a fact. One that has no bearing on tactics but on its nature which unlike fascism can not be exploited by the bourgeois to bolster and secure their position. It is undeniably the case that incidents will be used to increase repression or take away previously granted privileges, but these are mere excuses with a legalized framework for appearance sake. Robo seems to be arguing that in order to be allowed to operate with the limited freedom the bourgeois state grants parties and movements we should submit to the rules of their game and put our heads down and chose forms of action and praxis which keeps us within their legal framework. Fuck that notion.

So you admit that the state will repress the radical left when it suits the interests of the state to do so and the pretext for doing so will be the breakdown in law and order consequent upon the forcible attempts by militant anti-fascists to deny the far right a public platform to voice its ideas. You say these are "mere excuses with a legalized framework for appearance sake". Thats not the point, though. The point is that you by your actions are providing the state with a pretext to take such repressive measures. Admit it.

You also expose your own top-down version of history in which democratic rights are something that are consdescendingly handed down or granted from above to the populace out of expediency rather than something that are fought for and struggled for from the bottom up. What you are propogating is a quite false elitist version of history. I suggest you get hold of a little book called Stilled Tongues: From Soapbox to Soundbite by Stephen Coleman (Porcupine Press, 1997) which completely refutes this version of history. Coleman incidentally was a member of the SPGB so you might find his arguments quite pertinent



Liberal anti-fascism is a huge proponent of debating the ultra right parties and movements because of the misguided notion that a debate is won through giving the most logical and rational answers and outwitting the opponent and therefore opposes anything that they think comes even close to censorship. Weighing everything based on their merits and everything that is illogical or without factual basis will be rejected by the rational functioning human mind.

This Enlightenment idealization to how the human mind functions and how humans make decisions has been disproved time and time again by tons of research. Humans aren't logical beings. In fact, only a minority of humans operate on; and a minority of all human decisions are made through; logical deduction. Most decisions are made through emotions and through the "unconscious brain" which is then rationalized by our "conscious minds". This does not discredit logical arguments or debates, but it does mean that the notion that humans are logical and therefore logic will win every time is untrue and logical and rational debates are an effective way to bring about socialism...are false and in fact entirely dismissive of human nature and the value of emotions.

From his failure to understand how humans and human decision making work and works comes the failure to understand why fascism is such a dangerous force and why fascist parties and bridge-parties pose a huge threat that bring them well beyond the notion of being debatable. It is an utter underestimation of fascism, its appeal and force of arguments. And an utter ignorance of their leaderships intelligence.


Actually everything you say here reinforces my argument and refutes yours - as I have been trying to tell you several times now. It is precisely because of the irrational nature of far right ideas that it needs to be combatted with rational argument. It is you, not me, who underestimates the power of irrationality and human emotions. You dont consider the effect of your own actions on those sympathertic to far right ideas because you fail to grasp that their attachment to those ideas is essentially emotional and irrational. So when you posit them as the problem to be forcibly eliminated how do you expect them to react? You are playing with fire, dousing it with gasoline whereas I am advocating instead a good dousing of cold water and rational argument.

At the end of the day the difference between us is that you are not really interested in changing a fascist into a non fascist. You objectify fascists as the problem to be smashed and eliminated forcibly from outside. It wont work that way and can never work and ironically in the end it is you who exhibits "failure to understand how humans and human decision making work".

Incidentally it is not my position to think "a debate is all that is needed to fight fascism" to quote from your other post. This is a ridiculous and dishonest caricature. All I am saying is that the attempt to censor the far right and deny it a platform is not conducive to the fight against fascism . Although, having said, that i wouldnt want to underestimate the shock effect of putting a fascist on the spot in a public debate forced to try and justify the unjustifable in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary

This argument is not limited BTW to the phenomenon of a small core of hardline fascists. Many of the ideas that fascists promote are mainstream and widely held within the working class; ideas such as nationalism and racism. I am arguing that you have to engage with the individuals holding such views on the basis of what they are and ensure that you offer them an exit route from the pernicious ideology they currently hold that allows them to do so with at least a sense of dignity for want of a better word. In other words separate the ideas from the individuals holding those ideas - or the crime from the criminal as the old chinese proverb puts it - which in no way means compromising your hostility to such ideas.

If you personalise things, treat those who hold such ideas as scum of the earth to be crushed obliterated and wiped off the earth, then dont be surprised that they will not thank you for it. They will organise to crush and obliterate you in direct retaliation. Thats only "human nature". However, the unfortunate consequence of that is that the struggle to overthrow capitalism will have once again been sidelined by a struggle against certain political groupings whose outlook is purported to be based on a fundamental and irremediable essentialism that can only be eliminated by the elimination of the political groups themselves holding such an outlook.

As if ideas like racism and nationalism cannot exist outside of political organisations propagating them and so provide a fertile soil for the reemergence of such organisations, again and again, even if, hypothetically, you were to suceed in crushing them. Therein lies the esssnetial naivete of your whole position. You fail to get to the root of the problem and can never therefore succeed in preventing its recurrence.

[radiocaroline]

the idiotic nationalism and fascism of UKIP and other parties is not something that can be ignored, unfortunately they do have influence and developing support.

What we must do is more events like this, opportunities to ridicule these parties into collapse, showing the people of the UK that UKIP is not the answer to the problems in the UK which predominantly lie in the austerity economic landscape, not on immigration.

UKIP's policies on anything other than immigration are distorted and unclear, but hold one consistent message - they DO NOT support the workers of this country.

Ridiculous housing policies giving priority to local people, regardless of social mobility and ruthless ideas of further stripping workers rights.

They rely on support from the working classes who in Britain have tendencies towards nationalism. The politicisation of the working class in this sense would help to educate those who feel in support of UKIP on the EU and immigration but cannot even come to comprehend their other policies, the realisation of this would completely eradicate their core sector of the electorate.

The same questions of immigration are flaunted on Question Time every week - all we get is the radical views of UKIP and the more liberal views of the mainstream parties . We need to put across more than statistics and show the public how immigration actually benefits them personally not just the pockets of the rich through cheap labour.

UKIP need to be put in their place once and for all, I can think of nothing worse than a radical right wing government of racist, ex (failed) Tory's.

[The Idler]

It can be summed up very succinctly, no platform hasn't worked and doesn't work.

[PhoenixAsh]

That depends. Debate hasn't ever worked either and usually any debate has led to a rise in Fascist and Right-wing membership increase.

[The Feral Underclass]

It can be summed up very succinctly, no platform hasn't worked and doesn't work.

That is fundamentally inaccurate and only goes to demonstrate your lack of experience or knowledge of the history of rank-and-file anti-fascism.

[robbo203]

The question to all those no platformers out there is - how are you going to induce someone with far right leanings to abandon those leanings? If anything, no platform reinforces them in their beliefs. That is a natural reaction to intimidation and force: you close ranks and you close minds.

I would love to see the evidence that "no platfom" works. People keep on saying it works and the critics "dont understand it" but where is the hard evidence? The most famous example of them all, as I pointed out in my post above - the Battle of Cable Street in the 1930s - saw a significant increase in support for the British Union of Fascists subsequently, not withstanding the usual Leftist mythology. But, then again, even if it did work on its own terms, the effect would be to drive the far right into the arms of the big capitalist parties who have cynically moved to accommodate far right anti-immigrant ideas. Is this something revolutionary socialists should be promoting? I think not

I wouldn't say "debate" - or , more widely speaking, engaging with the far right in terms of exchanging ideas and directly confronting and challenging those ideas rather than them as individuals qua individuals - is necessarily going to work or is even the whole answer. But I would conjecture that it would be a damn sight better than the no platform approach any day. Of course , this from of engagement need not be only conducted on a formal or organisational basis but also on an individual one-to-one basis. I have myself talked to one or two self declared fascists in the past and at least in the one case, did manage to get him to change his mind on certain fundamental points. Who knows , the seed of doubt might have planted by my discussing with him rather than just dismissing him as some kind of social pariah. And as I said before I do know of ex fascists who have become revolutionary socialists through contact with socialist ideas

Still, it would be interestsing to see what becomes of this debate between the SPGB and UKIP, Perhaps, the "no platform" sceptics should at least retain an open mind and attend the event to see for themselves. Who knows - they too might change their view
of how to deal with the far right

[PhoenixAsh]

The question to all those no platformers out there is - how are you going to induce someone with far right leanings to abandon those leanings? If anything, no platform reinforces them in their beliefs. That is a natural reaction to intimidation and force: you close ranks and you close minds.



Actually we have repeatedly said: you argue with the support base and NOT with the party and party official.

This is a vital component of no platform.

This is why we are continuously repeating that you misunderstand the concept of no platform.

[The Idler]

That is fundamentally inaccurate and only goes to demonstrate your lack of experience or knowledge of the history of rank-and-file anti-fascism.
I actually know quite a bit about the history of rank-and-file 'anti-fascism' aswell as fascism itself. That no-platform works (or that debate doesn't or isn't as effective) being continually propagated is inaccurate and contrary to evidence. That you are no-platforming the party/official I can recognise but it makes no difference.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The question to all those no platformers out there is - how are you going to induce someone with far right leanings to abandon those leanings?

That depends on who the "someone with far right leanings" is.

If they are a member of the proletariat or of one of the specially oppressed groups, it is our task to demonstrate that socialism is in their objective class or group interest. But if that is really who they are, they most likely don't have far-right leanings in the first place - which isn't to say that they don't believe in all kinds of toxic nonsense.

If they aren't, they aren't our problem, until they start making trouble, in which case our solution is a boot, stamping on a fascist's face, forever.

And you, comrade? How would you "induce" them to abandon those leanings?

[The Idler]

That depends on who the "someone with far right leanings" is.

If they are a member of the proletariat or of one of the specially oppressed groups, it is our task to demonstrate that socialism is in their objective class or group interest. But if that is really who they are, they most likely don't have far-right leanings in the first place - which isn't to say that they don't believe in all kinds of toxic nonsense.

If they aren't, they aren't our problem, until they start making trouble, in which case our solution is a boot, stamping on a fascist's face, forever.

And you, comrade? How would you "induce" them to abandon those leanings?
So what class were the support base of the SA or Mussolini or the NF or the EDL?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So what class were the support base of the SA or Mussolini or the NF or the EDL?

NSDAP and the PNF contained proletarian elements, that is true, although their real strength lay in the petite bourgeoisie, particularly the impoverished petite bourgeoisie. But these were mass movements in an era of ascendant "classical" fascism. That era has long passed. The NF and EDL, I don't have any hard data on, but I would suppose most of them were from the middle strata or declassed elements.

[The Feral Underclass]

I actually know quite a bit about the history of rank-and-file 'anti-fascism' aswell as fascism itself. That no-platform works (or that debate doesn't or isn't as effective) being continually propagated is inaccurate and contrary to evidence. That you are no-platforming the party/official I can recognise but it makes no difference.

I have personally been involved in numerous no-platform actions that have not only mobilised communities but successfully shut down stalls and meetings. And that's not a fluke. It happens all the time.

Perhaps if you were actually involved in rank-and-file anti-fascism, you would know this, but it is evident that you come from a position of complete detachment.

[The Feral Underclass]

The question to all those no platformers out there is - how are you going to induce someone with far right leanings to abandon those leanings?

I gave you a response in my extensive reply to you in this thread.

"The best approach to combating the ideas of the far-right, and the one I have been promoting, is to build solidarity and unity amongst the class and disparate ‘immigrant’ communities, and work to build institutions of proletarian power that address the material conditions that give rise to the fear and resentment that far-right ideas feed upon.

Further to that, you confront nationalistic and racist views in the workplace and community, and you actively organise to prevent the far-right from having any presence within the political spectrum, whether that’s in organised public events or on the streets."

[robbo203]

Actually we have repeatedly said: you argue with the support base and NOT with the party and party official.

This is a vital component of no platform.

This is why we are continuously repeating that you misunderstand the concept of no platform.


On the contrary I understand it perfectly and still makes no sense at all. You want to "argue" with the far right as individuals but not as collectivities. I would also like to know what you mean by "argue"

[The Feral Underclass]

On the contrary I understand it perfectly and still makes no sense at all.

It's been repeatedly explained to you over and over again and you have chosen to ignore what people are saying. Clearly you are only interested in stating and re-stating your opinion, rather than honestly engaging with what your opponents are saying to you. You evidently have no interest in making sense of our position. This is not an exchange of ideas. This you being intransigent. The fact that you have completely ignored my response, which outlines an alternative strategy, is evidence of that. Well, I'm sorry, but just ignoring people isn't a defence of your position and all it does is underline your detachment from this debate.

[robbo203]

I gave you a response in my extensive reply to you in this thread.

"The best approach to combating the ideas of the far-right, and the one I have been promoting, is to build solidarity and unity amongst the class and disparate ‘immigrant’ communities, and work to build institutions of proletarian power that address the material conditions that give rise to the fear and resentment that far-right ideas feed upon.

Further to that, you confront nationalistic and racist views in the workplace and community, and you actively organise to prevent the far-right from having any presence within the political spectrum, whether that’s in organised public events or on the streets."

Well with respect that is not a response to the question I posed; it is an evasion. I repeat again the question: how are you going to induce someone with far right leanings to abandon those leanings? I have no problems with "confronting nationalistic and racist views in the workplace and community" but you go a lot further than this in proposing to "actively organise to prevent the far-right from having any presence within the political spectrum, whether that’s in organised public events or on the streets" - that is to say, to actively suppress their right to free speech. How is that ever possibly going to induce individuals with far right leanings to abandon those leanings? It wont. What it will do is the very opposite - it will almost certainly reinforce those leanings. Debating with far right organisations like UKIP may or may not do much to dissuade its members from supporting such organisations but it certainly cannot do any worse than what a no platform approach has to offer.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well with respect that is not a response to the question I posed; it is an evasion.

Erm, it directly answers your question...


I repeat again the question: how are you going to induce someone with far right leanings to abandon those leanings?

Explain to me how my response to you doesn't answer your question.


I have no problems with "confronting nationalistic and racist views in the workplace and community" but you go a lot further than this in proposing to "actively organise to prevent the far-right from having any presence within the political spectrum, whether that’s in organised public events or on the streets" - that is to say, to actively suppress their right to free speech. How is that ever possibly going to induce individuals with far right leanings to abandon those leanings? It wont. What it will do is the very opposite - it will almost certainly reinforce those leanings. Debating with far right organisations like UKIP may or may not do much to dissuade its members from supporting such organisations but it certainly cannot do any worse than what a no platform approach has to offer.

You haven't addressed the main point of my argument. You have simply honed in on the part that you can understand and then re-stated your opinion. This is a dishonest way to engage with this debate.

Now, as I've said already, there is a difference between the class, some of whom may have far-right leanings, and then organised institutions of the far-right. To tackle 'far-right' leanings with those people within the class whom have them, you build unity and solidarity; you build institutions of proletarian power that address the material conditions that give rise to fears that the far-right feed upon. With those institutions of the far-right, you combat them by preventing them from occupying a political space.

[robbo203]

Well, it's been repeatedly explained to you over and over again and you have chosen to ignore what people are saying. Clearly you are only interested in stating and re-stating your opinion, rather than honestly engage with your opponents.

If you care to actually read what I said rather than simply kneejerk (yet again) with the accusation that i am "ignoring what people are saying" you will see that the specific question I was asking was one for which an answer has clearly not yet been given. I wanted to know what was the rationale for "no platformers" seeking to deny the right to free speech to far right organisations while being seemingly happy to debate with individuals of a far right persuasion. That at any rate is PhoenixAsh's position. I dont know if it is your position as well but you chose to butt into the discussion I was having with him/her.

[robbo203]

Erm, it directly answers your question...



Explain to me how my response to you doesn't answer your question.



You haven't addressed the main point of my argument. You have simply honed in on the part that you can understand and then re-stated your opinion. This is a dishonest way to engage with this debate.

Now, as I've said already, there is a difference between the class, some of whom may have far-right leanings, and then organised institutions of the far-right. To tackle 'far-right' leanings with those people within the class whom have them, you build unity and solidarity; you build institutions of proletarian power that address the material conditions that give rise to fears that the far-right feed upon. With those institutions of the far-right, you combat them by preventing them from occupying a political space.

This doesnt explain anything. It strikes me as just a case of wishful thimking. The whole tenor of your approach is terribly vague (and cliche ridden) to the point of meaninglessnes: you build institutions of proletarian power that address the material conditions that give rise to fears. Yeah great but how do reach that point "where you build unity and solidarity". Unity and solidarity presupposes the very thing that we are here discussing - that is, getting workers with far right leanings to abandon those leanings. You "explanation" doesn't actually explain anything. Its merely a mission statement. You cannot build unity and solidarity on the basis of fundamentally discordant world views and you show no inkling of a way forward as to how you can get those who hold a far right world view to abandon that view. Unless you do that you wont be able to "build unity and solidarity" with them

[The Feral Underclass]

If you care to actually read what I said rather than simply kneejerk (yet again) with the accusation that i am "ignoring what people are saying" you will see that the specific question I was asking was one for which an answer has clearly not yet been given. I wanted to know what was the rationale for "no platformers" seeking to deny the right to free speech to far right organisations while being seemingly happy to debate with individuals of a far right persuasion. That at any rate is PhoenixAsh's position. I dont know if it is your position as well but you chose to butt into the discussion I was having with him/her.

But an answer for that question has already been given...over and over and over again. I have answered it personally at least twice.

The rationale is that far-right organisations are competing against us for dominance within the political arena. It is therefore in our interests to prevent them from occupying any space within that arena which may benefit them or advance their organising efforts.

Rather than maintaining some liberal notion that they have a right to free speech, it is a far more necessary and competent tactic to deny them that opportunity. The approach required is one that mimics a conflict, and in any conflict you deny your enemy the opportunity to advance.

[Manic Impressive]

It's so funny how these lefties adopt the tactics they supposedly fight against. What's that Bordiga quote? anti fascism has become the new fascism or something like that.

[Manic Impressive]

I'm not sure that we do, either side. The debate is for the audience to listen to both arguments and then decide for themselves. Hopefully some of those who attend will get to hear some real socialism for a change. Who knows it might inspire someone or change their minds.

We'll be debating UKIP a month later. I can certainly say that we don't give a shit about what they think. But we'll be happy to destroy their arguments.


Fair enough.



Why the fuck are you sharing a platform with these people?
LoL a month is a short time to go between fair enough and OMFG NO PLATFORM

[The Feral Underclass]

This doesnt explain anything.

Why doesn't it explain anything?


It strikes me as just a case of wishful thimking.

Yes, it's called class organising.


The whole tenor of your approach is terribly vague (and cliche ridden) to the point of meaninglessnes: you build institutions of proletarian power that address the material conditions that give rise to fears. Yeah great but how do reach that point "where you build unity and solidarity". Unity and solidarity presupposes the very thing that we are here discussing - that is, getting workers with far right leanings to abandon those leanings.

If I have presupposed anything, it is that you have a basic understanding of what class organising is. I have been operating under the assumption that you at the very least have some working knowledge of how to organise within the class. Clearly that is not the case.

You build unity and solidarity within the class by fighting for concessions. It is those material struggles that provide the platform to build unity and solidarity. If you create those spaces, the fear and prejudice that people hold makes less and less sense.

Struggle is how you combat far-right 'leanings.'


You "explanation" doesn't actually explain anything.

Well, I didn't realise I was talking to someone who has no practical understanding of how to organise within the class.


Its merely a mission statement. You cannot build unity and solidarity on the basis of fundamentally discordant world views and you show no inkling of a way forward as to how you can get those who hold a far right world view to abandon that view.

Well, I do have an inkling of a way forward, and I've actually outlined certain things that you can do, but for you to understand what they are would require you to read what I am saying

The 'fundamental discordant world views' that happen to be far-right only exist because people are isolated and afraid. If you begin to address the material concerns that give rise to that isolation and fear, and which feed those far-right views, these 'fundamental discordant world views' eventually become more and more irrelevant as you build that struggle and find solutions to material conditions that give rise to them.

Why do people hate immigrants? Let's say it's because they see immigrants as being given more opportunity than they have. What are these opportunities? Let's say housing and money. So right there you have identified two material conditions that give rise to prejudice. What are the main points of contention with 'housing' and 'money' as issues? Let's say they are exorbitant rent and buying food.

What then is our job as militants? To work with our communities to address those conditions. Two issues that we've identified are high rents and inability to buy food. What do we do then? Well, then you build a campaign, you form a group to act on these issues. Those campaigns then begin to highlight the illogicality of capital; people begin to see how things work and perceptions are challenged.

The next step is to slowly start to link those campaigns with other campaigns, such as immigrant support. As you link those campaigns, people can begin to see how we are all treated the same; people can relate to one another. From that, acts of unity and solidarity begin to form as people start to work together to address common problems.

That's how you build unity and solidarity. That's how you breakdown those 'far-right leanings.'


Unless you do that you wont be able to "build unity and solidarity" with them

But this is where the issue is and this is what I have been repeatedly saying to you: it's not ideas>material conditions, it's material conditions>ideas.

If you don't address the material conditions of people's lives, then their ideas will never change.

[The Feral Underclass]

LoL a month is a short time to go between fair enough and OMFG NO PLATFORM

Sometimes I can be bothered, other times I can't. Sue me.

Also, debating Peter Tatchell is fundamentally different to debating UKIP.

[robbo203]

But an answer for that question has already been given...over and over and over again. I have answered it personally at least twice.

The rationale is that far-right organisations are competing against us for dominance within the political arena. It is therefore in our interests to prevent them from occupying any space within that arena which may benefit them or advance their organising efforts.

Rather than maintaining some liberal notion that they have a right to free speech, it is a far more necessary and competent tactic to deny them that opportunity. The approach required is one that mimics a conflict, and in any conflict you deny your enemy the opportunity to advance.

Jesus christ you really have a serious problem about reading what others have written, havent you? Read again the question I posed but this time SLOWLY. I wanted to know why the difference in approach between individuals on the far right and organisations on the far right. You havent answered this question "over and over". In fact you havent answered it at all. Do you understand what the question is about or do I have to spell it out?

Oh, and incidentally, I have also been asking for evidence that "no platform" works. You claim it is a "far more necessary and competent tactic" than engaging in open debate with the far right. OK thats your belief. Care to back it up with something resembling hard evidence, eh?

[PhoenixAsh]

Jesus christ you really have a serious problem about reading what others have written, havent you? Read again the question I posed but this time SLOWLY. I wanted to know why the difference in approach between individuals on the far right and organisations on the far right. You havent answered this question "over and over". In fact you havent answered it at all. Do you understand what the question is about or do I have to spell it out?

Oh, and incidentally, I have also been asking for evidence that "no platform" works. You claim it is a "far more necessary and competent tactic" than engaging in open debate with the far right. OK thats your belief. Care to back it up with something resembling hard evidence, eh?

The difference has been explained to you...repeatedly. But you just can't seem to wrap your head around it.

You debate with the support base. You organize. You challenge them. You change the material conditions....ergo you change their views.

You do NOT debate the party and party officials. For one...parties and party officials are the chief proponents of the praxis of the ideology. Parties are the formalization of the ideology...it is the entity that stems from the practical application of the ideology and its main interest is conversion, rooting and growth.

Debating with the party will give the party legitimacy. Ergo it will give legitimacy to the ideology of the party...and of its practical application.

It is really, really simple.


Now kindly provide evidence where debating parties sways minds of supporters?

EVERY political strategist, spin doctor and political marketeer knows that debates will NOT change supporters minds. Debates change minds of those on the fence. Those are the ones party and official debates target.

Everything else is done in directly challenging the supporters themselves in direct conversation and discussion...and changing their conditions.

It is really political 1-0-1. :rolleyes:

[The Feral Underclass]

I wanted to know why the difference in approach between individuals on the far right and organisations on the far right.

This is yet another of those Kafkaesque nightmares that RevLeft is so good at.

I have read your question: Why are there different approaches between individuals and organisations of the far right? That's the question you are asking, right?

Okay, so when you say "different approach" what you mean is an approach to individuals which is not no-platform and an approach to organisations which is no-platform? Correct?

Okay, so assuming all that is correct. The answer to that question is:


The rationale is that far-right organisations are competing against us for dominance within the political arena. It is therefore in our interests to prevent them from occupying any space within that arena which may benefit them or advance their organising efforts.

Rather than maintaining some liberal notion that they have a right to free speech, it is a far more necessary and competent tactic to deny them that opportunity. The approach required is one that mimics a conflict, and in any conflict you deny your enemy the opportunity to advance.


You havent answered this question "over and over".

Yes. I have.


Oh, and incidentally, I have also been asking for evidence that "no platform" works. You claim it is a "far more necessary and competent tactic" than engaging in open debate with the far right. OK thats your belief. Care to back it up with something resembling hard evidence, eh?

Our campaign against the BNP stalls in Barnsley were a success. Our blockade of a Nick Griffin talk in Nottingham was also a success. Our activities to prevent pubs around Sheffield from hosting BNP meetings were a success. Disrupting BNP candidates from canvassing in Sheffield have also been a success. We have also successfully prevented the BNP from having a stall in Sheffield city centre. They simply don't bother any more. I have also been involved in physically preventing the WNP from distributing leaflets in our city centre and having a presence at gigs.That's not to even begin mentioning all the actions of the 635 Group who routinely engaged in these kinds of activities with many successes.

The issue you have is that you just don't know about them, because why would you? These kinds of things happen all the time. They are not reported and they're not in your history book though. They are day-to-day rank-and-file activities done by antifascists, quietly and without recognition, because that's what you do when you fight the far-right.

At the end of the day, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

[The Feral Underclass]

Our campaign against the BNP stalls in Barnsley were a success. Our blockade of a Nick Griffin talk in Nottingham was also a success. Our activities to prevent pubs around Sheffield from hosting BNP meetings were a success. Disrupting BNP candidates from canvassing in Sheffield have also been a success. We have also successfully prevented the BNP from having a stall in Sheffield city centre. They simply don't bother any more. I have also been involved in physically preventing the WNP from distributing leaflets in our city centre and having a presence at gigs.That's not to even begin mentioning all the actions of the 635 Group who routinely engaged in these kinds of activities with many successes.

And this stuff only covers public no-platform activity. There is also the clandestine no-platform activity that people have been allegedly involved in. It also doesn't cover work done in communities to build links between refugee support and other campaign groups, for example.

[The Idler]

I have personally been involved in numerous no-platform actions that have not only mobilised communities but successfully shut down stalls and meetings. And that's not a fluke. It happens all the time.

Perhaps if you were actually involved in rank-and-file anti-fascism, you would know this, but it is evident that you come from a position of complete detachment.
I'm not saying it can't mobilise communities or shut down stalls and meetings all the time but fascism doesn't go away because you do this. You are substituting your experience and probably that of other anti-fascists (in particular no platformers) more generally for actual figures. No platform consistently fails at reducing fascist support. Nothing quite has the failure rate like no platform. It's probably no accident that you accuse me of being detached not because its accurate but because you are placing a high value on your experience and that of others who act the same way as you.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm not saying it can't mobilise communities or shut down stalls and meetings all the time but fascism doesn't go away because you do this...No platform consistently fails at reducing fascist support. Nothing quite has the failure rate like no platform. It's probably no accident that you accuse me of being detached not because its accurate but because you are placing a high value on your experience and that of others who act the same way as you.

As has already been articulated, no-platform is a tactic used against far-right institutions, not against individual people or communities. You can only address support for the far-right through struggle for better material conditions, because it is only within those struggles that ideas and perceptions can really be challenged.

No-platform exists as one tactic as part of a broad strategy.


You are substituting your experience and probably that of other anti-fascists (in particular no platformers) more generally for actual figures.

What figures exactly? You accused no-platform of not working, but that is evidently not true, since no-platform works all the time. No-platform is a tactic to prevent the far-right from organising. On those terms, it is very effective.

[PhoenixAsh]

I'm not saying it can't mobilise communities or shut down stalls and meetings all the time but fascism doesn't go away because you do this. You are substituting your experience and probably that of other anti-fascists (in particular no platformers) more generally for actual figures. No platform consistently fails at reducing fascist support. Nothing quite has the failure rate like no platform. It's probably no accident that you accuse me of being detached not because its accurate but because you are placing a high value on your experience and that of others who act the same way as you.

Actually this isn't the case. No platform has had huge successes in consistently reducing support numbers and membership of fascist and right wing groups.

It is when no platform gets lifted when right-wing groups and fascist organizations rise again.

That no platform doesn't succeed in tackling fascism entirely is because of the fact that we are still living in capitalism and fascism is an expression of this. Ergo..it will never entirely go away and where it does the bourgeoisie will recreate it when needed.

Fascism will evaporate when we change the material conditions...and in the mean time it is our job and duty to fight fascism...and people who think it is a good idea to invite them in our homes and neighborhoods to set up shop because we can always "talk about it"

Because debate has done fuck all. The more you debate the more the right wing support base grows. Surprise. Because they gain attention and are drawn into the mainstream and sphere of the acceptable. Excellent example is the PVV......PVV hasn't been no platformed in recent years and as been extensively debated. Today they won again in the regional elections and managed to overwhelmingly win majority vote in the capital. So much for debate.

Same for the BNP. BNP got on tele....boom....support rose 20%.

Same for VB. Same for FN. Same everywhere.

No more no platform....means increase in support and membership.

[The Feral Underclass]

I also think it's important not to conflate 'far-right support' with 'far-right ideas'. I think PhoenixAsh is right if we talk about diminishing 'far-right support' -- it's difficult to support something that doesn't have a presence. But of course that doesn't address far-right ideas that linger within white working class communities. That requires a different approach.

[robbo203]

If I have presupposed anything, it is that you have a basic understanding of what class organising is. I have been operating under the assumption that you at the very least have some working knowledge of how to organise within the class. Clearly that is not the case.

You build unity and solidarity within the class by fighting for concessions. It is those material struggles that provide the platform to build unity and solidarity. If you create those spaces, the fear and prejudice that people hold makes less and less sense.

Struggle is how you combat far-right 'leanings.'

.

Well this is no answer at all. Firstly becuase revolutionary socialists who oppose your "no platform" approach equally argue for building class unity and solidarity. Except that we dont believe this can be achieved by the approach you offer. Secondly workers struggles as it happens can be coopted by the far right. One thinks of the notorious Grunswick dispute some years ago. The details are a bit vague now but I seem to recall it involved white trade unionists pitted against asian immigrant workers at a factory in London




The 'fundamental discordant world views' that happen to be far-right only exist because people are isolated and afraid. If you begin to address the material concerns that give rise to that isolation and fear, and which feed those far-right views, these 'fundamental discordant world views' eventually become more and more irrelevant as you build that struggle and find solutions to material conditions that give rise to them.

Why do people hate immigrants? Let's say it's because they see immigrants as being given more opportunity than they have. What are these opportunities? Let's say housing and money. So right there you have identified two material conditions that give rise to prejudice. What are the main points of contention with 'housing' and 'money' as issues? Let's say they are exorbitant rent and buying food.

What then is our job as militants? To work with our communities to address those conditions. Two issues that we've identified are high rents and inability to buy food. What do we do then? Well, then you build a campaign, you form a group to act on these issues. Those campaigns then begin to highlight the illogicality of capital; people begin to see how things work and perceptions are challenged.

The next step is to slowly start to link those campaigns with other campaigns. such as immigrant support. As you link those campaigns, people can begin to see how we are all treated the same; people can relate to one another. From that acts of unity and solidarity begin to form as people start to work together to address common problems.

That's how you build unity and solidarity. That's how you breakdown those 'far-right leanings.'
.

There is not much I would disagree with in the above and that is essentially what socialist, who oppose your no platform policy, are doing. But what you are not doing is explaining how your no platform policy fits into all this . Actually it doesnt. I would say it actually hinders the task of building working class unity and solidarity and makes the far right rather than capitalism the real problem

You talk about the 'fundamental discordant world views' that happen to be far-right only exist because people are isolated and afraid" . But there you are trying to isolate and intimidate workers who hold far right ideas rather than engage with them and reason with them. By so doing you are reinforcing their far right world view inducing them to close ranks and close minds in the face of such hostility.




But this is where the issue is and this is what I have been repeatedly saying to you: it's not ideas>material conditions, it's material conditions>ideas.

If you don't address the material conditions of people's lives, then their ideas will never change.

This is precisely the crass mechanical materialism that I criticised many posts ago on this thread - the notion that material conditions "produce "ideas. As if ideas and material conditions can ever be separated. As if they do not reciprocally influence each other.

The absurdity of your position can be exposed thus - if peoples ideas will never change unless their material conditions change what is going to change their material condistions to ensure their ideas change? According to you, ideas dont change material conditions so how are the latter going to change? All you are left with is to say they change of their own accord but how could you ensure they did so in way that would "generate" the kind of ideas you favour? And from where did you derive the ideas you favour if not, according to your own argument, from the very material conditions which you hope will change in a way that will cause others to come to accept the ideas you hold?

So you tie yoursdelf up in knots taking the position that you do. In fact Ive always maintained that, paradoxically, mechanical materialism such as you espouse, is a form of mysticism and obscurantism which denies the role of human creativity in history

[The Feral Underclass]

Well this is no answer at all. Firstly becuase revolutionary socialists who oppose your "no platform" approach equally argue for building class unity and solidarity. Except that we dont believe this can be achieved by the approach you offer. Secondly workers struggles as it happens can be coopted by the far right. One thinks of the notorious Grunswick dispute some years ago. The details are a bit vague now but I seem to recall it involved white trade unionists pitted against asian immigrant workers at a factory in London



There is not much I would disagree with in the above and that is essentially what socialist, who oppose your no platform policy, are doing. But what you are not doing is explaining how your no platform policy fits into all this . Actually it doesnt. I would say it actually hinders the task of building working class unity and solidarity and makes the far right rather than capitalism the real problem

You talk about the 'fundamental discordant world views' that happen to be far-right only exist because people are isolated and afraid" . But there you are trying to isolate and intimidate workers who hold far right ideas rather than engage with them and reason with them. By so doing you are reinforcing their far right world view inducing them to close ranks and close minds in the face of such hostility.



This is precisely the crass mechanical materialism that I criticised many posts ago on this thread - the notion that material conditions "produce "ideas. As if ideas and material conditions can ever be separated. As if they do not reciprocally influence each other.

The absurdity of your position can be exposed thus - if peoples ideas will never change unless their material conditions change what is going to change their material condistions to ensure their ideas change? According to you, ideas dont change material conditions so how are the latter going to change? All you are left with is to say they change of their own accord but how could you ensure they did so in way that would "generate" the kind of ideas you favour? And from where did you derive the ideas you favour if not, according to your own argument, from the very material conditions which you hope will change in a way that will cause others to come to accept the ideas you hold?

So you tie yoursdelf up in knots taking the position that you do. In fact Ive always maintained that, paradoxically, mechanical materialism such as you espouse, is a form of mysticism and obscurantism which denies the role of human creativity in history

Either you are a troll or you are a colossal idiot. There is no other explanation for it.

And I am fairly certain you are misusing the term 'mechanical materialism (http://marxistphilosophy.org/blogpage7.htm).'

Anyway, I'm done with you. You're beyond redemption.

[robbo203]

Our campaign against the BNP stalls in Barnsley were a success. Our blockade of a Nick Griffin talk in Nottingham was also a success. Our activities to prevent pubs around Sheffield from hosting BNP meetings were a success. Disrupting BNP candidates from canvassing in Sheffield have also been a success. We have also successfully prevented the BNP from having a stall in Sheffield city centre. They simply don't bother any more. I have also been involved in physically preventing the WNP from distributing leaflets in our city centre and having a presence at gigs.That's not to even begin mentioning all the actions of the 635 Group who routinely engaged in these kinds of activities with many successes.

The issue you have is that you just don't know about them, because why would you? These kinds of things happen all the time. They are not reported and they're not in your history book though. They are day-to-day rank-and-file activities done by antifascists, quietly and without recognition, because that's what you do when you fight the far-right.

At the end of the day, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

No quite the opposite. You dont seem to have an idea of what I am talking about. You might have successfully blockaded a talk by Nick Griffen in Nottingham or successfully campaigned against a BNP stall in Barnsley but have you persuaded any members of the BNP to abandon their ideas? Have you staunched the growing tide of support for tougher anti immigration policies as represented by far right organisations like UKIP? Many of the ideas bandied about by the far right have a have a wide level of support. The decline of some organisations on the far right have little to do with the activites of the "no platform" activists than with the simple fact that mainstream parties have cynically accommodated themselves to these ideas for electoral purposes

For the purposes of this debate Im less concered with vacillating fortunes of specific far right organisations than with the prevalance of far right ideas in some form or another. What you call "success" from your point of view may turn out to have been a "failure" from my point of view

[robbo203]

Either you are a troll or you are a colossal idiot. There is no other explanation for it.

And I am fairly certain you are misusing the term 'mechanical materialism (http://marxistphilosophy.org/blogpage7.htm).'

Anyway, I'm done with you. You're beyond redemption.

Oh really. And there you were a little while back self righteously whinging that I had "disrespected" you by robustly attacking your arguments. Now that you have run out of arguments you show yourself in your true colours. Still, its water off a ducks back, mate. Water off a ducks back.

I note that yet again you fail to address the actual argument that I presented preferring to haughtily intone that you are "fairly certain" I am misusing the term mechanical materialism (no Im not as it happens) Which is a pity because the debate about the relationship between ideas and material conditions is a pretty fundamental one and underlies a lot of what we have been talking about on this thread...

[synthesis]

robbo203, what it seems like you are ignoring is that the appeal of fascism, if we are looking at this from an idealist perspective, does not lie in logic and factual information, but in appeals to emotion. Romanticism arose as a petit-bourgeois reaction to the bourgeois rationalism of the Enlightenment and of course fascism draws much from romanticism, ideologically speaking. Because their arguments don't rely on reason and scientific rigor, allowing them a platform to speak simply allows them a platform for their appeals to emotion. As others have said, this notion that people are perfectly rational creatures who will always acquiesce to the most logical argument is the definition of bourgeois idealism.

[Rurkel]

It's so funny how these lefties adopt the tactics they supposedly fight against. What's that Bordiga quote? anti fascism has become the new fascism or something like that.
I don't think that Bordiga would approve of SPGB's position... And he never accused anti-fascism of being "the new fascism", though Bordigists are happy to accuse it of being class-collaborationist.

[robbo203]

robbo203, what it seems like you are ignoring is that the appeal of fascism, if we are looking at this from an idealist perspective, does not lie in logic and factual information, but in appeals to emotion. Romanticism arose as a petit-bourgeois reaction to the bourgeois rationalism of the Enlightenment and of course fascism draws much from romanticism, ideologically speaking. Because their arguments don't rely on reason and scientific rigor, allowing them a platform to speak simply allows them a platform for their appeals to emotion. As others have said, this notion that people are perfectly rational creatures who will always acquiesce to the most logical argument is the definition of bourgeois idealism.

No, the emotional appeal of fascism is precisely what I am not ignoring. On the contrary, that is precisely why the problem has to be approached rationally and with solidly grounded argument. We all have an emotional or irrational side to us as well as a rational side. Even the most die hard fascist is capable of rational thinking as I know, having actually made the effort to argue with some of them, and you dehumanise your political opponents by denying them this. That in itself is irrational.

The problem lies not with the opponents of a no platform approach but the advocates of such an approach. They are the ones who are effectively arguing you can fight a fire by pouring gasoline over it. They offer no access into the mindset of the far right and no chance whatsoever of changing it. They dehumanise and objectify their political opponents as mere "things" to be confronted with force and intimidation and denied any opportunity to express their views, warped and twisted though these views are. In a sense it is not fascism - the ideology of fascism - that the "no platform" brigade are opposed to but fascists. This is to reduce politics to a kind of gang warfare in which those with the most knuckledusters prevail

It is the "no platform" brigade, therefore, who underestimate the emotional appeal of fascism. They do not consider the effects of their action in reinforcing fascists in their beliefs, in seeking out the support and solidarity of fellow fascists in taking on and thwarting the militant anti-fascists. Worse still, the "no platform" brigade fans the flames of publicity for far right groups , vests the latter with a sense of importance and notoriety which is precisely what attract the young fascist recruit to fascist activity in the first place and from which he or she derives a vicarious thrill. After all, its one in the eye for all those "middle class" lefty student types telling him or her what to think or do - just like the "liberal establishment" that has constantly shat upon and betrayed him or her throughout his or her life

[The Idler]

Actually this isn't the case. No platform has had huge successes in consistently reducing support numbers and membership of fascist and right wing groups.

It is when no platform gets lifted when right-wing groups and fascist organizations rise again.

That no platform doesn't succeed in tackling fascism entirely is because of the fact that we are still living in capitalism and fascism is an expression of this. Ergo..it will never entirely go away and where it does the bourgeoisie will recreate it when needed.

Fascism will evaporate when we change the material conditions...and in the mean time it is our job and duty to fight fascism...and people who think it is a good idea to invite them in our homes and neighborhoods to set up shop because we can always "talk about it"

Because debate has done fuck all. The more you debate the more the right wing support base grows. Surprise. Because they gain attention and are drawn into the mainstream and sphere of the acceptable. Excellent example is the PVV......PVV hasn't been no platformed in recent years and as been extensively debated. Today they won again in the regional elections and managed to overwhelmingly win majority vote in the capital. So much for debate.

Same for the BNP. BNP got on tele....boom....support rose 20%.

Same for VB. Same for FN. Same everywhere.

No more no platform....means increase in support and membership.
Huh? Where Fascist institutions or active support has arisen it has usually been in an environment of no platform. The BNP support isn't so clear cut as there were attempts to no platform, there was no socialist on the panel and its not clear the support rose as a result of the debate, and it resulted over a slightly longer period in support falling. I can understand why the own perspective and experience of anti-fascists appears to them to validate their position but its just an emotional response of trashing stalls etc. not one supported by broader evidence.

[PhoenixAsh]

Huh? Where Fascist institutions or active support has arisen it has usually been in an environment of no platform. The BNP support isn't so clear cut as there were attempts to no platform, there was no socialist on the panel and its not clear the support rose as a result of the debate, and it resulted over a slightly longer period in support falling. I can understand why the own perspective and experience of anti-fascists appears to them to validate their position but its just an emotional response of trashing stalls etc. not one supported by broader evidence.

Really? The reason why liberal anti-facism no platform fails is because it doesn't do what is absolutely necessary: mobilize the workers in a community. Militant anti-fascism is different and organizes local groups of workers and antifascists to oppose fascism in their own area's. This is vital for success and I won't argue that no platform is unfailing and has suffered losses. But overwhelmingly the rise and growth of the ultra right has been caused by increased liberalism and abandoning no platform within situations of revolutionary potential.

Just as a reminder of how well structural debate against nationalism and ultra right goes was given during the Dutch local election where the resident nationalist, racist party won out and managed to gain majority in both large cities it ran in. After doing so they dropped all pretense about their inherent racism.

This party hasn't been no platformed and is openly debated by just about everybody. But without fail they manage to increase their support year after year after year...even when they were indirectly responsible for government. ...and failed splendidly and generally made a fool of themselves.

[robbo203]

Really? The reason why liberal anti-facism no platform fails is because it doesn't do what is absolutely necessary: mobilize the workers in a community. Militant anti-fascism is different and organizes local groups of workers and antifascists to oppose fascism in their own area's. This is vital for success and I won't argue that no platform is unfailing and has suffered losses. But overwhelmingly the rise and growth of the ultra right has been caused by increased liberalism and abandoning no platform within situations of revolutionary potential.

I doubt that very much. If anything I would have thought the opposite was true. By fanning the flames of publicity for certain ultra right groups, militant anti fascists have inadvertently helped to pluck such groups from their well deserved obscurity and brought them to the attention of a wider audience. I have seen here in my local city in Spain, judging from the proliferation of street graffiti, how fascists and militant anti-fascists parasitically feed off each other in the struggle to grab attention. Ironically "no platform" gives the fascists the very platform of publicity they crave. It invests them with a sense of notoriety which attracts those elements of the working class who are prediposed to support many of the far right's ideas.

So it becomes "cool" to become a fascist - particularly if it means one in the eye for all those trendy middle class student types that seem to populate the anti fascist movement. At least that is how things are stereotypically seen from the point of view of your fascist activist. They see anti fascists as a bunch of relatively privileged offspring from the liberal establishment who in league with international finance capital, has taken over the country as they see it and imposed their own politically correct agenda on the masses. For your fascist activist the mission is to "reclaim the nation" and restore "national pride"


As I pointed out before, the best known example of miiltant anti-fascism was the famous "Battle of Cable Street" in 1930s which still takes centre place in the the mythology of militant anti fascism. This was when 100,000 anti-fascists organised to repulse a march by 5000 members of Mosleys BUF in an area of London in the 1930s. The anti-fascists suceeded on their own narrow terms of halting the march but in the long run failed dismally. Support for fascism rose significantly after that incident and directly as a result of that incident.

Before he went off in a fit of pique like some spoilt little kid who cant have it all his own way, the Anarchist Tension attempted to provide some theoretical justification for his militant anti fascism arguing that it is material conditions that produce ideas rather than the other way round. I argued strongly against this crude mechanistic form of materialism, pointing out that you cannot separate these two things and that they mutually influence each other. But here's the point: if material conditions produce ideas as AT claimed, then why are militant anti-fascists so obsessively concerned with ensuring that far right ideas should not be exposed to the public, should be denied a public platfom?. If such ideas are merely "epiphenomena" that merely reflect material conditions then in theory it wouldnt matter a jot if workers did come into contact with fascist ideas - unless of course material conditions were such as to produce such ideas! In which case it would be pointless advocating a "no platform" approach unless and until you changed the material conditions that produced fascist ideas in the first place. And how might one do that without a political change? That is the fundamental contradiction that lies at the very heart of the philosophy of "militant anti fascism".

Even if it were to suceed on its own terms the net effect of militant anti-fascism is to drive workers sympathetic to far right ideas - and some of these ideas are now mainstream like suppport for tougher anti immigration laws - into the welcoming arms of the big capitalist parties who will accommodate and coopt the rise of such ideas for their own cynical electoral purposes. This is the the thing about militant anti fascism . It posits fascism as the real problem rather than capitalism and so diverts attention and effort from the struggle to overthrow capitalism. In that sense it is no different from any other left wing reformist campaign .

Oh for sure militant anti facists will mouth their revolutionary slogans (sometimes) but the net result of their actions is to help consolidate the hegemony of capitalist rule in the manner outlined above. They have no answer to the simple question - how do you dissuade a worker who is sympathetic to far right ideas from holding such ideas? "Mobilising workers" in defence of their own interests - if one overlooks for the moment the rather elitist and vanguardist connotations such an expression contains - is not really an effective answer since, as far as workers sympathetic to the far right cause are concerned, it IS in their interests to oppose immigration and so on. The very concept of "interests" is ideologically loaded

You have to engage with these ideas in order to refute them, in other words, rather than adopt the kind of moralistic posture of the militant anti fascists and its ridiculous refusal to separate the ideas and the individual holding such ideas. For them, a fascist is some kind of embodiment of evil, an irredeemable scum of the earth who cannot be reasoned with but must be driven underground - not a member of the working class who has happened to succumb to a rather warped and twisted ideology which needs to be exposed for what it is.

Debating a far right organisation like UKIP might not be the whole answer to halt the spread of far right ideas but it is a damn sight better, and more effective, than anything militant anti fascism has to offer. Thats for sure. Well thats my h'appeny's worth at ant rate

[The Idler]

Really? The reason why liberal anti-facism no platform fails is because it doesn't do what is absolutely necessary: mobilize the workers in a community. Militant anti-fascism is different and organizes local groups of workers and antifascists to oppose fascism in their own area's. This is vital for success and I won't argue that no platform is unfailing and has suffered losses. But overwhelmingly the rise and growth of the ultra right has been caused by increased liberalism and abandoning no platform within situations of revolutionary potential.

Just as a reminder of how well structural debate against nationalism and ultra right goes was given during the Dutch local election where the resident nationalist, racist party won out and managed to gain majority in both large cities it ran in. After doing so they dropped all pretense about their inherent racism.

This party hasn't been no platformed and is openly debated by just about everybody. But without fail they manage to increase their support year after year after year...even when they were indirectly responsible for government. ...and failed splendidly and generally made a fool of themselves.
I seem to recall anti-fascists in 2009 calling on workers in the community known as the BBC to militantly sabotage the broadcast of BBC Question Time with Nick Griffin. Suffice to say, nothing of the sort happened.
I'm not saying in a debate between liberals and fascists, that the fascist alternative might look more appealing (and even more in the interests of the working-class than liberalism) to the uninformed radicals, the desperate and especially the marginalised. Fascist supporters tend to feel victimised and persecuted in society anyway. However, an effective revolutionary socialist challenge to fascism including in debate is much more crushing to fascism or at least tends to favour socialists. I'm not saying debate fascist parties of one man and his dog, but generally where some support exists, public debate with socialists is generally more effective for socialists than trying to no platform them and often ending up no platforming yourself.
There was a bit of insight into the nature of their support in a documentary titled EDL Girls on BBC 3 recently
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8y1-iGii6Q
in particular the bit about the attitude to 'the lefties' is interesting

[The Feral Underclass]

Before he went off in a fit of pique like some spoilt little kid who cant have it all his own way, the Anarchist Tension attempted to provide some theoretical justification for his militant anti fascism arguing that it is material conditions that produce ideas rather than the other way round.I

Erm, excuse me, I stopped talking to you because you're a fucking idiot, whose debating tactic is simply to re-state their opinion over and over. Trying to have a conversation with you is the equivalent of banging your head repeatedly against a wall. You are an infuriating, intransigent, repetitive fool, with the intellectual capabilities of a kumquat, only you're not colourful or interesting.

And furthermore, my argument was not that material conditions "produce" ideas -- that doesn't even make sense. My argument was that revolutionary ideas come about through struggle. But once again you have failed to grasp what someone is saying to you because you don't fucking listen. And you're not interested in listening. You're only interested in being right. Because you're a dick.

Well fine. That's your downfall, but don't apply your petty interpretations to my actions when the reality is that it is your behaviour that has made me cease engaging with you and nothing else. Try reflecting on that (which is probably impossible since reflection requires you to be self-aware).

[The Idler]

Couldn't you just no platform robbo203 to counter his ideas in the most effective way?

[The Feral Underclass]

Couldn't you just no platform robbo203 to counter his ideas in the most effective way?

This would be funny if it weren't so tragically indicative of your complete ignorance on this subject.

[The Idler]

This would be funny if it weren't so tragically indicative of your complete ignorance on this subject.
I think I understand the argument for no platform spokespersons for fascism on the public platform being;


no platform weakens fascism
or at least no platform does not strengthen fascism
platforming fascists strengthens fascism
or at least platforming fascists does not weaken fascism

I've yet to be utterly convinced on any of these grounds.


Point 1 I don't think survives evidential analysis broader than ones own experience in the immediate to short term.


I'd probably go further than Point 1 and state Point 2 does not survive evidential analysis but open to be corrected on Point 2 ie. that no platform has no or insignificant effect.



Point 3 I think falls dependent on if you are a socialist class struggle party attacking the fascist view of class in society - so liberals can strengthen fascism by platforming them.



Arguing Point 4 alone is basically reducing the whole thing to a tactical consideration and won't hurt if you act differently.


Which one are you arguing or is it as extreme as both Points 1 and 3?

[The Feral Underclass]

Which one are you arguing or is it as extreme as both Points 1 and 3?

None of them. The scope of my argument is far less parochial than those considerations. That's not to say they don't overlap, but the terms of my intervention in this discussion have always been about what strengthens working class unity and solidarity, and what builds proletarian hegemony.

It is not simply that I reject the fact you share a platform with the far-right, it's that your total conception of proletarian struggle is fundamentally problematic. Your liberal attitude to fascists play just a part of that.

[robbo203]

Erm, excuse me, I stopped talking to you because you're a fucking idiot, whose debating tactic is simply to re-state their opinion over and over. Trying to have a conversation with you is the equivalent of banging your head repeatedly against a wall. You are an infuriating, intransigent, repetitive fool, with the intellectual capabilities of a kumquat, only you're not colourful or interesting.

And furthermore, my argument was not that material conditions "produce" ideas -- that doesn't even make sense. My argument was that revolutionary ideas come about through struggle. But once again you have failed to grasp what someone is saying to you because you don't fucking listen. And you're not interested in listening. You're only interested in being right. Because you're a dick.

Well fine. That's your downfall, but don't apply your petty interpretations to my actions when the reality is that it is your behaviour that has made me cease engaging with you and nothing else. Try reflecting on that (which is probably impossible since reflection requires you to be self-aware).

Nice one. I'm a "fucking idiot" - oh and a "dick* and a "cumquat" (mustn't forget that last one, at least Ive got taste, I suppose!). You sound like a precocious 13 year old going on 12. Very mature, I must say. And there you were earlier whimpering pathetically about how "rude" I was to you, meaning you're unable to differentiate between robust criticism and personal insult. Well, what a little hypocrite youve turned out to be, eh? You seriously need to grow up, kid.

And once again youve completely missed the point of attacking your crude mechanistic materialism while complaining that Ive misunderstood you. This is what you actually said:

But this is where the issue is and this is what I have been repeatedly saying to you: it's not ideas>material conditions, it's material conditions>ideas.

If you don't address the material conditions of people's lives, then their ideas will never change.



Others must judge for themselves but I think it is a reasonable interpretation of what you say here that that material conditions are temporally prior to and produce ideas and that the flow of causality is thus one way. If you now want to backtrack from your previous position thats fine by me.

One last thing - no one is disputing "revolutionary ideas come through struggle" Your posts seem to littered with red herrings of this nature and then you wonder why I have had to repeat things to you in the hope that finally the penny will drop. Revolutionary ideas do come through struggle but revolutionary ideas also emerge out of a re-evaluation of previous ideas - there is no such thing as "material conditions" without "ideas" - and go on to affect the course of that struggle. Its a two way thing and this is the point I have been stressing

[The Feral Underclass]

Nice one. I'm a "fucking idiot" - oh and a "dick* and a "cumquat" (mustn't forget that last one, at least Ive got taste, I suppose!). You sound like a precocious 13 year old going on 12. Very mature, I must say. And there you were earlier whimpering pathetically about how "rude" I was to you, meaning you're unable to differentiate between robust criticism and personal insult. Well, what a little hypocrite youve turned out to be, eh? You seriously need to grow up, kid.

Firstly, I'm 31, so you can cut the 'kid' crap right out. If you want maturity then act like a decent person to people and they might respect you more. Secondly, if I have become a hypocrite it is because you are a horrible, horrible person. Instead of worrying about me, why don't you try reflecting on your behaviour, and try and understand why I have reacted the way I have to you. Try and consider the possibility that maybe -- just maybe -- you are to blame.


Others must judge for themselves but I think it is a reasonable interpretation of what you say here that that material conditions are temporally prior to and produce ideas and that the flow of causality is thus one way. If you now want to backtrack from your previous position thats fine by me..

Yes, you think that because you're an idiot and you don't understand what I'm talking about.


TAT: "But this is where the issue is and this is what I have been repeatedly saying to you: it's not ideas>material conditions, it's material conditions>ideas."

It is very easy to take words from someone's post and then quote it in isolation. And this your problem. This is why you are such an infuriating person. You don't try and understand things in context; you don't look at an argument in whole, you just take selected quotes and argue against them in isolation. That's not debate, that's just a dishonest attempt to find something you can disagree with so you can prove yourself right.


TAT: "If you don't address the material conditions of people's lives, then their ideas will never change."

What do you think: "If you don't address the material conditions of people's lives, then their ideas will never change" means? Huh? In the context of my whole argument, what do you think the word 'address' means?

[robbo203]

Firstly, I'm 31, so you can cut the 'kid' crap right out. If you want maturity then act like a decent person to people and they might respect you more. Secondly, if I have become a hypocrite it is because you are a horrible, horrible person. Instead of worrying about me, why don't you try reflecting on your behaviour and try and understand why I have reacted the way I have to you. Try and consider the possibility that maybe -- just maybe -- you are to blame.


Well you certainly dont act like 31, more like 13. I dont recall having called you an "idiot" , "dick" or "cumquat" which I see you continue to do, regardless. And what is the limp-wristed crap- Im a "horrible horrible person". You know me, do you? Have we met perchance? Pathetic. Like I said, you need to grow up or fuck off out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat. Seriously.




Yes, you think that because you're an idiot and you don't understand what I'm talking about.

What do you think: "If you don't address the material conditions of people's lives, then their ideas will never change." means? Huh? What do you think the word 'address' means?

And what do you think "ideas never change" means, eh? You are making changes in ideas contingent upon changes in material conditions, are you not?

Your explicitly stated formula says it all it's not ideas>material conditions, it's material conditions>ideas.. In other words, one way causality. If that is not saying what I say you are saying then I dont know what would. Your hurt pride is the only thing that stands in the way of you acknowleging you made a theoretical cock up. I am quite happy to accept that you might have meant something very different but what you said above does not by any reasonable standards support such an inference.

[The Feral Underclass]

And what is the limp-wristed crap

I think this says it all, really.

[Das war einmal]

Well I have to take Robbo's side here, this whole no-platform thing in this instance sounds more like a cop-out to me. It looks like you don't have enough faith to engage the right-wing in an ideological debate. In the Netherlands, the Freedom Party which is essentially far more extreme then UKIP is (Farage has dismissed Wilders when he found out just how radical anti-muslim the PVV really is) but Wilders refuses to partake in most debates, talkshows, etc. because he will be slaughtered on ideological level (this is also because the man is not that clever).

Sure I understand 'we want to convince the voters, not the party' but where can you do that better then in a debate? How you gonna reach those voters any other way? You should provide no platform for nazis/fascists if they don't have one to begin with, but UKIP has one regardless your standpoint.

[The Idler]

None of them. The scope of my argument is far less parochial than those considerations. That's not to say they don't overlap, but the terms of my intervention in this discussion have always been about what strengthens working class unity and solidarity, and what builds proletarian hegemony.

It is not simply that I reject the fact you share a platform with the far-right, it's that your total conception of proletarian struggle is fundamentally problematic. Your liberal attitude to fascists play just a part of that.
None of them?
Then the claim that no platform 'strengthens working class unity and solidarity, and what builds proletarian hegemony' is basically Point 2 and lacks an argument against platforming fascists. The conclusion of this would be to no platform fascists yourself but not to try and expect others to no platform fascists. Weekly Worker describe this as no platforming yourself.

Does the corollary apply, for example, that platforming fascists weakens working class unity and solidarity and weakens proletarian hegemony. If so then you are basically arguing Point 1.

Otherwise what is the risk and where is the harm in revolutionary socialists platforming fascists? Is there no risk?

BTW, the phrase from robbo203 is uncalled for.

[The Feral Underclass]

None of them?
Then the claim that no platform 'strengthens working class unity and solidarity, and what builds proletarian hegemony' is basically Point 2 and lacks an argument against platforming fascists. The conclusion of this would be to no platform fascists yourself but not to try and expect others to no platform fascists. Weekly Worker describe this as no platforming yourself.

Does the corollary apply, for example, that platforming fascists weakens working class unity and solidarity and weakens proletarian hegemony. If so then you are basically arguing Point 1.

Otherwise what is the risk and where is the harm in revolutionary socialists platforming fascists? Is there no risk?

Sorry, I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. You asked me, out of the list you provided, which one I was arguing. As I said, I am not making the argument based on any of the, frankly, reductive points you made, although there is obvious cross over with what I am saying.


BTW, the phrase from robbo203 is uncalled for.

It comes as no surprise to me that robbo203 harbours latent homophobic attitudes.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well I have to take Robbo's side here, this whole no-platform thing in this instance sounds more like a cop-out to me

People have made arguments for why it is necessary not to engage the institutional far-right in debate. Could you please explain which part of those arguments you think is a cop-out?

[robbo203]

It comes as no surprise to me that robbo203 harbours latent homophobic attitudes.

Bullshit. I dont. You read too much into phrase which was meant simply to convey the pathetic nature of your puerile ad hominens. Perhaps the phrase was ill chosen, with hindsight, but that is all it meant. Nothing more.

[The Feral Underclass]

Bullshit. I dont. You read too much into phrase which was meant simply to convey the pathetic nature of your puerile ad hominens. Perhaps the phrase was ill chosen, with hindsight, but that is all it meant. Nothing more.

It's not bullshit at all, it's plain to see right there. You said it. What else am I supposed to read into the fact you chose to use a homophobic slur to describe my criticism of you? If you don't harbour latent homophobic attitudes you would never have used that phrase, which is a well known and common epithet used to denigrate gay men. The fact that you used it against a gay man is even further proof of your spitefulness.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

TAT that 'dick/cumquat' post was completely out of order. You can't just express your frustrations in such a hateful and insensitive manner, even if you are admittedly correct on the issue at hand.

[The Feral Underclass]

TAT that 'dick/cumquat' post was completely out of order. You can't just express your frustrations in such a hateful and insensitive manner, even if you are admittedly correct on the issue at hand.

I can and I did. The man is horrible and has consistently attempted to derail this discussion by his unwillingness to engage with arguments presented to him, resulting in a homophobic slur being used against me...Which I notice you haven't bothered to mention. It's good to see you have your priorities straight.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I can and I did. The man is horrible and has consistently attempted to derail this discussion by his unwillingness to engage with arguments presented to him, resulting in a homophobic slur being used against me...Which I notice you haven't bothered to mention. It's good to see you have your priorities straight.

I don't really have a dog in this fight. My priority is to ensure that militant anti-fascism and the sound policy of no-platform isn't conceded to those wishing to engage with UKIP et al.

Robbo's language was completely un-called for and I think an apology is in order. In a similar light, you'd be the bigger man for recognising that you've crossed the line in that post above, which basically just resorts to horrible name-calling. I'd imagine that could make some people feel pretty shitty too.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't require an apology from robbo. I deal with that kind of bullshit on a daily basis. If he thinks it's acceptable to refer to the views of a gay man as 'limp-wristed' then that's his downfall. And perhaps in light of his homophobia, you might want to consider the possibility that I am right, and he is both a dick and an idiot after all.

[robbo203]

Well I have to take Robbo's side here, this whole no-platform thing in this instance sounds more like a cop-out to me. It looks like you don't have enough faith to engage the right-wing in an ideological debate. In the Netherlands, the Freedom Party which is essentially far more extreme then UKIP is (Farage has dismissed Wilders when he found out just how radical anti-muslim the PVV really is) but Wilders refuses to partake in most debates, talkshows, etc. because he will be slaughtered on ideological level (this is also because the man is not that clever).

Sure I understand 'we want to convince the voters, not the party' but where can you do that better then in a debate? How you gonna reach those voters any other way? You should provide no platform for nazis/fascists if they don't have one to begin with, but UKIP has one regardless your standpoint.

I agree. In fact, as I said to Synthesis a while back, it is those who peddle this absurd policy of no platform who underestimate the emotional appeal of Far Right ideas and, concommitantly, neglect to see that it is actually through engaging with the Far Right in rational and logical debate that we get to attack its Achilles Heel. Apart from a "no platform" policy being seen, rightly or wrongly, as betraying a lack on conviction in your own arguments there is the point that it does not even works on its terms but provides the Far right with the very publicity they crave on a platter. And finally of course it does absolutely nothing to dissuade workers sympathetic to the Far Right from continuing to be sympathetic. On the contrary, it reinforces them in their convictions as they seek out the solidarity and support of those of like mind so they can collectively revel in their new found sense of victimhood.

But for the vanguardist and anti democratic antics of the "no platform" brigade. I have no doubt that the Far Right would be less influential as a political force than it is today

[The Feral Underclass]

To clarify one more time: No-platform is a street tactic. It is not designed to 'dissuade workers'. It is not designed to 'be an argument'. It is not designed to 'forward an argument'.

The whole basis of the attacks against this tactic are based entirely on terms that have been created for it to be...In other words, you cannot attack something for being something it is not trying to be. How can you criticise no-platform tactics for not dissuading workers when it is not supposed to in the first place? How can you attack no-platform tactics for not forwarding the argument against the far-right, when it's not designed to do that in the first place?

[robbo203]

To clarify one more time: No-platform is a street tactic. It is not designed to 'dissuade workers'. It is not designed to 'be an argument'. It is not designed to 'forward an argument'.The whole basis of the attacks against this tactic are based entirely on terms that have been created for it to be...In other words, you cannot attack something for being something it is not trying to be. How can you criticise no-platform tactics for not dissuading workers when it is not supposed to in the first place? How can you attack no-platform tactics for not forwarding the argument against the far-right, when it's not designed to do that in the first place?

Actually that is precisely what I am saying and that is precisely why I am criticising it! Instead of you whinging on endlessly about my supposed "unwillingness to engage with arguments presented" perhaps now the penny might finally begin to drop and you might finally begin to see that I am doing is, in fact, very much engaging with the arguments presented. Your blind kneejerk hostility to what I have been saying has hitherto, I suggest, prevented you from seeing this

It is a street tactic, you now acknowlege, that is not designed to dissuade workers from being sympathetic to far right ideas. Fine. So workers sympathetic to far right ideas continue to remain sympathetic to far right ideas, yes? In fact not just sympathetic but even more sympathetic than before since all you will succeed in doing is to reinforce them in their beliefs . That is a natural reaction in the face of overt hostility. People seek out the support and solidarity of others in the same boat

So what other possible reason might there be for such an ostensibly useless "street tactic"? To prevent workers not yet sympathetic to far right ideas from becoming sympathetic to far right ideas? Fat chance! In that respect too your street tactic must be judged a failure. You might temporarily prevent a bunch of fascists from holding a public meeting or manning a literature stall, here or there, but if you think that is going to halt the spread of fascist ideas you are even more naive than I thought


Way back in this thread I provided a link to an article on what is probably the most famous example of all in the history of militant anti fascism - the so called Battle of Cable street in London in the 1930s. 100,000 anti fascists massed to prevent a march by 5000 members of Mosley's BUF . They suceeded in that but did they halt the spread of fascist ideas? Not at all. On the contrary, directly as a result of this incident the fascists grew in strength and influence and the BUF's newpaper Blackshirt, talked of how it had given Fascism ‘an immense impetus’

Worse still, the Battle of Cable Street prompted the passage of the Public Order Act 1936, enhancing the power of the capitalist state and requiring all political marches to first obtain police consent. This is what really enrages me about this stupid thoughtless policy of "no platform". Not only does it allow the fascists - of all people! - to pass themselves off as democrats and upholders of free speech while portraying their opponents as spineless . lacking the courage of their own convictions and anti democratic but it gives the state very pretext it is looking for to step in and tighten up social control No revolutionary socialist could support such a thing

I repeat again - it is not the actions of the militant anti fascists with their daft policy of no platform that serves to marginalise the Far right. Rather it is main capitalist political parties co-opting some of the ideas of the Far Right that is primarily instrumental in the marginalisation of the latter. In that respect the role of the no platform brigade has been to help drive those workers who might have joined some far right organisation into the arms of one or other of the main capitalist parties. That in itself should give people cause to reconsider

[PhoenixAsh]

Actually that is precisely what I am saying and that is precisely why I am criticising it! Instead of you whinging on endlessly about my supposed "unwillingness to engage with arguments presented" perhaps now the penny might finally begin to drop and you might finally begin to see that I am doing is, in fact, very much engaging with the arguments presented. Your blind kneejerk hostility to what I have been saying has hitherto, I suggest, prevented you from seeing this

It is a street tactic, you now acknowlege, that is not designed to dissuade workers from being sympathetic to far right ideas. Fine. So workers sympathetic to far right ideas continue to remain sympathetic to far right ideas, yes? In fact not just sympathetic but even more sympathetic than before since all you will succeed in doing is to reinforce them in their beliefs . That is a natural reaction in the face of overt hostility. People seek out the support and solidarity of others in the same boat

So what other possible reason might there be for such an ostensibly useless "street tactic"? To prevent workers not yet sympathetic to far right ideas from becoming sympathetic to far right ideas? Fat chance! In that respect too your street tactic must be judged a failure. You might temporarily prevent a bunch of fascists from holding a public meeting or manning a literature stall, here or there, but if you think that is going to halt the spread of fascist ideas you are even more naive than I thought


Every time socialists started a debate with a fascist party...the fascist party grew. Socialists lost. EVERY SINGLE TIME

Every single time no platform policies were lifted....fascist support and membership grew and managed to root itself in communities for years and years.

No amount of debate with fascist parties has EVER dissuaded large groups of people away from fascism.



Way back in this thread I provided a link to an article on what is probably the most famous example of all in the history of militant anti fascism - the so called Battle of Cable street in London in the 1930s. 100,000 anti fascists massed to prevent a march by 5000 members of Mosley's BUF . They suceeded in that but did they halt the spread of fascist ideas? Not at all. On the contrary, directly as a result of this incident the fascists grew in strength and influence and the BUF's newpaper Blackshirt, talked of how it had given Fascism ‘an immense impetus’

Yes. You posted that article which attributed the growth of the BUF to bourgeois media attention....that continued after the situation a cable street. NOT to the no platform tactic itself. But the failure to follow up on it.


Worse still, the Battle of Cable Street prompted the passage of the Public Order Act 1936, enhancing the power of the capitalist state and requiring all political marches to first obtain police consent. This is what really enrages me about this stupid thoughtless policy of "no platform". Not only does it allow the fascists - of all people! - to pass themselves off as democrats and upholders of free speech while portraying their opponents as spineless . lacking the courage of their own convictions and anti democratic but it gives the state very pretext it is looking for to step in and tighten up social control No revolutionary socialist could support such a thing

Because that would have never happened otherwise :rolleyes:

What you are suggesting is that revolutionary socialists walk on eggs as to not piss off the state.

[Craig_J]

Is there a place which will have coverage of this debate, or will it be uploaded online afterwards? Would love to go but don't have the money to travel down to London.

[robbo203]

Every time socialists started a debate with a fascist party...the fascist party grew. Socialists lost. EVERY SINGLE TIME .

Where, when and source, please. Even a SINGLE INSTANCE when this has happened would suffice. I would love to know what you mean by 1) "socialists" 2) "debate" 3) " the fascist party grew" and 4) "Socialists lost". I suspect you are making things up as you go along, frankly.



Every single time no platform policies were lifted....fascist support and membership grew and managed to root itself in communities for years and years. .


Where, when and source, please



No amount of debate with fascist parties has EVER dissuaded large groups of people away from fascism.
.


No debate is ever likely to dissuade large groups of people away from one point of view to another and certainly not all at once. Debate is not a magic bullet and I have never claimed it was. All I have asserted is that the only effective way to undermine the irrational basis of fascist ideology is to engage with it on a rational and logical basis - to destroy it arguments in public. And not just in public but on a one-to-one basis as well (as I have done) since I include individuals as well as organisations under the rubric of "debate".

No platform has the opposite effect. It reinforces fascists in their beliefs. Part of the reason why you cannot see this is you are focussing simply on fascist organisations rather than fascist ideology. I grant that "no platform" can succeed at times in such limited objectives as physically stopping meetings or literature stalls. You interpret this as containing support for fascism but it is not the same thing at all. And that is another reasons why I reject your claims above

Quite apart from anything else, your claims do not address my repeatedly stated, but hitherto ignored, argument that even if a no platform approach were to succeed on its own narrow terms, it would only serve to drive the would be fascists into the arms of the big capitalist parties that have cynically stolen the thunder of the Far Right by adopting Far Right ideas and policies themselves for electoral purposes. All you would have suceeded in is helping to make far right ideas mainstream. You would have helped to make fascism respectable. It bears out what I have long thought. It is not so much fascism to which the "no platform" brigade is opposed but fascists You approach is utterly irresponsible and myopic as far as containing fascism or Far Right ideas is concerned



Yes. You posted that article which attributed the growth of the BUF to bourgeois media attention....that continued after the situation a cable street. NOT to the no platform tactic itself. But the failure to follow up on it.
.


So you agree then that in the Battle of Cable Street - perhaps the most striking example historically of the "no platform" approach in practice - that approach proved a failure. You try to wriggle out of this with the argument that this was due to the "bourgeois media attention" not to the no platform tactic itself but also due to the failure to "follow up" on the latter (whatever that means). Thus sounds like the kind of argument a creationist would use to defend creationism against scientific evidence. The whole point of a no platform policy is to deny the fascists the oxegyn of publicity but here's the thing - ironically for such a policy to "work" it has to achieve publicity. The more the better in its view. To expect then that a "successful" no platform policy would not receive "bourgeois media attention" is naive in the extreme. It bears out what I said before. A no platform policy only gives fascists the kind of publicity they crave on a platter - a point made incidentally by the BUF itself in the aftermath of the Cable Street



Because that would have never happened otherwise :rolleyes:

What you are suggesting is that revolutionary socialists walk on eggs as to not piss off the state.

No, but I am saying that one should not engage in activities that are only likely to diminish further what few democratics rights we have under bourgeois democracy. You by your no platform policy are openly espousing a vanguardist, elitist and explicitly anti democratic approach to dealing with fascism. In so doing you give the state a ready made excuse for further eroding what limited democracy there is. For that reason alone I oppose the no platform policy as should every revolutionary socialist

[synthesis]

robbo203, can you provide an instance of when socialists have debated fascists and there has been any discernible advantage for them or the left or the working class? Also, your theory of "diminishing what democratic rights we have" seems to be sort of blaming the victim here.


In fact, as I said to Synthesis a while back, it is those who peddle this absurd policy of no platform who underestimate the emotional appeal of Far Right ideas and, concommitantly, neglect to see that it is actually through engaging with the Far Right in rational and logical debate that we get to attack its Achilles Heel.

First, let me just say that after I posted I realized I'd made a horrible mistake in trying to engage in this conversation. But I don't "underestimate the emotional appeal of fascism" at all. The point is that these grand Enlightenment ideals of pure logic and reason aren't going to make a difference when it comes to the people who are easily swayed by an argument's emotional appeal, because those people approach political matters completely differently.

[robbo203]

robbo203, can you provide an instance of when socialists have debated fascists and there has been any discernible advantage for them or the left or the working class?


Well this is precisely the point that I am getting at. It is PhoenixAsh who made the claim that "Every time socialists started a debate with a fascist party...the fascist party grew. Socialists lost. EVERY SINGLE TIME" I am not aware of any such debates having taken place. PhoenixAsh seems confident that they have taken place. It is up to him/her therefore to provide the evidence that supports his/her claim.

In the interests of scientifically settling this matter I would love to see such an event happening so we can determine the outcome. If the no platfrom brigade could for once suspend their dogmatic hostility to debate and allow a debate between an organisation - like for instance the SPGB - and an organisation like the BNP it might actually be very useful for everyone concerned to see what becomes of it. Contrary to what PhoenixAsh (surprisingly) thinks, I think the fascists would publicly humiliated and utterly trounced.





Also, your theory of "diminishing what democratic rights we have" seems to be sort of blaming the victim here.

But the victim in this case is not just the no platform brigade but everyone including socialists who oppose the no platfrom policy. Pursuing such a policy will assuredly lead to a diminution in the democratic rights of everyone and the evidence speaks for itself. Look at what happened after the Battle of Cable street. Legislation was passed that increased the power of the police and their ability to contain protests



First, let me just say that after I posted I realized I'd made a horrible mistake in trying to engage in this conversation. But I don't "underestimate the emotional appeal of fascism" at all. The point is that these grand Enlightenment ideals of pure logic and reason aren't going to make a difference when it comes to the people who are easily swayed by an argument's emotional appeal, because those people approach political matters completely differently.


But you are missing the point. If the appeal of fascism is irrational and based on emotion there is no possible leverage you can exercise over a fascist using methods that similarly renounce reason and logic and substitute instead moralising and coercion. Also I dont buy the argument that people are entirely driven by emotional motives and are incapable of rationally thinking. Everyone including even the most die hard fascist, is capable of rational thought as well as being subject to irrational motives. No human being is ever completely one thing or the other

[synthesis]

In the interests of scientifically settling this matter I would love to see such an event happening so we can determine the outcome. If the no platfrom brigade could for once suspend their dogmatic hostility to debate and allow a debate between an organisation - like for instance the SPGB - and an organisation like the BNP it might actually be very useful for everyone concerned to see what becomes of it.

Why? What would we possibly have to gain from it? Seeing the BNP "publicly humiliated and utterly trounced" in a debate with the SPGB - even if that were the case, how does this help the working class? You seem to think there is this demographic of people who want to be involved in radical politics but can't make up their mind whether they want to be far-right or far-left and are just waiting to see whether the UKIP/BNP make more sense than the SPGB.

[The Idler]

1920s - 1923 KPD (Germany) debated the NSDAP (Nazis) and KPD membership went up
1923 - The Nazis discontinued the debates after August 1923, believing them to be a cause of lost members and waning influence.

1934 - BUF rally, largest indoor political rally at Olympia, London roughly ejected hecklers, BUF lost 9 out of every 10 members over the next few years
1936 - Cable Street, BUF battered by anti-fascists and BUF saw an increase in support over the next few years

1976-1978 - ANL ran Rock Against Racism carnivals against the NF including in big ones 1978
1977 - Battle of Lewisham between fascists and anti-fascists
1978 - NF support rose, they fielded 303 candidates in the general election polling 191,719 votes
Former NF leader admits tipping off 'reds' so protestors make NF demos more credible
1980s - ANL wound up and NF support plummets

2009 - Nick Griffin (BNP) appeared on BBC Question Time and was politically trounced and exposed by everyone on the panel, after a flurry of enquiries over the following month
2010 BNP membership went down
2011 BNP membership kept falling

2012 - Tommy Robinson (EDL) took part in BBC The Big Questions discussion and debate
'The turning point came when Robinson and Ansar visited Quilliam and Robinson witnessed a debate between Quilliam's director, Maajid Nawaz, and Ansar about human rights. Robinson said afterwards to the BBC: "I didn’t think a Muslim would confront Mo Ansar because I thought Mo Ansar was being built as the acceptable face of Islam; and that’s everything that I think is wrong. So when I saw this [debate between Nawaz and Ansar], and I read more about Quilliam and I looked at what Quilliam has done – they've actually brought change, which is what I want to do. I want to bring change. I want to tackle Islamist extremism, I want to tackle neo-Nazi extremism – they're opposite sides of the same coin.'
2013 - Tommy Robinson quits as leader of the EDL

[The Feral Underclass]

Any one who seriously thinks that Nick Griffin getting a bit flustered on Question Time is the reason their support base started to decrease is profoundly naive.

[The Feral Underclass]

2012 - Tommy Robinson (EDL) took part in BBC The Big Questions discussion and debate
'The turning point came when Robinson and Ansar visited Quilliam and Robinson witnessed a debate between Quilliam's director, Maajid Nawaz, and Ansar about human rights. Robinson said afterwards to the BBC: "I didn’t think a Muslim would confront Mo Ansar because I thought Mo Ansar was being built as the acceptable face of Islam; and that’s everything that I think is wrong. So when I saw this [debate between Nawaz and Ansar], and I read more about Quilliam and I looked at what Quilliam has done – they've actually brought change, which is what I want to do. I want to bring change. I want to tackle Islamist extremism, I want to tackle neo-Nazi extremism – they're opposite sides of the same coin.'
2013 - Tommy Robinson quits as leader of the EDL

You really, seriously think that Tommy Robinson gave up on the EDL ebcause he saw two Muslims having a debate? It had nothing to do with the fact he was being done for mortgage fraud at the time and had pending race hate charges? You really honestly think that it's because he suddenly 'saw the light'?

Ugh. You are living in a fantasy world.

[The Idler]

You really, seriously think that Tommy Robinson gave up on the EDL ebcause he saw two Muslims having a debate? It had nothing to do with the fact he was being done for mortgage fraud at the time and had pending race hate charges? You really honestly think that it's because he suddenly 'saw the light'?

Ugh. You are living in a fantasy world.
I'm sure he's still Islamophobic and both he and Quilliam have their own agenda, but we're comparing platform with no platform. Both that departure and the BNP appearance in debates have weakened fascist organisations which ought to be the whole point of anti-fascism.

You're determined to attribute declining support for fascism to anything but public debates so I'm not sure if there is going to be any evidence good enough. What about ex-fascists saying so explicitly? There are of course many reasons why fascism might decline and theres no reason why debates are not among those reasons and actually debates have not as bad a record as no platform.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm sure he's still Islamophobic and both he and Quilliam have their own agenda, but both that departure and the BNP appearance in debates have weakened fascist organisations which ought to be the whole point of anti-fascism.

That is your extrapolation from some -- so far -- unsourced facts. The idea that people saw Nick Griffin get flustered and then decided they didn't support his party is ludicrous.

So you think the fact that each of their councillorships were utter disasters, the fact that their internal structure disintegrated due to internal struggles and the fact they became bankrupt had nothing to do with it? You think it's because of a Question Time debate? What planet do you live on? It is completely baffling.


You're determined to attribute declining support for fascism to anything but public debates so I'm not sure if there is going to be any evidence good enough.

What evidence? You have provided your interpretation of some extrapolations you have made. BNP do badly on a BBC programme, one year later their support dwindles and apparently this has something to do with the great virtue of debate...Sorry, what?


What about ex-fascists saying so explicitly? There are of course many reasons why fascism might decline and theres no reason why debates are not among those reasons and actually debates have not as bad a record as no platform.

Until you have understood the terms of what no-platform is, you are in no position to make claims about its successes.

You still have this interpretation of no-platform as this grand narrative, where the climax is continued fascism, when it's not like that. Understanding it in those terms is to fundamentally misunderstand it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Actually that is precisely what I am saying and that is precisely why I am criticising it!

So let me get this straight: You are criticising the no-platform tactic for not dissuading workers away from the far-right on the basis that it isn't designed to dissuade workers from the far-right, even though you don't think it can or should be used to do that?...

...What? (http://msmosceal.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/waitwhat-idontevenknow_23988f_3996414.png)


It is a street tactic, you now acknowlege, that is not designed to dissuade workers from being sympathetic to far right ideas. Fine. So workers sympathetic to far right ideas continue to remain sympathetic to far right ideas, yes? In fact not just sympathetic but even more sympathetic than before since all you will succeed in doing is to reinforce them in their beliefs . That is a natural reaction in the face of overt hostility. People seek out the support and solidarity of others in the same boat

But my objective isn't to stop members of the BNP or WNP or whomever from being members of those parties. I'm not interested in the minority of far-right political operatives except to prevent them from organising successfully.


So what other possible reason might there be for such an ostensibly useless "street tactic"?

Again: To stop the institutional far-right from organising and having a street presence.


To prevent workers not yet sympathetic to far right ideas from becoming sympathetic to far right ideas? Fat chance! In that respect too your street tactic must be judged a failure. You might temporarily prevent a bunch of fascists from holding a public meeting or manning a literature stall, here or there, but if you think that is going to halt the spread of fascist ideas you are even more naive than I thought

Sigh.

Yes, you will stop fascists from holding public meetings. That is the precise, specific purpose of no-platform.

But of course that isn't going to halt fascists ideas. You cannot challenge fascists ideas within the class unless you are in struggle with class, fighting for concessions.


Way back in this thread I provided a link to an article on what is probably the most famous example of all in the history of militant anti fascism - the so called Battle of Cable street in London in the 1930s. 100,000 anti fascists massed to prevent a march by 5000 members of Mosley's BUF . They suceeded in that but did they halt the spread of fascist ideas? Not at all. On the contrary, directly as a result of this incident the fascists grew in strength and influence and the BUF's newpaper Blackshirt, talked of how it had given Fascism ‘an immense impetus’

Oh so the Fascist press talked about how their defeat on the street was an immense impetus? A political party spun its failures into a success?...That is shocking...:rolleyes:


Worse still, the Battle of Cable Street prompted the passage of the Public Order Act 1936, enhancing the power of the capitalist state and requiring all political marches to first obtain police consent.

Which was only a matter of time. Of course the state is going to implement legislation to defend itself. If it wasn't then it would have been at any other major protest of similar dimensions. That's what happens when you engage in political conflict. The state reacts...

Are you brand new to politics?


This is what really enrages me about this stupid thoughtless policy of "no platform". Not only does it allow the fascists - of all people! - to pass themselves off as democrats and upholders of free speech while portraying their opponents as spineless . lacking the courage of their own convictions and anti democratic but it gives the state very pretext it is looking for to step in and tighten up social control No revolutionary socialist could support such a thing

But if we are to follow this criticism to its logical conclusion we should preclude all political activity that may make the state 'step in and tighten up social control'.

Essentially what you're arguing is that we should just do nothing that antagonises the state...


I repeat again - it is not the actions of the militant anti fascists with their daft policy of no platform that serves to marginalise the Far right. Rather it is main capitalist political parties co-opting some of the ideas of the Far Right that is primarily instrumental in the marginalisation of the latter. In that respect the role of the no platform brigade has been to help drive those workers who might have joined some far right organisation into the arms of one or other of the main capitalist parties. That in itself should give people cause to reconsider

That is the case with anything. Look at the environment lobby. Of course workers will look for moderate solutions to their problems. We live in capitalist ideological hegemony. That's why it's precisely necessary to ensure that militants are engaging in class struggle to build institutions of proletarian hegemony, class unity and class solidarity.

[The Idler]

That is your extrapolation from some -- so far -- unsourced facts. The idea that people saw Nick Griffin get flustered and then decided they didn't support his party is ludicrous.

So you think the fact that each of their councillorships were utter disasters, the fact that their internal structure disintegrated due to internal struggles and the fact they became bankrupt had nothing to do with it? You think it's because of a Question Time debate? What planet do you live on? It is completely baffling.



What evidence? You have provided your interpretation of some extrapolations you have made. BNP do badly on a BBC programme, one year later their support dwindles and apparently this has something to do with the great virtue of debate...Sorry, what?



Until you have understood the terms of what no-platform is, you are in no position to make claims about its successes.

You still have this interpretation of no-platform as this grand narrative, where the climax is continued fascism, when it's not like that. Understanding it in those terms is to fundamentally misunderstand it.
Where are the sourced facts for no platform?
So far what's been given is individual experiences of trashing fascist stalls.
What are your arguments for no platform other than your interpretation with extrapolations?
In fact, given the anecdotal nature of the no platfomers facts, can no platformers even extrapolate much at all?
Where has anyone said fascism declines exclusively as a result of debate?
No-one has claimed this, this is a straw man.
No platform supporters argue platforming fascists should be excluded as a way of countering fascism. Some no platformers argue conservatives shouldn't platform fascists, liberals shouldn't platform fascists, and even revolutionary socialists shouldn't platform fascists.
So far the reasons given for this are very flaky.

If no platform is to stop the far right having a street presence it hasn't exactly worked has it? In fact, if you look at EDL demos, opposition turning up (inc. UAF) at almost every demo hasn't really made a dent in them. The police photographers and FIT love these demos, making arrests and databases. Is this really the most effective way to do it? Did the ANL stop the NF marching? In fact the opposite happened in 1978.

When the BNP was organisationally on the up, it won councillor seats in 2006 and MEP seats in 2009, most mainstream politicians had been ignoring it, no-one was debating it, only UAF were actively opposing it through no platform.

No one is arguing we should not antagonise the state. If you want to fight for concessions, then the Public Order Act would be a good place to start although I think you should address its cause.

Also it, no platformers were happy to cite Nick Griffin when he said a flurry of enquiries had resulted from Question Time in 2009, but when the BUF report an immense impetus in 1936, it suddenly become invalid to cite. In fact, this wasn't the only evidence the BUF grew, but you choose to conveniently ignore that. We know politicians lie and exaggerate so stop being sarcastic.

Also stop sighing and making comments like 'ugh' long after you said you would stop talking to robbo203, that is why you come across as petulant.

[The Feral Underclass]

Where are the sourced facts for no platform?
So far what's been given is individual experiences of trashing fascist stalls.
What are your arguments for no platform other than your interpretation with extrapolations?

But that's the evidence isn't it. If a group of militants go and prevent a stall from happening, that is an example of no-platform succeeding...


In fact, given the anecdotal nature of the no platfomers facts, can no platformers even extrapolate much at all?

But again you're conceptualising no-platform incorrectly. The examples of fascists being no-platformed is evidence of it working...


Where has anyone said fascism declines exclusively as a result of debate?
No-one has claimed this, this is a straw man.
No platform supporters argue platforming fascists should be excluded as a way of countering fascism. Some no platformers argue conservatives shouldn't platform fascists, liberals shouldn't platform fascists, and even revolutionary socialists shouldn't platform fascists.
So far the reasons given for this are very flaky.

I haven't claimed that you think that debate declines fascist ideas. You did, however, present a list of examples where you claim debate has done that, which is what I was responding to.


If no platform is to stop the far right having a street presence it hasn't exactly worked has it? In fact, if you look at EDL demos, opposition turning up (inc. UAF) at almost every demo hasn't really made a dent in them. The police photographers and FIT love these demos, making arrests and databases. Is this really the most effective way to do it? Did the ANL stop the NF marching? In fact the opposite happened in 1978.

Yeah, sometimes the tactic doesn't work. That's life. But again, it's this grand narrative thing that you keep pushing, despite my challenge of it...Look, no-platform is a tactic, not an objective. Why are you having such a hard time dealing with this?

No-platform isn't something you arrive at. It's not a conclusion of something. It's a tactic. You use it, you don't create it...It's not an outcome...I'm not sure I can explain this to you any more simply than I have already.


No one is arguing we should not antagonise the state. If you want to fight for concessions, then the Public Order Act would be a good place to start although I think you should address its cause.

No one is arguing that directly, but that is the conclusion of the argument that robbo made. And struggle against the state to change the public order Act is an absurd concessions to fight for.

Why would we care if they took the Public Order Act of the statutes? What possible difference would that make other than the state assimilating dissent into a liberal paradigm of acceptable protest.


Also it, no platformers were happy to cite Nick Griffin when he said a flurry of enquiries had resulted from Question Time in 2009, but when the BUF report an immense impetus in 1936, it suddenly become invalid to cite. In fact, this wasn't the only evidence the BUF grew, but you choose to conveniently ignore that. We know politicians lie and exaggerate so stop being sarcastic.

I'm not 'no-platformers' am I? I've certainly never made that argument. I also don't speak for all adherents of the tactic. I think you wildly overestimate my importance.


Also stop sighing and making comments like 'ugh' long after you said you would stop talking to robbo203, that is why you come across as petulant.

Firstly, no...Secondly, I don't give a fuck if you think I'm petulant. Thinking that doesn't make me wrong, I'm afraid.

[robbo203]

Why? What would we possibly have to gain from it? Seeing the BNP "publicly humiliated and utterly trounced" in a debate with the SPGB - even if that were the case, how does this help the working class? You seem to think there is this demographic of people who want to be involved in radical politics but can't make up their mind whether they want to be far-right or far-left and are just waiting to see whether the UKIP/BNP make more sense than the SPGB.

Er no I dont think that. I would imagine that at a large well attended debate there would be a whole spectrum of political opinion present. Some years ago I recall going to an SPGB debate in London against a certain Lady Olga Maitland representiing some right wing organisation whose name I forget. I believe there must have been 400-500 people in attendance and the good Lady got a good drubbing. Many of those present probably had never been in contact with revolutionary socialist ideas before. You ask how would it benefit the working class to see the BNP similarly trounced and humiliated. I surely dont have to spell it out for you. If racist and nationalist ideas can be publicly demolished this is good for the working class precisely because such ideas divide and weaken the working class in its struggle against capital

[The Idler]

Well if you think no platforming is a success when it breaks up fascist public meetings then the German socialists were successfully no platforming fascists right up until the 1933 enabling act.

You stated ' BNP do badly on a BBC programme, one year later their support dwindles and apparently this has something to do with the great virtue of debate...Sorry, what?'

This was a episode watched by 8 million viewers, a record in the programme's 30 years. Was this a factor? Or were BNP supporters leaving exclusively because they were tuned into local government bungling and internal leadership challenges.

I'm not saying you're representative of all no platformers but antifascists generally shouldn't be dismissing figures from fascist press only when it suits the tactic of no platform to do so.

Although I understand no platform I don't understand what you're getting at about a grand narrative? Or why no platform shouldn't be judged on its outcome?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

^^I remember the attempts outside the BBC recording studios to deny Nick Griffin a platform to spout his vicious racism being very well covered by the press. I would actually say that, if anything, attempts to ensure no platform for Nick Griffin played a large part in the massive propaganda own goal that was his appearance on QT.

[robbo203]

So let me get this straight: You are criticising the no-platform tactic for not dissuading workers away from the far-right on the basis that it isn't designed to dissuade workers from the far-right, even though you don't think it can or should be used to do that?...



Not only does it do nothing to dissuade workers predisposed to accept Far Right ideas from accepting Far right ideas but it is actually in my view, counterproductive. It increases the likelihood of workers turning to Far Right ideas by ironically providiing such ideas and the organisations propagating them with kind of the oxegyn of publicity it craves and also by ensuring that Far Right supporters seek out the support and solidarity of likeminded individuals. In other words, encouraging Far Right self organisation along political lines in the face of overt intimidation.



But my objective isn't to stop members of the BNP or WNP or whomever from being members of those parties. I'm not interested in the minority of far-right political operatives except to prevent them from organising successfully.


So you don't want to stop people joining the BNP et al; you just want to prevent the BNP et all from "organising successfully". How logical is that?!? It makes one wonder why you want to prevent the BNP et all from "organising successfully" in the first place if not to limit the influence of the BNP and reducing the possibility of people joining it. Or is this just some weird fetish you have succumbed to





Yes, you will stop fascists from holding public meetings. That is the precise, specific purpose of no-platform.

But of course that isn't going to halt fascists ideas. You cannot challenge fascists ideas within the class unless you are in struggle with class, fighting for concessions.

So you admit that even if you were to suceeed in stopping fascists holding public meeting this is not going to halt to fascist ideas. Why then bother with trying to stop fascists from holding public meetings in the first place in that case? Not only does it make you look like a bunch of arrogant anti-democratic elitists who think the working class is too stupid to see through through the crap that the fascists peddle and needs protecting by you lot - the intelllectual vanguard - but, worse still, you make the fascists look like they are the upholders of democracy and free speech!! Your whole approach is absolutely riddled with absurdities and contradictions. You want to "challenge" fascist ideas but you dont want to publicly debate or take on organisations promoting those fascist ideas. Instead you seem to think that engaging in the class struggle "fighting for concessions" will somehow mechanically of itself challenge fascist ideas, It wont. Trade unionist activity "fighting for concessions" can and has been coopted for racist and nationalist ends. Remember Grunswick.




Oh so the Fascist press talked about how their defeat on the street was an immense impetus? A political party spun its failures into a success?...That is shocking...:rolleyes:

It didnt "spin" its failure into success. Success in terms of great numbers and influence was handed it to on platter by the militant anti fascists who ensured by their actions the very publicity from which the BUF, quite evidently, enormously benefitted. Read the article if you want to make an informed comment. Dont just make ridiculous kneejerk remarks like this





Which was only a matter of time. Of course the state is going to implement legislation to defend itself. If it wasn't then it would have been at any other major protest of similar dimensions. That's what happens when you engage in political conflict. The state reacts...

Are you brand new to politics?

Actually I rather wonder if it is you who are "new to politics" judging by the utter naivete of some of your comments. And youve missed the point I was making as usual. What you are proposing is a denial of free speech and a denial of democracy. You are thus playing into the hands of the state which similarly would like to see free speech curtailed and democracy limited. You are giving the state the perfect excuse to do that and one that allows it to wash its hand of the matter with impunity




But if we are to follow this criticism to its logical conclusion we should preclude all political activity that may make the state 'step in and tighten up social control'.

Essentially what you're arguing is that we should just do nothing that antagonises the state...

On the contrary democratic rights such as they are have been won through a bottom up struggle of the working class against the capitalist state. It is you lot who are jeopardising these limited democratic rights by your explicit advocacy of a policy that denies democratic rights to those whose views you find offensive. If I did not know better I would say you were in league with the capitalist state acting as agent provocateurs on behalf of the capitalist state. But of course you are not.

What the "no platform" lobby is is just a bunch of, no doubt, well meaning but thoroughly misguided individuals who are flirting with ideas that endanger our already limited democratic rights and are at completely at variance with the democratic values of revolutionary socialism

[The Feral Underclass]

Well if you think no platforming is a success when it breaks up fascist public meetings then the German socialists were successfully no platforming fascists right up until the 1933 enabling act.

Yeah, that would be accurate.


You stated ' BNP do badly on a BBC programme, one year later their support dwindles and apparently this has something to do with the great virtue of debate...Sorry, what?'

This was a episode watched by 8 million viewers, a record in the programme's 30 years. Was this a factor? Or were BNP supporters leaving exclusively because they were tuned into local government bungling and internal leadership challenges.

In the 2009 East Ecclesfield council by-election, the BNP candidate received 719 votes. In the 2010 local election in East Ecclesfield, the BNP candidate received 892 votes. In 2011 (18-24 months after QT) the BNP candidate received 385 votes.

Now that's just council elections in one area, but I would bet money on it that there are similar results up and down the country, and that those results vary so wildly that you simply have no leg to stand on.


I'm not saying you're representative of all no platformers but antifascists generally shouldn't be dismissing figures from fascist press only when it suits the tactic of no platform to do so.

If you have a problem with what other people say and do, take it up with them. Don't attribute opinions and actions to me that are not mine.


Although I understand no platform I don't understand what you're getting at about a grand narrative? Or why no platform shouldn't be judged on its outcome?

But you don't understand it, lol. Why can't you just admit that?

It can be judged on its outcomes as a tactic, but you are presenting it as an outcome. You keep talking about no-platform as a state of being; a thing that you achieve as a conclusion. It's not an outcome, it's a tactic.

It's like you want to build a chest of draws and to do so you use different tools, one of which is a hammer. The hammer you use to hit a nail into wood and it does that, but then suddenly you criticise the hammer for not building the chest of draws, without understanding that the hammer isn't designed to build the chest of draws, it's simply used to hammer a nail. You can't judge the hammer on its ability to build draws, you can only judge it based on how well it hammers a nail into some wood.

It's the same principle.

[The Feral Underclass]

Not only does it do nothing to dissuade workers predisposed to accept Far Right ideas from accepting Far right ideas but it is actually in my view, counterproductive. It increases the likelihood of workers turning to Far Right ideas by ironically providiing such ideas and the organisations propagating them with kind of the oxegyn of publicity it craves and also by ensuring that Far Right supporters seek out the support and solidarity of likeminded individuals. In other words, encouraging Far Right self organisation along political lines in the face of overt intimidation.

You didn't address my criticism.


So you don't want to stop people joining the BNP et al; you just want to prevent the BNP et all from "organising successfully". How logical is that?!? It makes one wonder why you want to prevent the BNP et all from "organising successfully" in the first place if not to limit the influence of the BNP and reducing the possibility of people joining it. Or is this just some weird fetish you have succumbed to

I said 'being' not 'becoming'.


So you admit that even if you were to suceeed in stopping fascists holding public meeting this is not going to halt to fascist ideas. Why then bother with trying to stop fascists from holding public meetings in the first place in that case?

How many more times do you want me to answer that question?


Not only does it make you look like a bunch of arrogant anti-democratic elitists who think the working class is too stupid to see through through the crap that the fascists peddle and needs protecting by you lot - the intelllectual vanguard - but, worse still, you make the fascists look like they are the upholders of democracy and free speech!!

I'm not a liberal like you. I don't care about bourgeois democracy.


Your whole approach is absolutely riddled with absurdities and contradictions. You want to "challenge" fascist ideas but you dont want to publicly debate or take on organisations promoting those fascist ideas. Instead you seem to think that engaging in the class struggle "fighting for concessions" will somehow mechanically of itself challenge fascist ideas, It wont. Trade unionist activity "fighting for concessions" can and has been coopted for racist and nationalist ends. Remember Grunswick.

Then they weren't very good communists.


It didnt "spin" its failure into success. Success in terms of great numbers and influence was handed it to on platter by the militant anti fascists who ensured by their actions the very publicity from which the BUF, quite evidently, enormously benefitted. Read the article if you want to make an informed comment. Dont just make ridiculous kneejerk remarks like this

I don't need to read some fascist propaganda to know that it's propaganda.


Actually I rather wonder if it is you who are "new to politics" judging by the utter naivete of some of your comments. And youve missed the point I was making as usual. What you are proposing is a denial of free speech and a denial of democracy. You are thus playing into the hands of the state which similarly would like to see free speech curtailed and democracy limited. You are giving the state the perfect excuse to do that and one that allows it to wash its hand of the matter with impunity

Yes, I want to deny fascists freedom of speech and freedom of democracy. That is precisely what I want. It is only liberals that care about bourgeois rights and democracy.

If the state wants to curtail my free speech and my democracy then they will have a fight on their hands. But that's good. It's called escalation. It's a necessary concomitant to class struggle.

We communists strive for that. Something you wouldn't understand.


On the contrary democratic rights such as they are have been won through a bottom up struggle of the working class against the capitalist state. It is you lot who are jeopardising these limited democratic rights by your explicit advocacy of a policy that denies democratic rights to those whose views you find offensive.

That is literally nonsense. You claim that creating conflict forces the state to intervene and that we should avoid the state from intervening, and then say that we should create conflict, which will invariably lead to the state intervening...You are very confused.


If I did not know better I would say you were in league with the capitalist state acting as agent provocateurs on behalf of the capitalist state. But of course you are not.

And you're a homophobe.


What the "no platform" lobby is is just a bunch of, no doubt, well meaning but thoroughly misguided individuals who are flirting with ideas that endanger our already limited democratic rights and are at completely at variance with the democratic values of revolutionary socialism

The moment you stop thinking me misguided is the moment I have failed as a communist.

[synthesis]

Er no I dont think that. I would imagine that at a large well attended debate there would be a whole spectrum of political opinion present. Some years ago I recall going to an SPGB debate in London against a certain Lady Olga Maitland representiing some right wing organisation whose name I forget. I believe there must have been 400-500 people in attendance and the good Lady got a good drubbing. Many of those present probably had never been in contact with revolutionary socialist ideas before. You ask how would it benefit the working class to see the BNP similarly trounced and humiliated. I surely dont have to spell it out for you. If racist and nationalist ideas can be publicly demolished this is good for the working class precisely because such ideas divide and weaken the working class in its struggle against capital

Racists and nationalists divide the working class, not "ideas." And yes, please spell it out for me, because for all your talk of "mechanical materialism" it really seems like you don't understand the concept of historical materialism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Racists and nationalists divide the working class, not "ideas." And yes, please spell it out for me, because for all your talk of "mechanical materialism" it really seems like you don't understand the concept of historical materialism.

:wub:

[PhoenixAsh]

The assumption is that you can demolish racist and nationalist ideas during a debate with the practical application of these ideas (ie. parties and party officials) without affecting the material conditions of the working class support base and addressing them directly.

The notion that debate will make support wane for fascist parties and such like is both disproved and actually totally obliterated by the recent events in The Netherlands were no amount of direct debate with the PVV has ever reduced the voter support for the party...and the PVV only ever lost support through their own infighting and stupidity rather than counter arguments directed against the party officials.

However. Directly engaging supporters and both challenging their ideals and calling them out on the contradictions has proven to be far more effective. As did real community activism. To make note: PVV has never been no-platformed.

[The Idler]

BBC Question Time with Nick Griffin was October 2009

About four BNP councillors resigned at the end of 2009, leaving the party with 54 councillors by 2010. In the May 2010 local elections, 26 BNP councillors lost their seats, leaving the party with 28 seats overall. In Barking and Dagenham, the party lost all 12 seats won in 2006. In the 2011 local elections, the BNP fielded 268 candidates and defended 13 council seats. It lost 11 of these seats, including all 5 of their councillors in Stoke-on-Trent. Two councillors were re-elected, one in Queensbury, West Yorkshire, and the other in Charnwood, Leicestershire, but no new seats were gained.
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party_election_results#Local_elec tions

make your donation out to the SPGB, 52 Clapham High Street, London, cheers.

[PhoenixAsh]

1920s - 1923 KPD (Germany) debated the NSDAP (Nazis) and KPD membership went up
1923 - The Nazis discontinued the debates after August 1923, believing them to be a cause of lost members and waning influence.


We are talking the period of the DAP and the pre-putsch NSDAP. At the end of 1919 they had all of what? 50+ members? By the end of 1920 this number had risen to more than 2000 and by January 1923 they boasted 15.000 members which had grown by the end of Oktober 1923 to over 20.000 members....most of which were middle class and petit-bourgeoise at that time and only about 10% of the membership base was working class.

So I am not seeing the decline in numbers and not seeing the waning influence. A whole 2 months after you claim they had lost so many members they had a growth realization of 25%.

[The Idler]

We are talking the period of the DAP and the pre-putsch NSDAP. At the end of 1919 they had all of what? 50+ members? By the end of 1920 this number had risen to more than 2000 and by January 1923 they boasted 15.000 members which had grown by the end of Oktober 1923 to over 20.000 members....most of which were middle class and petit-bourgeoise at that time and only about 10% of the membership base was working class.

So I am not seeing the decline in numbers and not seeing the waning influence. A whole 2 months after you claim they had lost so many members they had a growth realization of 25%.
Debates prior to mass ownership of television would not have the same kind of audience ie 8 million viewers. I didn't claim they lost members everywhere they existed, they said that they stopped debates because of loss of members presumably ones who attended debates. Most Nazi members would not have joined as the result of a debate. Debate is not a magic bullet, but its less ineffective than no platform.

[synthesis]

I didn't claim they lost members everywhere they existed, they said that they stopped debates because of loss of members presumably ones who attended debates. Most Nazi members would not have joined as the result of a debate. Debates prior to mass ownership of television would not have the same kind of audience. Debate is not a magic bullet, but its less ineffective than no platform.

The part of that post that PA quoted - about the KPD debating the NSDAP - was the only part that struck me as real evidence that debating fascists isn't completely counter-productive; assuming those statistics hold up, and it's causation-not-correlation, it still doesn't show that the debates helped the KPD or damaged the NSDAP outside the framework of preexisting class struggle.

That's really the key distinction here. Class struggle in 1920's Germany was at the highest point of the 20th century, possibly the highest point it had been since the French Revolution. The NSDAP was also still emphasizing the "socialism" in "national socialism" so as to appeal to the working class, because of the global proletarian revolutionary activity at the time; modern-day fascism does no such thing, so there's not even a cogent argument for intra-class agitation in this debate.

The SPGB debating the UKIP is taking place in circumstances completely divorced from class struggle. It's just bourgeois parliamentarism. I'm no antifa, but at least in this instance the no-platform policy would serve the purpose of organizing the class, which is, I believe, TAT's argument in favor of supporting it.

[The Idler]

The part of that post that PA quoted - about the KPD debating the NSDAP - was the only part that struck me as real evidence that debating fascists isn't completely counter-productive; assuming those statistics hold up, and it's causation-not-correlation, it still doesn't show that the debates helped the KPD or damaged the NSDAP outside the framework of preexisting class struggle.

That's really the key distinction here. Class struggle in 1920's Germany was at the highest point of the 20th century, possibly the highest point it had been since the French Revolution. The NSDAP was also still emphasizing the "socialism" in "national socialism" so as to appeal to the working class, because of the global proletarian revolutionary activity at the time; modern-day fascism does no such thing, so there's not even a cogent argument for intra-class agitation in this debate.

The SPGB debating the UKIP is taking place in circumstances completely divorced from class struggle. It's just bourgeois parliamentarism. I'm no antifa, but at least in this instance the no-platform policy would serve the purpose of organizing the class, which is, I believe, TAT's argument in favor of supporting it.
Why is this the only part that strikes you as real evidence? Because its the easiest to distance 2010s from the 1920s? What are these circumstances that amount to bourgeois parliamentarism completely divorced from class struggle? What is the basis that no platform organises the class rather than weakens it and strengthens opponents? Apart from the repeated assertions that it does which is all we have heard so far. Or the tautology that no platform succeeds because it tries to deny fascists a platform regardless of outcome.

[robbo203]

Racists and nationalists divide the working class, not "ideas." And yes, please spell it out for me, because for all your talk of "mechanical materialism" it really seems like you don't understand the concept of historical materialism.

What are you on about? Racists and nationalists are defined by the racist and nationalist ideas they hold. Unless you believe they come out of their mother's womb, a racist or nationalist. It is through promoting racist and nationalist ideas that they help divide the working class. Simples.

[synthesis]

What are you on about? Racists and nationalists are defined by the racist and nationalist ideas they hold.

They're defined by their class position, you dick. Ideology is an expression of material interests. I can't tell if this is shameless bourgeois idealism or if you just have no idea what historical materialism entails or how to apply it to your argument.


Why is this the only part that strikes you as real evidence? Because its the easiest to distance 2010s from the 1920s?

Ah, no. It's because it's the only one that, to me, shows convincing evidence linking the debates to gains made by and for the working class. Linking Rock Against Racism to a rise in NF membership, or a decline in BNP membership to an interview on BBC seems tenuous at best, but that's just not a discussion I want to get bogged down in. I still disagree with your conclusions about the KDP-NSDAP debates, because I think you're ignoring some crucial context - namely, the global revolutionary wave that was going on at the time - but I will still acknowledge it as valid evidence.


What are these circumstances that amount to bourgeois parliamentarism completely divorced from class struggle?

It has nothing to do with organizing the working class. At best this approach is didactic, which most grown adults don't appreciate.

[robbo203]

I'm not a liberal like you. I don't care about bourgeois democracy.


So don't fascists. You're in good company, it seems. If I am a liberal then you are a left wing version of a fascist




I don't need to read some fascist propaganda to know that it's propaganda.


Oh they made propaganda out of the event alright but it is also a fact that they benefitted significantly from the event. Once again, read the article and dont try to be pretend to be some arrogant know all



Yes, I want to deny fascists freedom of speech and freedom of democracy. That is precisely what I want. It is only liberals that care about bourgeois rights and democracy.

If the state wants to curtail my free speech and my democracy then they will have a fight on their hands. But that's good. It's called escalation. It's a necessary concomitant to class struggle.

We communists strive for that. Something you wouldn't understand.


As a communist I understand perfectly the need to "win the battle of democracy" (Communist Manifesto), to foster the growth of democratic values and ensure democratic rights as a necessary precondition for the communist revolution itself. As a left wing fascist who holds the working class in contempt and considers them too stupid to be able to see through the nonsense your right wing rivals peddle, who believes workers need be shielded from such nonsense by you as the self appointed elite, that is something YOU would not understand. Democracy does not mean you get to pick and choose who has the right to free speech. Thats something else you don't understand






That is literally nonsense. You claim that creating conflict forces the state to intervene and that we should avoid the state from intervening, and then say that we should create conflict, which will invariably lead to the state intervening...You are very confused.

It is only confusing to you because you NEVER EVER pay attention to what other people have to say. You never learn or engage with the arguments of others. All you do, as someone has already pointed out, is just "petulantly" opine. Of course the class struggle is a conflict in which the state is continually implicated. Of course it is a conflict which cannot be avoided. None of this I deny, What I assert is that the democratic gains that have been achieved over the last two centuries of class struggle have been the result of a bottom up movement of the working class which has had the consequence of tempering the nature of state intervention in the political realm. That is to say, it is the growth of a culture of democracy that has served to restrain and push back the intervention of the state in political life. It is insult to the memory of workers who fought long and hard for these basic democratic rights which revolutionary poseurs like yourself are able to enjoy, to sneeringly dismiss this all as just "bourgeois democracy". Try living in a bourgeois political dictatorship and you will soon find what side your bread is buttered on. Go live in some political hellhole like North Korea or Saudi Arabia and then come back and lecture us about "bourgeois rights and democracy"

The point I am making is this: when members of the working class such as the no platform brigade start arguing in terms of restricting free speech and curtailing democratic rights to sections of political opinion it disfavours this endangers the democratic gains that workers have achieved over the long haul. It is a case of the working class shooting itself in its own foot. It gives the state that little extra room for maneouvre, a little more grounds for eroding our hard won democratic rights. If we dont appear to be that enthusiastic about the principle of free speech and want to pick and choose who should be able to exercise it well, then, of course the state is going to say if you dont want free speech for others then you cannot complain when it denies free speech to you. Even a simpleton should be able to grasp this basic point



And you're a homophobe.


Try not to be a complete twat all of the time. I have already acknowleged in response to the Idlers criticism that the expression "limp wristed" was ill-advised. However I have already pointed out to you and others here that I categorically repudiate homophobia and am not a homophobe in any way, shape of form. If you do not wish to accept my declaration for what it is but prefer to arrogantly divine what you think my own personal attitudes are on the matter well then thats your problem, not mine. You can fuck off as far as I am concenred. While I have been trying to steer this debate along the lines of objective argument, you have been continually intent upon making snidey personal digs, much to the embarrasment of even your political allies on this thread. Well, fuck it , its time you got back some of your own medicine

And as for that expression "limp wristed" all i wished to convey by that was pathetic nature of your response, NOTHING MORE. Of course I should have known better. I should have known there are twats like you around who will add up two and two and make five. It takes the subtley and finesse of a cretin not to recognise the variability of linguistic usage and who seeks to impose a monodimensional interpretation on what people say. Not everything people appear to be saying accords with what they actually mean to say. You should know that since that has happened often enough with you on this thread, hasnt it?

And by the way I have gay friends who would laugh at what you say. Im straight but they would call me limp wristed at times. I dont like cold sea water and I have no doubt they would call me limp wristed - pathetic - for not joining them in the water but all in good spirits. We understand each other perfectly well. In fact they would probably take exception to you reinforcing the stereotype that equates "limp wristedness" with being gay. Why can't straights be limp wristed too? What happened to iconoclasm I wonder? The irony is that there you are accusing me of being liberal. Your political correctness is a defining characteristic of our contemporary liberal establishment is it not?



The moment you stop thinking me misguided is the moment I have failed as a communist.

But you are misguided if you think I consider you a communist. You are a fucking disgrace to everything communism stands for

[The Feral Underclass]

I have gay friends

Classic homophobe.

[The Idler]

Most people can change their ideas, robbo203 has thought twice about a mistaken slur now being interpreted as more than it was.

The Public Order Act
Building proletarian hegemony and solidarity and organising the class since 1936.

Re synthesis, I can accept that there is context to consider. I think it's a common strawman here that the SPGB operate 'divorced from the class struggle' as one poster put it or do not consider the class struggle. It's wrong but in any case, how can this be so? Also, what would be valid evidence to compare no platform to platform? I would rather discuss this than not.

[The Feral Underclass]

Most people can change their ideas, robbo203 has thought twice about a mistaken slur now being interpreted as more than it was.

What robbo has actually done is used a homophobic slur and then told a gay man he has no business being offended by it, and the fact that I am offended is because I'm a politically correct liberal. That is actually what has occurred. That's not an interpretation, that's literally what has happened.

[brigadista]

These are the reasons the BNP lost their council seats - they did nothing - it was not debate - IMHO UKIP are v dangerous - they have a lot of money and are currently influencing all party policy - not that I believe in parliamentary politics but at the moment those politics are affecting us all -

libcom.org/news/article.php/rubbish-bnp-councillors-100406

[The Idler]

What robbo has actually done is used a homophobic slur and then told a gay man he has no business being offended by it, and the fact that I am offended is because I'm a politically correct liberal. That is actually what has occurred. That's not an interpretation, that's literally what has happened.
Where has he said anyone has no business being offended by it? Where has he said any offence is taken by a politically correct liberal?

These are the reasons the BNP lost their council seats - they did nothing - it was not debate - IMHO UKIP are v dangerous - they have a lot of money and are currently influencing all party policy - not that I believe in parliamentary politics but at the moment those politics are affecting us all -

libcom.org/news/article.php/rubbish-bnp-councillors-1004068 million viewers followed by a decline and you can confidently declare debate had nothing to do with it! I'm not saying it was the only factor, but I suspect it was a factor. I'm still waiting for acknowledgment of that money bet The Anarchist Tension made earlier.

How dangerous are UKIP to no platform them? How dangerous are the Conservative party? Should the Conservatives be no platformed? Or if no platform is just a tactic, then should UKIPs influence of all parties policies be platformed?

[The Feral Underclass]

Where has he said anyone has no business being offended by it? Where has he said any offence is taken by a politically correct liberal?


And as for that expression "limp wristed" all i wished to convey by that was pathetic nature of your response, NOTHING MORE. Of course I should have known better. I should have known there are twats like you around who will add up two and two and make five. It takes the subtley and finesse of a cretin not to recognise the variability of linguistic usage and who seeks to impose a monodimensional interpretation on what people say.

Yeah, well, you know what, the term 'limp wristed' is used all the time to denigrate men like me, so excuse me for being a bit sensitive about it. Not that robbo would understand that, since he's straight and doesn't have to deal with homophobia, but that's okay, because I'm a twat and a cretin and I should understand him better...

That's what should happen. Instead of a straight man not using homophobic slurs against a gay man, I should just understand the straight man better.

And this gem:


Why can't straights be limp wristed too? What happened to iconoclasm I wonder? The irony is that there you are accusing me of being liberal. Your political correctness is a defining characteristic of our contemporary liberal establishment is it not?

[The Idler]

Yeah, well, you know what, the term 'limp wristed' is used all the time to denigrate men like me, so excuse me for being a bit sensitive about it. Not that robbo would understand that, since he's straight and doesn't have to deal with homophobia, but that's okay, because I'm a twat and a cretin and I should understand him better...

That's what should happen. Instead of a straight man not using homophobic slurs against a gay man, I should just understand the straight man better.

Those I terms I would not use, and I don't think anyone is saying you shouldn't be offended by it or sensitive to it or need more understanding. But assuming only gays not straights can be offended by homophobia is a liberal identity politics position. Like saying 'check your privilege' to shut down discussion. Likewise because he used a wrong slur it doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong about other political positions on no platform for example. On my visitor messages you've put the SPGB have topped your list of worst organisations. Although robbo is not a member of the SPGB I think even if he was, you're over-reacting to dismiss the SPGB because things have got heated in this thread. Also if SPGB has topped your list of worst organisations, this casts into doubt your claims that you campaigned against BNP activities in Barnsley, Nottingham and Sheffield.

[The Feral Underclass]

Those I terms I would not use, and I don't think anyone is saying you shouldn't be offended by it or sensitive to it or need more understanding.

Oh thanks. Good to know.


But assuming only gays not straights can be offended by homophobia is a liberal identity politics position. Like saying 'check your privilege' to shut down discussion.

I haven't assumed that...


Likewise because he used a wrong slur it doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong about other political positions on no platform for example. On my visitor messages you've put the SPGB have topped your list of worst organisations. Although robbo is not a member of the SPGB I think even if he was, you're over-reacting to dismiss the SPGB because things have got heated in this thread.

I'm not dismissing the SPGB because this debate is heated. I'm dismissing the SPGB because you have shit politics, shit members and supporters who are perfectly comfortable using homophobic slurs against gay men.


Also if SPGB has topped your list of worst organisations, this casts into doubt your claims that you campaigned against BNP activities in Barnsley, Nottingham and Sheffield.

Cast away as much as you want, pal.

The BNP are fascists. It's to be expected. The SPGB should know better.

[Rurkel]

But assuming only gays not straights can be offended by homophobia is a liberal identity politics position.

When did TAT claim anything like this?

This thread is becoming ridiculous. Robbo should've just apologized, and the case would have been closed. He responded with didactic finger-wagging. Admittedly, he was called quite nasty names in this thread, but he also ignored the strongest arguments against his position (and I don't think that these strongest arguments are necessarily impenetrable).

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

By the way - and I don't think anyone in their right mind could accuse me of being biased in favour of TAT - this isn't the first instance of "impossibilist" homophobia on this site. A few weeks ago, one "impossibilist" (I don't know if they're an SPGB member, and quite frankly it doesn't matter) defended a member who was banned for homophobia (and who explicitly said they "don't support" gay rights), railing against "identity politics" much like robbo rails against "liberal political correctness" in this thread.

I don't think that's an accident. The SPGB are economists, workerists and vulgar democrats; if they care about queer rights at all - and I haven't seen any evidence - they're afraid of doing anything about it lest they lose their mythical 50% + 1 vote majority.

[The Idler]

When did TAT claim anything like this?



the term 'limp wristed' is used all the time to denigrate men like me, so excuse me for being a bit sensitive about it. Not that robbo would understand that, since he's straight and doesn't have to deal with homophobia, ...
That's what should happen. Instead of a straight man not using homophobic slurs against a gay man, I should just understand the straight man better.
It's a homophobic slur whose use is not exclusively against gay men, only offensive to gay men or understood only by gay men.

[The Feral Underclass]

It's a homophobic slur whose use is not exclusively against gay men, only offensive to gay men or understood only by gay men.

Sorry, where am I making this assumption that "only gays not straights can be offended by homophobia"? Acknowledging that an individual man being straight would preclude him from understanding the sensitivity of using homophobic slurs (what else would be the reason -- gay people don't use this phrase) doesn't mean that all straight men don't understand what is offensive.

[The Idler]

By the way - and I don't think anyone in their right mind could accuse me of being biased in favour of TAT - this isn't the first instance of "impossibilist" homophobia on this site. A few weeks ago, one "impossibilist" (I don't know if they're an SPGB member, and quite frankly it doesn't matter) defended a member who was banned for homophobia (and who explicitly said they "don't support" gay rights), railing against "identity politics" much like robbo rails against "liberal political correctness" in this thread.

I don't think that's an accident. The SPGB are economists, workerists and vulgar democrats; if they care about queer rights at all - and I haven't seen any evidence - they're afraid of doing anything about it lest they lose their mythical 50% + 1 vote majority.
If you thought the case for platforming was tenuous (and you thanked a post on the previous page by synthesis using the description tenuous) then this is really stretching it to the point of pure conjecture.

The SPGB is against homophobia. Clause 5 of its principles alludes to this. The SPGB are not economists (its non-SPGB users who have called for 'concessions' in this topic), workerists (its non-SPGB users have argued workers are not divided by ideas), vulgar democrats (its non-SPGB users who have been vulgar). The SPGB, despite constant caricatures to the contrary, aren't going for 50%+1 as a vulgar democratic vote majority. Users can turn this into a broadside against the SPGB but I'm surprised the BNP electoral decline post Question Time hasn't been acknowledged by the ardent no-platformers calling for evidence.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yeah and all races are entitled to join the BNP. Your party charter might say one thing, but the actions of people who are associated with your party or your party's ideas say a whole different thing.

[The Idler]

Sorry, where am I making this assumption that "only gays not straights can be offended by homophobia"? Acknowledging that an individual man being straight would preclude him from understanding the sensitivity of using homophobic slurs (what else would be the reason -- gay people don't use this phrase) doesn't mean that all straight men don't understand what is offensive.
You stated 'Not that robbo would understand that, since he's straight and doesn't have to deal with homophobia,'. How do you know he hasn't got children or family relatives who suffer homophobic insults? You don't.

Yeah and all races are entitled to join the BNP. Your party charter might say one thing, but the actions of people who are associated with your party or your party's ideas say a whole different thing.
I think the tenuous association game is pretty worthless, but if you want to play it, you might want to change your Mao avatar first.

When fascists, statistical figures, historical experiences, and socialists all say platform weakens fascism, and no platform strengthens fascism, this is regarded as tenuous.
When assertions are made supporting no platform, then criticising this is regarded as worthy of personal abuse.
The kindest thing to say about this is that it is what Orwell called doublethink.

[The Idler]

The SPGB also debated the country's most prominent LGBT rights campaigner Peter Tatchell earlier this month. If there was any of the homophobia you describe, surely this might have been raised you would have thought?

According to libcom, the US Maoist groups did argue homosexuality was a perversion and bourgeois (http://libcom.org/forums/news/were-militant-now-sp-homophobic-31012006). Look for this in the output of the SPGB and I don't think you will find anything like this and rightly so. Yet SPGB has leapfrogged SPEW/CWI to top of your enemies list.

[Comrade Jacob]

Don't forget to make a recording and link us to it.

[The Feral Underclass]

You stated 'Not that robbo would understand that, since he's straight and doesn't have to deal with homophobia,'. How do you know he hasn't got children or family relatives who suffer homophobic insults? You don't.

Because people with children or relatives who suffer homophobic abuse don't use homophobic slurs unless they're a homophobe. And if it's the case that he does, then I feel very sad that they have to deal with a father or a relative who doesn't have the sensitivity to understand that using homophobic slurs against anyone, not least of all a gay person, is fundamentally unacceptable. For him to then try and self-justify just further reinforces his total and utter disregard.

And now you're defending him.


I think the tenuous association game is pretty worthless

You would think that, wouldn't you? But you are the person defending robbo, so...


but if you want to play it, you might want to change your Mao avatar first.

I am perfectly happy to be associated with Mao...That's why I have him as my avatar.


When fascists, statistical figures, historical experiences, and socialists all say platform weakens fascism, and no platform strengthens fascism, this is regarded as tenuous.
When assertions are made supporting no platform, then criticising this is regarded as worthy of personal abuse.
The kindest thing to say about this is that it is what Orwell called doublethink.

You've provided no credible statistical figures, I've seen no conclusive evidence of 'historical experience' and I pay very little attention to what fascists have to say.

[blake 3:17]

I'm amazed to be agreeing with TAT on many issues. O lordy me

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm amazed to be agreeing with TAT on many issues. O lordy me

You think you're having it tough? I don't even know who I am anymore.

[robbo203]

Classic homophobe


Christ, not this crap again. You're like a friggin dog with a bone. You are seriously becoming a real bore.

I can only repeat what I said earlier:


I have already acknowleged in response to the Idlers criticism that the expression "limp wristed" was ill-advised. However I have already pointed out to you and others here that I categorically repudiate homophobia and am not a homophobe in any way, shape or form. If you do not wish to accept my declaration for what it is but prefer to arrogantly divine what you think my own personal attitudes are on the matter well then thats your problem, not mine


A "homophobic slur" implies a homophobic intent. Nothing of such an intent existed,or exists,in my case. I had no inkling of your sexual orientation nor have I any interest in it, frankly . In fact , nothing was further from my mind in using the expression I used. I simply reached for a form of words to decribe the pathetic and feeble nature of the cheap insult you levelled at me - something that is evidently your trademark. Clearly I blundered in my choice of words and that I have acknowleged. The result has been a transperantly naked attempt to derail this thread - not an outcome I welcome. However, should you persist with this outrageous claim of yours that I am some kind of homophobe I will have to add "downright dishonesty" and "malicious misrepresentation" to your list of undesirable traits


Why an attempt should be made to derail this thread is now becoming pretty obvious, I think. It is an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that the "no platform" lobby has comprehensively lost the argument on every count. It has been thoroughly defeated in this debate and feels compelled to resort to cheap insult to hide this fact and save face. There are 3 basic points I want to make in this regard that kind of sum up the position:

1) Far from being a successful strategy to halt or reverse the spread of Far Right ideas, the no platform policy has been a dismal failure. If anything, it has inadvertently aided and assisted that spread. We should not be bamboozled by its proferred criterion of "success". Preventing the odd street march here or there or stopping some meeting is not in itself a meaningful indicator of "success". After all, the whole point of the exercise is surely to deprive the Far Right of the means of publicising its ideas and its existence; you dont stop a meeting for the sake of stopping a meeting, do you? From that point of view the antics of the no platform lobby have been thoroughly counterproductive. Not only have they focussed the spotlight of attention on the existence of Far right organisations and personalities, boosting their profile in the public eye but, worse, have enabled the latter to pass themselves off as the defenders of democracy and free speech in the face of cowardly left wing bigots who lack the balls or courage of their convictions to pit their arguments against the Far right in open debate. Leftist intimidation only strengthens the resolve of the Far Right to organise and propagate its ideology . It helps to convert passive sympathy for Far right ideas into active support since it a natural reaction of individuals under threat because of their beliefs to seek out the support and solidaity of others of a like mind. Above all, left wing intimidation helps to provide Far right groups with a certain cachet that attracts the more thuggish elements that populate such groups. They seek out the thrill of a street battle and the Left conveniently and stupidly provides them with just such an opportunity to engage in one. For the young fascist thug from a sink council estate, the left wing no lobby brigade is not much more than the militant arm of the Liberal establishment. From his or her point of view, it precisely that establishment that has fucked things up for him/her and ruined his/her life chances of economic advancement . Stereotypically , the Left is seen as a bunch of relatively privileged middle class student types, the shock troops of this liberal establishment, intent upon keeping him/her in his/her place. Insofar as we have seen a relative decline in the presence of neo-Nazi type type groups on the extreme Right this has little if anything to do with the antics of the "no platform" brigade; rather, it has primarily to do with the fact that the mainstream capitalist parties have cynically moved to co-opt far right populist ideas into their programmes to attract the support of individuals sympathetic to Far Right ideas. In de facto terms, then, the "no platform" lobby is little more than a recruting sergeant for the main capitalist parties even if that is clearly not its intention. That is one reason why revolutionary socialists oppose it


2) Another is this: we should be absolutely clear about what a "no platform" actually implies. Above all, it implies that the working class should not be allowed exposure to certain ideas which the Left wing "no platformist" considers repugnant. Now without doubt those ideas are indeed repugant but the assumption that workers should not be allowed access to them is equally repugnant, in my view - and breathtaking in its arrogance and utter contempt for the workers themselves. This , above all, is the thing that most riles me about the "no platform" position : it assumes that the workers are too stupid to be able to withstand the lure of the Far Right ideology and need protecting from themselves by an enlightened elite or vanguard. That is why no revolutionary socialist would ever touch the "no platform" lobby with a bargepole; it completely sucks. Let us be absolutely clear: it is a pernicious and disgustingly anti-working class perspective that reinforces everything that capitalist ideology in general seeks to instill in workers and how it conceptualises the relationship the working class and capitalist politics in hierachical elitist terms. And the really aburd thing about it all is that the entire perspective is based on a fundamental and glaring contradiction. Racist and nationalistic ideas are said to be generated in mechanistic fashion out of the material conditions created by capitalism. Yet notwithstanding that, the vanguardists that consitute the no platform lobby want to prevent working class exposure to such ideas by denying the exponents of such ideas the right to free speech within the very context provided by those material conditions. Thus the no platform approach is fundamentally illogical and makes no sense whasoever even on its own terms


3) There is a still further reason why revolutionary socialists oppose the "no platform lobby" and that is that it threatens the very democratic concessions - however limited these may be - that the working class has forced from the ruling class over decades, and even centuries, of struggle. Without a modicum of democratic rights it would be virtually impossible for a revolutionary socialist movement to survive, let alone prosper. We have seen the contempt and scorn that authoritarian vanguardists like Anarchist Tension and others here have poured on what they call "bourgeois democracy". This is a very dangerous game to play. Of course there is no denying that bourgeois representative democracy is a very limited form of democracy and, in large measure, a fraud. But it is one thing to say that; it is quite another to spurn the very limited demcratic rights we have under capitalism rights and which constitute this "bourgeois democracy" of ours, which the working class has struggled and achieved over a long period of time. The point is not to reject these rights but to transcend them - otherwise rejecting bourgeois democracy can so very easily slip over into supporting bourgeois dictatorships (ironically like fascists regimes!), If it comes to choosing between a bourgeois "democracy" and a bourgeois dictatorship (like that disgusting regime in North Korea) I dont think there is any question which one is preferable The problem is that once you start saying who can and who cannot exercise the right to free speech you deprive yourself of any and all moral authority to counter any move by the capitalist state to deprive you of that self same right. You make it easy for the state to employ that very argument you use against the Far right, against you yourself. This is why I argue that the no platform lobby represents a fundamental reversal in the struggle of the working class to achieve a modicum of democratic rights and it is for this reason too that this lobby must be uncompromisingly opposed as a matter of principle by all revolutionary socialists

[The Idler]

In the 2009 East Ecclesfield council by-election, the BNP candidate received 719 votes. In the 2010 local election in East Ecclesfield, the BNP candidate received 892 votes. In 2011 (18-24 months after QT) the BNP candidate received 385 votes.

Now that's just council elections in one area, but I would bet money on it that there are similar results up and down the country, and that those results vary so wildly that you simply have no leg to stand on.



BBC Question Time with Nick Griffin was October 2009
'About four BNP councillors resigned at the end of 2009, leaving the party with 54 councillors by 2010. In the May 2010 local elections, 26 BNP councillors lost their seats, leaving the party with 28 seats overall. In Barking and Dagenham, the party lost all 12 seats won in 2006. In the 2011 local elections, the BNP fielded 268 candidates and defended 13 council seats. It lost 11 of these seats, including all 5 of their councillors in Stoke-on-Trent. Two councillors were re-elected, one in Queensbury, West Yorkshire, and the other in Charnwood, Leicestershire, but no new seats were gained.'

from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party_election_results#Local_elec tions

make your donation out to the SPGB, 52 Clapham High Street, London, cheers.


You've provided no credible statistical figures, I've seen no conclusive evidence of 'historical experience' and I pay very little attention to what fascists have to say.


Because people with children or relatives who suffer homophobic abuse don't use homophobic slurs unless they're a homophobe. And if it's the case that he does, then I feel very sad that they have to deal with a father or a relative who doesn't have the sensitivity to understand that using homophobic slurs against anyone, not least of all a gay person, is fundamentally unacceptable. For him to then try and self-justify just further reinforces his total and utter disregard.

And now you're defending him.



You would think that, wouldn't you? But you are the person defending robbo, so...


No one here is justifying homophobia except in your imagination. I'm not defending anyone, I'm just challenging your claim that there is homophobia at work here. I'm also challenging your liberal claims that


straight people don't have to deal with homophobia
Because robbo is straight he would not understand homophobia - 'Not that robbo would understand that, since he's straight'

Its liberal rubbish.


I am perfectly happy to be associated with Mao...That's why I have him as my avatar.


Modern Maoist groups have called homosexuality a bourgeois perversion. Here's one example on a Maoist website (http://kasamaproject.org/communist-organization/3349-81my-life-in-a-red-closet). If you look for homophobia like this in the output of the SPGB (or probably I'd say, impossibilists) you won't find it.

[The Feral Underclass]

No one here is justifying homophobia except in your imagination.

Someone uses a homophobic slur, I call it out as homophobic and then I get told I'm just imagining it. This is text-book response from homophobes. You realise that, don't you?...No, probably you don't.

And this isn't a question of what you 'think' you are doing. It is a question of what you are actually doing.


I'm not defending anyone

:rolleyes:


I'm just challenging your claim that there is homophobia at work here.

You can challenge it all you want, it only reinforces the disregard you and your pal robbo have towards me as a gay man.


I'm also challenging your liberal claims that

The first one isn't something I've claimed and the second is simply just true.


Its liberal rubbish.

I don't think you understand what liberal means. It's not liberal to recognise that a straight person doesn't understand what homophobia is [in practice]. I mean, you can understand it on a theoretical level, but if you're not gay or bi and you don't encounter homo/biphobia as an experience then you don't know want it is, and to try and claim you do is just fucking offensive more than anything else.

Do you know what it feels like, what it does to you as a human being to have your views denigrated by a term used to undermine and belittle your very identity? You understand that, do you?


Modern Maoist groups have called homosexuality a bourgeois perversion.

And they're wrong.


If you look for homophobia like this in the output of the SPGB (or probably I'd say, impossibilists) you won't find it.

I'm sure that's true, but from my experience in this thread, I don't think it really matters.

[The Idler]

Someone uses a homophobic slur, I call it out as homophobic and then I get told I'm just imagining it. This is text-book response from homophobes. You realise that, don't you?...No, probably you don't.
Er no, you called robbo a troll and a colossal idiot, then a fucking idiot, then a kumquat, then a dick.
Robbo made a slur that has homophobic connotations (you don't have to be gay to understand this) and you said 'that says it all' and I said 'the phrase ... was uncalled for'. Why do you think I said this? Robbo conceded that the phrase was ill-chosen and the homophobic connotations are not what he meant. Despite continuing disagreement, the slur or anything like it hasn't been used at all before or since. You are imagining that users are justifying the use of homophobic phrases. You are imagining that users want to express or use homophobia here. A textbook response of a homophobe would not be to defend or even support homosexuality. I defend and support homosexuality. The SPGB defends and supports homosexuality.

You can challenge it all you want, it only reinforces the disregard you and your pal robbo have towards me as a gay man.
That would be why I pointed out the phrase was uncalled for and a slur?

The first one isn't something I've claimed and the second is simply just true.
You said ' Not that robbo would understand that, since he's straight and doesn't have to deal with homophobia,'

the first point you are making is since robbo is straight he doesn't have to deal with homophobia.
the second point you are making is since robbo is straight he doesn't understand homophobia.


I don't think you understand what liberal means. It's not liberal to recognise that a straight person doesn't understand what homophobia is [in practice]. I mean, you can understand it on a theoretical level, but if you're not gay or bi and you don't encounter homo/biphobia as an experience then you don't know want it is, and to try and claim you do is just fucking offensive more than anything else.
As someone with a Mao profile pic, you might not like the term liberal or you might have an particular Maoist definition of it, but this is exactly liberal elitist politics that only those experiencing oppression on the basis of a particular identity can fully understand it.

Do you know what it feels like, what it does to you as a human being to have your views denigrated by a term used to undermine and belittle your very identity? You understand that, do you?
This is basically admitting to a form of liberal identity politics. Just because you are a victim of homophobia does not mean you are the only one who can call it out or understand it or identify what constitutes homophobia. It just doesn't.

And they're wrong. I'm sure that's true, but from my experience in this thread, I don't think it really matters.
Arguing that your experience in this thread and in trashing BNP stalls is what really matters is a form of philosophical empiricism, the classic liberal political philosophy of John Stuart Mill.

[The Feral Underclass]

Er no, you called robbo a troll and a colossal idiot, then a fucking idiot, then a kumquat, then a dick.

And he is all of those things.


Robbo made a slur that has homophobic connotations (you don't have to be gay to understand this) and you said 'that says it all' and I said 'the phrase ... was uncalled for'. Why do you think I said this? Robbo conceded that the phrase was ill-chosen and the homophobic connotations are not what he meant. Despite continuing disagreement, the slur or anything like it hasn't been used at all before or since. You are imagining that users are justifying the use of homophobic phrases. You are imagining that users want to express or use homophobia here. A textbook response of a homophobe would not be to defend or even support homosexuality. I defend and support homosexuality. The SPGB defends and supports homosexuality.

But that is precisely what robbo did! Look, I'm not going to keep arguing with you about this. Ultimately, I don't give a fuck. I just think you're being incredibly dishonest...Or stupid.

Someone who isn't justifying the use of homophobic terms doesn't say this:


And as for that expression "limp wristed" all i wished to convey by that was pathetic nature of your response, NOTHING MORE. Of course I should have known better. I should have known there are twats like you around who will add up two and two and make five. It takes the subtley and finesse of a cretin not to recognise the variability of linguistic usage and who seeks to impose a monodimensional interpretation on what people say. Not everything people appear to be saying accords with what they actually mean to say. You should know that since that has happened often enough with you on this thread, hasnt it?

And by the way I have gay friends who would laugh at what you say. Im straight but they would call me limp wristed at times. I dont like cold sea water and I have no doubt they would call me limp wristed - pathetic - for not joining them in the water but all in good spirits. We understand each other perfectly well. In fact they would probably take exception to you reinforcing the stereotype that equates "limp wristedness" with being gay. Why can't straights be limp wristed too? What happened to iconoclasm I wonder? The irony is that there you are accusing me of being liberal. Your political correctness is a defining characteristic of our contemporary liberal establishment is it not?

If that is not a justification, what the fuck is it?


You said ' Not that robbo would understand that, since he's straight and doesn't have to deal with homophobia,'

Robbo isn't all straight people, is he?


the first point you are making is since robbo is straight he doesn't have to deal with homophobia.

I've seen no evidence to the contrary.


the second point you are making is since robbo is straight he doesn't understand homophobia.

Which is true.


As someone with a Mao profile pic, you might not like the term liberal or you might have an particular Maoist definition of it, but this is exactly liberal elitist politics that only those experiencing oppression on the basis of a particular identity can fully understand it.

This is basically admitting to a form of liberal identity politics. Just because you are a victim of homophobia does not mean you are the only one who can call it out or understand it or identify what constitutes homophobia. It just doesn't.

How can you really understand something if you can't experience it? If you cannot live something, how can you know what it is? Do you know what it's like living as a black person or a woman?


Arguing that your experience in this thread and in trashing BNP stalls is what really matters is a form of philosophical empiricism, the classic liberal political philosophy of John Stuart Mill.

What the fuck are you talking about?! I have neverclaimed that trashing BNP stalls is "what really matters". You are being so dishonest it is unbelievable.

I am not prepared to keep having a discussion with someone who just invents opinions and then attributes them to me. You have consistently done this through out this discussion and it is complete bullshit.

[Hit The North]

When fascists organise there is a rise in racists attacks on workers. This is because, unlike the bourgeois socialists in the SPGB, the fascists do not limit politics to mere discourse but are committed to politics as action, politics as a tangible wielding of power. Therefore insisting on no-platform as a means of ensuring these scum cannot use the institutional means of any organisation we have influence in (our unions, our community organisations, etc.) is, in my opinion, a political obligation and should be considered self-defence.

Confronting and smashing fascist bookstalls is not no-platform. It is something else but equally laudable.

Organising a mass national movement of opposition and confrontation against organised fascism such as the ANL and RAR in the seventies is also not no-platform. Like breaking-up bookstalls, it is another tactic which is joined to no-platform by its insistence on the need to physically, as well as intellectually, confront the fascists; to deny their right to exist within our cosmopolitan working class communities.

This strategy is as old as fascism itself. It is the way in which working class communities in the UK have spontaneously defended themselves against fascism from Cable Street to Lewisham and beyond. To argue, as the impossibilists do here, that this strategy has been unsuccessful is just to misunderstand or wilfully misread history. The fascist right in the UK has continued to be a sorry band of misfits and miscreants and remain incapable of organising larger numbers than their opponents on the left because every time they raise their heads we are ready with our boots on.

None of the SPGB's puritan disdain and arrogant dismissal of 'dirty work' politics make it any less necessary.

But all of this is a distraction from the thread because UKIP is not a fascist party, it is right-wing parliamentarian.

The real issue, as I have written earlier in posts ignored by robbo and the idler, is the zero-sum game of arguing the need for socialism to right-wing nationalists, who probably consider income tax to be a communist plot, and why the SPGB continue to act like a vaguely interesting but rather lackadaisical debating club, with no thrust or direction, not even attempting to relate to their real audience who will be workers who do not require a reason not to vote UKIP. The real issue is the sheer bankruptcy of this approach to organising.

What a giant waste of time.

[The Idler]

And by the way I have gay friends who would laugh at what you say. Im straight but they would call me limp wristed at times. I dont like cold sea water and I have no doubt they would call me limp wristed - pathetic - for not joining them in the water but all in good spirits. We understand each other perfectly well. In fact they would probably take exception to you reinforcing the stereotype that equates "limp wristedness" with being gay. Why can't straights be limp wristed too?Ah ok, in the walls of text I missed this, this is trying to justify the slur. My mistake.

Robbo isn't all straight people, is he?

I've seen no evidence to the contrary.

Which is true.

What does being straight have to do with homophobia?


How can you really understand something if you can't experience it? If you cannot live something, how can you know what it is? Do you know what it's like living as a black person or a woman?

What did August Bebel, author of Women and Socialism, know or understand about being a woman? What did Friedrich Engels know or understand about being working-class? What did Prince Kropotkin know or understand about being under serfdom?


What the fuck are you talking about?! I have neverclaimed that trashing BNP stalls is "what really matters". You are being so dishonest it is unbelievable.
You have adduced trashing of BNP stalls as evidence and disregarded actual election results. You also distinguished whats true from your experience in this thread which is what really matters. This is a liberal approach not a materialist one.

I am not prepared to keep having a discussion with someone who just invents opinions and then attributes them to me. You have consistently done this through out this discussion and it is complete bullshit.That's simply not true. I quoted you directly on the two points about being straight that you disputed and you conceded them. You've also said the SPGB are homophobic but that the actual output of the SPGB on this doesn't matter. Who's misrepresenting who?

[The Idler]

When fascists organise there is a rise in racists attacks on workers. This is because, unlike the bourgeois socialists in the SPGB, the fascists do not limit politics to mere discourse but are committed to politics as action, politics as a tangible wielding of power.Who were the Socialist Party who were standing against the BNP in North London in an election last year? I'll give you a clue it wasn't any of the Trotskyist platforms.
Therefore insisting on no-platform as a means of ensuring these scum cannot use the institutional means of any organisation we have influence in (our unions, our community organisations, etc.) is, in my opinion, a political obligation and should be considered self-defence.Even if it doesn't work?


Confronting and smashing fascist bookstalls is not no-platform. It is something else but equally laudable.

Organising a mass national movement of opposition and confrontation against organised fascism such as the ANL and RAR in the seventies is also not no-platform. Like breaking-up bookstalls, it is another tactic which is joined to no-platform by its insistence on the need to physically, as well as intellectually, confront the fascists; to deny their right to exist within our cosmopolitan working class communities.Does it successfully deny their 'right to exist'?


This strategy is as old as fascism itself. It is the way in which working class communities in the UK have spontaneously defended themselves against fascism from Cable Street to Lewisham and beyond. To argue, as the impossibilists do here, that this strategy has been unsuccessful is just to misunderstand or wilfully misread history.After Cable Street, the BUF made other marches through London untroubled.
The fascist right in the UK has continued to be a sorry band of misfits and miscreants and remain incapable of organising larger numbers than their opponents on the left because every time they raise their heads we are ready with our boots on.Londoners in 1978 might dispute this.

None of the SPGB's puritan disdain and arrogant dismissal of 'dirty work' politics make it any less necessary.Dirty work and puritan disdain are your terms, not ones used by the SPGB.


But all of this is a distraction from the thread because UKIP is not a fascist party, it is right-wing parliamentarian.

The real issue, as I have written earlier in posts ignored by robbo and the idler, is the zero-sum game of arguing the need for socialism to right-wing nationalists, who probably consider income tax to be a communist plot, and why the SPGB continue to act like a vaguely interesting but rather lackadaisical debating club, with no thrust or direction, not even attempting to relate to their real audience who will be workers who do not require a reason not to vote UKIP. The real issue is the sheer bankruptcy of this approach to organising.

What a giant waste of time.
The last European elections saw UKIP get nearly 2.5 million votes. Let me know when you waste enough time to get that many.

[Hit The North]

Who were the Socialist Party who were standing against the BNP in North London in an election last year? I'll give you a clue it wasn't any of the Trotskyist platforms. Even if it doesn't work?


Yes, well done. You stood a candidate in an election. Did the candidate explicitly stand against the BNP, though, or, as is more the case, was he standing on the usual broad propagandist campaigning of the SPGB?


Does it successfully deny their 'right to exist'?
I dunno, when is a denial successful? The point is what you mobilise people around.


After Cable Street, the BUF made other marches through London untroubled. Well that's a pity but so what? I suppose from your freedom of speech platform you are happy they were unopposed. Or am I missing the point you are trying to make?


Londoners in 1978 might dispute this.

Why?


The last European elections saw UKIP get nearly 2.5 million votes. Let me know when you waste enough time to get that many.
:lol:. How many of those 2.5 million, do you think, will even hear about your pretty little debate? What do you think will be the propaganda value for our side? In what incremental way will the SPGB's debating triumph over UKIP either strengthen the working class or weaken the xenophobes? And besides it is not the UKIP I am accusing of being a gigantic waste of space, it is you, so however many votes they won is not even pertinent to my point.

[The Idler]

Yes, well done. You stood a candidate in an election. Did the candidate explicitly stand against the BNP, though, or, as is more the case, was he standing on the usual broad propagandist campaigning of the SPGB?The candidate explicitly stood hostile to all opposing candidates including but not limited to the BNP. This is not limiting politics to mere discourse but a commitment to politics as action, politics as a tangible wielding of power. Hardly propagandist.


I dunno, when is a denial successful? The point is what you mobilise people around.
A denial is successful when you successfully deny something. If you mobilise people around stopping Nick Griffin going on BBC Question Time or stopping Tommy Robinson going on BBC's the Big Questions and they fail to stop them, people will leave demoralised and defeated.


Well that's a pity but so what? I suppose from your freedom of speech platform you are happy they were unopposed. Or am I missing the point you are trying to make?
You're missing the point, Cable Street was mobilised around ¡No pasarán! they shall not pass. The fascists were stopped but subsequently marched through on other occassions not long afterwards. This is a failure, maybe at best, a very short-term success.



Why?Because the mobilisation was at a concert in the park not where the NF were marching through Brick Lane.


:lol:. How many of those 2.5 million, do you think, will even hear about your pretty little debate? What do you think will be the propaganda value for our side? In what incremental way will the SPGB's debating triumph over UKIP either strengthen the working class or weaken the xenophobes? And besides it is not the UKIP I am accusing of being a gigantic waste of space, it is you, so however many votes they won is not even pertinent to my point.
Quite a few will hear of the debate if its shared online. Ukip have a big and growing support base. Its not hard to see how defeating or opposing them in argument is of propaganda value. Its not hard to see how it will be less ineffective than refusing to share a platform. The thrust and direction of the SPGB is the capture of political power for socialism.

[The Feral Underclass]

What did August Bebel, author of Women and Socialism, know or understand about being a woman? What did Friedrich Engels know or understand about being working-class? What did Prince Kropotkin know or understand about being under serfdom?

They knew a lot about it, but they didn't know what it was like being a woman or being under sefdom or being working class.

[The Idler]

They knew a lot about it, but they didn't know what it was like being a woman or being under sefdom or being working class.
Not much to add here, but from MIA here https://www.marxists.org/archive/pilling/works/capital/pilling2.htm

Empiricism, as a theory of knowledge rests upon the false proposition that perception and sensation constitute the only material and source of knowledge. Marx as a materialist, of course, never denied that the material world, existing prior to and independently of consciousness, is the only source of sensation. But he knew that such a statement, if left at that point, could not provide the basis for a consistent materialism, but at best a mechanical form of materialism, which always left open a loop-hole for idealism...
I'm not saying your statement is completely empirical but there are shades of it creeping in.

[The Feral Underclass]

Not much to add here, but from MIA here https://www.marxists.org/archive/pilling/works/capital/pilling2.htm

You're doing it again.

I'm not proposing 'experience' as the only source of knowledge, am I? Actually, I've quite clearly accepted it's not by acknowledging there are other ways of understanding things. I am merely acknowledging the fact that you cannot experience being something if you are not 'it'.

Stop. Attributing. Opinions. To. Me.

[The Idler]

You're doing it again.

I'm not proposing 'experience' as the only source of knowledge, am I? Actually, I've quite clearly accepted it's not by acknowledging there are other ways of understanding things. I am merely acknowledging the fact that you cannot experience being something if you are not 'it'.

Stop. Attributing. Opinions. To. Me.
I'm not and have not, stop accusing me of doing so.
To reiterate, I'm not saying your statement is completely empirical but there are shades of it creeping in.
You said 'They knew a lot about it, but they didn't know what it was like being a woman or being under sefdom or being working class. ' and ' Not that robbo would understand that, since he's straight and doesn't have to deal with homophobia,'.
This is not materialism, it is shades of liberal empiricism creeping in.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm not and have not, stop accusing me of doing so.

So if you don't think that I am arguing that 'experience' is the only source of knowledge, why did you quote this: "Empiricism, as a theory of knowledge rests upon the false proposition that perception and sensation constitute the only material and source of knowledge."

If you're not attributing that opinion to me, what does it have to do with anything?


To reiterate, I'm not saying your statement is completely empirical but there are shades of it creeping in.
You said 'They knew a lot about it, but they didn't know what it was like being a woman or being under sefdom or being working class. ' and ' Not that robbo would understand that, since he's straight and doesn't have to deal with homophobia,'.
This is not materialism, it is liberal empiricism.

You cannot experience being 'it' if you are not 'it'. Or do you deny the existence of experiencing? Clearly you do not deny it because even in the quote you provided it acknowledges that experience is a source of knowledge. So what exactly are you arguing here?

Also, I reject this nonsense about 'liberal' empiricism. As opposed to what?

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by the Idler
The candidate explicitly stood hostile to all opposing candidates including but not limited to the BNP. I rest my case. If the BNP candidate had not been standing you would have fielded a candidate regardless. Your pretence of confronting the fascist is just that.


This is not limiting politics to mere discourse but a commitment to politics as action, politics as a tangible wielding of power. Hardly propagandist.
Good grief :rolleyes:. You really are a Mickey Mouse revolutionary, aren't you?


A denial is successful when you successfully deny something. How do you unsuccessfully deny something? You are talking gibberish.


If you mobilise people around stopping Nick Griffin going on BBC Question Time or stopping Tommy Robinson going on BBC's the Big Questions and they fail to stop them, people will leave demoralised and defeated.
Tony Cliff was fond of saying that the only people who never fail are those who never try anything. This is probably why you think the SPGB is a roaring success. But how patronising to suggest that working class activists can be demoralised so easily. If we fail, we regroup and try harder next time.


Because the mobilisation was at a concert in the park not where the NF were marching through Brick Lane.
Ah yes, a tactical mistake which the ANL admitted freely at the time. And testimony to your deep seated sectarianism that you focus on this incident and ignore the successful confrontations which helped mobilise a multi-ethnic working class resistance to the NF's street politics and the propaganda effort which raised the political consciousness of tens of thousands of people across the nation and helped push a significant youth subculture (punk) towards the left and away from its early flirtation with right-wing iconography.


The thrust and direction of the SPGB is the capture of political power for socialism.
Perhaps in its collective imagination. Meanwhile, in the real world, the SPGB's century long stagnation is evidence of a complete poverty of political direction. There's more thrust in a dead badger.

[bropasaran]

Meanwhile, in the real world, the SPGB's century long stagnation is evidence of a complete poverty of political direction.
Compared to what?

OT, is this today, was the debate held, is there a video?

[The Idler]

I rest my case. If the BNP candidate had not been standing you would have fielded a candidate regardless. Your pretence of confronting the fascist is just that.
Not really, the SPGB were hostile to the BNP. It is a pretence that the SPGB were anything but hostile to the BNP.

Good grief :rolleyes:. You really are a Mickey Mouse revolutionary, aren't you?This is just empty ad hominem.


How do you unsuccessfully deny something? You are talking gibberish.
If you try to deny something such as denying fascists a platform and fail. Its not difficult to understand.

Tony Cliff was fond of saying that the only people who never fail are those who never try anything. This is probably why you think the SPGB is a roaring success.I don't think socialism has been a success at all. If you knew anything about the SPGB you would know they would regularly say socialism has not been put into practice.

But how patronising to suggest that working class activists can be demoralised so easily. If we fail, we regroup and try harder next time.
No what's patronising is telling workers to deny fascists a platform in case they are won over to fascism. Or telling workers to deny fascists a platform, whilst recognising it doesn't weaken fascism. Or telling workers to deny fascists a platform with another agenda.

Ah yes, a tactical mistake which the ANL admitted freely at the time. And testimony to your deep seated sectarianism that you focus on this incident and ignore the successful confrontations which helped mobilise a multi-ethnic working class resistance to the NF's street politics and the propaganda effort which raised the political consciousness of tens of thousands of people across the nation and helped push a significant youth subculture (punk) towards the left and away from its early flirtation with right-wing iconography.Ah yes, I see you cracked out the emergency 'sectarianism' fire extinguisher. 'Deep seated' must mean you can't really prove it but want to sling it anyway. Yep ANL raised the political consciousness of tens of thousands of people across the nation - a nation that then put Margaret Thatcher in power. The Anti Nazi League - what you might call 'A Roaring Success'!!! So much so, where is it now?


Perhaps in its collective imagination. Meanwhile, in the real world, the SPGB's century long stagnation is evidence of a complete poverty of political direction. There's more thrust in a dead badger.Not really, the SPGB are contesting various regions in the European elections this year, how many are other groups contesting?

[Hit The North]

This is just empty ad hominem.




It might be an ad hominem but it isn't empty. It is brimming with my disdain for the idea that standing an isolated candidate and garnering 150 votes or whatever from a lacklustre (I'm tempted to say, "limp-wristed" but I don't want to get into trouble with TAT) campaign is "wielding power". It rings with my laughter.


If you try to deny something such as denying fascists a platform and fail. Its not difficult to understand. I getcha. But you were asking whether the denial of the right of the fascist to organise among us was successful. This is a moral argument (in that it speaks to what people agree is permissible) and not the same as the act of denying a platform.


I don't think socialism has been a success at all. If you knew anything about the SPGB you would know they would regularly say socialism has not been put into practice. In didn't say you did. I claimed that you think the SPGB is a roaring success. I didn't say anything about socialism.


No what's patronising is telling workers to deny fascists a platform in case they are won over to fascism.

That may be patronising but it is not the reason we seek to deny the fascists a platform as I have already explained but which you seem determined to ignore in favour of pedalling your tired argument.


Or telling workers to deny fascists a platform, whilst recognising it doesn't weaken fascism. Or telling workers to deny fascists a platform with another agenda.

I don't recognise this - quite the opposite. It is merely your unsubstantiated prejudice.


Ah yes, I see you cracked out the emergency 'sectarianism' fire extinguisher. 'Deep seated' must mean you can't really prove it but want to sling it anyway.

I say what I see. You reduce an entire mass movement to one tactical blunder on one particular day in order to make a point which runs counter to the FACT that the ANL consistently out-organised the NF. You ignore any positive gains that might have been afforded by engaging wide layers of working class youth in activity under the banner of "Black and White Unite and Fight" (and this in the context of a deeply racist British society) and then have the nerve to claim you're not a sectarian?


Yep ANL raised the political consciousness of tens of thousands of people across the nation - a nation that then put Margaret Thatcher in power. The Anti Nazi League - what you might call 'A Roaring Success'!!! Seriously? You do know that an electorate is made up of millions and that less than 50% of the electorate voted Tory? Honestly, this misses the point so widely I get the feeling I'm conversing with an infant. To whit:


So much so, where is it now?
Don't you understand the nature of united fronts?


Not really, the SPGB are contesting various regions in the European elections this year, how many are other groups contesting?

So you'll be "wielding power" (as you laughably put it) in possibly the most irrelevant election in the election calender. Good luck with that. But if this sop to a bogus electoral politics is your only source of consolation, I feel very sad for you.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Oh, watch out, British bourgeoisie, the SPGB is going to contest elections. In various regions even. You couldn't make this up if you tried, because if you did everyone would assume you're engaging in caricature.

[robbo203]

Someone who isn't justifying the use of homophobic terms doesn't say this:
If that is not a justification, what the fuck is it?


Actually, if you read what it is says, it is trying to suggest, rightly or wrongly. that the term "limp wristed" might not necessarily be homophobic in connotation at all but merely suggests "feebleness" "being pathetic" or something along those lines. The latter was certainly the meaning - the ONLY meaning - I was trying to convey to describe the cheap insult you threw at me earlier. In no sense, was I remotely trying to make some kind of homophobic dig at you. How on earth's name is that remotely possible anyway when I had absolutely no inkling you were gay, eh? Do tell me becuase I would love to know! It is was only when the Idler alerted me to the fact that the term i used was out or order and could possibly be construed as a homophobic slur the that I realised that this term was ill chosen and publicly acknowleged this.

I repeat again loud and clear for all to hear: I am not and never have been homophobic in the slightest degree . The expression "limp wristed" I used was not intended in any sense to be a homophobic slur and I would be horrifed to think that it might be construed as such. I dont know what else I have to do or say to make my position abundantly clear




I am not prepared to keep having a discussion with someone who just invents opinions and then attributes them to me. You have consistently done this through out this discussion and it is complete bullshit.

Though this comment of yours is directed at the Idler (totally unfairly in my opinion) I consider that it could very well be directed at yourself. I consider you to be the most dishonest and deceitful individual I have had the misfortune to encounter on this list, free and easy with the cheap insult but without a shred of personal integrity. Despite everything ive said you have continued to deliberately attribute to me homophobic views and to call me a homophobe. Sorry, but you deserve nothing more than contempt in the eyes of any fair minded and reasonable individual

[Anti-Traditional]

Was anyone at the event? How was it?

[robbo203]

No what's patronising is telling workers to deny fascists a platform in case they are won over to fascism. Or telling workers to deny fascists a platform, whilst recognising it doesn't weaken fascism. Or telling workers to deny fascists a platform with another agenda.

Yes exactly. What these people who have nothing better to do than sneer and snipe dont seem to understand is that the no platform policy is fundamentally contemptuous towards the working class in presuming to deny fascists the right to spout their odious views. It is saying the workers are too stupid to see through these views and need to be protected from hearing these views by the enlightened vanguard. That is the clear implication of a no platform policy but I notice that none of its advocates here address this point. Perhaps the truth hurts.

They also fail to see that it fundamentally endangers what limited democractic concesssions the working class have been able to force upon the ruling class after decades and centuries of class struggle. How can you, with any credibility, combat attempts by the state to curb your democratic rights when you yourself are proposing that the democratic rights of others should be curbed? You are shooting yourself in the foot by advocating a no platform policy

And finally of course they fail to see that the the no platform policy - the attempt to deny the far right the means by which they they might publicly propagatae their ideas - just simply does not work. It is a complete failure. It doesnt stop the spread of fascists and far right ideas. If anything it facilitates the spread of these ideas for all the reasons that have been mentioned previously.

It is all very well getting carried away with your own propaganda celebrating what you perceive to be the "positive gains that might have been afforded by engaging wide layers of working class youth in activity under the banner of "Black and White Unite and Fight but that is not really the point. The point is specifically about the supposed utility of a paticular policy of no platform. "Black and White" can indeed "unite and fight" without the need to utilise this failed and utterly counterproductive policy. That is the point

Taking on the Far Right in public debate , engaging with and demolishing its ideas, may not be the magic bullet that will kill off fascist tendencies among the working class but it is damn sight more effective and in keeping with the democratic values of revolutionary socialism than that disastrous and anti democratic vanguardist policy of no platform. Thats for certain

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The SPGB is against homophobia. Clause 5 of its principles alludes to this.

The SPGB are not economists (its non-SPGB users who have called for 'concessions' in this topic), workerists (its non-SPGB users have argued workers are not divided by ideas), vulgar democrats (its non-SPGB users who have been vulgar). The SPGB, despite constant caricatures to the contrary, aren't going for 50%+1 as a vulgar democratic vote majority. Users can turn this into a broadside against the SPGB but I'm surprised the BNP electoral decline post Question Time hasn't been acknowledged by the ardent no-platformers calling for evidence.

Because the decline can be more plausibly attributed to other factors - in particular the quick disillusionment of the electorate with "new, different" parties and the abysmal performance of the BNP councilors, even by the rotten standards of bourgeois politics.

And no, sorry but the SPGB isn't against homophobia. One of your posts claimed that, paraphrasing, "you won't find anything like that [Maoist homophobia] in SPGB literature". Well, no. In fact you won't find anything about homosexuality. The SPGB has never addressed the issue of homosexuality and homophobia, particularly not in the period when the British state was among the most vigorous persecutors of LGBT people. It has never carried out a Marxist analysis of LGBT issues, particularly how they relate to the reproduction of the proletariat as the proletariat and the bourgeois family unit.

This isn't at all accidental. Not only is the SPGB filled with people stuck in the Edwardian era, for all their hardline posturing, they're one of the most populist parties in Britain, rivaled only by the fragments of the old Militant group. The SPGB strategy for the socialist revolution is pretty much - win an election, stuff happens, socialism. And they're not going to win an election if they contradict the homophobic consciousness of the electorate, and certainly not if they take a consistent Marxist stand against the bourgeois family.

It's rather telling that the best you can do to prove the SPGB isn't homophobic is state that a clause of the principles "alludes" to an opposition to homophobia - an opposition that doesn't particularly oblige the SPGB to do anything about it, in particular.

It's pretty much the same with trans* rights, the liberation of women etc. Where is, for example, the SPGB position on abortion? As far as I can tell, you don't have one, because you don't want to scare off "pro-life" reactionary fucks.

[Manic Impressive]

It's pretty much the same with trans* rights, the liberation of women etc. Where is, for example, the SPGB position on abortion? As far as I can tell, you don't have one, because you don't want to scare off "pro-life" reactionary fucks.
Hmm interesting theory.....:rolleyes:

But perhaps it has more to do with not making transitional reformist demands... Like all the other social democratic fuck wits on this site. That is fucking populism. Making callous tactical policies in order to attract minority groups is a Leninist dogma, not something Marxists should be concerned with.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Hmm interesting theory.....:rolleyes:

But perhaps it has more to do with not making transitional reformist demands... Like all the other social democratic fuck wits on this site. That is fucking populism. Making callous tactical policies in order to attract minority groups is a Leninist dogma, not something Marxists should be concerned with.

The right to free abortion at any stage of the pregnancy is a democratic right; it isn't even a reform in the same sense as the eight-hour day etc. etc. Likewise full juridical equality for LGBT citizens. Of course the bourgeoisie can't fulfill these democratic demands. That you call these elementary democratic demands "callous tactical politics" speaks volumes about your own bigoted "socialism" - and in case anyone was wondering, it was precisely Manic Impressive who defended the thankfully banned homophobe.

edit:

So to sum up, if you happen to be a woman, gay, a member of a national or racial minority or colour-caste, SPGB has nothing to offer to you but the same "socialism or your money back" insipid drivel they peddle at every election. Your everyday struggles are irrelevant to the Only Socialist Party in Existence. But they're more anti-fascist than the anti-fascists. I mean they ran candidates, for god's sake. In several constituencies!

[synthesis]

It has never carried out a Marxist analysis of LGBT issues, particularly how they relate to the reproduction of the proletariat as the proletariat and the bourgeois family unit.

Where can I find such an analysis? I've never been able to find anything that places homophobia in the same economic-political framework as racism and sexism, both of which have relatively obvious roots in capitalist exploitation. It's something I've always been curious to read more about; I made this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/www.revleft.com/vb/materialist-analysis-homophobiai-t182671/index.html?t=182671) awhile back to try to figure out more about it, but I didn't get any takers.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Where can I find such an analysis? I've never been able to find anything that places homophobia in the same economic-political framework as racism and sexism, both of which have relatively obvious roots in capitalist exploitation. It's something I've always been curious to read more about; I made this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/www.revleft.com/vb/materialist-analysis-homophobiai-t182671/index.html?t=182671) awhile back to try to figure out more about it, but I didn't get any takers.

The Spartacist League, the Freedom Socialist Party, and the Lavender and Red Union / Red Flag Union have written extensively on the subject - although much of it is scattered (i.e. the SL analysis is drawn out over several issues of Spartacist). The documents of the last RFU congress are interesting, but I don't know how many of them are online. There was a big split on the issue - between people who would join the SL, the RSL and the FSP. Workers' Vanguard 172 covers the fusion with the RFU extensively - although I think some of the formulations are off (particularly the comparison to black workers and the notion of homophobia primarily pertaining to the denial of democratic rights).

Anyway, I think it is wrong to look for the roots of anti-homosexual bigotry outside the oppression of women. Misogyny and homophobia have always been intimately linked; homosexuals endanger the bourgeois family unit, which is why bourgeois society hounds them (in addition to the general utility of creating subaltern strata of the proletariat).

[Manic Impressive]

and in case anyone was wondering, it was precisely Manic Impressive who defended the thankfully banned homophobe.

If it's one thing I can't stand it's liars. I was going to respond but seeing the lengths you will resort to to try and make you flimsy argument work I don't think it's worth my time or effort.

You are absolutely pathetic.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Actually, your little crusade in favour of your fellow bigot is still "on record" as far as the forum software goes, and anyone can see what you did, starting from, oh, this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2717014&postcount=35) (read the rest of the thread for context).

But I'm sure you're not a homophobe. After all, if you had more influence with the SPGB, you yourself might contest elections. In multiple constituencies perhaps!

[Manic Impressive]

Please please everybody check the thread. So you can see Vincent West is a lying sack of shit.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I agree - everyone should check the thread. So they can see what sort of people our crusader against "middle class identity politics" defends.

[Comrade Chernov]

Hmm interesting theory.....:rolleyes:

But perhaps it has more to do with not making transitional reformist demands... Like all the other social democratic fuck wits on this site. That is fucking populism. Making callous tactical policies in order to attract minority groups is a Leninist dogma, not something Marxists should be concerned with.

What a lovely display of bourgeois morality.

EDIT: What a lovely display of kindness and maturity toward your comrades, too.

[Hit The North]

Some words...

I wouldn't want you to think that I haven't responded because your razor sharp arguments have defeated me. In fact, the opposite is true. Your woolly reasoning is just words and it is obvious why you favour the bourgeois privilege of free-speech above all other considerations, such as the militant self-defence of the working class. It must be an occupational hazard of the socialist windbag who does nothing but hold reasonable debates with class enemies. I tell you what, sunshine, if you were in my union branch and you were arguing that the union should grant resources to provide a platform for organised racist and fascists, I'd do my best to hound you out. Fuck your right to free speech - you'd be a liability to the rest of us. Next thing we know, you'd be arguing that we should tolerate scabs because "everyone has the freedom to work if they want to" or some other boss-speak.

[bropasaran]

was the debate filmed, is the video posted?

[robbo203]

There seems to be an awful lot of crap talked about the SPGB by a few rather ignorant individuals on this thread with an axe to grind. Im not a member but credit where credit is due: there is more revolutionary socialism in the SPGB's little finger than the entire body of ragbag Trotskyist groups, truth be told. If people want to find out something about the SPGB's stance on some issue and get it from the horses mouth rather than from some biassed and embittered critic, perhaps they should visit the SPGB's website itself and use its search function

In the meanwhile, since this thread is supposed to be about the debate between the SPGB and UKIP there is a rather interesting article on UKIP which Ive just come across on their website. Check it out here

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2013/no-1307-july-2013/ukip-are-they-really-bnp-blazers

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

There seems to be an awful lot of crap talked about the SPGB by a few rather ignorant individuals on this thread with an axe to grind. Im not a member but credit where credit is due: there is more revolutionary socialism in the SPGB's little finger than the entire body of ragbag Trotskyist groups, truth be told. If people want to find out something about the SPGB's stance on some issue and get it from the horses mouth rather than from some biassed and embittered critic, perhaps they should visit the SPGB's website itself and use its search function

Well, the behaviour of "impossibilists" on this thread, and on this site in general, is evidence enough, from defending homophobes to championing UKIP voters against the "middle class establishment" (don't you think that's a bit too much like throwing bricks while living in a glass house, robbo dearest?) leftists and their "political correctness". But sure - if people want to be sure, let them search for things like "homosexuality" or "abortion" or "trangender" on the SPGB site. The results are quite instructive.

[robbo203]

I wouldn't want you to think that I haven't responded because your razor sharp arguments have defeated me. In fact, the opposite is true. Your woolly reasoning is just words and it is obvious why you favour the bourgeois privilege of free-speech above all other considerations, such as the militant self-defence of the working class. It must be an occupational hazard of the socialist windbag who does nothing but hold reasonable debates with class enemies. I tell you what, sunshine, if you were in my union branch and you were arguing that the union should grant resources to provide a platform for organised racist and fascists, I'd do my best to hound you out. Fuck your right to free speech - you'd be a liability to the rest of us. Next thing we know, you'd be arguing that we should tolerate scabs because "everyone has the freedom to work if they want to" or some other boss-speak.

Well come on then, "sunshine" - lets hear your counter arguments if you think they can salvage you from ignominious defeat. And for your information, I dont think it is tbe business of a trade union to provide platforms for political parties of any colour. So, no, I woudnt be doing what you suggest. Nor would I tolerate scabs because "everyone has the freedom to work if they want to". In fact you are just be stupid now. There is nothing remotely comparable or analogous between that and the right to free speech which you and fellow anti democratic vanguardists wish to deny to those whose political views you disfavour. Thats the sort of thing a capitalist state would do, not a revolutionary socialist

[robbo203]

Well, the behaviour of "impossibilists" on this thread, and on this site in general, is evidence enough, from defending homophobes to championing UKIP voters against the "middle class establishment" (don't you think that's a bit too much like throwing bricks while living in a glass house, robbo dearest?) leftists and their "political correctness". But sure - if people want to be sure, let them search for things like "homosexuality" or "abortion" or "trangender" on the SPGB site. The results are quite instructive.

I smell bullshit here which seems to be your trademark speciality. Who are these "impossibilists" on this thread, defending homophobes or championing UKIP voters against the "middle class establishment" . Is there no end to crap you come up with?

[blake 3:17]

@robbo-- Your points about democratic rights are exactly right on. Most else is way off. I was about to be more generous, but your last point about trade unions is a bunch of BS. Anyways, I'm glad we can agree on civil liberties!

@TAT -- while I am not a 'no platformer', a lot of what you describe as 'no platform' I am in basic agreement with.

I think there's a couple of fundamental tactical/strategic issues around a militant anti-fascism and I'm not so sure they apply to UKIP, but I'm gonna put in my two cents. My first serious sustained political activism was in the early 90s in Toronto fighting fascism. At the time, there was a regroupment on the part of the ultra-right (Klan, various neo-Nazi groups) from around North America and the leadership focused here and were intent on recruiting teens and young adults. They were also forming links with the relatively new rightwing Reform Party, who we now have governing us, but in revamped form (that's another story).

Anyways... One of the activities for Klan/COTC/HF fuckers to engage in was to go out and attack and occasionally kill South Asian men. Other times they'd attack women and children who were refugees from Somalia, either as Nazi skins and sometimes as security guards. They also assaulted a number of leftists, eg cutting one comrade in the face during a weekly paper sale.

I'm not going to go into much detail, but we would deliver street justice to these fuckwads. They had it coming.

We were able to beat them at the time, through militant direct action and mass mobilization. It also didn't hurt that quite a number of judges sitting then were World War 2 veterans and tended to give pretty light sentences to anti-fascists and came down heavy on the fascists.

[blake 3:17]

And what's with the No Platform re:George Galloway? Jeezus fucking krist

I was just looking at a defense of it and came across this:
Where students are put at risk by the loose or violent rhetoric of potential campus speakers, it is entirely correct for the NUS to extend its ‘No Platform’ policy to them.

Loose or violent rhetoric?

[Hit The North]

Well come on then, "sunshine" - lets hear your counter arguments if you think they can salvage you from ignominious defeat. And for your information, I dont think it is tbe business of a trade union to provide platforms for political parties of any colour. So, no, I woudnt be doing what you suggest. Nor would I tolerate scabs because "everyone has the freedom to work if they want to". In fact you are just be stupid now. There is nothing remotely comparable or analogous between that and the right to free speech which you and fellow anti democratic vanguardists wish to deny to those whose political views you disfavour. Thats the sort of thing a capitalist state would do, not a revolutionary socialist

So by elevating freedom of speech above more tangible freedoms such as the freedom to earn a living you merely establish how in thrall you are to bourgeois ideology. Like I say, it must be an occupational hazard when your preoccupation is talking and when politics is reduced to mere discourse.

Anyway it is plain that the SPGB would prefer to defend the right of fascists to speak and organise than defend the right of workers to defend themselves. This is also the kind of thing capitalist states do.

[consuming negativity]

Actually, your little crusade in favour of your fellow bigot is still "on record" as far as the forum software goes, and anyone can see what you did, starting from, oh, this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2717014&postcount=35) (read the rest of the thread for context).

But I'm sure you're not a homophobe. After all, if you had more influence with the SPGB, you yourself might contest elections. In multiple constituencies perhaps!

I don't want to get at all involved in the discussion ITT, but after reading the thread again, it seemed more like Manic Impressive picked a really bad time to be against single-issue identity politics more than did any actual defending of the homophobic idiot who was banned. I can see why you might arrive at the conclusion you did but I don't think your claim, based on that alone, holds any weight.

[Thirsty Crow]

Wt and the right to free speech which you and fellow anti democratic vanguardists wish to deny to those whose political views you disfavour.
Okay, just hold on for a minute there.

Let me describe my experience with this thread. Initially, I thought well this might turn into a reasonable debate, a real debate within the revolutionary camp and since I don't have a predetermined position on no-platform as a tactic and its effectiveness I thought to myself what a wonderful world I might learn something. But hell no all sorts of shit were being tossed around very soon and out goes this chance. However, this is besides the point.

And the point would be that it is entirely ludicrous to make the connection between anti-democratic positions (which are better called substitutionist) and a no-platform approach.
Now, as I didn't read every single post here I'm kinda befuddled as to which kind of connection are you implying here actually.

Anyway, the concrete approach sported by communists towards fash really cannot be connected to any such deep flaw. At best, you can talk about the ineffectiveness of the approach at hand. But to resort to whining about denying free speech to counter-revolutionary scum...that's something else, something else entirely.

And to provide a modicum of balance:



Anyway it is plain that the SPGB would prefer to defend the right of fascists to speak and organise than defend the right of workers to defend themselves.
I don't think this is the case, but the last part of the sentence is not entirely clear, in that I probably don't know enough to get what you're implying here. My best guess would be that it relates to the organizations' opposition to immediate economic struggle.

What I think is the case with this is a simple, potentially simple, debate about effectiveness of a tactic. I'd like to believe that SPGB members and sympathizers view things this way despite some nasty remarks that situate them on the terrain of bourgeois ideology (like the one I quoted in this post).

[blake 3:17]

^^ Yeah, it's all a bit puzzling.

I'd no intention of mocking the SPGB -- it's easy to mock any of the left groups -- but shit like this:
Even today, while this hatred is sometimes used to pit one worker against another, it appears that overall, these hatreds are being rooted out and made socially unacceptable. This is particularly noticeable in countries like South Africa where there is a shortage of white workers, and black workers must be brought into previously "white" workplaces without the major disruption that is caused by overt racism.

?? What???????
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/our-object-and-declaration-principles

[robbo203]

@robbo-- Your points about democratic rights are exactly right on. Most else is way off. I was about to be more generous, but your last point about trade unions is a bunch of BS. Anyways, I'm glad we can agree on civil liberties!.

Could you be more specific? My argument is that trade unions involve millions of workers from a variety of different political backgrounds. To be effective in their defence against the downward pressure on wages and conditions exerted by capital they have to unite all these workers in a singleminded struggle against the boss class. I suggest to you that for a trade union to align itself with any one political group or party is very likely to undermine that necessary solidarity and cause unneccessary ruptures within the movement itself.

The classic example is the historical link between the Labour Party - a thoroughly capitalist outfit through and through - and the trade union movement in the UK. Labour governments in power have used - or exploited - their ties with the unions to impose viciously anti working class policies on them. Incredibly the unions through such devices as the political levy have been the major funders of this capitalist party. I dont know what the situation is now as I left the UK a long time ago but I seem to recall that there was talk recently of abandoning the political levy

This position outlined above seems to be more or less that of the SPGB incidentally. The SPGB's position vis a vis the trade union movement is radically different from that of left wing opportunism. This is often misunderstood or caricatured by left wing critics. The SPGB fully supports the most militant organisation of workers in the industrial field but does not itself intervene in industrial struggles in an organisational sense - precisely for the reasons I have given above.

This is not to say individual members of the SPGB are not actively involved in trades unions. Quite the contrary. Some of the most militant trade unionists Ive known have been SPGBers. I remember a guy call Wally Preston, an SPGBer who was a firebrand of the shops stewards movement in the North of England. He died a few years ago but I wouldnt mind betting his name is still remembered among some trade unionists in that part of the world

[robbo203]

So by elevating freedom of speech above more tangible freedoms such as the freedom to earn a living you merely establish how in thrall you are to bourgeois ideology. Like I say, it must be an occupational hazard when your preoccupation is talking and when politics is reduced to mere discourse.

Anyway it is plain that the SPGB would prefer to defend the right of fascists to speak and organise than defend the right of workers to defend themselves. This is also the kind of thing capitalist states do.

You are talking BS . Where have I elevated "freedom of speech above more tangible freedoms such as the freedom to earn a living" . I havent said anything of the sort. All I have been doing is arguing against the denial of free speech sought by anti-democratic vanguardists such as your good self which exposes the utter contempt you have towards fellow workers that you feel they have to be protected and shielded by you lot, the "enlightened" ones.

And your reference to the SPGB demonstrates that you seem to know next to nothing about that organisation. It is incidentally outrageous that you would imply that the SPGB's position is somehow analogous or akin to that of the capitalist state in attacking the right of workers to defend themselves on the industrial front. Are you in the habit of not doing even the most basic research to acquaint yourself with the view of others before criticing them?

Purely at random, here's an excerpt from their "Miners Strike" pamphlet, for example, which give the lie to your idiotic claims

This does not mean that workers should sit back and do nothing. Within capitalism the trade-union struggle over wages and conditions must go on. But once we have learned the lesson, it becomes clear that this is a secondary, defensive activity. The real struggle is to take the means of wealth production and distribution – the factories, farms, offices, mines etc. – into the common ownership and democratic control of the entire world community (my emphasis)

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/strike-weapon-lessons-miners%E2%80%99-strike

There are tons of quotes I can provide which further back up what I am saying

[robbo203]

^^ Yeah, it's all a bit puzzling.

I'd no intention of mocking the SPGB -- it's easy to mock any of the left groups -- but shit like this:

Even today, while this hatred is sometimes used to pit one worker against another, it appears that overall, these hatreds are being rooted out and made socially unacceptable. This is particularly noticeable in countries like South Africa where there is a shortage of white workers, and black workers must be brought into previously "white" workplaces without the major disruption that is caused by overt racism.

?? What???????
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/our-object-and-declaration-principles

As someone who was born in South Africa and experienced Apartheid first hand, Im curious as to why you think the above is "shit". Relatively speaking I think it is a reasonable assessment of the situation. The colour bar - the economic dimension of Apartheid - was precisely what South African capitalists were criticisng in that it deprived them of the necessary numbers of skilled and semi skilled workers particularly in the manufacturiung and services sector (although not, it has to be said, in the mining sector which remained largely labour intensive). Harry Oppenheimer himself, Chairman of Anglo American, and South Africa's leading Liberal politican, proposed the idea of a floating colour bar to overcome labour shortages in certain areas of industry.

Post apartheid, this is essentially what has happened with black advancement and promotion in industry and the emergence of what the sociologists call a significant black urban based middle class. This has indeed happened relatively swiftly and without major ruptures to the economy. This does not mean of course that there is not still simmering racist tensions but the peice you quote does not say that. What it is referring to overt racism - that is to say, legally enacted racism

[Hit The North]

And to provide a modicum of balance:


Originally Posted by Hit The North http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2734987#post2734987) Anyway it is plain that the SPGB would prefer to defend the right of fascists to speak and organise than defend the right of workers to defend themselves. I don't think this is the case, but the last part of the sentence is not entirely clear, in that I probably don't know enough to get what you're implying here. My best guess would be that it relates to the organizations' opposition to immediate economic struggle.


To explain: This is not a criticism of the SPGB's attitude to the industrial struggle, as weak as this is. My argument is that when fascists organise there is an increase in racist violence against workers. Therefore, no-platform is a tactic of working class self-defence against fascism. Now, judging from the responses of the impossibilists in this thread, there are no circumstances when they would advocate no-platform. Instead they are more concerned with securing the rights of the fash to free speech at the expense of working class attempts to defend itself from fascist violence.

Whilst Robbo correctly contextualises other freedoms and is willing to place limits upon them (such as the right of individuals to cross picket lines) he appears to argue that free speech is a freedom that cannot be constrained in any circumstances. So, contrary to his objections, he elevates freedom of speech above all other freedoms in true bourgeois fashion.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't want to get at all involved in the discussion ITT, but after reading the thread again, it seemed more like Manic Impressive picked a really bad time to be against single-issue identity politics more than did any actual defending of the homophobic idiot who was banned. I can see why you might arrive at the conclusion you did but I don't think your claim, based on that alone, holds any weight.

That makes no sense. First of all, he did defend someone who explicitly said they "don't support gay people" (paraphrasing), along with other rubbish. No one forced him to do that. Second, no one was proposing "single-issue identity politics" in the thread. Third, whining about "identity politics" is a coded way of expressing bigoted ideas as an ostensible leftist.

So, either Manic Impressive is a homophobe, or he is an idiot who just happens to have posted something unrelated to anything that transpired in the thread, which just happens to look like he was trying to defend an obvious homophobe, and as it happens he was unaware of the connotations of whingeing over "identity politics". And I don't think he is an idiot.


I smell bullshit here which seems to be your trademark speciality. Who are these "impossibilists" on this thread, defending homophobes or championing UKIP voters against the "middle class establishment" . Is there no end to crap you come up with?

Well, there was the case of Manic Impressive, several weeks ago. In this thread, you insulted TAT using a homophobic slur, refused to retract the statement, and then acted insulted when people called you out on it. The Idler and whichfinder appear to support you. Impossible is, as I've argued in another thread, obviously Fabian a.k.a. Sotionov, who was banned all those years ago for, among other things, homophobia. I couldn't make this up if I tried.

As for the "middle class establishment", well, here is what one impossibilist wrote:


For the young fascist thug from a sink council estate, the left wing no lobby brigade is not much more than the militant arm of the Liberal establishment. From his or her point of view, it precisely that establishment that has fucked things up for him/her and ruined his/her life chances of economic advancement . Stereotypically , the Left is seen as a bunch of relatively privileged middle class student types, the shock troops of this liberal establishment, intent upon keeping him/her in his/her place.

And this is so embarrassingly full of stereotypes I don't know what to make of it. I would suspect your post to be a stealth parody, but unfortunately I think you're dead serious. And as for "the middle class", it doesn't exist in Marxist analysis, but if you meant to say "the petite bourgeoisie", it's quite odd that someone who "tried to be a peasant", as one of your articles put it, would complain about that.

[whichfinder]

It's rather telling that the best you can do to prove the SPGB isn't homophobic is state that a clause of the principles "alludes" to an opposition to homophobia - an opposition that doesn't particularly oblige the SPGB to do anything about it, in particular.

It's pretty much the same with trans* rights, the liberation of women etc. Where is, for example, the SPGB position on abortion? As far as I can tell, you don't have one, because you don't want to scare off "pro-life" reactionary fucks.

The SPGB has written extensively on these and related subjects. Here is a very small but representative selection:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2012/no-1295-july-2012/theatre-review-don-giovanni

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/women-and-socialism

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2002/no-1172-april-2002/%E2%80%9Cpro-life%E2%80%9D-hypocrites

[PhoenixAsh]

I am noticing the "extensively" part about gay rights seems to be part of a theater review....which may have not been your best choice to post as an example of fervent opposition to homophobia...seeing as it seems to be a by-note.

[robbo203]

Well, there was the case of Manic Impressive, several weeks ago. In this thread, you insulted TAT using a homophobic slur, refused to retract the statement, and then acted insulted when people called you out on it. The Idler and whichfinder appear to support you.

Dont you get started on that one again. Ive explained myself fully in post 217. Anyone here who dare suggests I was making some kind of homophobic dig at TAT - I didnt even know the guy was gay anyway - is a complete and utter liar. And incidentally I did say I had blundered in the expression I used but in no way did I intend it as a "homophobic slur". So put this one to rest once and for all, or you too will get the sharp end of my tongue. As for Manic Impressive, I think you totally misunderstand, and twisted , what he was saying and, I have to say, I fully concur with his response to you having read the thread you mentioned





As for the "middle class establishment", well, here is what one impossibilist wrote:

And this is so embarrassingly full of stereotypes I don't know what to make of it. I would suspect your post to be a stealth parody, but unfortunately I think you're dead serious. And as for "the middle class", it doesn't exist in Marxist analysis, but if you meant to say "the petite bourgeoisie", it's quite odd that someone who "tried to be a peasant", as one of your articles put it, would complain about that.

Oh FFS, you've seemingly got no more of a sense of humour than those grim dour anarcho caps who responded to the "trying to be a peasant" reference in my article on economic calculation in similar fashion. Jesus Christ, it was meant to be a light-hearted jokey reference to my lifestyle as a campesino, growing my own veggies 'n keepin chickens (which I do but Im hardly a peasant). Still never mind.

As for my comment "Stereotypically , the Left is seen as a bunch of relatively privileged middle class student types well, yes, of course it is a stereotype. Thats why I said "Stereotypically". Duh. I'm not saying this is my perception. Im saying this is how the left is perceived by many individuals sympathetic to the Right. I can certainly vouch for that having spoken to quite a few of these individuals in my time

[PhoenixAsh]

^ I agree with that description of how the left is viewed. btw...this is especially true for The Netherlands since there are a lot of analyses of why the CPN eventually collapsed and declined...and most of these involve the influx of students and a steady detachment from the working class because of increasing intellectualism.