the rise of the bnp and attempts to counter it

[Okocim]

does this go in learning or politics?


Ok, basically all British leftists will be aware of the threat of the rise of the bnp, but, following a debate with fellow leftists t'other day, I was wondering what your thoughts were on how to counter it.

Respect's strategy is to offer an alternative to the bnp in areas where voting for the 3 main parties is unlikely because of the alienation and disappointment regular people feel with them. However, Respect's resources are extremely limited and so they can only concentrate in a couple of areas per election. So far this strategy appears to be going well, with Respect councillors being elected rather than bnp ones. A major problem seems to lie in their other strategy: which is to tell people to vote for ANYONE other than the bnp. On keeping the bnp out this is good but it raises other problems mainly:

1) Labour and tory councillors have so far done little for people and reelection is unlikely to make them change so the dissatisfaction with these 2 parties will continue even if we succeed in keeping out the bnp.
2) People may blame the left if their problems continue because we told them to vote for anyone other than the bnp, and so will not listen next time.

In areas where the bnp gain councillors racist attacks increase, clearly this is bad. However, if you look at the history of bnp councillors, they rarely turn up to meetings, they step down, they neglect their duties, they don't do what they say they will etc and so from this point of view the bnp getting in once would prove to people that they're not the saviours they make themselves out as. but it would also mean an increase in racist attacks and racial tensions, as well as lending legitimacy to racist views in some people's minds - none of which are good things.

What do people think is the solution to this problem?

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

progoganda. we need people to see the hate and volence they try to spread and how the right is wrong. if britain turns to the right to combat terror, extremism from al-queda wil increase. we need media coverage to put people off the bnp scum
visiy the ANL (anti natzi league) for more info on the bnp and how to combat it

[Okocim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 07:35 pm
progoganda. we need people to see the hate and volence they try to spread and how the right is wrong. if britain turns to the right to combat terror, extremism from al-queda wil increase. we need media coverage to put people off the bnp scum
visiy the ANL (anti natzi league) for more info on the bnp and how to combat it
ANL are defunct, they merged with UAF whose strategy is what I thought was described in my first post.

[Dr Mindbender]

As a student in Greater Manchester at the time, I was active and present in the ANL during the 2001 Oldham race riots where I regularly helped distribute counter-propaganda. I was also in the (now defunct) socialist alliance. The reason they refused the stand candidates in BNP contested constituencies was the school of thought that it would split the left- working class labour vote and let the fascists in through the back door which makes sense when you think about it.
I think the best solution is to stand socialist candidates in areas where there are no radicalist alternative parties standing. History shows that the 'red tide' has a way of spreading.

[cmdrdeathguts]

I'm open to suggestions on this, but i will say that our strategy has to be our strategy. which is to say, demanding the bourgeois state step in to ban fascists, as Respect does, is delayed-reaction seppuku. We've dealt with the fash before in all arenas, in the polis and on the streets. I have no problem with denying them a platform - but it matters who gets to deny it to them. Throwing powers to Blair will not help us at all in the long run.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by cmdrdeathguts+October 31, 2006 07:40 pm--> (cmdrdeathguts @ October 31, 2006 07:40 pm) I'm open to suggestions on this, but i will say that our strategy has to be our strategy. [/b]

That's an important point. The working classes struggle against fascist movements, must be under the working classes, well, "Terms & Conditions" ... and not under the "Terms & Conditions" of the petty-bourgeoisie and the haute bourgeoisie. Whose "anti-fascism", of course, is a temporary phenomena that is used to express very real class interests.


Nazi Germany – not an aberration [email protected] but a full expression of, the decadence of capitalism
The anti-fascist campaign of the bourgeoisie has run for two generations now. Massive resources are given over to its dissemination every day of the week, year in year out: books, newspapers, cinema, theatre, television and schools. Nazism is put forward as an ‘aberration’ from capitalism, as an expression of pure evil alien to capitalism, and the Jewish genocide is put forward as a unique expression of this evil. This lie is taken up by many individuals on these threads: it was a choice between “capitalism and fascism”, “a war against fascism” rather than “for capitalism”, “glad capitalism won the day”, “not a fight for [capitalism] but against fascism”, “don’t give a fuck if it means siding with imperialism” (to fight the Nazis), “anti-fascism [can be] against fascism and capitalism”, “Nazism not capitalism because it was irrational”, “Hitler needed removing [that’s not] endorsing capitalism”, “Fight a real anti-fascist war”, and so it goes on. According to the majority of the posts Nazism was an aberration and the democratic capitalist state and its anti-fascist front is our only line of defence. The support for democracy and Stalinism in fighting what they see as something much worse – Nazism – couldn’t be clearer.

Anarchist arguments for participation in imperialist war (http://en.internationalism.org/wr/291_anarchists_WW2.html) -- the rest of the article. It's worth reading ... and the lessons it points out, are very relevant to this particular thread.

[Okocim]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+October 31, 2006 08:31 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ October 31, 2006 08:31 pm)As a student in Greater Manchester at the time, I was active and present in the ANL during the 2001 Oldham race riots where I regularly helped distribute counter-propaganda. I was also in the (now defunct) socialist alliance. The reason they refused the stand candidates in BNP contested constituencies was the school of thought that it would split the left- working class labour vote and let the fascists in through the back door which makes sense when you think about it.
I think the best solution is to stand socialist candidates in areas where there are no radicalist alternative parties standing. History shows that the 'red tide' has a way of spreading.[/b]

A good point, but I don't think the left currently has a) the resources to stand a candidate in every place the bnp are standing or b) the cohesion necessary in order to allow us to work together in such a way?



[email protected] 31, 2006 08:40 pm
I'm open to suggestions on this, but i will say that our strategy has to be our strategy. which is to say, demanding the bourgeois state step in to ban fascists, as Respect does, is delayed-reaction seppuku. We've dealt with the fash before in all arenas, in the polis and on the streets. I have no problem with denying them a platform - but it matters who gets to deny it to them. Throwing powers to Blair will not help us at all in the long run.

absolutely. The idea of getting the ruling classes to step in is counter-productive. Let's say they use powers to ban the bnp, what's to say that they won't then turn around and use those exact same powers on us afterwards?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 10:50 am
A major problem seems to lie in their other strategy: which is to tell people to vote for ANYONE other than the bnp.
There's a certain history on this - it's a failed strategy.

Even if there was an immediate danger of a fascist takeover - which there isn't - you couldn't stop it this way.

In '33, the Social Democrats voted for Hindenburg as a lesser evil to stop Hitler from being elected. They succeeded.

Then Hindenburg turned around and appointed Hitler as chancellor (prime minister.)

You can't support the capitalist parties to stop fascists - they pave the way for fascism. The BNP just takes their anti-immigrants politics to their logical conclusion.

[Tatarin]

Wasn't it Marx who said that fascism is capitalism dying?

[Okocim]

Originally posted by Severian+October 31, 2006 11:35 pm--> (Severian @ October 31, 2006 11:35 pm)
[email protected] 31, 2006 10:50 am
A major problem seems to lie in their other strategy: which is to tell people to vote for ANYONE other than the bnp.
There's a certain history on this - it's a failed strategy.

Even if there was an immediate danger of a fascist takeover - which there isn't - you couldn't stop it this way.

In '33, the Social Democrats voted for Hindenburg as a lesser evil to stop Hitler from being elected. They succeeded.

Then Hindenburg turned around and appointed Hitler as chancellor (prime minister.)

You can't support the capitalist parties to stop fascists - they pave the way for fascism. The BNP just takes their anti-immigrants politics to their logical conclusion. [/b]
good point, so what's the alternative?


I had this problem arguing this with a comrade - I could very well say what the problems with the current strategy are but it's very hard to think up alternatives.

[Severian]

I don't have some complete answer immediately, from across the ocean - but I don't think the strategy should be solely or even primarily electoral.

I mean, the fascists aren't counting on a solely electoral route to power, it'd be an illusion to think so. And anything you do to counter 'em in other ways will also make it harder for 'em to get elected - I realize it's a serious problem that they control these local councils.

And then, the goal of electoral action can't solely be anti-fascism - no election campaign is ever truly single-issue. It's part of trying to build a revolutionary working-class alternative - which in the end is the only way to stop fascism.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Severian
....I realize it's a serious problem that they control these local councils.

What local councils do the BNP control? :huh:

"In last May’s local elections the BNP became the official opposition to Labour on Burnley council with eight councillors to the Liberal Democrats’ seven." (http://www.socialismtoday.org/78/bnp.html) That's from an article published in October, 2003 -- around about the time of the last council elections. And, if you didn't know, Burnley is the BNP's "stronghold". So where the fuck are the councils they control?

Not that it makes a great deal of difference which Party controls a local council; at this point in time, that is. Because whoever is in control, the deliberate gutting of working class communities is what is on the agenda ... and the BNP would be perfectly happy to do that.

And, what's more, they'd do that without Britain becoming a fascist state. That is, by any measure, the BNP is a political group in, well, "transition" -- from a grouping of fascist thugs, into a "respectable" right wing electoral party a la Veritas or UKIP.

And if you don't want to take my word for that, read some of the "internet chatter" of the various fascist groups; Griffin and company are becoming less popular every day. The National Front type fascists, including those booted from the BNP, think the party is "selling out" -- compromising on their core political interests.

And they're not wrong, the BNP is drifting more and more towards the mainstream ... that's just what happens when fascist groupings try to gain success during a period which isn't that fertile for fascist politics. Indeed, in 5 or 6 years, I wouldn't be surprised if calling the BNP a fascist group would be seen as hyperbolic nonsense. By that time, they'll probably be making up a coalition Government with the Conservative Party -- and the nutcases from Ulster.

And, given all that, anti-fascist policy should focus on the groups that are most likely to emulate the presence of the National Front in the 80's. Not their electoral presence, of course; but their physical presence.

Now, there are a number of groups that could take on that mantle, but Quinn's lot are the early frontrunners from what I've seen and read. The others, at this point in time, aren't really worth mentioning -- their total memberships are one man and his dog.

And, of course, going back to Okocim's question -- what's the alternative? -- the answer is pretty clear. That is, it's pointless to waste time and money on combating the BNP electorally, when those resources should be focused on combating the various fascist groups physically ... and that, for the time being, includes the BNP, when they pursue that avenue of political action.

After all, the British Labour Party, with their vast resources, is more than capable of combating the BNP electoral ambitions. They managed to do it quite well recently, and they'll no doubt do it again. (In case anyone's wondering, I'm referring to the by-election a few months back when Margaret Beckett (?) became a great source of electoral propaganda by rambling on about the "fascist threat".)

[Okocim]

Originally posted by Amusing [email protected] 01, 2006 01:34 am
And, what's more, they'd do that without Britain becoming a fascist state. That is, by any measure, the BNP is a political group in, well, "transition" -- from a grouping of fascist thugs, into a "respectable" right wing electoral party a la Veritas or UKIP.

And if you don't want to take my word for that, read some of the "internet chatter" of the various fascist groups; Griffin and company are becoming less popular every day. The National Front type fascists, including those booted from the BNP, think the party is "selling out" -- compromising on their core political interests.

And they're not wrong, the BNP is drifting more and more towards the mainstream ... that's just what happens when fascist groupings try to gain success during a period which isn't that fertile for fascist politics. Indeed, in 5 or 6 years, I wouldn't be surprised if calling the BNP a fascist group would be seen as hyperbolic nonsense. By that time, they'll probably be making up a coalition Government with the Conservative Party -- and the nutcases from Ulster.


I disagree with this entirely. They are the same nazi fascists as they've always been, they may attempt to make themselves seem more respectable but have a read of the kind of nazi crap espoused by supporters over on scumfront or the like - it's a front for the public that they're toning down their policies. You give them any power at all and the nazi bloc in the party (as opposed to the bloc of people who only joined after falling for their propaganda) will come to the fore and have some real fun.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Amusing Scrotum+October 31, 2006 06:34 pm--> (Amusing Scrotum @ October 31, 2006 06:34 pm)
Severian
....I realize it's a serious problem that they control these local councils.

What local councils do the BNP control? :huh:

"In last May’s local elections the BNP became the official opposition to Labour on Burnley council with eight councillors to the Liberal Democrats’ seven." (http://www.socialismtoday.org/78/bnp.html) That's from an article published in October, 2003 -- around about the time of the last council elections. And, if you didn't know, Burnley is the BNP's "stronghold". So where the fuck are the councils they control? [/b]
OK, my mistake.

It would be a serious problem if they did get control of local councils, as for example the National Front has in France. They get control of the local police forces, for example, and of powerful additional means for anti-immigrant and other demagogy.

Basically I wanted to indicate I'm not unaware of or dismissing the problem, in the course of my comments that electoral opposition wasn't central.


And they're not wrong, the BNP is drifting more and more towards the mainstream ... that's just what happens when fascist groupings try to gain success during a period which isn't that fertile for fascist politics

Now I don't know enough to say if you're right about the BNP. But you're definitely wrong that this is inevitable for fascist groups during the present period.

LePen, for example, definitely hasn't changed his stripes or subordinated his fascist goals to temporary electoral success. He was willing to split with others who wanted to moderate more.

And as for dismissing the electoral aspect of things; lemme point out that the Nazi Party for example successfully combined an electoral and physical offensive. That's true of any fascist party marching towards power.

Mass or potentially mass fascist movements aren't just bigger versions of the little Hitler fan clubs you sometimes see today. They have one foot in mainstream bourgeois politics without being limited by that.

The Labour Party or other capitalist parties can't be counted on to combat fascists in any field. (You're ironically similar to RESPECT in suggesting they can.) They can't; because again, the fascists are just drawing the full, ultimate conclusion from the anti-immigrant and otherwise reactionary politics of these parties. The working class needs to organize to do so on every level.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)They get control of the local police forces, for example....[/b]

Don't quote me on this, but I don't think getting control of most (all?) local councils in Britain would allow you to "get control of the local police forces". That's because the Police are divided regionally -- we have the South Wales Police Force here, not the Swansea Police Force.

And, even in the bigger cities which may have their own Police Force -- I don't think they actually do, but if they did -- I'm pretty sure that the city councils are split. That is, there wouldn't be a Glasgow or London council, but a Glasgow east council, for example. (I can't find out whether that is completely accurate or not, so I'd be greatful if someone who lives in a bigger city was able to point out whether their council is split into districts.)

Anyway, regardless of that, the way the State is set up here, means that, ultimately, the Home Office controls the "local police forces" ... and I don't think councils have any significant control. Certainly, I'd imagine if they got an MP that would be more of a threat; but even then, the power of on MP is seriously limited.


Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)....and of powerful additional means for anti-immigrant and other demagogy.[/b]

That's a possibility, yes. But, to be honest, I think you're really overestimating the power a local council has ... and how much attention people pay to local councillors.

Basically, they act like a tier of middle management, fucking over council workers and destroying working class communities. And, given that, party politics based on firm ideological principles, doesn't play much of a role. If their office is in Westminster, however, it's a different story....


Originally posted by Severian
But you're definitely wrong that this is inevitable for fascist groups during the present period.

My mistake, I should have said fascist groups here. France is different ... both legislatively and politically.

That is, it may well be easier for fascist groups to gain a certain amount of power in France. Certainly if, as you say, Le Pen & co. have gained control of the local Police through controlling local councils, then the way the State is organised in France makes it easier for fascist groups to, uh, "stay true" and get results.

Additionally, the political situation in France -- that is, the threat posed by the working class -- is, once again, different to the situation here. French society, at this point in time, is probably far more polarised than British society ... something that, of course, aides the rise of fascist parties.

There are probably other things as well, but the points is I don't think we should view the threat posed by the BNP in the same way we view the threat posed by the Front National. They're both threats, undeniably; but I'd personally say that the smaller fascist groups in Britain, like Quinn's lot, are the ones that will end up being the major threat to the working class.


Originally posted by Severian
That's true of any fascist party marching towards power.

Indeed; but that doesn't mean our response "has" to exactly mirror their tactics.

For instance, if we were able to use our resources to organise communities in a manner that meant that fascist groups simply couldn't operate there, then that would be far more useful than using said resources to stand candidates and buy leaflets.

After all, if someone phones you up trying to flog you something, you don't respond by trying to flog them something. No, you tell them to fuck off and put the phone down. If you have any sense, that is. That's how Mosley was stopped, anyway.


[email protected]
(You're ironically similar to RESPECT in suggesting they can.)

I would have thought RESPECT thought they themselves would take on that mantle? :huh:

Either way, you missed my point. It was pretty obvious that, during a recent election, the Labour Party hyped up the threat of the BNP candidate getting elected in order to make people vote for the Labour Party ... and it worked. So it was in that sense that I made the comment I did.


Okocim
I disagree with this entirely.

That's you prerogative, of course. You can take my analysis any way you want; but you need to ask one question. When thousands of self-described revolutionaries are running around like headless chickens trying to get people to vote for the Labour Party to "halt the fascist threat", whose interests are they serving?

Think about it....

[Patchd]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 11:48 pm
Wasn't it Marx who said that fascism is capitalism dying?
I think that was Lenin, saying "fascism is capitalism in decay".

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Palachinov+November 03, 2006 11:20 am--> (Palachinov @ November 03, 2006 11:20 am)
[email protected] 31, 2006 11:48 pm
Wasn't it Marx who said that fascism is capitalism dying?
I think that was Lenin, saying "fascism is capitalism in decay". [/b]
No I think it was Trotsky.

[Patchd]

Originally posted by Whitten+November 03, 2006 03:07 pm--> (Whitten @ November 03, 2006 03:07 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 11:20 am

[email protected] 31, 2006 11:48 pm
Wasn't it Marx who said that fascism is capitalism dying?
I think that was Lenin, saying "fascism is capitalism in decay".
No I think it was Trotsky. [/b]

Google: Fascism is capitalism in decay (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=fascism+is+capitalism+in+decay&meta=) - It was Lenin