No-Platform?

[RaiseYourVoice]

I heard this term first on revleft. Could someone explain to me what it means in practice? I have been active in antifa but i never heard of any concepts or debates about no-platform.


For example our parties are pretty good at ignoring nazis "to not give them attetion". I guess that isn't mean by no-platform, but some short definition would be nice.

[Holden Caulfield]

'freedom of speech' should not be afforded to those who seek to abuse it to spread hatred and propaganda against peoples,

for example if a nazi was preaching in the middle of town we would see it fit to remove him to stop him from spreading his twisted message and as it would make the targets of his abuse, say immigrants, jews, etc, intimidated

that is basically it

[RaiseYourVoice]

ah ok, thats what i always felt was the natural difference between radical and liberal anti-fascism.

Thanks

[Holden Caulfield]

no platform work should always be coupled with work for an alternative, it is not good enough to simply fight fascists if you offer no socialist/anarchist alternative for the public to compare to,

stop their working and push ours

[Sasha]

it is what it says on the tin:
the no platform policy means NO platform, so that means that we don't accept ANY facist/racist/nazi outings what so ever, that means no speeches and parades and no "private" party meetings but also no inviting them to panel-discussions, no debates, no mediainterviews, no talkshows etc etc. freedom of speech doesn't excist for people who use it to atack other peoples basic freedoms.
you talk about fascist, maybe even against fascist but NEVER with them (unless they are ready to recant) because they will use every inch you give them to esthablish them self further or try to gain an respectable face.
since the no platform policy disapearded within most media you saw inmeditialy a rise in the "normalisation" of racist/facist views it even became acceptable for a lot of people.

[Holden Caulfield]

since the no platform policy disapearded within most media you saw inmeditialy a rise in the "normalisation" of racist/facist views it even became acceptable for a lot of people.

a BNP members was harassed by some guys i know and claimed that to join the NUJ (national union of journalists) you had to sign a form saying you will only write negative articles about the BNP :laugh:

one of the lads was in the NUJ, got his card out & shot him down at his own speech,

though it was good enough to share

[Vanguard1917]

I heard this term first on revleft. Could someone explain to me what it means in practice?

A lot of the time, for the mass of the 'anti-fascist movement' - e.g. for semi-official, government-supported organisations like Unite Against Fascism (UK) - 'no platform' means calling on the state and other bourgeois institutions (colleges, universities, etc.) to ban far-right groups.

Of course, for Marxists, such a position is totally unacceptable, and we call for full freedom of expression in society. Revolutionaries have always understood that censorship hurts the working class the most. As Trotsky pointed out, 'it is only the greatest freedom of expression that can create favorable conditions for the advance of the revolutionary movement in the working class.' ('Freedom of the Press and the Working Class (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/08/press.htm)')

[RaiseYourVoice]

A lot of the time, for the mass of the 'anti-fascist movement' - e.g. for semi-official, government-supported organisations like Unite Against Fascism (UK) - 'no platform' means calling on the state and other bourgeois institutions (colleges, universities, etc.) to ban far-right groups.

Of course, for Marxists, such a position is totally unacceptable, and we call for full freedom of expression in society. Revolutionaries have always understood that censorship hurts the working class the most. As Trotsky pointed out, 'it is only the greatest freedom of expression that can create favorable conditions for the advance of the revolutionary movement in the working class.' ('Freedom of the Press and the Working Class (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/08/press.htm)')
Would this include not blocking / disturbing fascist marches for you?

[Vanguard1917]

Yes, if it's the police doing the blocking.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Yes, if it's the police doing the blocking.
I meant if its us (as in antifas, communists, workers etc. etc.) blocking them. Police at least in this country usually just clears the way for nazis not block them.

[Holden Caulfield]

A lot of the time, for the mass of the 'anti-fascist movement' - e.g. for semi-official, government-supported organisations like Unite Against Fascism (UK) - 'no platform' means calling on the state and other bourgeois institutions (colleges, universities, etc.) to ban far-right groups.

Of course, for Marxists, such a position is totally unacceptable, and we call for full freedom of expression in society. Revolutionaries have always understood that censorship hurts the working class the most. As Trotsky pointed out, 'it is only the greatest freedom of expression that can create favorable conditions for the advance of the revolutionary movement in the working class.' ('Freedom of the Press and the Working Class (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/08/press.htm)')


stopping fascists from intimidating people and spreading their vile propaganda goes hand in hand with educating the people about our own cause,

if you think we should let the fash ponce around sieg heiling each other in the name of 'freedom of speech' then you shouldnt be in the antifascist forum as, in your opinion, we should leave them alone to their own devices,

[Vanguard1917]

I meant if its us (as in antifas, communists, workers etc. etc.) blocking them.


That's a different story. When racists take to the streets to intimidate people and win support, anti-racists should organise against them, hold counter-demos, and prepare for physical confrontation. What is incorrect, however, is calling on the bourgeois state - i.e. our main enemy - to mediate social conflict.



if you think we should let the fash ponce around sieg heiling each other in the name of 'freedom of speech' then you shouldnt be in the antifascist forum as, in your opinion, we should leave them alone to their own devices,


Does this mean you support state censorship against the far-right?

[jaffe]

Antifascists are not working for the Government.

[Vanguard1917]

Antifascists are not working for the Government.


In the UK the main 'anti-fascist' organisation - Unite Against Fascism - is chaired by former London Mayor Ken Livingstone and is supported by key members of the establishment, e.g. cabinet minister Peter Hain, as well as by rightwing Tories like Sir Teddy Taylor.

Hence why i referred to it as a government-supported, semi-official organisation.

[Hit The North]

Despite Vanguard1917s attempts to misrepresent the activities of UAF as supoort for state censorship against the far-right, comrades can visit the website and make up their own minds. http://www.uaf.org.uk/index.asp

You'll be hard-pressed to find any mention of a campaign to encourage state legislation to censor the far-right. It just doesn't exist.

Vanguard1917 on the other hand has stated his opposition to no-platform, arguing that we should debate the fascists on the same platform.

[Vanguard1917]

Despite Vanguard1917s attempts to misrepresent the activities of UAF as supoort for state censorship against the far-right, comrades can visit the website and make up their own minds. http://www.uaf.org.uk/index.asp

You'll be hard-pressed to find any mention of a campaign to encourage state legislation to censor the far-right. It just doesn't exist.

What? UAF hasn't called for bans on BNP literature, events, rallies and TV party broadcasts? Why would you lie so blatantly?

It has, btw, also supported the imprisonment of holocaust deniers and has, along with the SWP, called for David Irving's books to be banned from schools and universities.



Vanguard1917 on the other hand has stated his opposition to no-platform, arguing that we should debate the fascists on the same platform.


I have clearly said that i would not invite the BNP to any debate, simply because i believe that the BNP is, for the most part, an irrelevance.

[Unicorn]

Despite Vanguard1917s attempts to misrepresent the activities of UAF as supoort for state censorship against the far-right, comrades can visit the website and make up their own minds. http://www.uaf.org.uk/index.asp

You'll be hard-pressed to find any mention of a campaign to encourage state legislation to censor the far-right. It just doesn't exist.

Vanguard1917 on the other hand has stated his opposition to no-platform, arguing that we should debate the fascists on the same platform.
UAF is clearly a bourgeois organization. They are endorsed by dozens of establishment politicians. Even their founding statement cites Edmund Burke who was ultra-reactionary. Bourgeois "anti-Fascism" is ineffective posing.

[Hit The North]

What? UAF hasn't called for bans on BNP literature, events, rallies and TV party broadcasts? Of course calls are made for these things. It's called making concrete demands. It is very different from calling on the bourgeois state to implement legislative acts against the fascists, as you well know. It's also at variance to your policy of ignoring the far-right because you think they're "an irrelevancy".

Anyway, I don't intend to waste more time arguing these points with you. As I've said, comrades can visit the website and make their own minds up.

[Hit The North]

UAF is clearly a bourgeois organization. They are endorsed by dozens of establishment politicians. Even their founding statement cites Edmund Burke who was ultra-reactionary. Bourgeois "anti-Fascism" is ineffective posing.
It is clearly a coalition of the left, including even liberals. You won't find many members of the bourgeois involved however. But, yes, as its founding statement makes clear: "We call, as a matter of the greatest urgency, for the broadest unity against the alarming rise in racism and fascism in Britain today." So it's not pretending to be anything other than it is.

Meanwhile I'd suggest that the accusation of "ineffective posing" should be leveled at those who sit on their hands and let the fascists get on with it.

[Vanguard1917]

Of course calls are made for these things. It's called making concrete demands. It is very different from calling on the bourgeois state to implement legislative acts against the fascists, as you well know.

Yes, demands are made on the state and other bourgeois institutions to introduce censorship of the far-right - something which is very strongly opposed by Marxists, but is supported by yourself in bizzarely dishonest fashion.

[Hit The North]

When have demands been made for state legislation?

[Unicorn]

It is clearly a coalition of the left, including even liberals. You won't find many members of the bourgeois involved however. But, yes, as its founding statement makes clear: "We call, as a matter of the greatest urgency, for the broadest unity against the alarming rise in racism and fascism in Britain today." So it's not pretending to be anything other than it is.

Meanwhile I'd suggest that the accusation of "ineffective posing" should be leveled at those who sit on their hands and let the fascists get on with it.

I agree with this analysis:



A STRATEGY TO WIN?

Unfortunately UAF and Searchlight have adopted a different strategy. Anti-racist campaigning, especially in defence of asylum seekers, has been left to one side because it might alienate many people who have been taken in by these lies or refugee-bashing MPs. Class answers have been dropped in favour of arguments that the BNP are thugs and nazis, arguments that will carry little weight with many sections of the working class criminalised by poverty and rightly alienated from the police and legal system. Lastly UAF has rejected the policy of No Platform for fascism, even when organised self-defence is absolutely necessary for leafletting on hostile estates.

Instead of building an open movement, the trend has been towards steering committees and regional committees that organise leaflettings for activists to come to, but no open space for them to meet and discuss anti-fascism and take part in the organising. When activists have shown up willing to help out, but with materials such as the "You Are Being Lied to" leaflets, they have been told to leave by UAF organisers (in reality, members of the SWP) even when they are desperately short of people! Will UAF end up as just another rigidly-controlled, top-down front? If so, it will not mobilise the forces or build the kind of action that can stop the BNP.

There is an underlying reason that connects these various problems: in order to secure the support of celebrities, church leaders, and MPs, UAF dropped a working class orientation right from the start. That means more publicity but comes with a price tag. These respectable figures insist on a "respectable" anti-fascism that is ineffective. Lib Dems, Tories and even Ulster Unionists participate in UAF because its in their interest - these politicians are happy to take a token stand against the fascists to win some more votes or defend their seats. What they will not do is build a militant movement against fascism that is effective – in fact they’d run a mile from such a movement! Not surprisingly, after all it’s not their wealthy neighbourhoods under threat.

UAF would not lose an ounce of effectiveness if it lost the support of the MPs from these bourgeois parties – quite the opposite, in the local groups they are nowhere to be seen 99% of the time, it is trade unionists, socialists, Labour Party members and other activists who do all the organising and hard work. But these figures do chain UAF to its moderate policies and block it from taking up the issue of racism, since many support and campaign for restrictions on asylum seekers, for instance Tory MPs like Sir Teddy Taylor who has joined UAF and is a notorious racist. We need a workers’ united front against fascism, not a campaign weighted down with racist MPs.
http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=82,800,0,0,1,0

[Unicorn]

When have demands been made for state legislation?

"We invite all those who uphold the principals of equality and oppose the politics of race hate and fascism to call
on:
• The BBC and independent television companies not to give air-time to the racist and fascist views of the
British National Party (BNP) in the course of the General Election and local elections this year.
• The government to propose an amendment to the Representation of the People Act so that explicitly racist
parties cannot have their election literature circulated free of charge.
• The Government to strengthen Part 3 of the Public Order Act of 1986 so that prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred will be easier to bring and more likely to succeed."

http://www.uaf.org.uk/resources/0503MOpulltheplugs.pdf

[Vanguard1917]

As i have said, demands have been made on the state and other bourgeois organisations to censor the far-right. The main leftwing supporter of UAF - the SWP - has also called for the books of David Irving to be banned from schools and public libraries, and has also supported the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill to gag the far-right.

[Vanguard1917]

"We invite all those who uphold the principals of equality and oppose the politics of race hate and fascism to call
on:
• The BBC and independent television companies not to give air-time to the racist and fascist views of the
British National Party (BNP) in the course of the General Election and local elections this year.
• The government to propose an amendment to the Representation of the People Act so that explicitly racist
parties cannot have their election literature circulated free of charge.
• The Government to strengthen Part 3 of the Public Order Act of 1986 so that prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred will be easier to bring and more likely to succeed."

http://www.uaf.org.uk/resources/0503MOpulltheplugs.pdf

That as well.

[Hit The North]

"We invite all those who uphold the principals of equality and oppose the politics of race hate and fascism to call
on:
• The BBC and independent television companies not to give air-time to the racist and fascist views of the
British National Party (BNP) in the course of the General Election and local elections this year.
• The government to propose an amendment to the Representation of the People Act so that explicitly racist
parties cannot have their election literature circulated free of charge.
• The Government to strengthen Part 3 of the Public Order Act of 1986 so that prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred will be easier to bring and more likely to succeed."

http://www.uaf.org.uk/resources/0503MOpulltheplugs.pdf

Ok. Point won for you. That'll teach me to defend organizations I'm not a member of :rolleyes:.

But why do we in general oppose state censorship of the far-right? One key reason is because the legislation could be used against us on the Left. By maintaining focus on the racism of the BNP, the UAF is at least off-setting that possibility.

Nevertheless, the analysis you point to in your link to Workers Power is, funnily enough, one I agree with myself. However, it is the complete opposite to Vanguard1917s policy of opposing no-platform. My main concern in this thread is the manner in which Van1917 always tries to characterize no-platform policy as simply asking the bourgeois state to protect us. This is far from the truth.

[Vanguard1917]

Ok. Point won for you. That'll teach me to defend organizations I'm not a member of :rolleyes:.

But why do we in general oppose state censorship of the far-right? One key reason is because the legislation could be used against us on the Left. By maintaining focus on the racism of the BNP, the UAF is at least off-setting that possibility.

Nevertheless, the analysis you point to in your link to Workers Power is, funnily enough, one I agree with myself. However, it is the complete opposite to Vanguard1917s policy of opposing no-platform. My main concern in this thread is the manner in which Van1917 always tries to characterize no-platform policy as simply asking the bourgeois state to protect us. This is far from the truth.

No, it's not about protecting us. The no platform policy defended by groups like UAF and SWP is counter-productive because it calls for granting the bourgeois state greater powers over social and political life, to mediate social and political confrontations, and to increase its policing powers over public debate.

That is why, from a Marxist perspective, such a policy is reactionary and needs to be opposed.

[progressive_lefty]

I support free speech. As much as I hate fascists and racists, they must have a right to speak. The wider public can hear what their message really is, as opposed to keeping it secret and possibly attractive to people.

[Vanguard1917]

Ok. Point won for you. That'll teach me to defend organizations I'm not a member of

What about the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill?

[Hit The North]

No, it's not about protecting us. The no platform policy defended by groups like UAF and SWP is counter-productive because it calls for granting the bourgeois state greater powers over social and political life, to mediate social and political confrontations, and to increase its policing powers over public debate.
That is not what no-platform policy is. Otherwise, the other part of your critique - that vocal demonstrations against the BNP only give counter-productive publicity to them - would be unsustainable. You can't argue that no-platform is about doing deals with state functionaries and then complain when it it's about mobilising anti-fascists against the BNP in the streets or outside the Oxford Union.

[Hit The North]

What about the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill? What about it?

[Vanguard1917]

That is not what no-platform policy is.

It has been established in this thread that - for groups like UAF and the SWP - no platform involves calling on the state to police political activity.



What about it?


Do you agree with the SWP's support for it?

[Hit The North]

It has been established in this thread that - for groups like UAF and the SWP - no platform involves calling on the state to police political activity.
No, this thread seems to have established that besides arguing for the organization of no-platform as a grass-roots response to the appearance of fascists, the UAF also attempts to organise pressure campaigns against Government. You can ask any of the real anti-fascist activists who regularly post on this forum whether the SWP activists turn out to help confront the fascists - in Glasgow city centre, for instance.


Do you agree with the SWP's support for it?
No.

[Wanted Man]

As i have said, demands have been made on the state and other bourgeois organisations to censor the far-right. The main leftwing supporter of UAF - the SWP - has also called for the books of David Irving to be banned from schools and public libraries, and has also supported the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill to gag the far-right.

Gosh. Those poor guys. :(

[Vanguard1917]

No, this thread seems to have established that besides arguing for the organization of no-platform as a grass-roots response to the appearance of fascists, the UAF also attempts to organise pressure campaigns against Government.

I think that the latter policy (which is essentially calling on the state to police political life, despite your attempts to make it sound a lot more innocent by referring to it as a 'pressure campaign against Government') exposes the fact that groups like UAF have no real desire to win over the public to their cause. They see the public - especially its white working class members - as fickle, irrational and easily led astray upon being exposed to far-right propaganda. Therefore, they want to bypass the public - which is precisely the reason why they call on the bourgeois state to protect the masses from themselves. In doing so, they reveal their establishment prejudices. Prejudices which run wholly contrary to anything radical.

Think about it: a group calling on the pigs to police which political literature i can be exposed to or dictate how i cannot vote at election time... how can such a group, from a Marxist perspective, claim to have radical credentials?

[Hit The North]

V1917, you're entitled to your interpretation. The fact that you're wrong shouldn't divest you of that right. But don't pretend that you offer any radical alternative. Your position of debating with them is far more conservative and within the bounds of normal bourgeois politicking.


Originally posted by Dumbass:
Gosh. Those poor guys. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/sad.gifYes Vanguard1917 does give the impression that he wants to protect the right of Nazis to terrorize people and spread their filfthy lies doesn't he?

[Unicorn]

What about it?
Outlawing "religious hatred" can have unforeseen consequences in a bourgeois society. The right-wing politicians will demand that the Western majority religion Christianity has the same protection as minority religions. Then you will have censorship, blasphemy convictions and other bullshit.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The "broadest unity" remarks made by Bob above remind me too much of "popular frontism" :(

[Unicorn]

The "broadest unity" remarks made by Bob above remind me too much of "popular frontism" :(
The Third Period was a failure but collaborating with bourgeois parties or politicians is unacceptable.

[Hit The North]

Outlawing "religious hatred" can have unforeseen consequences in a bourgeois society. The right-wing politicians will demand that the Western majority religion Christianity has the same protection as minority religions. Then you will have censorship, blasphemy convictions and other bullshit. Which is why I oppose it.


Originally posted by Jacob Richter:
The "broadest unity" remarks made by Bob above remind me too much of "popular frontism" I wouldn't deny that. Although I was quoting from the UAF; it wasn't my remark.


Originally posted by Unicorn:
The Third Period was a failure but collaborating with bourgeois parties or politicians is unacceptable. Is Peter Hain a bourgeois politician? I guess he is. Does this mean that revolutionary socialists should never collaborate with social democratic parties?

[Unicorn]

Is Peter Hain a bourgeois politician? I guess he is. Does this mean that revolutionary socialists should never collaborate with social democratic parties?
Libdems and even racist Tories like Teddy Taylor are involved in the UAF. They are not social democrats nor are New Labour hacks. Real social democrats aim to a socialist society and I don't have problem with collaborating with them.

[Vanguard1917]

V1917, you're entitled to your interpretation. The fact that you're wrong shouldn't divest you of that right. But don't pretend that you offer any radical alternative. Your position of debating with them is far more conservative and within the bounds of normal bourgeois politicking.

Occasionally agreeing to debate on the same platform as the BNP as a means to destroy their ideas is worse than calling on the bourgeois state to police and arbitrate political confrontation??


Yes Vanguard1917 does give the impression that he wants to protect the right of Nazis to terrorize people and spread their filfthy lies doesn't he?

Why? Because i take the Marxist position of full and unconditional opposition to bourgeois censorship?

I'd expect such philistinism from someone who calls himself 'dumb arse', but i'd like to have thought that you'd know a bit better...

[apathy maybe]

Why? Because i take the Marxist position of full and unconditional opposition to bourgeois censorship?
Err, I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, you can oppose "bourgeois censorship" (I assume you mean state censorship), and yet support radical/revolutionary worker direct opposition to filth being spread by scum.

Actually, I have just read the rest of the thread.

To make it clear, supporting radical/revolutionary workers against scum is a good thing. We should no platform them.

However, that is not the same as supporting government censorship, which we should oppose in each and every case.

[Red October]

Appealing to the government to no-platform fascists is liberal junk, it's up to workers and people in their own communities to take care of that when fascists start organizing. In the past, liberal governments have proven totally incapable of responding to fascism until it's too late (Hitler, Franco, etc). It's foolish to expect them to solve this for us.

[Vanguard1917]

Appealing to the government to no-platform fascists is liberal junk, it's up to workers and people in their own communities to take care of that when fascists start organizing. In the past, liberal governments have proven totally incapable of responding to fascism until it's too late (Hitler, Franco, etc). It's foolish to expect them to solve this for us.

Furthermore, it is those 'liberal governments' themselves which are our main enemies. Equipping your main enemy with greater powers to police political life - that is what's fundamentally reactionary.

[Sasha]

fuckin hell, no way i think that my enemies enemie is my friend but i fight dirty and have no problem what so ever to set the goverment on the fascists and visa versa.
the excuse that they may use the same laws on us is in my eyes a whimpy one. So what, if you'r not getting repressed you're clearly not a treath/pissing of the enemy. So yeah, i do put preasure on the state to do something about the rise of the nazi's/facists. If they do it, it save's me energy and possible jail-time if they don't, they look bad because they seem protective of dangerous morons that the mayority of the people consider filth and that makes it is easy'r to mobilise the public.

but back on topic, this got, in my opinion, nothing to do with the original question about the meaning of "no platform" wich, like i said before, is to sumery's

'The no platform policy says firstly that fascists should not be given public forum, and secondly that if they do gain a platform other political parties and organisations should refuse to share it with them.'
and so got nothing to do with wheter you pressure the goverment to leglistate or not.