No Platform, a debate in itself

[Holden Caulfield]

Unfortunately, appealing to state censorship is often the practical reality of the 'no platform' principle. And even when it isn't necessary appealing to the state as such, it is appealing to other bourgeois institutions, e.g. colleges and universities, to restrict free speech, as was the case with the Oxford Union situation described above. Of course, in these times of unprecendented conformity, where everyone seems to agree that there's no alternative to the capitalist status quo, where desperately we need to win people over to better ideas, we need rules to restrict and restrain public debate like we need holes in our heads...

But some people seem to think that working people, and the masses generally, shouldn't be allowed to hear controversial opinions and make their minds up for themselves, and thus need the social and political elite to decide which ideas they can and cannot be exposed to safely. This is an extremely patronising, belitting and paternalistic view of the public.

do people think that forcing the powers that be (state, council, society, university or whatever) to adopt a no-platform policy is counter constructive and patronising as VG1917 argues?

or that any measure to stop fascists from spreading hatred and division amongst the working class is welcome and not us bending to the system but us bending the system for our own purposes, as can be seen in Germany and some universities?

[Sasha]

hell no, i'll fight with any weapon at my dissposal so i see no problem in using the state etc. I don't co-operate with them, but ill use them for my puposses if given the oppertunity.
if there is an fascist meeting i will try and atack it, but i'll for sure also tip the owner of the venue and if it doesn't interfere with our own plans i see no bone in giving the coppers an anonumues ring also, i might even claim that i saw weapons going in or sommething like that even if i didn't, just to fuck 'm up.
fuck the moral highground, im fighting in the trenches.

so this:

not us bending to the system but us bending the system for our own purposes

[Hostage]

I don't know if this is relevant, but here it goes..

I don't think you can fight everything at the same time, in the same place. So maybe you should use the state to fight something, and when it's gone, you fight the state.

Unless they are something to destroy at the same time? But, I doubt that.



Sounds a bit like, fighting dirty... :p

[Sprinkles]

do people think that forcing the powers that be (state, council, society, university or whatever) to adopt a no-platform policy is counter constructive and patronising as VG1917 argues?


With regards to the restriction of freedom of speech that was mentioned, the notion that you can stop the rise of fascism by preventing the distribution of it's ideas is... Well, it's a bit idealist isn't it?



or that any measure to stop fascists from spreading hatred and division amongst the working class is welcome and not us bending to the system but us bending the system for our own purposes, as can be seen in Germany and some universities?


Relying on state institutions to stop and oppose fascism wasn't that big of a success during the rise of historic fascism, so I'd doubt it'll be a resounding success should a potentially similar scenario repeat itself in the future. Especially since most of the divisions (including racism) that are forced on the working class originate from, or are perpetuated by the democratic capitalist states, not by already marginalized "white power" nutters.

[Vanguard1917]

If you are appealing to the bourgeois state and other bourgeois institutions to restrict free speech, what you are effectively doing is arming the ruling class with greater powers to control and police public opinion and political life generally.

By advocating bourgeois censorship, you are granting greater powers to the the ruling class to act as a mediator of social and political conflict, something which will inevitably strengthen ruling class power, weaken the cause of independent working class opposition, and thus reinforce the political stability of the rule of capital.

Calling for bourgeois censorship is an immensely reactionary policy, something which Marxists, past and present, unconditionally oppose.



Theory, as well as historic experience, testify that any restriction to democracy in bourgeois society, is eventually directed against the proletariat, just as taxes eventually fall on the shoulders of the proletariat. Bourgeois democracy is usable by the proletariat only insofar as it opens the way for the development of the class struggle. Consequently, any workers “leader” who arms the bourgeois state with special means to control public opinion in general, and the press in particular, is a traitor. In the last analysis, the accentuation of class struggle will force bourgeois of all shades, to conclude a pact: to accept special legislation, and every kind of restrictive measures, and measures of “democratic” censorship against the working class. Those who have not yet realised this, should leave the ranks of the working class.

[...]

...only those blind or simpleminded could think that the workers and peasants could be freed from reactionary ideas by the banning of reactionary press. In fact, it is only the greatest freedom of expression that can create favorable conditions for the advance of the revolutionary movement in the working class.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/08/press.htm

[Hit The North]

With regards to the restriction of freedom of speech that was mentioned, the notion that you can stop the rise of fascism by preventing the distribution of it's ideas is... Well, it's a bit idealist isn't it?

The point of No-platform is that it is a concrete demand which necessitates organising our side to put pressure on organizations/institutions to not host fascist propaganda by allowing them facilities to meet. It demands agitating, educating and organising amongst our constituency and beyond. It is an attempt to silence the nazis but also to push forward our ideas of solidarity between workers whatever their race, faith or anything else the right wing uses to divide us.


Relying on state institutions to stop and oppose fascism wasn't that big of a success during the rise of historic fascism, so I'd doubt it'll be a resounding success should a potentially similar scenario repeat itself in the future. Especially since most of the divisions (including racism) that are forced on the working class originate from, or are perpetuated by the democratic capitalist states, not by already marginalized "white power" nutters.
Putting pressure on bourgeois institutions is not the same as relying upon them. We have no illusions about the bourgeoisie, their racism or their ultimate affinity with the fascists. We can only rely on ourselves, on our ability to out mobilise the racist scum.

By opposing no-platform, the fight against the nazis and the fight to organise our class is weakened.

[Hit The North]

Calling for bourgeois censorship is an immensely reactionary policy, something which Marxists, past and present, unconditionally oppose. I agree.

[Sprinkles]

The point of No-platform is that it is a concrete demand which necessitates organising our side to put pressure on organizations/institutions to not host fascist propaganda by allowing them facilities to meet. It demands agitating, educating and organising amongst our constituency and beyond. It is an attempt to silence the nazis but also to push forward our ideas of solidarity between workers whatever their race, faith or anything else the right wing uses to divide us.


Note that I did not comment on the principles behind the idea of No-Platform.
Just on the point Vanguard1917 made in the OP about appealing to state censorship.



Unfortunately, appealing to state censorship is often the practical reality of the 'no platform' principle. And even when it isn't necessary appealing to the state as such, it is appealing to other bourgeois institutions, e.g. colleges and universities, to restrict free speech, as was the case with the Oxford Union situation described above.


To be clear, I can't comment on whether it's often the practical reality of the No-Platform programme. But I certainly agree that communists should not be pre-occupied with trying to get the state or other institutions to limit the freedom of speech since it can be both counter-productive and ultimately futile, especially since like you said:



We have no illusions about the bourgeoisie, their racism or their ultimate affinity with the fascists. We can only rely on ourselves, on our ability to out mobilise the racist scum.


That is not to say I think we should give racists or fascists free range since they are entitled to freedom of speech as a kind of inalienable right or something. And needless to say I have nothing against organizing against racism or the extreme-right, especially when it's done in context of the struggle against capital.

But when I look at how much of the "milieu" (for lack of a better word) that surrounds anti-fascism also turns up for anti-capitalist events that aren't directly about "bashing the fash" or similar counter-demonstrations against the extreme-right, it usually is a dissapointingly low turnout. Experiences might vary of course, but I suspect this is a general problem surrounding these kind of groups.



By opposing no-platform, the fight against the nazis and the fight to organise our class is weakened.


I don't really thinks this is the case especially since this kind of anti-fascism is often lacking in the anti-capitalist aspects. Personally I think for the struggle against racism to be effective it should be a result of the struggle against capital, so workers realize they have a common cause with each other and that the racist divisions are artificial. Racism is a symptom of the weakness of the proletariat, while capital is the cause of it's division.

[Holden Caulfield]

this kind of anti-fascism is often lacking in the anti-capitalist aspects
what do you mean by this kind, releying on the state?

some 'anti-fascist/rascist' groups can be non-class-struggle groups but that is usually very evident, and not the type of antifascism we are talking about here,

we have a anti rascist group in Carlisle that contains mostly middle class women who seem to use it as a kind of 'liberal' book club (i dont mean to be sexist if i appear so, there are many women active in antifa and antifascism). I went along to their meeting and all they talked about was we should write letters to the council and labour MPs, such bullshit...

but to use the state for our own means is different than releying on it, for example i take a student grant & busary (etc) for being relatively poor but that doesnt mean i support their system that makes me (or my family) poor or that i expect it to provide for me and act in my interests

[Rosa Provokateur]

If it's possible then I dont see why not just so long as we dont become dependent on it as a resource, it all depends on the sitiuation. It would run the risk of hypocracy however and could damage the movements credibility.

[Sprinkles]

what do you mean by this kind, releying on the state?

some 'anti-fascist/rascist' groups can be non-class-struggle groups but that is usually very evident, and not the type of antifascism we are talking about here,


I guess it depends whether the class-struggle groups who identify with the No-Platform programme are also interested in the state censorship that's mentioned in the OP as well? If that's the case, then wouldn't that support Vanguard1917's statement that:



Unfortunately, appealing to state censorship is often the practical reality of the 'no platform' principle.




we have a anti rascist group in Carlisle that contains mostly middle class women who seem to use it as a kind of 'liberal' book club (i dont mean to be sexist if i appear so, there are many women active in antifa and antifascism). I went along to their meeting and all they talked about was we should write letters to the council and labour MPs, such bullshit...


But when the class-struggle anti-fascists want to use the state for their own means by forcing it to take a stand against extreme-right groups through state censorship, they'll have to resort to similar tactics as well. Since you'll need to appeal to various leftists groups in government like the labour MPs at some point to get a state endorsed censorship. Or is the point to embarrass the state into taking up opposition against these extreme-right groups?

I guess I just don't understand what tactics you're going to use to force the state into doing any of this, perhaps you could clarify?



but to use the state for our own means is different than releying on it, for example i take a student grant & busary (etc) for being relatively poor but that doesnt mean i support their system that makes me (or my family) poor or that i expect it to provide for me and act in my interests


Of course having a student loan or something similar doesn't imply support for the system, especially since no-one can simply "drop out of" capitalism.

But there's a difference between a person relying on the state for whatever reason and a political group trying to use state institutions to accomplish a certain political goal.

Denying the extreme-right the chance to organize is fine but trying to accomplish this by having the bourgeois state do so through a forced concession is a poor substitute for working class power in my opinion.

[Tower of Bebel]

Marxists fought against the capitalist state for freedom of speech in the interest of the working class and we will keep on fighting for freedom of speech. We cannot ask the state for any restrictions, since the capitalist state only acts in the interest of the bourgeoisie. Restrictions on free speech by the bourgeoisie could eventually be used against us (of course!). I have more sympathies with those who organize the left against fascism than those who urge for the state to intervene.

[Melbourne Lefty]

Considering that there is no fash group anywhere near power in any nation anywhere the idea of helping to give the state an excuse for harsher measures which could then be turned on workers rights advocates is stupidity itself.

If the fash need knocking, knock em. dont call in the police to do a job you should do yourself.

[Hit The North]

Note that I did not comment on the principles behind the idea of No-Platform.
Just on the point Vanguard1917 made in the OP about appealing to state censorship.


No, but I wanted to dispel the myth that no-platform is principally or intentionally concerned with calls for state censorship. It isn't. The two are quite different tactics, the latter leading to empowering the bourgeois state; the former leading to campaigning and mobilising activists, workers and communities.

Vanguard continually conflates the two - citing an example of where the two tactics find mutual attraction amongst certain prominent individuals as his evidence. But his insistence that no-platform always or most often resolves itself in a call for state censorship is false from my own experience of being involved in such actions and yet to be proved by an empirical survey of all such actions (as far as I know).

Another trick he uses is to conflate calling for state censorship, meaning state legislation; and demanding that certain bourgeois institutions such as universities, business organisations, local councils, our own unions(!) etc., do not give resources (meeting rooms, publicity, etc.) to the racists and nazis. These two political actions are not the same or even comparable. The former calls on people to write letters to their MPs; the latter calls on people to organise a campaign, a counter-meeting, a demonstration, a picket line. This exposes the falsehood of another conflation which is to present no-platform as synonymous with squadism. In truth it is its opposite, attempting to draw people into activity and swell the ranks of the activists.

The reason Vanguard does this is because he is only interested to make a wholly abstract political argument in favour of free speech, an argument which resolves itself in calls for debating with the nazis rather than opposing them (a position he holds). The reason I call it abstract is because it depends on a lack of awareness of the connection between spreading ideas and organising forces. In effect it is a liberal position, depending upon a faith in the superior rationality and 'rightness' of our ideas, compared to their ideas; as if political struggle is a debating game played according to Queensbury Rules. Even Woody Allen understood that if you want to explain something to a nazi you should use a baseball bat to drum home the lesson! *


I don't really thinks this is the case especially since this kind of anti-fascism is often lacking in the anti-capitalist aspects.
I'd echo Holden's question and ask which anti-fascists you're referring to? I don't belong to any anti-fascist group as such. But if it became known that the university where I work has invited a fascist to speak, my first instinct would be to begin organising a no-platform action. No-platform is not an idelogical position, it is a tactic and it can be employed by anyone who opposes the disgusting values of fascism and racism, irrespective of their identification with this or that anti-fash tendency.


Personally I think for the struggle against racism to be effective it should be a result of the struggle against capital, so workers realize they have a common cause with each other and that the racist divisions are artificial. Comrade, we have many things to struggle against; not only against capitalism but also against ourselves: the conservatism & reformism in our own ranks, and our own disorganisation. It's a truism that political consciousness changes more certainly when people are engaged in activity. Organising no-platform gives us that opportunity.
_________________________

*Annie Hall

[Holden Caulfield]

a really rather long article on no-platform
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3114

[Oswy]

I have mixed views about no-platform. Ultimately I come out in favour because freedom of expression doesn't require us to hand neo-Nazis a megaphone and a stage at venues where the majority, whether leftist or liberal, do not want them to spread their vile politics; they can find their own damn platforms. However, the no-platform policy does allow groups like the BNP to harp on about freedom of speech and offer the view that their ideas are so powerful we can't even bear to allow them air-time (absurd, but they can at least make that claim). Also, having debated with BNP supporters on the internet for some time at another forum, I know that any platform they were given they would quickly demonstrate their racism, fascistic tendencies and their general intellectual impoverishment.

[Holden Caulfield]

they can find their own damn platforms.when they find their own platforms they can expect the left to also block them, we will not allow the likes of the BNP to have any pulpit from which to preach, we would not stand aside and allow fascist or 'white nationalist' groups to pour petrol on the tinder box that is a multi-cultural society in times of economic crisis. Scapegoating has a nasty habit of leading to deaths, violence, etc.


I know that any platform they were given they would quickly demonstrate their racism, fascistic tendencies and their general intellectual impoverishment.we should not seek to humor fascists, however if they already have a platform, say in a local protest against school closures, we should take the stand and debate with them, and show our ideological 'superiority' and to fight for the working class. but we should not allow them to organise platforms, if they already have one then engaging with it, or protesting against it is an imperitive, but what tactic depends massively on the individual circumstances and situation

[nuisance]

Sorry if this has already been posted but I can't be bothered to read through the whole thread
Arguably institutionalised no-platform policy deters potenial militancy against fascism by the people it directly affects because it is already being dealt with by those above us. I'm not saying that if the no-platform wasn't implemented then everyone will suddenly discover that facism is a problem that needs militant opposition, though I would expect some to adopt this thought pattern.
I'm all for no-platform tactics adopted by people in the struggle, for example antifa, and not seeking to have things implemented by bureaucrats for them, which in itself legimates roles being played above society. Yes, concessions from the State have been won on behalf of the working class, minimum wage, however I don't think something like No-platform is going to immediately and sufficiently change the lives of the people it seeks to benefit and only hinders class unification. It could, I guess, be put forward that if there's a strong push for the No-platform then it would a legitmate concession, however this still does breed thoughts of looking above for help
Anti-fascism is a class issue, and thus needs to be dealt with by our class in it's quest for self-liberation.

[Oswy]

when they find their own platforms they can expect the left to also block them, we will not allow the likes of the BNP to have any pulpit from which to preach, we would not stand aside and allow fascist or 'white nationalist' groups to pour petrol on the tinder box that is a multi-cultural society in times of economic crisis. Scapegoating has a nasty habit of leading to deaths, violence, etc.

we should not seek to humor fascists, however if they already have a platform, say in a local protest against school closures, we should take the stand and debate with them, and show our ideological 'superiority' and to fight for the working class. but we should not allow them to organise platforms, if they already have one then engaging with it, or protesting against it is an imperitive, but what tactic depends massively on the individual circumstances and situation

I have much sympathy with your points here but I still think there is a problem. At the other forum I attend, which is a student forum, debates about the BNP often reveal that many young people don't see, or in some cases actually reject the accusation of, fascism and racism in that organisation. Some of this is wilful I'm sure, but I get the impression that many don't think the BNP are 'actually' racist or fascist because their stated policies are worded in ambiguous ways, or simply fail to touch on what the rest of us know about them through their history or through reading between the lines of what they do say. In short, while I support no-platform I think it is still in danger of contributing to the ignorance of what organisations like the BNP represent. While the BNP can carefully word their statements at their website, in their manifestos and in their various other mechanisms of communication, platforms of debate, with skilled opponents, could force the BNP to make plain what their aims are. It's important that people know what the BNP represents and no-platform, for all its usefulness, which I support, does nevertheless contribute to a mystification of these neo-Nazis and thus contributes to indifference or even acceptance of their presence in British politics.