Can/Should the state be utilised for antifascist means?

[Vanguard1917]

split from BNP data thread


This is true to a degree, however in the same way sex attackers can't be trusted with children, people with confirmed racist beliefs cannot be expected to be employed anywhere where equality is an issue. Its a cheap shot, I know, but in vocasions like teaching or medical work, you're in a position where you have to be completely impartial. Someone who declares their political stance as getting skinheads out of the country shouldnt be put into a position like that either.

In other words, society should be ruled by the bourgeois state's thought police. People should be sacked by employers for what goes on in their heads, and not even for their actions. That doesn't seem to me as a situation which leftists should be welcoming at all.



I find the news coverage on the BBC of this hilarious. One BNP member commented it was like living in a fascist society

Well, sorry, but that BNP member has a point. And you know the situation is a fucked up one when members of the BNP are allowed to appear as guardians of the freedom of political association (while those on the left lead appeals on the state to restrict democratic rights).

[Holden Caulfield]

VG1917 you really think confirmed and open rascists should be allowed to remain in positions of power and influence in schools, police forces, etc?

the BNP are lying hypocritical fucks, they tried to get an SWP teacher sacked so they can shove that one up their arses

[Vanguard1917]

VG1917 you really think confirmed and open rascists should be allowed to remain in positions of power and influence in schools, police forces, etc?

I think such people should be judged by their actions, not their thoughts. And people like teachers and doctors should be judged by how good they are at doing their jobs.

[Holden Caulfield]

teachers who are openly rascist should be allowed to educate children? allow them to hold positions of trust, influence and from which they can affect world views of children at a young age? to think that white kids should come first coz it is their country, would you want this person to teach classes with minorities in them?

doctors fair enuf they do not effect people in the ways the police, civil service and teachers do, although if i were a minority i would like the idea of my doctor being a rascist/homophobe.

[bcbm]

Well if we can't allow ugly racists to teach our children, we probably shouldn't allow those crazy hippies who preach the violent overthrow of our beloved queen and hate our boys overseas either!

As for police, they should all be fired/executed.

VG has the correct position here.

[BobKKKindle$]

I'm really divided on this issue. I can understand why some people don't want fascists to be employed in professions which involve being responsible for other members of society, such as teaching, and support the government's decision to remove BNP members from the police force, but the principle behind this position - that an individual's political ideas should be used by the state to deprive them of their job and prevent them from accessing certain professions - makes me uncomfortable, not because I sympathize with what the BNP stands for, but because I don't want the same principle to be applied to the left at some point in the future.

If, however, parents at a school set up a campaign to remove a teacher who is known to be a BNP member, or any other kind of popular iniatitve which draws on the resources and support of the local community, socialists should support their demands and fight for the removal of BNP members on the grounds that allowing these individuals to retain their positions would violate the democractic will of the community, and cause the community to lose faith in the legitimacy of the institutions which employ BNP members. This is entirely different from turning to the state to carry out purges.

What do people think about this second, community-based option?

[redguard2009]

You really can't see that can you?

Are you fucking kidding me?

Oh, what, it's unfair for some poor innocent little fascist to lose their job? I mean, who gives a fuck if they espouse an ideology that led to the deaths of tens of millions of people just 60-odd years ago, and they've made it damned clear they'd like to do the exact same thing all over again. Who cares if they terrorize minorities, call for race wars and the genocidal extermination and forced rellocation of millions of people based on the colour of their skin?

No, losing your job because your skin is brown or yellow or black is unfair. These BNP fucks were not born fascists, they weren't born with some ingrained urge to discriminate people that they can not control, and they certainly aren't "victims of circumstance" or innocent bystanders. They're the ones that want to send all of us reds and immigrants and non-whites off to die in concentration camps. Get your fucking priorities straight. They made a decision to be who they are, unlike their victims. So excuse me and fuck right off and hope to god I don't find your name on that list you little sack of shit.

Morality isn't a fucking issue here. At all. We all damned well know who these people are and what they want to do, and killing them all is no more a moral dilemma than the destruction of the Nazi Party. What we have been given here is a fucking golden oppurtunity to rectify the failure that led to the victory of the German Nazi Party. If the anti-fascists in Germany in the 1920s had had this sort of list handed to them, there wouldn't have been a second of hesitation.

[redguard2009]

I think such people should be judged by their actions, not their thoughts. And people like teachers and doctors should be judged by how good they are at doing their jobs.

Wow, this is one of the stupidest things I've ever fucking read in my entire life. They should be judged on their actions? Excuse me, the entire point of the anti-fascist movement is to make sure that their actions never exist in the first place. You've already had one god damned fine example of what happened when people like this were left to their "own thoughts". Europe is littered with the graves of 100,000,000 because of it.

[bcbm]

Oh, what, it's unfair for some poor innocent little fascist to lose their job?

Nobody gives a shit if some fascist loses their job. The issue is an institutionalized position of political persecution. You think if it becomes policy for racists to be fired, they won't step up their (already well abused) position of firing unionized, radical, leftist or otherwise combatant workers? We don't call on the state to fight the fascists because we recognize that the state is firmly against us and anything used against the far-right will certainly be used against the far-left. If you can shame them into getting fired, great. That's some solid political pressure. But we should not and, really, can not support legislated measures to "weed out" fascists, because those same laws and reasons will be turned against us. The class enemy doesn't play favorites, it attacks any threat to its power.


Morality isn't a fucking issue here. At all.

Morality was never the issue here. The issue is what attempting to use the state as an anti-fascist force actually means in concrete terms. If one group is allowed to be sacked for their politics beliefs, it opens the door for that to happen more and who do you think the next (if not primary) target will be? Who is more of a threat to the bosses, fascists or unionizers? Who will the bosses target first if allowed the political leeway to do so?


What we have been given here is a fucking golden oppurtunity to rectify the failure that led to the victory of the German Nazi Party. If the anti-fascists in Germany in the 1920s had had this sort of list handed to them, there wouldn't have been a second of hesitation.

The lines were clearly drawn in Germany in the 1920s and what we saw was the elements already within the state who could've been combative capitulating left and right for fear of direct confrontation. Fascists are beaten through the organizing of our class and combating them in the streets, not getting them sacked from their jobs due to political discrimination on the part of the state. In case you forgot, the bourgeois state is our enemy more than the fascists playing at being a real political party, and if we give it more power over our political lives and decisions that will be used against us whether it is used against them or not.

[Holden Caulfield]

we arent talking solely about the state though, we are talking about pressure from below, from parents who do not want their children taught about the world by a rascists.

The BNP support whites first ideas such as if two patients need treated if one if white and one is black the white should always be given priority, does this make you think they could be trusted to teach minorities, to act in the civil serice or police force?

[Vanguard1917]

teachers who are openly rascist should be allowed to educate children? allow them to hold positions of trust, influence and from which they can affect world views of children at a young age? to think that white kids should come first coz it is their country, would you want this person to teach classes with minorities in them?

I wouldn't want my young children (too young to critically evaluate arguments) to be taught by any teacher who tries to influence them with his or her prejudices. Teachers should teach the subjects as objectively as possible.

But we should judge them according to their ability as teachers, not according to their personal views. Do you think a devout muslim, who is known for believing that all "kafirs" (i.e. non-muslims) are enemies of God who will burn in hell, should be sacked from his position as history teacher to a class full of Jews, Christians and Hindus, even though he follows the curriculum and teaches historical facts in an objective fashion? What about a black nationalist whose views can be interpreted as anti-white? What about a trade union activist whose militancy can be construed as being prejudiced against students from middle class backgrounds?



The BNP support whites first ideas such as if two patients need treated if one if white and one is black the white should always be given priority, does this make you think they could be trusted to teach minorities, to act in the civil serice or police force?


If a doctor acts in a prejudiced manner towards his patients (e.g. giving whites preferential treatment over non-whites), he should lose his job. What socialists demand is that people's political views and affiliations, in and of themselves, should not be basis for being sacked or punished. Socialists fought for the right to freedom of association for a reason.

[Vanguard1917]

If, however, parents at a school set up a campaign to remove a teacher who is known to be a BNP member, or any other kind of popular iniatitve which draws on the resources and support of the local community, socialists should support their demands and fight for the removal of BNP members on the grounds that allowing these individuals to retain their positions would violate the democractic will of the community, This is entirely different from turning to the state to carry out purges.

What do people think about this second, community-based option?

Why should it be supported if the individual in question is a good teacher?


and cause the community to lose faith in the legitimacy of the institutions which employ BNP members.


Why should an institution not be allowed to employ members of the BNP? The right to employment should be based on the possession of a "correct" set of political views?

[Tower of Bebel]

The capitalist state shouldn't be used for "antifascist means". Only the working class can and should fight fascism. The working class cannot play an auxiliary role while the state purges fascism; it most play the main role.

[Holden Caulfield]

The capitalist state shouldn't be used for "antifascist means". Only the working class can and should fight fascism. The working class cannot play an auxiliary role while the state purges fascism; it most play the main role.

obviously, but the issue is if the state is firing BNP police men etc, is good? or whether they should be removed but bottom up pressure, or whether they should be left in their postions

[Tower of Bebel]

obviously, but the issue is if the state is firing BNP police men etc, is good? or whether they should be removed but bottom up pressure, or whether they should be left in their postions
Simple: It's useless, unless the state is doing this because it is forced by an independently organized working class (i.e. the working class plays a primary role). And even when it does because of a demand from the working class I think the working class made a mistake. Functions and positions shouldn't be distributed according to ideologies but according to skills and elections.

[redguard2009]

The issue is an institutionalized position of political persecution.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone willing to stick it to a BNP member is doing a damned good job.


We don't call on the state to fight the fascists because we recognize that the state is firmly against us and anything used against the far-right will certainly be used against the far-left.

I don't really care if the state does jack shit. I never called on the state to do anything -- for if they won't, then we damned well should.


In case you forgot, the bourgeois state is our enemy more than the fascists playing at being a real political party

You said the word "state" so many times in your fucking post that it gave me a headache. Really, if you've not got the balls to shove one up the fash's ass any any oppurtunity then fuck off. If I was walking down the street and I saw a bunch of capitalist corporate executives in $3000 suits beating the shit out of some manky little fascist shit I'd hurry my ass over and join them, not stand by the side wagging my finger complaining that what they're doing is wrong because they're capitalists. And if that's what you'd do, then fuck you.

[benhur]

I am inclined to agree with those who say the state can be 'used' to fight fascism. Note the word 'used.' We don't depend on the state, we simply use them to do our job. That way, we not only fight fascism but we won't be losing our men and material on this, instead, we'll be using the state to fight the battle for us. Which means, two of our enemies will be fighting each other, thus getting weakened in the same breath. It's a win-win situation for us.:)

[redguard2009]

I would not even call it "using" since our involvement and co-operation with the state in persecuting fascists is completely nil. It's not like we're leading the beauraucratic charge; we've been fighting the fash for decades, and it's entirely rational to support and applaud when they get a couple black eyes and bloody noses from our other "enemy".

As for "precedence", I'm fairly certain that the majority of people realize that there's a strong difference between socialism and fascism. Even in the United States, the Socialist Party (as liberal as it may be) is an established Party which even won a seat on Congress back in 2006, while organizations such as the American Nazi Party and other fascist/racist parties are still banned.

I do not think that many people harbour the idea that socialist, communist and anarchist activists can be lumped up into the same category as white supremacists, neo-Nazis, boneheads and racists. And the period of official state-sanctioned persecution is long-since over -- Communist parties and the like haven't been illegal in the western world for decades since the anti-communist purges of the 50s and 60s.

[PostAnarchy]

Are you fucking kidding me?

Oh, what, it's unfair for some poor innocent little fascist to lose their job? I mean, who gives a fuck if they espouse an ideology that led to the deaths of tens of millions of people just 60-odd years ago, and they've made it damned clear they'd like to do the exact same thing all over again. Who cares if they terrorize minorities, call for race wars and the genocidal extermination and forced rellocation of millions of people based on the colour of their skin?

No, losing your job because your skin is brown or yellow or black is unfair. These BNP fucks were not born fascists, they weren't born with some ingrained urge to discriminate people that they can not control, and they certainly aren't "victims of circumstance" or innocent bystanders. They're the ones that want to send all of us reds and immigrants and non-whites off to die in concentration camps. Get your fucking priorities straight. They made a decision to be who they are, unlike their victims. So excuse me and fuck right off and hope to god I don't find your name on that list you little sack of shit.

Morality isn't a fucking issue here. At all. We all damned well know who these people are and what they want to do, and killing them all is no more a moral dilemma than the destruction of the Nazi Party. What we have been given here is a fucking golden oppurtunity to rectify the failure that led to the victory of the German Nazi Party. If the anti-fascists in Germany in the 1920s had had this sort of list handed to them, there wouldn't have been a second of hesitation.

I don't believe that the state can really be effective in stemming the tide of fascism in the long haul. I believe that in the final analysis it will up to working people using their power independant to that of the state and its reactionary measures which are often beneficial to fascist movement, in order to truly put an end to it.

[bcbm]

I don't really care if the state does jack shit. I never called on the state to do anything -- for if they won't, then we damned well should.

Well some are and that's the issue here. The state should never be used for antifascist work.


You said the word "state" so many times in your fucking post that it gave me a headache.

I count "six." Brutal man. :rolleyes:


Really, if you've not got the balls to shove one up the fash's ass any any oppurtunity then fuck off.

If you haven't gotten the brains to recognize what happens when we give our enemies free reign to moderate political opinion, you can fuck off.


If I was walking down the street and I saw a bunch of capitalist corporate executives in $3000 suits beating the shit out of some manky little fascist shit I'd hurry my ass over and join them, not stand by the side wagging my finger complaining that what they're doing is wrong because they're capitalists.

Even if you knew when they were done pounding on the fascist they'd shoot you?

[redguard2009]

I don't believe that the state can really be effective in stemming the tide of fascism in the long haul.

Again, I never said anything about doing anything more than applauding the state for kicking fash ass, the rare times it does occur.


I count "six." Brutal man.

6 is too many tyvm.


If you haven't gotten the brains to recognize what happens when we give our enemies free reign to moderate political opinion, you can fuck off.

Like they haven't had free reign for the past 70 fucking years. For the love of Marx, you're so terrified of state repression that you're willing to let Fascists teach kids and perform surgery and psychoanalysis on minorities and be put in charge of maintaining law and order against minorities and all of that crap. Really, there isn't much more the state can do to us that it hasn't already done -- and I'd risk that to prevent the above-mentioned circumstances from materializing.


Even if you knew when they were done pounding on the fascist they'd shoot you?

They've been shooting at us for years, buddy. And no, when it comes to fascist teachers, doctors, psychiatrists and especially cops, I'm not going to hide behind a trash can shaking in my boots about what the state will do to me if I poke my head out to watch them beat up a fascist.

[redSHARP]

i would let public outcry drive them out of their jobs. though banning BNP memebers from the police is a good idea. the KKK had a strong grip on the police force in the US south during the civil right days and look what happened; many innocent people were killed by the police (though nothing has really changed:()

[bcbm]

Like they haven't had free reign for the past 70 fucking years. For the love of Marx, you're so terrified of state repression that you're willing to let Fascists teach kids and perform surgery and psychoanalysis on minorities and be put in charge of maintaining law and order against minorities and all of that crap. Really, there isn't much more the state can do to us that it hasn't already done -- and I'd risk that to prevent the above-mentioned circumstances from materializing.
They've been shooting at us for years, buddy. And no, when it comes to fascist teachers, doctors, psychiatrists and especially cops, I'm not going to hide behind a trash can shaking in my boots about what the state will do to me if I poke my head out to watch them beat up a fascist.What's with your macho shit? I don't think socialists have any business using the government to moderate political opinion, so I'm a whiny coward?. Fuck yourself. I'm not going to cry if some fash gets fired but I'm not going to call for it to happen and support legislation either.

[redguard2009]

What's with your macho shit? I don't think socialists have any business using the government to moderate political opinion, so I'm a whiny coward?.

No, I think the fact that you'd let fascists continue teaching our kids and comrades because you're "too good a socialist" to want them to be sacked makes you a whiny coward. I understand you're afraid of the political ramifications, but get a fucking grip; you're talking about accepting fascists, bottom line.


i would let public outcry drive them out of their jobs.

What the hell do you think I'm doing?

[bcbm]

No, I think the fact that you'd let fascists continue teaching our kids and comrades because you're "too good a socialist" to want them to be sacked makes you a whiny coward. I understand you're afraid of the political ramifications, but get a fucking grip; you're talking about accepting fascists, bottom line.

I don't give a shit about them getting sacked, I give a shit about using the state to do it. Falling back on that just shows that the working class movement is nonexistant which means our energy would probably be better spent building that then wringing our hands about ZOMG fascists teaching our kids- as though the public education system isn't already teaching them racism, nationalism, etc, etc?

And again, what the fuck is with the macho bullshit? How does not believing in using the government to persecute people make one a coward, exactly? If anything using the state instead of actually struggling to make the fascists obsolete is the "cowardly" position here.

[Vanguard1917]

No, I think the fact that you'd let fascists continue teaching our kids and comrades because you're "too good a socialist" to want them to be sacked makes you a whiny coward.

No. The socialist position is that we must not call on employers to sack workers based on their political beliefs. Employers must not be allowed to decide which personal political views are and aren't acceptable.

Teachers should be judged according to how well they teach - i.e. by their actions.

Instead of calling people names, use your head and follow what is being said.

[redguard2009]

No. The socialist position

Oh sweet jesus, preaching about what socialism "really is" and what it's really "all about" as if God himself has bestowed upon you his most divine of secrets... get a grip. There's nothing socialist about arguing that fascists should get to keep their jobs because "the big bad state" shouldn't be "used to sack people based on political beliefs", as if they're deserving of any sort of respect whatsoever. If you're so damned worried about the BNP being victimized, why don't you vote for them next elections, y'know, show them some working class solidarity.

Your failure to capitalize on any and all anti-fascist methods is dangerous and I'm thankful that not all those that claim to fight fascism are as penile about it. "Judge them by their actions, not the fact that they're frothing-from-the-mouth racist neo-Nazis". I figured joining a fascist organization hell-bent on ushering in the fourth reich would be enough "action" for you to gather up some sort of opinion or -- hopefully -- condemnation, but you seem more worried about "protecting the rights of the poor little Billy Brit".

I'd rather not sit here waiting for the BNP to gain enough influence in the bourgeois state that the issue of "state-sponsored" persecution becomes entirely moot. I'd rather any and all action possible at stemming their dangerously growing influence be taken. But if you're willing to risk reliving 1933 then by all means, continue being the "bigger man", valiantly willing to "defend his enemy from injustice" because, afterall, you're such a damned good socialist. I, in the meantime, will be wasting my time raiding the nearest construction site to gather up some bricks.

[bcbm]

Funny you should mention bricks... not really a state sponsored initiative that one, is it? I'm certainly not suggesting no action be taken against fascists... I can send you my complete roster of fascists in this area if you doubt my interest in nailing these fuckers... I am merely saying we shouldn't turn to the government to fight antifascist battles, because that is a losing position: the government will use these fuckers (and does) at any opportunity that seems valuable. That's why we need to focus on this from a class perspective and that means building the power of our class and using that power to beat the bastards in the streets.

[Vanguard1917]

Oh sweet jesus, preaching about what socialism "really is" and what it's really "all about" as if God himself has bestowed upon you his most divine of secrets... get a grip. There's nothing socialist about arguing that fascists should get to keep their jobs because "the big bad state" shouldn't be "used to sack people based on political beliefs",

Of course there is. Socialists historically fought for the right of all workers to have the freedom of association, i.e. the freedom to join political parties without the threat of punishment from the bourgeois state and employers.



But if you're willing to risk reliving 1933 then by all means, continue being the "bigger man", valiantly willing to "defend his enemy from injustice" because, afterall, you're such a damned good socialist.


It has nothing to do with empty socialist principles; it's about practical implications. If you allow the state and bosses to be granted powers to dictate political opinions in the workplace and society generally, you essentially take away the right of working class people to decide for themselves the political views they choose to support. You allow the ruling class to act as mediator of political and social conflict, thus increasing its authority in society.

And your use of 1933 as an example of what supposedly happens when we refuse to grant the ruling class such authority, is not only ridiculous but also gets things the wrong way around. A key reason why the working class in Germany was defeated was precisely that it lacked political independence. It was tied to a large extent to the parties of bourgeois politics, and thus the ruling class was in a strong position to influence workers' views and level of consciousness. Workers need the freedom to decide their political alliances free from the control of employers and the state. That's why socialists refuse to support, and furthermore strongly oppose, workers being sacked for their politics - even workers' whose politics are utterly reactionary.

[wigsa]

I'm really divided on this issue. I can understand why some people don't want fascists to be employed in professions which involve being responsible for other members of society, such as teaching, and support the government's decision to remove BNP members from the police force, but the principle behind this position - that an individual's political ideas should be used by the state to deprive them of their job and prevent them from accessing certain professions - makes me uncomfortable, not because I sympathize with what the BNP stands for, but because I don't want the same principle to be applied to the left at some point in the future.

If, however, parents at a school set up a campaign to remove a teacher who is known to be a BNP member, or any other kind of popular iniatitve which draws on the resources and support of the local community, socialists should support their demands and fight for the removal of BNP members on the grounds that allowing these individuals to retain their positions would violate the democractic will of the community, and cause the community to lose faith in the legitimacy of the institutions which employ BNP members. This is entirely different from turning to the state to carry out purges.

What do people think about this second, community-based option?


Very good idea in my opinion.

[redguard2009]

I am merely saying we shouldn't turn to the government to fight antifascist battles,

For the last time, I haven't said that we should turn to the government like weeping virgins begging to be saved from the evil barbarians. I'm talking about capitalizing on every possible way to screw them over, keep them in the gutters of society where they belong and not allow them to come out from under their rocks and become established members of society. And at the moment, short of killing them (which I'm not against at all, but killing isn't all that easy), generating a popular public outcry for them to be removed from these positions of influence is the only way to go about it. And I do not feel comfortable standing by without so much as voicing a concern about them being fascist teachers, doctors, shrinks and cops. RedSHARP there offered that any administrative action taken against professional fascists should come from public mobilization -- I consider myself part of the public and I consider my voicing objections to their employment in public sectors a form of mobilization.


Socialists historically fought for the right of all workers to have the freedom of association

Yet we're allowed to go smash their skulls in with pipes because of their political association?

[Vanguard1917]

I'm talking about capitalizing on every possible way to screw them over, keep them in the gutters of society where they belong and not allow them to come out from under their rocks and become established members of society.


And thus stregnthen the authority and legitimacy of our main enemy - the bourgeois state?

The BNP is a miniscule party with no clout in society. Arming our real enemies, i.e. entities which actually do possess power, with even greater power, with the justification that it's needed to suppress a bunch of non-entities, is, at best, an inexcusable error of judgement.



Yet we're allowed to go smash their skulls in with pipes because of their political association?


There is a fundamental difference between calling on the state to suppress the far-right and working people defending themselves against racist assault. You need to be able to grasp this difference.

Also, it's not so much their political associations which concerns us - but their actions. The far-right has no real presence as a violent threat on British streets today. Go back a couple of decades and it did. Physical confrontation againt those on the far-right was advocated by socialists not because their ideas were found to be morally repulsive, but because far-right organisations posed a very real daily threat to working class people from immigrant communities, as well as to leftwing activists. It had nothing to do with far-right views in the abstract; force was needed to deal with force.