What aspect of facism makes your blood boil the most?

[wasteman]

You know... something that makes you wanna kick in a few heads ;)

For me it has to be when they try to sell their views to the voters like its acceptable these days

[spartan]

Yeah that and their trying to associate with working class people and their struggles.

When they go on about "the ruling class" I often cringe as they (Fascists) are the same people who the ruling class would turn to, and whom the Fascists would gladly accept their support and backing, if real working class people ever threatened their power.

[genstrike]

Aside from the fascism and racism?

I hate how they are being slimy about it and trying to hide behind things like freedom of speech and pretend to be martyrs and free speech heroes whenever they are called on their bullshit. I mean Fox News (admittedly not exactly the least racist media outlet) actually identified Paul Fromm, who is probably Canada's #1 neo-nazi racist fuckhead, as a "Free Speech Activist" in an interview. Yeah, Paul, why don't you just as the White Rose how much your idol Adolf loved free speech.

Also, I hate how they say shit like "well, why is it okay to have a black _____ but not a white ______" and try to pull this sort of gateway drug racism shit, because stupid upper class white kids actually believe that they are being oppressed because of things like employment equity.

[redguard2009]

Right now, I'm really hating how supposedly "leftist" anti-fascists are so up in arms about defending fascists' "rights" and who seem one step away from condemning any and all persecutive action against them.

[Sean]

Right now, I'm really hating how supposedly "leftist" anti-fascists are so up in arms about defending fascists' "rights" and who seem one step away from condemning any and all persecutive action against them.
If thats a swipe against people who believe that people shouldn't be sacked for being BNP, I can't see why you have to hate them. Hate is a strong word and I can't understand how you'd put someone with moral concerns who attempts to apply them universally even to those animals on a par with the racist scum themselves. Its a small issue and I don't feel is an us or them one.

[cop an Attitude]

Their debates and arguments. Normally their not based on any fact and are just people making shallow assumptions about race, sex, culture, ect. Also, many are uneducated in facism and really don't know what their talking about (not to say if they did then it would be any better). I can't see how they can sleep at night or not realize what their advocating.

[JimmyJazz]

Probably the fact that it makes socialists want to "kick in a few heads", and thus diverts the international workers' movement.

If fascism hadn't come to power in Europe in the 30's, there would have been additional socialist revolutions almost certainly. Instead millions of lives and an amount of money/energy beyond calculation were poured into defeating a few nutty leaders (der fuhrer, il duce, and that asshole in Japan) and the working class people whom they forced into arms by a military draft.

Fascism sucks, but it is not the opposite of socialism. Capitalism is the opposite of socialism. Fascism is merely the most socially regressive wing of the pro-capitalist camp (yes, national "socialism" is pro-capitalist (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/guerin/1938/10/fascism.htm), albeit highly statist capitalism) and, while a threat, isn't something to get obsessed over imo.

[BobKKKindle$]

If fascism hadn't come to power in Europe in the 30's, there would have been additional socialist revolutions almost certainly. This is the wrong way to phrase the question; the economic conditions which existed in Europe in the 1930s raised the intensity of class struggle and posed the threat of social revolution, as workers were becoming increasingly militant, and in this context the bourgeoisie was forced to turn to fascism as a means to disarm and eventually crush the organization of the working class. There was never any possibility of the countries where fascism was able to gain power continuing along the peaceful road of bourgeois democracy - the only possible options in these countries were the victory of fascism, which laid the basis for the inter-imperialist war and consequently the deaths of millions of workers who were forced to fight for their governments against their class brothers, or proletarian revolution. As we all know, the first option triumphed, and the working class paid the price in blood.

[JimmyJazz]

This is the wrong way to phrase the question; the economic conditions which existed in Europe in the 1930s raised the intensity of class struggle and posed the threat of social revolution, as workers were becoming increasingly militant, and in this context the bourgeoisie was forced to turn to fascism as a means to disarm and eventually crush the organization of the working class. There was never any possibility of the countries where fascism was able to gain power continuing along the peaceful road of bourgeois democracy - the only possible options in these countries were the victory of fascism, which laid the basis for the inter-imperialist war and consequently the deaths of millions of workers who were forced to fight for their governments against their class brothers, or proletarian revolution. As we all know, the first option triumphed, and the working class paid the price in blood.

Good point, and thanks.

Then again, I was also thinking of the workers' movement in places like the United States, where the ruling class never turned to fascism, and in a sense actually turned to anti-fascism as a way of co-opting radical workers' support for the policies of the capitalist state. From the perspective of radical labor leaders, this support was of course supposed to be temporary; but as subsequent history has shown, it was much more than temporary. On the domestic front, Taft-Hartley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft-Hartley_Act) was passed in 1947 and has lasted down to today. Foreign policy-wise, most workers were pressured into supporting or at least not actively opposing U.S. aggression during the cold war.

[bcbm]

If thats a swipe against people who believe that people shouldn't be sacked for being BNP, I can't see why you have to hate them. Hate is a strong word and I can't understand how you'd put someone with moral concerns who attempts to apply them universally even to those animals on a par with the racist scum themselves. Its a small issue and I don't feel is an us or them one.

Its not a moral concern, its a class concern.

[Dóchas]

the fact that they claim that there is a 'white culture' like wtf. there isnt even any evidence to back it up but they still go along with it!! :confused:

[deutschearbeiter]

the fact that they claim that there is a 'white culture' like wtf. there isnt even any evidence to back it up but they still go along with it!! :confused:

So your racist against whites?

[MarxSchmarx]

Yeah that and their trying to associate with working class people and their struggles.

Check.


Their debates and arguments. Normally their not based on any fact and are just people making shallow assumptions about race, sex, culture, ect

Check.



I hate how they are being slimy about it and trying to hide behind things like freedom of speech and pretend to be martyrs and free speech heroes whenever they are called on their bullshit.

What's not to love about these clowns?

Oh yeah, and their very existence confirms the utter hypocrisy of it all:

http://blog.blinkenarea.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/04/.thumbs/.follow.your.leader.jpg

[#FF0000]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v446/NeoSatoshi/Ffruustration.jpg

True Story

That's a girl I know from college. Straight up fascist. Has said in the past "I think Hitler did more good than bad.". Funny thing is, someone in my friend's college is the exact same way.

(that is me in the hat there :D)

[JimmyJazz]

You're a pretty handsome fella, Rorschach.

[#FF0000]

I know. :mellow:

[JimmyJazz]

Except your hat looks like it could double as a gold pan.

[#FF0000]

Yeah, you know, I just couldn't get the hat quite right as much as I tried. :(

[Dr Mindbender]

i hate how modern fascists have the gall to deny their own fascistdom by papering over it with glossy terms like 'nationalist' or 'white seperatist' making them sound like some sort of 'oppressed' people.

At least the Union of fascists were fucking honest. They don't make fascists like they used to.

[redSHARP]

i hate how modern fascists have the gall to deny their own fascistdom by papering over it with glossy terms like 'nationalist' or 'white seperatist' making them sound like some sort of 'oppressed' people.

At least the Union of fascists were fucking honest. They don't make fascists like they used to.


i wouldnt hate them as much if they were honest!:lol::lol::lol:

but the thing that kills me the most aobut facists is the total stupid and one side arguements they use.

[wasteman]

Probably the fact that it makes socialists want to "kick in a few heads", and thus diverts the international workers' movement.


:laugh:

[LOLseph Stalin]

u know... something that makes you wanna kick in a few heads http://www.revleft.com/vb/aspect-facism-makes-p1292266/revleft/smilies/wink.gif

For me it has to be when they try to sell their views to the voters like its acceptable these days

I know this is a trait specific to Nazism, but I have to say the whole genocidal "master race" thing.

Oh and the fact that they try to appeal to the workers, but make no real changes to help them.

[Melbourne Lefty]

but the thing that kills me the most aobut facists is the total stupid and one side arguements they use.


Yeah cos thats something you never see in the sectarian arguments of the left...:lol::lol::lol:

[redSHARP]

Yeah cos thats something you never see in the sectarian arguments of the left...:lol::lol::lol:

okay, point taken.

but seriously every point they make involves "white race" or communism ruins everything. it never changes and it is like a broken record!:thumbdown:

[Dóchas]

So your racist against whites?

yes thats exactly what im saying you've got me

[Operator]

The worst thing is when so called anti-fascists state they believe in the "no-platform policy" which is fascism in itself, as is the comment made by the original poster about "kicking in a few heads."
That's not very democratic now, is it?

[#FF0000]

The worst thing is when so called anti-fascists state they believe in the "no-platform policy" which is fascism in itself, as is the comment made by the original poster about "kicking in a few heads."
That's not very democratic now, is it?

A "no-platform" policy supports nationalism, class collaboration, a mixed economy, and strict hierarchy?

Oh, my mistake. You just don't know what Fascism is and use it as an insult without realizing it's a specific political tendency. My bad. :(

[Operator]

A "no-platform" policy supports nationalism, class collaboration, a mixed economy, and strict hierarchy?

Oh, my mistake. You just don't know what Fascism is and use it as an insult without realizing it's a specific political tendency. My bad. :(

Fascism prioritises the state/nation over individual liberties. A no-platform policy restrics the individuals freedom of speech, thus suggesting an essence of fascism, nomatter the good will behind the idea.

[Melbourne Lefty]

but seriously every point they make involves "white race" or communism ruins everything. it never changes and it is like a broken record


Its the centre of their worldview, thats like saying that we talk about 'class' like a broken record. We talk about it because we consider it important. The most important thing in the world in fact.

They feel the same way about their beliefs, christians feel the same about Jesus and Muslims about Allah.

We all have our little obsessions, everyone looks irrational until you step outside your own worldview for a moment and examine the [obviously false!:lol:] worldviews of others.

[Sasha]

That's not very democratic now, is it?

you seem unaware that this is an site dedicated to revolutionary leftism, allthough we are in majority non-bolshevic we are not democrats in the western parlementairy sense of the word.
please piss off and take you'r "enlighted" liberalism with you.

athens? this is sparta!

[Fietsketting]

The worst thing is when so called anti-fascists state they believe in the "no-platform policy" which is fascism in itself, as is the comment made by the original poster about "kicking in a few heads."
That's not very democratic now, is it?

Whats up with the Hammerskins logo? :/

[wigsa]

The cowardice that European fascists and nazis tend to have when they gang up on some poor,ageing black/arab man/woman and kick the fuck out of them,when they have absolutely no chance to fight back and defend themselves at all.I've seen videos of them attacking women,and ganging up on frail looking men in groups of 7 and 8 and beating them to a pulp.And they won't even use fists like men,they use their fucking big black skinhead boots.It's sickening.

That's what makes me wanna kick in a few heads and I hope I get to do that in Ireland in the near future,although it is a positive thing that white nationalism hasn't taken off yet but the feeling here is that due to the growing unemployment due to the recesssion,a movement will gather momentum soon enough.

[Killfacer]

Fascism prioritises the state/nation over individual liberties. A no-platform policy restrics the individuals freedom of speech, thus suggesting an essence of fascism, nomatter the good will behind the idea.


That's a stupid, divisive idea. Firstly i don't see how "no platformists" are anything like facists. In fact they hate them so much, that they will do the most effective things in their power to stop them; refuse them a platform from which to spout their vile propaganda.

Do you think that if Hitler had been denied a platform from which to preach, then he would of gained such huge popularity? No, clearly he wouldn't.

The problem with the above example and "no platformism" in general is that it is pretty difficult to implement in practice. How do you stop a perfectly legitimate party such as the BNP (admittedly not as bad as the NSDAP) from spouting shit? Its very difficult, particuarly when they are protected by the police and the law in general. It's easy enough to stop skinhead knuckle draggers getting a platform, they destroy the platform they're standing on with their stupidity but insidious suit wearing freaks like Nick Griffin are a harder problem.

[Pogue]

The slimyness, the perviness, the anger they seem to radiate, obviously the arguments and their general idiocy.

I find their use of the word 'reds' as an insult more comical than insulting because it just doesn't have any effect. "Red scum". Lol, no effect.

I hate, like others here said, how they hide behind 'free speech' and all that. I hate how they blame everything on immigration. I haven't really met any genuine fascists though, just racists, most of whom wouldn't vote BNP but have said they're inclined to that way of thinking. They're so fucking generic - Immigrants this, Britains gone to the dogs that. Such wank.

They just generally disgust me. Everything about them is just dirty to me. The whole superior white race bollocks, the hatred they spew out. They're just so angry, arogant and dum, which is an annoying combination.

I hate how they seem to get through to some people, with shit like Nick Griffin's 'Truth Truck', better know as the 'Lie Lorry'. What a fucking mug he is. I hate how they still persist and some people listen despite all the evidence against them.

[ZeroNowhere]

They're white.

Hey, if they can do it... :D

[Operator]

That's a stupid, divisive idea. Firstly i don't see how "no platformists" are anything like facists. In fact they hate them so much, that they will do the most effective things in their power to stop them; refuse them a platform from which to spout their vile propaganda.

Do you think that if Hitler had been denied a platform from which to preach, then he would of gained such huge popularity? No, clearly he wouldn't.

The problem with the above example and "no platformism" in general is that it is pretty difficult to implement in practice. How do you stop a perfectly legitimate party such as the BNP (admittedly not as bad as the NSDAP) from spouting shit? Its very difficult, particuarly when they are protected by the police and the law in general. It's easy enough to stop skinhead knuckle draggers getting a platform, they destroy the platform they're standing on with their stupidity but insidious suit wearing freaks like Nick Griffin are a harder problem.

It's all well and good advocating the 'no-platform' idea when one looks at what could've been avoided with regards to Adolf Hitler, but what if Martin Luther King, for example, was denied a platform? Or other such 'positive' figures?

There cannot be one rule for some and another for others, that too is fascism.

Let the BNP speak. Give the British people a choice. I have faith that they will make the right decision. Rather than silencing them, why don't the left counter them?That is what gains respect and votes.

[Operator]

you seem unaware that this is an site dedicated to revolutionary leftism, allthough we are in majority non-bolshevic we are not democrats in the western parlementairy sense of the word.
please piss off and take you'r "enlighted" liberalism with you.

athens? this is sparta!

A revolution does not necessarily need to use undemocratic means, and may I remind you that advocating violence is against the law...

[Operator]

Whats up with the Hammerskins logo? :/

I'm a Floyd fan :blushing:
I find it interesting how the rise of Pink is portrayed in 'The Wall'..It just holds some meaning to me.

[Sean]

It's all well and good advocating the 'no-platform' idea when one looks at what could've been avoided with regards to Adolf Hitler, but what if Martin Luther King, for example, was denied a platform? Or other such 'positive' figures?

There cannot be one rule for some and another for others, that too is fascism.

Let the BNP speak. Give the British people a choice. I have faith that they will make the right decision. Rather than silencing them, why don't the left counter them?That is what gains respect and votes.
Letting the BNP speak is an exercise in free speech in the same was screaming fire in a packed theatre is. Their ramblings and inferring genuinely put the lives of people in danger.
And while it has been argued before that time and effort would be better spent forming a strong alternative party to the BNP, that doesn't remove the fascist, racist scum from the equation. Voltaire can go jump on this one!

[Operator]

Letting the BNP speak is an exercise in free speech in the same was screaming fire in a packed theatre is. Their ramblings and inferring genuinely put the lives of people in danger.
Where is there any evidence of this?


And while it has been argued before that time and effort would be better spent forming a strong alternative party to the BNP, that doesn't remove the fascist, racist scum from the equation. Voltaire can go jump on this one!

Strong opposition would completely marginalise and eventually eliminate counter-parties. Unless ofcourse, the British people actually want the BNP! :eek:

[jaffe]

A revolution does not necessarily need to use undemocratic means,
Do you know any a succesful revolution through 'democratic' means?


and may I remind you that advocating violence
were is the advocating violence part?


is against the law...
:lol:

[Dr Mindbender]

Strong opposition would completely marginalise and eventually eliminate counter-parties. Unless ofcourse, the British people actually want the BNP! :eek:

I'm sure if islamic extremists were in contention of taking power you'd be quite quick to want to remove their vocal pedestal.

As is already happening to them at the moment. http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/2007/05/17/abu_hamza.jpg


The reason we want the far right silenced is because they are equally, if not more dangerous. If you want a pedestal for all then i'm afraid you must include mr hamza in the deal. No if's and's or buts.

[Holden Caulfield]

Fascism prioritises the state/nation over individual liberties. A no-platform policy restrics the individuals freedom of speech, thus suggesting an essence of fascism, nomatter the good will behind the idea.
don't be simple,

even the 'Liberal' supreme Mill said that limits should be placed on individual liberty in regards to freedom of speech, should i be allowed to stand outside the place where black people live preaching white supremacy or 'whites first' messages, accusing immigration for causing the ills in the lives of people. Should I be allowed to stand in a multi-cultural country and do the same thing? NO! Liberty stops where it infringes on the liberty of others and where it is deemed to be a obstacle to equality.

there is no such thing as 'good' anyway, but you seem simple so i won't take everything you say at face value.



Where is there any evidence of this?
Soho bombings for one, the many bnp affiliates and members who have criminal records for race related assault or abuse.



Strong opposition would completely marginalise and eventually eliminate counter-parties. Unless ofcourse, the British people actually want the BNP!
the German people wanted Adolf Hitler to a degree, that doesn't justify his rule as something the left should tolerate, when the state was threatened due to economic crisis, left uprisings etc it turned to fascists to take up the cause, it did in Italy the state and the press made the fascists into heros and played on nationalism to win support, it did the same in Germany, even in England the Daily Mail the creme of the Conservatvie papers supported the BUF.

People are often mislead to nationalism usually to their deaths, the manipulation of the working classes in the interests of the state (i.e. the rulers of that state) is no something I, or anyother committed leftist should ignore on some lofty Liberal principal

[Dimentio]

It's all well and good advocating the 'no-platform' idea when one looks at what could've been avoided with regards to Adolf Hitler, but what if Martin Luther King, for example, was denied a platform? Or other such 'positive' figures?

There cannot be one rule for some and another for others, that too is fascism.

Let the BNP speak. Give the British people a choice. I have faith that they will make the right decision. Rather than silencing them, why don't the left counter them?That is what gains respect and votes.

While I partially agree that the no platform is ditrty business, I think it have had an impact in delaying the success of far-right parties. In Sweden, the Sweden democrats (equivalents of the BNP) have been kept out of the parliamebnt in 20 years, partially due to the fact that all the Swedish parties have rejected to talk with them or engage them in a debate.

Experience shows that when you treat far-righters as equals, you make them viewed as "respectable opponents" and hence as something you could legitimately vote on.

[Holden Caulfield]

A revolution does not necessarily need to use undemocratic means, no it does not but if the ruling classes are not willing to obey the will of the people and to share and fairly redistribute wealth then violence and force will be necessary to carry out the will of the people. I do not think our opressors want to be our brothers as well and therefore they, not us, make violence the only way.



and may I remind you that advocating violence is against the law...
what happened to freedom of speech? and of course those who make the laws do not want dissent to be open as it is they who fear revolution and they who manipulate the working classes, with the aid of fascists if necessary. The ruling classes will make whatever laws they need to smash the workers movement.

[Dr Mindbender]

Where is there any evidence of this?



http://markgorman.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/holocaust00_1.jpg

[Holden Caulfield]

^^ he ment the BNP lets not get hysterical it undermines our arguments

[Dr Mindbender]

he ment the BNP

I know.

You honestly think the BNP would do different?

We paint them with the nazi brush for a reason.

[Holden Caulfield]

You honestly think the BNP would do different?
yes...



We paint them with the nazi brush for a reason.
it weakens our own argument, have you ever been called a Stalinist for being a communist? its the same thing. point out why they are fucked don't just say 'they are all the same', we need to point out why each fascist party is 'bad' not just call them fascists and be done with it

[Dr Mindbender]

yes.
based on what?



it weakens our own side, have you ever been called a Stalinist for being a communist, its the same thing,
No its not. The BNP will admit they want an all white country. What they flip flop on is how they will achieve it, and no one person admitting how it would be carried out with some even expressing an admiration for the nazis.

Of course, once the horse has bolted and they got into power there'd be nothing to stop them doing what the fuck they like.



point out why they are fucked don't just say 'they are all the same'

We also say that capitalism is fucked but thats an entirely different argument.

Why do we include the BNP in our nazi list if we intend to regard them as worthy opposition?

[Killfacer]

It's all well and good advocating the 'no-platform' idea when one looks at what could've been avoided with regards to Adolf Hitler, but what if Martin Luther King, for example, was denied a platform? Or other such 'positive' figures?

There cannot be one rule for some and another for others, that too is fascism.

Let the BNP speak. Give the British people a choice. I have faith that they will make the right decision. Rather than silencing them, why don't the left counter them?That is what gains respect and votes.

I find it hard to have faith in the population when they consistantly vote for either the new labour or the conservatives.

No platformism just isn't fascism. Would you call keeping a murderer in jail in order to stop him re-offending fascism? No. Taking away the rights of those who are a danger to society is not fascism.

[Holden Caulfield]

based on what?
modern technology, the fact it happened the last time and this country has been brough up to hate Hitler, Britian is more liberal in historical comparison, they may well round us up and put us in camps but i'm thinking more guantanamo than Auschwitz.



No its not.
yes it is, you call a fascist a fascist and they will say they are not as Griffin himself has been intrgral in rebranding fascism we must also mirror this in our analysis. The Tories and New Labour have opressive and fascist laws, so do the BNP, to call them nazis/fascists, with out back up is to leave yourself to being disproven. They are white nationalists, they are opportunists and right populists we must adress each thing they do rather than name call from our moral high ground.

the fact i dislike the UAF is my first encounter was one of their members saying the only thing the public need to know about the BNP is "the BNP is a fascist party". Which is not constructive, LZ posted a thing about rascism to say you are a rascist is easily refued, to say what you said is rascist is what should be done. The BNP propaganda is clever and so we must also be in our analysis.



We also say that capitalism is fucked but thats an entirely different argument.
we point out why though with examples, we dont just say "capitalist! look what other capitalists have done, you are bad"



Why do we include the BNP in our nazi
because they are white nationalists with socialist rhetoric, im not saying you are wrong in your assumption, im saying your approach to them is wrong. That picture plays on emotion and is stark but the fash could easily distance themselves from it, expand your points



as worthy opposition
they are not worthy, they are a threat to our class and to our struggle, they are fascists at core but we cannot simply point this out especially to neutral parties as it is too easily refuted

[Dr Mindbender]

modern technology, the fact it happened the last time and this country has been brough up to hate Hitler, Britian is more liberal in historical comparison, they may well round us up and put us in camps but i'm thinking more guantanamo than Auschwitz.
The british people have also been nurtured to hate islam, and the BNP has perfected the art of suckling us at that teat. If the BNP had the chance I'm in no doubt they'd orchestrate their genocide against muslims. If you watched the secret detective documentary it showed you run of the mill BNP'ers fantasising about firing rocket launchers at the mosque during friday prayers.

I hardly think Prime Minister Griffin would bat an eyelid at that, much less try to prevent it given the authority over the police.



yes it is, you call a fascist a fascist and they will say they are not as Griffin himself has been intrgral in rebranding fascism
Griffin doesnt have the authority to 'define' fascism himself, nor do i think we should allow him to do so because it sets a dangerous precedence. If we give him the keys to language, it allows him to control thought.
In fact, fascism as a concept is ill defined as i mentioned in the revolutionary wiki entry. The way i see it the best way to expose the fascists is to highlight the synomities and explain to people that the BNP have much in common with fascists of the past despite their contradictions.



we must also mirror this in our analysis. The Tories and New Labour have opressive and fascist laws,
that is abusing the term fascist, i think the word needs to be responsibly and in the correct context, ie againt extremist groups like the BNP. If you start calling even centralist parties fascist it redraws the line and makes a mockery of all political debate.



so do the BNP, to call them nazis/fascists, with out back up is to leave yourself to being disproven. They are white nationalists, they are opportunists and right populists we must adress each thing they do rather than name call from our moral high ground.

I agree but neither does that have to include entertaining their views.


the fact i dislike the UAF is my first encounter was one of their members saying the only thing the public need to know about the BNP is "the BNP is a fascist party". Which is not constructive, LZ posted a thing about rascism to say you are a rascist is easily refued, to say what you said is rascist is what should be done. The BNP propaganda is clever and so we must also be in our analysis.
I agree its not enough to call them nazi, we must also explain to people why but i still dont think that changes the fact that Griffin has similar or equal ambitions to hitler.


we point out why though with examples, we dont just say "capitalist! look what other capitalists have done, you are bad"
Er yeah, but i still think its a different context.



because they are white nationalists with socialist rhetoric, im not saying you are wrong in your assumption, im saying your approach to them is wrong. That picture plays on emotion and is stark but the fash could easily distance themselves from it, expand your points
The poster asked a simplistic question so i gave a simplistic answer. Anyways you know that old point about ''how many words a picture says?''



they are not worthy, they are a threat to our class and to our struggle, they are fascists at core but we cannot simply point this out especially to neutral parties as it is too easily refuted

I still see no reason to shy away from imagery or suggestion which could be construed as shocking or controversial. I agree with you in as much as we need to provide more substance in argument but beyond that i see no reason to tip toe round the facts.

[Holden Caulfield]

The way i see it the best way to expose the fascists is to highlight the synomities and explain to people that the BNP have much in common with fascists of the past despite their contradictions.



I agree its not enough to call them nazi,

that is what i said, and why posting pictures of piles of dead jews wasn't enough to use as an argument, but thanks for affirming that for me:)

[Dr Mindbender]

that is what i said, and why posting pictures of piles of dead jews wasn't enough to use as an argument, but thanks for affirming that for me:)
I wasnt trying to affirm anything, as i said simplistic answers to simplistic questions.

If anyone wants me to substantiate a point all they need do is ask.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

It's all well and good advocating the 'no-platform' idea when one looks at what could've been avoided with regards to Adolf Hitler, but what if Martin Luther King, for example, was denied a platform? Or other such 'positive' figures?

"Yes shooting the violently attacking counter revolutionary army is all very well and good but what if our lot were shot" - same as your logic




There cannot be one rule for some and another for others, that too is fascism.

No its not is called being unfair.


Let the BNP speak.

Id rather rip their jaw off.


Give the British people a choice. I have faith that they will make the right decision. Rather than silencing them, why don't the left counter them?That is what gains respect and votes.


Its not about them getting into power. They wont but its the influence they have on working class culture thats my concern. No matter how many times we rebut all there shit "arguments" if they have a precance they will have influance on culture.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

advocating violence is against the law...

No its not.

Policeman deserve to have there faces bashed in with bricks = not a crime

Bash sargent X of the X police force at Xpm tonight as he leaves the station = crime

[Melbourne Lefty]

Id rather rip their jaw off.


Yeah well right now they are playing the 'free speech' card. Quite frankly I am willing to let them do just that.

Why?

Because the more the leadership talks about free speech the more the membership believes it. The BNP doesnt run itself on a 'little black book of fascism' or anything similar, they are the classic right wing populists. If they ride the 'free speech' train to the station it makes it far more likely that you will have less BNP members saying...



Id rather rip their jaw off.


about us.

Just saying, unless you have yet to notice, there are a lot of places right now where its impossible to enforce no platform because of the state of the revolutionary left.

Perhaps I am over-reacting, but it makes me uneasy.:(

If the BNP can be kept as just another political party then they wont change anything in the universities or in the streets. It has happened with the Danish Peoples Party And that Swiss party and the Freedom party in Austria.

These are all right wing populist parties. They wont take power because they are outside the establishment, but they cant control the streets because they are not a mass movement.

What Im trying to get at is: Is No platform against purely electoral parties an outdated policy?

And i think we bloody better start thinking about this cos these right wing populist groups are popping up everywhere, and most of them are much bigger and better funded than the BNP.

[Bilan]

You don't know, or have any experience of, or with fascists.
Youtube a video of them, come back, and then speak.

also, do you realize how obvious it is that you're a member of the BNP?

[Sasha]

and may I remind you that advocating violence is against the law...

so? i do tons of stuffs thats against the law (and keep getting locked up for it), if your political works isn't outlawded it probely means it is not percieved as an threat by the state wich means in turn that you can kiss any hope on a revolution goodbye.
or do you support the state monopoly on violence and oppose breaking the law (wich is there to protect the intrests of the rich and powerfull)? if so i can hear an restriction to the OI's creeping closer.

[Operator]

don't be simple,

even the 'Liberal' supreme Mill said that limits should be placed on individual liberty in regards to freedom of speech, should i be allowed to stand outside the place where black people live preaching white supremacy or 'whites first' messages, accusing immigration for causing the ills in the lives of people. Should I be allowed to stand in a multi-cultural country and do the same thing? NO! Liberty stops where it infringes on the liberty of others and where it is deemed to be a obstacle to equality.

I disagree. As much as they sicken me I would give Islamist groups a voice, so long as they don't advocate violence. There will always be different opinions and political views and, just as there is no such thing as good, there is no set concept of right and wrong either, it is relative o the individual so it again mirrors fascism tp want to silence those you think are wrong.


there is no such thing as 'good' anyway, but you seem simple so i won't take everything you say at face value.

Given my lack of detail in my posts I shall not take offence, I assure you I am not simple merely because my revolutionary 'techniques' differ to yours.


Soho bombings for one, the many bnp affiliates and members who have criminal records for race related assault or abuse.
This was not under the leadership of Mr Griffin. The party has since been said to have reformed.


the German people wanted Adolf Hitler to a degree, that doesn't justify his rule as something the left should tolerate, when the state was threatened due to economic crisis, left uprisings etc it turned to fascists to take up the cause, it did in Italy the state and the press made the fascists into heros and played on nationalism to win support, it did the same in Germany, even in England the Daily Mail the creme of the Conservatvie papers supported the BUF.

People are often mislead to nationalism usually to their deaths, the manipulation of the working classes in the interests of the state (i.e. the rulers of that state) is no something I, or anyother committed leftist should ignore on some lofty Liberal principal

Under Hitler's leadership Germany was pretty much ressurected from the ashes. He rebuilt that nation. He was the only right choice for Germany at the time, it is merely unfortunate that he had skewered views regarding Aryan Supremacy, otherwise he may be one of the most respected leaders in history.
NB I personally despise National Socialism


Experience shows that when you treat far-righters as equals, you make them viewed as "respectable opponents" and hence as something you could legitimately vote on.
Many of them are.


what happened to freedom of speech? and of course those who make the laws do not want dissent to be open as it is they who fear revolution and they who manipulate the working classes, with the aid of fascists if necessary. The ruling classes will make whatever laws they need to smash the workers movement.

Didn't say not to say it, just mentioned it was against the law, hinting that the action would result in no long term positive outcome.


No platformism just isn't fascism. Would you call keeping a murderer in jail in order to stop him re-offending fascism? No. Taking away the rights of those who are a danger to society is not fascism

A murderer has broken the law.


You don't know, or have any experience of, or with fascists.
Youtube a video of them, come back, and then speak.

also, do you realize how obvious it is that you're a member of the BNP?
Is that aimed at me?? If so, LOL
Trust me, they wouldn't have me...

But I do have plenty of experience with fascists, first hand, not just through youtube.

[Everyone's Comrade]

If the BNP can be kept as just another political party then they wont change anything in the universities or in the streets. It has happened with the Danish Peoples Party And that Swiss party and the Freedom party in Austria.

These are all right wing populist parties. They wont take power because they are outside the establishment, but they cant control the streets because they are not a mass movement.

What Im trying to get at is: Is No platform against purely electoral parties an outdated policy?

And i think we bloody better start thinking about this cos these right wing populist groups are popping up everywhere, and most of them are much bigger and better funded than the BNP.

To be honest, the Freedom Party of Austria has done much better than the BNP. The Freedom Party got 18% of the national vote last election and one of their members is the Vice President in the Austrian parliament. If we factor in their splitoff right wing group which was led by the late Jorge Haider, the far-right took 29% of the vote. It's clear the no platform policy works better.

I also don't think far-right groups get much funding. Remember, all far-right groups cater to the working class problems (rather like the far-left) and so won't be recieving the backing of many rich businessmen. Sure, there's exceptions to every case, but by and large the right-wing parties funds are tiny compared with the other parties. I mean, Nick Griffin had to get his members to donate money to buy a truck for God sake! :laugh:

[Melbourne Lefty]

I also don't think far-right groups get much funding. Remember, all far-right groups cater to the working class problems (rather like the far-left) and so won't be recieving the backing of many rich businessmen. Sure, there's exceptions to every case, but by and large the right-wing parties funds are tiny compared with the other parties. I mean, Nick Griffin had to get his members to donate money to buy a truck for God sake!


Sometimes it feels like we are fighting with the fash for the scraps from the big boys tables.

Not a good feeling.



Under Hitler's leadership Germany was pretty much ressurected from the ashes. He rebuilt that nation. He was the only right choice for Germany at the time, it is merely unfortunate that he had skewered views regarding Aryan Supremacy, otherwise he may be one of the most respected leaders in history.
NB I personally despise National Socialism


Yeah I wouldnt go that far, but people who write Hitler off as a frothing loony like he is seen in the movies are drastically undervaluating the threat.

Its a common view on the left that since we find the very idea of races to be obviously false or irrelevent to the scheme of things, that anyone who disagrees must be a knuckle dragging idiot.

Its whats behind a lot of the anti-fash work. Plus it makes ya feel superior which is always nice!:lol:

But in the end its not a smart way to look at the new brand of 'fascism' or right-populism. These people spent 40-50 years in the wilderness [depending on the country] until they finally realised that they could achieve their goals only if they dropped the fash line. It took em a while cos they REALLY liked it. Many of them still do as you can see from the average scumfront board.

But the ones who finally abandoned the fash past are not knuckle draggers, most of them are just as smart as us and as such are far more dangerous than the Blood and Honour types.

Some bonehead goes nuts and stabs an immigrant the public sympathy is with the victim. One person dies but the anti-racist message is pushed through.

The BNP wins a GLA seat and its the RACIST message that gets pushed.

They aint the dummies they once were. And a smarter brand of fash requires a smarter brand of anti-fash.

[Holden Caulfield]

The BNP wins a GLA seat and its the RACIST message that gets pushed.
the SWP who were due to be on the same platform as the BNP stood down from the discussion on the grounds of No-Platform, when the fash already have the platform not debating with them because we have some sort of moral high ground is counter-constructive, and merely hands them the platform and makes it seem like we cannot face them in a debate.

In this situation No Platform should be enforced by the people of the crowd, or the Leftist speaker should take the opportunity to debate with the BNP and destroy them in front of a large crowd

[Melbourne Lefty]

or the Leftist speaker should take the opportunity to debate with the BNP and destroy them in front of a large crowd

Yeah that would be prefered.

I mean come on, surely we can generate enough good speakers to shred a few racists?:thumbup1: