The Utility of "No Platform" and 'Anti-Fascists' Today?

[9]

[FONT=Verdana]The purpose of the "no platform" tactic and anti-fascist groups in general are matters which I’m having an exceptionally hard time wrapping my head around, to be honest. I'm concerned that perhaps they may serve to actually fuel the popularity of the groups they claim to be combating. I rarely agree with left communists on anything, but I have to wonder if they don’t actually have it right about this, at least with respect to the situation of the BNP and EDL (etc.).
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]However, I have not spent any extensive time considering the matter, nor do I fully understand or even know the points on each side of the divide, so I’d like to hear the following:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana]What are the arguments in favor of and opposed to the “no platform” strategy and “anti-fascist front groups” in general?

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana]Please try to keep it civil.
[/FONT]

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Well let's think about the Nick Griffin on Question Time issue. Nick Griffin wasn't exposed as a fascist on QT, all it served to do was make him look like an electable mainstream politician and raised BNP membership. It was free publicity for the BNP, this wouldn't have been the case if he had never been on TV in the first place. Now I'm not a supporter of a anti-fascist front which fails to recognise the rise of support for racist and fascist parties. Anti-fascism must be working class anti-fascism because Capitalism is the reason for the rise of these groups and failure to criticise Capitalism and represent the working class alternative is not tackling the issue properly.

[h0m0revolutionary]

I tihnk the two are ver different ideas, United Front against fascism, is all well and good, as long as it doesn't necessitate watering down our politics to accomodate anti-working class politicians and reactionaries. UAF for example do exactly this, so eager are they to accomodate tory MP's that they collaborate with the police, (who treat us no better for it), and they fail to offer any alternative to the politics of division, racism and nationalism - because they can't! For fear of alienating their beloved tories or loosing their precious state funding.

So I am for United Front work, but if we don't offer a comprehensive alternative to the politics of the far-right, we can't expect to win decent working class people over to our side. Their politics may be shit, but at least they have some answers to ordiniary worker concerns.

As for no platform, I treat it as a tactic, not a principle. But it's relatively simple, I respect the right of orginisations I may dislike to march around, distribute literature and have the same basic freedoms I, as a revolutionary leftist, am granted under capitalism. However, while the BNP can march in my street, and I have the right to mobilise against them, that doesn't mean I should, in the name of freedom of speech, let him hand out leaflets in my house/Trade Union/Education establishment Union.

We ban them from 'our' areas, because we cant afford not to. And let's remember that the BNP don't have neon-swastikas tattood on their heads, they come looking respectable, talking about free speech and Europe. But we know that they don't come alone, they bring with them their boot boys and ethnics, LGBTQ individuals, jews and leftists suffer accordingly. So it's a touchstone standard of looking after yourselves and minorities to no platform fascist groups like the BNP.

And let's not reduce this to a simple matter of freedom, they already have their platform, anyone can for example type "I hate immigrants" into google and relish in the bile that comes up. Moreover fascism has a platform in the form of the establishment, who echo their concerns and have historically used fascism as a weapon with which to kill working class militantcy. Because we know that fascism is merely a last resort form of capitalism, that in a time of crisis is given rule, by the ruling class, to restore order through militarist means, in the interests of capital.

[bricolage]

We ban them from 'our' areas, because we cant afford not to.

Except that's quite often not the case. Although anti-EDL mobilisations seem to have largely been local communities which is good there is definitely a trend of self-defined 'professional' anti-fascists travelling across the country to take on the far right wherever and whenever they may be which, while it the dedication can be respected, may not always be productive. For example someone I know who was at the RWB festival this summer said the local residents seemed annoyed at people who didn't live there or any where near had turned up claiming it as 'our streets'. I think what is often overlooked is 'outsider' anti-fascists could be, and I'm not saying they definitely are, seen as just as unwelcome as 'outsider' fascists.

[Holden Caulfield]

Can this be moved to anti-fascism?

[Pogue]

The most important thing, as homorevolutionary said, is that No Platform is a tactic not a principle, we use physical confrontation and obstruction where it works, we don't need to justify it where its not possible, for example.

[9]

^I know it's a tactic:

[FONT=Verdana]Originally Posted by Apikoros in the OP
The purpose of the "no platform" tactic...[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

My question is, really, more along the lines of whether physical obstruction/prevention orchestrated largely by leftist organizations couldn't actually do more to martyr these groups in the eyes of the portion of the working class that is on the fence about them. The case for or against this tactic is really more of what I'm asking, to put it a bit more broadly.
[/FONT]

[Pogue]

^I know it's a tactic:



[FONT=Verdana]My question is, really, more along the lines of whether physical obstruction/prevention orchestrated largely by leftist organizations couldn't actually do more to martyr these groups in the eyes of the portion of the working class that is on the fence about them. The case for or against this tactic is really more of what I'm asking.[/FONT]

I don't think it matrys them. It has worked in the past. AFA no platforming the NF in the 80s and 90s completely destroyed that movement, forcing them down the electoral path.

The 43 group no platforming the fascists actually generated sympathy, people were pelased to see some people engaging in the only way you can engage fascists, violently.

It wont martyr them. No one will support them based upon seeing them get battered, it just doesn't happen, because part of anti-fascism will be advancing your own politics in place of the fascist's in working class areas, explaining why your doing what your doing. Plus, no platform is and has often been carried out by working class people themselves.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

^I know it's a tactic:

[FONT=Verdana]

My question is, really, more along the lines of whether physical obstruction/prevention orchestrated largely by leftist organizations couldn't actually do more to martyr these groups in the eyes of the portion of the working class that is on the fence about them. The case for or against this tactic is really more of what I'm asking, to put it a bit more broadly.
[/FONT]

Putting Griffin ON QT made him look like a martyr.

[black magick hustla]

man the whole Antifascists destroying the NF sounds to me more like a big fuckin myth perpetuated by anarchists and the squadists of the SWP. in fact the original myth was that it was actually the swp, not AFA. it seems to me that maggie riding the NF's lightning bolt destroyed them more than whatever a bunch of punks did. which also rendered the whole antifascist thing senseless btw because maggie had about the same politics than any NF shithead.

[Pogue]

man the whole Antifascists destroying the NF sounds to me more like a big fuckin myth perpetuated by anarchists and the squadists of the SWP. in fact the original myth was that it was actually the swp, not AFA. it seems to me that maggie riding the NF's lightning bolt destroyed them more than whatever a bunch of punks did. which also rendered the whole antifascist thing senseless btw because maggie had about the same politics than any NF shithead.

How would you explain the complete downturn in their physical confrontation tactics, the admittance by Griffin that they could have 'no mroe fights', the complete and utter lack of any fascist street presence in the last 10+ years?

Fucking hell, you do talk too much in too strong tones for someone who knows and does fuck all to do with leftism, especially anti-fascism.

[black magick hustla]

why would they have "physical confrontations" in the form of steetfights when they had motherfucking maggie thatcher and the whole army doing much more than whatever a bunch of "ilicit" shaved heads could do? i am sure that contradicts your little fairy tale about the glorious antifascists saving the world but whatever man

[black magick hustla]

Fucking hell, you do talk too much in too strong tones for someone who knows and does fuck all to do with leftism, especially anti-fascism.

you look pretty when you are angry

[Pogue]

why would they have "physical confrontations" in the form of steetfights when they had motherfucking maggie thatcher and the whole army doing much more than whatever a bunch of "ilicit" shaved heads could do? i am sure that contradicts your little fairy tale about the glorious antifascists saving the world but whatever man

Again. if we're talking about the National Front as a different movement in what it actually wanted to do and what it was doing then appealing to the 'Thatcherism was racist' argument doesn't work. Yes, Thatcherism was xenophobic, racist, imperialist, thats the conservative tradition, whereas the National Front, representing the legacy of British fascism, was a different trend with a specific agenda. It was attempting to subvert the democratic process by the fascist ideas of 'revolutionary' fascism, based upon the tactic of Mussolini, i.e. physical force, intimidation, control of working class areas, etc. So yes, I think the actions of AFA did prevent this, in that they restricted the ability for the fascists to organise and grow as a political movement on the streets, preventing the NF and BNP following their physical path of violence aimed at generating a street based movement which could bypass the electoral system (at this time, they used the electoral basis in much the same way as the trotskyists do now, i.e. as a means of putting out a platform, stirring up a feeling/anger, in the nf/bnps case, racially based, in the trot case, class based).

[black magick hustla]

Again. if we're talking about the National Front as a different movement in what it actually wanted to do and what it was doing then appealing to the 'Thatcherism was racist' argument doesn't work. Yes, Thatcherism was xenophobic, racist, imperialist, thats the conservative tradition, whereas the National Front, representing the legacy of British fascism, was a different trend with a specific agenda..

I think the issue here is where the NF got their support base, which was from those who would become thatcherites, and this is why the NF died out. whatever where the ideological little details it doesnt even matter. thatcher was viciously anticommunist and put down by force a lot of working class activity and engaged in imperialism abroad. i dont see if it matters whether she reads mussolini or not, nor i see how she is even different from the NF except in maybe some very shallow treatment of both.

[Pogue]

I think the issue here is where the NF got their support base, which was from those who would become thatcherites, and this is why the NF died out. whatever where the ideological little details it doesnt even matter. thatcher was viciously anticommunist and put down by force a lot of working class activity and engaged in imperialism abroad. i dont see if it matters whether she reads mussolini or not, nor i see how she is even different from the NF except in maybe some very shallow treatment of both.

Thatcherism represents one strand of capitalist politics, the national front another. to equate them both as the same is a basic analysis which misses the praxis they put across, the goals they want to acheive and how they want to acheive it. i think fascism is capitalism, but a specific trend, and so to analyse the nf and thatcher as the same thing betrays fundamental differences in what the nf wanted to do. thatcher took some of the support base, but not all of it - the nf maintained a street presence even after thatcher was elected, and her nationalism and racism also served to generate recruitment for the nf, making their racism seem acceptable, hence why AFA's succeses in physically opposing the ever-growing-in-confidence were more the important.

[Pogue]

It's true that Maggie poured water over the debate about immigration etc with her pretty racist speeches and her pretty nasty policies too. Yeah, she is worse than any NF skin, but then again, AFA and those groups did a lot of undeniable good, finishing of blood & honour was only done thanks to these groups for instance.

Also, before Maggie it's a fact that AFA and other groups like that stopped racists from holding demos and just attacking people in towns and the like, that they congregated in. I don't think you can just say "they did shit" at all in fact. Most of AFA were anarchists with clear class-struggle politics, those in the other groups (before they turned into state informers) were the better kinds of Trots.

So no, I don't think just saying that 'anti-fascism generally fans the fire of fascism' (which is the left-communist line in general) is correct at all, even left-communists on this forum like Devrim say that immigrants should be defended when there are racist bastards rioting to attack people (for instance the Bradford riots), which is a fair enough argument even if I disagree with the other parts.

Just a matter of clarification: I don't think its entirely accurate to say the majority of AFA were anarchists - at least, I think its disputable. It was formed by Trotskyists and from what I've read they were the majority throughout the organisations existence, especially outside of London.

[Hit The North]

Just a matter of clarification: I don't think its entirely accurate to say the majority of AFA were anarchists - at least, I think its disputable. It was formed by Trotskyists and from what I've read they were the majority throughout the organisations existence, especially outside of London.

Moreover, they weren't formed until 1985, six years after Thatcher took power and certainly in no position to stop the first surge of the NF in the 1970s.

The first surge was confronted by local groups and then the ANL and its cultural ally Rock Against Racism.

Whether the first NF surge was halted by these initiatives or the rise of Thatcher is difficult to prove one way or another. As with all social and political phenomena, causation is usually not simple, but complex and multifaceted.

From my own experience as a coming-to-political-consciousness teenager in the late seventies, both the ANL and, but more importantly, Rock Against Racism, had a radicalising effect on me. In the seventies, to be anti-racist was to be anti-establishment because the political and cultural establishment was openly racist. So if nothing else, the ANL and RAR were responsible for educating a new wave of young people looking for radical solutions.

As for no-platform, I agree with H0m0revolutionary, it is a useful tactic when applied properly, but as a tactic we should learn to be flexible with it.