What aspect of facism makes your blood boil the most?

[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...

[Dr Mindbender]

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

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.


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?

[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.