RTE DISGRACE. Nick Griffin interviewed live

by D O hEochai - Socialist Party Fri Jun 07, 2002 23:23

Well Elk, this is precisely why I dislike this form of discussion. It inevitably degenerates into you said this, I said that etc.

The Socialist Party is a democratic organisation, will full opportunity for debate and discussion and a democratic decision making process. I am not going to go in to all the details here. If you want to find out more please contact Socialist Party offices.

It is unlikely that any one will bother reading this thread at this stage but for your benefit, and for the benefit of anyone who might happen across this, I will address a couple of the most important points on one final occasion.

Given your apparent belief that the result of Bolshevism in Russia after 1917 was akin to Nazi Germany, lets look at the situation. The Russian revolution was a victory for the international working class and established a democratic system based on workers power. In the period 1917-1924 Russia was subjected to almost constant attack from imperialist forces. Those that died during this period did so as a direct result of imperialist intervention or attacks by counter-revolutionary forces within Russia. Many forces were at work within Russian society at that time in a country ravaged by war. Despite this the struggle to maintain democratic rights was fought long and hard, initially by Lenin and subsequently by Trotsky and the Left Opposition There is one hell of a difference between this situation and the Nazi regime in Germany. I will not deal with the degeneration of the Soviet Union under Stalin but I suggest you read up on the subject and I would particularly recommend “Revolution Betrayed” by Leon Trotsky

On your assertion that I define a Fascist as someone who uses violence against a political opponent.
My Quote:
“The use of baseball bats is not the only criteria that is necessary in analysing a Fascist organisation,”

Your Quote suggesting I misquoted you:
“We would be better attacking the media for promoting Racism than worrying about these small Fascist groups”
(supposedly a quote from my post – go up and read it for yourselves)

Your Previous quote:
“You have since came up with a new argument: the Fascism-Racism connection, in which case why direct your fire against the pitifully small Fascist groups, rather than the press and mainstream politicians who promote racism and put racist policies into effect.”

Please explain the difference?

You also say:
“And where do I say I want to ignore “the threat posed by Fascist organisations”.
Please read above quote, or maybe you are suggesting that you won’t ignore the threat by Fascist organisations but we should.

In relation to the threat posed by the Far-Right and the use of violence
There are numerous incidents of acts of violence, including murder, against minority groups around Europe attributed to Fascists on an ongoing basis. Just do a quick search of the internet will produce results. Just an recent example of the political connections of these individuals: Three BNP candidates in Burnley have been convicted of violent crimes and an election organiser for the BNP in Burnley did jail time for gang rape.

Parties like FN in France and the Freedom Party in Austria are not classical Nazi parties in the traditional sense but have their roots in Neo-Nazi organisations and occasionally let their true colours slip. Haider has been known to attend meetings of the Waffen SS. There is a cross-over in membership with more violent elements just as between Combat 18, National Front and BNP in Britain.

Fascist groups do not create Racism, Capitalism creates Racism, Capitalism cannot exist without Racism and the removal of Racism within society cannot be achieved within the confines of Capitalism. However, Fascist groups actively promote, engage in and use Racism to spread their message( eg why should these foreigners get houses when we have so many homeless on the streets).

Your quote:
“I’m a socialist, I’m not a member of any party, as I suspect they are somewhat undemocratic – see for example the attitude to Russia, I support No Platform in principle (I kept saying I wasn’t arguing against it – but that has perhaps deliberately passed people by) BUT without a clear cut criteria to define who is going to be targeted on the No Platform basis, I fear it could degenerate into attack anyone.”

You support “No Platform” in Principal. Do you have a clear cut criteria to define who is going to be targeted. If you cannot do this, then your support for “No Platform” is meaningless, because it is possible to ignore all elements within society for fear of making a mistake. Fortunately the working class as a whole recognise a threat when they see one. That is why we had 1.5 million people on the streets of France only a few short weeks ago. The reality is that the working class will soon let you know if you are being undemocratic, be it in a Trade Union, a Community Campaign or an Anti-Fascist campaign.

The essence of being a Socialist is a willingness to fight for change in the way society operates. The only way of ensuring change is to build a political organisation capable of winning that fight. This is also the only way of eliminating the threat posed by Far-right and Fascist organisations. If you have not joined a party because you have not yet found one, if any, that you think is going in the right direction, then that is fair enough. If you will not join because you feel that they are all undemocratic then you are using this excuse as a cop out and you are doing a disservice to yourself and to the working class movement as a whole. Most political parties, including all those on the right are undemocratic. But by seeking out and joining a party you have the opportunity to change the workings of that party if necessary. If the members are genuine they will have no problem in changing the structures if you present a reasoned argument. If not then they are likely to be undemocratic anyway. These comments are made with the best possible intentions as I accept your commitment to your ideals, but I do urge you to take a chance.

by Elk Tue Jun 04, 2002 14:16

“Just Questions - Excuse for doing nothing”

Well I always thought, you think before you act, especially over such a thing as
denying people free speech. Do you not have debate or discussion in your organisation,
are people allowed ask questions or when they do is this dismissed as wanting to do nothing?
How do you make decisions?

“In all the postings that you have made you suggest that the arguments used to deny the right to free speech could just as easily be applied to the far left as Fascism.”

They can be IF your argument against Fascism is it’s victory will end free speech and destroy any organisation independent of the state, plus murder millions of people. Anyone can turn that
around and say well the Socialist Party (which I particularly picked out because it is Socialist Party people – who I presumed were responding to my points – sorry for presuming that ye might address these points) says Russia before 1924 was a
“democratic worker’s state”.
What was the difference (in terms of free speech, independent organisation, and millions getting killed) between Russia before 1924 and what you describe as Fascist victory.

““No Platform means the jackboot and the baseball bat”
(a rough approximation of what I actually said)
To refer once again to the quote I used from Hitler “If only they knew our intentions they could have smashed us before we ever became a threat”. As history has shown, in the interests of the working class, Fascist groups must be prevented from organising, including by using physical force if necessary. That is why we have organised and participated in counter demonstrations against Fascists. Fascists are not interested in the niceties of politics but in destroying all democratic rights. “
No platform means the boot and the bat – that is not an argument against no platform it is a statement of reality consequently if you define Fascist groups as groups which use violence against their political opponents – well you define yourself
as Fascist!

“If you had taken the time to educate yourself , you would know that the Socialist Party has consistently opposed the tactic of individual terrorism as exercised by these groups, but neither the IRA nor Sinn Fein are Fascist organisations”

I know both these things I’m not the one arguing that the use of violence constitutes Fascism!

“all the groups Europe-wide currently considered Fascist by conscientious, ranging from Combat 18, NF and BNP in Britain, FN in France, Freedom Party in Austria etc. engage in such tactics.”

Great now I might get some information to make my own opinion, Combat 18 yes, the B.N.P. previously and probably would again, the FN well not really to my knowledge, perhaps a bit from it’s youth wing, the Freedom Party in Austria? News to me.
Can you back this up with specific instances?

““We would be better attacking the media for promoting Racism than worrying about these small Fascist groups”
(supposedly a quote from my post – go up and read it for yourselves)
What do you think Shane Kenna was doing in the original posting to this thread if not attacking the media. The Socialist Party consistently opposes Racism at every level of society”

That’s exactly what he was doing, and rightly so, – I’m merely pointing out that the Racism-Fascism connection is not that Fascist groups create racism.

“But we do not, and will not, ignore the threat posed by Fascist organisations as you seem quite happy to do.”
And where do I say I want to ignore “the threat posed by Fascist organisations”.
Here is another example of an interesting notion of debate and democracy, you raise a few questions, make a few points and before you know it you are ignoring the Fascist threat, and a small step from there to being half ways responsible for the rise of fascism.

“Elk, if choose to respond to this posting, and I hope you do, have the courage and decency to express your own views and outline your own political affiliations, rather than attempting to bend other peoples point of view to serve your own purpose.”

Well would “bending other people’s points of view” include inventing totally spurious “quotations” as you have just done!
(and can be seen by reading my above post)
I’m a socialist, I’m not a member of any party, as I suspect they are somewhat undemocratic – see
for example the attitude to Russia, I support No Platform in principle(I kept saying I wasn’t arguing against it – but that has perhaps deliberately passed people by) BUT without a clear cut criteria to define who is going to be targeted on the No Platform basis, I fear it could degenerate into attack anyone.
For example the “Trostsyite-Fascists” of yore, Fascists are against the Comintern, so are Trotskyists, therefore Trotskyists are Fascists.

by D O hEochai - Socialist Party Mon Jun 03, 2002 21:29

Elk

You are assuming that my comments were directed at the postings you made. That is very presumptuous of you. As a general rule I do not engage in commenting on individual postings rather addressing the general topic instead. However, given the direct and erroneous attacks that you have made on the Socialist Party, I will make an exception this time.

In all the postings that you have made you suggest that the arguments used to deny the right to free speech could just as easily be applied to the far left as Fascism.

It is nothing new for people to argue that there is no difference between the far left and the far right. However, the people that argue this point normally come from an establishment viewpoint and use it to try and discredit the left. You have singled out the Socialist Party for your comments. But what you are doing is building fictitious paper castles in order to knock them down. You have not stated if you are a member of a political organisation or the political views that you hold. You do not express your own political ideas instead choosing to attack the political ideas of others (in this case the Socialist Party) on the basis of attacking an argument which was not made. By posing your arguments in the way you have you are actually serving as an apologist for the far right.

To address points you specifically raised from my last posting and the posting from Shane Kenna:

“The murder of the young Chinese student.”
Paper castle you created – Carried out by a Fascist Group. This murder was a Racist murder. Whether it was carried out by a Fascist group or not is not the point I was making. To summarise, if you were unable to understand it first time around. The BNP are actively recruiting in Ireland and will take confidence from the fact that this racist murder took place and attempt to step up their activities here as they clearly have. To suggest that this Racist murder will not have the effect of boosting Fascists in this country shows a complete lack desire on your part to ensure Fascism does not get a foothold in this country.

“What is the difference between the victory of Fascism and victory for the Socialist revolution.”
For you there may not be any difference, for working class people the difference is greater than any other that can exist. In attacking the Socialist Party, you attempt to equate us both with Fascism and Stalinism. The Socialist Party is Trotskyite in approach and outlook. Fascist regimes not only attacked Jews but also massacred Socialists, Communists, Gays, Disabled people, Gypsies etc. Stalin’s originally used the Tsarist prisons to imprison and murder Trotskyists and members of the Left Opposition. Trotsky, himself, was assassinated by an agent of Stalin. But there is as big a difference between Stalinism and Fascism as there is between chalk and cheese. Fascism is engineered to support and protect a dying Capitalist system. Stalinism is based on a planned economy and state monopoly of foreign trade. If you are unable to understand this difference I suggest you take a course in political education.

“No Platform means the jackboot and the baseball bat”
To refer once again to the quote I used from Hitler “If only they knew our intentions they could have smashed us before we ever became a threat”. As history has shown, in the interests of the working class, Fascist groups must be prevented from organising, including by using physical force if necessary. That is why we have organised and participated in counter demonstrations against Fascists. Fascists are not interested in the niceties of politics but in destroying all democratic rights.

“Your faith in the ability of the Socialist Party to decide who is Fascist and who is not and the raising of a new argument about the connection between Fascism and Racism.”

You state that many groups described as Fascist by the left do not engage in boot-boy tactics and some who are not described as Fascist do. Once again you are building a fictitious paper castle to knock down. The use of baseball bats is not the only criteria that is necessary in analysing a Fascist organisation, but all the groups Europe-wide currently considered Fascist by conscientious, ranging from Combat 18, NF and BNP in Britain, FN in France, Freedom Party in Austria etc. engage in such tactics. In talking about groups not considered by the left as being engaged in such tactics who are not considered Fascist, I assume you are talking about the IRA and other paramilitaries. This is an old argument used by the likes of Proinsias DeRossa and others from the old Democratic Left, as well as right wing politicians. If you had taken the time to educate yourself , you would know that the Socialist Party has consistently opposed the tactic of individual terrorism as exercised by these groups, but neither the IRA nor Sinn Fein are Fascist organisations.

“We would be better attacking the media for promoting Racism than worrying about these small Fascist groups”

What do you think Shane Kenna was doing in the original posting to this thread if not attacking the media. The Socialist Party consistently opposes Racism at every level of society. But we do not, and will not, ignore the threat posed by Fascist organisations as you seem quite happy to do.

Elk, if choose to respond to this posting, and I hope you do, have the courage and decency to express your own views and outline your own political affiliations, rather than attempting to bend other peoples point of view to serve your own purpose.

by Dearbhla Mon Jun 03, 2002 17:05

To 'lina' - its spellt 'fascism' actually.
Anyway, you should pay heed to content instead of showing up your foolish pettiness.

by lina Mon Jun 03, 2002 16:24

i think it is laughable that those who are moaning about facism cannot even spell the word.

the word facism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable".
george orwell

by Elk Mon Jun 03, 2002 15:22

“Remember the horrific murder recently of the Chinese student”

Connection with Fascism? This was carried out by Fascist group? Evidence to this effect?
Racism exists independently of Fascist groups – as is very obvious.

“The end result of the victory of Fascism is the annihilation of all democratic rights, including the right to free speech.”

The Socialist Party describe Russia pre1924 as a “healthy democratic worker’s state”,
What was the difference between that state and what you describe as the “end result of the victory of fascism”?

“Fascists do not argue with words or a pen and paper. Their tools of political expression are the jackboot, the flick-knife, the baseball bat etc.”

Aye which is ‘no platform’ is it not? No platform must mean – if it means anything – the boot and the bat.
Otherwise it is a meaningless slogan.

” i'd fight for the right for free speech.
But Fachsist just cant be allowed spread hate, and racism. The postition of no platform, is a way of dealing with fachism. Why allow Griffin and his comrades the right of say: im better than any blackman/woman because im white Or because im christian?
Why allow Griffin to spread his ideas? “
Shane you clearly are not for free speech if you deny it to people because you don’t like their ideas. What do you mean by “free speech” – free speech for everyone you agree with.
Free speech is free speech for everybody including Nick Griffin. (In any case the mainstream media does far, far more to promote racism than Fascist groups – for instance how many organized fascists are there in Ireland, yet there is racism.)

“no abstract, resolute stand for the principle of free speech even for Fascists will ever compensate for the damage they will inflict if they ever grow.”
“Finally my claim that RTÉ was wrong to broadcast this i believe stands.
NO PLATFORM FOR FACHISTS”
Etc… Etc… My faith in the ability of the Socialist Party to come to any criteria for determining who is and who isn’t a fascist has been somewhat shaken by the fact that the assorted posters seem to believe that I’m arguing against ‘no platform’ when I’m not doing anything of the sort:
All I’m doing is pointing out that YOUR arguments against Fascism and for no platform (not mine) are equally applicable to far left parties, and being that no platform is in contradiction with free speech you ought to have damn good reason for advocating it and a clear definition of who it is to be aimed at.
You have since came up with a new argument: the Fascism-Racism connection, in which case why direct your fire against the pitifully small Fascist groups, rather than the press and mainstream politicians who promote racism and put racist policies into effect.
Finally most groups described by the left as fascist do not wage war on the streets with boots and bats. Some groups not described by the left as fascist do. So you better try harder.

by darren Sun Jun 02, 2002 22:03

Essentially Fascism is about hatred: hatred of foreigners, jews, blacks, gays, 'genetic degenerates',etc..It's a really perverse ideology that seeks to impose monolithic consensus - their idea of dealing with the problems of Capitalism.
For this reason, we have a long and well-documented history of Fascism smashing all political dissent.
It does not tolerate dissent or opposition of any kind. And, historically, we have many examples of how it is nefarious to the interests of working peoples' struggles.
Yes, freedom of speech is important. And, yes, it's unfortunate that we have to advocate no platform for Fascists.
Many Fascists do not claim to stand in oppostion to free speech, but a lot of them are very clear that they do.
How do we distinguish between the two? We simply use the basic indicators of past and recent behaviour as a major starting point; theory follows later - we have plenty of examples of Nick Griffin's BNP attachments to violent individuals and groups, and why they have pursued this violence.
Most people who would undertake a serious study of the BNP would come to that conclusion, l suspect.
No platform for Nazis ever. In the abstract, it's nice to be able to extend freedom of speech even to those who stand against it. In practice, however, we will regret not having smashed them when they're still small. They are seriously dangerous; and no abstract, resolute stand for the principle of free speech even for Fascists will ever compensate for the damage they will inflict if they ever grow.

by spelling bee Sun Jun 02, 2002 20:34

learn to spell "fascist"

by shane Kenna Sun Jun 02, 2002 20:31

Elk,

I am for free speech, i'd fight for the right for free speech.

But Fachsist just cant be allowed spread hate, and racism. The postition of no platform, is a way of dealing with fachism. Why allow Griffin and his comrades the right of say: im better than any blackman/woman because im white Or because im christian?

Why allow Griffin to spread his ideas? its an unfortunate thing, but some people who have become disollusioned with capitalism will listen to this guy, look at what the BNP did in Oldham, Burnley and what Combat 18 did in dublin(at the Ireland match)if you want to get closer to home.

Mark raised a good point, he said why dont we let peado's on the internet so they can talk about what they want to do the kids...Fachists are the same as peados BASIC SCUM.

So you can take your argument that the no platform postition is wrong if you want, but I will say this.

You allow fachists to speak you will cause a major problems for us all in the future. Problems such as racial hate (look at what the BNP have claimed and indeed to an extent done in oldham), attacks on workers, less free speech, less rights to gather in free places etc...

Fachists are people who are extremely dangerous and should be silenced. If you give them a foot hold then ot would be very difficult to get the out. With "no platform" they cant organise as much as they'd like too.

Even look at believe it or not the british cente right media, they generally operate some what of no platform, Griffin is hardly interviewed live, hes mostly edited, and generally we dont hear what he has to say.

Finally my claim that RTÉ was wrong to broadcast this i believe stands.

NO PLATFORM FOR FACHISTS

by D O hEochai - Socialist Party Sun Jun 02, 2002 20:31

Two questions have arisen during this discussion:

1) What is Fascism?
2) Why deny Fascists free speech?

Both of these questions are very important and vital to understand in the fight against Fascism.

I will only briefly deal with both questions. For a more detailed explanation please get a copy of the following pamphlets (They are available from the Socialist Party):

1) Menace of Fascism – What it is and how to fight it – Ted Grant (Militant Pamphlet) (1949)
2) Fascism What it is and how to fight it– Leon Trotsky (1938)
3) Stop Irving – Mick Barry (Pamphlet about the campaign that stopped Fascist historian David Irving speaking at UCC a number of years ago.)

To answer the first question I am copying the following which is a quotation from the first pamphlet:

“Capitalism in its last stages not only reduces the working class, which it cannot provide with any security in either employment or sustenance, to the state of pauperism; it ruins also the middle class - small shopkeepers and businessmen, professional people, white collar workers, small traders and all those strata of the population whose social position is lodged between the industrial working class and the capitalist class.
To combat the working class it is not possible for the capitalists to rely only on the old forces of repression embodied in the state machine. In modern conditions no state can last very long which does not, at least in its initial stages, possess a mass basis. A military police dictatorship does not serve the purpose. The capitalists find a way out in fascism which finds its mass support in the middle class on the basis of anti-capitalist demagogy. It is important to understand that fascism represents a mass movement: that of the disillusioned middle class.
The working class, in times of crisis, seek to express their aspirations and struggle through their existing organisations. Joined together by production, organised as a class in large factories and plants, the workers think in terms of a socialist solution to their problems. Their social position gives rise to a social consciousness.
The middle class, because of their position in society, wedged half-way between the capitalists and the workers, sway between these classes. If the working class cannot show a revolutionary way out for the middle class, the latter turns to the capitalist class and becomes the main pillar of support for the fascist movement.
With the increasing rivalry on the world market, unable to secure their position while the organisations of the working class exist, the capitalists seek a way out of the crisis by the destruction of these organisations, thereby depriving the workers of the weapons through which they defend their rights and conditions. As the crisis affects one country after another, the capitalists look to fascist movements to smash the working-class organisations and parties. Herein lies the function of fascism.”

Fascist organisations exist on an ongoing basis, growing in many countries. As Nick Griffin is at pains to point out, they are actively recruiting in Ireland. We have not yet reached the stage of crisis within capitalism like the 1930’s (as outlined in the quotation) but we have to take steps now that we are not faced with a far greater task in the years to come. Remember the horrific murder recently of the Chinese student.

3) Why deny Fascists a public platform?

This can be a controversial question but perhaps one of the most important in the fight against Fascism. The end result of the victory of Fascism is the annihilation of all democratic rights, including the right to free speech. Hitler once said “If only they knew our intentions they could have smashed us before we ever became a threat”. By supporting the right of free speech for Fascists you are supporting their right to build a movement that is designed to smash all democratic rights including the right of free speech for everyone. The argument put forward that everyone should be allowed the right to free speech, and we can win the argument against Fascists, is in reality a utopian idea. Fascists do not argue with words or a pen and paper. Their tools of political expression are the jackboot, the flick-knife, the baseball bat etc. Their only reason for using “free speech” is to recruit individuals who are willing to engage in their tactics of the street. Quite recently during a demo in Limerick organised by the Socialist Party on the “Right of Refugees to Work”, a member of the Socialist Party was threatened with physical violence by a Fascist. Only for the numbers we had on the demo that threat could have been actually carried out.

As has been said, the right to free speech is not cast in stone. In the real world of the politics of the street allowing Fascists the right to free speech is to allow free speech to those who want to deny that right to everyone. In reality, by denying the right of free speech to Fascists we preserve the right of free speech, and all other democratic rights, for everyone else.

by Elk Sun Jun 02, 2002 15:22

"A lot of people here don't seem to understand the what Fascism actually is."

Well Mark we are not being enlightened by you on the subject, so could you please come up with somekinda definition of this.
I mean if you are about to deprive people of 'free speech' you had better have a better reason than you don't like their views or last time someone with their politics was in power they killed millions (the second reason might seem a good one, but it applies to far left parties equally).

by Mark - Socialist Party Sun Jun 02, 2002 10:34

A lot of people here don't seem to understand the what Fascism actually is. Censorship and media controll existed before fascsm. Dictatorships existed before fascism. Was Oliver Cromwell a Fascist? What about Napoleon? Neither were fascists, but they were dictators. They precided over the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie which can exist in this form or in the semi democratic form that we have here today. It is a class dictatorship. To maintain any type of state power a certain amount of censorship becomes necesary at times of crisis. What RTÉ did was invite over a british fascist who clearly had no mandate with the Irish people to promote his racist views. Joe Higgins, a democratically elected Socialist representative of the working class on the other hand gets scant press. And if you think that the middle class listeners of RTÉ 1 are immune to Fascism, wait a couple of years until the recession hits and people start losing their businesses.

by lina Sun Jun 02, 2002 01:20

rte should the right to interview whoever they want including the bnp.i found the interview amusing, in the same way that i laugh at bush when he is on telly.
nobody is going to go out and beat up muslims because they heard yer man speak on rte.
the vast majority of people that indulge in racist behavior listen to fm104 and would rather die than listen to a serious discussion on rte radio 1.
its "fachist" to suggest the media should be controlled .

by Mark Sat Jun 01, 2002 18:31

I actually didn't remember writing (AGHHH) until I logged on now, I was plastered.
Most people working class people I know (and being working class I know quite a lot of them ) though don't get scared by Bolshevism, they don't get particularly exited about it either though. They are more interested in what we actually stand for not the finer points of our movement's history. (By the way many of the victims of Stalins terror were Bolsheviks.) This fear of Bolshevism is a very petit bourgeois thing.
Voice doesn't talk about the Bolshevik tradition because it is a Newspaper not a thoretical journal. Its purpose is to publiscise news of the Party and workers struggles. Our political pamphlets on the other hand make no secret of our allignment.

by deedee Sat Jun 01, 2002 18:13

I think I saw one on the Discovery Channel once.

Seriously, though. What constitutes a working class person? Aren't the majority of us "working class" unless we are a) unemployed or b) won the lotto?

"real working class person"? Explain. How does one spot a fake? Perhaps Kevin Myers could write a helpful how-to.

by Elks Sat Jun 01, 2002 14:26

Strangely Hitler and Trotsky were not mentioned.
The argument above is the the political current to which Nick Griffin belongs (i.e. Fascism)when in power previously, slaughtered millions of people, therefore if we don't stop Nick Griffin now this will happen again. This is justification of 'No Platform', i.e. a curtailment of what would be known as, if it wasn't Griffin we were talking of, the 'right to free speech'.

That is NOT my argument, That is NOT my logic.

I'm merely pointing out that the same logic and the same argument could be equally applied to far left parties following an ideology which claimed far more lives than National Socialism.

You can't argue against the logic of your own argument with out refuting that argument so you resort to mindless insults and pretend that anyone with another opinion is an "anarchist".
Presumbly everyone who didn't vote for far left parties in the recent general election is an "anarchist".

As for "ordinary working class people" if you went to the vast majority of them in this country and said you stood in the tradition of the Russian Bolshevik/Communist Party , and were decorated with hammers and sickles, most of them would say "Russia......and something along the lines of dictatorship, tanks, prisons, Tianamon Square, etc...". *

Presumbly they are all "idiots" or "anarchists"!

* Why else does 'Voice' never mention the Leninist tradition, or never use traditional Leninist symbols. Much link the way B.N.P. election literature is not bedecked in swastikas.

by Mark Sat Jun 01, 2002 00:43

If you don't know the diferance between Trotsky and Hitler you are an Idiot. I'm sorry but i've just had it up to here with self rightous Anarchists who have never met a real working class erson in their lives.

by Elk Fri May 31, 2002 22:43

"Yes lets wait and let them take power"

"You open the door for another holocaust.."

Arguments such as these in favour of 'no platform' would be equally aplicable to organisations following the ideology which gave the world the gulag, the cultural revolution, etc..., etc... and created a holocaust far larger than that of National Socialism.

by Politicommie Fri May 31, 2002 20:54

Fascism must not be allowed a platform and the left must organise to make sure they don't. We are not talking about a nice comfy discussion about the rights and wrongs of the BNP;s politics. In Britain every major political party with support from the media are saying refugees are the problem. This allows the BNP to be credible and organise racist attacks on blacks and asians and also on the left. Allowign the BNP to appear respectable gives them the cover to spread and ultimately wipe out even the bare democracies we have under capitalism.
Saying fascists should have a platform is saying that Hitler and the Nazis should not have been crushed when small.
You open the door for another holocaust..

by Mark - Socialist Party Fri May 31, 2002 20:03 marconi68 at yahoo dot com

How about Paedophiles. Lets have them on telly talking about all the things they'd like to do to young kids!

by clinton Fri May 31, 2002 17:58

"As a Trotskyist Communist I stand opposed to fachism"

by saortinn Fri May 31, 2002 16:34

Censorship is not the answer. People must be armed with enough information to hear Griffin and realise that he's not to be trusted. Griffin is a clever bloke and therefore quite dangerous, he knows how to manipulate ideas and different situations. He was in America last year teaching the Klan a few PR tricks, like the ones he uses in Britain. He also wrote a letter to an Irish white supremicist website telling them they were going about things all wrong ...he then explained the course of action tey should take and followed this with an offer of help from the BNP. All bad news, but censorship? And Marian Finnucane would give you blood pressure if you listened to her too much, she is doing Ireland more damage than Griffin. She is symptomatic of the fourth estate in Ireland, think about it, Pat Kenny is one of the industry's luminaries; and the fact that RTE are government funded makes it even more disgraceful. But again censorship cannot be the answer.