the nature of the BNP
Sep 20 2009 18:36
Split from the Vote No to Lisbon topic here, as it was getting horribly off topic - http://libcom.org/forums/ireland/vote-no-lisbon-10092009
Connollyite wrote:
This is exactly the same argument that criticises the Left, for participating in elections means that you've abandoned your principles! Much the same in Ireland, where the Provisional Republican Movement is criticised for ''selling out'' because it became involved in elections.
It has nothing to do with participation in elections. Since, to the best of my knowledge there has never been an anti-electoralist principle within national socialism. It's entirely to do with the fact that their politics have moved from street fascism to far-right populism.
Quote:
The BNP are as fascist as they were when they were formed. The only difference is they've applied their theory ''on the streets''. When this did not influence politically, they analysed the successes of the far-right in Europe and adopted their Euro-nationalist concept.
Sorry, but this is clearly untrue. Look at the positions, arguments and practice of the BNP where they are on the ground. To pretend this is "just as fascist" as they were when they were a bunch of Hitler worshiping oddballs engaged in violent street politics in just mad.
Quote:
Because the far-right are being successful you actually consider it a success for the left and the working class because the BNP have in fact ''sold out''!? Not the other way round!
What are you talking about? I have no idea how you got this from my posts - I'm pretty clear that a far-right populist party with a large base electoral and activist base is far, far more dangerous than a bunch of sad cases holding Nazi rallies and failing to control the streets.
Quote:
And that is a rehash of the old German Stalinist/Social Democratic position, i.e. fascism equals reaction. Not recognising the qualitative differences is not only naive, but also very dangerous.
Well, please, demonstrate how the BNP are qualitatively different. Without referring to some pamphlet Nick Griffin wrote in the 80s or the Searchlight sourced backgrounds of some of their senior members.
Quote:
The state doesn't move the BNP to the right. It is the other way around. The BNP turns the state to the right by legitmising racism and putting it on the agenda.
Again, where on Earth are you getting this from? I said that the BNP will "be able to effectively use their electoral gains and respectability to push the debate further to the right", and you reply with "The BNP turns the state to the right by legitmising racism and putting it on the agenda.".
Quote:
Much like the militant neo-nazi's when petrol bombing Turkish hostels in Germany in the early nineties laid the groundwork for the turn of the state to the right. Primed in fact. That racism, from below is not unlike the racism from below that the BNP are perpetuating.
No, the BNP is completely different to some Neo-Nazi head cases fire bombing hostels. If you're unable to recognise this pretty basic fact and see what the BNP actually are as opposed to what you want them to be, then you're doomed to be just as hopeless at confronting them as the failed UAF/Hope not Hate tactics have been
Connollyite wrote:
And why do working people vote for the BNP over them? admin - they = leftists standing in elections against the BNP
A variety of reasons including and not limited to -
-The general collapse and failure of "the left" (in it's wider sense) over the past 20 years.
-The BNP just generally being far better at it, and being better at appealing to preconceived prejudices, the ability to offer "easy solutions" and better ability to read the populist political landscape.
-The BNP appearing to represent the ignored concerns of the white working class.
-The lefts general inability to properly articulate and push a progressive, anti-racist critique of multiculturalism.
-The BNP's ability to appear as an alternative to a widely discredited and corrupt status quo.
Sep 20 2009 18:53
#2
Quote:
You seem to consider the defining the feature of fascism is its violence. That was the point I was trying to make with the comparison to the Republican Movement. Instead of looking at the concrete political motivations and goals, you're concentrating on the method and means.So you don't consider the BNP as being fascist? If your analysis of fascism is based on a singular geo-political development during the thirties then it's no surprise there is no genuine anti-fascist movement in Britain!
No, I consider the defining feature of fascism to be fascist politics. Which the BNP does not have. They have extreme right politics, but not fascist. If the BNP's public policies and activities are not fascist, then it's really with you to prove that they are.
Fascism means something specific. It's a historically defined phenomena, in what way is it useful to apply it to groups who do not fall within this? How does it help you understand and combat the BNP to fit them into the 'fascist' box, because of the origins of the leadership? Would it be helpful in understanding the role and nature of the Labour Party to call it socialist, because much of the upper-echelons of the Labour Party previously held revolutionary socialist politics? No, of course it doesn't.
And if you remove fascism from it's historical meaning, then what are you left with? Fascism just as anything bad? Anything that is racist? Anything that is very authoritarian? Immigration detention centres fascist? This is the exact same logic that ends with Bush and Blair being labeled fascists.
Sep 20 2009 19:01
#3
Jack wrote:
Quote:
You seem to consider the defining the feature of fascism is its violence. That was the point I was trying to make with the comparison to the Republican Movement. Instead of looking at the concrete political motivations and goals, you're concentrating on the method and means.So you don't consider the BNP as being fascist? If your analysis of fascism is based on a singular geo-political development during the thirties then it's no surprise there is no genuine anti-fascist movement in Britain!
No, I consider the defining feature of fascism to be fascist politics. Which the BNP does not have. They have extreme right politics, but not fascist. If the BNP's public policies and activities are not fascist, then it's really with you to prove that they are.
Fascism means something specific. It's a historically defined phenomena, in what way is it useful to apply it to groups who do not fall within this? How does it help you understand and combat the BNP to fit them into the 'fascist' box, because of the origins of the leadership? Would it be helpful in understanding the role and nature of the Labour Party to call it socialist, because much of the upper-echelons of the Labour Party previously held revolutionary socialist politics? No, of course it doesn't.
And if you remove fascism from it's historical meaning, then what are you left with? Fascism just as anything bad? Anything that is racist? Anything that is very authoritarian? This is the exact same logic that ends with Bush and Blair being labeled fascists.
There are a lot of contradictions in what you just said there that I dont know where to begin. You say that fascism is historically defined. In that case the BNP are most definitely a fascist party!
It is this kind of argument which saw the NSWP come to power in Germany, as I said before, it is the old Stalinist/Social Democratic line which considered the fash as nothing but another bunch of conservatives. So what, because the BNP dont' call for the extermination of Jews and the setting up of concentration camps, and the raising of the Swastika they're not really fascists...
The fact that the BNP are a historically defined fascist party, have a fascist leadership does not mean that the majority of voters who vote BNP are ideological nazi's, of course not. But that is neither here nor there in this discussion which to be honest I don't know what it is about anymore... lol
Sep 20 2009 19:08
#4
Quote:
And if you remove fascism from it's historical meaning, then what are you left with?
What the fuck does that mean... That if you take the historical baggage of fascism away, it isn't fascism anymore! Fuckin' hell, that is the only thing keeping the BNP, FN etc back is it's historical baggage and the Holocaust albatross.
Sep 20 2009 19:13
#5
Connollyite wrote:
There are a lot of contradictions in what you just said there that I dont know where to begin. You say that fascism is historically defined. In that case the BNP are most definitely a fascist party!
Eh? Fascism is a specific historical phenomena. As in, it's not just a nasty word, it means something specific, a specific set of politics. The politics of the BNP fall outside of this. Therefore, it isn't useful to describe the BNP as fascist - if anything it's part of the whole process that allows the BNP to appear different from the discredited mainstream parties. Just because they aren't fascist doesn't make them any less repulsive - it just makes them different, and so different tactics are required.
Quote:
It is this kind of argument which saw the NSWP come to power in Germany, as I said before, it is the old Stalinist/Social Democratic line which considered the fash as nothing but another bunch of conservatives. So what, because the BNP dont' call for the extermination of Jews and the setting up of concentration camps, and the raising of the Swastika they're not really fascists...
And here we get to the rub of it. To be honest, if you want to have your fantasy 1930s recreation in your head, then go for it. I'll stick to 2009 and to what the BNP actually represent. You have fun trying to recreate the early 20th century and re-fight the battles of a bygone era, it's a common hobby amongst leftists.
Quote:
The fact that the BNP are a historically defined fascist party, have a fascist leadership does not mean that the majority of voters who vote BNP are ideological nazi's, of course not. But that is neither here nor there in this discussion which to be honest I don't know what it is about anymore... lol
So, basically, because the leadership have a neo-Nazi past, then that is all that counts. Not what the BNP do, not what they say, not their policies, not the overwhelming majority of their activists with no neo-Nazi background. It's just the Weimar Republic all over again.
Sep 20 2009 19:15
#6
Connollyite wrote:
Quote:
And if you remove fascism from it's historical meaning, then what are you left with?What the fuck does that mean... That if you take the historical baggage of fascism away, it isn't fascism anymore! Fuckin' hell, that is the only thing keeping the BNP, FN etc back is it's historical baggage and the Holocaust albatross.
and this is why UAF is working so well, I suppose?
Don't vote Nazi!
Sep 20 2009 19:18
#7
Quote:
And here we get to the rub of it. To be honest, if you want to have your fantasy 1930s recreation in your head, then go for it. I'll stick to 2009 and to what the BNP actually represent. You have fun trying to recreate the early 20th century and re-fight the battles of a bygone era, it's a common hobby amongst leftists.
Eh, you're the one who thinks that there are no more nazi's or fascists about since the Second World War, even though a fascist party in your own country is winning seats to Europe. But sure it's grand, they're just another bourgeois party, maaaan.
Sep 20 2009 19:21
#8
Jack wrote:
Connollyite wrote:
Quote:
And if you remove fascism from it's historical meaning, then what are you left with?What the fuck does that mean... That if you take the historical baggage of fascism away, it isn't fascism anymore! Fuckin' hell, that is the only thing keeping the BNP, FN etc back is it's historical baggage and the Holocaust albatross.
and this is why UAF is working so well, I suppose?
Don't vote Nazi!
The only group I know of in Britain who are competing for the same audience as the BNP and are relatively successful are the IWCA.
But I could be wrong, as I'm not in England.
Sep 20 2009 19:30
#9
Connollyite wrote:
Eh, you're the one who thinks that there are no more nazi's or fascists about since the Second World War, even though a fascist party in your own country is winning seats to Europe. But sure it's grand, they're just another bourgeois party, maaaan.
There are plenty of fascist and Nazi parties left - November 9th Society (if they're still going), BPP, National Front, BFF etc. etc. There are also probably a fair few fascists outside of such groups. However, I'm not particularly worried about them, since they're mostly just a rag tag bunch of social inadequates. I don't particularly like them, but I'm not going to shit myself about them, because genuine fascists in Britain are even more pathetic than the far left.
What is happening is that a far-right populist party (who you have repeatedly asserted are fascist, but haven't demonstrated why), with fascist roots is winning over a million votes, and helping push politics further and further to the right at a time of economic crisis. This is a problem in of itself, and is their views are fucking poison. No one is pretending the BNP aren't an issue, just that they aren't fucking secret Nazis waiting to get elected so they can build new gas chambers.
Yep, they are "another bourgeois party" (your term, not mine). One with particularly odious views, yes. But being disgusting right wing cunts isn't enough to make them fascists, since they lack the obvious qualification for being fascists, that is, fascist politics.
As I said, I'm far more worried that over a million people have voted for racial politics, than I am about the BNP seizing power, and building a new British Reich. Because, to let you in on a little secret you may have missed out on, that's not going to happen. Ever.
However, since just calling the BNP Nazi's/fascists and trying to expose them is working so well, then we might as well stick with what we've got, eh? Maybe next time it'll work, and people will see they are really fascists, and then they won't vote for them and will realise that racism is wery wery bad.
Sep 20 2009 19:33
#10
Connollyite wrote:
The only group I know of in Britain who are competing for the same audience as the BNP and are relatively successful are the IWCA.But I could be wrong, as I'm not in England.
Well, for all the criticisms I may have of the IWCA, at least they were attempting to respond to the BNP's move from fascism to far-right populism, something you appear to be unable to do.
Don't vote Nazi.
Sep 20 2009 19:35
#11
Sep 20 2009 19:42
#12
Quote:
However, since just calling the BNP Nazi's/fascists and trying to expose them is working so well, then we might as well stick with what we've got, eh? Maybe next time it'll work, and people will see they are really fascists, and then they won't vote for them and will realise that racism is wery wery bad.
I don't think anarchists or marxists or whatever have some kind of moral high ground over the BNP or any other fascist party. I dont thin ''outing'' fascists is of any use. People dont give a shit and most probably consider the crimes of ''communist'' Russia as being just as bad as Nazi Germany.
People are voting for the BNP because they have begun to try and address the everyday needs of the white working class. People on the left have still to come to the conclusion that everyday politics is the way forward. They think it is beyond them (possibly because they are not of the class), that they're diluting their 'revolutionary' tendency or ''selling out''.
Sep 20 2009 19:54
#13
Connollyite wrote:
I don't think anarchists or marxists or whatever have some kind of moral high ground over the BNP or any other fascist party. I dont thin ''outing'' fascists is of any use. People dont give a shit and most probably consider the crimes of ''communist'' Russia as being just as bad as Nazi Germany.
I actually don't think this is true - I think largely down to Nazi's being the big baddies in the modern British identity that Nazis are pretty much seen as the ultimate evil - hence the temptation to just want to paint the BNP as Nazis to dismiss them. But it's kinda beside the point - I agree with the general thrust that the legacy of the USSR isn't exactly a positive one amongst the working class.
Quote:
People are voting for the BNP because they have begun to try and address the everyday needs of the white working class. People on the left have still to come to the conclusion that everyday politics is the way forward. They think it is beyond them (possibly because they are not of the class), that they're diluting their 'revolutionary' tendency or ''selling out''.
So, basically the first 2 points I said on the first post of this thread -
Quote:
-The general collapse and failure of "the left" (in it's wider sense) over the past 20 years.
-The BNP just generally being far better at it, and being better at appealing to preconceived prejudices, the ability to offer "easy solutions" and better ability to read the populist political landscape.
-The BNP appearing to represent the ignored concerns of the white working class.
-The lefts general inability to properly articulate and push a progressive, anti-racist critique of multiculturalism.
-The BNP's ability to appear as an alternative to a widely discredited and corrupt status quo.
I completely agree that the majority of the left ignores issues that affect the everyday lives of the working class. As would pretty much everyone on this site. Hence we're involved in workplace organising, strike support, community campaigns as opposed to squats, summit hopping and glorifying 'heroic freedom fighters' in far off lands.
And that's the point with the BNP. They aren't going to be beaten by battering them off the streets or telling everyone they are horrible fascists. They can only be beaten on the issues they campaign on, by showing that their politics are a shitty dead-end for the working class - especially at a time like now where more than any time in the last 20 years there's a need for a class response to the crisis. The BNP aren't going to be beaten through anti-fascism, they'll be beaten by building a working class movement that is able to show that a class response is better and more effective than a racial one. If we can't do that, then we're fucked, and the racialisation of politics will continue unabated.
Sep 20 2009 19:59
#14
Quote:
And that's the point with the BNP. They aren't going to be beaten by battering them off the streets or telling everyone they are horrible fascists. They can only be beaten on the issues they campaign on, by showing that their politics are a shitty dead-end for the working class - especially at a time like now where more than any time in the last 20 years there's a need for a class response to the crisis. The BNP aren't going to be beaten through anti-fascism, they'll be beaten by building a working class movement that is able to show that a class response is better and more effective than a racial one. If we can't do that, then we're fucked, and the racialisation of politics will continue unabated.
And how will that be put to the test?
Sep 20 2009 20:04
#15
Well, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, won't it?
I don't think the working class resistance to capitalist offensive in the face of the crisis will be determined in the ballot box, if that's what you're after.
Sep 20 2009 20:28
#16
Connollyite wrote:
The only group I know of in Britain who are competing for the same audience as the BNP and are relatively successful are the IWCA.
But I could be wrong, as I'm not in England.
IWCA have lost votes recently and relative to the BNP they are tiny.
I don't want to sidetrack this because I'm not too up on the details but I think that the IWCA suffered from a lack of people on the ground to sustain the pace of work that got them where they were and they also didn't deliver real change (not that it was really in their power to do so)
Although ti seems odd to qualify such a big party (in terms of votes) as a protest party I think that's still what a large amount of the vote is. People don't seem to be holding the BNP to account when they don't deliver (although you could argue that increased political focus on immigration is something that they have delivered, you could also argue that the major political parties don't get held to account either)
The interesting thing is that there is no left protest vote. In France the communists (PCF) traditionally hold lots of areas (although recently the socialist party has targeted these areas to grow their vote, rather than right-wing ones in spite of electoral agreements between the two parties) but there are still parties like the LCR or the PT who pick up large protest votes. A friend of mine told me that her father votes for the fascists one election and the communists the next. the interseting thing is not how in a country with Britain's social problems a party liek the BNP could emerge the interesting thing is the left's failure to either manage an equivalent movement or a real grass-roots response.
Sep 20 2009 20:31
#17
Jack wrote:
Well, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, won't it?I don't think the working class resistance to capitalist offensive in the face of the crisis will be determined in the ballot box, if that's what you're after.
So, while the BNP slip into the mainstream during a recession the working class will organise along extra-curricular lines? Bollox.
It's actually quite frightening how the BNP have slipped into the political mainstream and anarchists don't realise.
Sep 20 2009 20:37
#18
Connollyite wrote:
So, while the BNP slip into the mainstream during a recession the working class will organise along extra-curricular lines? Bollox.
http://libcom.org/tags/visteon-occupation
http://libcom.org/tags/vestas-occupation
http://libcom.org/news/total-unions-reach-deal-oil-refinery-wildcats-26062009
"Bollox"
Quote:
It's actually quite frightening how the BNP have slipped into the political mainstream and anarchists don't realise.
I don't realise what has been pretty much of the thrust of my entire argument on this thread? 
Sep 20 2009 22:28
#19
Connollyite wrote:
It's actually quite frightening how the BNP have slipped into the political mainstream [...]
I think it's the other way around - I think what's changed is that the right-wing end of the political mainstream suddenly votes BNP.
If you look at who voted for the BNP in the Euro elections in May, their voters are not that different from the average - their right-wing politics differ in degree but not in nature from the mainstream. A YouGov poll from June is quite interesting (read the actual poll rather than the Channel 4 interpretation, which is quite misleading - they only look at the data for the BNP, but what you need to do is compare BNP votes to the average voter.)
There's only few genuine Nazis of the holocaust-denying type among BNP voters (2%). Basically, the average voter is pretty racist, and BNP voters are the same, just more so. For example only about twice as many BNP voters compared to average voter think that black people are stupid (33% vs 14%). 72% of BNP voters agree with the core BNP policy of sending immmigrant families "home" even if they were born in the UK - but so do 27% of all voters.
The most surprising finding for me is that 77% of BNP voters, and 40% of all voters believe that white people are the group that most suffers from unfair discrimination ; 70% of BNP voters, and 39% of all voters believe that Muslims are the group that most benefits from unfair advantages (!!). Figures like that make me wonder if I live in the same country as these people - it's obviously got no basis in reality.
Comparing their political pre-occupations to the average, BNP voter are a more concerned about immigration (87% vs 49%), about the war on terror (25% vs 16%), and about they EU (27% vs 15%); but they are less concerned about Health (22% vs 36%), poverty/pensions (26% vs 33%) , housing (13% vs 20%). This shows to me that BNP voters are not just underprivileged people who feel abandoned by New Labour when it comes to the social wage.
To my mind these political pre-occupations and paranoias clearly reflect one thing: right-wing tabloids. For many years, right-wing tabloids have promoted a certain kind of vicious nationalist resentment, that tells white Britons that they are entitled to be privileged , but that those disgusting Muslims and asylum seekers and EU bureaucrats, with their hooks and Gypsy thievery and straight bananas Brussels regulations, have come and taken away what rightfully belongs to the White British family.
IMO this attitude created by the tabloids is one big factor in the whole BNP breakthrough. Oh and BNP voters are more likely to read a newspapers than the average voter (82% vs 80%), and these papers are the Sun/Star (34% BNP vs 22% average ) and the Express/Mail (19% BNP vs 16% average).
A related factor is IMO the War on Teroor. The political class have promoted a fear of Muslims undermining "our" democracy and similar bullshit, which has made BNP-style xenophobia credible, even necessary, among a section of voters. This paranoia is clearly reflected in the YouGov poll, and it's visible not just among BNP voters. Thus the break-through of the BNP may partly be a long-term effect of the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sep 20 2009 22:49
#20
Quote:
To my mind these political pre-occupations and paranoias clearly reflect one thing: right-wing tabloids.
I hope you're listening to this, Weeler.
~J.
Sep 21 2009 11:48
#21
no1 wrote:
The most surprising finding for me is that 77% of BNP voters, and 40% of all voters believe that white people are the group that most suffers from unfair discrimination ; 70% of BNP voters, and 39% of all voters believe that Muslims are the group that most benefits from unfair advantages (!!). Figures like that make me wonder if I live in the same country as these people
you don't, those people are americans.
Sep 21 2009 18:10
#22
Jack wrote:
There are plenty of fascist and Nazi parties left - November 9th Society (if they're still going), BPP, National Front, BFF etc. etc.
The categorisation of these folk doesn't ultimately matter but what makes the National Front fascist, and the BNP not? Because the latter uses coded language and doesn't wear its politics on its sleeve?
If you had said Nazism was an apropos historical thing, then that'd be fair enough. But to say fascism is, especially when you identified current small fascists groups a few posts later, is odd. Unlike Nazism, it'd be wrong to identify fascism as being some sort of rigid, set in stone homogeneous movement. In the three fascist regimes in Europe circa 1930's, they differed on many things except authoritarian state rule.
Just because lefties wrongly shout Nazi at the BNP shouldn't mean we settle on them merely being your typical right wing party.
Sep 21 2009 18:36
#23
Will reply to body of post when home, but just on this -
Quote:
The categorisation of these folk doesn't ultimately matter but what makes the National Front fascist, and the BNP not? Because the latter uses coded language and doesn't wear its politics on its sleeve?
No. Not at all. Because I don't think the BNP are secret fascists. We can't just pull their mask off and find it was the grumpy Nazi caretaker from the start of the episode. 
I think one is fascist and the other isn't in the way that say Italy was and say Britain in the 1980s wasn't. Both were fucking repulsive, right wing, racist, authoritarian anti-working class regimes. But we have no issue saying one was fascist and the other was not.
Serious question - if the impossible happened, space- time ruptured and suddenly the BNP were in government. Do you really think they'd abolish democracy, set up death camps or other fascist stuff like that?
Sep 21 2009 19:02
#24
Well that'll do, that's the main but like I said, largely irrelevant point.
Unlike a Scooby Doo installment, I think we do know where the BNP wants to go. You're right in saying a party's inception doesn't define it later down the road. But the BNP is a relatively new party with the same faces that were involved with the NF at the helm. Do you think they've changed dramatically in that short time? Their way of doings things and what they say with regard to the party certainly have, granted. But Griffin himself said at the Klu Klux Klan meeting that they would be toning down the rhetoric to appeal to the wider mass. Their manifesto is written in a very guarded manner that has more to it than it lets on.
Fascism can accommodate democracy; there was a vying general in Franco's army that wanted a republic. But forced expulsions and to its logical end, death squads? I would fear so. It's precisely their dog whistle politics and quiet unassuming parliamentarianism that makes me think if there's a current credible fascist threat out of the ugly bunch, it's them. All hypothetical as you said, of course.
Sep 21 2009 22:47
#25
molly0000000s wrote:
Well that'll do, that's the main but like I said, largely irrelevant point.
Well, depends how you mean? I mean if you're just saying it doesn't matter if they are fascist or right populist, we still need to combat them, then I agree.
But surely if you want to defeat something, you need to understand it, and use your tactics appropriately. The tactics that worked in the 80s to stop the NF or 1980s BNP will not work now, because the modern BNP is completely different. This is the reason it's not irrelevant.
Quote:
Unlike a Scooby Doo installment, I think we do know where the BNP wants to go. You're right in saying a party's inception doesn't define it later down the road. But the BNP is a relatively new party with the same faces that were involved with the NF at the helm.
Well apparently see where the BNP wants to go completely differently. I think they'd be more than happy with being a mainstream far-right wing of the establishment. I mean I'm sure when they are lying in bed they may dream about coming to power, but they know perfectly well this won't happen, and have come to terms with this.
Quote:
Do you think they've changed dramatically in that short time? Their way of doings things and what they say with regard to the party certainly have, granted. But Griffin himself said at the Klu Klux Klan meeting that they would be toning down the rhetoric to appeal to the wider mass. Their manifesto is written in a very guarded manner that has more to it than it lets on.
15 years is a long time in politics - especially when you go from being a handful of perverts and head cases to over a million votes, 2 MEPs, the possibility of controlling a couple of councils and 10,000 activists. They got a sniff of power, and sold out. It's something those of us familiar with the left should be pretty well aware of!
Quote:
Fascism can accommodate democracy; there was a vying general in Franco's army that wanted a republic. But forced expulsions and to its logical end, death squads? I would fear so. It's precisely their dog whistle politics and quiet unassuming parliamentarianism that makes me think if there's a current credible fascist threat out of the ugly bunch, it's them. All hypothetical as you said, of course.
Nah, I just don't see it. They'd just be a (very) right wing capitalist party, and would be forced by the logic of capital to remain this. But, yep, too hypothetical to matter really, and that's my exact point - the fantasy gas chambers aren't the problem - the BNP are far, far more dangerous than that. I mean, fuck, I honestly wish it was that easy. But it's not, and it's going to take a lot more than anti-fascism to beat them - as I have argued the whole way through, we need to start seeing the BNP as a symptom of the racialisation of politics and not the problem.
Sep 21 2009 22:54
#26
Oh and sorry if I'm saying stuff you agree with as if you don't - I agree with your main point that (so long as you are able to deal with them tactically) it doesn't matter too much whether you theoretically define them as fascist ot not. Just to me, calling them fascist just leans too close to denouncing them as fascist baddies as opposed to taking them on directly on the issues that matter.
Sep 22 2009 09:13
#27
Aye, whether they are the far right or worse, we have to be able to deal with them tactically. As to why we can't repeat the past, I don't think it's the softening of fascist ideals. It's more the BNP's move to parliamentarianism first and foremost. I know the NF dabbled a bit, but they always had their jackboots on under their suit trousers. For me, it's a change in direction than ideology. They've never diluted what they've said so much as now. Also, the question of selling out to fascism is moot; they haven't traditionally had any principal nor tactical objections like we would to forming a mainstream party. The left neither.
As a footnote, it's probably worth mentioning the EDL. It's said that the BNP has links with them, like one of their members doing the EDL's website. Were this to be the case, that'd allow the BNP to project itself as a valid political party without the attached baggage of street fighting, despite being indirectly involved in it. Can't hurt neither, for them to point to fascists who do wear their politics on their sleeves (although ironically, the EDL forgot they were meant to be just anti-racists opposing Islamism) and say that's not us, we're not as bad as that.
Sep 22 2009 11:38
#28
Quote:
Do you really think they'd abolish democracy, set up death camps or other fascist stuff like that?
You're missing the point. Most people see fascist parties as being good patriots and nationalists who give a kicking to the reds and immigrants when they deserve it.
The 'final solution' was introduced step by step through a series of legislative measures. The fascist state is born out of the bourgeoise state, it does not replace it. The fascist state doesnt destroy the state or bourgeoise democracy like anarchism or marxism.
Sep 22 2009 12:03
#29
I think that fascism is a historically defined phenomenon and generally agree with the thrust of Jack's argument.
It's not the BNP who have armed goon squads breaking into houses and taking away men, women and children and locking them up for months at a time in sqaulid prisons. It's not the BNP who came out with the slogan "British jobs for British workers!" It's not the BNP who, for years now, have undertaken a campaign to demonise Muslims, Asians, blacks, Irish and so on and posed themselves as the defenders of the 'white working class' while remorselessly attacking working class conditions. It's the Labour Government and the rest of the detrius that hangs around it. This and the democracy that it defends is the main enemy. The BNP is a small, generally ineffective part of the British state. Herein lies the enemy.
Sep 22 2009 12:57
#30
baboon wrote:
It's not the BNP who, for years now, have undertaken a campaign to demonise Muslims, Asians, blacks, Irish and so on and posed themselves as the defenders of the 'white working class'.
Exactly, it was Brighton SolFed.
Reply by Connollyite as I was "splitting" the thread -