British People’s Party no-platformed in Leeds
BPP: losers
by Robbie Folkard
On October 18, over 200 people, mainly students, took to the streets to protest against a demonstration in Leeds by the self-proclaimed Nazi British People’s Party; a group whose local organiser had just been imprisoned for having nail bombs ready to attack mosques, and a computer containing over 40,000 images of children being abused and raped. The BPP had planned to hold a demonstration against ‘black rap’ outside HMV as any opportunity to push its white supremacist views, and to see what response there was before their main national demonstration; this provoked outrage, and the BPP failed.
A counter-demonstration was called. Though it was split into several parts by the police, the main student section managed to push through police lines and occupy the area where the BPP had hoped to be for over two hours. Eventually the police brutally split this part of the demo and forced it to both ends of the street. It was only then that the BPP were allowed to hold their protest – little more than 10 of them. The problem for them was, there were at least 40 police officers at either end of the street with anti-fascists behind them. They could hand no leaflets out, and their shouts and even their megaphone were drowned out by the chants of the anti-fascists. So, despite the fact that they were physically there, they had been in effect no-platformed. What’s more, the public who were even further back behind police lines, were chanting our slogans.
The main movers behind the counter-demonstration, and those who led the student contingent, were not the usual Unite Against Fascism, but Workers Power’s youth group, Revolution. UAF were present, but there were very few of them. As opposed to the UAF approach of merely saying the BNP and BPP are Nazis, but going no further in an attempt to keep the movement ‘broad’, Revo put forward their own politics.
They blamed capitalism for all the problems that the BPP/BNP seek to capitalise on, and that the only way to beat them would be to unite as workers in a new party. This is something that would never be heard at a UAF-dominated rally, where all politics would be watered down; here there were attempts to put working class politics into the anti-fascist movement.
The whole affair itself does highlight a few things though. At first sight, the response to the BPP’s attempt to distribute their leaflets may seem a bit hysterical, but understandable. There is no mass fascist movement, one that is overtly British, and not a pale imitation of a German one 70 years ago – yet. This, of course, is not to say that we should wait until there is one. But it does pose the question of what we do now. Though there is merit in the idea of no-platforming the far right in cases such as Leeds, this should not be our only tactic. This certainly shouldn’t be the main focus of our activities.
What is more pertinent is the fact that the far right will grow at our expense unless we set our own house in order. This should be our main priority. Before we can seriously challenge the far right, we need to examine what alternative we are currently projecting to the working class at the moment. If the average worker looks at us, what do they see? A left that won’t promote its own politics, and is divided into a myriad of sects that fight each other, even though they have remarkably similar politics. In times of crisis, we cannot blame people for looking to the right rather than the left. In this sense, the rise of the far right is as much the fault of the far left as it is the mainstream parties.
Good report Robbie.
A few points.
(1) Isn’t there a danger in counter-posing organising actions against the fascists, no platforming them, etc, and building a revolutionary alternative?
This raise a more general question about the relationship between revolutionary ideas and action/practice.
Surely, the two things go hand in hand: the fight for a revolutionary alternative means organising students and workers in action, fighting to build the class struggle in the unions, etc.
The only way to demonstrate the truth of revolutionary politics is in practice: i.e. by fighting for revolutionary politics in the class struggle.
(2) Aren’t you constructing a bit of a straw man argument when you say, “though there is merit in the idea of no-platforming the far right in cases such as Leeds, this should not be our only tactic.” – who said it should be the only tactic? Even the SWP would not say this: they would say the fight for a political alternative is important. Of course, we both disagree with them on the nature of the proposed alternative.
(3) The left will never “put its own house in order” if this means dissolving all their organisations into a single party. The left groups are factions of a mass party that does not yet exist. Separate propaganda organisations actually serve a purpose: they make propaganda for different political strategies. Until large numbers of workers are organised in to a mass party – where debates can be had out in front of large sections of workers, not just the existing left activists – all serious differences will lead to splits. This is because there is no point in maintaining a false unity when dissenting voices can leave the organisation and make propaganda for their own strategy.
(4) Moreover, there is a big danger in posing left unity in this way. It suggests that until the left organisations unite in a single party – and they will never do this – then there is no hopes for the class struggle, no prospects of major victories, etc. Such an approach would be bad enough in workers’ struggles – in the anti-fascist struggle it could be disastrous.
Luke,
on your points…
1. “Isn’t there a danger in counter-posing organising actions against the fascists, no platforming them, etc, and building a revolutionary alternative?”
Yes, but Robbie wasn’t doing this. What he did say was that “Before we can SERIOUSLY challenge the far right, we need to examine what alternative we are currently projecting to the working class at the moment.” I.e. we can and must challenge fascist groups NOW that threaten members of our class and oppressed sections of society – we must do what we can. But, at present we cannot do much. While the action in Leeds was great in that it stopped the BPP from doing what they wanted to do, in how many other towns and cities in the UK would they meet a similar response? And across West Yorkshire, the fascists are hardly unable to organise are they? While I salute those that ruined the BPP’s day in Leeds, if we are to be able to consistently keep the fascists off our streets across the UK then we need to create a much stronger and more effective left.
You say that “The only way to demonstrate the truth of revolutionary politics is in practice: i.e. by fighting for revolutionary politics in the class struggle.”
While in the final analysis this is true, its truth can only really be confirmed by our victory in the class struggle – not just our participation. Until this victory all proofs will be partial. And it is not the case that the practices of the tiny, unrooted groups that make up the far-left at the moment can really prove anything in practice. People will be one to Marxism because of both the ideas and actions of Marxists.
2. Fair enough. Though we all know that in their practical work in UAF (rather than their theory which is rather divorced from practice) they consistently fail to argue for the political alternative which they supposedly support – socialism. I’m sure you remember just as well as I when they voted to expel you from Leeds Uni UAF after you had one the local group to support the conference against Islamophobia. They said UAF had to be strictly about fighting fascism, not broader things like racism.
3. You are very pessimistic about this, and fail to take into account the role of struggle in the formation of a party. There has to be a fight to win advanced workers (the left) to a partyist project, and in the process of this fight cleanse the left of much of its accumulated shit. And this fight is not divorced from the class struggle as economistic morons keep telling me, but its highest manifestation. Defeating Labourism and sectarianism and winning for itself a communist party is the most pressing task our class faces. Until we have done this, all our actions are necessarily amaturish.
If you can accept that “The left groups are factions of a mass party that does not yet exist”, [though this phrase is marred by its failure to recognise the movements and changes that must take place in the process of forming a party] if you can recognise this then you should be insisting that the left get its act together and make this party a reality. This would be much better than begging the labour bureaucrats like Matt Wrack to set up a ‘workers party’. We must fight for what is necessary – a communist party.
You say, “there is no point in maintaining a false unity when dissenting voices can leave the organisation and make propaganda for their own strategy.” We are not interested in false unity, as I have said the fight for a party needs to radically change the left before that party can be real. But the impulse you describe here is a prime example of the sectarianism that must be dealt some serious blows before a communist party can be won.
4. I have dealt with this kind of argument above, but just to reiterate… It is not that we can do nothing now – there are always fights that must be fought. But to start fighting seriously and put the question of actually winning the class struggle on the agenda then we need a party. I cannot repeat the word enough … party, party, party. If you fail to recognise its importance then anarchism beckons.
Comradely,
Dave.
I agree with a lot of your comments, Luke. You are right when you say revolutionary ideas should be proven in practise, and organising students and workers is essential, however the extent that we can prove them is limited; besides, you have to put forward your revolutionary ideas first (which to Revo’s credit they were actually doing, whereas those in UAF consciously don’t). I didn’t mean in my letter that actions like Leeds could not be part of building a revolutionary alternative, far from it.
Neither did I mean that everyone there thought that an action like Leeds was the only action needed. But talking to people on the demo, some anarchists thought this was all that was needed to defeat fascism (apart from picking off various BPP members later), whilst some UAFers I have spoken to have said that we don’t need to pose that serious an alternative, we only need to inform ‘the people’ that the BNP etc are Nazis, which would break the their base of support, since people would then just vote for one of the ‘respectable’ policies. It is abhorrent to many SWPers that we should try to inject class politics into the struggle against the BNP, they have said so in many a meeting (including ones in Manchester organised to discuss anti-fascist strategy amongst the Manchester left).
I mean, some people seemed genuinely shocked in the Racism and Fascism session at the AEIP conference, when one person suggested that the Labour government was implementing some of the BNP’s racist policies without arguing for them in such terms, and that therefore we should be targetting the majority of our fire on them, some people seemed genuinely shocked- the idea that the capitalist state and the ‘respectable’ parties are a far bigger enemy than the BNP, as presently constituted, seemed absurd. That is worrying. Obviously groups like Revo don’t see actions like Leeds as the only weapon in our armour.
I never meant to suggest that the left should unite on false unity. A lot of the left’s stale and quite frankly absurd ideas will have to be rigorously fought against and defeated before there is any serious potential for left unity. Of course, the groups on the left will have to take their purported politics serious first, and honestly present them before we can unite, we will have to move past the idea that the left can only unite in ‘broad’ projects like Respect.
Of course there is a prospect of class struggle and winning victories when the left is divided into a myriad of sects rather than a single revolutionary party; but the prospect of success is immeasurably increased with the latter. ‘United fronts’ (especially the like of UAF, Stop the War etc) will have a limited success when a sect culture is in existence. I certainly believe if we are to win a major victory, then a united left will be needed, the current nature of the left will always get in the way; the control-freakery of the SWP to name one example. Many groups on the left put their sect before the class; while this is the case, then our ability to win will be dramatically reduced, especially with many of the strategies put forward by these groups.
The battle to unite the left on a principled, revolutionary basis will be a bloody one, but a necessary one. While the left remains as it is, we will remain weak. This doesn’t mean of course, that we shouldn’t stop trying to intervene in the class struggle or against the threat of fascism, or attempt to win, we would be betraying our class if we didn’t; but we have to be serious about our prospects of such an eventuality, and fight to change them.
Robbie.
Hi comrades,
Thanks for your reply. I don’t have time to reply in any depth to your comments – this week’s a bit of a nightmare.
I was careful in posing my criticisms of Robbie’s article precisely because I thought it was a good report, so fair play on that score.
The crux of our difference is of course on “left unity”. Although you raise “begging Mack Wrack” to join a party, etc, Dave and this reveals a difference on how we fight reformism in the workers’ movement, whether you place demands on the leaders of the movement, and so on, which I won’t go into now.
You’re confusion comes with mixing up the vanguard of the working class and the left, and therefore you see arguing for a united-left-communist-party as arguing for a vanguard party. But this is wrong. Of course the left is part of the vanguard but it is not “the vanguard”. The vanguard is a relative term – to talk of a vanguard you are talking about the relationship of one section of workers to the rest of the class, ie the most advanced sections in relation to the more backward sections.
The point is we need a party of the workers’ vanguard. This includes not just the left, but striking bus workers, tube workers, etc, all militants appalled by Brownism and Blairism and who see the need for an alternative, etc.
I agree that we can only achieve a partial verification of our programme insofar as a section of the class is not fighting around it at the moment. But the point is the left needs to have the debate on programme out in front of larger sections of workers and it must be for the workers, organised in a new, mass party to decide which programme to adopt.
Until such time as we have a real vanguard party of the class, then each of the left groups need to go to the vanguard and fight for their respective programmes – not just argue amongst themselves.
I agree we need unity, we need to fight opportunism, we need to fight sectarianism in the left. But we must fight for unity in action – ie unite around the need for a new party, around building a fighting student movement, a rank and file movement in the unions, co-ordinations of workers in struggle.
These are all things the left can – and must – unite on. We can’t do that if we unite around a abstractly “Marxist” programme, which we can all agree on but in fact only serves to disguise our serious differences on strategy.
Luke