Oxford Union and ‘free speech’
This article originally appeared in the weekly worker. We are publishing it here so discussion can take place.
JT
The decision by the Oxford Union debating society to give a platform to BNP leader Nick Griffin and holocaust denier David Irving provoked national controversy. James Turley digs through it all and argues for a particular application of the ‘no platform’ tactic
It was probably not the most edifying moment in the Oxford Union’s history. The elite debating society (not, as the name implies, the student union) was excoriated by almost every public figure in Britain this last week for its decision to invite the British National Party’s long-time leader Nick Griffin, along with infamous holocaust revisionist David Irving, to a debate on free speech – only the flightier liberal free speech advocates, and, of course, various dubious far-right luminaries, defended the decision.
In the event, the debate passed off successfully. A crew of 500-odd anti-fascists gathered outside and, using some clever tactics, managed to get 30 or so protesters into the building, where they temporarily occupied the platform. In the end, they managed only to delay the proceedings by half an hour, and force its rearrangement into two smaller debates.
Communists do not bend over backwards to help the reactionary organisations spread their views. Fascism is distinguished from its predecessors by being the last line of defence of class society against universal liberation. The revolting brutality for which it is infamous is not an accidental phenomenon, but a necessary function of its social role.
We are, and must be, fascism’s most vocal and steadfast opponents – if only because the fascists are certainly ours (first they came for the communists …). We do not abstract free speech from its proper place in the reality of its use in social intercourse, like the liberals, but
realise that the public statements of fascists are necessarily accompanied by the ‘hidden programme’ of violence against all their opponents.
The establishment reaction
This is not to say that we share the opinions of all who opposed the invitation, or are even united with them in any meaningful way.
Since this is not a time of extreme crisis, the bourgeois establishment was queuing up to denounce the proceedings. Julian Lewis MP, the shadow defence minister, publicly resigned his lifetime membership of the union. Some of his comments on BBC television were perceptive: “I think there are people who are confusing this with an issue of free speech,” he remarked.
“It’s not an issue of free speech to offer a privileged platform from a prestige organisation.”
However, he is, of course, articulating a typically elitist Tory position. In his resignation letter, he wrote: “[Irving and the BNP] have been exposed and discredited time and again by people vastly more qualified than you in arenas hugely more suited to the task than an undergraduate talking-shop, however venerable.” Which would be true, were he not talking about himself
and his parliamentary colleagues. As it is, it is a laughable proposition.
New Labour functionary Trevor Phillips, meanwhile, called the event a “disgrace”, fuming: “As a former president of the National Union of Students, I’m ashamed that this has happened” (although precisely what Phillips’ CV has to do with it is something of a mystery). His view, in its bald simplicity, was typical of the establishment reaction, which ran more or less along the lines of ‘The BNP are very, very bad, as are holocaust deniers. It’s a terrible disgrace.’
Of course, these people have a very good reason for being defensive. It would certainly be convenient for them to caricature the whole matter of the rising profile of the far right in terms of a cabal of devious evil-doers and their useful idiots. Unfortunately, the truth is that fascism
develops as a necessary excrescence of the capitalist system – a system defended and operated by the likes of Lewis and Phillips.
The bourgeoisie has proved itself consistently incapable of living up to its own ‘democratic’ PR, for the simple reason that it has no interest in defending democracy. Fascism may only be installed in times of severe crisis, but it is nevertheless used at all other times as a stick with
which to keep the self-activity of the masses to a minimum. ‘Vote for us,’ the ruling class says, ‘to keep the extremists out.’ The truth is that – for the time being – Nick Griffin is the useful idiot: for the likes of Trevor Phillips.
UAF
It is a shame that the Socialist Workers Party-dominated ‘united front’, Unite Against Fascism, is in its political approach of a piece with the bourgeois charlatans quoted. Throughout the run-up to this event, its pronouncements have been getting more and more hysterical. “Would you
give Hitler a platform?” asked the reliably incandescent Weyman Bennett. He refused an invitation to take part.
In the event, it was UAF which led the protests. And, sure enough, the slogans were directed almost wholly at how bad the BNP is. The one slogan with any positive content at all was the now infamous ‘Hope, not hate’.
The SWP has chosen to concentrate entirely on getting ‘respectable’, mainstream opinion on its side. As such, it has tailored its entire strategy around these figures’ programme. At best, it is the programme of patronising liberal ‘awareness’ campaigns and the like. At worst, the SWP has openly called for the state to send far-right figures to jail for ‘hate speech’, and enthusiastically feted the Racial and Religious Hatred Act last year.
This is deeply misguided. As I have mentioned, appealing to the bourgeois establishment’s ‘anti-fascist’ credentials is a dangerous illusion. What it is, in point of fact, is pro-capitalist, which means at certain times pro-fascist. To hand over the right to decide which political discourses are acceptable to the bourgeois state essentially amounts to printing out the train tickets to Dachau for the left, including the SWP – because you are giving these powers to a state apparatus which in times of extreme crisis will itself turn to fascism.
A better approach
It is in this way – and this way only – that communists defend the free speech of fascists. With regard to the bourgeois state, all opinions must be permissible. The main political lesson of Marxism is that this state, at any and all times, is the main enemy. It is what the ruling class deploys against us whenever we threaten its power. Furthermore, the ready-made state apparatuses that Nick Griffin aspires to acquire – police, army, prisons – are precisely what makes the prospect of fascist power so terrifying. The SWP approach, by contrast, ignores all this – thus it is useless to the anti-fascist struggle.
What does this mean, then, for anti-fascism on the campus? Firstly, the CPGB has traditionally sought to undermine the traditional focus in the far left on ‘no platform’ tactics. In my view (and in many of the more subtle no-platformers), reducing everything down to displays of physical
force or, in UAF’s case, liberal, ‘something must be done’ outrage is indeed a chimera.
Nevertheless, I would argue that communists must support, and fight for, no-platform policies on campuses – or at least when it comes to student unions. The reason for this is simple – student unions are not the state. In however distorted a fashion, they represent organs of self-organisation among students. Furthermore, they hold public general meetings at which such a policy can be regulated by students and any attempt to no-platform left organisations circumvented.
Given this, any appeals to rights of ‘free speech’ are bogus. Nick Griffin should be perfectly free, as far as the police are concerned, to write his crypto-fascist rubbish. That right is not infringed if I fail to invite him to give a speech in my living room – nor is it infringed if a body of students does the same. It is not even infringed if some militants from Antifa break his collarbone in the street. We should defend the rights of fascists only where and when our own rights are, by the same stroke, under threat.
In the case, however, of a university which has not passed a no-platform policy facing an invitation to fascist figures, and the failure of all available means to prevent the event from taking place (short, of course, of high court injunctions and the like), communists should not be squeamish about entering the debating chamber. If the meeting cannot be shut down, it is better to minimise the profit to fascists. Whether this means disrupting the meeting or simply refuting the racist bilge claim by claim is a matter of tactics.
What did Weyman Bennett, when it became clear that the attempts to stop the meeting had failed, have to lose by taking the platform? Why shouldn’t he admit defeat to the OU (who did – after all – win), cut his losses and do his best to expose Nick Griffin inside the hall? The only problem with this is that the entirely neutered political approach of UAF would
have played directly into the hands of an experienced dissembler such as Griffin.
It is these scenarios – and they are inevitable when the left is as weak as it is now – which invalidate attempts to elevate no-platform into a ‘basic principle’ of anti-fascist struggle. Basic principles are those that follow necessarily from the logic of fascism – for example,
the basic principle of organising our forces apart from, and against, the state follows from fascism’s relationship with that state. No tactic – however glorious its pedigree – must dominate a struggle by elevating itself into an untouchable dogma. In a struggle as important as anti-fascism, this applies a hundredfold.
The discussions with Nick Griffin and David Irving which took place on free speech at the Oxford Union on 26th November should never have happened. Comrade Turley writes that at times Communists must enter into debate with fascists. Comrade Turley also writes that we should not make dogma out of the ‘No Platform’ strategy currently pursued by the UAF and the British left. Whilst the UAF has achieved the mobilisation of thousands of people up and down the country it is essentially bereft of any coherent political leadership or strategy to face the growing strength of the BNP. In this period, the weakness of workers movement has enabled all kinds of unholy alliances with reactionary forces to be created. It is here we must fill the void, in our communities, campuses and workplaces we have to push the agenda of working class anti fascism.
It is essential that Communists discuss how to combat the rise of the BNP. For me the strategy of ‘No Platform’ whether on campuses, in our communities and workplaces must be vigorously pursued at all times. Not through pathetic and dangerous appeals to the state, but through the organisation of our class wherever the BNP tries to establish itself.
It is essential that as militants we root ourselves firmly in our communities. When the BNP attempt to set up shop in our communities we must organise amongst our community, and that means organising against any attempt for fascists to claim a public platform. When the BNP gain some power such as a few council seats and get a hold of a community racist abuse and violence increases dramatically. To not pursue a policy of no platform for fascists is dangerous and in the long run only emboldens the far right to the detriment of ourselves and ultimately our class.
In our workplaces would you allow the BNP’s union front Solidarity begin organising and give them a platform, even though we can pick them apart in arguments? No. Communists should rush headlong in mobilising the workers against such an invasion. By allowing the BNP a platform, even if defeated in argument legitimises the BNP in eyes of our fellow workers. If we can debate them, then we can tolerate them, if we can tolerate them what next? it’s a slipper slope that Communists must refuse to embark on.
Essentially by not pursuing a strategy of no platform for fascists we are allowing the far right breathing space to build and root itself. AFA and organised militant anti fascism kicked the NF off our streets in a bloody street war for our communities, are we to simply let the BNP in and carry on were the NF left off, or do we stop them now?
Chris,
I do not agree with you on this question. Despite enjoying James’ article and his critique of calling on the state to defeat the BNP, which Chris rightly reinforces. I thought that James however got things a little confused when it came to this ideas for a “specific application” of the no-platform tactic, which in my opinion is a sort of unconscious pandering towards some of the stuff the left says on this question. I realise I may actually be in a minority on this question though, and have more than once been accused of being “soft” on fascism, even by James himself if I remember correctly ;-) Obviously, I think this nonsense.
I don’t think it is Manics-esque question of “If we tolerate this, then our children will be next” but actually a question of tactics. I do not actually disagree with what Chris says in terms of working class self-organisation as the best counterweight to the threat of fascism, what I merely say is that the science of Marxist political strategy, if it is to be politically effective, must be firm in principle and flexible in tactics. To say “we will always boycott elections” or “we will always stand in elections” can only weaken our fight. Our tactical responses must be based on a concrete analysis of the situation itself, always flowing from the principle that socialism cannot come about through the election of a “socialist” government that uses the capitalist state machinery to implement reforms from on high.
These tactical considerations also apply to the fight against fascism. At times it might be correct to physically attack a demonstration or speech. Yet what if we are outnumbered? What if we are actually unable to pursue the policy of no-platform? Is it necessarily wrong for a principled working class speaker to speak on a platform with a BNP member and shame him or her in front of the working class? These, comrades, are tactical considerations. Broue’s account of the German Revolution recalls how early on in its political formation (i.e long before it actually started tosupport Fascism) the KPD Youth/student fraction would debate with young members of the NSDAP and actually win many of them to principled working class politics. Was this the wrong thing to do? Of course, at other times the KPD youth would be kicking the shit out of some of these people. It all flows from a concrete judgement of concrete circumstances. Oxford for example, could have seen a principled working class leader of UAF (not that there are many) stand up, explain the necessity of the working class organising to defeat these ideas by organising for the defeat of the capitalist state, by calling for the reformation of a Communist Party to do this, not by asking for the state to have more powers. He/she could have rubbished the palpable shite that Griffin and Irving came out with and got a huge audience to get his principled politics out to. What did the left do instead? Shouted loudly that the BNP should be banned and left the politics and questions of democracy and the debate to the Liberals to deal with – an all-too frequently occurring manifestation of a narrow and economistic political approach.
My belief at the moment is that the BNP and the rise of its populist racist shite is one of the numerous manifestations of the crisis of working class politics, as Chris rightly alludes to. One of the problems I have with today’s left is that it fails to take free speech within its own ranks seriously in any way. We must make clear that our battle at the moment, is for the large part a battle for truth amongst the working class – crucially both within the left and in the working class movement more generally.
As I say, I appreciate that I am probably in a minority on this question and look forward to the flak that I am invariably going to get…:-)
Sorry that this is a fairly rushed reply – lot on at the moment
Ben
Ben,
I would have to disagree that there is a question of tactics. It is a matter of principle, we do not give the fascists an ounce of legitimacy by allowing them a platform or sharing a platform, it is a slippery slope that our movement must not be willing to go down. I accept that we may not always be in such a position were we are in the majority or have the capacity to enforce the no platform strategy. Therefore we must look at ways of ensuring that we never get put in such a situation and that means stamping them before they have chance to root themselves and grow.
From my recollection there were no calls for the banning of the BNP through the state. I don’t think it would have been helpful for any comrade to enter that debating chamber. We had a real opportunity to shut the meeting down I still have the bruises! Shutting the meeting down and not allowing them to speak is far better than having a discussion with a bunch of liberal students and the fascists in the debating chamber.
I would also have to disagree with you on that the approach which was taken at Oxford and elsewhere is not an economistic approach, it is obvious that the SWP’s economism does infiltrate into the united front but I don’t think the approach of no platform and giving no legitimacy to the fascists is essentially an economistic political approach , it is the opposite of economism when carried out properly. The strategy of no platform for fascists will not arise itself out of the working class even though the overwhelming majority will be anti racist, it has to come about through the organisation of our class. This is the problem with the UAF it does not build a working class alternative in our communities, its strategy is predicated on voting anyone but the BNP. As Communists we must seek to overcome these problems by first getting our own house in order so that we may enter the fight against fascism succesfully and ruthlessly.
No Pasaran!
Chris
It is not a question of the left “allowing” the BNP a platform: they bypassed us, got suited, booted and elected. They won *themselves* a platform. They have it thanks to their own work and political sense comrade, not courtesy of our politeness. The group that engaged most in what you call a “bloody street battle” for the streets – Red Action and its ‘armed wing’ AFA – precisely recognised this and attempted to shift its tactics accordingly.
I think what they came up with was shit – ie: the IWCA – but at least it had the merit of recognising something had changed and new *tactics* (yes, that’s what this question consists of) were required.
We should not rule out violent action against the BNP, we should not rule debates. To do so *in advance* effectively cripples our work.
With communist greetings
Mark Fischer
Mark,
Ill clarify what i meant by allowing the BNP a platform. At any particular time when the BNP gain a foothold in a community be it through street work, elections or building a base in an area we must organise amongst that community, workplace or campus to effectively strangle their ability to spread their ideas. This means we organise to stop them from organising meetings, paper sales etc etc. This cannot be done with the UAF, or can it be done with the IWCA. Only by constituting a communist organisation which can show coherent political leadership will we be able to effectively challenge the rise of the BNP.
By not using the strategy of no platform fascists coupled with working class organisation leaves us in a very dangerous place, as i have said before; when the BNP get on the council or get a presence in a community racist abuse and violents increases.
No Pasaran!
Chris
I disagree with all on here. i don’t believe in the morality of trying to impose any sort of political censorship either by appealing for state bans or organising thugs to physically intimidate political adversaries.. And the majority of the public feel the same way. 80% of people polled believe the BNP is entitled to play a part in the political life of Britain. To organise a modern day AFA group would be the kiss of death for the left. besides of which the emergence of the internet where the BNP site is the most popular political site in Britain makes it impossible to stop the BNP getting it’s message out. In the days of the squads the idea was to attack BNP members before they got to meetings to deny them publicity. If anything like that is tried today it would be counter productive: the BNP would emblazon their website with news of the violence against them and pictures of injuried “patriots”which would foster an image of themselves with the public as persecuted victims of leftwing brutality.
If comrades haven’t seen my latest posting on this then they can here:
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/705/bnpperspect.html – it is also on my blog for comment/debate
Will respond to Alan here when I get a bit more time – I thought it would be a good idea to keep the discussion going by referring comrades to my latest article
wcg
Ben
You are all communist scum and have no place in a democracy or this land of the ENGLISH! I am an ex serving solier and am firuious silly little children such as yourselves are even allowed to opperate.
I do not vote nor support the BNP but this is a democracy won with blood, won with blood of the brave to give you the freedoms you are now abusing…freedoms that communism will deny you! The iron curtain came down 20 years ago, before many of you were born, for a reason….history will repeat and the BNP will grow stronger expenentially….fools!
You are right, the gains and freedoms we have in this ‘democratic’ society were won with blood and struggle. But the battle for these freedoms has not been fought abroad, it has been fought on our soil. Whatever freedoms we have were not given to us by a benevolent ruling class who thought it would be wonderful for the working classes to have the vote, to be allowed to organise in a trade union, to have the ability to organise with political freedom. They were won in situations were the force from below gave them no choice, the struggle of the working class is what must be credited with the gains we have achieved. If you want futher reflection on the blood shed for democracy consider the peterloo massacre (manchester) were working men, women and children campaigning for the working man’s vote were slaughtered by their countries own army. An actual ‘abuse’ of these freedoms we have won would be to ignore this struggle from below against the ruling class who have attempted to stem the political organisation and independence of the working class at every turn.
True democracy, the kind which we will always defend, is every person having the ability to control their lives. What control do we have in this society? We get to put an X on a ballot paper every 4 years to decide which of the ruling classes puppets we can watch in the theatre of parliament while the actual decisions that affect our lives (how we work, when we work, our working conditions, our living conditions, what we can afford to eat and do etc) are made by an unnacountable and self-serving capitalist class who have zero commitment to the futhering of our politcal freedoms. This ‘democracy’ you adore is a sham, a hollow reflection of true democracy, a means by which the state can pacify class conflict and give the illusion of people’s control.
After the horrors of Stalin and the Soviet Union, understandably you see democracy and communism as incompatible. Stalin and the Soviet Union where not communist and we do not support them or associate ourselves with them. Communism is the self-emancipation of the working class through revolution and the ultimate abolition of both class and state- clearly not reflected in the Stalinist authoritarian state that elevated a bureaucratic class to a position of privilige. I think it would be worthwhile for you to investigate genuine communism and its implications for democracy- http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm
Hopefully you can read this if you have time and hopefully you will continue to be ‘pissed off’ at the enemies of democracy.