democracy and fascism

kon4m | 11.05.2002 14:49

does 'democracy', either as a political theory or as the genetically-modified version we live under, give the right to free speech to fascists as well?

I am really going through a shakesperian dilemma here: it all starts in the little conservative grim town of norwich, where the waters are usually pretty calm, except obviously from the chaos us 'wreckers' cause from time to time :) a while ago it came out that the owner of a little antique shop was putting BNP flyers on his windows as well as selling busts of hitler (alongside the queen and 'holy mary'!) ... the usual fascist scum that just deserves to have his shop burnt down you might think. well, after a first fairly big protest outside the shop that also got coverage on the local media and TV, things just started going weird: what you saw on the media was the ANL shouting the usual slogans and covering his window with stickers and this pretty tame-looking old man defending himself along the lines of: "this is a democracy and I have the right to express myself, it's them using the nazi tactics". bollocks you might think, but a lot of people (except obviously the SWP which proposed we convert him to socialism) actually saw that as, if not a 'valid' argument, a point that has to be reasoned with, and cannot be ignored. especially after the local paper run a piece basically saying: "the SWP (read=the Left) meets every week in town and you don't see the BNP (read=the Right) protesting them, because, unlike the SWP, they respect different views". clearly this is crap, 'cause we know what the BNP really stands for (and they don't have enough people in town for a protest!), but for many people on the left (not SWP!) here this represents a challenge. how do we respond to such accusations? does 'democracy' (what's left of it) also, unfortunately, give the fascists (therefore anti-democratic) a platform or should they not be allowed to use 'democracy' to promote anti-democratic ideas? where do you draw the line between what can be said and what cannot be said? I believe that 'democracy' doesn't give you the right to promote racism and discrimination, but a lot of people say this is just an 'opinion' and falls under the category of 'free speech' . they are turning it against us and saying: "look, it's them who's un-democractic, not us!" and many people believe that. clearly we know this 'democracy' is a circus show and isn't interesting how the anti-capitalist, anti-corporate, anti-government platform is ignored while so much space is given to the right? is there a clear strategy here, to divert the attention from the real issue? I guess what I'm trying to say is, how do we respond to those who say that 'everybody' (also the racists) has the right to free speech in a 'democracy', also considering our anti-capitalist critique to this so-called 'democracy', where we a are NOT allowed free speech?

In Solidarity,

kon4m

kon4m
e-mail: kon4m@hotmail.com

Comments

Hide the following 10 comments

Fascism versus Democracy

11.05.2002 15:57

I've been through much the same dilemmas in the past as yourself, and I think anyone who's ever attended an anti-Nazi demo has had to consider these thoughts. However, as the ANL consistently point out, where the Nazis are given any groundswell of strength, what we see is an increase in racial violence, and when they have councillors (eg), you can see a great deal besides - trade union repression, for example. The point is that even if the Nazis just restricted themselves to speech, which they plainly do not, all political speech is conative. It suggests a course of action, it urges action, otherwise it is pointless. So, when the Nazis talk about the need for a pure white Britain, there is an obvious way in which certain kinds of people will try and implement that proposal - by terror and violence against blacks and asians. Moreover, don't blacks and asians have the right to walk around and feel safe in this country - since it is supposed to be a democracy? Isn't it a basic democratic and human right that one should not constantly be exposed to propaganda urging your removal from the land covered by this nation-state? It is, of course, the BNP who seek to undermine democracy, and they are in no way equivalent to the left (or the SWP as you call it). Noone in the SWP has convictions for stabbings or bombings. Noone in the SWP has ever advocated violent actions against ethnic minorities (or anyone, really, except in self-defence). The SWP doesn't plant nail-bombs outside CBI conferences. By contrast, the BNP has always believed in the use of violence (consider Griffin's statement following Beackon's success about the need to back up "the slogan 'rights for whites' with well-directed fists and boots" ), and is plagued by criminals and violent thugs from top to bottom, (Lecomber, Griffin, Bennet, Treacy etc...). So, in essence, preventing the rise of Nazism wherever it appears, be it on the shopfront of some lower-middle class racist who wants to recall the glory days of the empire, or in the mainly white working class estates of Burnley, is actually about defending democracy. Democracy and the right to 'freedom of speech' cannot include rights for those who would subvert both. It is a little thing known as the exception which constitutes the rule.

lenin
mail e-mail: lenin138@yahoo.co.uk
Homepage: www.anl.org.uk

Mind your own business

11.05.2002 16:59

Ever heard of Free Speech? No, you in ANL so only thought/speech meeting your approval is OK. Very selfish

hvrstk knesnov

Knesnov, did you actually read my post???

11.05.2002 17:40

Knesnov, if you'd read my post, you'd already know I'd dealt with your arguments in advance. You'll have to do better than assuming Nazis are the same as everyone else - no other political group I am aware of has as its central dynamic the extermination of other 'races', culminating in concentration camps and gassings. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain to the black, asian and jewish people who post on this board why they should have to suffer the abuse meted out by Nazi thugs?

lenin

McCarthyist iggnorant fool

11.05.2002 19:51

what a typically Stalinist response from Lenin. just how many incidences have there been in history where governments and states have oppressed movements, parties and people in an attempt to 'protect democracy'? did i need to insult you by highlighting one?
your reasoning, lenin, would suggest you support the actions of senator McCarthy (who's justification was always that he was protecting democracy), and the council set up to investigate 'unamerican' (communist or socialist) activities. the same McCarthy that managed to get so much power by playing on peoples fears of 'the reds' that he managed to get ammendments to the constitution through, which effectively made america having a socialist government illegal!
my point is that it is dangerous to give someone the power to silence another because they 'threaten democracy'. ok so this is the BNP and they are just a bunch of racist biggots who could pose a real threat, but they don't pose as big a threat as censorship does! its a slipery slope to 1984 territory my friend.

euan

euan, what are you on about?

11.05.2002 20:07

Since when was the ANL a repressive government or state apparatus? The ANL is a popular movement of people against Nazis. It doesn't get any more complicated than that. We don't repress anyone - unlike the BNP, who want to ship off and harm a substantial portion of the UK population, because of their skin colour.
As for this equation with McCarthyism, when did any of the leftwing or communist organisations in the USA ever at any point plant bombs, engage in murder, riot, racial intimidation or anything like it? McCarthy, had he tried to stop the Ku Klux Klan attacking blacks in the South, then he might have been defending democracy. As it was, he was trying to stop perfectly harmless and democratic activities - unless you count meetings, leafleting and trade unions as being in the same category as firebombs, nailbombs, stabbings, beatings, hatemail and intimidation.
And, as you must be perfectly well aware, I am not a Stalinist and nor is the ANL. The ANL has no broader political programme than to prevent Nazis from attaining power in Britain. It has been mostly effective, compared to France, Italy, Austria, Holland, Norway, Denmark etc... But three councillors in Burnley will mean more racial attacks and beatings in the area - there is no escaping it. And so, we must act to curb their ability to harm local black and asian people, and we must do so in conjunction with local organisations. The march that is taking place today in Burnley is of particular import because it strongly asserts the opinions of the antiracist majority.

lenin

ANL boot boys

11.05.2002 20:53

The ANL has discredited itself on so many occasions - out come the yellow lollipops. You picketed then Talk Radio when one of the Lawrence 5 was being interviewed. You hate free speech. The people of Burnley have spoken but you won't listen -grow up, ANL

rowan carthy

democray

11.05.2002 21:58

The time is coming for confrontation.The threat is is growing.I believe in love,but this fascist thing is here amongst us and can not continue.We must fight.they are clever.

cooky
mail e-mail: cookycook@madasafish.com

bnp the tool of new labour

11.05.2002 22:23

The whole sway of current politics and events is towards a fascist state - new labour and once socialist types like Blunkett promote increased oppression all the time - smart identity cards for all with credit facilities aren't such a long time off. And look at Yarls Wood and its consequences. The poor on the sink estates are pissed off with reality as it's promoted by the media and the elite and the media, who'll scapegoat them as readily as 'illegal immigrants' That's while they'll vote overtly fascist and monkey to fuck the bastards who fuck them. But to recognise the nazis at the top may be a first step to ridding ourselves of them at all levels - from social democrat covert to BNP overt.

morality?

12.05.2002 03:33

I think the thing here when talking about the 'extreme right and how to deal with them' issue is that most of us, me included, don't consider the left and the right 'morally' equal, quite obviously you might say. but clearly this affects how we analize every situation and therefore when speaking of 'democracy', for example, we are clearly biased: the extreme right should NOT be given a platform, for almost 'moral' (trying to use this word as less as possible!) reasons, if not clearly for the practical ones, such as the violence their ideas incite to, for which we have many obvious examples in the past. this 'bias' is not necessarily a problem, and many will agree it's perfectly justified, but often I find many people are reluctant to admit that. especially when talking to someone in the 'mainstream'. I guess we could ask ourselves if 'morality' should be a part of the 'democratic' system at all? freedom of speech is freedom of speech. full stop, some would say. who decides what can be said and what cannot. and what will that lead to? maybe too often we follow our instincts and refuse to address what seem to me pretty important issues. are the other ways of fighting the 'extreme right too, such as education (considering that the 'far right' politics play a lot on ignorance). after all, even in the true democracy I hope to see one day, there's nothing to say the same threats won't arise. and how would we deal with them then? just to make it clear, I AM in the streets confronting the nazis, as I believe sometimes we do have to take the matter in our own hands against a real threat, I'd just like to understand better something that's been in the back of my head for a while.

does this make sense?

In Solidarity,

kon4m

kon4m
mail e-mail: kon4m@hotmail.com

Democracy or sham?

14.05.2002 17:18

No society ever, in the whole history of the world, has enjoyed absolute democracy, ever. And it's difficult to see how such a thing could exist. There is no paradox at all in denying a platform to Nazis, after all we suppress the activities of paedophiles as a society don't we? Nobody in their right mind would argue that this is "undemocratic"!

In solidarity, Mantrastic.

Mantrastic