Griffin and BNP strategy

[The39thStep]

Joe, can you edit the above post as the way it initially presents itself is as a quote from Rmp3 rather than a contribution from you.

 

[Joe Reilly]

Joe, can you edit the above post as the way it initially presents itself is as a quote from Rmp3 rather than a contribution from you.

Better?

 

[The39thStep]

Better?

sound as a pound

 

[krink]

I was watching some documentaries about griffin/bnp at the weekend and they always seemed to be wanting to follow the lead of French fash Le Pen's FN party. Now that the BNP are destroying themselves it seems they will never have the chance to achieve this aim.

My question is, if the BNP's history is placed alongside the FN's history, did the BNP ever come close to mirroring the FN's achievements?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I was watching some documentaries about griffin/bnp at the weekend and they always seemed to be wanting to follow the lead of French fash Le Pen's FN party. Now that the BNP are destroying themselves it seems they will never have the chance to achieve this aim.

My question is, if the BNP's history is placed alongside the FN's history, did the BNP ever come close to mirroring the FN's achievements?

Electorally, no. Arguably that's the result of racist nationalism (as opposed to faism, which is abit of a mislabelling, IMO) being somewhat closer to the surface of French politics that in Britain, and because manifestations of egregiously-racist nationalist policies are more historically-recent for the French, as well as racist nationalism having never taken deep roots in British politics. There has been plenty of implicit racism, but little that has been explicit. The BUF failed even more miserably than the BNP have.

IMO the issue is whether the British hard-right learn from Griffin's tenure or not. Personally I'd like to see the hard right continue to splutter, but that'll only happen if they continue their predeliction for in-fighting and inter-right rivalry.

 

[TremulousTetra]

good article! However, I would redress the balance by saying, the criticism of the KPD is a criticism of comrades. It is not a matter of SDP good, KPD bad.in fact quite the reverse.

Chris Harman book 1919-1923, Germany's Lost Revolution, makes quite clear the despicable role the SDP played in German politics. Especially its counterrevolutionary actions. And so the criticism of the KPD is based upon, what should revolutionaries have done to defend the interests of the working class, themselves, and promote revolution.

"By Stalin's logic every other party, not just the SPD, was "fascist", including the 'Trotsky-fascists' and there would be no difference if the Nazis came to power. This led the KPD leaders to believe Hitler coming to office would be the last capitalist government, opening the way to the KPD taking power."
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/3701
massive mistakes were made by stallin.and the KPD, like the British Communist Party, were filled with many good revolutionary socialist who were mistaken in being puppets of stalin's imperialist interests.this is what is being criticised in my opinion, rather than the revolutionary commitment of some of the most heroic and finest revolutionaries.

the criticism of the KPD is based upon the analogy made by Trotsky. Trotsky talks of a workplace, where the fascist on one side, and a revolutionary on the other side, and the vast majority of the working class and middle. The fascist tries to influence the workplace towards fascism, and the revolutionary socialist oppositely. This is the lens through which the role of the KPD is analysed. It is being criticised for ultra-leftism, when maximum unity of the WORKING-CLASS was needed, to defend what you've got so you can push on for something better.the article is absolutely right, that the analysis is as much about today, as it is about the past. It is as much about self-criticism, as it is about criticism of the KPD. It is about learning the lessons of history.

Behind the banners of the SPD and the KPD were millions of workers. Beyond their membership, they had massive support. In free elections, socialist and communist votes always, apart from July 1932, outpolled Hitler.

As a line of argument it would be a lot more convincing had Chris Bambery not accused the KPD fighters of enjoying a 'laddish lifestyle' (Is there any doubt who his contemporary targets were in the mid-1990's?) socially 'fraternising' with Nazis in taverns, 'joint picket lines', a cross over in paramiltary membership and so on.

Just in case anyone is curious about the fraternisation allegation, the one example provided by Bambery is taken from Beating the Fascists? by Eve Rosenhaft, where she recounts how a group of passing brown-shirts were invited to join some communists in a Christmas drink.

Bambery leaves the reader to ponder that scene and goes on to extrapolate about the inherent dangers of political violence per se.

Tellingly he omitted to mention the viscious brawl that followed, with one SA member dying of stab wounds a month later.

Oddly enough sharing pubs with the NF was also the 'comradely' accusation laid against the squadists in the early 80's, at the same time as a nascent RA were clearing the NF out of Chapel Market in Islington, the official SWP line recomended activists abandon sales pitches to the NF, where the fascists wouldn't share them.

your article accused Paul Foot being a barefaced liar, and you're alluding to the same with Bamberry. They are not here to defend themselves, and I am not capable. The question I was addressing, was why so hypercritical of the KPD when learning the lessons of fighting fascism, whilst to some extent ignoring the greater crimes of the SDP? Why, let's say to be more gracious, the bending of the stick to make the point?

To be honest, when you look at my "line of argument" "It [the KPD] is being criticised for ultra-leftism, when maximum unity of the WORKING-CLASS was needed, to defend what you've got so you can push on for something better.the article is absolutely right, that the analysis is as much about today, as it is about the past. It is as much about self-criticism, as it is about criticism of the KPD. It is about learning the lessons of history."
your our post only adds to what I have said there. The criticisms of comrades of the present and the past, is to learn the lessons of history. Which are what for the SWP?

there are many. But one in particular; from your article. "Central to this inertia is that notion that fascism was an ‘inexplicable aberration’, and could, had tactics differed a fraction, been entirely avoided, Hitler could have been stopped by entirely legal and, most importantly, non-violent methods. By constitutional means, by democratic elections, by, in a word -pacifism." I have never seen the SWP anywhere promote pacifism. Certainly not in fighting the fascist. What they do draw a distinction between, is using violence against the fascists by a minority on behalf of the working class, and the mass violence against the fascists by the working-class. Whilst violence is not the only string to the SW bow in fighting the fascist, they oppose the former whilst promoting the latter when tactically expedient/possible. For you cannot promote violence against the fascist by a mass of the working-class, if such mass unity does not exist. If like the KPD you do nothing to promote it, in fact do things to get in the way of it 1. "social fascist lable etc", and have an analysis which denies the scale of the threat 2 "fascist's are no different to any other government". If ANYTHING, the lesson of the KPD is, violence against the fascist by a minority is doomed to failure.

So whilst your article is good, possibly exposing some inaccuracies in the SW historicism, the SW remain true to their strategic aims for every sphere of politics they have been involved in, promoting mass activity above minority activity.

ps. I say possibly exposing inaccuracies of the SWP historicism, I have no evidence to suggest you are wrong, but also those people are not here to defend themselves.

ETA;

2) While Stalin can be blamed, so must Germany's historical development for producing a nation populated by a middle and ruling class whose default politics was to install a dictator or other absolute ruler. Without that willingness, and without the constitutional tools to bring this about that were left in the Weimar constitution "just in case", Germany would have been fascist or near-fascist but probably not Nazi, or anything near as murderous.

while this is all correct, the focus of the revolutionaries, rather than historians, has to be surely to learn those mistakes that revolutionaries made, so you don't repeat them. This is the lense through which the SW looks hypocritically upon the KPD.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I believe that by the mid-nineties, he'd realised that neo-Nazism was a busted flush, and that fascism per se, as opposed to a politics that contained elements of fascism, but was based on democracy, wouldn't work. In this he'd been preceded by most of the right in Europe, so he had plenty of examples through which to illustrate his ideas to his followers.
Was he ever a fascist or a neo-Nazi? Of course he was, but many of those members of the BNP who you could have legitimately called "fascists" pissed off when Griffin began to atempt to turn the BNP into an electable political party.

once you let the genie out of the bottle, or more importantly into government, there is no saying where it will end. Could a BNP once elected democratically, turn an elected governance into dictatorship? To the majority of his audiences Hitler always concealed such intentions. But let's accept your argument.

More importantly, what is the result of all your study, for revolutionaries? Whilst I accept it may possibly be a very accurate historical record you hold in your head, what are the lessons for people such as you and I today, if we WERE a fascist party growing towards office? What tactics should we use?

 

[Pickman's model]

your article accused Paul Foot being a barefaced liar, and you're alluding to the same with Bamberry. They are not here to defend themselves, and I am not capable.

i am glad you finally recognise reality

 

[TremulousTetra]

I disagree that coalition would have made a difference. In fact given the nature of most coalitions we cannot be sure that a KPD-SPD coalition wouldn't have hastened fascism, given the nature of the political opposition and their links to the apparatus of state power.

As for Hitler, I agree that Hitler himself wasn't inevitable, but a fascist or near-fascist dictatorship? That was almost inevitable for Germany. What wasn't inevitable was what came with the dictatorship.

one of the points of the united front is support the reformist party like the rope supports the hanged man. So any working in coalition KPD-SPD, would be done so on a class basis. Not supporting assaults upon the working class, but supporting any interest of the working class, such as putting a brake upon the advancement of fascist to power. What for? Well one is a defensive action, acting as a brake upon fascism, but there is also an offensive reason.

Only partially-accurate. Another part of the attractiveness was rearmament and everything (incl. militarisation) that went with it.

you absolutely right about the attractiveness of rearmament, not only for short-term profits, but also breaking into the much envied resources of the empires, from which Germany due to its lateness was a "landlocked" from. BUT are you arguing these long-term aims had primacy over their fear of the working class? I would argue the prime concern for the ruling class when they GAVE Hitler power, was the threat of the working class. Why? The potential WAS there.

It's not black and white. We know that the Brownshirts were an agglomeration of people from different classes who stepped onto the Nazi traain at different times. There were a hard-core of former enlisted men who'd come to the NSDAP through the Freikorps movement, plus a significant "spine" of junior and middle-rank officers. There were those (mostly early recruits) who actually believed that Hitler would deliver socialism, there were the mostly rural peasant class of what we might call "yeoman" rank, who owned their own land and believed Hitler on the subject of land reform as well as lebensraum.
Although you can eventually grade all this in terms of class membership, you need to bear in mind that Hitler preached to different audiences at different times, and delivered different sermons. The SA had a cross-class membership at least partly because of this.
BTW, didn't suggest that the SPD weren't "prone to street-fighting", both Joe and I said that the SPD hierarchy forbade their members participation in street-fighting (perish the thought that they engage is "squaddism", eh? ).

land reform, socialism, and anticapitalism were major parts of the Bolsheviks message, and were/should have been major parts of the KPD offensive to attract those underlined above from the fascist's. But more than just good slogans was needed to attract these people. Why was Goebbels writing in his diary, the cadre is leaving en masse to join the KPD? Why were they leaving? Because the Nazis did not look like at that moment like they could deliver on their promises. How much more realistic alternative would revolutionary politics of the Bolshevik/KPD if at this moment it was making major inroads into gaining support from the reformist working class members of the SDP? By working with the SDP members of the working class, attracting those with a reformist consciousness to a revolutionary consciousness. Unfortunately the working class is imbued with the muck of ages. It demands leadership. The trick is to provide that leadership/poll of attraction, whilst constantly pushing power down to the rank-and-file. Bolshevik rather than the Stalinist strategy, could have made the KPD look like a much more viable alternative.

The historic and social currents in the middle and upper classes - guiding the hands of those with power and influence - made some form of right-wing dictatorship nigh on inevitable in Germany, regardless of physical and/or political resistance from the left.

and all the historic and social currents in Russia made some kind of revolution in Russia inevitable? No!, Historians point of view I think you're probably right VP, but not from the revolutionaries in my humble opinion.

PS. I acknowledge again your greater knowledge than mine on this topic, but I find the arguments of other people at least equally knowledgeable on this topic more convincing.

 

[TremulousTetra]

i am glad you finally recognise reality

nothing finally about it, I've always been aware of the severity of my intellectual limitations.

By arguing with people from the SWP in the way I do on here, I learned a lot. Arguing with you, I've learned nothing. Except of course, the SWP works on behalf of the state. http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/conspiraloons-in-the-ascendancy.233071/

 

[Pickman's model]

nothing finally about it, I've always been aware of the severity of my intellectual limitations.

yes, you're a man with much to be modest about

By arguing with people from the SWP in the way I do on here, I learned a lot. Arguing with you, I've learned nothing. Except of course, the SWP works on behalf of the state. http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/conspiraloons-in-the-ascendancy.233071/

there isn't even a post of mine on that page

 

[ViolentPanda]

once you let the genie out of the bottle, or more importantly into government, there is no saying where it will end.

Which is an excellent argument in support of dictatorship, proscription etc., but not an argument anyone who didn't value political freedom would usually make.

Could a BNP once elected democratically, turn an elected governance into dictatorship? To the majority of his audiences Hitler always concealed such intentions. But let's accept your argument.

Any elected government has the power to do so.

Hitler, by the way, didn't conceal his intentions at all. After the publication of Mein Kampf everything was there, out in the open for people to see half a decade before he seized power.

More importantly, what is the result of all your study, for revolutionaries? Whilst I accept it may possibly be a very accurate historical record you hold in your head, what are the lessons for people such as you and I today, if we WERE a fascist party growing towards office? What tactics should we use?

1) Create an appealing narrative.
2) Neutralise your rivals - give their members a reason to join you.
3) Make sure your programme appeals to the powerful.

Neither the BNP or any other post-war manifestation of the hard right in Britain has managed any of those.

 

[ViolentPanda]

one of the points of the united front is support the reformist party like the rope supports the hanged man.

Try thinking, rather than reciting the words of others.

So any working in coalition KPD-SPD, would be done so on a class basis. Not supporting assaults upon the working class, but supporting any interest of the working class, such as putting a brake upon the advancement of fascist to power. What for? Well one is a defensive action, acting as a brake upon fascism, but there is also an offensive reason.

To destroy your partner in the united front from within, and all the while dealing with the opposition too? What kind of fantasy world do you live in?

you absolutely right about the attractiveness of rearmament, not only for short-term profits, but also breaking into the much envied resources of the empires, from which Germany due to its lateness was a "landlocked" from. BUT are you arguing these long-term aims had primacy over their fear of the working class? I would argue the prime concern for the ruling class when they GAVE Hitler power, was the threat of the working class. Why? The potential WAS there.

Germany wasn't and isn't "landlocked". It had no overseas empire prior to the late 19th century because it didn't exist as a unitary nation-state until the middle of the 19th century.
The German ruling classes didn't give Hitler power, they were outmanouvered by him into ceding (after a lot of argument) a position to him from which he was able to enact a dictatorship. The ruling classes thought that they had manouvered Hitler into a position where he'd act as a puppet Chancellor for them.
As for "fear of the working class", by 1933 the ruling classes of Germany had already seen the SPD take their line for over a decade. They may have feared the Communists, but they didn't fer the working class per se. They knew that they could get some turkeys to vote for Christmas.

land reform, socialism, and anticapitalism were major parts of the Bolsheviks message, and were/should have been major parts of the KPD offensive to attract those underlined above from the fascist's. But more than just good slogans was needed to attract these people. Why was Goebbels writing in his diary, the cadre is leaving en masse to join the KPD? Why were they leaving? Because the Nazis did not look like at that moment like they could deliver on their promises.

Why do I have to keep repeating myself? Hitler wanted shot of the more socialistically-inclined elements of the Nazi mass movement. What Goebbels wrote about should be read in that context.

How much more realistic alternative would revolutionary politics of the Bolshevik/KPD if at this moment it was making major inroads into gaining support from the reformist working class members of the SDP? By working with the SDP members of the working class, attracting those with a reformist consciousness to a revolutionary consciousness. Unfortunately the working class is imbued with the muck of ages. It demands leadership. The trick is to provide that leadership/poll of attraction, whilst constantly pushing power down to the rank-and-file. Bolshevik rather than the Stalinist strategy, could have made the KPD look like a much more viable alternative.

Put down your copy of Harman and at least try to stop reciting your partisan twaddle.We're not discussing theoretical poncifications, we're talking about the real world.

and all the historic and social currents in Russia made some kind of revolution in Russia inevitable? No!

Inevitable enough that 1917 (pt 2) wasn't the first time.

Historians point of view I think you're probably right VP, but not from the revolutionaries in my humble opinion.

Is that "revolutionaries" as in the people out on the streets, fighting to make a better world, or "revolutionaries" as in "brain-workers", leading the proletariat from the safety of the rear?

PS. I acknowledge again your greater knowledge than mine on this topic, but I find the arguments of other people at least equally knowledgeable on this topic more convincing.

Of course, especially those with whose politics you have some fellow-feeling.

 

[TremulousTetra]

More importantly, what is the result of all your study, for revolutionaries? Whilst I accept it may possibly be a very accurate historical record you hold in your head, what are the lessons for people such as you and I today, if there WERE a fascist party growing towards office? What tactics should we use?

1) Create an appealing narrative.
2) Neutralise your rivals - give their members a reason to join you.
3) Make sure your programme appeals to the powerful.

Neither the BNP or any other post-war manifestation of the hard right in Britain has managed any of those.

what are the lessons for people such as you and I today, if there WERE a fascist party growing towards office? What tactics should we [anti-fascists] use?

PS sos about typo.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Try thinking, rather than reciting the words of others.

To destroy your partner in the united front from within, and all the while dealing with the opposition too? What kind of fantasy world do you live in?

Germany wasn't and isn't "landlocked". It had no overseas empire prior to the late 19th century because it didn't exist as a unitary nation-state until the middle of the 19th century.
The German ruling classes didn't give Hitler power, they were outmanouvered by him into ceding (after a lot of argument) a position to him from which he was able to enact a dictatorship. The ruling classes thought that they had manouvered Hitler into a position where he'd act as a puppet Chancellor for them.
As for "fear of the working class", by 1933 the ruling classes of Germany had already seen the SPD take their line for over a decade. They may have feared the Communists, but they didn't fer the working class per se. They knew that they could get some turkeys to vote for Christmas.

Why do I have to keep repeating myself? Hitler wanted shot of the more socialistically-inclined elements of the Nazi mass movement. What Goebbels wrote about should be read in that context.

Put down your copy of Harman and at least try to stop reciting your partisan twaddle.We're not discussing theoretical poncifications, we're talking about the real world.

Inevitable enough that 1917 (pt 2) wasn't the first time.

Is that "revolutionaries" as in the people out on the streets, fighting to make a better world, or "revolutionaries" as in "brain-workers", leading the proletariat from the safety of the rear?

Of course, especially those with whose politics you have some fellow-feeling.

My/their aims [Communism/Anarchism] were/are exactly the same as yours.

Historians of many flavours have interpreted the 'real' world, the point for me is to change it. What attracts me to SW's partisan twaddle, is their vivid explanation of the problem and the solution. Their vivid explanation of where we are, and how we get to something different. So let's just agree to disagree where we do, and illuminate where we can.

From your point of view, your historical analysis, what would you say are the lessons for antifascist? What tactic should that employ, if there were fascist party threatening to gain the means to destroy the 'democracy', limited as it may be, of a capitalist society?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Germany wasn't and isn't "landlocked". It had no overseas empire prior to the late 19th century because it didn't exist as a unitary nation-state until the middle of the 19th century.

Yep.

The ruling classes thought that they had manouvered Hitler into a position where he'd act as a puppet Chancellor for them.

Yup. But those who control the means of production, control society.

As for "fear of the working class", by 1933 the ruling classes of Germany had already seen the SPD take their line for over a decade. They may have feared the Communists, but they didn't fer the working class per se.

Yup, they would the have feared a Communist working class?

Why do I have to keep repeating myself? Hitler wanted shot of the more socialistically-inclined elements of the Nazi mass movement. What Goebbels wrote about should be read in that context.

it's a numbers game.

This time we disagree, and that's fine. I just want to be absolutely clear, you are saying there is absolutely nothing the KPD could have done better? For somebody like me who wants to look at history as a guide for action today, there were no mistakes we should not repeat?

 

[malatesta32]

right up to bed and no supper you 2! i am SICK of the pair etc etc ... (plans stopping pocket money, banning comics etc).

 

[TremulousTetra]

right up to bed and no supper you 2! i am SICK of the pair etc etc ... (plans stopping pocket money, banning comics etc).

awww, but mum, we're only playing.

anyway, just getting to the juicy bit, what are the lessons of his research. Seriously, no intention of arguing the point, just interested in what the lessons are for antifascist and revolutionaries.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Try thinking, rather than reciting the words of others.

Put down your copy of Harman and at least try to stop reciting your partisan twaddle.We're not discussing theoretical poncifications, we're talking about the real world.

Of course, especially those with whose politics you have some fellow-feeling.

actual, i appologise. shunt av put swpov, ypov more interesting. hope u'll answer.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yep.
Yup. But those who control the means of production, control society.

Only insofar as they have a layer of political insulation between themselves and "the masses".

Yup, they would the have feared a Communist working class?

Well, there's the rub. After about 1920 the ruling classes were comfortable in the knowledge that the SPD would always side with the establishment, so that even the height of Communist popularity wasn't enough to do more than give an excuse for greater repression. They didn't need to fear a Communist working class because they were well aware that the like of the SPD and the Catholic parties would always strive to persuade their working class memberships (usually successfully) away from revolution toward reformism.

it's a numbers game.

Of course it's a numbers game, but it was also a public relations game. Goebbels was concerned chiefly about how the loss of a couple of thousand members to the Communists would look, both to other cadres, and to the NSDAP's backers. Hitler, however, took a strategic view - that allowing the party to purge itself reflected well on the party, removed future elements of dissent and gave clear markers as to who could or could not be viewed as politically-sound.

This time we disagree, and that's fine. I just want to be absolutely clear, you are saying there is absolutely nothing the KPD could have done better? For somebody like me who wants to look at history as a guide for action today, there were no mistakes we should not repeat?

I'm saying that the KPD in isolation could have done no better, that both sides would have needed to concede on certain issues in order for a united front to have even been discussed, especially after what happened in Prussia in 1932.

 

[ViolentPanda]

right up to bed and no supper you 2! i am SICK of the pair etc etc ... (plans stopping pocket money, banning comics etc).

I HATE you!!! I never asked to be born anyway!!!

 

[Joe Reilly]

But one in particular; from your article. "Central to this inertia is that notion that fascism was an ‘inexplicable aberration’, and could, had tactics differed a fraction, been entirely avoided, Hitler could have been stopped by entirely legal and, most importantly, non-violent methods. By constitutional means, by democratic elections, by, in a word -pacifism." I have never seen the SWP anywhere promote pacifism. Certainly not in fighting the fascist. What they do draw a distinction between, is using violence against the fascists by a minority on behalf of the working class, and the mass violence against the fascists by the working-class. Whilst violence is not the only string to the SW bow in fighting the fascist, they oppose the former whilst promoting the latter when tactically expedient/possible. For you cannot promote violence against the fascist by a mass of the working-class, if such mass unity does not exist.

What constitutes mass violence?

 

[TremulousTetra]

What constitutes mass violence?

ie cable street.

 

[butchersapron]

Less than 50% of the working class.

 

[butchersapron]

Clearly, you mean violence that you already support regardless of size of participants.

 

[Joe Reilly]

ie cable street.

Any other event qualify?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Amazing,i talk about the SPD and he talks about the SWP. Ok, you must then think the SWP are the modern day equivalent of the SPD then or your analogy doesn't work. How many members do you have? How many regions do you run? How many police forces? How many guns?

"Amazing,i talk about the SPD and he talks about the SWP." who ya talking to butch, your followers? ROFL Your getting a bit Scargilesque. Do you have a comb over, and talk about yourself in the third person down the pub?​

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

who ya talking to butch, your followers? ROFL​

Those posters like us still sad enough to be reading this thread I would imagine...

 

[TremulousTetra]

I'm saying that the KPD in isolation could have done no better, that both sides would have needed to concede on certain issues in order for a united front to have even been discussed, especially after what happened in Prussia in 1932.

you don't have to, but if you would like to expand on what issues both side would have two have conceded upon, I'd find that interesting.

Also, you say in order for united front to have been discussed. If both sides had conceded, and agreed upon a united front, do you believe this would have paid any dividends?would a united front of 'squadism' have been most effective? Or concentration on mobilising as many people as possible, every time the Nazis raised their head in public?

most importantly, From your point of view, your historical analysis, what would you say are the lessons for antifascist? What tactic should they employ, if there were fascist party threatening to gain the means to destroy the 'democracy', limited as it may be, of a capitalist society?

 

[malatesta32]

I HATE you!!! I never asked to be born anyway!!!

i didnt wanto tell you this but you're not really mine! either of you! i found you in a handbag in a cloakroom!