Post A Follow Up Discussion Page
Posted by J.Hilliard on 19th December 2000
I won't pretend I know why the RA delegate did or didn't vote on the issue, but where there is confusion and where there certainly needs clarification is around what the term 'no platform' means in broader terms.
Some clearly take it mean literally not sharing ie standing on a platform with fascists. For others like the ANL/Searchlight it means lobbying the authorities to deny far-right parties civil and political liberties.
For AFA the tactical imperative between 1985-'94 was to deny a platform to the far-right - even or in particular, a 'platform' they had erected for themselves. This meant all far-right political activities marches, public meetings, paper-sales, gigs, branch meetings, socials, pubs or venues which facilitated which them were (after due warning) considered 'legitimate targets'. Naturally the police/authorities were hardly likely to be 'consulted' in advance. No platform in that context is illiberal in the extreme. But then AFA never claimed to be liberals. Violence and intimidation were employed and catered for on all occasions; 'getting your retaliation in first' the tactical perogative. This was a time of course when the NF/BNP/Blood&Honour sought to present themselves as 'parties of strength'. Tactically therefore nothing was more damagingly effective to their public profile and sense of self, (membership morale etc) than finding themselves regularly in the gutter.
Ultimatley despite misgivings and violent splits the BNP abandoned 'marches meetings punch-ups' in 1994. They went overtly 'political'. As a consequence anti-fascism was required to do the same. AFA also warned that far from having 'gone away you know' the political threat of the far-right would be potentially greater than ever. The 80,000 votes for the BNP mayoral candidate in May has proved this analysis to be correct.
This is something the Left as a whole even now deny. AFA also warned that with the change of strategy by the BNP anti-fascism would also be required to change strategy. This is something the Left also deny.
To sum up there is a huge diference between not being in a position to 'implement a no-platform strategy', and as was inferred by Peter Manson in a article in Weekly Worker the other week rejecting a no platform on communist 'principle'. I am for one am not convinced the CPGB understand the subtlies, but I suspect the RA delegate does.