In recent months there have been some important struggles against the speakers. The banning of Enoch Powell from Durham, and the breaking up of Martin Webster's meeting in Edinburgh are two examples.
Despite this, and despite the importance of the Communist Party in the student field, it is only recentHy that the CP has put forward any clear position on these struggles.
The Morning Star of 15 March, carries an article based on a stateAdvisory Committee. It puts forward three main points:
"Agitate for laws banning the expression of race hatred;
*Until such laws are passed seek to convince organisations that they should not provide platforms or halls lor racist speakers;
"Falling this to organise mass counter demonstrations and meetings to expose the falsity of racist ideas and to make their advocacy difficult or impossible.
Despite its apparent support for the "No Platform for Racists" position, the statement as a whole is a cover for liberal positions. For the CP the central thing is to get laws passed through Parliament banning the expression of race hatred, for only 'until this hap реда is if necessay for students and worken organisations to take steps to deprive racists of a platform.
MASS ACTION
But even if laws like the Race Relations Act were toughened up so as to cover 'scientific racism like that of Eysenck, the racists are not necessarily going to obey the law. This is only to be expected, Fascists and anti-democratic clements care nothing for laws passed by Parliament The 'no platform" position cannot Therefore be made dependent on the legal situation.
This means that mass action will remain necessary, The CP statement talks about counter-demonstrations. hut remains ambiguous about what their aim should be, Should they physically prevent racists from speaking? Or should they simply be parallel meetings, hoping to win over the audience by reasonahle arguments. or by dint of greater numbers?
The first interpretation is ruled out by the amount of time spent warning against 'violent incidents' (which apparently give the bourgeois press the excuse it needs to publicise then that, provided the racists are not deprived of a hall by managerial prerogative", there is nothing we can use of platforms in colleges by racist do to implement our "no platform position, since any course of action which risks a physical confrontation must be avoided IMPASSE This leaves anti-racists in an impasse, for while they might want to avoid "violent incidents", their opponents may not take the same view.
The article itself quates an example of an apparently unprovoked attack by reactionaries on a meeting of students held in solidarity with the miners'recent strike. What should anti-racists do? Call the police?
The statement sidesteps the question ment from the CP's University Staffs of physical struggle by ranting on about "violence by small groups of people to break up meetings". This gIves rise to nothing but confusion.
Is all violence conducted only by small groups of people? Is breaking up meetings something always done without mass support? Perhaps where a majority is won for some kind of anti-racist action, violence is rendered unnecessary in any case by sheer weight of numbers?
Two clarifications are needed here. First, even if 'mass violence"
is to be used (or we expect it to be used aguinst us), it is generally advisahle for 'small groups of people' to spearhead the action of masses of people (or to form defence groups to shield them).
Second, while it is always desirable to mobilise masses of people when engaging in a physical struggle, there are some occasions when the mass of students are sympathetic to you cause but remain inactive, either through fear or confusion. In such situations decisive action by small groups of people may indeed provide just the example which is needed.
POWER OF THE MASSES The erasions in the statement flow from the CP's overall polities. For them, 'mobilisation" is not related to the need to develop the power of the masses against the capitalist state. It is ruther to get the capitalist state to do the dirty work, stile the CP is meanwhile fighting racism amongst the masses by the ideological struggle alone.
Unfortunately the bourgeois state has never proved willing or able to prevent racists from making propag anda, and certainly never stopped the growth of a fascist movement. And unfortunately mass mobilisations to force the Government to put an end to military conspirators and fascists in Chile failed to stop the latter Trom smashing up a working class the views of the reactionaries. It seems literally disarmed by talk of avoiding 'violent incidents" concerned.
E216 to Employment Secretary Michael Foot on 1 April. This agreement, first reached in the the Greater London Whitley Council, has now been ratified in the Metropolitan District vote of 25 to 15. This decision is nothing less than a sell out tium, are taking selective strike action. A further 14 are banning overtume and banning work with agency (lump) staff. Electricity However, further strike action Chelsea has been postponed.
the struggle remains partial and NALGO CLAIM