A U S T R A L I A N
U N I V E R S I T I E S ’
R E V I E W
The peasants are revolting No Platform – A History of Anti-Fascism, Universities and the Limits of Free Speech by E. Smith ISBN 9781138591677 (hbk.), ISBN 9781138591684 (pbk.), ISBN 9780429455131 (ebook), Routledge Studies in Fascism and The Far Right, Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group), London & New York, 230 pp., 2020. Reviewed by Neil Mudford
The great thing about this book is that it shows us, in abundant detail, the longitudinal development of anti-fascist and anti-racist efforts and tactics over the last century. We rarely hear much at all about left-wing political thought and behaviours from anyone other than their opponents, so this is a refreshing read. The detailed focus is on left-wing university students curtailing the spread of fascism, in the first instance, by preventing its advocates from delivering their insidious message, a practice employed from the 1920s onwards. In the 1970s, the tactic came to be known as ‘no platforming’ and was broadened out to include racism and then to a wider range of issues and ideas that also cause damage and hurt to the victims. I will consistently use this term in quotation marks in this review, just as Smith has done in the book. At the time of writing, the relevance of this topic could hardly be greater. In 2020 came the huge surge in urgent and passionate mass protests against racism across the United States. These were supported by protests around the world and broadened out to local racism of which there is no shortage. They were also opposed with counter-protests. In January 2021 came the month of alarming incitements by the then US President Donald Trump culminating in his supporters attempting to violently disrupt and overthrow the US Government. Then, perhaps most startling of all, the major social media companies finally responded to this, and Trump’s years of aggressive, right-wing bullying outpourings, by ‘no platforming’ him. Much of the book concerns itself with considerable detail of ideological battles within and between left-wing groups over the anti-fascist and anti-racist struggles. Despite the sound of that sentence, the story is engrossing. The author’s skill in story-telling helps carry it off and the intensity of the competing arguments conveys the intensity and dedication of the protagonists. Another factor that kept me glued to the tale is that those years of political battles and intrigue were really about the deeper story of a fight for freedom from tyranny and hate. With such a theme and the author’s fine ability to bring the story to life, we have a tale that is well worth the read. vol. 63, no. 1, 2021
The book concludes that these efforts over so many years were a vital factor in keeping Britain free of a mass expression of fascism. Not that the fight is over, or ever will be, and that is part of the importance of this book. Even apart from the immediate events, the problems and challenges are, in essence, the same today as they were a hundred years ago and that is why the book contains important lessons for our times. Part of the fascination of the topic is the sometimesimponderable questions behind it. It is the unanswerable nature of these that maintains an endless debate about the rights or wrongs of banning speakers in a university setting or in the wider world of the public press, television, the internet and, now, social media. One central question in all this is whether there are some ideas that are indeed so abhorrent that they should not be propounded. In a university setting, in particular, this immediately sounds odd. In the practices of university teaching, learning and research, everyone agrees that arguing this way and that is the bedrock of sorting the ideological wheat from the chaff. A moment’s contemplation, however, brings to mind any number of ideas that almost everyone can agree are ‘out of bounds’ and must be opposed. Slavery and legalised murder, for instance, would surely be candidates. Just as an aside, a distant Australian ex-patriot colleague of mine did once say, at a conference in the 1990s in Virginia, USA, in relation to 19th century USA, ‘Slavery wasn’t so bad, I reckon.’ The other eight of us at the dinner table ‘exploded’. Outraged and disgusted we gave him a short but comprehensive ‘serve’, stormed out and left him there. We spontaneously ‘no platformed’ him, I now see. Immediately though, in relation to the above example, we recognise that slavery was accepted practice for centuries. Therefore, we have to recognise that what is beyond the pale can vary with time. When a point of view is dangerous, damaging and completely offensive, time-dependent though this may be, I think a respectable argument can be made that total opposition is the morally and politically correct response. The peasants are revolting Reviewed by Neil Mudford
75
