Holocaust Denial: Should it be illegal? [Archive]

Woland

22nd February 2009, 13:18

Mainly because it gives them clout. If you turn pathetic people into something worth pursuing and dragging through the courts, it gives them importance. I mean, let's fact it, the Nazi movement isn't exactly alive and kicking, the only reason to still associate with it is to try and give yourself some kind of self importance or whatever. Young men, let down by capitalism and low on self esteem can find appeal in identifying as Neo-Nazis as all of a sudden they aren't petty criminals in dead end jobs, but at the "vanguard of the master race". By turning them from objects of derision into people worth putting considerable resources into combatting, you give them exactly what they are looking for.

First of all, it isnt that simple. To come up with a balanced analysis you'd have to consider the new pseudo-nazi parties such as the NPD, which do have some support in areas of Germany, even though they are constantly in danger of getting banned if they say anything about the Holocaust (or if they 'go against the constitution'- an example of how such things can backfire against communist movements aswell- KPD was banned in 1956).

The thing is, nazis will always think they are important no matter what, and I think it really doesnt matter if they do so- what is important is that what the general public thinks of them, and how these nazis try to make themselves look more important than they are to them. With such laws, these groups lose all ability to make themselves noticed or even speak out, eventually just ceasing to exist (but then, parties such as the NPD come about).

Demogorgon

22nd February 2009, 13:36

First of all, it isnt that simple. To come up with a balanced analysis you'd have to consider the new pseudo-nazi parties such as the NPD, which do have some support in areas of Germany, even though they are constantly in danger of getting banned if they say anything about the Holocaust (or if they 'go against the constitution'- an example of how such things can backfire against communist movements aswell- KPD was banned in 1956).

The thing is, nazis will always think they are important no matter what, and I think it really doesnt matter if they do so- what is important is that what the general public thinks of them, and how these nazis try to make themselves look more important than they are to them. With such laws, these groups lose all ability to make themselves noticed or even speak out, eventually just ceasing to exist (but then, parties such as the NPD come about).
Well the NPD are a slightly different thing as they are careful not to be legally connected to the nazis in any way. As far-right parties in Europe go, they are actually not the biggest threat anyway, go south to Austria or Switzerland and you will be faced with a much bigger problem. The reason is that the far-right parties in those countries have no association with the Nazis at all apart from private sympathies no doubt held by members. If the NPD were to be banned in Germany, it is very likely that an Austrian style far right party would fill the void and could potentially have much greater success. Remember as well that Austria has Holocaust denial laws as strict as Germany, and that hasn't yielded results. It has just channeled more backing into the "respectable" far right". And it is this modern far right that is the threat anyway. Idiots playing at being Nazis have a hard time frightening me.

Also compare countries that don't make Nazis important to those that do. There are no-anti Nazi laws here for instance and as such neo-Nazis get very little attention. you hardly ever hear of them. You do hear of the more modern far right a great deal and anti-immigrant sentiment runs rampant unfortunately, but almost nothing from full on Neo-Nazis. In countries with anti-Nazi laws, you don't have to look very far to find them and the reason is the Government is giving them all the publicity and clout they could ever want. They certainly aren;t ceasing to exist, are they?

Trystan

22nd February 2009, 16:37

No it should not. I have never advocated in censorship and I ain't gonna start now.

Post-Something

22nd February 2009, 16:40

Anyone dumb enough to deny the holocaust should be allowed to show their ignorance.

Anarchyandpeace

22nd February 2009, 20:04

No it should not. I have never advocated in censorship and I ain't gonna start now.

I agree. Remember there are 3 versions of history. The winners, the losers and the truth. Asking questions should not be against the law.

MMIKEYJ

22nd February 2009, 20:38

I agree. Remember there are 3 versions of history. The winners, the losers and the truth. Asking questions should not be against the law.

+1

Vahanian

22nd February 2009, 20:49

If you started making laws that make this kind of stupidity illegal alot of people would be forced to stop talking. which would be nice, but we have a freedom of speech so it shouldnt be against the law

Pirate turtle the 11th

22nd February 2009, 21:05

Is this under capitalism or under communism?

22nd February 2009, 21:10

Is this under capitalism or under communism?

Current system obviously.;)
Laws are idiotic, and if we justify a law, breaking the "right" of free speech on this case, then when they come and take our right to express our disagreement against state our "justification" will turn on us.So no, i do not support any law, i dont care about the laws state forwards, but if some people justify this, they should remember that we as Anarchists or Communists we are viewed as equal "evils" with Nazis, or even worse some times.:rolleyes:

Fuserg9:star:

MMIKEYJ

22nd February 2009, 21:28

Current system obviously.;)
Laws are idiotic, and if we justify a law, breaking the "right" of free speech on this case, then when they come and take our right to express our disagreement against state our "justification" will turn on us.So no, i do not support any law, i dont care about the laws state forwards, but if some people justify this, they should remember that we as Anarchists or Communists we are viewed as equal "evils" with Nazis, or even worse some times.:rolleyes:

Fuserg9:star:
That's because people are taught to associate communism with totalitarianism.

Demogorgon

22nd February 2009, 21:44

Is this under capitalism or under communism?
It always makes me raise my eyes when people ask this. "Oh I am against this under capitalism but for it under Communism". You see people saying it with the death penalty, restrictions of freedom of speech and so forth. How about we add some more "I am against wife beating under capitalism but for it under communism", "I am drink driving under capitalism but for it under communism" or to really set the cat amongst the pigeons on this board, "I am for abortion under capitalism, but against it under communism"?

Things are either acceptable or they are not. The type of Government present does not alter that. Freedom of speech must be upheld and that goes for both capitalism and communism.

communard resolution

22nd February 2009, 23:43

Voted no. The impression that these anti-holocaust denial laws give is that if governments have to impose laws to prevent people from questioning the holocaust, they must be hiding something. They're totally counter-productive, and I can see how they can turn some people on to neo-nazi "theories".

If people want to circulate nonsense, let them, and say the truth. No need for a ban.

Glorious Union

22nd February 2009, 23:52

Making a law controlling a fact only gives people more of a reason to doubt it ever happened in the first place.

thecoffeecake1

23rd February 2009, 01:17

Even though I agree with all of the above, I'll say from my personal experience that these laws are quite effective in keeping nazis in check.

well thats a bad reason to support oppression of free speech. if people want to be retarted, let them. nazis will get nowhere in life and that makes me very happy. they can feel better about themselves because there not the minority.

Bitter Ashes

23rd February 2009, 01:36

No. I cant remember who said this, but I think it's appropriate:
"I may totaly disagree with you, but I will defend your right to be an asshole to the grave!"

Comrade Anarchist

23rd February 2009, 01:56

I dont believe a country can deny it but any moron can say what they want.

Vanguard1917

23rd February 2009, 02:10

No. Such laws are a disgrace and should be abolished immediately.

LOLseph Stalin

23rd February 2009, 02:13

I'm a huge advocate for free speech, but Holocaust denial should definitely be illegal. The Holocaust isn't something to be taken lightly. It was pure cruelty and if we don't learn from past mistakes we'll never stop things like that from happening now.

Vanguard1917

23rd February 2009, 02:27

I'm a huge advocate for free speech, but Holocaust denial should definitely be illegal.

Those two sentences contradict one another. How can you be a 'huge advocate' of free speech and support laws against it?

Freedom of expression is one of those things which you either have or don't have.

Melbourne Lefty

23rd February 2009, 02:35

I honestly think that if Holocaust deniers were really engaged with and shown the tremendous variety and depth of evidence for the reality of the Holocaust, a lot of them would turn around. Like I think it's a sincere belief for a lot of them, they're not just being assholes.

Yep, bring it out into the light of day and shine a torch into all the corners, both of the deniers arguments and the official stories.

Its a distressing issue for people who lost family members, but it happened 65 years ago, a good broad based report backed up with the huge volumns of evidence would shut up most of the deniers for good, or at least make them even less relevent than they are now.

LOLseph Stalin

23rd February 2009, 02:42

Those two sentences contradict one another. How can you be a 'huge advocate' of free speech and support laws against it?

Well I support Free Speech, but like almost everything it has limits. I think there should be limits, but not total censorship.

Chapter 24

23rd February 2009, 02:45

As someone who has an Austrian Jewish grandmother whose family and her experienced the Holocaust firsthand, as I've stated other times on the board, I do not agree with laws that restrict the free speech of fucking idiots who espouse Nazi bull-shit. The best and most effective method of preventing this kind of speech is, in the long-term, education about the Holocaust and the other genocides that have plagued the world.
In any case, the measure of enacting universal restrictions against this type of speech will only do more harm than it will do good. While I personally would not shed a tear if a white nationalist went to prison because he/she committed an illegal crime that physically harmed someone, such as assault on minorities, it's imperative that we as communists support freedom of speech. Not just as some "liberal" view of rights (which are controversial to begin with), but the results of these laws as going against communists, i.e. communists no longer having the right to speech and organization.

Vanguard1917

23rd February 2009, 02:55

Well I support Free Speech, but like almost everything it has limits. I think there should be limits, but not total censorship.

Then you don't support free speech. You support privileged speech -- the freedom to only express certain opinions.

Glorious Union

23rd February 2009, 03:50

No. I cant remember who said this, but I think it's appropriate:
"I may totaly disagree with you, but I will defend your right to be an asshole to the grave!"

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-- The Friends of Voltaire, 1906

This quote is usually attributed to Voltaire but he never said it. In actuality Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote it in a biography of Voltaire, The Friends of Voltaire. Hall was commenting on Voltaire's attitude towards another writer's work and put the comment in quotations for emphasis which led many to beleive that Voltaire had actually said it.

^Not sure if all that is right, feel free to correct me.

Schrödinger's Cat

23rd February 2009, 04:43

Well I support Free Speech, but like almost everything it has limits. I think there should be limits, but not total censorship.

The only limit to speech should be statements that directly endanger others (screaming, "I have a bomb" on an aeroplane).

23rd February 2009, 10:48

Rangi

23rd February 2009, 12:20

Just because people are taught something it doesn't make it true.

benhur

23rd February 2009, 16:20

Holocaust denial is disguised racism, so it must be illegal. Freedom of speech has its limits, you don't let people use the N word, do you? Or the P word?

Demogorgon

23rd February 2009, 16:39

Holocaust denial is disguised racism, so it must be illegal. Freedom of speech has its limits, you don't let people use the N word, do you? Or the P word?
I certainly don't have respect for people who use such words, but banning the use of them would be absurd.

Vanguard1917

23rd February 2009, 16:55

Holocaust denial is disguised racism, so it must be illegal. Freedom of speech has its limits, you don't let people use the N word, do you? Or the P word?

You say you're a Trotskyist. Trotsky opposed all restrictions to free speech under capitalism and insisted that 'it is only the greatest freedom of expression that can create favorable conditions for the advance of the revolutionary movement in the working class.'

He also referred to 'socialists' who call for state censorship as 'traitors' who 'should leave the ranks of the working class'.

(http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/08/press.htm)

danyboy27

23rd February 2009, 17:34

Pirate turtle the 11th

23rd February 2009, 17:55

its funny how people hail about freedom of speech, but every time a group of BNP or neo nazi show up in the street a whole bunch ofcommunist go there in order to fight and restrict their freedom of speech and demonstration.

Well im openly agaisnt free speech because theirs no point supporting bullshit. Every socitey has restrictions on what you can say (go to a funneral and stand by the graveside singing "here lies a piece of shit" to see what i mean). However its important that the community demoracticly decided what in not aceptable.

danyboy27

23rd February 2009, 17:58

Pirate turtle the 11th

23rd February 2009, 17:59

It always makes me raise my eyes when people ask this. "Oh I am against this under capitalism but for it under Communism". You see people saying it with the death penalty, restrictions of freedom of speech and so forth. How about we add some more "I am against wife beating under capitalism but for it under communism", "I am drink driving under capitalism but for it under communism" or to really set the cat amongst the pigeons on this board, "I am for abortion under capitalism, but against it under communism"?

Things are either acceptable or they are not. The type of Government present does not alter that. Freedom of speech must be upheld and that goes for both capitalism and communism.

No. The reason I dont want holocaust denile not to be banned under capitalism is not because I "think nazis should be allowed to speak" or because im a nice person its because if the authorities clamp down on "extremists" chances are we will get clamped down upon sooner or later.

Under communism is the community decides "no i dont want these vile scumbags having any public influence" then i support their freedom to decide what is aceptable in their community.

23rd February 2009, 18:00

its funny how people hail about freedom of speech, but every time a group of BNP or neo nazi show up in the street a whole bunch ofcommunist go there in order to fight and restrict their freedom of speech and demonstration.

They do not have freedom of taking on the streets running "immigrants" stabing them, beat up poor people.NO, in those cases there "freedom" dont exists, we dont "recognize" it.If they want to stab someone they should put the knife on their necks and cut them off.Until they keep this attitude they wont be let to the streets freely, their "right" dont exists when they harm other people because they are "foreigners" other color etc.If they get on my street, i will kick their asses off.I do give them the right to say what the fuck they want, they can hail hitler, they can carry swastigkas and everything, but when i found them in the streets or anywhere, i will run them all the way to hell!!!!

Fuserg9:star:

Pirate turtle the 11th

23rd February 2009, 18:00

so you are one of the guy who voted like me then.

?

Demogorgon

23rd February 2009, 18:15

Well im openly agaisnt free speech because theirs no point supporting bullshit. Every socitey has restrictions on what you can say (go to a funneral and stand by the graveside singing "here lies a piece of shit" to see what i mean). However its important that the community demoracticly decided what in not aceptable.
What if they "democratically decide" that homosexuality isn't acceptable, or being Jewish isn't acceptable? Democracy is meaningless unless there are certain enshrined rights that we all have that cannot be taken away, one of which must be free speech.

Besides how can you "democratically decide" anything if free discussion is curtailed?

Pirate turtle the 11th

23rd February 2009, 18:24

What if they "democratically decide" that homosexuality isn't acceptable, or being Jewish isn't acceptable? Democracy is meaningless unless there are certain enshrined rights that we all have that cannot be taken away, one of which must be free speech.

Well then theres not much i can do about it is their. But id rather trust the general population under communism not be racist or homophobic then a few leaders like we have today not to be so.

And how do you plan to enforce these restrictions on what people can vote on. Because if say 70% says "nazis are ****s and i dont want them selling their shite in the highstreet any more because it intimidates my kids and I" and 30% disagrees and says "ang on im going to force you to put up with this under freedom of speech".

What are the 30% going to do?

Besides how can you "democratically decide" anything if free discussion is curtailed?

Well you meet up and vote using direct democracy.

Thats not difficult.

Demogorgon

23rd February 2009, 18:35

Well then theres not much i can do about it is their. But id rather trust the general population under communism not be racist or homophobic then a few leaders like we have today not to be so.

And how do you plan to enforce these restrictions on what people can vote on. Because if say 70% says "nazis are ****s and i dont want them selling their shite in the highstreet any more because it intimidates my kids and I" and 30% disagrees and says "ang on im going to force you to put up with this under freedom of speech".

What are the 30% going to do?

How can you hope that the population won't be racist or homophobic or whatever while simultaneously hoping that they will be unable to handle dissent? The sort of people that wish to infringe upon free speech are the same sort of people that want to single out minorities.

Again though, democracy is meaningless unless there are safeguards to protect us. Case in point, the people of California recently voted to ban gay marriage. Now it is good that they have such democratic rights, but in this case they have denied an important right (the ability to choose your spouse) to a minority group. Under your system, that would be that for gay people, and indeed they would be afraid to speak out in opposition to what had happened in case their freedom to criticise was banned too. However they are able in the current system to go to court to try and protect their rights and will see next month if they are succesful. That is a good thing in my view and Communism should be about improving on what we have, not making it worse.

Well you meet up and vote using direct democracy.

Thats not difficult.
And how do you do that when people are afraid that if they say the wrong thing, they might be jailed themselves. What you are talking about is Democracy Iran style-I don't like that.

Good decisions can only be made when all options can be debated in an open and tolerant atmosphere.

Pirate turtle the 11th

23rd February 2009, 18:50

How can you hope that the population won't be racist or homophobic or whatever while simultaneously hoping that they will be unable to handle dissent? The sort of people that wish to infringe upon free speech are the same sort of people that want to single out minorities.

I dont think so if we are talking about "Race" sexual prefrance , gender etc.

Again though, democracy is meaningless unless there are safeguards to protect us. Case in point, the people of California recently voted to ban gay marriage. Now it is good that they have such democratic rights, but in this case they have denied an important right (the ability to choose your spouse) to a minority group. Under your system, that would be that for gay people, and indeed they would be afraid to speak out in opposition to what had happened in case their freedom to criticise was banned too. However they are able in the current system to go to court to try and protect their rights and will see next month if they are succesful. That is a good thing in my view and Communism should be about improving on what we have, not making it worse.

Way too ignore how capitalism ingrains homophobia into culture,

Also refer to the bit of text you ignored.

And how do you do that when people are afraid that if they say the wrong thing, they might be jailed themselves. What you are talking about is Democracy Iran style-I don't like that.

"Democracy" Iran style is Bougisise

Good decisions can only be made when all options can be debated in an open and tolerant atmosphere.

Apart from real life dosent work like that. Is about public influence. I dont want nazis in my area because i dont want my 1 year old brother (who by the way would be targeted by them) to have to put up with them or the effects that there ideas would have upon the community.

Holden Caulfield

23rd February 2009, 19:05

As local moderator of anti fascism and upholder of no-platformism i have voted yes.

:lol: you amuse me greatly.

personally I dont care, i dont want to rely on the state for my antifascism but then again im not going to kick up a fuss so Nazis can have more fun.

BobKKKindle$

23rd February 2009, 19:19

However its important that the community demoracticly decided what in not aceptable. If you accept the notion that the community should have the right to tell people what they are allowed to say, and how they should behave in the private sphere, then where does that leave individual freedom, and constitutional guarantees of civil rights? It is naive to assume that a revolution will automatically lead to everyone abandoning their prejudices and refusing to act oppressively towards other members of society, because the ideas in our heads are always more difficult to change than the way the economy is organized, such that even when the material conditions which give rise to prejudices have been eliminated through the collectivization of property, and the abolition of competition between workers, prejudice will continue to exist, unless it is actively struggled against, and this sometimes means violating the will of the majority. This is not a hypothetical issue - shortly after the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks found that their literacy campaign was encountering resistance in Central Asia from religious leaders who were oppossed to female education, because this was seen as an attempt to threaten the traditions and social structures of the communities in which these leaders were based, and consequently many of the education experts who were being sent to these areas to set up schools and literacy classes ended up dead. According to you, the Bolsheviks should have respected the right of these communities to deny women an education because it was the will of the majority, and so any attempt to intervene and defy the reactionary majority would have been wrong on democratic grounds. If the Bolsheviks had adopted this course of action, then they would never have succeeded in offering gender equality to the women of the region, because religious ideology would have maintained its legitimacy, and the system of patriarchy would have seemed to be the natural way of things, even for the women who were suffering oppression, because there would be no force capable of challenging prejudices and making people think about the world in which they live. The lesson is that the will of the majority does not carry any special moral quality that obliges us to respect it in all circumstances regardless of whether what the majority wills is consistent with justice and equality - acting against the majority is legitimate if it serves to destroy oppression.

For an anarchist, you don't seem to have much respect for rebellion.

Pirate turtle the 11th

23rd February 2009, 19:39

If you accept the notion that the community should have the right to tell people what they are allowed to say, and how they should behave in the private sphere, then where does that leave individual freedom, and constitutional guarantees of civil rights?

Not how they behave in private sphere (unless kids are involved) - oh and it leaves the option to move to a commune in which the community is much more politically in line with you.

It is naive to assume that a revolution will automatically lead to everyone abandoning their prejudices and refusing to act oppressively towards other members of society, because the ideas in our heads are always more difficult to change than the way the economy is organized, such that even when the material conditions which give rise to prejudices have been eliminated through the collectivization of property, and the abolition of competition between workers, prejudice will continue to exist, unless it is actively struggled against, and this sometimes means violating the will of the majority. This is not a hypothetical issue - shortly after the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks found that their literacy campaign was encountering resistance in Central Asia from religious leaders who were oppossed to female education, because this was seen as an attempt to threaten the traditions and social structures of the communities in which these leaders were based, and consequently many of the education experts who were being sent to these areas to set up schools and literacy classes ended up dead.

Those where fuedlitic attitudes to a revolution. Not ones applicable to here and now. (Also can i have links i dont doubt you since your a dictionary and enyclopida of everything like this. (although shame your not so up to date on here and now)

According to you, the Bolsheviks should have respected the right of these communities to deny women an education because it was the will of the majority, and so any attempt to intervene and defy the reactionary majority would have been wrong on democratic grounds.

Not applicable to here and now. The Bolsheviks were mostly from urban areas and urban areas tend to be more progressive in terms of social issues.

The lesson is that the will of the majority does not carry any special moral quality that obliges us to respect it in all circumstances regardless of whether what the majority wills is consistent with justice and equality - acting against the majority is legitimate if it serves to destroy oppression.

Apart from if the will of the majority is overturned that means a minority has power. If you wish to have a boguisise revolution like that thats understandable however communist ones in general require not to give power to some fat fuck over everyone else.

For an anarchist, you don't seem to have much respect for rebellion.

For a middle class wanker playing revolutionary you sure are boring.

BobKKKindle$

23rd February 2009, 20:04

Not how they behave in private sphere (unless kids are involved) - oh and it leaves the option to move to a commune in which the community is much more politically in line with you. This raises more questions that it answers. How do you draw a distinction between the private and public spheres? Why should someone be forced to move away from their home and possible their friends and family members just because they don't want to accommodate to the prejudices and oppressive laws of the majority? Does this mean that communities should be allowed to mutilate their female children if the majority thinks it's a good idea, given that children would not be able to move to another commune, and probably would not have as much political weight as other members of the community?

Also, on a related note, how do you determine the size of a community exactly? If an entire city makes a decision to legalize abortion, then should an individual neighborhood be allowed to overrule that decision and ban all abortions?

Those where fuedlitic attitudes to a revolution. Not ones applicable to here and now. Actually, reactionary attitudes towards the role of women do persist in many parts of the world, even countries we like to think of as being liberal, such as the UK, as well as reactionary attitudes on a whole range of other issues, including racial equality, and sexual minorities. Genital mutilation, as mentioned above, is the most obvious example, as this still occurs in several sub-Saharan African countries, and is supported by the weight of tradition and religious custom, such that, in event of a poll being held in a community which still conducts this barbaric practice, it is entirely possible that a majority would be enthusiastic supporters. It is a simple fact that prejudices are widespread under capitalism in every country, and these prejudices will not disappear on the day of the revolution. Your solution to this is to say that in each community the majority should be allowed to impose its will on the minority, and the only thing the minority can do if they don't want to live with it is to run away and live somewhere else. This is unjust by any standard as there should always be safeguards in place to protect the rights of each individual and prevent exactly this kind of arbitrary decision-making, which is susceptible to irrational decisions drive by emotion above rational considerations of what is progressive and conducive to human liberation. What if a majority decides to arbitrarily kill someone, perhaps an individual who is disliked by the majority for personal reasons, so they don't have a chance to run away? Would that be legitimate?

(Also can i have links i dont doubt you since your a dictionary and enyclopida of everything like this.It's from A People's Tragedy by Orlando Figes, but you will be able to find the same information in many other texts. This is but one example, the principle is what is important here.

Not applicable to here and now. The Bolsheviks were mostly from urban areas and urban areas tend to be more progressive in terms of social issuesWhy does this matter? The Bolsheviks supported political and social liberation throughout the whole of Russia, and not just in the isolated urban areas where their ideas commanded popular support. In these circumstances, the Bolsheviks chose to extend literacy campaigns to Central Asia despite the attitudes prevalent in this region, whereas if they had followed your dogmatic support for the will of the majority, above all other considerations, they would not have done this, and probably would not have got much done at all.

Apart from if the will of the majority is overturned that means a minority has power. If you wish to have a boguisise revolution like that thats understandable however communist ones in general require not to give power to some fat fuck over everyone else.Except, socialist revolution is not about doing whatever the majority wants. The proletariat in Russia accounted for a small minority of the population when the revolution took place and so this act and the policies which were implemented shortly after the proletariat had established control necessarily disregarded the will of the majority, because the peasantry did not agree with many of the policies, and would have voted against them if the Bolsheviks found a way to hold a referendum for every policy they implemented, especially during the Civil War when the proletariat was forced to resort to extreme methods such as grain requisitioning in order to feed the cities and defeat the reactionary forces. Socialists are concerned above all with liberation, and so on this basis it is entirely legitimate for a progressive force to reject the will of the majority when this leads to prejudices and oppressive structures being broken down, and the cause of socialism being advanced.

Pirate turtle the 11th

23rd February 2009, 20:08

Bob see your profile.

Demogorgon

23rd February 2009, 20:44

I dont think so if we are talking about "Race" sexual prefrance , gender etc.

Hardly look at the real world. The inability to handle disagreement almost always corresponds to other bigoted views. Social authoritarianism and political authoritarianism go hand in hand

Way too ignore how capitalism ingrains homophobia into culture,

Also refer to the bit of text you ignored.

That is a cop out. "Capitalism causes homophobia and all will be fine and dandy when capitalism goes away. Well if that is the case, why are you so keen to ban people's views you disagree with, surely Communism will just wash them all away like a gentle tide too?:rolleyes:

And if you think I ignored the bit about how a minority can prevent an oppressive decision by a majority, I made it quite clear, there should be recourse to the courts. We must have an entrenched bill of rights guaranteeing fundamental rights and freedoms that ordinary laws cannot over-ride.

"Democracy" Iran style is Bougisise

What a cop out. "oh, doing that under capitalism leads to all sorts of nasty effects, but if we do exactly the same thing under Communism, everything will be all nice and wonderful". You are throwing about words you barely understand in an effort to avoid having to address the flaws in your views.

Apart from real life dosent work like that. Is about public influence. I dont want nazis in my area because i dont want my 1 year old brother (who by the way would be targeted by them) to have to put up with them or the effects that there ideas would have upon the community.
I am not interested in a "think of the children" argument. Your brother would suffer too in a society that quelled dissent. Indeed he would suffer a lot more in a society that restricts what people can do or say than he would in a tolerant society that lets fringe nut cases say what they please.

And again please tell me how democracy is supposed to function and good decisions be made in a society where people are terrified to express their views less they say the "wrong" thing.

danyboy27

23rd February 2009, 21:05

Hardly look at the real world. The inability to handle disagreement almost always corresponds to other bigoted views. Social authoritarianism and political authoritarianism go hand in hand

That is a cop out. "Capitalism causes homophobia and all will be fine and dandy when capitalism goes away. Well if that is the case, why are you so keen to ban people's views you disagree with, surely Communism will just wash them all away like a gentle tide too?:rolleyes:

And if you think I ignored the bit about how a minority can prevent an oppressive decision by a majority, I made it quite clear, there should be recourse to the courts. We must have an entrenched bill of rights guaranteeing fundamental rights and freedoms that ordinary laws cannot over-ride.

What a cop out. "oh, doing that under capitalism leads to all sorts of nasty effects, but if we do exactly the same thing under Communism, everything will be all nice and wonderful". You are throwing about words you barely understand in an effort to avoid having to address the flaws in your views.

I am not interested in a "think of the children" argument. Your brother would suffer too in a society that quelled dissent. Indeed he would suffer a lot more in a society that restricts what people can do or say than he would in a tolerant society that lets fringe nut cases say what they please.

And again please tell me how democracy is supposed to function and good decisions be made in a society where people are terrified to express their views less they say the "wrong" thing.

so basicly, you are saying that we should let people like the BNP and other fascist organization the freedom of speech and demonstration for the sake of people freedom?

if you answer is yes, then you are a really coherent people, and i will admire you for that.

Iowa656

23rd February 2009, 21:28

Is it illegal to deny other historical factual event such as the French revolution, Man walking on the Moon, 9/11, etc etc. Clearly it's not. Even other genocides can be denied (take for example the Turkish STATE denial of the Armenian genocide) so why is the Holocaust any different?

The people who deny the Holocaust are almost always Nazi supporters, so does that mean we should ban them from saying anything? Can a political ideology be silenced by fear of oppression? Of course not. You can't kill an ideology.

The fundamental truth is that the Holocaust is a historic FACT and people should be educated and see the evidence enough themselves to understand that any denial is absurd. Should someone be arrested, sentenced for saying "the holocaust didn't happen"? What if I said "9/11 didn't happen"? Is there any difference? Should I be arrested if I said "the crusades didn't happen"? You can't make it a crime to deny one historical fact just on the basis it was commit by a fascist.

By silencing their opinion they only become "martyrs" for "freedom". As soon as you ban any opinion it gets twice the attention it would have normally got. Take for example the banning of the fascist Mr. Wilders from Britain recently. Yes he wanted to spread hatred against Islam, but he had near infinite free publicity resulting from his ban.

Here's my suggestion for any spreader of ANY historical falsehood, including denial of the Holocaust: "force" the perpetrator to see the direct evidence for the the "fact" they deny. Give the Holocaust deniers a tour of Auschwitz, allow them to meet with the victims of the "fact" they deny. Sit a denier in a room with someone who experienced it first hand. They will soon change their mind. Sit Mr. Wilders in a room with Muslims, Clerics even, he will soon understand that his interpretation of Islam is built upon a complete falsehood. That will do so much more than putting them in Prison.

Demogorgon

23rd February 2009, 21:31

so basicly, you are saying that we should let people like the BNP and other fascist organization the freedom of speech and demonstration for the sake of people freedom?

if you answer is yes, then you are a really coherent people, and i will admire you for that.
Yes, I am saying that. Anyone can back freedom of speech for those they agree with. The true measure of whether you support such liberty is if you support it for those you disagree with.

#FF0000

23rd February 2009, 21:31

I accidentally hit "yes" when I meant to hit "no".

Arresting holocaust deniers is stupid.

Being an idiot isn't illegal

danyboy27

23rd February 2009, 21:47

Yes, I am saying that. Anyone can back freedom of speech for those they agree with. The true measure of whether you support such liberty is if you support it for those you disagree with.

i admire you :D

may i have your opinion about anti-fascist element disrupting fascist rally by attemping to assault them, and at the same time attacking their right to express themselves?

would you be willing to question such action?

Demogorgon

23rd February 2009, 22:28

i admire you :D

may i have your opinion about anti-fascist element disrupting fascist rally by attemping to assault them, and at the same time attacking their right to express themselves?

would you be willing to question such action?
Most of the time it is just silly and an attempt to relive past glories and provide a fantasy of doing something real. Where people are being convinced by fascists, the problem isn't the existence of fascist groups but that people are responding to their disillusionment with society in such a reactionary way. You can't cure that with thuggery.

Moreover, that kind of behaviour often makes leftists look as bad as them and even allows them to play the victim card, and at any rate gives them publicity.

Back in the thirties when fascism was on the rise it was necessary at times to resort to action but now it is just ridiculous. It is really just the far left and far right playing a role playing game with real broken noses that has no relevance to political reality.

danyboy27

23rd February 2009, 23:25

Most of the time it is just silly and an attempt to relive past glories and provide a fantasy of doing something real. Where people are being convinced by fascists, the problem isn't the existence of fascist groups but that people are responding to their disillusionment with society in such a reactionary way. You can't cure that with thuggery.

Moreover, that kind of behaviour often makes leftists look as bad as them and even allows them to play the victim card, and at any rate gives them publicity.

Back in the thirties when fascism was on the rise it was necessary at times to resort to action but now it is just ridiculous. It is really just the far left and far right playing a role playing game with real broken noses that has no relevance to political reality.

you are my friend now okay?
http://failurecasca.de/wp-content/uploads/awesome_med.png

Pirate turtle the 11th

24th February 2009, 17:18

This raises more questions that it answers. How do you draw a distinction between the private and public spheres?

. Private is in houses etc public is not like on the street , in the workplace etc.

Why should someone be forced to move away from their home and possible their friends and family members just because they don't want to accommodate to the prejudices and oppressive laws of the majority?

Their choice if they move or not.

Does this mean that communities should be allowed to mutilate their female children if the majority thinks it's a good idea, given that children would not be able to move to another commune, and probably would not have as much political weight as other members of the community?

No but hopefully other communes would intervene as the population of the other communes would be sickned.

Also, on a related note, how do you determine the size of a community exactly? If an entire city makes a decision to legalize abortion, then should an individual neighborhood be allowed to overrule that decision and ban all abortions?

I meant communes as in organs of power and the areas they have power over.

Actually, reactionary attitudes towards the role of women do persist in many parts of the world, even countries we like to think of as being liberal, such as the UK, as well as reactionary attitudes on a whole range of other issues, including racial equality, and sexual minorities.

Most of these caused by the press and by attitudes that would need to be overcome to have a decent revolution.

Genital mutilation, as mentioned above, is the most obvious example, as this still occurs in several sub-Saharan African countries, and is supported by the weight of tradition and religious custom, such that, in event of a poll being held in a community which still conducts this barbaric practice, it is entirely possible that a majority would be enthusiastic supporters. It is a simple fact that prejudices are widespread under capitalism in every country, and these prejudices will not disappear on the day of the revolution. Your solution to this is to say that in each community the majority should be allowed to impose its will on the minority, and the only thing the minority can do if they don't want to live with it is to run away and live somewhere else. This is unjust by any standard as there should always be safeguards in place to protect the rights of each individual and prevent exactly this kind of arbitrary decision-making, which is susceptible to irrational decisions drive by emotion above rational considerations of what is progressive and conducive to human liberation. What if a majority decides to arbitrarily kill someone, perhaps an individual who is disliked by the majority for personal reasons, so they don't have a chance to run away? Would that be legitimate?

1. Considering the size of communitys/communes that person must have done some pretty fucked up things (although he may be a fine chap and his death may be a tradgady)

All of this requires something else to rule over the communties like a state. Obviously I belive putting somone in the role of a boss makes them think like a boss and then act like one.

Pirate turtle the 11th

24th February 2009, 17:34

Hardly look at the real world. The inability to handle disagreement almost always corresponds to other bigoted views. Social authoritarianism and political authoritarianism go hand in hand

bawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Dont think so i suspect a democratic organ of power since I believe that is the only way to create and maintain a classless stateless soctiey.

There is however no need to be such a fucking liberal.

That is a cop out. "Capitalism causes homophobia and all will be fine and dandy when capitalism goes away. Well if that is the case, why are you so keen to ban people's views you disagree with, surely Communism will just wash them all away like a gentle tide too?:rolleyes:

Well not really. "not seeing eye to eye with Joe" is not a culture ingrained into capitalism. Homophobia is.

And if you think I ignored the bit about how a minority can prevent an oppressive decision by a majority, I made it quite clear, there should be recourse to the courts. We must have an entrenched bill of rights guaranteeing fundamental rights and freedoms that ordinary laws cannot over-ride.

Yes but whom will make the majority give a fuck? Why should the majority care about Demogorgns courts which undemocraticly give rights to nazis.

Whats to stop people just laughing at you and not taking any notice.

What a cop out. "oh, doing that under capitalism leads to all sorts of nasty effects, but if we do exactly the same thing under Communism, everything will be all nice and wonderful". You are throwing about words you barely understand in an effort to avoid having to address the flaws in your views.

Bollocks, its quite simple.If the state clamps down on political groups (far right or not) that increases the chance of it clamping down on us. Thats the only reason i dont support making holocaust denile a crime.

I am not interested in a "think of the children" argument. Your brother would suffer too in a society that quelled dissent. Indeed he would suffer a lot more in a society that restricts what people can do or say than he would in a tolerant society that lets fringe nut cases say what they please.

I think having to walk past national front goons everyday would effect him more then having said goons exiled or shot.

And again please tell me how democracy is supposed to function and good decisions be made in a society where people are terrified to express their views less they say the "wrong" thing.

Well you go and talk. The only people whom should be terrified are reactionaries.

BobKKKindle$

24th February 2009, 18:59

. Private is in houses etc public is not like on the street , in the workplace etc. How would this distinction be maintained given that, according to you, nothing should stand in the way of the majority? What is to stop a majority deciding that nobody should be allowed to consume a certain kind of food, or that nobody should be allowed to paint their house a certain colour? All of these issues pertain to the private sphere, but since there is nothing in place to regulate legislative power under your system, any distinction you draw is meaningless in real terms.

Their choice if they move or not. Anyone can see that this would entail a society completely lacking in freedom. If we conceive of freedom as the ability to exercise control over our lives, and to achieve and pursue self-realization, then it is impossible for someone to be free if how they behave is subject to the control of the community, and if, when they are faced with a situation in which the community has decided to pass an act of discriminatory or oppressive legislation*, they cannot appeal to a higher authority such as a court, and have no choice but to either accept the decision, which might infringe on their ability to live happily, or abandon their home. You are supporting a society in which each and every individual's freedom can easily be violated by the community.

*To further this point, a key recognition of post-romantic political philosophy is the recognition not only that self-realization is the supreme good, but also that each individual realizes her potential in a different way, and so all individuals will want to engage in different kinds of activities in order to satisfy their individual preferences. What is to stop a community targeting an eccentric individual because she does not conform to what is seen as normal behavior?

No but hopefully other communes would intervene as the population of the other communes would be sickned.This completely contradicts your argument. If another community or group of communities has the moral right to intervene when a community decides to act oppressively towards some of its inhabitants, then clearly there are situations in which the right of the majority to do as it likes can be disregarded and set aside in favour of more fundamental considerations such as protecting the rights of the vulnerable - in this case, the right of women not to be mutilated - and therefore the will of the majority is not an absolute moral principle. How is this any different from what myself and others have been arguing - that there should be measures in place to limit what communities are allowed to do in order to protect individual rights?

I meant communes as in organs of power and the areas they have power over. This doesn't answer my question; how would you be able to determine the jurisdiction of each commune, i.e. what exactly would constitute an autonomous legislative unit - would a street be able to pass its own laws against the decisions that had been made by the city or neighborhood of which the street is a component?

Most of these caused by the press and by attitudes that would need to be overcome to have a decent revolution. We've already established that a revolution would not lead to the complete and automatic abolition of all prejudices, hence the motivation for discriminatory legislation would remain in place.

1. Considering the size of communitys/communes that person must have done some pretty fucked up things (although he may be a fine chap and his death may be a tradgady)Historical examples of popular justice (i.e. justice carried out by large groups of people without reference to a legal code or established system of courts and appeal processes) such as the GPCR or the purges during the Stalinist era in the Soviet Union demonstrate that persuasive speakers and community leaders can and will take advantage of past mistakes to channel community resentment against specific individuals even when they have done nothing to warrant harsh treatment or punishment of any kind. As mentioned in my previous post, without a clear legal system it is easy for emotion to take over and result in poor and immoral decision-making whereby individuals are unjustly punished. Your plan contains nothing to prevent this from occurring.

All of this requires something else to rule over the communties like a state. Obviously I belive putting somone in the role of a boss makes them think like a boss and then act like one.No, a state is first and foremost an organ of class rule in any society based on class division, but once classes have been eliminated, this does not mean that other functions of the state - most importantly the task of drawing up and enforcing laws - will no longer be carried out, or will be left to mass democracy without any safeguards in communities. There will be basic laws to protect individual rights over a large territorial area, even when some legislative powers are left in the hand of lower units, such as the right to determine the curriculum of the local education system, or the right to manage the local transport system, as currently occurs in capitalist states which employ a federal system, such as Germany, and the United States. These laws will be enforced by an enforcement body, albeit a body not organized in the same was the current police force, and those who are found to have broken the laws will be dealt with through the legal system, albeit a system with a greater emphasis on solving the causes of crime and rehabilitation, and not punishment. None of this constitutes a state, and it does not require that one individual or organization be allowed to exercise unlimited power, as long as the correct safeguards, such as the right of instant recall, and regular reports, are kept in place. If you consult with your fellow anarchists, there will be many who agree with me.

BobKKKindle$

24th February 2009, 19:22

Their choice if they move or not. Another point in relation to this - given that you neglect the role of external circumstances in shaping the extent to which we really would have a choice in this instance, how is this any different from a supporter of capitalism arguing that we choose to sell our labour power and accept low pay, on the grounds that there are always alternatives, however unreasonable they may be - we could always live on benefits instead, or even starve to death. If we are making a choice when we become proletarians, as would be the case if we apply your premises, then it what sense is capitalism unfair?

Demogorgon

24th February 2009, 22:39

bawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Dont think so i suspect a democratic organ of power since I believe that is the only way to create and maintain a classless stateless soctiey.

There is however no need to be such a fucking liberal.

Ah yes, fling the word liberal around inappropriately. Shall we throw out the other gains that liberalism brought?

And once again, you cannot have a democratic or classless society without people being free to express themselves.

Well not really. "not seeing eye to eye with Joe" is not a culture ingrained into capitalism. Homophobia is.

Oh good, in that case there will be no need to ban homophobia then, because there won't be any. Nor will we need to ban any racist activity, because it will all gently float away. So what is the problem?

Yes but whom will make the majority give a fuck? Why should the majority care about Demogorgns courts which undemocraticly give rights to nazis.

Whats to stop people just laughing at you and not taking any notice.

Was it terribly undemocratic also when the US Supreme Court struck down the laws banning homosexuality? The right seemed to think so, making the same arguments as you are now. Do you agree with them?

Democracy is about the protection of minorities as well as majorities. The arguments you are making now are identical to those used to justify segregation and the like. If minorities, whoever they may be, are going to harmed by the majority, then there has to be mechanisms to protect them. A legal system is one way to do this.

Bollocks, its quite simple.If the state clamps down on political groups (far right or not) that increases the chance of it clamping down on us. Thats the only reason i dont support making holocaust denile a crime.
Nice to see that you are happy to inflict injustice on others so long as you are not in the firing line.

I think having to walk past national front goons everyday would effect him more then having said goons exiled or shot.

Living in a society that put people to death for their views would hurt him very badly. It creates a culture of terror that is psychologically very damaging.

Well you go and talk. The only people whom should be terrified are reactionaries.
Like in the Soviet Union when the only people who need to fear the restrictions on speech were the reactionaries they targeted? Well the reactionaries and the anarchists, well the reactionaries, the anarchists and the trotskyists, well the reactionaries, the anarchists, the trotskyists and the followers of other groups opposed to Stalin, oh all right, the reactionaries, the anarchists, the Trotskyists, the followers of Stalin's rivals and the wrong kind of Stalinist.

That how it is going to work?

synthesis

24th February 2009, 22:44

Like in the Soviet Union when the only people who need to fear the restrictions on speech were the reactionaries they targeted? Well the reactionaries and the anarchists, well the reactionaries, the anarchists and the trotskyists, well the reactionaries, the anarchists, the trotskyists and the followers of other groups opposed to Stalin, oh all right, the reactionaries, the anarchists, the Trotskyists, the followers of Stalin's rivals and the wrong kind of Stalinist.

That how it is going to work?

Exactly. "Reactionary" is a relative term. It's too nebulous to be a standard for institutional discrimination.

Pirate turtle the 11th

25th February 2009, 18:08

Ah yes, fling the word liberal around inappropriately. Shall we throw out the other gains that liberalism brought?

Thats lovely dear. We have moved on now and want to establish communism not capitalism.

And once again, you cannot have a democratic or classless society without people being free to express themselves.

And once again , yes you cannot , you can not however have a statless soctiey where a minority can repel a decision by the majority. This isnt about morals or ethics but about a workable organ of power.

Oh good, in that case there will be no need to ban homophobia then, because there won't be any. Nor will we need to ban any racist activity, because it will all gently float away. So what is the problem?

It will decrease but it wont disappear of the map.

Was it terribly undemocratic also when the US Supreme Court struck down the laws banning homosexuality? The right seemed to think so, making the same arguments as you are now. Do you agree with them?

No because i reject boguisise demoracy.

Democracy is about the protection of minorities as well as majorities. The arguments you are making now are identical to those used to justify segregation and the like. If minorities, whoever they may be, are going to harmed by the majority, then there has to be mechanisms to protect them. A legal system is one way to do this.

I support a legal system just not one in which a minority can overturn the majority.

Nice to see that you are happy to inflict injustice on others so long as you are not in the firing line.

Oh no not injustices against nazis :lol:

Living in a society that put people to death for their views would hurt him very badly. It creates a culture of terror that is psychologically very damaging.

Its not "if you have this view we will shoot you" its "wondering around spouting racist bile is unacceptable and will not be tolerated"

Like in the Soviet Union when the only people who need to fear the restrictions on speech were the reactionaries they targeted? Well the reactionaries and the anarchists, well the reactionaries, the anarchists and the trotskyists, well the reactionaries, the anarchists, the trotskyists and the followers of other groups opposed to Stalin, oh all right, the reactionaries, the anarchists, the Trotskyists, the followers of Stalin's rivals and the wrong kind of Stalinist.

That how it is going to work?

No because those groups were people who might have upset the granddaddy of the USSR at the time.

RGacky3

25th February 2009, 18:23

Thats lovely dear. We have moved on now and want to establish communism not capitalism.

A lot of communisms principles are tied in with the so-called "liberal" principles. Such as, individual freedom and democracy. (Also liberal means many things so using it the way you are is a dishonest association).

you can not however have a statless soctiey where a minority can repel a decision by the majority. This isnt about morals or ethics but about a workable organ of power.

See, anarchism :). You can have a stateless society where no one can impede on the rights of anyone, and descions are made by the people they affect.

It will decrease but it wont disappear of the map.

See above, it does'nt matter if its still around as long as people are not allowed to have authority or impede on anyone else.

Oh no not injustices against nazis

An injustice is an injustice no matter who its against. If you only support justice for some people you better not complain when the US puts poor people away for 20 years for selling crack, whereas a upper class cocaine dealer gets less than 5 years. Or at least not bring up that you too only support conditional justice for some people.

No because those groups were people who might have upset the granddaddy of the USSR at the time.

??? Please elaborate. I thought you supported the USSR.

Pirate turtle the 11th

25th February 2009, 18:32

A lot of communisms principles are tied in with the so-called "liberal" principles. Such as, individual freedom and democracy. (Also liberal means many things so using it the way you are is a dishonest association).

Your right however demorgan reminds me off guardian reading middle class reformists.

See, anarchism :). You can have a stateless society where no one can impede on the rights of anyone, and descions are made by the people they affect.

Exactly!

Unfortunately having nazis in the street spewing their shit does effect me and it does effect other people. It dosent however effect me or other people when they speak shite in their own homes.

See above, it does'nt matter if its still around as long as people are not allowed to have authority or impede on anyone else.

Yup. Although theres a danger of people thinkings its alright to stick their noses in where its none of their business which is why such ideas should be struggled against.

An injustice is an injustice no matter who its against. If you only support justice for some people you better not complain when the US puts poor people away for 20 years for selling crack, whereas a upper class cocaine dealer gets less than 5 years. Or at least not bring up that you too only support conditional justice for some people.

Apart from selling crack does not have the potential to fuck up and gains made by the working class - nazism does.

??? Please elaborate. I thought you supported the USSR.

Hell no. I want democratically (direct democracy) restricted speech - unlike now where the state gets to choose who can and who cannot talk (it tends to be the movements that worry them for example you can be put away for spreading pro-alquida stuff.

Some communes may restrict nazis other may not. I obviously would rather they did.

RGacky3

25th February 2009, 18:55

Unfortunately having nazis in the street spewing their shit does effect me and it does effect other people. It dosent however effect me or other people when they speak shite in their own homes.

That does'nt warrent a law, it may effect you, but free speach is free speach.

Yup. Although theres a danger of people thinkings its alright to stick their noses in where its none of their business which is why such ideas should be struggled against.

sticking their noses into other peoples business is not the same as having un-wanted authority over other people. Huge difference.

Apart from selling crack does not have the potential to fuck up and gains made by the working class - nazism does.

Not really post-revolution, unless of coarse there are a lot of them and they have guns and everyone else does'nt. If the majority don't like racism, how could it be a threat, by them just talking? BTW, where is there more of a Neo-Nazi problem, the United States or Europe? (I don't mean gangs, I mean actual racists).

Pirate turtle the 11th

25th February 2009, 19:07

That does'nt warrent a law, it may effect you, but free speach is free speach.

and i dont support it. You point is?

sticking their noses into other peoples business is not the same as having un-wanted authority over other people. Huge difference.

"unwanted authority" it would be wanted by the majority because if it is enforced overwise we have a huge problem on our hands. Removing nazis from public which does effect people and does make life shit is perfectly responsible.

Not really post-revolution, unless of coarse there are a lot of them and they have guns and everyone else does'nt. If the majority don't like racism, how could it be a threat, by them just talking? BTW, where is there more of a Neo-Nazi problem, the United States or Europe? (I don't mean gangs, I mean actual racists).

Not by them just talking but having public inflaunce gives nazis room to intimidate and spread there shit. Used to be before they were removed from the streets that the national front would stand outside schools swearing at black kids and white kids who would have anything to do with a black kid , they would also march up the road in black communties with the intend to intimidate the residents. This was until people decided enough is enough and removed them though force to stop this.

Demogorgon

25th February 2009, 19:07

Thats lovely dear. We have moved on now and want to establish communism not capitalism. Quite, we want to move on to Communism, not to retreat to feudalism. What you want is reactionary in the strict sense of the term. That is to abandon progress that has been made in order to return to a past system of injustice.

And once again , yes you cannot , you can not however have a statless soctiey where a minority can repel a decision by the majority. This isnt about morals or ethics but about a workable organ of power.
And how can you have a workable organ of power that will behave responsibly when it is unlimited in its power with no checks upon it? What you are proposing is a system where any decision, no matter how despicable, can be made with no limits upon its authority and moreover can ban any questioning of its authority (there is no freedom of speech after all). What you are proposing is a system whereby anybody that does not agree with the majority lives in permanent terror for their life. Who would want to live like that?

It will decrease but it wont disappear of the map.

Ah, so there is a danger that "the majority" will decide to make racist or homophobic laws? What safeguards do you propose to stop that? None?

No because i reject boguisise demoracy.

The word you are looking for is bourgeoisie, and do you actually know what you mean by it? "Bourgeoisie Democracy" isn't just a generic term that you can use as a get out clause to any argument where you oppose the majority view, nor does it mean any system of voting under capitalism. It essentially means the electoral process within a bourgeoisie state. A bourgeoisie state is one that exists due to and in order to facilitate a capitalistic economic system. A bourgeoisie state encompasses a number of different institutions, including its judicial system. The case of Lawrence v Texas placed the federal Supreme Court (an institution which the public has almost no control over) in the position of overruling the Texas State Legislature (much closer to the people) and the decision of the people themselves (Texas having a large degree of direct democracy through its referendums and ballot initiatives.)

If you support the Supreme Court overturning a decision made by a more democratic institution (not perfectly democratic by any means but more democratic) then you effectively state that such things should happen under capitalism but that with Communism, it should go away. You are saying that gay people should have rights under capitalism. but one of the changes under Communism should be to take those rights away.

I support a legal system just not one in which a minority can overturn the majority.

So if the majority pass a law that says for instance that gay people are to be publicly castrated and have a hot poker placed between their buttocks (an old favourite in the past) then the courts should be forced to enforce this, no matter how wrong they know it is? It is easy to see how such a law might come about. There could be a series of high profile murders of children where the perpetrator turns out to be gay for instance. That would turn public opinion against gay people temporarily (it happened in Toronto in the late seventies for instance) and because your proposed system has no safeguards, no provision to overturn appalling legislation, no provision to allow for reflection before the law is passed, such laws will be passed and people will be persecuted before maters are reconsidered.

Oh no not injustices against nazis :lol:

We certainly should oppose injustice against Neo-Nazis. There are two main reasons for this. Firstly you have a ridiculously childish view of them, they are not cartoon villains, nor are they the people that committed genocide in the thirties and forties, they are for the most part disillusioned young men badly let down by the current system and looking for an extreme solution that promises something better for them and makes them feel stronger than they actually are. They need help, not punishment.

Secondly when human rights abuses are targeted at particular group they will spread to other groups. There are no "ifs" and "buts" about it, restrict free expression for one set of people and it will spread to others. As surely as night follows day.

Its not "if you have this view we will shoot you" its "wondering around spouting racist bile is unacceptable and will not be tolerated"

Oh, and how do you know that precisely? How do you know that people will abolish freedom of speech in some areas and not others. After they have banned racist speech, they might decide to ban other perceived bigoted language, then having targeted other bigots, they might decide to indulge their own prejudices, banning certain religions for instance, or religion in general for that matter. Then a particular clique who now holds the majority of non-silenced people might decide that this is an excellent way to speed up the process of getting what they want and decide to progressively ban more and more speech that stands in opposition to them until anything said in opposition to a small number of the leaders of the clique is banned, everybody else being too afraid to speak out against the process less they be persecuted too. This is exactly how so many dictatorships begin.

No because those groups were people who might have upset the granddaddy of the USSR at the time.
And of course there is no chance that anything like that could ever happen again, is there?:rolleyes: Grow up.

RGacky3

25th February 2009, 19:16

"unwanted authority" it would be wanted by the majority because if it is enforced overwise we have a huge problem on our hands. Removing nazis from public which does effect people and does make life shit is perfectly responsible.

What happens if the majority is bothered by people speaking another language? what if they don't like foreigners? What happens if hte majority of the people don't lik people talking about evolution? And so on and so forth?

Not by them just talking but having public inflaunce gives nazis room to intimidate and spread there shit. Used to be before they were removed from the streets that the national front would stand outside schools swearing at black kids and white kids who would have anything to do with a black kid , they would also march up the road in black communties with the intend to intimidate the residents. This was until people decided enough is enough and removed them though force to stop this.

They still have the legal right to do this.

And to answer my own question, its europe that is seeing a rise in neo-nazism and racism, the countries that put the iron hand of the law against those people. In the US Neo-Nazis and racists are allowed to say whatever they want, but no one really cares any more, they've become a joke.

Pirate turtle the 11th

25th February 2009, 19:31

Quite, we want to move on to Communism, not to retreat to feudalism. What you want is reactionary in the strict sense of the term. That is to abandon progress that has been made in order to return to a past system of injustice.

What progress? I dont see "freedom of speech" today and see I also see tolerance for shit which i view to be most unimpressive.

And how can you have a workable organ of power that will behave responsibly when it is unlimited in its power with no checks upon it? What you are proposing is a system where any decision, no matter how despicable, can be made with no limits upon its authority and moreover can ban any questioning of its authority (there is no freedom of speech after all). What you are proposing is a system whereby anybody that does not agree with the majority lives in permanent terror for their life. Who would want to live like that?

What you are proposing though is that a minority controls this majority.

and that would put as back to the USSR (off topic: i hate that song)

Ah, so there is a danger that "the majority" will decide to make racist or homophobic laws? What safeguards do you propose to stop that? None?

No, none. However other communes may intervene.

The word you are looking for is bourgeoisie, and do you actually know what you mean by it? "Bourgeoisie Democracy" isn't just a generic term that you can use as a get out clause to any argument where you oppose the majority view, nor does it mean any system of voting under capitalism. It essentially means the electoral process within a bourgeoisie state. A bourgeoisie state is one that exists due to and in order to facilitate a capitalistic economic system. A bourgeoisie state encompasses a number of different institutions, including its judicial system. The case of Lawrence v Texas placed the federal Supreme Court (an institution which the public has almost no control over) in the position of overruling the Texas State Legislature (much closer to the people) and the decision of the people themselves (Texas having a large degree of direct democracy through its referendums and ballot initiatives.)

I still oppose that including referendums. I dont know about the US but alot of reactionary views come from the media (such as the sun , mail , express etc) and without that there would be less bigoted shitty views.

We certainly should oppose injustice against Neo-Nazis. There are two main reasons for this. Firstly you have a ridiculously childish view of them, they are not cartoon villains, nor are they the people that committed genocide in the thirties and forties, they are for the most part disillusioned young men badly let down by the current system and looking for an extreme solution that promises something better for them and makes them feel stronger than they actually are. They need help, not punishment.

They need a damn good kicking. These pricks attack immigrants , gays , communists etc and I will have no objection to a community defending themselves against them.

Secondly when human rights abuses are targeted at particular group they will spread to other groups. There are no "ifs" and "buts" about it, restrict free expression for one set of people and it will spread to others. As surely as night follows day.

This is why i object to banning holocaust denial under capitalism. I trust the community of an area to make decisions on what effects them rather then banning everything for shits n giggles.

Oh, and how do you know that precisely? How do you know that people will abolish freedom of speech in some areas and not others. After they have banned racist speech, they might decide to ban other perceived bigoted language, then having targeted other bigots, they might decide to indulge their own prejudices, banning certain religions for instance, or religion in general for that matter. Then a particular clique who now holds the majority of non-silenced people might decide that this is an excellent way to speed up the process of getting what they want and decide to progressively ban more and more speech that stands in opposition to them until anything said in opposition to a small number of the leaders of the clique is banned, everybody else being too afraid to speak out against the process less they be persecuted too. This is exactly how so many dictatorships begin.

Of course having a minority able to override the majority is how no dictatorships are started ever!

And of course there is no chance that anything like that could ever happen again, is there?:rolleyes: Grow up.

Fuck off shitbrain

Pirate turtle the 11th

25th February 2009, 19:35

What happens if the majority is bothered by people speaking another language? what if they don't like foreigners? What happens if hte majority of the people don't lik people talking about evolution? And so on and so forth?

Well then the majority are twats and other communes may decide not to have anything to do with them (no trading for example)

They still have the legal right to do this.

But they lack a practical ability to do this.

And to answer my own question, its europe that is seeing a rise in neo-nazism and racism, the countries that put the iron hand of the law against those people. In the US Neo-Nazis and racists are allowed to say whatever they want, but no one really cares any more, they've become a joke.

Apart from to be knowlage (correct me if im wrong) russia is seeing a huge increase in nazism and it has no laws against it either.

Sean

25th February 2009, 19:36

BobKKKindle$

25th February 2009, 20:08

CJ, you haven't responded to my points. Also, you aren't listening to what other people have to say.

What progress? I dont see "freedom of speech" today and see I also see tolerance for shit which i view to be most unimpressive. This exposes an important ambiguity - what is the meaning of tolerance? Does it mean tolerating opinions we find morally repugnant - such as racism? Or does it mean calling on the state or some other form of governmental authority to clamp down on opinions which are seen as intolerant to ensure that nobody is exposed to them? In any case, there are strong utilitarian grounds for opposing the banning of Holocaust denial - it will give fascist groups an opportunity to assume the position of the victim and claim that they are being persecuted for having political views which go against the opinions of the mainstream, and this could potentially lead to even greater support, whereas the government and all those who support the ban will be perceived as hypocrites who only support freedom of speech when it comes to opinions they agree with.

What you are proposing though is that a minority controls this majority. No, both myself and Demogorgon are arguing is that there should be a set of inalienable rights established in a document of some kind and upheld by a court system, which exist to ensure that the autonomy of the individual is not threatened by intrusive legislation which might otherwise lead to individual rights being violated or ignored, because the members of an oppressed minority group (such as homosexuals, or young people) do not have enough political weight to protect themselves and persuade the community not to enact discriminatory laws. This is not the same as saying that democracy is not important, or that a minority should always be able to discard the decision of a majority. By rejecting the desirability of basic rights, you are, as Demogorgon has already pointed out, essentially arguing that oppressed groups should be entitled to less rights than under bourgeois democracy - whereas constitutions in countries such as the United States currently guarantee that individuals should not be unjustly put to death, and that all individuals should be able to appeal if they are accused of having committed a crime before they undergo punishment, under your system, anything goes, just as long as it has the support of the community. This is essentially a Rousseauian nightmare - except you're nowhere near as eloquent or intelligent as Rousseau.

No, none. However other communes may intervene. This was dealt with in my previous post - if you accept the idea that other communes have a right to intervene, then you are contradicting your entire argument, because this would imply that there are some cases where the majority's decisions cannot be accepted as legitimate. If this is the case, then surely it would be a good idea to have a document which informs individuals of the rights they are entitled to, so they can appeal if they think they have been treated unjustly, and surely, in addition to this, an oversight mechanism should be used to evaluate legislation before it is enacted, to prevent any potential injustice from taking place?

I still oppose that including referendums. I dont know about the US but alot of reactionary views come from the media (such as the sun , mail , express etc) and without that there would be less bigoted shitty views.Once again, we've already established that the potential for reactionary prejudices, and therefore discriminatory legislation, will remain in place once capitalism has been overthrown, at least for some period of time, even when such media outlets have been eliminated, simply because ideas, when deeply entrenched, take a long time to fade away, and sometimes you need to have an outside force - such as an agitation campaign led by a political organization - to stir up debate and other ways of looking at things. I gave an example of this in my very first post - Central Asia after the October Revolution, with regard to women's literacy.

I trust the community of an area to make decisions on what effects them rather then banning everything for shits n giggles.I pointed out in my previous post that there are plenty of historical examples of communities carrying out vicious reprisal actions against individuals who are perceived as having been cruel towards other members of the community in the past - during the GPCR, there were countless cases of people being persecuted or otherwise harmed on the basis of absurd charges, such as the accusation that they had committed adultery or that, by worshiping at a temple many years prior, they had underlying reactionary tendencies, and therefore deserved to die or be excluded from the community. This is not a hypothetical issue - it is real, and you've failed to deal with.

*****

CJ, it's clear you everyone who reads this thread that you've got a ridiculous position, you're incapable of responding to arguments, and that you're generally rather immature.

danyboy27

25th February 2009, 20:11

It goes against my no platform beliefs but voted no, simply because it would set a precedent for oppressing dissent by law. If anyone wishes to administer some vigilante justice on holocaust deniers feel free of course.

you cant just authorize vigilante justice, mainly beccause anyone could pretend be a vigilante and hurt/kill or opress a group of people under false reason such has accusing the them of nazism. i dont want everyone to have a license to kill in the world i am living in.

Pirate turtle the 11th

25th February 2009, 20:22

CJ, you haven't responded to my points. Also, you aren't listening to what other people have to say.

This exposes an important ambiguity - what is the meaning of tolerance? Does it mean tolerating opinions we find morally repugnant - such as racism? Or does it mean calling on the state or some other form of governmental authority to clamp down on opinions which are seen as intolerant to ensure that nobody is exposed to them? In any case, there are strong utilitarian grounds for opposing the banning of Holocaust denial - it will give fascist groups an opportunity to assume the position of the victim and claim that they are being persecuted for having political views which go against the opinions of the mainstream, and this could potentially lead to even greater support, whereas the government and all those who support the ban will be perceived as hypocrites who only support freedom of speech when it comes to opinions they agree with.

Apart from A - They may try to be seen as the victim yet they would fail. No one sees openly nazi groups as victims.

No, both myself and Demogorgon are arguing is that there should be a set of inalienable rights established in a document of some kind and up held by a court system, which exist to ensure that the autonomy of the individual is not threatened by intrusive legislation which might otherwise lead to individual rights being violated or ignored, because the members of an oppressed minority group (such as homosexuals, or young people) do not have enough political weight to protect themselves and persuade the community not to enact discriminatory laws. This is not the same as saying that democracy is not important, or that a minority should always be able to discard the decision of a majority. By rejecting the desirability of basic rights, you are, as Demogorgon has already pointed out, essentially arguing that oppressed groups should be entitled to less rights than under bourgeois democracy - whereas constitutions in countries such as the United States currently guarantee that individuals should not be unjustly put to death, and that all individuals should be able to appeal if they are accused of having committed a crime, under your system, anything goes, just as long as it has the support of the community. This is essentially a Rousseauian nightmare - except you're nowhere near as eloquent or intelligent as Rousseau.

I was arguing though to enforce those rights you would need a majority being "policed" in order not to do those things by a minority.

Do you accept this.

This was dealt with in my previous post - if you accept the idea that other communes have a right to intervene, then you are contradicting your entire argument, because this would imply that there are some cases where the majority's decisions cannot be accepted as legitimate.

I was arguing the a majority rules is appropriate for an organ of power not that it was the height of ethics or morals.

If this is the case, then surely it would be a good idea to have a document which informs individuals of the rights they are entitled to, so they can appeal if they think they have been treated unjustly, and surely, in addition to this, an oversight mechanism should be used to evaluate legislation before it is enacted, to prevent any potential injustice from taking place?

Run past me what an "oversight mechanism" might involve.

Once again, we've already established that the potential for reactionary prejudices, and therefore discriminatory legislation, will remain in place once capitalism has been overthrown, at least for some period of time, even when such media outlets have been eliminated, simply because ideas, when deeply entrenched, take a long time to fade away, and sometimes you need to have an outside force - such as an agitation campaign led by a political organization - to stir up debate and other ways of looking at things. I gave an example of this in my very first post - Central Asia after the October Revolution, with regard to women's literacy.

I pointed out in my previous post that there are plenty of historical examples of communities carrying out vicious reprisal actions against individuals who are perceived as having been cruel towards other members of the community in the past - during the GPCR, there were countless examples of people being persecuted or otherwise harmed on the basis of absurd charges, such as the accusation that they had committed adultery or that, by worshiping at a temple many years prior, they had underlying reactionary tendencies, and therefore deserved to do. This is not a hypothetical issue - it is real, and you've failed to deal with.

Your right its a real issue. I still believe however that you ignore the nature of power by thinking it ok to have a minority ruling over a majority within a commune.

*****

CJ, it's clear you everyone who reads this thread that you've got a ridiculous position, you're incapable of responding to arguments, and that you're generally rather immature.

You will of course forgive me for only spending about five minuites on a post as I have other things id rather be doing then essay writing (admittedly i feel rather guilty giving quick , short answers to a post that you seem to have spend a while on).

Besides when can i expect your application to my fan club?

_______

Also bob i thought that the SWP had a no platform policy when it came to people such as david irving? Do you differ from the main party line or am i talking out of my arse?

BobKKKindle$

25th February 2009, 20:44

Apart from A - They may try to be seen as the victim yet they would fail. No one sees openly nazi groups as victims. Actually, the BNP regularly uses victimization as a theme to engage with working people, and they continue to emphasize the ways in which they differ from the other political parties, whom they see as having no connection with the concerns of working people, in order to appeal to people who share the same sense of betrayal, and, judging by their recent electoral success, it seems to have been a successful strategy.

I was arguing though to enforce those rights you would need a majority being "policed" in order not to do those things by a minority.You conceive of a minority as being synonymous with a oligarchical dictatorship, which would, once given any responsibility, inevitably be able to establish itself as a new ruling class and political elite. This need not be the case. It would be easy to draw up a set of rights through a process of mass participation and discussion - in the same way that workers and students decide on the demands they want to put forward when they take strike action or go into occupation under capitalism - and then a body would be created in order to enforce those rights, comprised of individuals who are only able to serve for a fixed period of time before they have to step down, and who can be recalled at any point if they are found to have suppressed an act of legislation without legitimate grounds for doing so. In this respect, a group of people - who would obviously constitute a minority because the basic concept of representation involves people allowing a minority to make decisions on their behalf, to varying degrees - would fulfill a useful function, and would never be allowed to accumulate unnecessary power. If you can't see the difference between representation and oligarchy, and if you would rather have genital mutilation than a system of checks and balances, you're fundamentally wrong.

was arguing the a majority rules is appropriate for an organ of power not that it was the height of ethics or morals.OK, so we've established that there are rights which should never be compromised because they are necessary to allow people to live with dignity and not become victims of prejudices which may be held by the majority. If you accept this, then surely it follows that it would be a good idea to have a set of formal procedures and rules in place to restrict what communities are allowed to do to vulnerable minorities, instead of relying on an ad-hoc mechanism, whereby other communities intervene after discriminatory legislation has been enacted?

Run past me what an "oversight mechanism" might involve. A body elected specifically for the task of protecting individual rights, and subject to the safeguards described above, would examine each act of legislation passed by a community and would compare it with the set of rights society has agreed to protect, and, if it is found that the legislation conflicts with one or more of the rights, the legislation would be rejected, and the community would be told that they are trying to infringe on the rights of a vulnerable minority, and cannot be permitted to do so, because certain rights are held by society to be sacrosanct. If the community disagrees, they can appeal to the body in question, and an appeal process would start, perhaps involving another body designed to deal with conflicts between this oversight body and individual communities. This is not a novel concept - the Supreme Court in the United States functions in exactly the same way, and if it were not for Roe v. Wade, passed in 1973 to secure reproductive freedom, in many states women would be denied the right to exercise control over their bodies, and even today several states have "trigger laws" in place to instantly ban abortion if the decision is ever revoked.

I still believe however that you ignore the nature of power by thinking it ok to have a minority ruling over a majority within a commune.It's not a matter of allowing a minority to rule over a majority. Again, representation - electing representatives to fulfill a certain role - is not the same as oligarchy.

Also bob i thought that the SWP had a no platform policy when it came to people such as david irving?"No Platform" does not involve calling on the bourgeois state to restrict freedom of speech.

RGacky3

25th February 2009, 20:52

Well then the majority are twats and other communes may decide not to have anything to do with them (no trading for example)

So minorities in those communities don't desearve protection, essencially your saying there are no individual rights, is that accurate?

But they lack a practical ability to do this.

Because they've lost so much support.

It goes against my no platform beliefs but voted no, simply because it would set a precedent for oppressing dissent by law. If anyone wishes to administer some vigilante justice on holocaust deniers feel free of course.

exactly, you take away fundemental rights from one person, you essencially take it away from everyone.

you cant just authorize vigilante justice, mainly beccause anyone could pretend be a vigilante and hurt/kill or opress a group of people under false reason such has accusing the them of nazism. i dont want everyone to have a license to kill in the world i am living in.

I don't think he's saying that vigilante justice is allowed, what I think he is saying, and I agree, is this, if you go into a gay bar, and start preaching that homosexuality is discusting, don't be supprised if you get your ass kicked, not saying that its nessesarily the right thing to do, but chances are its gonna happen, so don't do it. In other words, if your gonna be a dickhead, just because its legal does'nt mean there won't be consequences.

I was arguing though to enforce those rights you would need a majority being "policed" in order not to do those things by a minority.

Do you accept this.

Policed BY WHO???

Your right its a real issue. I still believe however that you ignore the nature of power by thinking it ok to have a minority ruling over a majority within a commune.

Minority rights does no mean minority rule over a majority. Minority rights means universal individual rights.

Pirate turtle the 11th

25th February 2009, 21:03

Actually, the BNP regularly uses victimization as a theme to engage with working people, and they continue to emphasize the ways in which they differ from the other political parties, whom they see as having no connection with the concerns of working people, in order to appeal to people who share the same sense of betrayal, and, judging by their recent electoral success, it seems to have been a successful strategy.

Look the BNP has done well because of a few things victimization is not one of the main reasons at all. It has done well be it apeels to those who live on a diet of gutter press. (The sun , mail , express , you know the ones).

Yeah and the emphasize the way they differ from the other poltical parties (when the other poltical parties have shown time and time again to be shit) by spewing populist shit by saying they will fix the country and be offering solutions. Now these solutions are reeking of shit and are solving problems that dont exsist and infact serve to damage the working class , this is not however how normal people see it.

It basically feeds of dissatisfaction in the areas we should be doing well in by scapegoating the vulnerable in society which is made easier by the media.

You concieve of a minority as being synonymous with a oligarhical dictatorship which would inevitabley be abe to establish itself as a new ruling class and political elite. This need not be the case. It would be easy to draw up a set of rights through a process of mass participation and discussion - in the same way that workers and students decide on the demands they want to put forward when they take strike action or go into occupation under capitalism - and then a body would be created in order to enforce those rights, comprised of individuals who are only able to serve for a fixed period of time before they have to step down, and who can be recalled at any point if they are found to have suppressed an act of legislation without legitimate grounds for doing so. In this respect, a group of people - who would obviously constute a minority because the basic concept of representation involves people allowing a minority to make decisions on their behalf, to varying degrees - would fulfill a useful function, and would never be allowed to accumulate unncessary power. If you can't see the difference between representation and oligarchy, and if you would rather have genital mutilation than a system of checks and balances, you're fundamentally wrong.

Quite simply bob im not asking about how the decisions are made but who fires the guns. A majority may elect a minority to keep checks and balances (what stops the majority from being racist ****nobs btw and electing racist ****nobs), but if the majority then choose to do otherwise (unlikely since they would have decied on the checks and balances in the first place) then who quite simply will have the brute force to suppress the majority?

Ok, so we've established that there are rights which should never be compromised because they are necessary to allow people to live with dignity and not become victims of prejudices which may be held by the majority. If you accept this, then surely it follows that it would be a good idea to have a set of formal procedures and rules in place to restrict what communities are allowed to do to vulnerable minorities, instead of relying on a ad-hoc mechnaims, whereby other communities intervene after discriminatory legilation has been enacted?

Bob my objection is not ethics or morals as i said earlier but I am curious to who you wish to elevate to a position to outgun the majority?

A body elected specifically for the task of protecting individual rights, and subject to the safeguards described above, would examine each act of legislation passed by a community and would compare it with the set of rights society has agreed to protect, and, if it is found that the legislation conflicts with one or more of the rights, the legislation would be rejected, and the community would be told that they are trying to infringe on the rights of a vulnerable minority, and cannot be permitted to do so, because certain rights are held by society to be sacrosant. If the community disagrees, they can appeal to the body in question, and an appeal process would start, perhaps involving another body designed to deal with conflicts betwen this oversight body and individual communities. This is not a novel concept - the Supreme Court in the United States functions in exactly the same way, and if it were not for Roe v. Wade, passed in 1973 to secure reproductive freedom, in many states women would be denied the right to exercise control over their bodies, and even today several states have "trigger laws" in place to instantly ban abortion if the decision is ever revoked.

It's not a matter of allowing a minority to rule over a majority. Again, representation - electing representatives to fulfill a certain role - is not the same as oligarchy.

Your still ignoring "who does the shooting and why can they outshoot the majority and is this safe?"

* Bob please answer the SWP - no platform question this isnt an attack on your rather then something im intrigued about

Pirate turtle the 11th

25th February 2009, 21:12

So minorities in those communities don't desearve protection, essencially your saying there are no individual rights, is that accurate?

I am saying that if the majority chooses to be arseholes there isnt alot we can do about it unfortunately.

Because they've lost so much support.

Due to them not being able to have much influence in working class areas. Due to them being removed/

exactly, you take away fundemental rights from one person, you essencially take it away from everyone.

Prehaps the majority might take away everyone in that communes right to peddle "bulldog" (or whatever its called these days) in the highstreet but the fact of the matter is who will have the force to overturn the majorties decision?

Policed BY WHO???

Exactly. Who will have the ability to force the majority to do something. I think you share my concerne about the majority being outgunned and the majority having guns makes telling them to do something rather awkward (im not arguing against a piece of paper being drawn up saying "we wont do these things") - im just saying its gonna be fucking impossible to enforce without the majority being outgunned.

Minority rights does no mean minority rule over a majority. Minority rights means universal individual rights.

[/quote]

I know but i was referring to who enforces them.

Sam_b

25th February 2009, 21:34

BobKKKindle$

25th February 2009, 21:36

A majority may elect a minority to keep checks and balances (what stops the majority from being racist ****nobs btw and electing racist ****nobs), but if the majority then choose to do otherwise (unlikely since they would have decied on the checks and balances in the first place) then who quite simply will have the brute force to suppress the majority?The fact that the majority may be able to support a prejudiced constitution which allows for violation of minority rights, and may, in turn, be able to elect a reactionary safeguard body in order to ensure that the progressive aspects of any constitution are not implemented effectively under the system outlined in my previous post is not an argument for doing away with safeguards - in fact, if it emerges that reactionary views are so predominant that the creation of a progressive constitution through mass participation is not feasible, then that would be a reason to employ more checks and balances, not less, even if this requires that a section of society create a constitution independently. Of course, one hopes that this would not be the case, and it is unlikely that a revolution would ever be able to take place if the working class were still deeply prejudiced and incapable of making decisions collectively, but, as Demogorgon has already pointed out, an unfortunate incident - such as a series of murders committed by individuals who all belong to the same minority group, or someone facing an accusation that they have committed a serious crime against the community like stealing from others or manipulating the vulnerable to extract economic benefits - could easily inflame emotions, and lead to violent retribution through a vigilante justice system, and it is in these circumstances that a constitution would be vital, to guarantee a legal process and the right of appeal. In such an incident, a constitution previously created through rational discussion and deliberation would check the passions of the majority. As for the issue of "guns", you are approaching this in a totally simplistic way. The entire point of divided sovereignty is to ensure that no single body is able to accumulate absolute power in its hands and use force to destroy other components of a balanced political system - this is why, in the United States, the Supreme Court can strike down laws which violate the constitution but, when a members of the court dies, the President is able to appoint a successor, who then has to be accepted by the Senate. Through this mechanism, all three components of the state - the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature, are given input. This is not an issue which can be reduced to the question of whether the majority or minority has power. In the unlikely event that a state tried to persist in implementing a reactionary law - to my knowledge this has never occurred - then the armed forces would probably intervene to stop this from taking place. In the context of a socialist society, if an individual city/commune tried to pass a law outlawing abortion, then the collective law enforcement body of society - whatever form it would assume - would also intervene to uphold the rights of the minority group in question, in accordance with the constitution. You have adopted a totally simplistic and superficial view of democracy by assuming that democracy consists of allowing the majority to do whatever it wants regardless of the ethical implications of its decisions, and you need to explain why you view protecting individual rights as less important than the legitimacy of majority rule in all circumstances.

* Bob please answer the SWP - no platform question this isnt an attack on your rather then something im intrigued about I dealt with this in my last post - "No Platform" does not involve calling on the bourgeois state to restrict freedom of speech. To my knowledge, the SWP does not support banning Holocaust denial.

25th February 2009, 22:05

What is so hard about using paragraph breaks?

Pirate turtle the 11th

25th February 2009, 22:06

The fact that the majority may be able to support a prejudiced constitution which allows for violation of minority rights, and may, in turn, be able to elect a reactionary safeguard body in order to ensure that the progressive aspects of any constitution are not implemented effectively under the system outlined in my previous post is not an argument for doing away with safeguards - in fact, if it emerges that reactionary views are so predominant that the creation of a progressive constitution through mass participation is not feasible, then that would be a reason to employ more checks and balances, not less, even if this requires that a section of society create a constitution independently. Of course, one hopes that this would not be the case, and it is unlikely that a revolution would ever be able to take place if the working class were still deeply prejudiced and incapable of making decisions collectively, but, as Demogorgon has already pointed out, an unfortunate incident - such as a series of murders committed by individuals who all belong to the same minority group, or someone facing an accusation that they have committed a serious crime against the community like stealing from others or manipulating the vulnerable to extract economic benefits - could easily inflame emotions, and lead to violent retribution through a vigilante justice system, and it is in these circumstances that a constitution would be vital, to guarantee a legal process and the right of appeal. In such an incident, a constitution previously created through rational discussion and deliberation would check the passions of the majority. As for the issue of "guns", you are approaching this in a totally simplistic way. The entire point of divided sovereignty is to ensure that no single body is able to accumulate absolute power in its hands and use force to destroy other components of a balanced political system - this is why, in the United States, the Supreme Court can strike down laws which violate the constitution but, when a members of the court dies, the President is able to appoint a successor, who then has to be accepted by the Senate. Through this mechanism, all three components of the state - the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature, are given input. This is not an issue which can be reduced to the question of whether the majority or minority has power. In the unlikely event that a state tried to persist in implementing a reactionary law - to my knowledge this has never occurred - then the armed forces would probably intervene to stop this from taking place. In the context of a socialist society, if an individual city/commune tried to pass a law outlawing abortion, then the collective law enforcement body of society - whatever form it would assume - would also intervene to uphold the rights of the minority group in question, in accordance with the constitution. You have adopted a totally simplistic and superficial view of democracy by assuming that democracy consists of allowing the majority to do whatever it wants regardless of the ethical implications of its decisions, and you need to explain why you view protecting individual rights as less important than the legitimacy of majority rule in all circumstances.

At 10pm and without glasses on this block is unreadable i will try and remember to address it tommrow

I dealt with this in my last post - "No Platform" does not involve calling on the bourgeois state to restrict freedom of speech. To my knowledge, the SWP does not support banning Holocaust denial.

Aww fuck it im not in the mood to argue about UAF being twats

Bob il talk to you later

25th February 2009, 22:10

Why should we extend full democratic rights to those who wish to take it away from the majority? Thr idea of holocaust denial is not one of these isolationist ideas: it is inextrinsically (i have no idea how to spell it) linked with the ideas of fascism and the 'ethno-politics' of the far-right. The likes of David Irving, the BNP, the NDP etc would not be so fast to be tolerant of freedom of speech and would more than happily resume the genocide not just against Jewish people, but Muslims, Trade Unionists, the LGBT community...the list goes on.

We cannot have a policy of no-platformism towards fascists but a certain tolerance of fascist ideology. It doesn't work like that.

Seems to be lots of differing views in the SWP what with Bobkindles changing his view on degenerated worker's states to simply stay in there.

It must be said though, I find it hard to believe the SWP's general line is to give Fascists freedom of speech. Maybe Bob will change his view on this too. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah Bob you have said about suppressing Nazis after the revolution before! Still in favour of suppressing nazis after the revolution? You appear to be entirely contradicting the views you've said you hold before.

Demogorgon

25th February 2009, 22:25

What progress? I dont see "freedom of speech" today and see I also see tolerance for shit which i view to be most unimpressive.
Freedom of Speech exists on a scale from completely unlimited to utterly suppressed. Fortunately in the west today we exist near the unlimited side of things and it took many long years and much blood and toil by progressives to get that. I will oppose any and every attempt to claw back those gains.

What you are proposing though is that a minority controls this majority.

No, I am not. What "minority" exactly do you think I am saying should rule? I am saying the rights of minorities and the rights of the individual must be protected alongside the rights of the majority. That is not about the minority ruling but the minority not being persecuted by the majority.

I have to say here, that your claims to be an anarchist are looking very shaky right now. Not being an anarchist myself, I do not wish to speak for them more than I have to. But anarchy is about there being no rulers and each man his own master free to go about his life without being compelled to by others. You wish to create a system where a majority can compel a minority group to do anything at all. That is the argument for social conservatism. Not anarchism.

No, none. However other communes may intervene.

So war will be our one and only safeguard? Lovely. However this brings us to another problem. That means that bigger and stronger "communes" will be able to push about small ones as it sees fit.

I still oppose that including referendums. I dont know about the US but alot of reactionary views come from the media (such as the sun , mail , express etc) and without that there would be less bigoted shitty views.

Maybe so, but you are changing the subject. The issue is judicial protection of constitutional rights and the desirability of such a thing. You are telling us that you would view it as progress to take away that protection of people and allowing for completely arbitrary exercise of power

They need a damn good kicking. These pricks attack immigrants , gays , communists etc and I will have no objection to a community defending themselves against them.

You sound like a child. People who attack others like that are criminals and like all criminals there are reasons why they have turned to such behaviour. Usually (and certainly in theses cases) the reasons are social. Tough "law and order" machismo about dealing harshly with criminals gets us nowhere. Those that err need to be helped so that they become decent members of society.

This is why i object to banning holocaust denial under capitalism. I trust the community of an area to make decisions on what effects them rather then banning everything for shits n giggles.

You have a remarkable level of trust that everyone will just happen to believe whatever you do and go along with it. Seeing as you haven't been able to follow any examples given of the problems your proposals will bring, here is one that would effect you directly.

I think if you asked people what they would like to ban most of all, the answer would neither be "Nazis" nor gays or whatever but teenagers hanging about the streets. In real life what I hear complaints of more than anything is teenage gangs and the problems associated with them. Of course the solution to the problem is giving teenagers something a bit more productive to do, but many people seem to think that simply imposing a curfew on under-18s is the answer. Many communities would certainly implement it given the chance-many already have. How would you like it if you were forbidden to go out after 7PM unless in the company of a parent or guardian? Wouldn't you like some mechanism to protect you from that?

Of course having a minority able to override the majority is how no dictatorships are started ever!

Name me a single dictatorship that ever began by protecting the rights of minorities.

Fuck off shitbrain
As charmed as I am by such sweet nothings, I am not sure that is the best way to persuade me that you are not in need of a little more maturity.

Pirate turtle the 11th

25th February 2009, 22:30

It boils down to this shitbrain:

Who do you wish to trust with the capabilities of outgunning the majority?

Vanguard1917

25th February 2009, 22:38

Why should we extend full democratic rights to those who wish to take it away from the majority? Thr idea of holocaust denial is not one of these isolationist ideas: it is inextrinsically (i have no idea how to spell it) linked with the ideas of fascism and the 'ethno-politics' of the far-right. The likes of David Irving, the BNP, the NDP etc would not be so fast to be tolerant of freedom of speech and would more than happily resume the genocide not just against Jewish people, but Muslims, Trade Unionists, the LGBT community...the list goes on.

We cannot have a policy of no-platformism towards fascists but a certain tolerance of fascist ideology. It doesn't work like that.

So we should grant the capitalist state with greater powers to police what can and can't be said, written, published, etc.?

How do you reconcile your Marxism with such a position (which is antithetical to Marxism)?

RGacky3

25th February 2009, 22:47

It boils down to this shitbrain:

Who do you wish to trust with the capabilities of outgunning the majority?

No one, however I'm hoping the majority are ultimately anarchists (which I think they are) and ultimately respect freedom :)

Vanguard1917

25th February 2009, 22:47

I dealt with this in my last post - "No Platform" does not involve calling on the bourgeois state to restrict freedom of speech. To my knowledge, the SWP does not support banning Holocaust denial.

It does, along with supporting other demands on the state to legislate against free speech.

What we think
Never again!
THERE IS only one reason for denial of the Nazi Holocaust. It is to make it possible again. For Nazis themselves the fact that the Holocaust happened does not matter. Indeed, they celebrate it.

But they know that all decent people are sickened by it. So they systematically lie. If the Holocaust deniers' lies were believed it would be easier for Nazi groups to grow.

Instead of the anti-Nazi slogan, "Never Again!" the Holocaust deniers say, "It never happened." Holocaust deniers should be confronted whenever they raise their heads, and Irving's books should be banned from every public, college and school library.
http://socialistworker.co.uk/archive/1680/sw168026.htm

Sam_b

25th February 2009, 22:48

Seems to be lots of differing views in the SWP what with Bobkindles changing his view on degenerated worker's states to simply stay in there.

Am I not allowed to have fraternal disagreements on strategy with a fellow SWP comrade?

So we should grant the capitalist state with greater powers to police what can and can't be said, written, published, etc.?

Are you fishing, perhaps? This has absolutely fuck-all to do with what I said, and leaves you wide open to criticism. Next you'll be saying we shouldn't support a mimimum wage increase because it gives more power to the state to regulate what can and cannot be charged :rolleyes:

By antithetical to Marxism, do you mean the classical Marxism that was formulated at a time when fascism was of little to no threat? I'm merely trying to reflect on the experiences of the German social-democratis and KPD with their 'freedom of speech' debate.

Pirate turtle the 11th

25th February 2009, 22:49

No one, however I'm hoping the majority are ultimately anarchists (which I think they are) and ultimately respect freedom :)

I noticed that jab at me (wanker :laugh:) and I agree with you that there should not be anyone able to outgun the majority.

Vanguard1917

25th February 2009, 22:51

Are you fishing, perhaps? This has absolutely fuck-all to do with what I said,

Why doesn't it? Do you oppose capitalist state legislation against free speech?

By antithetical to Marxism, do you mean the classical Marxism that was formulated at a time when fascism was of little to no threat? I'm merely trying to reflect on the experiences of the German social-democratis and KPD with their 'freedom of speech' debate.

I'm referring to the Marxism of, among others, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky -- people who vehemently opposed all forms bourgeois censorship even against some of the most despicable reactionary groups of their time (including, in Trotsky's case, modern fascists).

Sasha

25th February 2009, 22:54

German neo-Nazi convicted of Holocaust denial http://img.iht.com/images/articletools/dots_at_narrow.gif

http://img.iht.com/images/articletools/at_narrow_bot.gif

BERLIN (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/02/25/europe/EU-Germany-Holocaust-Denial.php#): A founding member of a left-wing terrorist group turned neo-Nazi was convicted Wednesday in Munich of Holocaust denial and sentenced to six years in prison after a judge accused him of using the courtroom to spread his message of hate.
Horst Mahler — a founder of the Red Army Faction in 1970 — was convicted of incitement for posting videos denying the Holocaust on the Internet and distributing CDs promoting anti-Jewish hatred and violence. Denial of the Nazi Holocaust is a crime in Germany.
Mahler, who initiated the Munich state court case by filing a complaint against himself, was accused by Presiding Judge Martin Rieder as using the courtroom as a stage to promote his "nationalist croaking."
Mahler used his right to make a closing statement at the trial to give an hours-long monologue, repeating his denial of the Holocaust and expressing his sympathy for Richard Williamson, the Roman Catholic bishop whose assertion that no Jews were gassed during the Holocaust embarrassed the Vatican.

"The rage of the people is at the boiling point," he said in defense of Williamson, telling the judges: "Watch out that you don't get scalded."

http://www.iht.com/images/dot_h.gif

Rieder sentenced Mahler to one year above the maximum recommended five years in prison, saying he is "completely unrepentant and totally unteachable."
"It was as if these people have had to die again," Rieder said. "Therefore, the Horst Mahler show has now ended."
The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Jerusalem hailed the verdict and sentence.
"It reinforces the message that there's no tolerance for Holocaust denial, and it is a strong reminder that the courts should not be misused by deniers to disseminate their lies," said the Wiesenthal Center's Efraim Zuroff.
Mahler did not say in court whether he would appeal the sentence but prosecutor Andrea Titz said she was certain he would.
It was the latest in a string of neo-Nazi-related convictions for Mahler, who is a lawyer. In addition, a court in Mainz in 2003 found Mahler guilty of condoning a crime for saying the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in the United States were justified and fined him several thousand euros (dollars).
He was also convicted in the mid-1970s for Red Army Faction-related activities — including several bank robberies and for helping notorious terrorist Andreas Baader, another founding member of the group, to escape from jail.
He was sentenced to 14 years in prison but was released in 1980 after he made several public statements condemning terrorism and Red Army Faction methods.
Mahler then joined the far-right National Democratic Party, from 2000 to 2003, and acted as its attorney.

:lol:

RGacky3

25th February 2009, 22:54

By antithetical to Marxism, do you mean the classical Marxism that was formulated at a time when fascism was of little to no threat? I'm merely trying to reflect on the experiences of the German social-democratis and KPD with their 'freedom of speech' debate.

So somethings threat is what determines its legality to be said?

In that casea you are giving the United States the thumbs up for the Sedition act against the IWW and its cracking down on the Black Panthers.

Holocause denial is rediculous, and can be disprooven over and over again, the best way to let the truth win is to have the most open discorse and the freest of speach.

Sam_b

26th February 2009, 00:02

So somethings threat is what determines its legality to be said?

Another ridiculous twisting of words, unless we should be hailing holocaust denial as nothing more than pure freedom of speech. The greatest 'threat' here is the deterioration of democaracy, which fascists stand for absolutely under the guise of freedom of speech.

The US government's crackdown on the Panthers should be seen as an attack on democracy. Clamping down on fascists is not.

How many ardent no-platformers on here take part in activities against fascism, but are happy here to trot off the 'freedom of speech' mantra which has been the excuse of fascism for decades?

26th February 2009, 00:06

Am I not allowed to have fraternal disagreements on strategy with a fellow SWP comrade?

Well you certainly misquoted me as that has nothing to do with you. Bob's views on degenerated worker's states. What I'm saying is that Bob's disagreements with the bottom lines of the SWP seem to be very shiftable. :rolleyes:

I understand you're in the UAF? Well their no-platform strategy involves silly slogans, that's in line with SWP strategy what with the whole anti-squadism rule (although UAF have been known to get randomly drunk like the sexy middle-class folk they are and chuck a few bottles at fences).

All I'm saying is that it isn't your disagreements with Bob, but rather Bob's disagreements with general SWP strategy that seem a bit hypocritical to me.

Demogorgon

26th February 2009, 00:16

It boils down to this shitbrain:

Who do you wish to trust with the capabilities of outgunning the majority?
Well in that case, little boy (my my, name calling can be fun) the answer is that an elected authority, responsible to the people manages the consistent application of the law. It is not a question of people outgunning one another. If your society is boiling down to gunfights over every political dispute, you have some pretty serious problems.

Also, here is one for you to think about. You have told us all about how you want to beat up "fascists" because they attack gays, immigrants etc, but you have also told us that you want to remove every last legal protection that exists to protect such people from discrimination. Perhaps you should go and consider where that places you.

political_animal

26th February 2009, 01:01

Well, as far as the question of 'should holocause denial be illegal'. I think no, the reason being that I just think that anyone that says such things are just idiots. I don't know how they think they can gain anything by denying something that so obviously happened. In the end, it just serves to undermine their own fascist views on everything else.

As far as banning the likes of the BNP. No, I wouldn't. As much as I hate their vile views, banning them doesn't make them go away, whereas debating their views and showing them up for the peddlars of hate and misinformation that they are, would serve a far greater purpose. Hoist by their own petard if you will.

Vanguard1917

26th February 2009, 01:08

BobKKKindle$

26th February 2009, 08:33

Bob's views on degenerated worker's states. What I'm saying is that Bob's disagreements with the bottom lines of the SWP seem to be very shiftableThis thread isn't about my views on workers states or any other aspect of revolutionary politics. I once subscribed to the orthodox Trotskyist view on the class-character of the USSR, but then after having done some reading, and talking to some comrades once I'd moved to the UK, I changed my mind, and became a member of the SWP shortly afterwards. This is what socialists do - if we find that our ideas are contradicted by more persuasive arguments or empirical evidence, we change our ideas, we don't stick to dogma. That's the end of it - I wasn't even a member of the SWP before that point, because I come from a country which doesn't have an IST section, so there was never any danger of me getting chucked out of the party for my views, if that's what you're thinking. If you have a fascination with my political views, then feel happy to PM me and I'll answer all of your questions.

graffic

26th February 2009, 14:18

I voted yes because like someone else said - it keeps Nazis in check.

I support freedom of speech but the thing to remember about Holocaust deniers is that 99% of them are publicly "denying" the holocaust in order to stir up race hate.

There is no logical argument for their stance, it's purely driven by racism and hate.

Same with people who deny the slave trade ever happened.

Vanguard1917

26th February 2009, 16:44

I support freedom of speech but the thing to remember about Holocaust deniers is that 99% of them are publicly "denying" the holocaust in order to stir up race hate.

How can you say that you support freedom of speech if you support anti-free speech legislation? Like i said before, restricted 'free speech' is not real free speech but privileged speech, i.e. the freedom to express only certain opinions.

There is no logical argument for their stance, it's purely driven by racism and hate.

Freedom of speech is only meaningful and useful if it also applies to those with views with which we disagree. Like Rosa Luxemburg put it, 'Freedom is always the freedom of the dissenter. Not because of the fanaticism of "justice", but rather because all that is instructive, wholesome, and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effects cease to work when "freedom" becomes a privilege.'

Pirate turtle the 11th

26th February 2009, 16:57

Well in that case, little boy (my my, name calling can be fun) the answer is that an elected authority, responsible to the people manages the consistent application of the law. It is not a question of people outgunning one another. If your society is boiling down to gunfights over every political dispute, you have some pretty serious problems.

To have those elected representatives to enforce successfully over the majority they will need to be able to outgun the majority to have anyone take notice of them or for them to not end up in a ditch.

Also, here is one for you to think about. You have told us all about how you want to beat up "fascists" because they attack gays, immigrants etc, but you have also told us that you want to remove every last legal protection that exists to protect such people from discrimination. Perhaps you should go and consider where that places you.

If there was some way to stop communities 100% discriminating against gays , immigrants etc i would do it. But the problem with some constitution that upholds this is that it has to be enforced over the majority which would require the ability to present a greater force. That is what concerns me. I have nothing against a commune saying "alright we wont do this" and having it stuck into law - it would be meaningless as a law since without some kind of body with superior strength it could be overturned if wished but it may effect the culture and ideology of the commune in a positive manner.

PS: Your insult was shit. "immature little runt" might have being good, or doing it in an intelligent manner like R gacky did would have being good "Little boy" however is shit.

RGacky3

26th February 2009, 17:28

Another ridiculous twisting of words, unless we should be hailing holocaust denial as nothing more than pure freedom of speech. The greatest 'threat' here is the deterioration of democaracy, which fascists stand for absolutely under the guise of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speach means freedom to say anything, what do you mean 'under the guise of freedom of speech' what they are doing is speach (holocaust denial) freedom of speach is the freedom to do that. The whole point of freedom of speach is that you can say whatever you want, deterioiration of democracy or not.

I noticed that jab at me (wanker :laugh:) and I agree with you that there should not be anyone able to outgun the majority.

it was'nt ment as a jab, but I generally think that the respecting of rights does'nt require people to be outgunned, in other words, morality (in my opinion) should be followed, not enforced. I think freedom of speach should be respected always, in an anarchist society or not.

The US government's crackdown on the Panthers should be seen as an attack on democracy. Clamping down on fascists is not.

From our perspective, from the US governments perspective its the same thing. The right to do one sets the presidence for the right to do the other. The point of principle is that it aplies no matter what the perspective or opinion.

How can you expect to be taken seriously when you have a double standard.

How many ardent no-platformers on here take part in activities against fascism, but are happy here to trot off the 'freedom of speech' mantra which has been the excuse of fascism for decades?

Its not an excuse its a right, if you don't believe that freedoms and principles should apply universally then you don't really believe in freedoms or principles. I trot off "freedom of speech" not because I like what fascists say, or want them to say it, I trot it because I believe in freedom of speech.

You have told us all about how you want to beat up "fascists" because they attack gays, immigrants etc, but you have also told us that you want to remove every last legal protection that exists to protect such people from discrimination. Perhaps you should go and consider where that places you.

Excactly, if protections don't exist for fascists, the protections for everyone else can (and most likely would) be taken away in a breath, againt, its either universal or its not.

I support freedom of speech but the thing to remember about Holocaust deniers is that 99% of them are publicly "denying" the holocaust in order to stir up race hate.

There is no logical argument for their stance, it's purely driven by racism and hate.

Same with people who deny the slave trade ever happened.

If freedom of speech is dependant on motive (which by the way can be hard to determine), then its not really freedom of speech is it.

That is what concerns me. I have nothing against a commune saying "alright we wont do this" and having it stuck into law - it would be meaningless as a law since without some kind of body with superior strength it could be overturned if wished but it may effect the culture and ideology of the commune in a positive manner.

Heres the thing, I agree with you, however I believe that when it finally comes to that (Communism) the majority, who I belive are in general naturally respectful of other peoples rights and independance (generally restrictions are enforced from above) would respect peoples rights.

Almost always restriction of speech has come from a small elite over the masses, not the other way around.

However right now we are talking about now, a Capitalist State.

Pirate turtle the 11th

26th February 2009, 18:24

it was'nt ment as a jab, but I generally think that the respecting of rights does'nt require people to be outgunned, in other words, morality (in my opinion) should be followed, not enforced. I think freedom of speach should be respected always, in an anarchist society or not.

I disagree but in the end of it it will be up to the residents of the commune. Luckily neither of us get off to the thought of being a leader or some sorts.

Heres the thing, I agree with you, however I believe that when it finally comes to that (Communism) the majority, who I belive are in general naturally respectful of other peoples rights and independance (generally restrictions are enforced from above) would respect peoples rights.

Up to the people of the commune i guess.

Sean

26th February 2009, 19:01

you cant just authorize vigilante justice, mainly beccause anyone could pretend be a vigilante and hurt/kill or opress a group of people under false reason such has accusing the them of nazism. i dont want everyone to have a license to kill in the world i am living in.
Im not advocating some legislation, I'm simply saying that people who deny it happened purely for racist ends cannot be legally separated from those who wish to genuinely challenge any official historical record (I've yet to see one, btw, it fucking happened, end of). However, if the guy pisses you off enough that you want to beat 40 shades of shite out of him, I'm not calling the police if I see it.

Demogorgon

26th February 2009, 19:05

To have those elected representatives to enforce successfully over the majority they will need to be able to outgun the majority to have anyone take notice of them or for them to not end up in a ditch.

If there was some way to stop communities 100% discriminating against gays , immigrants etc i would do it. But the problem with some constitution that upholds this is that it has to be enforced over the majority which would require the ability to present a greater force. That is what concerns me. I have nothing against a commune saying "alright we wont do this" and having it stuck into law - it would be meaningless as a law since without some kind of body with superior strength it could be overturned if wished but it may effect the culture and ideology of the commune in a positive manner.

PS: Your insult was shit. "immature little runt" might have being good, or doing it in an intelligent manner like R gacky did would have being good "Little boy" however is shit.
You are fantasising about a Hobbesian nightmare now. One where they only legitimate or indeed possible way of doing business is through violence. You talk about "democracy", but now when we get down to it, we see you are actually just advocating rule by whoever can bring the most force to bare.

Any society, regardless of its type, can only work when people are willing to play by the rules, at least to some extent. Any society is going to have to agree to a form of Government, whether it be ratified by the people or imposed from above, and act according to it, otherwise it will fall apart and a new constitution will need to be made. A socialist society is no exception. A constitution laying out a form of Government and the rights guaranteed to all people will have to be laid out and all people will have to agree to play by the rules. The alternative is civil war. The constitution certainly will have to be as democratic as it is possible for one to be certainly, but as I have pointed out, democracy only exists in circumstances where all people are protected from arbitrary abuses. Laws cannot be made unless they follow the proper process for consultation and voting on them and cannot be enforced unless they are compatible with the Bill of Rights drawn up. Certainly the people themselves have to ratify this Bill of Rights, but once this is done, it is up to the Courts (elected of course or else selected by some other democratic means) to interpret the Bill of Rights and judge whether laws are consistent with them.

If you find the thought of such due process and fairness in rendering judgements in order to protect people from arbitrary exercise of authority so appalling that you are willing to kill to allow for injustice, that is your problem. But you will find very few people willing to go along with you. While most people are capable of making mistakes and being caught up in authoritarian causes, they also recognise that it is best to have safeguards in place that prevents such hot headedness from having disastrous results. That is why people will accept it as the courts role to interpret the law; few people want to live in a society where temporary hysteria leads to lynchings and other horrors. That is why the vast majority of people will desire checks and balances be built into any given system.

You on the other hand conceive of a society built upon nothing but force and the threat of it. No cooperation, no respect for one another, no ability to agree to rules for mutual benefit, simply the use of unrestrained violence to enforce one's will. That sure as hell doesn't sound like socialism to me.

Pirate turtle the 11th

26th February 2009, 19:13

You are fantasising about a Hobbesian nightmare now. One where they only legitimate or indeed possible way of doing business is through violence. You talk about "democracy", but now when we get down to it, we see you are actually just advocating rule by whoever can bring the most force to bare.

Any society, regardless of its type, can only work when people are willing to play by the rules, at least to some extent. Any society is going to have to agree to a form of Government, whether it be ratified by the people or imposed from above, and act according to it, otherwise it will fall apart and a new constitution will need to be made. A socialist society is no exception. A constitution laying out a form of Government and the rights guaranteed to all people will have to be laid out and all people will have to agree to play by the rules. The alternative is civil war. The constitution certainly will have to be as democratic as it is possible for one to be certainly, but as I have pointed out, democracy only exists in circumstances where all people are protected from arbitrary abuses. Laws cannot be made unless they follow the proper process for consultation and voting on them and cannot be enforced unless they are compatible with the Bill of Rights drawn up. Certainly the people themselves have to ratify this Bill of Rights, but once this is done, it is up to the Courts (elected of course or else selected by some other democratic means) to interpret the Bill of Rights and judge whether laws are consistent with them.

If you find the thought of such due process and fairness in rendering judgements in order to protect people from arbitrary exercise of authority so appalling that you are willing to kill to allow for injustice, that is your problem. But you will find very few people willing to go along with you. While most people are capable of making mistakes and being caught up in authoritarian causes, they also recognise that it is best to have safeguards in place that prevents such hot headedness from having disastrous results. That is why people will accept it as the courts role to interpret the law; few people want to live in a society where temporary hysteria leads to lynchings and other horrors. That is why the vast majority of people will desire checks and balances be built into any given system.

You on the other hand conceive of a society built upon nothing but force and the threat of it. No cooperation, no respect for one another, no ability to agree to rules for mutual benefit, simply the use of unrestrained violence to enforce one's will. That sure as hell doesn't sound like socialism to me.

No im realistic. Yes i believe a democracy and decision making process is needed but i am not an idiot and I do understand that giving one section of the commune enough force to overpower the majority leaves there a very real risk of a coup and an end to communism - not a risk i would like to take.

However if the people trusted upholding the consituation do not have the force to overpower the majority , the majority is very likely to ignore those "upholding" the constitution and henceforth the consituation is to become pointless.

BobKKKindle$

26th February 2009, 19:29

No im realistic

On the contrary, the system you propose is absurd. As Demogorgon suggested in his previous post, every society needs to have a set of rules which people agree to abide by even if they find that they happen to disagree with one or more of the rules at a given point in time, because without such rules, society simply would not be able to function, and would be reduced to a constant state of power struggles whereby groups of people are constantly trying to use their authority to oppress others in order to enhance their own position. What you want is essentially a society comprised entirely of self-governing communities, with the jurisdiction of each community being determined solely by its ability to enforce its laws, such that if there is a dispute over which community should be able to exercise control over a given territory, or if a community objects strongly to a particular law implemented by another community, there would be no established mechanism to resolve the dispute, and the communities would go to war as a result, with the victor being able to get their way. As soon as communities realize that war is a possibility, and if there is nothing to stop a community from using force to enslave a population, then they will find that the only way to deter attack is to build up their own defences, and to attack other communities before they have a chance to be attacked so as to gain more resources with which to build yet more defences. This would be, in the Hobbesian sense of the word, a state of nature, in which life really would be nasty, brutish, and short for all involved. It's actually tempting to quote from 'Leviathan' just to prove how stupid you are being. What is to stop a stronger community from using violence in order to force a neighbouring population into slavery, and then use that population to deprive its own inhabitants of any need to work, so they can spend the rest of their lives doing whatever they like, supported by a slave-based economy? What is to stop a community from refusing to supply a particular resource such as energy unless all dependent communities agree to give them tribute? The answer to both of these questions and countless others one could imagine is: nothing, because your society lacks any coordination and safeguard mechanisms. It would never be able to sustain itself in the long term, the economy would suffer, and, in retrospect, capitalism would look like paradise.

Oh, and, once you've learned to read, and tolerate more than two lines of text (what are your GCSE textbooks like?!) respond to my post.

RGacky3

26th February 2009, 19:32

I disagree but in the end of it it will be up to the residents of the commune. Luckily neither of us get off to the thought of being a leader or some sorts.

True, heres the thing though, what happens if you get a commune of racists (typical anti-anarchist argument), or gay bashers, just because they are the majority does that make them right?

Obviously me and you know the answer, that the more desentralized the power the less likely any restrictions and/or oppression would take place, the same thing goes for restricting free speach though, no matter who it comes from.

In an Anarchist society, because of its nature, everything would generally air on the side of freedom.

Yes i believe a democracy and decision making process is needed but i am not an idiot and I do understand that giving one section of the commune enough force to overpower the majority leaves there a very real risk of a coup and an end to communism - not a risk i would like to take.

Freedom of speach is'nt giving someone force, or risking a coup, unless of caorse they convince the majority, which probably would'nt happen if you have freedom of speach. If they do convince the majority, then in your eyes, they have the right to do what they want.

Anarchism is NOT about majority rule, its about total freedom and social equality.

Pirate turtle the 11th

26th February 2009, 19:34

On the contrary, the system you propose is absurd. As Demogorgon suggested in his previous post, every society needs to have a set of rules which people agree to abide by even if they find that they happen to disagree with one or more of the rules at a given point in time, because without such rules, society simply would not be able to function, and would be reduced to a constant state of power struggles whereby groups of people are constantly trying to use their authority to oppress others in order to enhance their own position. What you want is essentially a society comprised entirely of self-governing communities, with the jurisdiction of each community being determined solely by its ability to enforce its laws, such that if there is a dispute over which community should be able to exercise control over a given territory, or if a community objects strongly to a particular law implemented by another community, there would be no established mechanism to resolve the dispute, and the communities would go to war as a result, with the victor being able to get their way. As soon as communities realize that war is a possibility, and if there is nothing to stop a community from using force to enslave a population, then they will find that the only way to deter attack is to build up their own defences, and to attack other communities before they have a chance to be attacked so as to gain more resources with which to build yet more defences. This would be, in the Hobbesian sense of the word, a state of nature, in which life really would be nasty, brutish, and short for all involved. It's actually tempting to quote from 'Leviathan' just to prove how stupid you are being. What is to stop a stronger community from using violence in order to force a neighbouring population into slavery, and then use that population to deprive its own inhabitants of any need to work, so they can spend the rest of their lives doing whatever they like, supported by a slave-based economy? What is to stop a community from refusing to supply a particular resource such as energy unless all dependent communities agree to give them tribute? The answer to both of these questions and countless others one could imagine is: nothing, because your society lacks any coordination and safeguard mechanisms. It would never be able to sustain itself in the long term, the economy would suffer, and, in retrospect, capitalism would look like paradise.

Oh, and, once you've learned to read, and tolerate more than two lines of text (what are your GCSE textbooks like?!) respond to my post.

A = ethics

B = fear of setting a trend and a fear of other community diving in.

You however are absurd thinking anything can get done whilst the majority can be overpowered by a smaller force.

Readings easier with paragraphs by the way and your failure to discover the enter key is why so many people just skim though your posts.

http://www.growth-logic.com/Portals/57ad7180-c5e7-49f5-b282-c6475cdb7ee7/Enter%20Key.jpg

Demogorgon

26th February 2009, 19:55

No im realistic. Yes i believe a democracy and decision making process is needed but i am not an idiot and I do understand that giving one section of the commune enough force to overpower the majority leaves there a very real risk of a coup and an end to communism - not a risk i would like to take.

However if the people trusted upholding the consituation do not have the force to overpower the majority , the majority is very likely to ignore those "upholding" the constitution and henceforth the consituation is to become pointless.
Think how any society functions. Doesn't matter what kind of society it is. Take the United States. There control over the military is exercised by the President with the input of Congress. Various other powerful institutions are also under direct control of the President. The Supreme Court, the main guardian of the constitution regularly frustrates the President. There have been times on many occasions where Presidents have found their entire programmes collapsed due to the Supreme Court judging them unconstitutional. But not once has a President even so much as made a threat to bring the force he commands to bare to stop the Supreme Court effectively destroying his political career. Even when he has the full support of the other organs of power, including the big corporations.

This is true in all functioning political systems. People respect the constitution because they know that if they don't play by the rules laid out it will come back and hurt them. When the constitution is unacceptable, then an uprising is likely-it happens all the time in some parts of the world-but where the constitution is seen as being pretty good, people will accept it even when it prevents a particular policy they want from being carried out. In a socialist system-which ought to be the purest form of democracy-the constitution will have to be particularly good, because the people will have the greatest capability to prevent a bad one being imposed on them, and the process of drafting it will have to be particularly democratic. But once it is written and ratified, it then enters force as entrenched law that super-cedes all other law. There will be an amending process of course, though some clauses will likely be further entrenched, but the amending process will require much more than the passage of an ordinary law. If support for a change in the constitution is not overwhelming enough to meet this hurdle, then there certainly should not be any legislation imposed to violate the constitution in this way.

And again the process of interpreting the law falls to the courts, who therefore have the duty to determine the constitutionality of any law brought before them and if they find it unconstitutional, either because it was not passed in the proper manner (being voted on by the people in general rather than a small group would be an obvious criteria for instance) or because it violates the bill of rights, it then instructs the administrative authorities that this law is no longer to be enforced.

Which brings us to another issue incidentally. The separation of power into legislative, administrative/executive and judicial is something that emerged with the advent of liberalism when it became clear that devolving power away from a single authority meant it needed to be separated out. It stands to reason that communism, which takes power away from authority figures to an even greater extent will have to have its institutions of power separated even further. Not least because people can legislate directly through referenda or whatever rather than parliament, but you can't exercise administrative or judicial authority in that manner. That means that while the legislative authority will be the people themselves and whatever assemblies they might wish to elect or choose through sortition, administrative and judicial authorities will need to be elected.

It is the administrative authorities that enforce laws. It does so on the basis firstly of what laws are passed by the people and secondly according to the courts interpretation of the laws. It is hence the administrative authorities that enforce the decision of the courts as well as the decisions of the people. But here is the beauty of the system. Under an imperfect capitalist system, legislature, executive and judiciary are separated enough from the people that they can get away with colluding and enforcing their will on the people, under a more democratic socialist system they cannot do that. Yes the administrative authorities enforce the decisions of the courts, but if they abuse their position in any way, they are removed from office by the people. The courts have the power to rule on laws, but if they abuse it, the people can remove them from office too, by whatever mechanisms they might decide to use for this. But these removals also happen under a predefined set of rules to prevent a free for all.

So you see, the whole system is based on absolute authority in the hands of the people (and this doesn't just go for political authority either, but for things like the workplace too), but there are safeguards and checks built in. There are people elected to oversee the system and make sure it works according to the rules, but if they themselves try to abuse their position, they are thrown out of office. That is real democracy. The authority of the people backed up with assurances that nobody will be discriminated against or persecuted.

Kind of beats your system of glorified lynch mobs, doesn't it?

Pirate turtle the 11th

26th February 2009, 20:13

Think how any society functions. Doesn't matter what kind of society it is. Take the United States. There control over the military is exercised by the President with the input of Congress. Various other powerful institutions are also under direct control of the President. The Supreme Court, the main guardian of the constitution regularly frustrates the President. There have been times on many occasions where Presidents have found their entire programmes collapsed due to the Supreme Court judging them unconstitutional. But not once has a President even so much as made a threat to bring the force he commands to bare to stop the Supreme Court effectively destroying his political career. Even when he has the full support of the other organs of power, including the big corporations.

This is true in all functioning political systems. People respect the constitution because they know that if they don't play by the rules laid out it will come back and hurt them. When the constitution is unacceptable, then an uprising is likely-it happens all the time in some parts of the world-but where the constitution is seen as being pretty good, people will accept it even when it prevents a particular policy they want from being carried out. In a socialist system-which ought to be the purest form of democracy-the constitution will have to be particularly good, because the people will have the greatest capability to prevent a bad one being imposed on them, and the process of drafting it will have to be particularly democratic. But once it is written and ratified, it then enters force as entrenched law that super-cedes all other law. There will be an amending process of course, though some clauses will likely be further entrenched, but the amending process will require much more than the passage of an ordinary law. If support for a change in the constitution is not overwhelming enough to meet this hurdle, then there certainly should not be any legislation imposed to violate the constitution in this way.

And again the process of interpreting the law falls to the courts, who therefore have the duty to determine the constitutionality of any law brought before them and if they find it unconstitutional, either because it was not passed in the proper manner (being voted on by the people in general rather than a small group would be an obvious criteria for instance) or because it violates the bill of rights, it then instructs the administrative authorities that this law is no longer to be enforced.

Which brings us to another issue incidentally. The separation of power into legislative, administrative/executive and judicial is something that emerged with the advent of liberalism when it became clear that devolving power away from a single authority meant it needed to be separated out. It stands to reason that communism, which takes power away from authority figures to an even greater extent will have to have its institutions of power separated even further. Not least because people can legislate directly through referenda or whatever rather than parliament, but you can't exercise administrative or judicial authority in that manner. That means that while the legislative authority will be the people themselves and whatever assemblies they might wish to elect or choose through sortition, administrative and judicial authorities will need to be elected.

It is the administrative authorities that enforce laws. It does so on the basis firstly of what laws are passed by the people and secondly according to the courts interpretation of the laws. It is hence the administrative authorities that enforce the decision of the courts as well as the decisions of the people. But here is the beauty of the system. Under an imperfect capitalist system, legislature, executive and judiciary are separated enough from the people that they can get away with colluding and enforcing their will on the people, under a more democratic socialist system they cannot do that. Yes the administrative authorities enforce the decisions of the courts, but if they abuse their position in any way, they are removed from office by the people. The courts have the power to rule on laws, but if they abuse it, the people can remove them from office too, by whatever mechanisms they might decide to use for this. But these removals also happen under a predefined set of rules to prevent a free for all.

So you see, the whole system is based on absolute authority in the hands of the people (and this doesn't just go for political authority either, but for things like the workplace too), but there are safeguards and checks built in. There are people elected to oversee the system and make sure it works according to the rules, but if they themselves try to abuse their position, they are thrown out of office. That is real democracy. The authority of the people backed up with assurances that nobody will be discriminated against or persecuted.

Kind of beats your system of glorified lynch mobs, doesn't it?

The US president pisses over the constitution if you havnt noticed.

BobKKKindle$

26th February 2009, 20:31

The US president pisses over the constitution if you havnt noticed. Actually, you should do some reading on US history. Franklin D. Roosevelt had many of his interventionist programs canceled by the Supreme Court because they were seen to infringe on the power of state governments and violate the role of the legislature (e.g. the "Sick Chickens" case in 1935, otherwise known as A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States) and as a result he was forced to "pack" the court whereby he nominated several candidates who were known to share his political views, and although he did succeed in doing this and was thereafter able to pursue his program without being faced with the threat of a veto, this incident is still considered a notorious case of the Supreme Court being turned into a political chamber designed to enhance the power of the President, instead of carrying out its role as the protector of the constitution. Since the 1930s, there have been numerous other cases of the Supreme Court disallowing legislation that would have signified a violation of the constitution if it had been enacted - such as state restrictions on reproductive freedom which, as mentioned in one of my previous posts, would go against the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. So, although there may be cases of the constitution being ignored, you can't assert that it doesn't have an impact on the functioning of the US political system, because it evidently does.

fear of setting a trend and a fear of other community diving in. You should also do some reading on game theory. When you have a situation where a number of actors have entered into a collective agreement not to do something or to act in a certain way, such as a group of companies all agreeing to produce the same amount of output and sell their goods at the same price (i.e. a cartel, such as OPEC), and if any individual actor could accumulate enormous advantages by suddenly breaking the agreement and pursuing their own objectives, then such a system is inherently unstable - it will never be able to survive in the long-term because the probability of an actor giving in is so great. You have this exact situation under the system you are proposing, because any community with a marginal advantage (e.g. having a young and healthy population, or controlling an important resource) would be able, as in the case of a cartel, to accumulate advantages by extorting or invading another community. If even just one community rebels, then the entire system would completely collapse along the lines described in my previous post, and there would be no way to restore equilibrium again without a strong external authority, unless one of the communities gained so much strength that it was able to impose its will on every other community, and assume the position of a new ruling class - which is precisely what you want to avoid, apparently. The system is like a pyramid balanced on its tip in terms of stability.

A = ethicsThe only way society would be able to function without some kind of law enforcement body or a system to handle disputes would be if all of its inhabitants never did anything to hurt or take advantage of each other so nobody would ever have any reason to retaliate. Not only is this utterly naive, even if we accept that human behavior would undergo some changes as a result of capitalism being overthrown but also, as with the above, it is unstable, as all you would need is for one person to act aggressively, and then everybody else would either follow their example in pursuit of private gain, or seek to dominate others in order to prevent themselves from being attacked.

Lumpen Bourgeois

26th February 2009, 21:38

I voted yes because like someone else said - it keeps Nazis in check.

Could you explain a little further?

There are no laws against Holocaust denial in the U.S. and yet, the Nazis are very, very far from being a significant political force here. By your logic, the Nazis should be playing a larger role in American society since they're not being kept "in check". Sure, we have some far right elements here, but they pose such a minuscule threat, that it is laughable to even mention them.

27th February 2009, 12:20

You missed something very important Bob which is better known as history. ;)

As Demogorgon suggested in his previous post, every society needs to have a set of rules which people agree to abide by even if they find that they happen to disagree with one or more of the rules at a given point in time, because without such rules, society simply would not be able to function and would be reduced to a constant state of power struggles whereby groups of people are constantly trying to use their authority to oppress others in order to enhance their own position.

What you want is essentially a society comprised entirely of self-governing communities, with the jurisdiction of each community being determined solely by its ability to enforce its laws, such that if there is a dispute over which community should be able to exercise control over a given territory, or if a community objects strongly to a particular law implemented by another community, there would be no established mechanism to resolve the dispute, and the communities would go to war as a result, with the victor being able to get their way.

As soon as communities realize that war is a possibility, and if there is nothing to stop a community from using force to enslave a population, then they will find that the only way to deter attack is to build up their own defences, and to attack other communities before they have a chance to be attacked so as to gain more resources with which to build yet more defences. This would be, in the Hobbesian sense of the word, a state of nature, in which life really would be nasty, brutish, and short for all involved.

It's actually tempting to quote from 'Leviathan' just to prove how stupid you are being. What is to stop a stronger community from using violence in order to force a neighbouring population into slavery, and then use that population to deprive its own inhabitants of any need to work, so they can spend the rest of their lives doing whatever they like, supported by a slave-based economy? What is to stop a community from refusing to supply a particular resource such as energy unless all dependent communities agree to give them tribute? The answer to both of these questions and countless others one could imagine is: nothing, because your society lacks any coordination and safeguard mechanisms. It would never be able to sustain itself in the long term, the economy would suffer, and, in retrospect, capitalism would look like paradise.

Round of applause Bob but history tells us that's not what happened in Ukraine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory_(Ukraine) (there is one source there from Princeton Uni who accept it as truth).

Oh, and, once you've learned to read, and tolerate more than two lines of text (what are your GCSE textbooks like?!) respond to my post.

I think his GCSE textbooks taught him to think of you as a bit of an imbecile, for not putting para-breaks in even roughly the right places. As a side note many of your long posts do not require a reply equal in length.

Holocaust denial should be denied any platform.