Tolerance of fascism? [Archive]

durhamleft

3rd June 2010, 20:52

They don't have a "right" to anything.

Their nonsense must be suppressed, and at any active organisation on their part, they must be put away. If they want to become martyrs, we'll make them martyrs; it will mean nothing as long as they are adequately suppressed and campaigns to inform about their vileness committed to.

They have no right to anything. The racist scum attempt to organise a march? Round them up.

Ah see this is were we differ in opinion.

I think it's a dangerous game to not allow people not to express their views... I get annoyed when I see the extreme Islamic groups get banned as I can't help but feel its counter productive.

Do you know when the next EDL march is? I hear there's one in Bradford soon that I intend to travel down to counter, but can't find any dates.

Spawn of Stalin

3rd June 2010, 21:09

Ah see this is were we differ in opinion.

I think it's a dangerous game to not allow people not to express their views... I get annoyed when I see the extreme Islamic groups get banned as I can't help but feel its counter productive.

I think the opposite, it is a dangerous game to allow fascists to spew their reactionary bullshit, especially when they use populist positions to get workers on board, prime example being the BNP's anti-war stance. Granted there are always going to be anti-fascists to oppose them, but why should fascists be allowed to spread hatred in the first place? Do fascists really deserve freedom of speech? No, they do not. If Hitler came back from the dead tomorrow and asked to be allowed to express his views freely would we let him? No, we would kill him. After a socialist revolution happens we are going to have to suppress market capitalists anyway, this is a necessity, so why not suppress the fascists who are equally if not more reactionary? Freedom of speech for all is a nice idea but it's not worth the risk that comes with it, that is the risk that reactionaries will use their freedoms to ruin society. Imagine what could have happened if some of the old Russian ruling classes had been allowed to live.

durhamleft

3rd June 2010, 21:14

I think the opposite, it is a dangerous game to allow fascists to spew their reactionary bullshit, especially when they use populist positions to get workers on board, prime example being the BNP's anti-war stance. Granted there are always going to be anti-fascists to oppose them, but why should fascists be allowed to spread hatred in the first place? Do fascists really deserve freedom of speech? No, they do not. If Hitler came back from the dead tomorrow and asked to be allowed to express his views freely would we let him? No, we would kill him. After a socialist revolution happens we are going to have to suppress market capitalists anyway, this is a necessity, so why not suppress the fascists who are equally if not more reactionary? Freedom of speech for all is a nice idea but it's not worth the risk that comes with it, that is the risk that reactionaries will use their freedoms to ruin society. Imagine what could have happened if some of the old Russian ruling classes had been allowed to live.

Hmm, in honesty I wouldn't kill Hitler if he came back. I would expect him to be locked up but I don't believe in murder.
And I think that comparison is a bit unfair, because I suspect a lot of young men who are drawn to the BNP and other fascist parties are nowhere near as intolerant and messed up as Hitler was.. more misguided.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

3rd June 2010, 21:21

Hmm, in honesty I wouldn't kill Hitler if he came back. I would expect him to be locked up but I don't believe in murder.
And I think that comparison is a bit unfair, because I suspect a lot of young men who are drawn to the BNP and other fascist parties are nowhere near as intolerant and messed up as Hitler was.. more misguided.

Why would he be locked up if he deserves his free speech, eh?

And obviously an organisation like the BNP or, more extremely, NSDAP, can attract the support or at least silent approval of a lot of people who are not on their own sinister or bad people, surely as you know even the Nazis had support from segments of the working class - so why would you want to take this risk? Why would they be allowed to mislead and - as you said - "misguide"? If there's a reactionary fascist coming up with easy solutions to difficult social problems and scapegoating one group or another, you can bet there will be some who will be persuaded, and not necessarily because they are bad people.

Spawn of Stalin

3rd June 2010, 21:25

Oh I definitely think it is an extreme comparison, regardless, if the BNP somehow took state power it would be living hell, just a Nazi Europe was living hell. A reactionary is a reactionary, and if they are a threat then I do not believe it is worth risking the well-being of the working class for the sake of freedom of speech. But what does freedom of speech even mean? There has never existed a state with freedom of speech for all, one way or another the government is going to shut someone up, and it might as well be the fascists. Giving fascism freedom of speech is a stupid and ironic move, you think the fascists would let Marxists say whatever they want? Of course they wouldn't, these are our enemies, and when we are dealing with them they have no rights, no guarantees, and no freedoms, we simply cannot afford to be liberal towards them.

As for not killing Hitler well I think that's just insane.

mikelepore

3rd June 2010, 21:28

Should people be allowed to express views that we find abhorrent and immoral?

To say yes is the only self-consistent answer. The whole idea of recognizing freedom of expression is intended _mainly_ for the views that shock and outrage others. otherwise, there would be no need to declare it at all. If you were only going to paint a picture of a flower in a vase, no one would ever want to censor it in the first place, so there would be no need to invoke a formal right to prevent others from interfering with the action. It's only the person whose expression is considered intolerable who has an occasion to invoke the right.

Crusade

3rd June 2010, 22:53

I believe people should be able to say whatever they want. With that being said, some things are challenging violence against themselves. Like if I say "let's go, put em up" that means I want to fight. If you hit me, I can't say "WHAT?!? you're not allowing me my freedom of speech", I basically just asked you to hit me. I feel like fascist groups are directly challenging the people, their very ideology is initiation of war. That's different than someone saying "I want a free market capitalist economy", I'm not gonna hit someone for saying that. What I will hit someone for saying is "I believe all non-whites should be forced to leave the country or killed". That's a threat. If you say crap like that prepare for the consequences.

durhamleft

3rd June 2010, 23:01

Broletariat

3rd June 2010, 23:10

I think this question is almost totally irrelevant as it is assuming a society where we're in control. We're not, WE'RE the ones being repressed for the most part right now. Anytime they're speaking we're not, we're both competing for the same demographic, anyway we can use to convert that demographic to leftism instead of Fascism is a viable tactic imo.

Sasha

3rd June 2010, 23:11

Fascists freedom of speech ends where others people right not to be discriminated or threatened starts.
Then the only right they have is n good political discussion with the end of steel pipe.

Sasha

3rd June 2010, 23:11

Fascists freedom of speech ends where others people right not to be discriminated or threatened starts.
Then the only right they have is n good political discussion with the end of steel pipe.

durhamleft

3rd June 2010, 23:14

Fascists freedom of speech ends where others people right not to be discriminated or threatened starts.
Then the only right they have is n good political discussion with the end of steel pipe.

But we know that our way of tolerance is the right way, so why drop to the level of violence?

What I mean is we will always be able to win the battle of morality but who know, the nazis may be able to overpower us in pure physical violence so why resort to fighting them with violence?

I think if a situation like the spanish civil war developed I would fight against the fascists, but I don't really think its the best method. bare with my poor language, its been a long day and im pissed.

Broletariat

3rd June 2010, 23:17

durhamleft

3rd June 2010, 23:19

I do agree with this viewpoint though. It's not called class-war for nothing.

I don't think violence is ever the way to go forward

Broletariat

3rd June 2010, 23:21

I don't think violence is ever the way to go forward
Why?

Crusade

3rd June 2010, 23:23

But we know that our way of tolerance is the right way, so why drop to the level of violence?

What I mean is we will always be able to win the battle of morality but who know, the nazis may be able to overpower us in pure physical violence so why resort to fighting them with violence?

I think if a situation like the spanish civil war developed I would fight against the fascists, but I don't really think its the best method. bare with my poor language, its been a long day and im pissed.

Morality doesn't mean shit. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter how "moral" you were if you're killed. I'm not gonna pretend as if I don't understand your point of view, you have principles and that's certainly something I admire and respect. In fact, I started an anarcho-pacifist group on revleft specifically to generate non-violent approaches we could take. Keep in mind though, being able to follow those principles and LIVE is an ability that's more than likely gonna be protected by someone who doesn't follow it. It's surprisingly easier to follow pacifists principles when you're only thinking about your own skin. When you think about people you care about however, it's not so simple. If someone said they were gonna kill your girlfriend, you wouldn't wait for them to actually physically harm her to do something. You would end that shit then and there. At least that's how I've always been. I'm way more forgiving when it comes to myself than with loved ones. If a fascist says he wants to do the same, I don't second guess it.

durhamleft

3rd June 2010, 23:28

Why?

'Cos I'm a pacifist and I absolutely hate violence.

Broletariat

3rd June 2010, 23:30

'Cos I'm a pacifist and I absolutely hate violence.
"I won't use violence because I hate violence"

That's basically circular logic, tell me why it is that you hate violence.

durhamleft

3rd June 2010, 23:30

Morality doesn't mean shit. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter how "moral" you were if you're killed. I'm not gonna pretend as if I don't understand your point of view, you have principles and that's certainly something I admire and respect. In fact, I started an anarcho-pacifist group on revleft specifically to generate non-violent approaches we could take. Keep in mind though, being able to follow those principles and LIVE is an ability that's more than likely gonna be protected by someone who doesn't follow it. It's surprisingly easier to follow pacifists principles when you're only thinking about your own skin. When you think about people you care about however, it's not so simple. If someone said they were gonna kill your girlfriend, you wouldn't wait for them to actually physically harm her to do something. You would end that shit then and there. At least that's how I've always been. I'm way more forgiving when it comes to myself than with loved ones. If a fascist says he wants to do the same, I don't second guess it.

Hmm... If I saw a fascist about to attack someone I would defend them, and perhaps use violence, but only if I saw violence as an imminent threat.. I think people should argue their politics with words, not violence, cos any Nazi thug can win a fight, but they can never, ever win a moral argument about their ludicrous and sick policies.

durhamleft

3rd June 2010, 23:32

"I won't use violence because I hate violence"

That's basically circular logic, tell me why it is that you hate violence.

Sorry, I'm pissed.

But it is because I hate being hurt and I hate hurting others and I think it is almost always cowardly.

Broletariat

3rd June 2010, 23:34

Sorry, I'm pissed.

But it is because I hate being hurt and I hate hurting others and I think it is almost always cowardly.
S'all good man, if you wanna just chill for a while before responding that'd be fine too, we've got forever to wait :P.

But by refusing to use violence you are perpetrating violence. EG by not violently overthrowing the Capitalists you allow starvation in third-world countries, imperialism etc.

28350

3rd June 2010, 23:35

Fuck tolerance.

Freedom of speech is a bourgeois freedom that operates on who can buy the loudest mouths for the most money.

Letting people spew counter-revolutionary trash is hardly conducive to progressive socialism. Unless we nip this weed in the bud, we'll be harboring a culture of reaction.

durhamleft

3rd June 2010, 23:38

S'all good man, if you wanna just chill for a while before responding that'd be fine too, we've got forever to wait :P.

But by refusing to use violence you are perpetrating violence. EG by not violently overthrowing the Capitalists you allow starvation in third-world countries, imperialism etc.

Do you not think we can use political channels to deal with these issues?

I'm not a coward, I'm really not, I just... I struggle with violence.

Ocean Seal

3rd June 2010, 23:42

No, fascism shouldn't be allowed at least up until the point where it fades to become a memory as Luxembourg describes.

durhamleft

3rd June 2010, 23:44

No, fascism shouldn't be allowed at least up until the point where it fades to become a memory as Luxembourg describes.

What about racism but not fascism?

x371322

3rd June 2010, 23:44

I hate violence too. I sincerely wish the revolution could happen peacefully, but unfortunately that just isn't the case. That's just not the way the world works. Nothing changes without a turning point, without force. So I support the use of violence not out of some romantic obsession, but out of necessity.

Broletariat

3rd June 2010, 23:46

Do you not think we can use political channels to deal with these issues?

I'm not a coward, I'm really not, I just... I struggle with violence.
We will use every means available to deal with these issues, shying away from violence merely because it is violent is inexcusable.

You won't be forced into engaging in violence by any genuine leftist if it presents a personal problem like that. You could take more of an organiser role if that fits you better.

brigadista

3rd June 2010, 23:49

I don't think violence is ever the way to go forward

i think you are lucky if you have the choice

A.R.Amistad

3rd June 2010, 23:53

Ah, idealists idealists. Words in and of themselves are not harmful. Words are only harmful if they are put into practice. This is why Stalin is so fucking wrong in his childish remark "we don't let our enemies have gun's why should we let them have ideas?" Seriously, this is one of the most laughable quotes I have ever read. Freedom of speech must be complete, and even yes, so must freedom of expression, press and assembly. There is really no threat to a bunch of old-guard racist nuts and disenfranchised skinhead thugs flashing Third Riech symbols at other people. Even the less-blatant fascists like the Tea Party types are harmless insofar as they cannot act. So yes, socialist democracy absolutely must tolerate even the most reactionary speech, etc. But we certainly won't allow them the freedom to do what they would like to do in action, and this is really the only kind of freedom that really matters to a Marxist.

There are two types of freedom: positive and negative. Positive freedom is the freedom that exists where somebody can have active control over their lives and the society that they live in. Examples of this are universal health care, public education, etc. in which people have the power, and therefore freedom, to excercize this to their advantage. Negative freedom is the freedom that exists that alleviates restrictions on human life. These are things like freedom of the press, assembly, etc. Libertarians are obsessed with negative freedom and basically belive positive freedom should not exist. Likewise, Stalinists favor positive freedom to a degree, but at the expense of negative freedom, which they see as threatening to positive freedom (or more accurately, their own state apparatus which keeps them in power). Marxists believe that both positive and negative freedom need to be present and active in socialism. Marx once said:

Free activity for the Communists is the creative manifestation of life arising from the free development of all abilities of the whole person.

Fascists have an open policy that advocates the complete destruction. In a socialist society, where real freedom is valued, they too will enjoy negative freedom, but never the positive freedom to restrict the freedom of others.

Crusade

3rd June 2010, 23:54

What about racism but not fascism?

You can be as racist as you want as long as you're not violating someone else's rights and aren't in a position of influence where it will affect your decision making, but I'm against the state anyway so that isn't a problem. Basically, anything that would be wrong to do in the first place, is wrong to do if it is influenced by racism. For example, you can be a racist and decide not to date someone of a specific race. You can be racist and not want any friends of a certain race. Why is that? Because it would also be wrong to FORCE someone to date someone of a certain race. It would be wrong to FORCE someone to be friends with someone of a certain race. So your only option is to leave it alone. Refusals motivated by racism can only be tolerated, because you can't force anyone to give someone anything. Force motivated by racism cannot be tolerated. This is why racism cannot be tolerated on a state level, but I also believe it shouldn't be tolerated on an economic level.

I consider economic racism to be force, the same way I consider capitalist wage slavery force. If you "own" most of the resources and you're restricting the flow of capital from specific racial communities, you're starving them. This isn't a "free market" at all. That's force. This is also an argument against the "freedom" capitalism supposedly gives you. And also, by "ok" I mean I won't use violence if it's done.

Weezer

4th June 2010, 00:01

People who don't want freedom of speech in their country don't deserve it. Sorry. :(

durhamleft

4th June 2010, 00:02

You can be as racist as you want as long as you're not violating someone else's rights and aren't in a position of influence where it will affect your decision making, but I'm against the state anyway so that isn't a problem. Basically, anything that would be wrong to do in the first place, is wrong to do if it is influenced by racism. For example, you can be a racist and decide not to date someone of a specific race. You can be racist and not want any friends of a certain race. Why is that? Because it would also be wrong to FORCE someone to date someone of a certain race. It would be wrong to FORCE someone to be friends with someone of a certain race. So your only option is to leave it alone. Refusals motivated by racism can only be tolerated, because you can't force anyone to give someone anything. Force motivated by racism cannot be tolerated. This is why racism cannot be tolerated on a state level, but I also believe it shouldn't be tolerated on an economic level.

I consider economic racism to be force, the same way I consider capitalist wage slavery force. If you "own" most of the resources and you're restricting the flow of capital from specific racial communities, you're starving them. This isn't a "free market" at all. That's force. This is also an argument against the "freedom" capitalism supposedly gives you. And also, by "ok" I mean I won't use violence if it's done.

that's an interesting point and i need a night to consider it, i'll get back to you tomorrow with what i think

durhamleft

4th June 2010, 00:04

People who don't want freedom of speech in their country don't deserve it. Sorry. :(

My view I think

InuyashaKnight

4th June 2010, 00:05

Zero Toleration Period

28350

4th June 2010, 00:07

I think I was overzealous.

I still don't think we should allow reactionary elements a chance at reaching the general population, but I don't think we should be carting off people the minute they break with the glorious party line.

I definitely do support censorship of media, however. Media is an outlet that the state should have control over. If people want to publish something that's counterrevolutionary or ridiculous, they'll have to do it themselves, without the help and approval of the state.

durhamleft

4th June 2010, 00:26

Antifa94

4th June 2010, 00:27

No.
they belong in labour camps.

durhamleft

4th June 2010, 00:30

No.
they belong in labour camps.

Oh dear, :confused:

A.R.Amistad

4th June 2010, 00:31

And I see the totalitarian-idealist tirade continues, despite my Marxist analysis :(

Lyev

4th June 2010, 00:56

This is a fairly level-headed viewpoint:
Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of a party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. 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.Basically, I believe that freedom and tolerance of other viewpoints needs to work both ways. For example, if we have fascist a, and they have they're views, they're reasonably quiet about them and they don't try and ram their disgusting filth down other people throats then that's just fine. On the other hand, fascist b is constantly on the streets, throwing bricks at people, or openly making hateful and violent speeches against blacks, gays, women and communists then that's the point where they need to be repressed. Freedom ceases to be freedom in its truest form when it is used to impede on someone else's; like Luxemburg says, "freedom is the freedom of the dissenter". You can imprison someone for simply having a different viewpoint. But when someone is inciting hatred or violence they are abusing their freedom; their political outlook then becomes almost irrelevant, in this sense.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

4th June 2010, 01:02

Oh dear, :confused:

A labour camp is not necessarily a place of death and agony; quality of life in a labour colony could be reasonably good, just that certain diseased elements are kept away from society.

Lyev

4th June 2010, 01:06

A labour camp is not necessarily a place of death and agony; quality of life in a labour colony could be reasonably good, just that certain diseased elements are kept away from society.Good luck persuading ordinary working-class people over to your special brand of socialism.

Crusade

4th June 2010, 01:08

Oh dear, :confused:

You're beginning to see the totalitarian nature of some. :laugh:

I think people confuse rights with entitlements a lot of the time. A right is something that ought not to be taken from you. An entitlement is something that ought to be given to you. If a TV station is ran by the state and the state doesn't air your views, that's not violating your rights since they'd be GIVING you air time. I don't consider "state" run media to be socialist in any way at all. However, if there was no state, and the workers who controlled that particular tv station said they won't let you say your views, that isn't violating your rights. That'd be an entitlement. You're saying people ought to GIVE you air time. However, if you ran a tv show/station (somehow) or a private radio program yourself, it'd be violating your rights for an individual or the state to shut you down.

I may be running into a brick wall, logically, though. If you give the state authority over the individual by very definition, I don't see how you CAN have rights. They technically own you, don't they? By state I don't just mean people in charge of government occupations I mean people who genuinely have authority, even in a "worker's state" isn't this true?

Crusade

4th June 2010, 01:09

Good luck persuading ordinary working-class people over to your special brand of socialism.

I'm an anarchist and I have to ask... What makes prison better than labor camps?

Broletariat

4th June 2010, 01:16

Tolerating intolerance is intolerable.

Lyev

4th June 2010, 01:23

I'm an anarchist and I have to ask... What makes prison better than labor camps?Is that because I typed "prisons" in my post? Well, prisons are worse than labour camps, because in a labour camp the "dissidents" being imprisoned there are at least contributing something valuable to society. I just made the post to Takayuki because I thought the charming phrase "diseased elements" does actually make us all sound like raging Nazis. An abundance of tolerance for views we don't like is desperately needed by the left, if we are to make anything of ourselves. You can't lock away views.

FriendlyLocalViking

4th June 2010, 01:27

They don't have a "right" to anything.

Their nonsense must be suppressed, and at any active organisation on their part, they must be put away. If they want to become martyrs, we'll make them martyrs; it will mean nothing as long as they are adequately suppressed and campaigns to inform about their vileness committed to.

They have no right to anything. The racist scum attempt to organise a march? Round them up.

I do hope that "then line them up and shoot them" is to follow your statement. Is the Viking correct, or do you seriously intend to allow the scum to live?

Crusade

4th June 2010, 01:27

Is that because I typed "prisons" in my post? Well, prisons are worse than labour camps, because in a labour camp the "dissidents" being imprisoned there are at least contributing something valuable to society. I just made the post to Takayuki because I thought the charming phrase "diseased elements" does actually make us all sound like raging Nazis. An abundance of tolerance for views we don't like is desperately needed by the left, if we are to make anything of ourselves. You can't lock away views.

Ah, ok. I see now. I thought maybe you were implying labor camps were an issue. Although it might result in society possibly growing reliant on labor camp production. Then there'd be a well...incentive to lock up a certain percentage of the population.

NGNM85

4th June 2010, 01:28

What are your opinions? Should people be allowed to express views that we find abhorrent and immoral?

My personal opinion is we should, as i) it may well encourage people to support them if they are 'martyred' by being silenced and ii) as much as I dislike what they say I believe they have a fundamental right to express their views.

Thoughts?

It sounds as if we're generally in agreement. Freedom of speech is a basic human right, and it is the most basic, fundamental component of a free and democratic society.

Censorship is objectionable for several reasons; first and foremost because it's deeply authoritarian, which I object to, philosophically, as an Anarchist. It makes no sense to fight oppression by adopting fascist/stalinist tactics.

Second, because once a society tolerates the violation of basic human rights, it tends to become habitual, and more prevalent.

Third, because I believe in dissent. As has been mentioned, if you believe in freedom of speech, you believe it for views you despise, otherwise you don't believe in it. Nobody goes to jail for supporting the status quo. All great visionaries, artists, scientists, philosophers, were rebels and radicals of a sort, they questioned or undermined the status quo. If we silence the Tom Metzger's, or the Pastor Phelp's, we might censor the Picasso's, the Galileo's, the Chomsky's.

Fourth, because censorship is for the weak and lazy. It's essentially saying;"My ideas are so pathetic I can't possibly defend them."

And lastly, because it's simply a bad tactic. Right now we're seeing the results of the US govt.'s attempt to defeat jihadist ideology with bombs and bullets. The results speak for themselves. It's like the 'drug war', a pathetic failure. It isn't very successful, and it can backfire and make ones' opponants more sympathetic. If you want to defeat ideas, you have to come up with better ones. If we were really serious about defeating religious terrorism, we'd build schools, not bombs.

I also would like to mention that just because I'm opposed to beating or incarcerating someone simply for expressing their opinion, does not make me a pacifist. I'm not a pacifist, I just find this sort of fascist behavior abhorrant.

Dimitri Molotov

4th June 2010, 01:29

Lyev

4th June 2010, 01:29

I do hope that "then line them up and shoot them" is to follow your statement. Is the Viking correct, or do you seriously intend to allow the scum to live?Are you joking..? You cannot shoot people simply for having opposing views. That's wholly un-Marxist and completely undemocratic or justifiable.

Lyev

4th June 2010, 01:32

i hate fascism. my friends and i beat people who call themselves nazis at our school. as much as i support freedom for your views and whatnot, fascism, even if it is someone's view, i hate so much i cant stand it. i think all fascists should leave somewhere else to an island somewhere and make their own dictatorship or something far away from here.:mad:You say you oppose fascism, but you are adopting their exact policies. Before Hitler had the idea for any sort of "final solution" he originally planned to deport every single Jew he could find to Madagascar.

FriendlyLocalViking

4th June 2010, 01:34

Are you joking..? You cannot shoot people simply for having opposing views. That's wholly un-Marxist and completely undemocratic or justifiable.

The Viking considers it highly justifyable, and no one ever said I was a Marxist. I'm not. Very far Left, but not a Marxist.

mikelepore

4th June 2010, 04:55

Fascists freedom of speech ends where others people right not to be discriminated or threatened starts.
Then the only right they have is n good political discussion with the end of steel pipe.

But then the problem is what the fascists planned to do and then did. The problem isn't that, in addition to planning and doing something, they also expressed what they were thinking about as they did it. In asking about whether fascists have freedom of speech, it's only a question the last part: given that fascists exists and do certain things, is there any additional damage in the fact that while they are doing whatever they do, they also emit some comments about it. I say no: the damage would be worse if it were more secretive. If a fascist group is like a cancerous tumor, then a fascist group which is censored is like a cancerous tumor that goes undiscovered.

4th June 2010, 08:21

Free speech must always be separate from hate speech.

durhamleft

4th June 2010, 17:49

It sounds as if we're generally in agreement. Freedom of speech is a basic human right, and it is the most basic, fundamental component of a free and democratic society.

Censorship is objectionable for several reasons; first and foremost because it's deeply authoritarian, which I object to, philosophically, as an Anarchist. It makes no sense to fight oppression by adopting fascist/stalinist tactics.

Second, because once a society tolerates the violation of basic human rights, it tends to become habitual, and more prevalent.

Third, because I believe in dissent. As has been mentioned, if you believe in freedom of speech, you believe it for views you despise, otherwise you don't believe in it. Nobody goes to jail for supporting the status quo. All great visionaries, artists, scientists, philosophers, were rebels and radicals of a sort, they questioned or undermined the status quo. If we silence the Tom Metzger's, or the Pastor Phelp's, we might censor the Picasso's, the Galileo's, the Chomsky's.

Fourth, because censorship is for the weak and lazy. It's essentially saying;"My ideas are so pathetic I can't possibly defend them."

And lastly, because it's simply a bad tactic. Right now we're seeing the results of the US govt.'s attempt to defeat jihadist ideology with bombs and bullets. The results speak for themselves. It's like the 'drug war', a pathetic failure. It isn't very successful, and it can backfire and make ones' opponants more sympathetic. If you want to defeat ideas, you have to come up with better ones. If we were really serious about defeating religious terrorism, we'd build schools, not bombs.

I also would like to mention that just because I'm opposed to beating or incarcerating someone simply for expressing their opinion, does not make me a pacifist. I'm not a pacifist, I just find this sort of fascist behavior abhorrant.

Absolutely brilliantly put and you articulate everything I think perfectly. Thank you.

durhamleft

4th June 2010, 17:53

You say you oppose fascism, but you are adopting their exact policies. Before Hitler had the idea for any sort of "final solution" he originally planned to deport every single Jew he could find to Madagascar.

That is exactly the issue I think I have with the 'extreme' left.

It seems like some people are so desperate to fight the horrors and oppression of fascism that they would use the same tactics to fight it.

Surely the beauty of the left should be that we don't use these tactics, and don't remove freedom of speech even if we think we are right.

This is why I would regard myself as more of a liberal, probably with a streak of anarchist in me, as I just feel even if we disagree with what someone says we should allow them to say it, then tear their argument apart. Just my thoughts.

durhamleft

4th June 2010, 17:54

The Viking considers it highly justifyable, and no one ever said I was a Marxist. I'm not. Very far Left, but not a Marxist.

If you round up all the fascists and execute them am I allowed to round up all people who refer to themselves in the 3rd person and execute them ;-)

28350

4th June 2010, 18:01

I find that so difficult to comprehend.

What about it?

durhamleft

4th June 2010, 18:13

What about it?

Well to me the idea of censoring the media is authoritarian, which I think its wrong. Furthermore I think the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to express their opinion I think is immoral. If someone is a raging big capitalist, racist or homophobe then so be it, quite frankly I'd rather live in a society where these tolerated and argued against than one where people could not even merely express these views via the media.

28350

4th June 2010, 19:25

Well to me the idea of censoring the media is authoritarian, which I think its wrong.
You're right, it is authoritarian.

Furthermore I think the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to express their opinion I think is immoral.
Marxism is not about morality.

If someone is a raging big capitalist, racist or homophobe then so be it, quite frankly I'd rather live in a society where these tolerated and argued against than one where people could not even merely express these views via the media.
In socialism, the restriction of certain freedoms stems from the fact that socialism itself is a transitory period - that we're working towards something. Allowing counter-revolutionary elements to try to influence the general population is counter-productive.

I believe in different amounts of what we've termed "free speech" at different times.

A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one classoverthrows another.

A.R.Amistad

4th June 2010, 19:42

Does anybody realize the immense waste of time and resources it would be to punish these assholes just for what they say? Honestly, we could build schools, hospitals and homes for the lowest rungs of the proletariat with those resources rather than lock up blathering idiots for being blathering idiots.

FriendlyLocalViking

4th June 2010, 21:17

durhamleft

4th June 2010, 21:20

You cannot lock up that which you've killed in battle.

But fighting fascism isn't a battle as such, it's an ongoing struggle.

FriendlyLocalViking

4th June 2010, 21:26

But fighting fascism isn't a battle as such, it's an ongoing struggle.

That's why we make it a battle. During the revolution, challenge them to come out and do something about it. The Viking is confident in the working class's ability to defeat the Fascists.

this is an invasion

5th June 2010, 06:09

fuck freedom of speech for fascists.

FriendlyLocalViking

5th June 2010, 06:16

fuck freedom of speech for fascists.

I agree with you 150%.

I don't even recognise that Fascists have the right to exist, let alone SPEAK!

Chambered Word

5th June 2010, 06:50

The Intransigent Faction

5th June 2010, 08:09

At the risk of echoing a reply I made to a similar post (this seems to be a relatively popular issue for discussion here):

Rosa Luxemburg had some words of wisdom on this subject.

Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not because of any fanatical concept of ‘justice’ but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when ‘freedom’ becomes a special privilege.

Much as I dislike fascism and what fascists have to say, censoring them seems more counter-productive than letting them speak and tearing their arguments to shreads (by ther time there's enough popular will for a genuine working-class revolution, would a sensible, class-conscious majority really take the fascist message seriously). Popular reaction to instances of censorship by bourgeois governments suggests that censoring opponents backfires.

Censorship by a party dictatorship is particularly disturbing. What's to stop that kind of ruling clique from going beyond censoring fascists to simply censoring any criticism of that ruling clique? We've got historical examples of people making one "inappropriate" joke and facing rather serious punishment from the state.

If Communism's ever going to be achieved and sustained, the working class has to be trusted to reject fascist propaganda on its own without some dictator or bureaucrat controlling media messages to silence opposition.

Now, preventing fascists from organizing a paramilitary and marching through the streets verbally or physically threatening people is another matter. That kind of thing should be dealt with harshly and quickly.

NecroCommie

5th June 2010, 08:31

There has never been freedom of speech in any country. The instant some movement gains enough support to challenge their current ruling class, that movement has been outlawed. I cant think of any exceptions from this rule right now, so why should we make one?

Freedom of speech is an idea. Not an actual real-world condition. It is only possible in a society where the populace is more or less agreeing with their current society, and no real alternatives gain enough support.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying: "why shouldn't we be as bad as the capitalists?", but rather: "This is how things have always been, and I see no reason why socialist or communist societies would do any better in this regard"

ZeroNowhere

5th June 2010, 08:43

People who don't want freedom of speech in their country don't deserve it. Sorry. :(
You perhaps ought to be quiet, in that case.

Zapatas Guns

5th June 2010, 11:26

Just like the elite will not give up their power peacefully, fascists will not just shut up and be quiet in the face of a left wing movement. They cannot be allowed to speak and they must be engaged in every manner everywhere at anytime.

If you tried nonviolent resistance against the Nazis you would have simply been shot in the head. Yet people will advocate nonviolence against fascism? That is a quick way to an early grave. I admire your heroism because you sirs are braver men than I.

Fascism should and must be suppressed. It is counter productive to what I and all of you believe in.

5th June 2010, 14:51

I admire your heroism because you sirs are braver men than I.
Paternonormativist.

It's not an actual word. And correct me if there's another word which means the same thing.

Chambered Word

6th June 2010, 13:08

Now, preventing fascists from organizing a paramilitary and marching through the streets verbally or physically threatening people is another matter. That kind of thing should be dealt with harshly and quickly.

That's the end result of fascism, although there would be more than mere threats being given out.

28350

6th June 2010, 16:09

HammerAlias

6th June 2010, 16:13

No. We should not just "tolerate" these savages views. Their views are irrelevant, absurd and completely disrespectful to human rights. We cannot allow such a menace to continue spreading it's malice and depravity to poison the minds of the people.

28350

6th June 2010, 16:58

The degree to which we have to suppress it is indicative of popular support - through a successful revolution, we wouldn't need to suppress it, because people would be supporting us, not them.

RED DAVE

6th June 2010, 17:08

Fascism should and must be suppressed.What do you mean by "suppressed," and, especially, who should do the suppressing and how?

RED DAVE

ComradeOm

6th June 2010, 17:24

I think it also comes down to threat assessment.
Unless it's a matter of depression politics, fascism usually isn't that strong of a movement. Post-revolution, with a repressed bourgeoisie, any talk of fascism would probably remain just thatIn the past century fascism has been the default reaction of many bourgeois regimes to the threat of proletarian revolution. To simply handwave the possibility away is foolish in the extreme; to tolerate it is suicidal

The degree to which we have to suppress it is indicative of popular support - through a successful revolution, we wouldn't need to suppress it, because people would be supporting us, not them. Well in that case we hardly need bother with a revolution at all

A post-revolution bourgeoisie will not be lining up to establish political parties and nor will they simply accept their lot. There will inevitably be calls from the former bourgeoisie for a 'party of order' to restore their fortunes. It would be a surprise if this did not take the form of fascism; which is after all the most vicious strain of counter-revolutionary politics. And in this struggle 'free speech' is important. Like it or not, the media is a crucial tool of influence, of organisation, and of building or splintering class consciousness. It cannot be simply dismissed or ceded to the opposition

NGNM85

7th June 2010, 04:05

I find it personally disheartening that so many people are taking the Stalinist position. Unfortunate.

28350

7th June 2010, 04:08

I find it personally disheartening that so many people are taking the Stalinist position. Unfortunate.

The Stalinist position being?

Broletariat

7th June 2010, 04:28

The Stalinist position being?
I think he means actually fighting the class-war is a bad thing or something.

FriendlyLocalViking

7th June 2010, 04:47

I think he means actually fighting the class-war is a bad thing or something.

Now, I'm not a believer of the class war, but I'm firmly of the mind that if you've set yourself a war, and you're not fighting it... you're doing it wrong.

NGNM85

7th June 2010, 05:19

The Stalinist position being?

Firmly and completely opposed to free speech. Stalin's just one example, this is a subject on which all brutal authoritarians agree, fascists, Nazis, the Taliban, the Chinese Government, Russia, North Korea, Iran. This is not circumstantial. People are putting themselves in marvelous company.

It also sounds like lot of people are suffering from serious cases of naivete, macho atavistic fantasies, and childlishly simplistic conceptions of 'class war.'

Broletariat

7th June 2010, 05:21

Firmly and completely opposed to free speech. Stalin's just one example, this is a subject on which all brutal authoritarians agree, fascists, Nazis, the Taliban, the Chinese Government, Russia, North Korea, Iran. This is not circumstantial. People are putting themselves in marvelous company.

It also sounds like lot of people are suffering from serious cases of naivete, macho atavistic fantasies, and childlishly simplistic conceptions of 'class war.'
So do you deny there's a class-war or something and that fascism isn't something we should seek to end?

NGNM85

7th June 2010, 05:45

So do you deny there's a class-war or something and that fascism isn't something we should seek to end?

If you're being serious you didn't understand anything I said, and probably suffer from one of the aforementioned conditions.

If you're not serious.... well, then there's nothing to discuss.

#FF0000

7th June 2010, 05:59

Anti-Fascism isn't a "Stalinist Position".

Broletariat

7th June 2010, 06:46

If you're being serious you didn't understand anything I said, and probably suffer from one of the aforementioned conditions.

If you're not serious.... well, then there's nothing to discuss.
Well instead of insulting me and shaking your head saying "you just don't understand" would you like to take the time to explain it?

NGNM85

7th June 2010, 07:27

Well instead of insulting me and shaking your head saying "you just don't understand" would you like to take the time to explain it?

I'm not particularly optimistic, but I'll give it another shot. I thought I made it very clear all of two pages ago;
".. Freedom of speech is a basic human right, and it is the most basic, fundamental component of a free and democratic society.

Censorship is objectionable for several reasons; first and foremost because it's deeply authoritarian, which I object to, philosophically, as an Anarchist. It makes no sense to fight oppression by adopting fascist/stalinist tactics.

Second, because once a society tolerates the violation of basic human rights, it tends to become habitual, and more prevalent.

Third, because I believe in dissent. As has been mentioned, if you believe in freedom of speech, you believe it for views you despise, otherwise you don't believe in it. Nobody goes to jail for supporting the status quo. All great visionaries, artists, scientists, philosophers, were rebels and radicals of a sort, they questioned or undermined the status quo. If we silence the Tom Metzger's, or the Pastor Phelp's, we might censor the Picasso's, the Galileo's, the Chomsky's.

Fourth, because censorship is for the weak and lazy. It's essentially saying;"My ideas are so pathetic I can't possibly defend them."

And lastly, because it's simply a bad tactic. Right now we're seeing the results of the US govt.'s attempt to defeat jihadist ideology with bombs and bullets. The results speak for themselves. It's like the 'drug war', a pathetic failure. It isn't very successful, and it can backfire and make ones' opponants more sympathetic. If you want to defeat ideas, you have to come up with better ones. If we were really serious about defeating religious terrorism, we'd build schools, not bombs.

I also would like to mention that just because I'm opposed to beating or incarcerating someone simply for expressing their opinion, does not make me a pacifist. I'm not a pacifist, I just find this sort of fascist behavior abhorrant."

I don't think there's too much room for misinterpretation. So that should answer the second question. Yes, fascism is objectionable, but we should be guided by the hippocratic principle, forcibly crushing free expression is a bad remedy because the proposed cure is worse than the disease. There are better ways to defeat bad ideas.

As for class war, I don't deny it exists, that would be stupid. However, it seems a number of people have a simplistic, and overly literal interpretation. Particularly the word 'war' seems to be causing confusion. Class struggle is a complicated endeavor with it's expression in myriad forms and fronts. This idea that there are x amount of bad guys and the good guys can just shoot, bomb, brutalize, maim, imprison, etc., all of them, then everything's beer and skittles, that we can shoot our way to the promised land, is asinine. It's an atavistic, pubescent fantasy. The world doesn't work like that, I hate to say. I think some people are in for a painful collision with reality. My advice for them is to invest in a helmet.

NGNM85

7th June 2010, 07:34

Anti-Fascism isn't a "Stalinist Position".

I never said, nor implied that being opposed to fascism is Stalinist. What I did say was criminalizing opinions, assaulting or imprisoning people for their ideas, even bad ideas, burning books, etc., that is Stalinist, and a little bit fascist. As an aside I find this phrase "Anti-Fascist", sometimes abbreviated as "AntiFa" to be thoroughly worthless and disposeable. If you are, in fact, an Anarchist, like myself, or even a Communist, except for the ones that act like fascists, then it's supposed to be implicit that you are ideologically opposed to fascism. Hell, even very fascist people generally do not describe themselves as such. It's like saying "I'm strongly anti-murder." It's just a useless statement. When I hear it it's like when somebody talks about 'Xenu', or 'speciesism', or 'young-earth creationism', a sign that I'm talking to a nimrod.

7th June 2010, 07:38

I'm not particularly optimistic, but I'll give it another shot. I thought I made it very clear all of two pages ago;
".. Freedom of speech is a basic human right, and it is the most basic, fundamental component of a free and democratic society.

Censorship is objectionable for several reasons; first and foremost because it's deeply authoritarian, which I object to, philosophically, as an Anarchist. It makes no sense to fight oppression by adopting fascist/stalinist tactics.

Second, because once a society tolerates the violation of basic human rights, it tends to become habitual, and more prevalent.

Third, because I believe in dissent. As has been mentioned, if you believe in freedom of speech, you believe it for views you despise, otherwise you don't believe in it. Nobody goes to jail for supporting the status quo. All great visionaries, artists, scientists, philosophers, were rebels and radicals of a sort, they questioned or undermined the status quo. If we silence the Tom Metzger's, or the Pastor Phelp's, we might censor the Picasso's, the Galileo's, the Chomsky's.

Fourth, because censorship is for the weak and lazy. It's essentially saying;"My ideas are so pathetic I can't possibly defend them."

And lastly, because it's simply a bad tactic. Right now we're seeing the results of the US govt.'s attempt to defeat jihadist ideology with bombs and bullets. The results speak for themselves. It's like the 'drug war', a pathetic failure. It isn't very successful, and it can backfire and make ones' opponants more sympathetic. If you want to defeat ideas, you have to come up with better ones. If we were really serious about defeating religious terrorism, we'd build schools, not bombs.

I also would like to mention that just because I'm opposed to beating or incarcerating someone simply for expressing their opinion, does not make me a pacifist. I'm not a pacifist, I just find this sort of fascist behavior abhorrant."

I don't think there's too much room for misinterpretation. So that should answer the second question. Yes, fascism is objectionable, but we should be guided by the hippocratic principle, forcibly crushing free expression is a bad remedy because the proposed cure is worse than the disease. There are better ways to defeat bad ideas.

As for class war, I don't deny it exists, that would be stupid. However, it seems a number of people have a smplistic, and overly literal interpretation. Particularly the word 'war' seems to be causing confusion. Class struggle is a complicated endeavor with it's expression in myriad forms and fronts. This idea that there are x amount of bad guys and the good guys can just shoot, bomb, brutalize, maim, imprison, etc., all of them, then everything's beer and skittles, that we can shoot our way to the promised land, is asinine. It's an atavistic, pubescent fantasy. The world doesn't work like that, I hate to say. I think some people are in for a painful collision with reality. My advice for them is to invest in a helmet.
This. Maybe it's because some communists don't think establishing sovereign workers' councils and citizens' assemblies is required in a revolution (which is actually required for true class rule to begin) - and this just opens the way for a party takeover of the state.

NGNM85

7th June 2010, 07:42

This. Maybe it's because some communists don't think establishing sovereign workers' councils and citizens' assemblies is required in a revolution (which is actually required for true class rule to begin) - and this just opens the way for a party takeover of the state.

Personally, I'm seriously skeptical about the viability of revolutionary violence as a primary means to ever establish a stable, functional, Anarchist society in the modern West.

7th June 2010, 07:57

Personally, I'm seriously skeptical about the viability of revolutionary violence as a primary means to ever establish a stable, functional, Anarchist society in the modern West.
Think general strikes and worker occupations.

Martin Blank

7th June 2010, 09:38

"No platform for fascism" is not the same as "no free speech for fascism". "No platform" is based on opposing what the fascists do, while "no free speech" is based on what the fascists say. I would rather they announce their intentions openly, as it allows for better means of organizing against them. And that is the point: it is not about what they say, but what they seek to do that makes them a threat ... and has led me on several occasions to take a tire iron or some other blunt implement of destruction and put it upside their heads. Let them have the right to say what they want to do (to telegraph their next move), and let me have the right to beat the living shit out of them when they make a move toward doing it.

ContrarianLemming

7th June 2010, 15:44

If you don't believe in freedom of speech for your enemies..you don't beleive in it at all..except for fash

ContrarianLemming

7th June 2010, 15:54

aaand...
About a year ago I posted a question almost the same as this on a mainstream political website aimed at democratic party style liberals (would you tollerate a fascist member of this board who behaved themselves?)

the response received was almost entirely entirely "as long as there nice, they should be allowed"

NGNM85

7th June 2010, 18:13

If you don't believe in freedom of speech for your enemies..you don't beleive in it at all..except for fash

You almost had it. This idea that basic human rights can be applied selectively has a very long and sordid history. Rights, like principles or ethics, don't just apply when it's convenient.

Moreover, this idea is philosophically inconsistent with Anarchism.

aaand...
About a year ago I posted a question almost the same as this on a mainstream political website aimed at democratic party style liberals (would you tollerate a fascist member of this board who behaved themselves?)

the response received was almost entirely entirely "as long as there nice, they should be allowed"

This is really boring. Please, make your accusations directly, bogus as they may be. Y'know, I'm not interested in being the most popular guy in the room. If sticking to my ethics and my beliefs costs me my street cred, so be it.

scarletghoul

7th June 2010, 18:40

The Manics address this question very nicely
B7dBBCHYcZs
(I think the song is from the view of a young volounteer in the International Brigades, who knows that fascism cannot be tolerated in practice, and struggles to reconcile this to his liberal 'pacifist' ideals.)

The fact is, we can not allow fascism to take root among the people. However appealing liberal ideas like 'freedom of speech' and 'pacifism' might be, they must be discarded if we are to combat reactionary movements.

scarletghoul

7th June 2010, 18:46

You almost had it. This idea that basic human rights can be applied selectively has a very long and sordid history. Rights, like principles or ethics, don't just apply when it's convenient.

Moreover, this idea is philosophically inconsistent with Anarchism.

'Human rights' itself is inconsistant with any kind of revolutionary socialism.

Free speech for fascists ! The right to private property ! No thanks bro.

automattick

7th June 2010, 18:54

Sure why not. Workers ultimately have to make up their own minds. Ideology, especially nationalism, is very potent in places like the United States. Only when material conditions become so unbearable, will be when they no longer can afford to cling to religion or nationalism.

It only becomes dangerous when they are actually in a position of institutionalized power. When fascism or nationalism becomes physically violent, is where one should step in. One may also combat them verbally as well, poking holes in their arguments.

syndicat

7th June 2010, 18:58

I don't personally understand the preoccupation that some anarchists & communists have for physically attacking tiny groups of fascists who show up to protest. I don't see that as a very productive use of scarce time right now. It also gets people arrested and then we have to expend scarce resources defending people.

I'm not in principle opposed to physically attacking a group of this sort. But it depends on what they are doing and how much of a threat they've become. If for example they were organizing some sort of intimidating march through an immigrant or non-white neighborhood, then I'd support stopping them...because it's not a question of "speech" but of them trying to intimidate. Fascists have a "direct action" philosophy, as anarchists and the radical left do. For example, in the past right wing vigilante groups have been used to attack worker organizations, smash up radical newspaper offices and union halls. This is what Mussolini's fascists did in Italy in the early '20s as part of their rise to power. The Italian radical left were overly passive in the face of this threat, and only at the last minute, mainly under anarchist initiative, did they form the Arditi del Popolo (militia), but it was too little too late.

As long as a fascist is behaving himself and not engaged en masse in this kind of behavior, then the appropriate way to deal with them is via debate and organizing against them, the same methods as we would use against any authoritarian or right-wing viewpoint. For example, if there is a worker in the workplace who has pro-capitalist or racist views, it would not be wise to simply call him names and denounce him. It's better to try to appeal to his better side (people are often contradictory), to get him to understand the need for solidarity, for standing up against the employer, and so on. Sometimes this works. When I was still living in Milwaukee, a communist shop steward at Harley Davidson told me there was a neo-nazi biker working in the shop. This nazi said to him, "We can't let the bosses attack the blacks and divide us." Despite his ideology, he understood the actual class realities.

FriendlyLocalViking

7th June 2010, 19:15

I'm changing my position. I'm recognising that they should be allowed to talk, cuz then we know where they are (I know where they live in my area because they fly flags and have swastikas painted on their buildings), but we should still have the right to take evasive action against them.

NGNM85

7th June 2010, 20:15

(I think the song is from the view of a young volounteer in the International Brigades, who knows that fascism cannot be tolerated in practice, and struggles to reconcile this to his liberal 'pacifist' ideals.)

I'm not a pacifist, as I've said, before.

(The fact is, we can not allow fascism to take root among the people.

First of all, I'm not sure this is necessarily the dire threat you present it to be, at least not in the West. What's interesting is you seems to believe fascism is so attractive, so irresistable that it has to be addressed with maximum force.

(However appealing liberal ideas like 'freedom of speech' and 'pacifism'

These aren't simply 'liberal' ideas. That word gets tossed around so carelessly it loses all meaning, anyhow. There is a long history of Anarchists fighting for free speech.

Again, nobody's even mentioned pacifism. Simply being disinclined to brutalize someone for speaking or writing does not make one a pacifist.

( might be, they must be discarded if we are to combat reactionary movements.

Only if you're an authoritarian, which you claim to be, or you're too stupid/weak/lazy to come up with better approaches.

'Human rights' itself is inconsistant with any kind of revolutionary socialism.

Actually, it's fundamental. It's the foundation of Anarchism. The opposition to the state, capitalism (Or what we call capitalism.), and religious institutions is a moral and philosophical objection, that these institutions violate the basic rights which all human beings should be entitled to.

(Free speech for fascists ! The right to private property ! No thanks bro.

Again, if you think you can apply rights to just certain groups of people you don't believe in them, or you don't understand the concept. It doesn't work that way. Obviously, you're not an Anarchist. You claim to be a Marxist-Leninist-
Maoist, and you seem to be exemplifying what I find objectionable about this ideology, what has always been the Anarchist opposition.

I never said anything about private property, since it's not relevant. It seems like you might be taking an overly literal and simplistic interpretation. 'Property' in that context, as I see it, is essentially 'capital', factories, etc., the means of production. This should obviously be administered by the people who operate it, by the people doing the labor. That just makes sense. Not everything one owns is 'property' in this sense, for example, my record collection is my 'property', but not 'property' in the aforementioned context.

The Ben G

7th June 2010, 20:48

Fascists should be sent to mars. The US has that zillion dollar space program, why not put it to use instead of taking pictures of rocks?

I don't know why anyone would tolerate Fascism. I don't see why/can people would/do worship corporations so much or be so prejudiced.

28350

7th June 2010, 21:14

Fascists should be sent to mars.
Not space Nazis! (http://io9.com/5538423/watch-the-nazis-build-spaceships-in-new-iron-sky-teaser)

FriendlyLocalViking

7th June 2010, 23:43

8th June 2010, 07:13

No. Mars is the cool planet. Send them somewhere else.
Preferably somewhere cold, lonely and rejected.
Pluto fits all these criteria. The poor rock was rejected by the other planets :(

durhamleft

8th June 2010, 12:56

Preferably somewhere cold, lonely and rejected.
Pluto fits all these criteria. The poor rock was rejected by the other planets :(

The poor thing isn't even a planet any more :(

8th June 2010, 13:20

The poor thing isn't even a planet any more :(
My condolences for Pulto :crying:

durhamleft

8th June 2010, 14:25

My condolences for Pulto :crying:

All it had was the ability to say 'yes I'm cold, and distant, but I'm a planet, kids know who I am'. Now its only a lump of rock. Poor bastard.

A.R.Amistad

10th June 2010, 03:09

@ Comrade Lewis freedom of speech is not "idealism." People need to stop abusing that argument.

A.R.Amistad

10th June 2010, 03:11

You cannot lock up that which you've killed in battle.
You're an optimistic warrior, but too optimistic I fear. Bullets are limited. Ideas are not.

Chambered Word

11th June 2010, 12:43

Why are there people in this thread defending the right of freedom of speech for people who try to take the human rights of others away? Put your idealism aside for a moment and think about this realistically: in real life, would we just allow fascism to take over in spite of all the peaceful debate, knowing the cost it would cause to human life like it has in the past?

Fascists don't debate with opposing ideologues to make points. If they did, they'd have no platform to stand on. Their heads should be acquainted with the pavement.

@ Comrade Lewis freedom of speech is not "idealism." People need to stop abusing that argument.

It becomes idealism when we place ideals and principles over the reality of the situation. I'm probably just repeating what has already been asserted before in this thread, but your freedom ends where my rights begin.

All in all, I have no idea why anyone on the left would want to defend the right to spout hateful anti-human bile (which is a feature pretty much exclusive to fascist and racist tendencies).